Paul Jono Hub

[Michael_S]

Has anyone seen the new Paul Jono freewheel hub? MUSA and pretty
clever and not even that pricey.
http://www.paulcomp.com/jonohub.html

With IRD making Freewheels again it is a workable alternate to the
10-11 speed world.
I just love the new/old technology!

~Mike

[William]

Reading the blurb I felt like Paul was looking into my soul......

"Face it, you're a bike person, a total bike dork, freak and hard core
bike tinkerer."

It was like getting a tarot reading. Creepy

On Feb 15, 3:30 pm, Michael_S <mikeybi...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone seen the new Paul Jono freewheel hub?  MUSA and pretty

> clever and not even that pricey.http://www.paulcomp.com/jonohub.html

[bfd]

On Feb 15, 3:30 pm, Michael_S <mikeybi...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

> Has anyone seen the new Paul Jono freewheel hub?  MUSA and pretty

> clever and not even that pricey.http://www.paulcomp.com/jonohub.html

>
> With IRD making Freewheels again it is a workable alternate to the
> 10-11 speed world.
> I just love the new/old technology!
>

Interesting. Is that an oversized axle? If not, does anyone know how
he addresses the broken axle issue with freewheel hubs.
Good Luck!

[William]

> Interesting. Is that an oversized axle? If not, does anyone know how
> he addresses the broken axle issue with freewheel hubs.
> Good Luck!

The folks at Paul are very helpful. Give them a call and ask them.
Here's the contact information:


Address: Paul Component Engineering
11204 Midway
Chico, CA 95928

Telephone: 530-345-4371

Ordering Information: ord...@paulcomp.com
Technical Information: te...@paulcomp.com
All Other Questions: in...@paulcomp.com


Good Luck!

[rperks]

I have been looking into them a bit. if you look at the parts pile
here:
http://www.paulcomp.com/images/jonohubd1full.png
it appears that these, while flexible in spacing, have different left
and right end cap fitting design. While the phil endcaps are not
cheap, you have almost infinate flexibility in the left and right
spacing and the different caps can go on either end. You just need to
call them and buy more end caps for you next application. That being
said, if I were building up something new, and the paul unit fit the
bill, I might buy it just to have something other than phil.

Rob

On Feb 15, 3:30 pm, Michael_S <mikeybi...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

> Has anyone seen the new Paul Jono freewheel hub?  MUSA and pretty

> clever and not even that pricey.http://www.paulcomp.com/jonohub.html

[JoelMatthews]

> Interesting. Is that an oversized axle? If not, does anyone know how
> he addresses the broken axle issue with freewheel hubs.
> Good Luck!

Yeah thanks. Cause everyone knows in the 40 years or so that
freewheel hubs were the default cyclists couldn't go half a mile with
a broken axle. Sheesh!

[JoelMatthews]

These would have come in handy on my Raleigh Supercourse restoration
last summer. The hubs I planned to use were from a Supercourse made
the same year as the frame I was working. Raleigh being Raleigh, the
project frame chain stays were too narrow. I had to take the frame to
the LBS and cold spread it. It would have been a lot more fun
shrinking the hub.

On Feb 15, 5:30 pm, Michael_S <mikeybi...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone seen the new Paul Jono freewheel hub?  MUSA and pretty

> clever and not even that pricey.http://www.paulcomp.com/jonohub.html

[newenglandbike]

Wow, that's great. I love the adjustable spacing too- to me that
gives it so much extra value for the $$, since it would be that much
easier to swap among bikes.

On Feb 15, 6:30 pm, Michael_S <mikeybi...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone seen the new Paul Jono freewheel hub?  MUSA and pretty

> clever and not even that pricey.http://www.paulcomp.com/jonohub.html

[Jason Hartman]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:25 AM, newenglandbike <matthi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow, that's great.    I love the adjustable spacing too-  to me that
gives it so much extra value for the $$, since it would be that much
easier to swap among bikes.

If it's already built into a wheel then you would have to re-dish
every time the spacing is changed.
 
It

[Jason Hartman]

Sorry, I hit send too soon.

It's not as easy as putting on new endcaps, popping on the the bike
and going for a ride.

Jay Hartman

[newenglandbike]

good point, but a redish can be done; we have the technology :)



On Feb 17, 9:45 am, Jason Hartman <rjasonhart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Jason Hartman <rjasonhart...@gmail.com>wrote:

[bfd]

On Feb 15, 6:36 pm, JoelMatthews <joelmatth...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Interesting. Is that an oversized axle? If not, does anyone know how
> > he addresses the broken axle issue with freewheel hubs.
> > Good Luck!
>
> Yeah thanks.  Cause everyone knows in the 40 years or so that
> freewheel hubs were the default cyclists couldn't go half a mile with
> a broken axle.  Sheesh!
>

No problem. I presume you're a lightweight as I broken 3 rear axles,
including 2 Campy and 1 wheel mfg, in about a 2 year period when I
decided to switch to cassette rear hub. That was back in 1997 and I
haven't broken an axle yet. May be it was the C-Record rear hub
design, bad luck with axles or may be my fat butt. Whatever the
reason, in the last 12+ years, I've used DA and Campy rear hubs and
NEVER had a problem. Good Luck!

[Jason Hartman]

Chainline is not really the problem.
It's keeping the rim centered between the dropouts and in plane with front wheel

Jay hartman

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 17, 2011, at 10:17 AM, newenglandbike <matthi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, if you are especially assiduous about your chainline. for me
> it would be relatively easy to go from say 121 to 126 with an
> adjustment of the derailers.

>
>
>
> On Feb 17, 9:45 am, Jason Hartman <rjasonhart...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Jason Hartman <rjasonhart...@gmail.com>wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:25 AM, newenglandbike <matthiasbe...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>> Wow, that's great. I love the adjustable spacing too- to me that
>>>> gives it so much extra value for the $$, since it would be that much
>>>> easier to swap among bikes.
>>
>>> If it's already built into a wheel then you would have to re-dish
>>> every time the spacing is changed.
>>
>>> It
>>
>> Sorry, I hit send too soon.
>>
>> It's not as easy as putting on new endcaps, popping on the the bike
>> and going for a ride.
>>
>> Jay Hartman
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>

[JoelMatthews]

> No problem. I presume you're a lightweight as I broken 3 rear axles,
> including 2 Campy and 1 wheel mfg, in about a 2 year period when I
> decided to switch to cassette rear hub. That was back in 1997 and I
> haven't broken an axle yet. May be it was the C-Record rear hub
> design, bad luck with axles or may be my fat butt. Whatever the
> reason, in the last 12+ years, I've used DA and Campy rear hubs and
> NEVER had a problem.

While adult male weights have gone up over the past 40 years, they
have not gone up to the point where one can say that freewheel axles
are always at risk.

That said, C-Record FW were notorius for their weak axles. Paul is
not Campagnolo.

All things being equal, cassettes should be the first choice for a new
frame. The Jono is by design for people either restoring an old frame
of making a new wheel for an old frame they do not want to alter to
fit wider cassette hubs. Time will tell, but given my experience with
other Paul products, I expect the Jono will fill this role admirably.

[bfd]

On Feb 17, 9:28 am, JoelMatthews <joelmatth...@mac.com> wrote:
> > No problem. I presume you're a lightweight as I broken 3 rear axles,
> > including 2 Campy and 1 wheel mfg, in about a 2 year period when I
> > decided to switch to cassette rear hub. That was back in 1997 and I
> > haven't broken an axle yet. May be it was the C-Record rear hub
> > design, bad luck with axles or may be my fat butt. Whatever the
> > reason, in the last 12+ years, I've used DA and Campy rear hubs and
> > NEVER had a problem.
>
> While adult male weights have gone up over the past 40 years, they
> have not gone up to the point where one can say that freewheel axles
> are always at risk.
>

Don't you ride maxi-car fw hubs? If so, those never break either!

> That said, C-Record FW were notorius for their weak axles.  Paul is
> not Campagnolo.
>

That's interesting. Now when I think back, I never had a NR rear axle
break, only the C-Record. I wonder what was the difference.

> All things being equal, cassettes should be the first choice for a new
> frame.  The Jono is by design for people either restoring an old frame
> of making a new wheel for an old frame they do not want to alter to
> fit wider cassette hubs.  Time will tell, but given my experience with
> other Paul products, I expect the Jono will fill this role admirably.
>

Agree, Paul makes great stuff. Hopefully, the Jono is a sturdy hub ala
Phil Wood fw hub. Good Luck!

[JoelMatthews]

> Don't you ride maxi-car fw hubs? If so, those never break either!

Yes. So admittedly I am not the best person to talk about run of the
mill FW hubs as MaxiCar are head and shoulders above the rest when it
comes to longevity. Still, I accept that in the day there were plenty
of hollow axle hubs that got the job done.

> That's interesting. Now when I think back, I never had a NR rear axle
> break, only the C-Record. I wonder what was the difference.

I've read conflicting theories in the past but never anything real
well written. Maybe Eric Norris can chime in.

[bfd]

On Feb 17, 2:35 pm, JoelMatthews <joelmatth...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Don't you ride maxi-car fw hubs? If so, those never break either!
>
> Yes.  So admittedly I am not the best person to talk about run of the
> mill FW hubs as MaxiCar are head and shoulders above the rest when it
> comes to longevity.  Still, I accept that in the day there were plenty
> of hollow axle hubs that got the job done.
>
> > That's interesting. Now when I think back, I never had a NR rear axle
> > break, only the C-Record. I wonder what was the difference.
>
> I've read conflicting theories in the past but never anything real
> well written.  Maybe Eric Norris can chime in.
>

I posted a question about the difference between NR and C-Record fw
rear hub on another forum and here is one excellent and plausible
explanation:

"Functionally I think the two hubs are equivalent, however the main
difference is the width of the dropouts, the "over locknut"
dimension.

Since the C-records were used on bikes that had 7 and sometimes 8
speeds, they frequently had over locknut dimensions of 130mm. At
130mm, the bearing on the hub drive side is pretty close to the wheel
centerline! So there's a bending moment on the axle and a stress riser
at the inner edge of the drive side cone.

NR axles were usually set up for 120 or 126mm over locknut.

And of course, a heavy rider with a powerful sprint will put far more
load on the rear axle than a small rider.

The quest for more rear cog speeds is part of what led to the cassette
hub which has an extra bearing at the end of the axle, near the drive
side dropout."

Hmmm, so may be it was a combo of running a 7spd fw and my fat
ass....Good Luck!

[EricP]

Back in the 1980's (before the big layoff from cycling) used to
regularly bend and/or break rear freewheel hub axles. Usually low
level Shimano or Suntour. Including Suntour XC. Back then my weight
was about 190. My low tech solution - replace the cones and axles
with nutted solid axles. Cro-mo. The mild steel ones would bend
also.

This was on early mountain bikes and the 130mm hub spacing seemed to
be the culprit.

Have not had a problem with a cassette hub. Have also not had a
problem with my Phil FW hub on my Sam Hillborne. Even when first
getting back on the bike, didn't have a problem with cassette hubs
although my weight at that time was around 350 pounds.

Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN

On Feb 17, 4:18 pm, bfd <bfd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[JL]

Why start at 121 spacing and not 120?

If 130 and 135 are options then it isn't a question of that extra mm
used to get to 126mm from 125.

[Jon Grant]

Eric Platt wrote:

Back in the 1980's (before the big layoff from cycling) used to
regularly bend and/or break rear freewheel hub axles. Usually low
level Shimano or Suntour. Including Suntour XC. Back then my weight
was about 190. My low tech solution - replace the cones and axles
with nutted solid axles. Cro-mo. The mild steel ones would bend
also.

This was on early mountain bikes and the 130mm hub spacing seemed to
be the culprit.

Have not had a problem with a cassette hub. Have also not had a
problem with my Phil FW hub on my Sam Hillborne. Even when first
getting back on the bike, didn't have a problem with cassette hubs
although my weight at that time was around 350 pounds.

Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN

-------

I've been riding, off and on, for almost 40 years -- I'd guess at least
50,000 miles, probably >95% on pavement. I've weighed between 180 and 260
pounds most of that time. Lightest bike+rider was probably 170 lbs. Heaviest
single (boxbike, trailer, rider, two toddlers, Costco shopping load) runs
500 lbs. I've used fixed gears, single speeds, 3- and 8-speed
internal-geared hubs, and 5-, 6-, and 7-speed freewheels. I've owned hubs of
several levels by Shimano, Sanshin, Normandy, SunTour, Sovos, Specialized,
Campagnolo, Mavic, Phil Wood, Atom, Schmidt -- and probably others I've
forgotten.

I've never broken an axle. Or a crank arm. Or any other component bigger
than a spoke, except in a collision.

Jon Grant, drawing no conclusions in
Austin, Texas

[benzzoy]

I don't know if it's solely about the "over locknut" dimension.
Except for most Shimano cassette hubs, all other cassette hubs also
have the right side bearings (that supports the hub body) very close
to the centerline of the axle.

Shimano has a patent on attaching the hub body to the freehub and
putting the right side bearing on the right side of the freehub
itself, thus transferring the load as far outboard as possible. The
other manufacturers (Campagnolo, Mavic, to name but two) have
essentially the freewheel hub design, except in place of an
unsupported freewheel, there is a freehub body usually supported by
two bearings. These two bearings only support pedaling forces and you
can even remove the entire freehub body without impacting the ability
of the wheel to carry load.

So what this means is that all except pedaling loads are still
supported by a left bearing that sits very close to the left dropout,
and a right bearing that sits very close to the centerline of the
axle. There are advantages to the new design though. For example,
the axles tend to be larger and they are usually only threaded at the
very ends. Big, most unthreaded axles surely must be stronger than
smaller axles with a long section of stress-riser threads.

[bfd]

On Feb 17, 8:28 pm, benzzoy <benz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't know if it's solely about the "over locknut" dimension.
> Except for most Shimano cassette hubs, all other cassette hubs also
> have the right side bearings (that supports the hub body) very close
> to the centerline of the axle.
>

You appear to have missed it, but we're talking about FREEWHEEL rear
hub, not cassette hubs!

> Shimano has a patent on attaching the hub body to the freehub and
> putting the right side bearing on the right side of the freehub
> itself, thus transferring the load as far outboard as possible.  The
> other manufacturers (Campagnolo, Mavic, to name but two) have
> essentially the freewheel hub design, except in place of an
> unsupported freewheel, there is a freehub body usually supported by
> two bearings.  These two bearings only support pedaling forces and you
> can even remove the entire freehub body without impacting the ability
> of the wheel to carry load.
>

I agree that Shimano outboard bearing design is superior. However,
Campy cassette hub, from 1999 to present, uses an oversized axle and
guess what, despite the inboard placement of its bearings, the axles
don't break! Surprised? Nope, like Phil Wood FW rear hub, the
oversized axles keeps things from breaking. That's why I initially
asked if the new Paul rear hub had an oversized axle.

[bfd]

On Feb 17, 4:39 pm, EricP <ericpl...@aol.com> wrote:

> Have not had a problem with a cassette hub.  Have also not had a
> problem with my Phil FW hub on my Sam Hillborne.  

I think the reason why you haven't had a problem with your Phil Wood
fw hub is because of the oversized axle used by Phil. Like Campy
cassette hubs made from 1999 to present, there have been almost no
reports of axle breaking despite the inferior inboard bearing design.
Again, the oversized axles keeps things from breaking. Good Luck!

>

[JoelMatthews]

> Why start at 121 spacing and not 120?

Wondered that myself. Probably has something to do with the unique
design requirements. There should not be any problems with fitting a
121 hub on a 120 bike anyway.

I certainly have no need for these hubs at the moment. They are
fascinating and I am somewhat tempted to buy one just to fool with
it. (and have no doubt - if you ever watched me working on my bikes
you would call it fooling!)

[Jason Hartman]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:28 PM, benzzoy <ben...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't know if it's solely about the "over locknut" dimension.
Except for most Shimano cassette hubs, all other cassette hubs also
have the right side bearings (that supports the hub body) very close
to the centerline of the axle.

Shimano has a patent on attaching the hub body to the freehub and
putting the right side bearing on the right side of the freehub
itself, thus transferring the load as far outboard as possible.  The
other manufacturers (Campagnolo, Mavic, to name but two) have
essentially the freewheel hub design, except in place of an
unsupported freewheel, there is a freehub body usually supported by
two bearings.  These two bearings only support pedaling forces and you
can even remove the entire freehub body without impacting the ability
of the wheel to carry load.

I thought Shimano's patent was not on the bearing placement, but on the way the
freehub it attached to the hub shell. This is from the Bike Pro catalog:

Shimano's only patent on the freehub cassette system, isn't on the shape of the cut-out of the interior of the cogs, it's on how the freehub body, (the ratcheting carrier that the cogs slide on), is fastened to the hub shell. Shimano's uses a steel bolt built on a steel tube, that has a 14mm by 1mm thread pitch. The inner diameter of the bolt is 10.5mm which permits the 10mm diameter rear axle to pass through it. The Shimano steel bolt has a 10mm hex fitting in its interior, so that with the axle removed, a 10mm hex wrench turned counter-clockwise (anti-clockwise) will remove it

Since other manufacturers could not bolt the hub and freehub together,
they were forced to add more bearings in the middle.
In any case, Shimano has been making rear hubs like this since
the early 80's so the patent has surely expired by now.

Jay Hartman

[Philip Williamson]

> > Why start at 121 spacing and not 120?
>
> Wondered that myself.  Probably has something to do with the unique
> design requirements.  There should not be any problems with fitting a
> 121 hub on a 120 bike anyway.

My two roadish bikes have 120mm spacing. I would have no problem
spreading either of them 1mm. I doubt I'd notice.

Philip

Philip Williamson
www.biketinker.com

[benzzoy]

On Feb 17, 9:02 pm, bfd <bfd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 8:28 pm, benzzoy <benz...@yahoo.com> wrote:> I don't know if it's solely about the "over locknut" dimension.
> > Except for most Shimano cassette hubs, all other cassette hubs also
> > have the right side bearings (that supports the hub body) very close
> > to the centerline of the axle.
>
> You appear to have missed it, but we're talking about FREEWHEEL rear
> hub, not cassette hubs!

I don't think I missed it. I was specifically addressing the quote
that the axle breakage of the C-Record hubs was due to it having an
extended unsupported section. I refuted that by citing that axles do
not break nowadays, whether they are extended or not, as verified by
Shimano's outboard and other inboard designs. I insinuated that if
the axle design is adequate (stronger material, bigger dimensions,
etc), one could have an extended unsupported axle without axle
breakage issues.

As an aside, Shimano's outboard design may be superior, but is it
necessary? All current non-Shimano hubs that I know of do not use the
Shimano design, even though the patent is likely expired. I'm curious
as to why that is. Is it more expensive? Even Shimano itself went to
the inboard design briefly for one model of the Dura Ace hubs (7850?)
but it's back to the outboard design.

[EricP]

Interesting. As in the 1980's I often could bend "oversized" solid
axles. As in the ones with flats on two sides to fit in the
dropouts. Then it was purely the metal quality. Cro-mo versus mild
steel.

As to Campy, only have a passing knowledge of the brand. My actual
ownership has been limited to a peanut butter wrench. They don't make
items I've generally been interested in using.

Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[bfd]

On Feb 18, 6:49 pm, benzzoy <benz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:02 pm, bfd <bfd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 8:28 pm, benzzoy <benz...@yahoo.com> wrote:> I don't know if it's solely about the "over locknut" dimension.
> > > Except for most Shimano cassette hubs, all other cassette hubs also
> > > have the right side bearings (that supports the hub body) very close
> > > to the centerline of the axle.
>
> > You appear to have missed it, but we're talking about FREEWHEEL rear
> > hub, not cassette hubs!
>
> I don't think I missed it.  I was specifically addressing the quote
> that the axle breakage of the C-Record hubs was due to it having an
> extended unsupported section.  I refuted that by citing that axles do
> not break nowadays, whether they are extended or not, as verified by
> Shimano's outboard and other inboard designs.  I insinuated that if
> the axle design is adequate (stronger material, bigger dimensions,
> etc), one could have an extended unsupported axle without axle
> breakage issues.
>

Peter Chisolm (sp?), aka qui si parla campagnolo, agrees with you as
he stated"the (C-Record) hub design was essentially the same (as the
NR), the axles and overhang was larger on C Record since it was
7s(126mm), with NR often being 5/6s(120mm).

Biggest reason axles break is misaligned frame dropouts. I use C
Record hubs exclusively, adjust the drive side axle end to be the
minimum length required for a DA 7s freewheel and don't break
axles(I'm .1 offa ton).

I think if the driveside length is kept to a minimum and the frame
dropourts are aligned, you won't break axles."

Again, my experience was 3 broken axles - 2 Campy, 1 Wheel Mfrg in
about a 2 or 3 year period. With either Campy or Shimano cassette
hubs, no problem.

> As an aside, Shimano's outboard design may be superior, but is it
> necessary?  

It may not be necessary, but the outboard bearing design allows
Shimano to use a smaller axle without the risk of breakage.

>All current non-Shimano hubs that I know of do not use the
> Shimano design, even though the patent is likely expired.  I'm curious
> as to why that is.  Is it more expensive?  

Perhaps the reason most non-Shimano hubs didn't use Shimano design was
because they didn't want to pay royalties? If these companies had used
it, the cost would have been more expensive due to the royalty
payments.

Alternatively, it is possible that some companies approached Shimano
about using the design and were denied. Shimano did this with its
octalink bb. There are many companies out there who make cranksets
with octalink fittings, as oppose to square taper or outboard
bearings, but almost none who made octalink bb.

>Even Shimano itself went to the inboard design briefly for one model of the Dura Ace hubs (7850?)
> but it's back to the outboard design.

The DA 7800 rear hub had the inboard bearing design. It looked like an
exact copy of Campy's rear hub! The complaints that it was limited to
only 10 speed cassette, no backward compatibility was one reason why
Shimano went back to its outboard design. Good Luck!

[bfd]

On Feb 18, 7:04 pm, EricP <ericpl...@aol.com> wrote:
> Interesting.  As in the 1980's I often could bend "oversized" solid
> axles.  As in the ones with flats on two sides to fit in the
> dropouts.  Then it was purely the metal quality. Cro-mo versus mild
> steel.
>

May be it was metal quality. I never broke or don't know of anyone who
broke or bend NR axles. However, I broke 3 axles - 2 Campy, 1 Wheel
Mfrg - on my early 90s C-Record rear hub. It might have been poor
metal quality, misaligned dropouts (hard to align as my frame was
carbon), or that I was running a 7 speed fw instead of 5/6 that were
used on the NR hubs.

> As to Campy, only have a passing knowledge of the brand.  My actual
> ownership has been limited to a peanut butter wrench.  They don't make
> items I've generally been interested in using.
>

Campy products are usually very well made. On occasions, their
functionality or execution have not been up to standard - think delta
brakes and synchro shifters - but their hubs were never a problem. The
current generation of cassette hubs from 1999 to present have an
oversized axle. That makes up for the weaker inboard bearing design.
Nevertheless, you don't hear about axles breaking or bending. So, I
suspect the oversized axles is the key. Same with PW fw hubs, it uses
an oversized axle and you don't hear about Phil axles bending or
breaking. Good Luck!

[Justin August]

This is one of those "this is why we miss Sheldon" conversations.

-Justin "Pick up some Sheldon fender nuts today" August