Bearings on shimano dynamo hubs
torn
cup-and-cone or cartridge?
On the Internet I just read about "better", or "Ultegra quality"
bearings, but no explicit reference to the actual kind (well, "Ultegra
quality" lets me suspect they are cup-and-cone, but I'm not sure).
Anyway, is the quick release axle replaceable with a solid axle, as it
would be on a standard (non dynamo) hub?
Thank you again!
Andre Jute
> Which kind of bearings are used on the Shimano Alfine dynamo hubs,
> cup-and-cone or cartridge?
> On the Internet I just read about "better", or "Ultegra quality"
> bearings, but no explicit reference to the actual kind (well, "Ultegra
> quality" lets me suspect they are cup-and-cone, but I'm not sure).
Cup and cone. You must be a major commuter or world tourer if you're
contemplating wearing out a dynohub to the point where it requires
rebuilding...
I also reckon that by that time your wheel will be shot and need
rebuilding anyway, and it might just be cheaper to buy a whole new
dynohub (or wheel with dynohub) from the discounters than pay full
price for the replacement and service parts for the dynohub.
> Anyway, is the quick release axle replaceable with a solid axle, as it
> would be on a standard (non dynamo) hub?
Yes. Observe the torque settings. BBB sells a complete axle and
seatpost clamp-bolt kit to replace quick releases. Torque them to
whatever the torque was on the QRs you're removing.
Andre Jute
"The brain of an engineer is a delicate instrument which must be
protected against the unevenness of the ground." -- Wifredo-Pelayo
Ricart Medina
Bernhard Agthe
Andre Jute wrote:
> Cup and cone. You must be a major commuter or world tourer if you're
> contemplating wearing out a dynohub to the point where it requires
> rebuilding...
Well, I have a cup-and-cone rear hub which is noticeably worn out
(though still serviceable) after a bit over 10.000 km. And Shimano's
low-end dynohubs were known for their bearing problems... Especially
with a large-volume dynohub, there seems to be the problem that the air
volume expansion upon drastic temperature changes forces humidity
through the bearings (that's why newer SON dynohubs have a
pressure-equalization device installed).
So the answer would be, with a better Shimano hub the bearings should
last much longer compared to the cheaper Shimano hubs. But if the poster
really wants a reliable and long-lasting dynohub, SON hubs do have the
best reputation overall...
> I also reckon that by that time your wheel will be shot and need
> rebuilding anyway, and it might just be cheaper to buy a whole new
> dynohub (or wheel with dynohub) from the discounters than pay full
> price for the replacement and service parts for the dynohub.
At least if you have a "low-end" dynohub, you'll likely have a cheap
wheel, which would be an argument for replacing the complete wheel ;-)
>> Anyway, is the quick release axle replaceable with a solid axle, as it
>> would be on a standard (non dynamo) hub?
Simply get the new wheel as solid-axle wheel. Though in most cases, a
quick-release axle is better and there are some solutions to secure
quick-release wheels, e.g. Pit-Lock axles (which require one out of more
than 200 different keys). But no solution whatever (be it tamper-proof
or not) will prevent a skilled thief with good equipment. So, a
hex-driven quick-release axle will prevent opportunistic thieves easily,
while a skilled thief will be able to open your super-secure PitLocks
(and the U-Lock also).
The same with a solid axle and "tamper-proof" nuts - a skilled thief
will be able to open them. Even the largest bicycle lock can be opened
easily with the right equipment.
Actually, a good solution is to use quick-release axles that require
some tool (e.g. a hex driver) to prevent opportunistic thieves and
vandalism (an opened quick-release may lead to brake failure). The
second level of protection IS a bike lock that secures the wheel to the
frame - there are quite solid bike frame locks to be attached to the
rear of the frame (where the luggage rack is attached) that secure the
rear wheel, while the normal bike lock would be used to secure the frame
and front wheel to a fixed object. Using two locks will discourage
thieves, because it is more work to steal the bike. It also does help if
the bike looks "dirty", if it's less attractive so to say. But in the
end, it's almost impossible to prevent theft completely...
Have fun...
.
torn
>>> Anyway, is the quick release axle replaceable with a solid axle, as it
>>> would be on a standard (non dynamo) hub?
>
> Simply get the new wheel as solid-axle wheel. Though in most cases, a
> quick-release axle is better and there are some solutions to secure
> quick-release wheels, e.g. Pit-Lock axles
I undertand your argument about how to properly secure the wheels.
The reason that makes me prefer the solid axle on the front whell is
that I'm using a Shimano gear hub. These hubs come with a
non-replaceable solid axle. Having a solid axle on the front wheel too
allows me to remove both the wheels with only one tool (instead of two:
the hex key and the Pit-Lock key).
And I admit that symmetry is another reason :)
Can you explain why you find quick-release axles better then the solid ones?
Thank you for you interesting answer.
Andre Jute
> Hi,
>
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > Cup and cone. You must be a major commuter or world tourer if you're
> > contemplating wearing out a dynohub to the point where it requires
> > rebuilding...
>
> Well, I have a cup-and-cone rear hub which is noticeably worn out
> (though still serviceable) after a bit over 10.000 km. And Shimano's
> low-end dynohubs were known for their bearing problems...
Hmm. In Shimano rear hubs, Utopia Velo, who have lots of experience
and lots of tests done on components by independent labs, in their
Ratgeber say that you should expect 20,000km lifespan from the
standard Nexus 8 gear hub, 40,000km from the Premium hub (the good one
with the cup and cone bearings) but that in both cases this depends on
servicing the hub at 5000km intervals.
The service is quite a bit more onerous than servicing a Rohloff; I'm
not so sure any but the most dedicated amateur mechanic would wish to
undertake it. Lot of mess, too with the Shimano Nexus hub service. And
the consumables are more expensive than for a Rohloff service!
Unfortunately Utopia don't say anything about lifespan of the front
dynohubs. Their opinion would valuable as they fit both (the best)
Shimano and SON hubs and have just about forever, as far as I can make
out.
>Especially
> with a large-volume dynohub, there seems to be the problem that the air
> volume expansion upon drastic temperature changes forces humidity
> through the bearings (that's why newer SON dynohubs have a
> pressure-equalization device installed).
>
> So the answer would be, with a better Shimano hub the bearings should
> last much longer compared to the cheaper Shimano hubs. But if the poster
> really wants a reliable and long-lasting dynohub, SON hubs do have the
> best reputation overall...
I have both the old, pre cup and cone, and the later cup and cone
Shimano dynohubs, and also SON. I like the best Shimano better than
the SON for giving more light under 20kph. That the SON will last
twice as long doesn't seem to me to be much of a consolation when the
light from the SON dies just as I'm most exposed, cycling slowly up a
steep hill with lots of traffic from both directions.
> > I also reckon that by that time your wheel will be shot and need
> > rebuilding anyway, and it might just be cheaper to buy a whole new
> > dynohub (or wheel with dynohub) from the discounters than pay full
> > price for the replacement and service parts for the dynohub.
>
> At least if you have a "low-end" dynohub, you'll likely have a cheap
> wheel, which would be an argument for replacing the complete wheel ;-)
Good Shimano dynohubs are now very cheap in overstock OEM wheels on
Ebay. This is important because the first, early, Shimano hub dynamos
had more drag when switched off than when working! Ripley's!
I couldn't agree more with Bernhard about bicycle locks (below) so
I'll leave it there.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
someone
Quick release axles are race equipment to save time with a wheel
change. Possesion of them makes you develop quirks not applicable
when using solid axles.
torn
> On 16 June, 15:58, torn <use...@synesthesia.csoft.net> wrote:
>> Bernhard Agthe wrote:
>>>>> Anyway, is the quick release axle replaceable with a solid axle, as it
>>>>> would be on a standard (non dynamo) hub?
>>> Simply get the new wheel as solid-axle wheel. Though in most cases, a
>>> quick-release axle is better and there are some solutions to secure
>>> quick-release wheels, e.g. Pit-Lock axles
>>
>
> Quick release axles are race equipment to save time with a wheel
> change.
Maybe Bernhard's point is just that: they are better because they are
quick, and my impression that there is some other reason is wrong.
Helmut Springer
> Anyway, is the quick release axle replaceable with a solid axle,
> as it would be on a standard (non dynamo) hub?
Most hubs of Alfine or above quality use QRs, so "standard" depends
on what you look at.
Easiest solution: replace the QR by an axle with a nut and allen
bolt.
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei
Bernhard Agthe
torn wrote:
> The reason that makes me prefer the solid axle on the front whell is
> that I'm using a Shimano gear hub. These hubs come with a
> non-replaceable solid axle. Having a solid axle on the front wheel too
> allows me to remove both the wheels with only one tool (instead of two:
> the hex key and the Pit-Lock key).
> And I admit that symmetry is another reason :)
Granted ;-)
> Can you explain why you find quick-release axles better then the solid
> ones?
Now, this is usually not a problem with bicycles, as long as you don't
go for ultra-lightweight... So you should be fine with both. It's far
more likely you'll wear out the bearings than you breaking the axle ;-)
In essence, at least QR's are more convenient and easier to use.
Personally I carry a small pouch with some tools and some band-aids
whenever I use my bike. The pouch contains an allen key since that is
needed for almost all fasteners, so I have it available anyway. Not
owning a gearhub I prefer "tool-needy" QR axles both for convenience and
for the smaller and lighter tool. It's actually easier to find QR-axles
with "unusual" tool requirements (e.g. PitLock) compared to solid axles ;-)
Also, a QR axle that needs a tool for fastening/loosening is preferable
to "normal" QR in my eyes since I do see a lot of people with too much
free time :-/ And I do believe in Murphy's law ;-)
Have fun...
.
someone
> >> Can you explain why you find quick-release axles better then the solid ones?
>
> > Quick release axles are race equipment to save time with a wheel
> > change.
>
> Maybe Bernhard's point is just that: they are better because they are
> quick, and my impression that there is some other reason is wrong.
It's a five second disadvantage. Using a solid axle means you have to
deal with both ends of the axle. You need a 'peanut butter
wrench' (the Campag' track tool for crank bolt/track nuts and
preparing/removing tubulars) or a flat stamped ring spanner (single
end) for simplicity and speed when it's pelting down in the night and
there's a hurricane approaching. A cheap nutted solid axle may well
be lighter than a quick release. Nutted systems are super reliable.
Errors in usage of QRs result in the occasional unexpected dismount.
You may wish to use some threadlock with a cheap QR once you have the
adjustment correct to save accidental maladjustment.
Carrying the correct spanner as part of your puncture repair kit is
not much of a penalty. The flat end of the spanner may be used as a
tyre lever or to check chain tension. With a twin chainring bike it
can be used to select chainrings should you somehow disable a front
derailler and take it off. It can also aid as part of an emergency
replacement brake.
RonSonic
>On 17 June, 03:11, torn <use...@synesthesia.csoft.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Can you explain why you find quick-release axles better then the solid ones?
>>
>> > Quick release axles are race equipment to save time with a wheel
>> > change.
>>
>> Maybe Bernhard's point is just that: they are better because they are
>> quick, and my impression that there is some other reason is wrong.
>
>It's a five second disadvantage. Using a solid axle means you have to
>deal with both ends of the axle. You need a 'peanut butter
>wrench' (the Campag' track tool for crank bolt/track nuts and
>preparing/removing tubulars) or a flat stamped ring spanner (single
>end) for simplicity and speed when it's pelting down in the night and
>there's a hurricane approaching. A cheap nutted solid axle may well
>be lighter than a quick release. Nutted systems are super reliable.
>Errors in usage of QRs result in the occasional unexpected dismount.
>You may wish to use some threadlock with a cheap QR once you have the
>adjustment correct to save accidental maladjustment.
If you've got a cheap QR then you've got lawyer lips. Threadlock won't help.
>Carrying the correct spanner as part of your puncture repair kit is
>not much of a penalty. The flat end of the spanner may be used as a
>tyre lever or to check chain tension. With a twin chainring bike it
>can be used to select chainrings should you somehow disable a front
>derailler and take it off. It can also aid as part of an emergency
>replacement brake.
And it can serve as a splint for a broken bone while fighting your way out of
the jungle.
Mark
> someone wrote:
>> On 16 June, 15:58, torn <use...@synesthesia.csoft.net> wrote:
>>> Bernhard Agthe wrote:
>>>>>> Anyway, is the quick release axle replaceable with a solid axle,
>>>>>> as it
>>>>>> would be on a standard (non dynamo) hub?
>>>> Simply get the new wheel as solid-axle wheel. Though in most cases, a
>>>> quick-release axle is better and there are some solutions to secure
>>>> quick-release wheels, e.g. Pit-Lock axles
>>>
>>> Can you explain why you find quick-release axles better then the
>>> solid ones?
In the old days, quality solid axles were rare, as solids were primarily
used for cheap bikes. The QR axles usually had better steel and
machining (with notable exceptions, e.g. Campy track axles).
With the fixie fad, it may be that quality solid axles are more easily
obtainable now than formerly.
Mark J.
Peter Cole
> torn wrote:
>> someone wrote:
>>> On 16 June, 15:58, torn <use...@synesthesia.csoft.net> wrote:
>>>> Bernhard Agthe wrote:
>>>>>>> Anyway, is the quick release axle replaceable with a solid axle,
>>>>>>> as it
>>>>>>> would be on a standard (non dynamo) hub?
>>>>> Simply get the new wheel as solid-axle wheel. Though in most cases, a
>>>>> quick-release axle is better and there are some solutions to secure
>>>>> quick-release wheels, e.g. Pit-Lock axles
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain why you find quick-release axles better then the
>>>> solid ones?
>
> In the old days, quality solid axles were rare, as solids were primarily
> used for cheap bikes. The QR axles usually had better steel and
> machining (with notable exceptions, e.g. Campy track axles).
>
> With the fixie fad, it may be that quality solid axles are more easily
> obtainable now than formerly.
>
> Mark J.
I prefer QR, especially for rear axles, the reason is that hollow axles
are nearly as strong as solid and the skewer will hold the axle together
if it cracks. Cracking rear axles is not usually a problem with freehub
designs, but it happens regularly to me with track hubs.
For a recent project I needed a >200mm axle. I found that solid threaded
rod was available in high strength steel for the typical modern hub
diameter & pitch, so I made my own.
someone
Not before finishing the pot of peanut butter.
someone
of course the P(rinciple) nut, but er, is usually 16mm or 17mm not
15mm.