Swapping internals in S-A hub?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by dabac, May 22, 2008.

  1. "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> a écrit:

    > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I
    > can see. Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.


    Without wanting to appear conceited, there's a distinction to be made
    between one participant who's familiar with only the myth, another who knows
    the myth and uses the hubs in question, and others participants who aren't
    familiar with the myth, the hubs, or the context.

    Anyone who's familiar with these hubs knows that:

    bottom gear is inefficient

    and

    bottom gear is not so inefficient as not to be useful.

    The difficulty is trying to convey a sense of the problems with this
    discussion to an audience that's broadly unfamiliar with hub gears in
    general (hub gears never having had the popularity in North America that
    they once had in Britain), and these hubs in particular.

    Imagine if a rumour was in circulation that an S5 hub will play "God Save
    the Queen" if shifted from middle to bottom gear without passing through
    second. Someone familiar with the hubs might say it was nonsense - but
    without proof, the rumour persists. Someone Googles and finds that some hubs
    are said to emit noise in certain gears (a Rohloff plays "Im wunderschönen
    Monat Mai" if shifted from eighth into seventh under load) so it's certainly
    not impossible that a Sturmey plays "God Save the Queen" in certain gears.
    Someone else says that he rode the hub in question fifteen years ago and
    remembers distinctly that it made a noise, but it sounded more like "Rule
    Britannia". Still, it was fifteen years ago. Someone postulates that a batch
    of the hubs slipped through that played "Rule Britannia", which would
    explain this exception to the well-known truth that all of these hubs play
    "God Save the Queen".

    For what it's worth, *everybody* knows that an S5/2 actually sings "Knees
    Up, Mother Brown" to the tune of "Jerusalem". But only the batch with a blue
    plastic oiler cap.

    James Thomson
     


  2. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "James Thomson" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> a écrit:
    >
    > > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I can see.
    > > Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.

    >
    > Without wanting to appear conceited, there's a distinction to be made
    > between one participant who's familiar with only the myth, another
    > who knows the myth and uses the hubs in question, and others
    > participants who aren't familiar with the myth, the hubs, or the
    > context.
    >
    > Anyone who's familiar with these hubs knows that:
    >
    > bottom gear is inefficient
    >
    > and
    >
    > bottom gear is not so inefficient as not to be useful.


    S-A's own numbers, as published earlier in the thread, show a steep drop
    in efficiency in gears 1 and 5. Let's not forget that we do have some
    facts to go on in this discussion. We should also mention that while
    hub gears fall below the vaunted "98% efficiency" claimed for derailleur
    systems, that latter number is achieved with optimum conditions- clean
    drivetrain, centered chainline, fairly large cogs, etc. As cogs get
    smaller, efficiency drops significantly (according to Berto's published
    measurements in _The Dancing Chain_) and can easily be no better than a
    hub geared system.

    > The difficulty is trying to convey a sense of the problems with this
    > discussion to an audience that's broadly unfamiliar with hub gears in
    > general (hub gears never having had the popularity in North America
    > that they once had in Britain), and these hubs in particular.


    Hub gears were the dominant form of variable gearing in the US from WWII
    until about the mid 1960s, when Schwinn began to have success in
    marketing derailleur geared bikes. Youngsters under 30 might never have
    ridden a bike with hub gears, but Frank and I and Jobst and a number of
    other participants in this group are older than that. I still have a
    bike with a three speed hub, which I ride frequently, and know a few
    dozen people who ride bikes with hub gears frequently. They are not
    really rara avis, after all, even if not so common. My friend Jim's
    bike shop, which caters to bike commuters and the like rather than
    racers, sells a fair number of modern new bikes (Breezer) with hub gears
    annually.

    The hub gear situation in Britain seems to be not radically different.
    Derailleurs appear to have taken over there even earlier than in the US.
     
  3. On May 24, 6:47 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
    > In article
    > <[email protected]m>,
    > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 24, 1:59 am, "James Thomson" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> a écrit:

    >
    > > > > I thought I read that the lowest gear of old S-A five speeds was
    > > > > extremely inefficient. IOW, that shifting to low didn't really
    > > > > reduce your workload significantly, but just gave you less speed.

    >
    > > > That's an old myth. There's some relevant discussion in this
    > > > thread:

    >
    > > >http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread
    > > > /...

    >
    > > > James Thomson

    >
    > > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I can see.
    > > Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.

    >
    > > It would be nice to see some test data on the S-A 5 speed.

    >
    > In case your news server missed it, someone posted information they got
    > from S-A about the efficiencies of the S-A 5 speed in the various gears.
    > There was a pretty big drop in efficiency in gears 1 and 5. It should
    > just a few posts back up the thread.


    Ah, yes. That wasn't the news server (GG); that was my fault.
    Thanks.

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  4. On May 25, 5:14 am, "James Thomson" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> a écrit:
    >
    > > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I
    > > can see. Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.

    >
    > Without wanting to appear conceited, there's a distinction to be made
    > between one participant who's familiar with only the myth, another who knows
    > the myth and uses the hubs in question, and others participants who aren't
    > familiar with the myth, the hubs, or the context.
    >
    > Anyone who's familiar with these hubs knows that:
    >
    > bottom gear is inefficient
    >
    > and
    >
    > bottom gear is not so inefficient as not to be useful.


    James, pardon me, but you're really saying "I know I'm right and
    others are wrong." Data trumps self confidence. I thank Carl for (as
    usual) searching out actual data.

    I'll also note, the only 5 speed S-A I've ever ridden (that old
    Dunelt) did have shifting problems. I could give even more detail,
    but suffice to say I was never satisfied with the reliability of its
    shifting. So my impressions could be clouded by a bad sample.

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  5. "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> a écrit:

    > > > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I
    > > > can see. Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.


    > James, pardon me, but you're really saying "I know I'm right
    > and others are wrong." Data trumps self confidence.


    Data's nice, but in the absence of relevant data (as in the previous
    thread), experience and inexperience aren't equivalent. I stand by my point.

    James Thomson
     
  6. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "James Thomson" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> a écrit:
    >
    > > > > Hmm. Not much meaningful discussion, though, from what I can
    > > > > see. Just two people disagreeing, with no relevant data.

    >
    > > James, pardon me, but you're really saying "I know I'm right and
    > > others are wrong." Data trumps self confidence.

    >
    > Data's nice, but in the absence of relevant data (as in the previous
    > thread), experience and inexperience aren't equivalent. I stand by my
    > point.


    So, to sum up, you know what you know and don't want to be bothered with
    facts. Okee-dokee, I won't bother you again.
     
  7. "A Muzi" <[email protected]> a écrit:

    > the S-5 was a minor rework of the long-produced and popular
    > FW gear train, so it wasn't, in a design sense, a totally new leap
    > for Sturmey Archer. Twenty years of FW by 1966.
    >
    > There's no difference in the low gear of an FW or an S-5, the
    > same parts being used in both.


    Thanks Andrew, I'm aware of that - I rode FWs for quite some time before my
    first five-speed, and still own a few, the oldest being a 1948. The
    interesting thing is that you never hear this myth in relation to the FW
    which, as you say, is mechanically identical except for the gear selector.

    > p.s. I'd take a trigger shifted FW, FG, FB 4 speed over an
    > S-5 with factory SA five speed controls any day.


    So would I, but I prefer a double-trigger S5/2.

    James Thomson
     
  8. Dan Burkhart

    Dan Burkhart New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sturmey Archer has recently come out with very nice "rapid fire" style thumb shifters for 3 and 5 speed hubs. I have one of the 5 speed ones, but I haven't tried it out yet.
    Dan Burkhart
    www.boomerbicycle.ca
     
  9. Dan Burkhart wrote:

    >>> the S-5 was a minor rework of the long-produced and popular FW
    >>> gear train, so it wasn't, in a design sense, a totally new leap
    >>> for Sturmey Archer. Twenty years of FW by 1966.


    >>> There's no difference in the low gear of an FW or an S-5, the same
    >>> parts being used in both.


    >> Thanks Andrew, I'm aware of that - I rode FWs for quite some time
    >> before my first five-speed, and still own a few, the oldest being a
    >> 1948. The interesting thing is that you never hear this myth in
    >> relation to the FW which, as you say, is mechanically identical
    >> except for the gear selector.


    >>> p.s. I'd take a trigger shifted FW, FG, FB 4 speed over an S-5
    >>> with factory SA five speed controls any day.


    >> So would I, but I prefer a double-trigger S5/2.


    > Sturmey Archer has recently come out with very nice "rapid fire"
    > style thumb shifters for 3 and 5 speed hubs. I have one of the 5
    > speed ones, but I haven't tried it out yet.


    Looking at the Sturmey Archer pages, I am disappointed to see they
    never change, apparently because they believe they have the ultimate
    hubs. The flanges are 2mm thick, a feature that in the aluminum hubs
    causes large spoke hole deformation and on both steel and aluminum hub
    (shells) causes spoke failure, the elbows of spokes being designed for
    3mm flanges.

    http://www.sturmey-archer.com/hubs_5spd_S5_A.php

    My son's S5 hub has 3mm flanges because Tom Ritchey machined one from
    aluminum bar stock for me. I am not amused. They never fixed the AW
    3-speed hub to not pop out of top gear under continuous load.

    Jobst Brandt
     
  10. <[email protected]> a écrit:

    > Looking at the Sturmey Archer pages, I am disappointed to see they
    > never change, apparently because they believe they have the ultimate
    > hubs. The flanges are 2mm thick, a feature that in the aluminum hubs
    > causes large spoke hole deformation and on both steel and aluminum
    > hub (shells) causes spoke failure, the elbows of spokes being designed
    > for 3mm flanges.


    I'm not sure where you found that information, but I have a modern
    (Taiwanese production) X-RF5 aluminium shell here, and the flanges are 3mm
    thick at the spoke holes. 1980s aluminium-shelled 3- and 5-speeds also have
    3mm flanges. The 1940s and '50s alloy-shelled hubs did have thin, fragile
    flanges.

    James Thomson
     
  11. James Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Looking at the Sturmey Archer pages, I am disappointed to see they
    >> never change, apparently because they believe they have the ultimate
    >> hubs. The flanges are 2mm thick, a feature that in the aluminum hubs
    >> causes large spoke hole deformation and on both steel and aluminum
    >> hub (shells) causes spoke failure, the elbows of spokes being designed
    >> for 3mm flanges.


    > I'm not sure where you found that information, but I have a modern
    > (Taiwanese production) X-RF5 aluminium shell here, and the flanges
    > are 3mm thick at the spoke holes. 1980s aluminium-shelled 3- and
    > 5-speeds also have 3mm flanges. The 1940s and '50s alloy-shelled
    > hubs did have thin, fragile flanges.


    http://www.sturmey-archer.com/hubs_5spd_S5_A.php

    I am sure. The picture is accurate and the S5 shell that I have
    measures 2mm. Tom Ritchey did his lathe work to make 3mm flanges of
    good strength aluminum and it worked. I was impressed by his ability
    to cut double lead threads for the drive side. The S5 I have is from
    the 1970's.

    Jobst Brandt
     
  12. <[email protected]> a écrit:

    > http://www.sturmey-archer.com/hubs_5spd_S5_A.php


    > I am sure. The picture is accurate and the S5 shell that I
    > have measures 2mm.


    The picture shows a steel-shelled hub.

    > The S5 I have is from the 1970's.


    and steel-shelled.

    I don't dispute that Sturmey's steel-shelled hubs have thin flanges. Their
    modern aluminium-shelled hubs, in common with those made in the 1980s, have
    3mm flanges:

    http://www.sturmey-archer.com/hubs_5spd_XRF5.php

    In your previous post you made no distinction.

    James Thomson
     
  13. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] wrote:

    > James Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> Looking at the Sturmey Archer pages, I am disappointed to see they
    > >> never change, apparently because they believe they have the ultimate
    > >> hubs. The flanges are 2mm thick, a feature that in the aluminum hubs
    > >> causes large spoke hole deformation and on both steel and aluminum
    > >> hub (shells) causes spoke failure, the elbows of spokes being designed
    > >> for 3mm flanges.

    >
    > > I'm not sure where you found that information, but I have a modern
    > > (Taiwanese production) X-RF5 aluminium shell here, and the flanges
    > > are 3mm thick at the spoke holes. 1980s aluminium-shelled 3- and
    > > 5-speeds also have 3mm flanges. The 1940s and '50s alloy-shelled
    > > hubs did have thin, fragile flanges.

    >
    > http://www.sturmey-archer.com/hubs_5spd_S5_A.php
    >
    > I am sure. The picture is accurate and the S5 shell that I have
    > measures 2mm. Tom Ritchey did his lathe work to make 3mm flanges of
    > good strength aluminum and it worked. I was impressed by his ability
    > to cut double lead threads for the drive side. The S5 I have is from
    > the 1970's.
    >
    > Jobst Brandt


    Interesting. The S5 Jobst is linking to looks like a faithful
    continuation of the classic S5 design. Conversely, James is referring to
    the XRF5:

    http://www.sturmey-archer.com/hubs_5spd_XRF5.php

    Which is the "new" design which has probably been around quite some time
    by now.

    For all that, the old design does still appear to be available as a
    stock item from some retailers:

    <http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/src/froogleUS/currency/USD/product-Sturmey-Ar
    cher-Sturmey-Archer-5-Speed-SPRINTER-S5-Steel-Shell-Rear-Hub-with-Gear-Co
    ntrol-HSJ839-36-hole-8035.htm>

    So Sturmey is both good and bad! Pick your poison.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
    "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
    "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
     
  14. "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> a écrit:

    > Interesting. The S5 Jobst is linking to looks like a faithful
    > continuation of the classic S5 design.


    There's a distinction to be made between the "classic" S5 of the sixties and
    early seventies, and that modern hub, which is very similar to the Sprinter
    5. The old S5 (referred to by Andrew above in the thread) used two control
    cables, with a toggle chain on the right and a bell crank on the left:

    http://www.sturmey-archerheritage.com/detail.php?id=104

    The modern S5 and XRF5 are identical apart from the shell.

    > For all that, the old design does still appear to be available
    > as a stock item from some retailers:


    One reason for that is that the big aluminium flanges of the XRF5 cause
    clearance problems with the stays of some folding bikes.

    James Thomson
     
  15. Dan Burkhart

    Dan Burkhart New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone went to a lot of trouble for naught.
    http://i30.tinypic.com/oa81tg.jpg

    Sturmey Archer's web site apears to not have caught up with their new product offerings. Here's some shots of the new 5 speed shifter. The 3 speed looks the same.
    http://i29.tinypic.com/8zk7sx.jpg
    http://i31.tinypic.com/2wd0h7c.jpg
    http://i29.tinypic.com/346vyis.jpg
    They also have not updated the technical info on the new 8 speed hub.The ratios have changed and the hub shell shape has changed.
    Dan Burkhart
    www.boomerbicycle.ca
     
Loading...
Loading...