What do we think of Zipp's 'stance' against cup-and-cone hubs?

[jackson123]

That's an exaggeration that doesn't fly. It definitely doesn't lend any credibility.

On the road, you couldn't tell the difference between hubs with cups and cones and hubs with radial cartridge bearings. The difference would be lost in the noise of measurement.

One benefit to cups and cones is the ease of servicing. Most folks don't have bearing presses and a significant portion of those folks prefer to do their own maintenance. Cups and cones make that easy.

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. Neither bearing type--cups and cones vs. radial bearings--provides a clear performance advantage. Hell, Mavic sells a ton of wheels, and a bunch of their wheels end up under riders winning big races; yet Mavic, a long time ago, replaced on of the bearings in their rear hubs with a freakin' delrin bushing (and for some it apparently works for a while). So, what works for someone is what they're comfy with. That may or may not be a function of what Zipp, you, Mavic, or anyone else is selling. I'd still love to have a pair of original Campy Shamal wheels, with their beautiful Record hubs, replete with their cup and cone hubs. Of course I'd still keep my White Industries hubbed wheels, even with the cartridge bearings in those hubs. Hell, I'd probably keep a set of Mavic Cosmic Carbones if someone gave 'em to me, even though they've got that damned delrin bushing.

u are wisdom, i have to say

 

[garage sale GT]

With "Radials" or "Cartridges" (as you bike-boys call them), you don't even have to worry about axial "slop", Pre-load, or whatever the "magic formula" is ...

Once again, While I admit freely to not being an expert on Bicycles, I do boast that I am a bearing expert...

How could you not know, then, that a bearing doesn't have to be a cartridge to be radial, and doesn't have to be radial to be a cartridge bearing? Bike boys indeed.

 

[garage sale GT]

Says the man that it having a problem getting his gears to work properly...

I actually usually get fw bikes with already busted axles but haven't had problems myself from the time that I've been buying quality replacements.

 

[garage sale GT]

When I saw the loose balls, I was stunned and wondered WHY?!?! It's a multi-thousand $$$ bike...

...I'll be happy to take my chances with a radial (cartrige) as soon as I can find a pair I can afford!

If you're ready to walk away from Dura Ace or Ultegra based on one controversial point, why not try the Forte' Titan from Performancebike.com?http://www.performancebike.com/bikes/Product_10052_10551_1034379_-1_1511003_1511000_400038

If Honda, Kawasaki and Harley Davidson think Radials (cartridge) bearings are the best for wheel bearings, then I will probably assume they have spent some R&D money on the topic!-=-Johnnycat

Right, but when a racing bicycle costs more than an entry level Honda, Kawasaki or Harley despite having far fewer systems and parts, you can't assume they've spent any R&D dollars in the 20th century or recently.

 

[alienator]

Right, but when a racing bicycle costs more than an entry level Honda, Kawasaki or Harley despite having far fewer systems and parts, you can't assume they've spent any R&D dollars in the 20th century or recently.

Ducati Desmosedici RR (a road going version of one of their MotoGP bikes) costs north of $70k. Honda RC212V MotoGP bike costs in excess of $250k. Both Ducati Corse (racing dept) and HRC (Honda Racing Corp) are using bleeding edge tech, including bearings. In fact, HRC has pushed engine bearing tech forward quite a bit. Still, both of those bikes, as well as every sportbike, every superbike, every MotoGP bike use radial cartridge bearings in hubs. The loads on a bicycle hub pale in comparison to the loads on any road going or racing motorcycle hub. Again, cups and cones don't offer any clear performance advantage over radial cartridge bearings.

 

[garage sale GT]

Ducati Desmosedici RR (a road going version of one of their MotoGP bikes) costs north of $70k. Honda RC212V MotoGP bike costs in excess of $250k. Both Ducati Corse (racing dept) and HRC (Honda Racing Corp) are using bleeding edge tech, including bearings. In fact, HRC has pushed engine bearing tech forward quite a bit. Still, both of those bikes, as well as every sportbike, every superbike, every MotoGP bike use radial cartridge bearings in hubs. The loads on a bicycle hub pale in comparison to the loads on any road going or racing motorcycle hub. Again, cups and cones don't offer any clear performance advantage over radial cartridge bearings.

Cup-and-cone wheelsets are hardly stuck in the 19th century for lack of R&D funding, though.

 

[alienator]

Cup-and-cone wheelsets are hardly stuck in the 19th century for lack of R&D funding, though.

I agree. Even if they were, it wouldn't matter: they function perfectly well, with no real performance disadvantages. They do what they're designed to do. What else is needed?

A wonderful thing about white papers, such as Zipp's, is that they don't have to mention where the data comes from, what assumptions are made, what uncertainty there is in given values, and so on. When I was working for a defense contractor, I had to put together some data from analysis that I had done........scientific analysis. I was embarrassed by what ended up being included in the white paper and how irrelevant some of the claims made were. Irrelevancy is word that comes to mind when thinking about Zipp's comments re: cups and cones vs. radial cartridge bearings. Distill everything that's been mentioned in this thread, and I think you'll find there hasn't been any compelling evidence given for a performance advantage of one bearing over another.

 

[swampy1970]

I think you're confusing garage sale GT with someone else.



That's your observation, an n=1 circumstance. Others have noted the opposite. It's even mentioned in a Wikipedia article on cogsets. It's certainly not an unheard of event and possibly not even a rare event.

It might well be an n=1 but this n=1 had worked in a bike shop frequented by all the local club cyclists and spent 10 years under the guidence of the same coach who had ~20 other riders at any one time...

... that's a fair few bikes and a fair number of people. It it was that common that its the case that "they do break" to such an extent and freehubs were so, so much better then I'm guessing that during that decade I would have seen one. Until now I hadn't even heard of one breaking.

 

[Johnnycatt]

Cup-and-cone wheelsets are hardly stuck in the 19th century for lack of R&D funding, though.

You know we are still missing the point that the "cup and cone" sets are missing a CRUCIAL 20th century bearing element: a "bearing retainer"...

...for all the arguments that are being made IN FAVOR or "cup and cone," No one has addressed the issue of the lack of a retainer, EXCEPT me... which is my biggest gripe with "cup and cone"...

The "bearing retainer" is the metal/polyamide/bronze/solube material that is formed to keep the balls from touching each other and creating friction by rotating against each other.. as they touch, the "touching surfaces" of the balls are moving in opposite directions.. with a retainer, the balls never touch and in the case of bronze, polyamide and solube, they are actually separated by what could be characterized as a "bearing surface"... This prevents friction rather than creating friction in a non-retainer-style bearing (AKA "unground bearing" as we bearing-boys call them) such as the standard cup and cone on a bicycle wheel!

One can, theoretically, use a retainer in a "cup and cone" configuration, but if you don't set the proper amount of "clearance," then you are likely to hit a bump and end up with a massive retainer failure and a STOPPED wheel... once again, something that can be easily prevented with a radial!

Not to mention that the "retainer" keeps the balls at an even distance from each other as they rotate, thus preventing "skidding" as they try to pass under the axle and the individual ball takes the load.

-=-Johnnycatt

 

[garage sale GT]

You know we are still missing the point that the "cup and cone" sets are missing a CRUCIAL 20th century bearing element: a "bearing retainer"...

...for all the arguments that are being made IN FAVOR or "cup and cone," No one has addressed the issue of the lack of a retainer, EXCEPT me... which is my biggest gripe with "cup and cone"...

The "bearing retainer" is the metal/polyamide/bronze/solube material that is formed to keep the balls from touching each other and creating friction by rotating against each other.. as they touch, the "touching surfaces" of the balls are moving in opposite directions.. with a retainer, the balls never touch and in the case of bronze, polyamide and solube, they are actually separated by what could be characterized as a "bearing surface"... This prevents friction rather than creating friction in a non-retainer-style bearing (AKA "unground bearing" as we bearing-boys call them) such as the standard cup and cone on a bicycle wheel!

One can, theoretically, use a retainer in a "cup and cone" configuration,...

Cheaper wheelsets do come with caged balls. Better ones do not.

 

[alienator]

Again: there is no functional performance difference between the bearings being discussed, whether the issue is retainers, cups and cones, cartridges, or whatever. Bearings work. That's about the sum of it. Differences between friction in different bearings is pretty damned small, likely, as stated before, lost in the noise of measurement, with the measurement in this case being one relevant to real world cycling: a power meter.

 

[Resistorlead]

As said above, cheap bikes often use retainers and fewer balls. Even my Shimano 600 crankset uses a retainer, albeit cheap steel. Usually the first thing one does is ditch the retainer in favor of a full race of balls. No idea which is better, but I'd be happier if the retainer were something better than stamped steel- rubbing the balls against a steel retainer seems no worse than against each other. It's probably much more important in a high speed industrial device, than a low speed bike and decent grease should prevent any problems. I've never seen ball wear from anything other than contamination- the nemesis of all bearings.

 

[tafi]

Johnnycatt, I thought you, as a bearing salesman, might be able to give us some data to discuss.

And somehow this magically doesn't happen to the mystical wheels of the "angular" bearing.... no thanks, I'll be happy to take my chances with a radial (cartrige) as soon as I can find a pair I can afford!

I'm not saying it doesn't, but we can't have a reasoned factual discussion on this topic if you aren't willing to mention any potential drawbacks of the system you propose.

1) I would like my next set of Wheels to have AT LEAST 20th century technology (I am sure there are some really great new buggy whip designs, but they won't give my car better gas millage).

This is only relevant if you can actually show that the 20th century bearing technology is better. Newer doesn't mean better.
Since you are so taken with analogy you would do well to remember that the 20h century insecticide DDT was touted for decades until we realised it was poisoning us all. Now we use centuries old pyrethrum. (Sure this is a pretty useless argument, but probably more poignant than talking about horse whips and fuel economy).

2) If Honda, Kawasaki and Harley Davidson think Radials (cartridge) bearings are the best for wheel bearings, then I will probably assume they have spent some R&D money on the topic!

Right so your argument is: "motorcycle makers uses these bearings in their wheels so they have to be good".
By the same token I could say that Shimano and Campagnolo have been in the bike business collectively for over 150 years and that they have also probably invested heavily in their R&D.
Both these arguments are just as valid as the other (ie: they are not).

I'm not really concerned with which bearing type is better (as I've already said, I use both and the differences appear very slight), but I am in favour of a reasoned discussion on this topic.

However, In order to be usefull, any such discussion needs to be based on independently collected data and not on BS marketing spiels.

 

[garage sale GT]

Radial cartridge bearings don't require much r&d anymore. All a bike maker has to do is design a hub and axle for them.

That's why it doesn't make any sense to say that they must always be better because motorcycle makers have big r&d budgets and use them.

Bearing retainers are a source of drag at high speed because you have to pump grease through a closely fitting retainer by shearing the grease.

 

[Peter@vecchios]

And somehow this magically doesn't happen to the mystical wheels of the "angular" bearing.... no thanks, I'll be happy to take my chances with a radial (cartrige) as soon as I can find a pair I can afford!

2 "like I saids":

1) I would like my next set of Wheels to have AT LEAST 20th century technology (I am sure there are some really great new buggy whip designs, but they won't give my car better gas millage)

2) If Honda, Kawasaki and Harley Davidson think Radials (cartridge) bearings are the best for wheel bearings, then I will probably assume they have spent some R&D money on the topic!

-=-Johnnycat

First, motorcycle makers use cart bearings beacuse it's CHEAPER to do so, not better(same for bicycle hub makers). Second..measure a fork steerer of just about any motorcycle and then tell me why a bicycle steerer has to be this crazy 1 1/8 to 1 1/4 or 1.5 inch flared steerer??

Angular contact hubs cost more, work better, last longer than the Asian made, cheap to make then paint in pretty colors, wheelsets that so many fawn over..right up until they fail, break, stop working.

 

[garage sale GT]

First, motorcycle makers use cart bearings beacuse it's CHEAPER to do so, not better(same for bicycle hub makers).

Not sure I agree. It seems like you can get more bearing capacity into a smaller space and you don't have to use that drag inducing retainer, but if cartridge bearings are cheaper, why don't department store bikes use them?

 

[swampy1970]

Cheaper wheelsets do come with caged balls. Better ones do not.

You mean like these $130 per wheel Campagnolo ones?

Looks pretty much like they have retainers to me... Just sayin'

Dura Ace (7900) hubs come with a retainer. (front)
http://techdocs.shimano.com/media/t.../HB/EV-HB-7900-2876_v1_m56577569830651601.pdf

7900 Rear
http://techdocs.shimano.com/media/t.../FH/EV-FH-7900-2875_v1_m56577569830651599.pdf

Dura Ace (7800) had an optional retainer. (front)
http://techdocs.shimano.com/media/t...HB/EV-HB-7800-2246A_v1_m56577569830610961.pdf

Rear (7801) - came with retainer (rear 7800 did not)
http://techdocs.shimano.com/media/t.../FH/EV-FH-7801-2512_v1_m56577569830608916.pdf

 

[garage sale GT]

So you've detected a handful of hubs which include the option of balls with retainers.

Are you saying this does prove that retainers enhance performance? Are you supporting Johnnycatt's point that better wheels would have them if only they put in the R& D? Perhaps they had a small but measurable decrease in drag because they put in retainers?

I say they include them as a convenience option and your petulant attempt to disprove the point is largely irrelevant.

I've only had new Deore, 105, Ultegra, and older Dura-Ace hubs. (besides the cheapies with retainers and a bike which may have been rebuilt.) Those did not come with caged balls.

How can you people not realize that with a retainer, you eliminate the bearing balls rubbing against one another at two tiny points (per ball) but at the cost of A) having the balls creating friction against the retainer, and B) having to pump grease through a tight fitting retainer? (I'm referring to the rolling of the balls pumping the grease while cycling, not to greasing up during overhauls.)

If they put retainers in Dura-Ace then they must feel that the INCREASE in friction is not a big enough deal.

 

[Johnnycatt]

Again: there is no functional performance difference between the bearings being discussed, whether the issue is retainers, cups and cones, cartridges, or whatever. Bearings work. That's about the sum of it. Differences between friction in different bearings is pretty damned small, likely, as stated before, lost in the noise of measurement, with the measurement in this case being one relevant to real world cycling: a power meter.

This, Mon Ami, I will agree with....

 

[531Aussie]

Wow! All grouse replies. I'm still trying to understand all of them