Wider rear hub on Trek-1000?

[Roadrider]

Hello,

I have a Trek-1000 road frame which is about 10-years old. The frame is aluminum (T-6061?) with
bonded (glued) internal lugs. It came with a 7-spd rear freewheel hub (126-mm?). I would like to use
a 9-spd rear (road) cassette hub which is 130-mm wide. I contacted Trek about this and they said
it's not a good idea, because spreading the rear triangle/dropouts (about 4-mm) will stress the rear
brake bridge joint(s) which are also bonded. I've found that I can easily spread the rear triangle a
few 'mm' by hand without permanently changing the spacing, so I'm wondering if there would really be
any problem with using the wider hub. Is Trek being straight with me about their reason for not
doing this or are they really concerned about the liability issue?

Thanks

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

[John Everett]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:52:39 -0400, roadrider <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have a Trek-1000 road frame which is about 10-years old. The frame is aluminum (T-6061?) with
>bonded (glued) internal lugs. It came with a 7-spd rear freewheel hub (126-mm?). I would like to
>use a 9-spd rear (road) cassette hub which is 130-mm wide. I contacted Trek about this and they
>said it's not a good idea, because spreading the rear triangle/dropouts (about 4-mm) will stress
>the rear brake bridge joint(s) which are also bonded. I've found that I can easily spread the rear
>triangle a few 'mm' by hand without permanently changing the spacing, so I'm wondering if there
>would really be any problem with using the wider hub. Is Trek being straight with me about their
>reason for not doing this or are they really concerned about the liability issue?

For what it's worth I've been riding around on a 126mm spaced Trek 1400 (same frame) for a couple of
years with a 130mm hub. So far, so good. Just a random sample of one however.

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

 

[Paul Kopit]

On the Treks of that vintage, adjusting the spacers to 128 mm on the hub will permit easy install of
wheel into frame.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:52:39 -0400, roadrider <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've found that I can easily spread the rear triangle a few 'mm' by hand without permanently
> changing the spacing, so I'm wondering if there would really be any problem with using the wider
> hub. Is Trek being straight with me about their reason for not doing this or are they really
> concerned about the liability issue?

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>Is Trek being straight with me about their reason
>>for not doing this or are they really concerned about the liability issue?

RBT's local Trek dealer and Trek Guru, Mike J. has indicated that this is a real problem, that
eventually the brake arch will come unbonded.

Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> RBT's local Trek dealer and Trek Guru, Mike J. has indicated that this is
a
> real problem, that eventually the brake arch will come unbonded.

However, I concur with the poster that altering the hub to 128mm will probably be fine. It's also
worthwhile to actually measure the dropout width, since for about a two year period, those frames
were made with 128mm spec in anticipation of the upcoming 130mm standard (and, at 128mm, they could
accommodate either).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Roadrider]

What was the production tolerance range for the rear spacing on this frame? Would it be +/- 1-mm?

What is the best way to reduce the width of a 130-mm rear road hub?

Thanks

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > RBT's local Trek dealer and Trek Guru, Mike J. has indicated that this is
> a
> > real problem, that eventually the brake arch will come unbonded.
>
> However, I concur with the poster that altering the hub to 128mm will probably be fine. It's also
> worthwhile to actually measure the dropout width, since for about a two year period, those frames
> were made with 128mm spec in anticipation of the upcoming 130mm standard (and, at 128mm, they
> could accommodate either).
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

Easiest way to reduce spacing on the rear hub is to remove the 1mm washer from each side, but
unfortunately that would cause the chain to rub on the frame when in the smallest rear cog. So
you'll need to remove 2mm of spacing from the side opposite the cassette, which, I believe, has a
spacer a bit wider than that now. You'll have to replace that spacer with something narrow enough to
make the difference. Most likely you won't have to shorten the axle, but do make sure that it
doesn't protrude past the frame on either side.

Production tolerance for bonded frames was very small. Not that it really matters... you just need
to find out what it is now.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"roadrider" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> What was the production tolerance range for the rear spacing on this frame? Would it be +/- 1-mm?
>
> What is the best way to reduce the width of a 130-mm rear road hub?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >
> > > RBT's local Trek dealer and Trek Guru, Mike J. has indicated that this
is
> > a
> > > real problem, that eventually the brake arch will come unbonded.
> >
> > However, I concur with the poster that altering the hub to 128mm will probably be fine. It's
> > also worthwhile to actually measure the dropout width, since for about a two year period, those
> > frames were made with
128mm
> > spec in anticipation of the upcoming 130mm standard (and, at 128mm, they could accommodate
> > either).
> >
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
> Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Roadrider]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> Easiest way to reduce spacing on the rear hub is to remove the 1mm washer from each side, but
> unfortunately that would cause the chain to rub on the frame when in the smallest rear cog. So
> you'll need to remove 2mm of spacing from the side opposite the cassette, which, I believe, has a
> spacer a bit wider than that now. You'll have to replace that spacer with something narrow enough
> to make the difference. Most likely you won't have to shorten the axle, but do make sure that it
> doesn't protrude past the frame on either side.
>
> Production tolerance for bonded frames was very small. Not that it really matters... you just need
> to find out what it is now.

Could I also remove some of the raised surface (shoulder) on the inside of the left dropout where it
contacts the axle washer/spacer? It looks to be at least 1-mm thick.

Thanks

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> Could I also remove some of the raised surface (shoulder) on the inside of the left dropout where
> it contacts the axle washer/spacer? It looks to be at least 1-mm thick.

Not sure what the shoulder is you mentioned, but I wouldn't remove material from a dropout.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Roadrider]

The new 130-mm rear hub worked fine after I made the following changes. The frame rear hub spacing
was 127-mm. The new rear hub measured
130.5-mm between the lock nuts. I removed the axle spacer under the lock nut on the right side of
the new hub and measured it's thickness. It was
131.5-mm. I replaced it with a thinner washer, making the new hub width very close to 127-mm (+/-
0.5-mm). I also adjusted the axle between the bearing cones so there are equal lengths in the
drop-outs without protruding. The new rear wheel fits easily into the dropouts without any
spreading.

Thanks to everyone for the advice

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> Easiest way to reduce spacing on the rear hub is to remove the 1mm washer from each side, but
> unfortunately that would cause the chain to rub on the frame when in the smallest rear cog. So
> you'll need to remove 2mm of spacing from the side opposite the cassette, which, I believe, has a
> > spacer a bit wider than that now. You'll have to replace that spacer with something narrow
> enough to make the difference. Most likely you won't > have to shorten the axle, but do make sure
> that it doesn't protrude past > the frame on either side.
>
> Production tolerance for bonded frames was very small. Not that it really matters... you just need
> to find out what it is now.

> > > > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: RBT's local Trek dealer and Trek Guru, Mike J. has indicated that >
> > > > > > > this is a real problem, that eventually the brake arch will come > > > > unbonded.
> > > > However, I concur with the poster that altering the hub to > > > > 128mm will probably be
> > > > fine. It's also worthwhile to actually > > > > measure the dropout width, since for about a
> > > > two year period, those > > > > frames were made with 128mm spec in anticipation of the
> > > > upcoming > > > > 130mm standard (and, at 128mm, they could accommodate either).

> > > > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 03:03:11 +0000, roadrider wrote:

> The new 130-mm rear hub worked fine after I made the following changes. The frame rear hub spacing
> was 127-mm. The new rear hub measured
> 130.5-mm between the lock nuts. I removed the axle spacer under the lock nut on the right side of
> the new hub and measured it's thickness. It was
> 3.5-mm. I replaced it with a thinner washer, making the new hub width very close to 127-mm (+/-
> 0.5-mm). I also adjusted the axle between the bearing cones so there are equal lengths in the
> drop-outs without protruding. The new rear wheel fits easily into the dropouts without any
> spreading.

But you only changed the spacer on one side? That is not good. You should change the spacers on each
side. To get rid of that 3mm, replace each side's spacer with a skinnier one. The rim is supposed to
be exactly in the mid-point between the dropouts. If it isn't, your handling will be weird. You
probably won't be able to ride no-handed, and in various ways it will not track properly.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand _`\(,_ | mathematics. (_)/ (_) |

 

[Roadrider]

"David L. Johnson" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 03:03:11 +0000, roadrider wrote:
>
> > The new 130-mm rear hub worked fine after I made the following changes. The frame rear hub
> > spacing was 127-mm. The new rear hub measured
> > 130.5-mm between the lock nuts. I removed the axle spacer under the lock nut on the right side
> > of the new hub and measured it's thickness. It was
> > 3.5-mm. I replaced it with a thinner washer, making the new hub width very close to 127-mm
> > (+/- 0.5-mm). I also adjusted the axle between the bearing cones so there are equal lengths
> > in the drop-outs without protruding. The new rear wheel fits easily into the dropouts
> > without any spreading.
>
> But you only changed the spacer on one side? That is not good. You should change the spacers on
> each side. To get rid of that 3mm, replace each side's spacer with a skinnier one. The rim is
> supposed to be exactly in the mid-point between the dropouts. If it isn't, your handling will be
> weird. You probably won't be able to ride no-handed, and in various ways it will not track
> properly.

There wasn't any spacer on the cassette side, just the locknut and bearing cone. Even if I could
have removed some spacing on that side it wouldn't work because the chain would have rubbed on the
seat stay when it's on the smallest cog. The rim is not exactly centered in the frame now but I can
adjust the wheel dish to improve it.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----