Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
MTB cone type wheel bearings.
176 views
Skip to first unread message
Ian Field
Apr 12, 2013, 4:49:56 PM4/12/13
to
Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I sorted through the
'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) - one had a good rim (so far so good)
both had loose spindles.
Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels, there was only
1 good bearing cage - but between the 2 wheels, there was enough balls to
fill one of the grooves with balls and just a small clearance gap - just
like they did in the old days.
What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use less ball-bearings
with a cage to keep them equal distance apart - such as the cage is cheaper
than a full complement, or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings
cant be allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
Anyone know the answer?
Thanks.
'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) - one had a good rim (so far so good)
both had loose spindles.
Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels, there was only
1 good bearing cage - but between the 2 wheels, there was enough balls to
fill one of the grooves with balls and just a small clearance gap - just
like they did in the old days.
What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use less ball-bearings
with a cage to keep them equal distance apart - such as the cage is cheaper
than a full complement, or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings
cant be allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
Anyone know the answer?
Thanks.
AMuzi
Apr 12, 2013, 6:13:29 PM4/12/13
to
standard grade bearings. Fewer balls merely add to the
designer's savings. Full count retainers can be of equal
quality to regular loose Grade 25 bearings. Retainers as you
describe are usually of poor quality besides being short count.
If your time has any value for this project, use matched
sets of grade 25 chrome steel balls at roughly $2/set.
Bearings are sold by similarity not roundness, a grade 25
packet having under 25 millionth inches [1] variance within
the lot. I wouldn't ever mix bearings, especially used ones,
unless it was after the zombie apocalpse and regular
matched sets were no longer readily available.
[1] Campagnolo metric spec = una millesima
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
David Scheidt
Apr 12, 2013, 6:47:22 PM4/12/13
to
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Er, no. They're not. They're sold by grade. Grades have specifications
for size, sphericity, roughness, and lot diameter variation. Unless
you're buying them from the manfacturer, with certification, pretending
the balls that came out of the same bag, box, or bottle are the same lot,
or even from the same manufacture, is just that, pretending. On the
other hand, manufacturers of ball bearings are so good at it, the lot to
lot variances are pretty well zero.
--
sig 27
for size, sphericity, roughness, and lot diameter variation. Unless
you're buying them from the manfacturer, with certification, pretending
the balls that came out of the same bag, box, or bottle are the same lot,
or even from the same manufacture, is just that, pretending. On the
other hand, manufacturers of ball bearings are so good at it, the lot to
lot variances are pretty well zero.
--
sig 27
AMuzi
Apr 12, 2013, 7:23:38 PM4/12/13
to
http://www.trdspecialties.com/grade.asp
Grade 200 and grade 1000 are sadly common in our industry.
(here, lots arrive in sealed boxes with inspection labels)
The net effect is that a few small bearings or a couple of
larger ones in a hub will result in faster wear than if they
all contact properly. Whatever you choose to use, at least
don't mix them.
Dan O
Apr 13, 2013, 12:03:31 AM4/13/13
to
threw in his truing stand and bucket of tools and a box of parts,
which included various sizes loose bearings in boxes - inc/ some still
sealed. I was *so* set.
Then came the apocolypse - in the form of flood - a foot-and-a-half of
muddy water carrying stuff out the garage door and down toward the
creek. When I got through the parts, there was various sorts of
darkening and corrosion.
Many balls were still smooth - many not even darkened - but some
downright corroded. I might be able to sort out sets of usable balls
(oh, sizes are all mixed now so I'd have to watch out for that, too)
as needed for e.g. ~lower-end / lower mileage foo-foo bikes, but
imagine I ought to just toss these and start over :-( It sure was
nice to just fish the required number out of a box and install all
fresh.
Ian Field
Apr 13, 2013, 12:24:00 PM4/13/13
to
"AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:kka4so$9qj$1...@dont-email.me...
limiter for a wheel rather than bearing life (I found the wheels with mucked
up bearings).
I've done well out of other peoples incompetence at maintaining hubs,
anything I get out of salvaged rims/bearings is the cherry on the top.
Ian Field
Apr 13, 2013, 12:26:45 PM4/13/13
to
"Dan O" <danov...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:75d8a30f-c67f-4180...@pt10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
where you'd be with a caged bearing.
David Scheidt
Apr 13, 2013, 1:57:57 PM4/13/13
to
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Spec for grade 25 ball bearings is +/- a tenth (one ten thousandth of
an inch) in diamter. Mixing them isn't going to hurt anything, except, possbily
your bearing supplier's profit.
Grade 200 is a thou, which might or might not be noticible. I've got
my doubt, though. Grade 1000 is, I think, 5 thou, which would be,
even in a bike.
--
sig 7
an inch) in diamter. Mixing them isn't going to hurt anything, except, possbily
your bearing supplier's profit.
Grade 200 is a thou, which might or might not be noticible. I've got
my doubt, though. Grade 1000 is, I think, 5 thou, which would be,
even in a bike.
--
sig 7
Dan O
Apr 13, 2013, 3:26:02 PM4/13/13
to
On Apr 13, 9:26 am, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "Dan O" <danover...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I don't get it. This would seem opposed to the purpose of "bearing",
*and* opposed to the compromise of cages for simplified assembly.
wrote:
> "Dan O" <danover...@gmail.com> wrote in message
*and* opposed to the compromise of cages for simplified assembly.
Frank Krygowski
Apr 13, 2013, 3:58:07 PM4/13/13
to
On Apr 13, 1:57 pm, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
of difference. If you had one ball in the set that was 0.005" larger,
it would take all the load whenever it rolled into the load path (e.g.
at the bottom of an axle's cone), sharing no load with the adjacent
balls. That would significantly increase the stress on that ball and
on the cone surface at that point. I'd expect it would also make it
much more difficult to precisely adjust the bearing.
If all the balls in a set are 0.005" over nominal, that's not a
problem. Matching diameters within the set is a problem, which is why
variation within a lot is controlled so much more closely than
individual ball diameter.
Granted, there are bearings and there are bearings. The standards for
crude things like garage door rollers and cheap kids bikes are nowhere
near those of serious machinery. And I don't think the average
American bike will ever wear out a bearing, hanging in the garage as
it does. But I'd certainly prefer all my bearings to contain matching
balls.
BTW, I've toured a bearing manufacturer (Timken) and seen the
comparator devices used to set up their machines. The comparators sit
in a temperature controlled room, and technicians wear gloves. The
guy showing us around demonstrated why. He put his bare palm on the
thick iron frame of a comparator, and the needle immediately swung
quite far in response to the resulting temparature expansion. With
such equipment, detecting one millionth of an inch is easy.
- Frank Krygowski
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> :We may be speaking past each other:
> :http://www.trdspecialties.com/grade.asp
>
> :Grade 200 and grade 1000 are sadly common in our industry.
> :(here, lots arrive in sealed boxes with inspection labels)
>
> :The net effect is that a few small bearings or a couple of
> :larger ones in a hub will result in faster wear than if they
> :all contact properly. Whatever you choose to use, at least
> :don't mix them.
>
> Spec for grade 25 ball bearings is +/- a tenth (one ten thousandth of
> an inch) in diamter. Mixing them isn't going to hurt anything, except, possbily
> your bearing supplier's profit.
>
> Grade 200 is a thou, which might or might not be noticible. I've got
> my doubt, though. Grade 1000 is, I think, 5 thou, which would be,
> even in a bike.
For a radially rigid system like most bike bearings, 0.005" is a LOT
>
> :We may be speaking past each other:
> :http://www.trdspecialties.com/grade.asp
>
> :Grade 200 and grade 1000 are sadly common in our industry.
> :(here, lots arrive in sealed boxes with inspection labels)
>
> :The net effect is that a few small bearings or a couple of
> :larger ones in a hub will result in faster wear than if they
> :all contact properly. Whatever you choose to use, at least
> :don't mix them.
>
> Spec for grade 25 ball bearings is +/- a tenth (one ten thousandth of
> an inch) in diamter. Mixing them isn't going to hurt anything, except, possbily
> your bearing supplier's profit.
>
> Grade 200 is a thou, which might or might not be noticible. I've got
> my doubt, though. Grade 1000 is, I think, 5 thou, which would be,
> even in a bike.
of difference. If you had one ball in the set that was 0.005" larger,
it would take all the load whenever it rolled into the load path (e.g.
at the bottom of an axle's cone), sharing no load with the adjacent
balls. That would significantly increase the stress on that ball and
on the cone surface at that point. I'd expect it would also make it
much more difficult to precisely adjust the bearing.
If all the balls in a set are 0.005" over nominal, that's not a
problem. Matching diameters within the set is a problem, which is why
variation within a lot is controlled so much more closely than
individual ball diameter.
Granted, there are bearings and there are bearings. The standards for
crude things like garage door rollers and cheap kids bikes are nowhere
near those of serious machinery. And I don't think the average
American bike will ever wear out a bearing, hanging in the garage as
it does. But I'd certainly prefer all my bearings to contain matching
balls.
BTW, I've toured a bearing manufacturer (Timken) and seen the
comparator devices used to set up their machines. The comparators sit
in a temperature controlled room, and technicians wear gloves. The
guy showing us around demonstrated why. He put his bare palm on the
thick iron frame of a comparator, and the needle immediately swung
quite far in response to the resulting temparature expansion. With
such equipment, detecting one millionth of an inch is easy.
- Frank Krygowski
Ian Field
Apr 13, 2013, 4:18:03 PM4/13/13
to
news:ba4bd80d-73f4-4a2e...@ka6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Its not really all that difficult - if each alternate ball is undersized,
they equally space the correct sized ball just like the claw sections of a
bearing cage.
they equally space the correct sized ball just like the claw sections of a
bearing cage.
thirty-six
Apr 14, 2013, 12:10:49 AM4/14/13
to
if the hubs be maintained with oil. It's generally best to replace
balls new, as sets when pulling out old grease, unless the grease
shows exceptional cleanliness.
Dan O
Apr 14, 2013, 1:53:18 AM4/14/13
to
On Apr 13, 1:18 pm, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
Except the reason for the spaces between balls is just to accomodate
the cage, and the cage is just to ease assembly. Spacing the load
"bearing" balls in a tedious manual process seems to defeat both
purposes (load bearing and ease of assembly).
the cage, and the cage is just to ease assembly. Spacing the load
"bearing" balls in a tedious manual process seems to defeat both
purposes (load bearing and ease of assembly).
thirty-six
Apr 14, 2013, 5:10:26 AM4/14/13
to
> the cage, and the cage is just to ease assembly.
methods of bearing balls which take moments. They used a special tool
which would pick up the correct number of balls (not one over) and
funnel them into the race. Unfortunately the caged balls cost more
and can be put in the wrong way round. .
> Spacing the load
> "bearing" balls in a tedious manual process seems to defeat both
> purposes (load bearing and ease of assembly).
used to accommodate grease. Grease is not a requirement, it
facilitates laziness in bicycle preparation by the dealer. By
greasing the bearings, the manufacturer generally avoids getting a bad
reputation due to the early demise of bearings.
thirty-six
Apr 14, 2013, 5:31:06 AM4/14/13
to
On 12 Apr, 23:13, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 4/12/2013 3:49 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I
> > sorted through the 'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) -
> > one had a good rim (so far so good) both had loose spindles.
>
> > Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels,
> > there was only 1 good bearing cage - but between the 2
> > wheels, there was enough balls to fill one of the grooves
> > with balls and just a small clearance gap - just like they
> > did in the old days.
>
> > What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use
> > less ball-bearings with a cage to keep them equal distance
> > apart - such as the cage is cheaper than a full complement,
> > or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings cant be
> > allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
>
> > Anyone know the answer?
>
> Retainers save assembly time
only in backward manufacturies.
> On 4/12/2013 3:49 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I
> > sorted through the 'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) -
> > one had a good rim (so far so good) both had loose spindles.
>
> > Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels,
> > there was only 1 good bearing cage - but between the 2
> > wheels, there was enough balls to fill one of the grooves
> > with balls and just a small clearance gap - just like they
> > did in the old days.
>
> > What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use
> > less ball-bearings with a cage to keep them equal distance
> > apart - such as the cage is cheaper than a full complement,
> > or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings cant be
> > allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
>
> > Anyone know the answer?
>
> Retainers save assembly time
> which is more expensive than
> standard grade bearings. Fewer balls merely add to the
> designer's savings.
> Full count retainers can be of equal
> quality to regular loose Grade 25 bearings. Retainers as you
> describe are usually of poor quality besides being short count.
should be dependent on precise service conditions.
>
> If your time has any value for this project, use matched
> sets of grade 25 chrome steel balls at roughly $2/set.
do it again:? How much time do you think he should spend in aquiring
balls from a bearing shop? Do you think he should waste time donning
gloves this time or spend 5 minutes or so scrubbing off after? Should
he waste time donning an apron or washing clothes? Should he put
newspaper down or clean the grease off the carpet after? Will it
really matter if the bearing has grit and carpet fluff in it and how
fast will my bones rot if I drink 4 cups of sugary milky coffee, two
330ml colas and 3 pints of Fosters "lager beer" and smoke 10
cigarettes every day?
Ian Field
Apr 14, 2013, 11:25:57 AM4/14/13
to
"thirty-six" <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c5ad5345-10b6-4647...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
A relative had damaged the plastic guard ring on the chainwheel, which was
non-standard so the easy route was to replace the whole chainwheel, they
also mentioned a knackered pedal.
Turns out, nothing wrong with the pedals - the main crank bearing was
flopping about. One of the bearing cages was pretty much destroyed and the
balls rolling about in the bottom bracket housing.
Lucky I'd saved the one remaining cage & balls from the scrap bike (also had
1 destroyed cage) that I got the chainwheel from.
Ian Field
Apr 14, 2013, 11:30:54 AM4/14/13
to
news:9af2a963-c28d-4743...@y14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
Both wheels that had mucked about with hubs were bone dry, I cleaned out
whatever residue and applied ample quantity of Finnish-line teflon fortified
cycle grease.
whatever residue and applied ample quantity of Finnish-line teflon fortified
cycle grease.
Message has been deleted
Ian Field
Apr 14, 2013, 5:49:06 PM4/14/13
to
"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:624mm8lh7k081i3ae...@4ax.com...
> thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk> considered Sun, 14 Apr 2013
> 02:31:06 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 12 Apr, 23:13, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2013 3:49 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I
>>> > sorted through the 'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) -
>>> > one had a good rim (so far so good) both had loose spindles.
>>>
>>> > Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels,
>>> > there was only 1 good bearing cage - but between the 2
>>> > wheels, there was enough balls to fill one of the grooves
>>> > with balls and just a small clearance gap - just like they
>>> > did in the old days.
>>>
>>> > What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use
>>> > less ball-bearings with a cage to keep them equal distance
>>> > apart - such as the cage is cheaper than a full complement,
>>> > or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings cant be
>>> > allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
>>>
>>> > Anyone know the answer?
>>>
>>> Retainers save assembly time
>>
>>only in backward manufacturies.
>>
>>> which is more expensive than
>>> standard grade bearings. Fewer balls merely add to the
>>> designer's savings.
>>
>>really, how?
>
> You really don't understand how fewer balls cost less than more balls?
>
>>On 12 Apr, 23:13, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2013 3:49 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I
>>> > sorted through the 'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) -
>>> > one had a good rim (so far so good) both had loose spindles.
>>>
>>> > Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels,
>>> > there was only 1 good bearing cage - but between the 2
>>> > wheels, there was enough balls to fill one of the grooves
>>> > with balls and just a small clearance gap - just like they
>>> > did in the old days.
>>>
>>> > What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use
>>> > less ball-bearings with a cage to keep them equal distance
>>> > apart - such as the cage is cheaper than a full complement,
>>> > or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings cant be
>>> > allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
>>>
>>> > Anyone know the answer?
>>>
>>> Retainers save assembly time
>>
>>only in backward manufacturies.
>>
>>> which is more expensive than
>>> standard grade bearings. Fewer balls merely add to the
>>> designer's savings.
>>
>>really, how?
>
> I suppose that explains a lot about some of your other "theories".
>>
>>> Full count retainers can be of equal
>>> quality to regular loose Grade 25 bearings. Retainers as you
>>> describe are usually of poor quality besides being short count.
>>
>>What retainer is used is dependent on what lubricant is in use, which
>>should be dependent on precise service conditions.
>>
> Save on the retainer altogether, use more balls instead, and you'll
>>> Full count retainers can be of equal
>>> quality to regular loose Grade 25 bearings. Retainers as you
>>> describe are usually of poor quality besides being short count.
>>
>>What retainer is used is dependent on what lubricant is in use, which
>>should be dependent on precise service conditions.
>>
> have more space for lubricant of whichever precise formulation you
> choose.
>>>
>>> If your time has any value for this project, use matched
>>> sets of grade 25 chrome steel balls at roughly $2/set.
>>
>>I thought the job was already done, do you think he should undo it and
>>do it again:?
>
> Maybe, if it hasn't been done properly.
>>> If your time has any value for this project, use matched
>>> sets of grade 25 chrome steel balls at roughly $2/set.
>>
>>I thought the job was already done, do you think he should undo it and
>>do it again:?
>
> And there's always the next time.
>
>> How much time do you think he should spend in aquiring
>>balls from a bearing shop?
>
> About 30s to order a bag of 500 online.
>> How much time do you think he should spend in aquiring
>>balls from a bearing shop?
>
> I bought grade 10, because they were barely any more expensive than
> grade 25, and still far cheaper than buying in tiny little bags
> intended for servicing a single bearing.
I just found another wheel with a warped rim, so along with the one I
already scrapped and potential salvage from the wheel soon to be replaced -
I think I should be able to manage without flashing the credit card.
Dan O
Apr 14, 2013, 5:54:37 PM4/14/13
to
On Apr 14, 2:49 pm, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "Phil W Lee" <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in messagenews:624mm8lh7k081i3ae...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> considered Sun, 14 Apr 2013
And that sort of thing I do as well. The whjeelie bike was getting
really loose when I did a quick-and-dirty overhaul wiht whatever
(better) was available; and it is yet to be rebuilt again following
the flood above the axles.
wrote:
> "Phil W Lee" <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in messagenews:624mm8lh7k081i3ae...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> considered Sun, 14 Apr 2013
really loose when I did a quick-and-dirty overhaul wiht whatever
(better) was available; and it is yet to be rebuilt again following
the flood above the axles.
thirty-six
Apr 14, 2013, 9:29:26 PM4/14/13
to
On 14 Apr, 22:18, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> considered Sun, 14 Apr 2013
> 02:31:06 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> considered Sun, 14 Apr 2013
> 02:31:06 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 12 Apr, 23:13, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2013 3:49 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>
> >> > Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I
> >> > sorted through the 'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) -
> >> > one had a good rim (so far so good) both had loose spindles.
>
> >> > Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels,
> >> > there was only 1 good bearing cage - but between the 2
> >> > wheels, there was enough balls to fill one of the grooves
> >> > with balls and just a small clearance gap - just like they
> >> > did in the old days.
>
> >> > What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use
> >> > less ball-bearings with a cage to keep them equal distance
> >> > apart - such as the cage is cheaper than a full complement,
> >> > or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings cant be
> >> > allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
>
> >> > Anyone know the answer?
>
> >> Retainers save assembly time
>
> >only in backward manufacturies.
>
> >> which is more expensive than
> >> standard grade bearings. Fewer balls merely add to the
> >> designer's savings.
>
> >really, how?
>
> >> On 4/12/2013 3:49 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>
> >> > Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I
> >> > sorted through the 'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) -
> >> > one had a good rim (so far so good) both had loose spindles.
>
> >> > Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels,
> >> > there was only 1 good bearing cage - but between the 2
> >> > wheels, there was enough balls to fill one of the grooves
> >> > with balls and just a small clearance gap - just like they
> >> > did in the old days.
>
> >> > What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use
> >> > less ball-bearings with a cage to keep them equal distance
> >> > apart - such as the cage is cheaper than a full complement,
> >> > or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings cant be
> >> > allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
>
> >> > Anyone know the answer?
>
> >> Retainers save assembly time
>
> >only in backward manufacturies.
>
> >> which is more expensive than
> >> standard grade bearings. Fewer balls merely add to the
> >> designer's savings.
>
> >really, how?
>
> You really don't understand how fewer balls cost less than more balls?
you have me right. less balls require the fabrication of the retainer
and the lot assembling together, more energy, more cost.
> I suppose that explains a lot about some of your other "theories".
>
> >> Full count retainers can be of equal
> >> quality to regular loose Grade 25 bearings. Retainers as you
> >> describe are usually of poor quality besides being short count.
>
> >What retainer is used is dependent on what lubricant is in use, which
> >should be dependent on precise service conditions.
>
> >> quality to regular loose Grade 25 bearings. Retainers as you
> >> describe are usually of poor quality besides being short count.
>
> >What retainer is used is dependent on what lubricant is in use, which
> >should be dependent on precise service conditions.
>
> Save on the retainer altogether, use more balls instead, and you'll
> have more space for lubricant of whichever precise formulation you
> choose.
which then has a shorter service life, so more energy, more cost.
> have more space for lubricant of whichever precise formulation you
> choose.
>
>
>
> >> If your time has any value for this project, use matched
> >> sets of grade 25 chrome steel balls at roughly $2/set.
>
> >I thought the job was already done, do you think he should undo it and
> >do it again:?
>
>
>
> >> If your time has any value for this project, use matched
> >> sets of grade 25 chrome steel balls at roughly $2/set.
>
> >I thought the job was already done, do you think he should undo it and
> >do it again:?
>
> Maybe, if it hasn't been done properly.
> And there's always the next time.
>
> And there's always the next time.
>
> > How much time do you think he should spend in aquiring
> >balls from a bearing shop?
>
> >balls from a bearing shop?
>
> About 30s to order a bag of 500 online.
30 shillings, and what about delivery costs?
> I bought grade 10, because they were barely any more expensive than
> grade 25, and still far cheaper than buying in tiny little bags
> intended for servicing a single bearing.
> longer, so will avoid higher expenses later.
I agree, stuff it with calcium grease and a little Weldtite oi to make
it fluidl, OR jsut use a molybdenum disulphide lubricant, but the
discussion I was making was on manufacturers lubrication which
generally uses a grease which is too stiff(in Britain) and so along
with the relatively poor sliding friction with the supplied lubricant,
leads to the bearing's early demise..
> I keep 1/4" and 3/16" sizes in stock, as that covers the majority of
> bicycle use, and I know I will use them all eventually. Anything less
> common I would probably not be tempted to bulk buy, as I might never
> use the extra balls left over.
> If I was buying for anything more than my own use on my own bikes and
> those of my family, I'd buy in even bigger packs, and reduce the loss
> of end-of-lot leftovers (if you don't have enough left for a bearing,
> you are better off getting rid of them - you'll only be tempted to mix
> them with a different lot if you don't).
>
> > Do you think he should waste time donning
> >gloves this time or spend 5 minutes or so scrubbing off after? Should
> >he waste time donning an apron or washing clothes? Should he put
> >newspaper down or clean the grease off the carpet after?
>
> All entirely up to him. He seems to know it's a dirty job, so how he
> > Do you think he should waste time donning
> >gloves this time or spend 5 minutes or so scrubbing off after? Should
> >he waste time donning an apron or washing clothes? Should he put
> >newspaper down or clean the grease off the carpet after?
>
> manages that is his own worry.
>
> > Will it
> >really matter if the bearing has grit and carpet fluff in it
>
> Well, it certainly won't help.> and how
> > Will it
> >really matter if the bearing has grit and carpet fluff in it
>
> >fast will my bones rot if I drink 4 cups of sugary milky coffee, two
> >330ml colas and 3 pints of Fosters "lager beer" and smoke 10
> >cigarettes every day?
>
> Well, laying off the alcohol before posting would be a useful start.
> >330ml colas and 3 pints of Fosters "lager beer" and smoke 10
> >cigarettes every day?
>
hadn't touched a drop in over a week. Sometimes I just get tired
before ranting, last night was one such.
thirty-six
Apr 14, 2013, 9:35:10 PM4/14/13
to
On 14 Apr, 16:30, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
other than gear and brake cables, molybdenum disulphide will serve
better for longer than Teflon. Look to the Molyslip range (in UK)
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
better for longer than Teflon. Look to the Molyslip range (in UK)
James
Apr 14, 2013, 10:53:37 PM4/14/13
to
On 13/04/13 08:13, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/12/2013 3:49 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>> Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I
>> sorted through the 'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) -
>> one had a good rim (so far so good) both had loose spindles.
>>
>> Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels,
>> there was only 1 good bearing cage - but between the 2
>> wheels, there was enough balls to fill one of the grooves
>> with balls and just a small clearance gap - just like they
>> did in the old days.
>>
>> What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use
>> less ball-bearings with a cage to keep them equal distance
>> apart - such as the cage is cheaper than a full complement,
>> or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings cant be
>> allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
>>
>> Anyone know the answer?
>
> Retainers save assembly time which is more expensive than standard grade
> bearings. Fewer balls merely add to the designer's savings. Full count
> retainers can be of equal quality to regular loose Grade 25 bearings.
> Retainers as you describe are usually of poor quality besides being
> short count.
Without a retainer, how do the balls stay evenly spaced around the cup/cone?
> On 4/12/2013 3:49 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>> Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I
>> sorted through the 'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) -
>> one had a good rim (so far so good) both had loose spindles.
>>
>> Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels,
>> there was only 1 good bearing cage - but between the 2
>> wheels, there was enough balls to fill one of the grooves
>> with balls and just a small clearance gap - just like they
>> did in the old days.
>>
>> What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use
>> less ball-bearings with a cage to keep them equal distance
>> apart - such as the cage is cheaper than a full complement,
>> or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings cant be
>> allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
>>
>> Anyone know the answer?
>
> Retainers save assembly time which is more expensive than standard grade
> bearings. Fewer balls merely add to the designer's savings. Full count
> retainers can be of equal quality to regular loose Grade 25 bearings.
> Retainers as you describe are usually of poor quality besides being
> short count.
I don't think they do. I think they bunch up toward the top, leaving a
gap at the bottom, and because they touch and effectively counter
rotate, there is additional wear and friction between the balls.
Even if the retainer is poor quality, while it lasts it at least
attempts to maintain equal spacing between the balls.
I assume cartridge bearings have a better quality retainer, or at least
if properly sealed the retainer lasts longer.
--
JS
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 15, 2013, 7:08:52 AM4/15/13
to
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:53:37 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:
But, if the balls jam together wouldn't they also jam against the
retainer sides?
>I assume cartridge bearings have a better quality retainer, or at least
>if properly sealed the retainer lasts longer.
Some "cartridge bearings" don't have any retainer...
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
retainer sides?
>I assume cartridge bearings have a better quality retainer, or at least
>if properly sealed the retainer lasts longer.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Ian Field
Apr 15, 2013, 11:20:35 AM4/15/13
to
news:a8643b80-0fc8-41ac...@x14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
For things that need greasing fairly often I start with moly to treat the
surfaces, then switch to PTFE grease.
With wheel hubs, I hope to grease them once - and maybe even not do them
again before the rim expires, so I usually go straight to PTFE grease.
When I do use moly grease, I buy CV car wheel grease from an
auto-accessories store - < 5 GBP where I get it.
surfaces, then switch to PTFE grease.
With wheel hubs, I hope to grease them once - and maybe even not do them
again before the rim expires, so I usually go straight to PTFE grease.
When I do use moly grease, I buy CV car wheel grease from an
auto-accessories store - < 5 GBP where I get it.
Ian Field
Apr 15, 2013, 11:29:15 AM4/15/13
to
"J.B.Slocomb" <J.B.S...@invalid.addr> wrote in message
news:9lnnm892pdf1ajcjk...@4ax.com...
were tempered along with the component, the cartridge bearings usually have
a pair of matching shells that clamp together, the only friction is between
the balls and the smooth recesses pressed into the shells.
In the days when all cone bearings had a complete fill of bearings and no
retainer, there were few problems unless they became dry - or even worse,
corroded.
Ian Field
Apr 15, 2013, 11:32:07 AM4/15/13
to
news:a18efd6f-8732-4b83...@y14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
I've been having difficulty finding anywhere that still stocks any Molyslip
products, Car CV wheel grease from the local auto accessory store is cheaper
anyway.
products, Car CV wheel grease from the local auto accessory store is cheaper
anyway.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Ian Field
Apr 15, 2013, 3:06:04 PM4/15/13
to
news:ssfom81cuffa713te...@4ax.com...
> "Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Sun, 14 Apr
> But used balls in the bearings are a false economy.
> You don't even know if they match each other properly in size,
> roundness, surface roughness, or hardness, and if they don't (which is
> highly likely) you risk trashing the races.
So far none of my rebuilds have failed - as opposed to numerous factory
assembled failures.
Where else do you think I got all those salvaged parts?!
> "Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Sun, 14 Apr
> You don't even know if they match each other properly in size,
> roundness, surface roughness, or hardness, and if they don't (which is
> highly likely) you risk trashing the races.
So far none of my rebuilds have failed - as opposed to numerous factory
assembled failures.
Where else do you think I got all those salvaged parts?!
Ian Field
Apr 15, 2013, 3:13:30 PM4/15/13
to
news:hshom8d8q9c12s7cu...@4ax.com...
> "Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Mon, 15 Apr
> In single shot sachets?
>
> Save some money, and buy a one pound tub (probably 500g these days -
> which shows how long mine has lasted). 4.99 when I got mine, when I
> think the sachets were about 3 or 4 quid (so the tub is probably
> nearer 6 quid now, if it's gone up in proportion).
There are a couple of people on this group who've made *REALLY* stupid
comments!
Any shop keeper who offered me a single shot sachet for �5 would get an
obscene hand gesture and some even more obscene language.
The price of a tin of moly grease seems to vary depending on who's serving -
but always less than �5.
Same goes for a tin of Copper-ease, but I'm still on the tin I bought years
ago.
> "Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Mon, 15 Apr
>
> Save some money, and buy a one pound tub (probably 500g these days -
> which shows how long mine has lasted). 4.99 when I got mine, when I
> think the sachets were about 3 or 4 quid (so the tub is probably
> nearer 6 quid now, if it's gone up in proportion).
There are a couple of people on this group who've made *REALLY* stupid
comments!
Any shop keeper who offered me a single shot sachet for �5 would get an
obscene hand gesture and some even more obscene language.
The price of a tin of moly grease seems to vary depending on who's serving -
but always less than �5.
Same goes for a tin of Copper-ease, but I'm still on the tin I bought years
ago.
James
Apr 15, 2013, 5:34:01 PM4/15/13
to
in the opposite direction.
>> I assume cartridge bearings have a better quality retainer, or at least
>> if properly sealed the retainer lasts longer.
>
> Some "cartridge bearings" don't have any retainer...
>
joints? Are they cartridge?
--
JS.
Ian Field
Apr 15, 2013, 5:52:56 PM4/15/13
to
"James" <james.e...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kkhrj3$hb5$1...@dont-email.me...
they don't need a retainer.
All the balls have to be bunched together so the inner & outer races can be
snapped into place - the cage equally spaces the balls so the races can't
snap out again.
Message has been deleted
Frank Krygowski
Apr 15, 2013, 8:16:51 PM4/15/13
to
On Apr 15, 5:52 pm, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "James" <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
For the record, there are machinery bearings that are completely
filled with balls, and need no retainers to evenly space the balls.
They're called "slot-filled" or "filling slot" bearings. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_bearing . The downside is that they
can support almost no axial load. I don't know if any are used in
bike components, though.
- Frank Krygowski
wrote:
> "James" <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:kkhrj3$hb5$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15/04/13 21:08, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:53:37 +1000, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com>
> news:kkhrj3$hb5$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15/04/13 21:08, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
filled with balls, and need no retainers to evenly space the balls.
They're called "slot-filled" or "filling slot" bearings. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_bearing . The downside is that they
can support almost no axial load. I don't know if any are used in
bike components, though.
- Frank Krygowski
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 15, 2013, 8:22:50 PM4/15/13
to
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:34:01 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
Needle bearings. But I've seen a multitude of ball bearings that
didn't have "retainers", or "cages" I believe they are called in
America :-) You can google it.
But, in reference to low powered devices such as bicycles, you might
be interested in
http://www.astbearings.com/ball-bearing-cages-retainers-ball-separators.html
which says, in part, that
"Unfortunately, all cages due to their rubbing contact produce
frictional forces that increase the starting and running torque in the
bearing".
If one were buying an ultra light CF bike one would hardly want any
increased starting and running torque :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
didn't have "retainers", or "cages" I believe they are called in
America :-) You can google it.
But, in reference to low powered devices such as bicycles, you might
be interested in
http://www.astbearings.com/ball-bearing-cages-retainers-ball-separators.html
which says, in part, that
"Unfortunately, all cages due to their rubbing contact produce
frictional forces that increase the starting and running torque in the
bearing".
If one were buying an ultra light CF bike one would hardly want any
increased starting and running torque :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
James
Apr 15, 2013, 8:40:00 PM4/15/13
to
separated where there is no cage. It does not say that the friction is
more or less than a cage-less counterpart.
> If one were buying an ultra light CF bike one would hardly want any
> increased starting and running torque :-)
minimising drag in their bearings.
Better still, manufacture your own and patent the ultra low starting and
running torque bearing.
--
JS.
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 15, 2013, 9:39:31 PM4/15/13
to
implies that the retainers are not an important part of the bearing,
doesn't it? After all a bearing that is intended to hold the wheel on
an auto, for example, and that lasts for, say 200,000 Km, and is still
serviceable, and hasn't been greased since it was originally
installed, is likely of at least reasonable quality :-)
>In the days when all cone bearings had a complete fill of bearings and no
>retainer, there were few problems unless they became dry - or even worse,
>corroded.
Cheers,
John B.
thirty-six
Apr 15, 2013, 11:01:45 PM4/15/13
to
On Apr 16, 1:22 am, J.B.Slocomb <J.B.Sloc...@invalid.addr> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:34:01 +1000, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com>
> be interested inhttp://www.astbearings.com/ball-bearing-cages-retainers-ball-separato...
rolling bearings have higher frictional forces than rolling bearings
without", now you didn't do that did you?
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:34:01 +1000, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 15/04/13 21:08, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:53:37 +1000, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 15/04/13 21:08, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
>
> which says, in part, that
> "Unfortunately, all cages due to their rubbing contact produce
> frictional forces that increase the starting and running torque in the
> bearing".
>
> If one were buying an ultra light CF bike one would hardly want any
> increased starting and running torque :-)
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
yes, here lies the opportunity to misinterpret it as "all caged
> which says, in part, that
> "Unfortunately, all cages due to their rubbing contact produce
> frictional forces that increase the starting and running torque in the
> bearing".
>
> If one were buying an ultra light CF bike one would hardly want any
> increased starting and running torque :-)
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
rolling bearings have higher frictional forces than rolling bearings
without", now you didn't do that did you?
Dan O
Apr 16, 2013, 1:33:38 AM4/16/13
to
On Apr 15, 5:40 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/04/13 10:22, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:34:01 +1000, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com>
> On 16/04/13 10:22, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 15/04/13 21:08, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:53:37 +1000, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com>
>
> >> On 15/04/13 21:08, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
>
> > which says, in part, that
> > "Unfortunately, all cages due to their rubbing contact produce
> > frictional forces that increase the starting and running torque in the
> > bearing".
>
> That does not say how the balls magically stay equally spaced and
> separated where there is no cage. It does not say that the friction is
> more or less than a cage-less counterpart.
>
I don't see how one of those cages imposes meaningful spacing on
> > which says, in part, that
> > "Unfortunately, all cages due to their rubbing contact produce
> > frictional forces that increase the starting and running torque in the
> > bearing".
>
> That does not say how the balls magically stay equally spaced and
> separated where there is no cage. It does not say that the friction is
> more or less than a cage-less counterpart.
>
loaded bearings anyway. If they did, that would seem to me to be bad
news for what the bearing is there to do.
James
Apr 16, 2013, 2:50:16 AM4/16/13
to
On 16/04/13 15:33, Dan O wrote:
> On Apr 15, 5:40 pm, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That does not say how the balls magically stay equally spaced and
>> separated where there is no cage. It does not say that the friction is
>> more or less than a cage-less counterpart.
>>
>
> I don't see how one of those cages imposes meaningful spacing on
> loaded bearings anyway.
What would be meaningful spacing?
> On Apr 15, 5:40 pm, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That does not say how the balls magically stay equally spaced and
>> separated where there is no cage. It does not say that the friction is
>> more or less than a cage-less counterpart.
>>
>
> I don't see how one of those cages imposes meaningful spacing on
> loaded bearings anyway.
> If they did, that would seem to me to be bad
> news for what the bearing is there to do.
>
--
JS.
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 16, 2013, 6:56:50 AM4/16/13
to
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:40:00 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
Did you read the referenced site or are you just blathering away?
But who said that the balls were magically? Or that they stayed
equally spaced? But apparently they work as they have been in common
use for some time now. (they seem to have been invented in 1500 by
Leonardo da Vinci)
>> If one were buying an ultra light CF bike one would hardly want any
>> increased starting and running torque :-)
>
>You ought to tell the people at Zipp. They spent a lot of time
>minimising drag in their bearings.
>
Are you saying that people with CF bikes want increased starting and
running torque?
>Better still, manufacture your own and patent the ultra low starting and
>running torque bearing.
I really don't believe that you actually read the cited reference.
Which, by the way, is a fairly large distributor of bearings.
--
Cheers,
John B.
But who said that the balls were magically? Or that they stayed
equally spaced? But apparently they work as they have been in common
use for some time now. (they seem to have been invented in 1500 by
Leonardo da Vinci)
>> If one were buying an ultra light CF bike one would hardly want any
>> increased starting and running torque :-)
>
>You ought to tell the people at Zipp. They spent a lot of time
>minimising drag in their bearings.
>
running torque?
>Better still, manufacture your own and patent the ultra low starting and
>running torque bearing.
Which, by the way, is a fairly large distributor of bearings.
--
Cheers,
John B.
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 16, 2013, 6:59:20 AM4/16/13
to
distributor's page and listed the citation.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Ian Field
Apr 16, 2013, 10:19:03 AM4/16/13
to
news:7e0pm858rpmmvgop5...@4ax.com...
> Sorry about the misunderstanding, but your phraseology implied you
> have to buy it each time you use it. I'm glad to know that isn't the
> case :-)
My last motorcycle was seriously fucked - I'd removed the paper filter and
started pumping moly grease into the sump.
Took a tin every couple of weeks!
Some of the engine's internals made a break for freedom before I finished
using the last tin.
> "Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Mon, 15 Apr
> have to buy it each time you use it. I'm glad to know that isn't the
> case :-)
My last motorcycle was seriously fucked - I'd removed the paper filter and
started pumping moly grease into the sump.
Took a tin every couple of weeks!
Some of the engine's internals made a break for freedom before I finished
using the last tin.
Message has been deleted
Ian Field
Apr 16, 2013, 1:42:04 PM4/16/13
to
news:g0qqm8t8lv4u2e4dr...@4ax.com...
> "Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Tue, 16 Apr
> Not really a recommended method of lubrication - it may quieten things
> down for a while, but only delays the inevitable.
The main bearings were fucked - it had a useful rev range between 6000 -
9000RPM, any slower and the vibration would have shook the whole bike apart.
The misalignment had shattered the piston rings - most of the grease stopped
the exhaust pipe going rusty.
> "Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Tue, 16 Apr
> down for a while, but only delays the inevitable.
>
>>Took a tin every couple of weeks!
>
> Burning or leaking?
>>Took a tin every couple of weeks!
>
>>
>>Some of the engine's internals made a break for freedom before I finished
>>using the last tin.
>
> That can make life "interesting".
>>Some of the engine's internals made a break for freedom before I finished
>>using the last tin.
>
The main bearings were fucked - it had a useful rev range between 6000 -
9000RPM, any slower and the vibration would have shook the whole bike apart.
The misalignment had shattered the piston rings - most of the grease stopped
the exhaust pipe going rusty.
thirty-six
Apr 16, 2013, 1:48:20 PM4/16/13
to
oh hold on thee's a special name for those who use tinterweb for
same. TROLL
James
Apr 16, 2013, 7:04:38 PM4/16/13
to
want me to read the whole site you wont have any luck. I have far more
important things to be doing.
> But who said that the balls were magically? Or that they stayed
> equally spaced? But apparently they work as they have been in common
> use for some time now. (they seem to have been invented in 1500 by
> Leonardo da Vinci)
>>> If one were buying an ultra light CF bike one would hardly want any
>>> increased starting and running torque :-)
>>
>> You ought to tell the people at Zipp. They spent a lot of time
>> minimising drag in their bearings.
>>
> Are you saying that people with CF bikes want increased starting and
> running torque?
>> Better still, manufacture your own and patent the ultra low starting and
>> running torque bearing.
>
> I really don't believe that you actually read the cited reference.
> Which, by the way, is a fairly large distributor of bearings.
>
friction cage or cageless", and see what you find.
--
JS.
James
Apr 16, 2013, 7:28:55 PM4/16/13
to
certainly how I read your reply. If that was not what you meant, you
were not very clear.
--
JS
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 16, 2013, 7:29:01 PM4/16/13
to
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:48:20 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
<thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>On Apr 16, 11:59锟絘m, J.B.Slocomb <J.B.Sloc...@invalid.addr> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:01:45 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>> I don't think they do. 锟絀 think they bunch up toward the top, leaving a
You must be talking about yourself as I simply quoted from a site that
seems to be somewhat of an expert source on bearings. You then make a
snide remark and I repeat that I only quoted from a source that
appears to be a major bearing distributor.
--
Cheers,
John B.
<thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>On Apr 16, 11:59锟絘m, J.B.Slocomb <J.B.Sloc...@invalid.addr> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:01:45 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>> gap at the bottom, and because they touch and effectively counter
>> >> >>> rotate, there is additional wear and friction between the balls.
>>
>> >> >>> Even if the retainer is poor quality, while it lasts it at least
>> >> >>> attempts to maintain equal spacing between the balls.
>>
>> >> >> But, if the balls jam together wouldn't they also jam against the
>> >> >> retainer sides?
>>
>> >> >More important is the spacing, but ball to ball the relative motion is
>> >> >in the opposite direction.
>>
>> >> >>> I assume cartridge bearings have a better quality retainer, or at least
>> >> >>> if properly sealed the retainer lasts longer.
>>
>> >> >> Some "cartridge bearings" don't have any retainer...
>>
>> >> >I haven't come across any, except perhaps needle rollers in universal
>> >> >joints? 锟紸re they cartridge?
>> >> >>> rotate, there is additional wear and friction between the balls.
>>
>> >> >>> Even if the retainer is poor quality, while it lasts it at least
>> >> >>> attempts to maintain equal spacing between the balls.
>>
>> >> >> But, if the balls jam together wouldn't they also jam against the
>> >> >> retainer sides?
>>
>> >> >More important is the spacing, but ball to ball the relative motion is
>> >> >in the opposite direction.
>>
>> >> >>> I assume cartridge bearings have a better quality retainer, or at least
>> >> >>> if properly sealed the retainer lasts longer.
>>
>> >> >> Some "cartridge bearings" don't have any retainer...
>>
>> >> >I haven't come across any, except perhaps needle rollers in universal
seems to be somewhat of an expert source on bearings. You then make a
snide remark and I repeat that I only quoted from a source that
appears to be a major bearing distributor.
--
Cheers,
John B.
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 17, 2013, 7:17:49 AM4/17/13
to
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:28:55 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I think that you are either a bit confused or that you are reading
something that wasn't written.
I posted a quote from a bearing distributor and provided a reference
to the site. I commented that people with ultra-light bikes probably
didn't want additional frictional forces.
Then 36 says that I had the opportunity to misinterpret... and I
replied that I simply cut and pasted from a major bearing distributor.
And you say that is not clear?
So to be clear, do you believe that the bearing distributor's
statement is incorrect? Or do you believe that people that go to the
bother of buying a very light bike want extra frictional losses?
Or what?
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
something that wasn't written.
I posted a quote from a bearing distributor and provided a reference
to the site. I commented that people with ultra-light bikes probably
didn't want additional frictional forces.
Then 36 says that I had the opportunity to misinterpret... and I
replied that I simply cut and pasted from a major bearing distributor.
And you say that is not clear?
So to be clear, do you believe that the bearing distributor's
statement is incorrect? Or do you believe that people that go to the
bother of buying a very light bike want extra frictional losses?
Or what?
--
Cheers,
John B.
Message has been deleted
Ian Field
Apr 17, 2013, 1:36:55 PM4/17/13
to
news:u2ktm8pv2srlub620...@4ax.com...
> I'm afraid that riding it in that condition was only ever likely to
> have that conclusion.
Would have been nice to have got a whole year out of it though.
> "Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Tue, 16 Apr
> have that conclusion.
Would have been nice to have got a whole year out of it though.
thirty-six
Apr 17, 2013, 4:44:16 PM4/17/13
to
On Apr 17, 6:36 pm, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "Phil W Lee" <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in messagenews:u2ktm8pv2srlub620...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> considered Tue, 16 Apr
> >>news:g0qqm8t8lv4u2e4dr...@4ax.com...
> >>> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> considered Tue, 16 Apr
> >>>>news:7e0pm858rpmmvgop5...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> considered Mon, 15 Apr
> >>>>>>news:hshom8d8q9c12s7cu...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> considered Mon, 15 Apr
it's usual to use oil, and add the "engine additive" MoS2 and after
running to do a ring bed-in then take the engine just shy of being
cooked, keep running for an hour and bring it up almost to cooking
again.
Just realised end of March had the Rover K running on low coolant for
a few months (5 or so). The pressure cap had popped, don't know
when. That had been treated with MoS2 and was running on a synthetic
of 10w40 which was too heavy for JAn to Mar. The head was a bit too
noisy during first couple of minutes of warm-up but I finally checked
the coolant proper after thinking "I must sort out the heater
controls, it's not been working at all this last week".
There was oil in the coolant so the head had shifted after running dry
but all seems good now. The Mos2 and the use of synthetic oil
stopped that car going to the scrappy. HAvn't done a full pressure
check on the system yet. Still been a bit too chilly for me if it
goes wrong.
wrote:
> "Phil W Lee" <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in messagenews:u2ktm8pv2srlub620...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> considered Tue, 16 Apr
> > 2013 18:42:04 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>"Phil W Lee" <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:g0qqm8t8lv4u2e4dr...@4ax.com...
> >>> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> considered Tue, 16 Apr
> >>> 2013 15:19:03 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>>>"Phil W Lee" <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:7e0pm858rpmmvgop5...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> considered Mon, 15 Apr
> >>>>> 2013 20:13:30 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>>>>>"Phil W Lee" <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>news:hshom8d8q9c12s7cu...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> considered Mon, 15 Apr
> >>>>>>> 2013 16:20:35 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>>>>>>>"thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>
running to do a ring bed-in then take the engine just shy of being
cooked, keep running for an hour and bring it up almost to cooking
again.
Just realised end of March had the Rover K running on low coolant for
a few months (5 or so). The pressure cap had popped, don't know
when. That had been treated with MoS2 and was running on a synthetic
of 10w40 which was too heavy for JAn to Mar. The head was a bit too
noisy during first couple of minutes of warm-up but I finally checked
the coolant proper after thinking "I must sort out the heater
controls, it's not been working at all this last week".
There was oil in the coolant so the head had shifted after running dry
but all seems good now. The Mos2 and the use of synthetic oil
stopped that car going to the scrappy. HAvn't done a full pressure
check on the system yet. Still been a bit too chilly for me if it
goes wrong.
Ian Field
Apr 17, 2013, 5:01:11 PM4/17/13
to
>> Would have been nice to have got a whole year out of it though.
>
> it's usual to use oil, and add the "engine additive" MoS2 and after
> running to do a ring bed-in then take the engine just shy of being
> cooked, keep running for an hour and bring it up almost to cooking
> again.
(10W40) oil - it was immediately apparent that the rattling/vibration was
worse.
A quick inspection of the oil filter showed that it was clogged and had
collapsed in the oil pressure, I replaced it with a circular magnet to catch
any ferrous particles and set about thickening what was in the sump by
adding grease.
James
Apr 17, 2013, 6:11:06 PM4/17/13
to
with respect to. I have read other papers that say cageless bearings
run hotter than caged bearings - thus more friction losses in the
cageless variety.
Your statement is correct.
What is your conclusion from the bearing manufacturers statement.
--
JS.
James
Apr 17, 2013, 7:55:28 PM4/17/13
to
diagnostic professional, who said cage less bearings were used only for
high load, low speed applications, so there were more rollers or balls
to carry the load, and only at low speed because of the additional
friction of ball on ball rubbing. That is more friction than a caged
bearing.
--
JS.
thirty-six
Apr 17, 2013, 9:24:34 PM4/17/13
to
On Apr 17, 10:01 pm, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
then I'd still say that one should automatically assume that the rings
need bedding-in to restore running compression and balance between
cylinders. You also get a reasonable impression about the security of
the engine. If it responds quickly then it's likely not been f**ked
with and so generally I consider the engine safe to run continuously
at high revs after 3 more hours running with more hard on-off driving.
Beware that top end toque loss is caused by wide plug gaps (and high
oil pressure). Spark coils are generally too weak for the suggested
manufacturers gap. Many cars for instance have gaps suggested of
0.8mm or more and even with electronic triggering and supposedly high
output coils, this effectively limits the upper end acceleration and
useful top speed in the upper gears. I've not had fouled plugs so see
no need to go over 0.6mm (0.024")with cut-backs.
>
> A quick inspection of the oil filter showed that it was clogged and had
> collapsed in the oil pressure, I replaced it with a circular magnet to catch
> any ferrous particles and set about thickening what was in the sump by
> adding grease.
a real live clanger and you were the soup dragon?
wrote:
> >> Would have been nice to have got a whole year out of it though.
>
> > it's usual to use oil, and add the "engine additive" MoS2 and after
> > running to do a ring bed-in then take the engine just shy of being
> > cooked, keep running for an hour and bring it up almost to cooking
> > again.
>
> The first thing I did when I got it was change the oil with the correct
> (10W40) oil - it was immediately apparent that the rattling/vibration was
> worse.
Well unless you are knowledgable about the sounds using a stethescope
>
> > it's usual to use oil, and add the "engine additive" MoS2 and after
> > running to do a ring bed-in then take the engine just shy of being
> > cooked, keep running for an hour and bring it up almost to cooking
> > again.
>
> The first thing I did when I got it was change the oil with the correct
> (10W40) oil - it was immediately apparent that the rattling/vibration was
> worse.
then I'd still say that one should automatically assume that the rings
need bedding-in to restore running compression and balance between
cylinders. You also get a reasonable impression about the security of
the engine. If it responds quickly then it's likely not been f**ked
with and so generally I consider the engine safe to run continuously
at high revs after 3 more hours running with more hard on-off driving.
Beware that top end toque loss is caused by wide plug gaps (and high
oil pressure). Spark coils are generally too weak for the suggested
manufacturers gap. Many cars for instance have gaps suggested of
0.8mm or more and even with electronic triggering and supposedly high
output coils, this effectively limits the upper end acceleration and
useful top speed in the upper gears. I've not had fouled plugs so see
no need to go over 0.6mm (0.024")with cut-backs.
>
> A quick inspection of the oil filter showed that it was clogged and had
> collapsed in the oil pressure, I replaced it with a circular magnet to catch
> any ferrous particles and set about thickening what was in the sump by
> adding grease.
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 17, 2013, 9:25:58 PM4/17/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
None. I simply offered the distributor's statement as a point to be
considered.
--
Cheers,
John B.
considered.
--
Cheers,
John B.
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 17, 2013, 9:33:28 PM4/17/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:55:28 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
I can't argue other then to comment that high speed and low speed when
referring to bearings may well mean something like:
"our high-speed bearings offer rotation speeds to 500,000 rpm for
high-performance applications..."
Not really applicable to bicycles :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
referring to bearings may well mean something like:
"our high-speed bearings offer rotation speeds to 500,000 rpm for
high-performance applications..."
Not really applicable to bicycles :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
Message has been deleted
Dan O
Apr 18, 2013, 6:52:36 PM4/18/13
to
On Apr 18, 3:38 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06
> Unless you can explain how adding multiple points of sliding contact
> can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact, that
> falls well short of sensible.
>
Well, if the cage itself is ~static relative to the balls' rotation,
maybe it's less sliding force overall than two rolling balls rubbing
against each other (?)
That said, I prefer the idea of loose balls.
>
>
> >Your statement is correct.
>
> >What is your conclusion from the bearing manufacturers statement.
>
> Maybe that you are losing your bearings.
> James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06
> +1000 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 17/04/13 21:17, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:28:55 +1000, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 17/04/13 21:17, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
> can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact, that
> falls well short of sensible.
>
Well, if the cage itself is ~static relative to the balls' rotation,
maybe it's less sliding force overall than two rolling balls rubbing
against each other (?)
That said, I prefer the idea of loose balls.
>
>
> >Your statement is correct.
>
> >What is your conclusion from the bearing manufacturers statement.
>
thirty-six
Apr 18, 2013, 7:52:48 PM4/18/13
to
On Apr 18, 11:38 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06
> +1000 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06
> +1000 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 17/04/13 21:17, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:28:55 +1000, James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com>
> Unless you can explain how adding multiple points of sliding contact
> can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact, that
> falls well short of sensible.
>
Oh what is it with these beliefs? Simple, the uncaged balls run
> can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact, that
> falls well short of sensible.
>
hotter. Show that they run colder and you can sell your special
blessed bearings and your beliefs.
Look, the reason as faras I recollect was said to be that the uncaged
balls tend to roll without spinning and so the lubrication is
deficient. The caged balls do spin and so dispose of wear material
and replensish lubricant AND their wear, which is minimal is spread
over their whole surface. Uncaged balls tend to suffer from
ovalisation (because they don't spin) and fatigue (due to ilessr
lubrication and that they are rolling on a constant axis).
>
>
> >Your statement is correct.
>
> >What is your conclusion from the bearing manufacturers statement.
>
>
> >Your statement is correct.
>
> >What is your conclusion from the bearing manufacturers statement.
>
James
Apr 18, 2013, 8:11:10 PM4/18/13
to
On 19/04/13 08:38, Phil W Lee wrote:
> James<james.e...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06
rolling bearing (ball or roller), then please explain how sliding
contact is avoided when there is no cage to keep the rolling elements
from touching?
Please also explain to me, as I've obviously lost me bearings, why a
google search yields results such as;
"Ball Cage Effect
The early forms of ball bearings were full-ball types without ball
cages. Friction between balls caused loud
noise, made high-speed rotation impossible and shortened the service
life. Twenty years later, a Caged Ball
design was developed for ball bearings. The new design enabled
high-speed rotation at a low noise level,
and extended the service life despite the reduced number of balls used.
It marked a major development in
the history of ball bearings.
Similarly, the quality of needle bearings was significantly improved by
the caged needle structure.
With cage-less, full-ball types of ball bearings, balls make metallic
contact with one another and
produce loud noise. In addition, they rotate in opposite directions,
causing the sliding contact between two
adjacent balls to occur at a speed twice the ball-spinning rate. It
results in severe wear and shortens the
service life.
In addition, without a cage, balls make point contact to increase
bearing stress, thus facilitating
breakage of the oil film. In contrast, each caged ball contacts the cage
over a wide area. Therefore, the oil
film does not break, the noise level is low and balls can rotate at a
high speed, resulting in a long
service life."
(google "site:tech.thk.com Caged Ball SHS")
--
JS.
> James<james.e...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06
> +1000 the perfect time to write:
>> The quote is not clear because it does not define what the increase is
>> with respect to. I have read other papers that say cageless bearings
>> run hotter than caged bearings - thus more friction losses in the
>> cageless variety.
>
>> with respect to. I have read other papers that say cageless bearings
>> run hotter than caged bearings - thus more friction losses in the
>> cageless variety.
>
> Unless you can explain how adding multiple points of sliding contact
> can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact, that
> falls well short of sensible.
What is a design with only rolling contact? If you mean a cage less
> can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact, that
> falls well short of sensible.
rolling bearing (ball or roller), then please explain how sliding
contact is avoided when there is no cage to keep the rolling elements
from touching?
Please also explain to me, as I've obviously lost me bearings, why a
google search yields results such as;
"Ball Cage Effect
The early forms of ball bearings were full-ball types without ball
cages. Friction between balls caused loud
noise, made high-speed rotation impossible and shortened the service
life. Twenty years later, a Caged Ball
design was developed for ball bearings. The new design enabled
high-speed rotation at a low noise level,
and extended the service life despite the reduced number of balls used.
It marked a major development in
the history of ball bearings.
Similarly, the quality of needle bearings was significantly improved by
the caged needle structure.
With cage-less, full-ball types of ball bearings, balls make metallic
contact with one another and
produce loud noise. In addition, they rotate in opposite directions,
causing the sliding contact between two
adjacent balls to occur at a speed twice the ball-spinning rate. It
results in severe wear and shortens the
service life.
In addition, without a cage, balls make point contact to increase
bearing stress, thus facilitating
breakage of the oil film. In contrast, each caged ball contacts the cage
over a wide area. Therefore, the oil
film does not break, the noise level is low and balls can rotate at a
high speed, resulting in a long
service life."
(google "site:tech.thk.com Caged Ball SHS")
--
JS.
Frank Krygowski
Apr 18, 2013, 11:07:37 PM4/18/13
to
On Apr 18, 8:11 pm, James <james.e.stew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/04/13 08:38, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> > James<james.e.stew...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06
> On 19/04/13 08:38, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
I left all my bearing catalogs behind when I retired, but I know for
sure that a bearing's load capacity is increased when the number of
balls increases. For ordinary industrial ball bearings, the type with
the cage is called a Conrad bearing; it's the basic type. The type
that crams an extra ball or two into the groove is called a slot-fill
bearing, or full complement bearing. Its radial load capacity is
definitely higher, due to the higher ball count. (Its axial load
capacity is far lower, due to the groove.)
It may be that caged ball bearings are better for high speeds, but
that has nothing to do with bicycle applications. With the cycling
penchant for light weight, we're more concerned with getting
sufficient load capacity out of the smallest, lightest assembly. That
calls for a full complement of bearing balls.
The SKF site is good for browsing and learning. See
http://www.skf.com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-bearings/deep-groove-ball-bearings/deep-groove-ball-bearings-with-filling-slots/index.html
for example.
- Frank Krygowski
David Scheidt
Apr 18, 2013, 11:50:01 PM4/18/13
to
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Conrad and slot fill bearings are relevant to bearings designed to
carry a purely radial load. Remember, of course, that a cup and cone
bicycle bearing is an angular contact bearing, which can carry radial and
axial loads in different proportion by varying the angles of the races.
Importantly, they can be made as a full complement bearing without
needing the slot for assembly, since they come apart axially. The Conrad
bearing solved James's objection that without a cage, the balls will
move, which does lead to bearing failure. But with a full complement of
balls, you don't need a cage to maintain spacing, since there's no extra
space to dispalce into. The cage is really just for easy of assembly
(and maybe stocking spares). It's often used to reduce the number of
balls in the bearing, but it needn't be.
--
sig 4
carry a purely radial load. Remember, of course, that a cup and cone
bicycle bearing is an angular contact bearing, which can carry radial and
axial loads in different proportion by varying the angles of the races.
Importantly, they can be made as a full complement bearing without
needing the slot for assembly, since they come apart axially. The Conrad
bearing solved James's objection that without a cage, the balls will
move, which does lead to bearing failure. But with a full complement of
balls, you don't need a cage to maintain spacing, since there's no extra
space to dispalce into. The cage is really just for easy of assembly
(and maybe stocking spares). It's often used to reduce the number of
balls in the bearing, but it needn't be.
--
sig 4
James
Apr 19, 2013, 12:15:38 AM4/19/13
to
machinery vibration condition monitoring and fault diagnostic
professional, who said cage less bearings were used only for high load,
low speed applications, so there were more rollers or balls to carry the
load, and only at low speed because of the additional friction of ball
on ball rubbing. That is more friction than a caged bearing."
professional, who said cage less bearings were used only for high load,
low speed applications, so there were more rollers or balls to carry the
load, and only at low speed because of the additional friction of ball
on ball rubbing. That is more friction than a caged bearing."
> For ordinary industrial ball bearings, the type with
> the cage is called a Conrad bearing; it's the basic type. The type
> that crams an extra ball or two into the groove is called a slot-fill
> bearing, or full complement bearing. Its radial load capacity is
> definitely higher, due to the higher ball count. (Its axial load
> capacity is far lower, due to the groove.)
But higher friction with full compliment, which is what I postulated
> the cage is called a Conrad bearing; it's the basic type. The type
> that crams an extra ball or two into the groove is called a slot-fill
> bearing, or full complement bearing. Its radial load capacity is
> definitely higher, due to the higher ball count. (Its axial load
> capacity is far lower, due to the groove.)
before investigating. I said;
"Without a retainer, how do the balls stay evenly spaced around the
cup/cone?
I don't think they do. I think they bunch up toward the top, leaving a
gap at the bottom, and because they touch and effectively counter
rotate, there is additional wear and friction between the balls.
"
up by the ball bearings under it.
> It may be that caged ball bearings are better for high speeds, but
> that has nothing to do with bicycle applications.
> With the cycling
> penchant for light weight, we're more concerned with getting
> sufficient load capacity out of the smallest, lightest assembly. That
> calls for a full complement of bearing balls.
>
> The SKF site is good for browsing and learning. See
> http://www.skf.com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-bearings/deep-groove-ball-bearings/deep-groove-ball-bearings-with-filling-slots/index.html
> for example.
concerned by a few extra grams. ;-)
I looked for a comparison to the bearings that are in my Mavic Hubs
which are a 61901 (12/24/6mm), but I couldn't see a deep groove full
compliment bearing (with filling slots and no cage) of equivalent
dimensions.
https://secure.skf.com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-bearings/deep-groove-ball-bearings/deep-groove-ball-bearings-with-filling-slots/single-row-with-filling-slots-without-cage/index.html
But then considering the bearings in my Miche hubs that are 6001
(12/28/8) being just a few mm larger yet with twice the dynamic load
rating, and nearly 2.5 times the static load rating, it seems sensible
to use just a slightly larger bearing with a cage. It'll have lower
friction and longer life expectancy.
--
JS.
James
Apr 19, 2013, 12:51:27 AM4/19/13
to
On 19/04/13 13:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
from google searches that support their statement.
--
JS
thirty-six
Apr 19, 2013, 6:12:00 AM4/19/13
to
> for example.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
without the spacer the balls are forced against each other and
>
> - Frank Krygowski
ovalise. The bearing has a shorter lifespan whatever speed it turns
unless there is a constant oil feed, in which case it might not matter
with a low speed application and a saving can be made on bearing size,
which is useful when loads are 10 tonnes and bearing speed is below
10rev/min.
When bicycles were oiled before riding the use of unspaced balls was
acceptable but when laziness and Brandtian thoughts of putting money
into the pockets of the oil companies became more prevelant, a belief
was born that bicycle bearings could work without routine attention to
lubrication.
I questioned the notion that bicycles don't need oiling in 1983. It
seemed that bicycle shops were encouraging laziness and with further
experience I found that bearings generally failed within two years,
unless the bicycle was annually serviced. Clever eh?
When a bearing heavily loaded and run at low speed as on a bicycle it
becomes even more important that when grease is used it is
sufficiently fluid at the operating temperature that the balls are
continually wetted. There is also some pumping of a correctly
specified grease which pushes the debris away from the balls and track
and brings in clean lubricant. I have found calcium grease with extra
oil to be most suitable for the wheel and crank bearings. MoS2 can
also be used to help the load capacity and extend bearing life almost
indefinitely as long as routine checks are made that the bearing is
still wet and there is no stiffness or grittiness when examination is
made with a stethescope.
thirty-six
Apr 19, 2013, 6:26:32 AM4/19/13
to
On Apr 19, 4:50 am, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
the cage prevents ovalisation of the balls, it ensures they spin. I
have made the observation of a running bearing myself. Without the
cage, the balls may first appear to bring the lubricant in line with
the tracks but this is simply churning up the grease (putting air into
it) and at 150rpm it is clear that there is an absence of lubricant in
line with the tracks when there is an absence of a cage. Add the
load of the rider and the same bearing is quickly deteriorating. You
may get away with it if you are turning at less than 100rpm.
When Campag cups were easily available there was a simple fix, but all
those shops have now gone from my area and it is necessary for me to
apply the correct lubrication practise to prevent bearing failure. I
use what I know to be correct, based on observation and long term
experience. Greased balls require a cage so that they may spin, but
if you can't afford or have a notional objection to cages (don't we
all?) then you better oil them bearings or leave it hanging on the
wall.
>
> --
> sig 4
have made the observation of a running bearing myself. Without the
cage, the balls may first appear to bring the lubricant in line with
the tracks but this is simply churning up the grease (putting air into
it) and at 150rpm it is clear that there is an absence of lubricant in
line with the tracks when there is an absence of a cage. Add the
load of the rider and the same bearing is quickly deteriorating. You
may get away with it if you are turning at less than 100rpm.
When Campag cups were easily available there was a simple fix, but all
those shops have now gone from my area and it is necessary for me to
apply the correct lubrication practise to prevent bearing failure. I
use what I know to be correct, based on observation and long term
experience. Greased balls require a cage so that they may spin, but
if you can't afford or have a notional objection to cages (don't we
all?) then you better oil them bearings or leave it hanging on the
wall.
>
> --
> sig 4
thirty-six
Apr 19, 2013, 6:29:04 AM4/19/13
to
> > for example.
>
> Really, Frank, I'm surprised by that comment. You shouldn't be
> concerned by a few extra grams. ;-)
>
> I looked for a comparison to the bearings that are in my Mavic Hubs
> which are a 61901 (12/24/6mm), but I couldn't see a deep groove full
> compliment bearing (with filling slots and no cage) of equivalent
> dimensions.
>
> https://secure.skf.com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-be...
>
> Really, Frank, I'm surprised by that comment. You shouldn't be
> concerned by a few extra grams. ;-)
>
> I looked for a comparison to the bearings that are in my Mavic Hubs
> which are a 61901 (12/24/6mm), but I couldn't see a deep groove full
> compliment bearing (with filling slots and no cage) of equivalent
> dimensions.
>
>
> But then considering the bearings in my Miche hubs that are 6001
> (12/28/8) being just a few mm larger yet with twice the dynamic load
> rating, and nearly 2.5 times the static load rating, it seems sensible
> to use just a slightly larger bearing with a cage. It'll have lower
> friction and longer life expectancy.
>
> --
> JS.
but what about Frank's beliefs?
> But then considering the bearings in my Miche hubs that are 6001
> (12/28/8) being just a few mm larger yet with twice the dynamic load
> rating, and nearly 2.5 times the static load rating, it seems sensible
> to use just a slightly larger bearing with a cage. It'll have lower
> friction and longer life expectancy.
>
> --
> JS.
Ian Field
Apr 19, 2013, 9:43:52 AM4/19/13
to
"J.B.Slocomb" <J.B.S...@invalid.addr> wrote in message
news:s35pm8tvkiu5hc5h4...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:29:15 +0100, "Ian Field"
> <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"J.B.Slocomb" <J.B.S...@invalid.addr> wrote in message
>>news:9lnnm892pdf1ajcjk...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:53:37 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 13/04/13 08:13, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2013 3:49 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>>>>>> Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I
>>>>>> sorted through the 'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) -
>>>>>> one had a good rim (so far so good) both had loose spindles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels,
>>>>>> there was only 1 good bearing cage - but between the 2
>>>>>> wheels, there was enough balls to fill one of the grooves
>>>>>> with balls and just a small clearance gap - just like they
>>>>>> did in the old days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use
>>>>>> less ball-bearings with a cage to keep them equal distance
>>>>>> apart - such as the cage is cheaper than a full complement,
>>>>>> or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings cant be
>>>>>> allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone know the answer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Retainers save assembly time which is more expensive than standard
>>>>> grade
>>>>> bearings. Fewer balls merely add to the designer's savings. Full count
>>>>> retainers can be of equal quality to regular loose Grade 25 bearings.
>>>>> Retainers as you describe are usually of poor quality besides being
>>>>> short count.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>On 13/04/13 08:13, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2013 3:49 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>>>>>> Facing the impending need to replace the back wheel, I
>>>>>> sorted through the 'spares' laying about (all 2 of them) -
>>>>>> one had a good rim (so far so good) both had loose spindles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both wheels use caged ball bearings and out of the 2 wheels,
>>>>>> there was only 1 good bearing cage - but between the 2
>>>>>> wheels, there was enough balls to fill one of the grooves
>>>>>> with balls and just a small clearance gap - just like they
>>>>>> did in the old days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I was wondering, is there some special reason to use
>>>>>> less ball-bearings with a cage to keep them equal distance
>>>>>> apart - such as the cage is cheaper than a full complement,
>>>>>> or they use lower grade metal, so the ball bearings cant be
>>>>>> allowed to be in contact with the one next to it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone know the answer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Retainers save assembly time which is more expensive than standard
>>>>> grade
>>>>> bearings. Fewer balls merely add to the designer's savings. Full count
>>>>> retainers can be of equal quality to regular loose Grade 25 bearings.
>>>>> Retainers as you describe are usually of poor quality besides being
>>>>> short count.
>>>>
>>>>Without a retainer, how do the balls stay evenly spaced around the
>>>>cup/cone?
>>>>
>>>>I don't think they do. I think they bunch up toward the top, leaving a
>>>>gap at the bottom, and because they touch and effectively counter
>>>>rotate, there is additional wear and friction between the balls.
>>>>
>>>>cup/cone?
>>>>
>>>>I don't think they do. I think they bunch up toward the top, leaving a
>>>>gap at the bottom, and because they touch and effectively counter
>>>>rotate, there is additional wear and friction between the balls.
>>>>
>>>>Even if the retainer is poor quality, while it lasts it at least
>>>>attempts to maintain equal spacing between the balls.
>>>>
>>> But, if the balls jam together wouldn't they also jam against the
>>> retainer sides?
>>>
>>>>attempts to maintain equal spacing between the balls.
>>>>
>>> But, if the balls jam together wouldn't they also jam against the
>>> retainer sides?
>>>
>>>>I assume cartridge bearings have a better quality retainer, or at least
>>>>if properly sealed the retainer lasts longer.
>>>
>>> Some "cartridge bearings" don't have any retainer...
>>
>>All the retainers I've seen were very cheaply made and had nasty burrs
>>>>if properly sealed the retainer lasts longer.
>>>
>>> Some "cartridge bearings" don't have any retainer...
>>
>>that
>>were tempered along with the component, the cartridge bearings usually
>>have
>>a pair of matching shells that clamp together, the only friction is
>>between
>>the balls and the smooth recesses pressed into the shells.
>>
> If "all the retainers I've seen were very cheaply made" it rather
> implies that the retainers are not an important part of the bearing,
> doesn't it? After all a bearing that is intended to hold the wheel on
> an auto, for example, and that lasts for, say 200,000 Km, and is still
> serviceable, and hasn't been greased since it was originally
> installed, is likely of at least reasonable quality :-)
Maybe the real answer to my question would be; if you were rebuilding a
bicycle hub for your own use, you have both retainers from the old bearing
and also have a plentiful supply of bearing balls ready to hand - would you
re-use the retainers or fill the ball races?
Ian Field
Apr 19, 2013, 9:55:37 AM4/19/13
to
news:e3a54336-0ca2-4cd5...@cm2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
While I take those points on board, it takes a bicycle hub an awful long
time to see as much wear as, say a car hub. In recent experience I've seen
several caged bearings come apart with collapsed cages and no sign of broken
bearing balls, one had been mucked about with but I recently had to rebuild
a bottom bracket caged bearing that for some unknown reason had let its
bearing balls loose in the housing (I know that it was never tampered with).
So far I've only seen this happen in the most extreme cases of severe
corrosion and conspicuously mis-shapen ball bearings when complete filled.
time to see as much wear as, say a car hub. In recent experience I've seen
several caged bearings come apart with collapsed cages and no sign of broken
bearing balls, one had been mucked about with but I recently had to rebuild
a bottom bracket caged bearing that for some unknown reason had let its
bearing balls loose in the housing (I know that it was never tampered with).
So far I've only seen this happen in the most extreme cases of severe
corrosion and conspicuously mis-shapen ball bearings when complete filled.
AMuzi
Apr 19, 2013, 11:22:24 AM4/19/13
to
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
thirty-six
Apr 19, 2013, 1:50:29 PM4/19/13
to
On Apr 19, 2:55 pm, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
I would fatigue them inside 18 months. Have a guess why I learnt
meself about proper lubrication practise and bearing selection.
> In recent experience I've seen
> several caged bearings come apart with collapsed cages and no sign of broken
> bearing balls, one had been mucked about with but I recently had to rebuild
> a bottom bracket caged bearing that for some unknown reason had let its
> bearing balls loose in the housing (I know that it was never tampered with).
not surprising if it was never oiled.
> So far I've only seen this happen in the most extreme cases of severe
> corrosion and conspicuously mis-shapen ball bearings when complete filled.
LAck of oil is the primary reason for excessive wear and fatigue.
Fatigued balls will either split in two (to start with) or they may
crater.
wrote:
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
meself about proper lubrication practise and bearing selection.
> In recent experience I've seen
> several caged bearings come apart with collapsed cages and no sign of broken
> bearing balls, one had been mucked about with but I recently had to rebuild
> a bottom bracket caged bearing that for some unknown reason had let its
> bearing balls loose in the housing (I know that it was never tampered with).
> So far I've only seen this happen in the most extreme cases of severe
> corrosion and conspicuously mis-shapen ball bearings when complete filled.
Fatigued balls will either split in two (to start with) or they may
crater.
Frank Krygowski
Apr 19, 2013, 2:13:53 PM4/19/13
to
> > for example.
>
> Really, Frank, I'm surprised by that comment. You shouldn't be
> concerned by a few extra grams. ;-)
>
> I looked for a comparison to the bearings that are in my Mavic Hubs
> which are a 61901 (12/24/6mm), but I couldn't see a deep groove full
> compliment bearing (with filling slots and no cage) of equivalent
> dimensions.
>
> https://secure.skf.com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-be...
>
> Really, Frank, I'm surprised by that comment. You shouldn't be
> concerned by a few extra grams. ;-)
>
> I looked for a comparison to the bearings that are in my Mavic Hubs
> which are a 61901 (12/24/6mm), but I couldn't see a deep groove full
> compliment bearing (with filling slots and no cage) of equivalent
> dimensions.
>
>
> But then considering the bearings in my Miche hubs that are 6001
> (12/28/8) being just a few mm larger yet with twice the dynamic load
> rating, and nearly 2.5 times the static load rating, it seems sensible
> to use just a slightly larger bearing with a cage. It'll have lower
> friction and longer life expectancy.
Several points here: First, the balls don't seem to bunch up at the
> But then considering the bearings in my Miche hubs that are 6001
> (12/28/8) being just a few mm larger yet with twice the dynamic load
> rating, and nearly 2.5 times the static load rating, it seems sensible
> to use just a slightly larger bearing with a cage. It'll have lower
> friction and longer life expectancy.
top. I just double-checked my memory by taking an old hub, pulling
the bearing dust cap, re-assembing without grease, and watching the
balls as I spun the loaded hub (axle held in a vise, hub loaded from
the bottom as when riding). The gap between the balls is at the top.
I suspected this because I recall hearing the individual balls make a
microscopic click as they fell over the top, as I rolled someone's
bike in my quiet workshop.
Second, it's not clear to me that the lateral force between adjacent
balls is very large at all. Surely it's much smaller than the vertical
load on the balls. If there's not much lateral load, there can't be
much friction loss between the balls.
Third, keep in mind that the proposal to reduce friction by use of a
separator is once again trying to reduce an infinitesmal. In
_Bicycling Science_ 3rd edition, p. 215, the authors point out that
"the drag force due to bearing friction of one whieel is in the
neighborhood of... 0.014 N and is quite negligible compared with a
typical tire rolling resistance of 1 - 3 N. " If you were able to cut
bearing friction in half, you'd be saving 0.007 Newtons per wheel. At
20 mph, that would be a total saving of only 1/8 Watt.
So yet again, if you're trying to make your riding easier or faster,
there are much better places to expend your energy.
- Frank Krygowski
Ian Field
Apr 19, 2013, 2:32:19 PM4/19/13
to
news:081d6d89-24da-4aaf...@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
I actually have a bicycle ancient enough to have an oiling point on the
bottom bracket.
All those I've seen since (including pre-MTB) have been 'factory sealed'
with grease.
bottom bracket.
All those I've seen since (including pre-MTB) have been 'factory sealed'
with grease.
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 19, 2013, 7:53:20 PM4/19/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:43:52 +0100, "Ian Field"
I believe that I would just replace the bearing with the same type of
bearing as was originally fitted :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
bearing as was originally fitted :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 20, 2013, 8:07:53 AM4/20/13
to
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:29:22 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:
>"Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Fri, 19 Apr
>I'd ditch the retainers, and fill the races with good quality balls.
>But then I'm not paying minimum wage to some school-leaver to throw
>the bike together.
>I think the simple answer is that you can get the best result by using
>loose balls, but a reasonable result, particularly using unskilled or
>semi-skilled workers, with retainers. Retainers make it more
>difficult to foul things up.
I suspect that the difference between retainers and bare balls would
be extremely difficult to measure, at least on a machine that is
bowered by a less than 5 H.P. engine at, what is in the bearing world,
extremely low RPM :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>"Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Fri, 19 Apr
>But then I'm not paying minimum wage to some school-leaver to throw
>the bike together.
>I think the simple answer is that you can get the best result by using
>loose balls, but a reasonable result, particularly using unskilled or
>semi-skilled workers, with retainers. Retainers make it more
>difficult to foul things up.
I suspect that the difference between retainers and bare balls would
be extremely difficult to measure, at least on a machine that is
bowered by a less than 5 H.P. engine at, what is in the bearing world,
extremely low RPM :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
thirty-six
Apr 20, 2013, 11:12:55 AM4/20/13
to
On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> considered Fri, 19 Apr 2013
> What forces them against each other?
I'm not submitting an argument for courtroom entertainment, I have not
the words. They just do.
> Why would it force the balls against each other, but somehow not force
> the balls against the spacer?
>
> I've seen more bearings wrecked by a spacer breaking up inside than
> all other causes put together, which doesn't say much for the lifespan
> enhancing properties of the cage.
I've seen more monkeys. Good cages installed correctly with good
balls last.
> The only way MoS2 can extend the life of the bearing is by limiting
> the effects of wear.
> It reduces friction - but if that allows the balls to skid instead of
> roll, it'll make things worse, not better.
Have you been drinking again?
> It's main benefit is in sliding contacts, where friction reduction has
> the greatest benefit.
> Once there's any sliding going on in a roller bearing, you are already
> into damage limitation.
There is always sliding, unless the bearing is getting torn apart,
which is what happens when your banana munching mates run bearings
without a lubricant.
>
> I think you are having trouble understanding the meaning of "high
> speed" in relation to bearings.
You also beleive in Daddy Christmas and the tooth fairy.
> Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed
> that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.
> That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.
I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard
"cycle" grease with loose balls. At the upper riding speeds the
grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.
The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. The
balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail
from fatigue. If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome
balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning
that up.
The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls, as long as they
are spherical, will spin so providing adequate lubrication above 12mph
(chosen from the air).
My regular speeds were up to around 40mph and less frequently 68mph.
I trashed wheel bearings regularly for a few years, more than my mates
probably because I liked those long downhill runs. I gave up on their
(and shop) recommendations as my demands were obviously greater than
the regular racer. I sought out speed. A ball only fill with a
slack grease did not withstand my use, the wheel bearings had to be
either regularly oiled, when ball only, or caged with a slack
grease.
> thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> considered Fri, 19 Apr 2013
I'm not submitting an argument for courtroom entertainment, I have not
the words. They just do.
> Why would it force the balls against each other, but somehow not force
> the balls against the spacer?
>
> I've seen more bearings wrecked by a spacer breaking up inside than
> all other causes put together, which doesn't say much for the lifespan
> enhancing properties of the cage.
I've seen more monkeys. Good cages installed correctly with good
balls last.
> the effects of wear.
> It reduces friction - but if that allows the balls to skid instead of
> roll, it'll make things worse, not better.
Have you been drinking again?
> It's main benefit is in sliding contacts, where friction reduction has
> the greatest benefit.
> Once there's any sliding going on in a roller bearing, you are already
> into damage limitation.
There is always sliding, unless the bearing is getting torn apart,
which is what happens when your banana munching mates run bearings
without a lubricant.
>
> I think you are having trouble understanding the meaning of "high
> speed" in relation to bearings.
You also beleive in Daddy Christmas and the tooth fairy.
> Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed
> that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.
> That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.
I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard
"cycle" grease with loose balls. At the upper riding speeds the
grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.
The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. The
balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail
from fatigue. If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome
balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning
that up.
The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls, as long as they
are spherical, will spin so providing adequate lubrication above 12mph
(chosen from the air).
My regular speeds were up to around 40mph and less frequently 68mph.
I trashed wheel bearings regularly for a few years, more than my mates
probably because I liked those long downhill runs. I gave up on their
(and shop) recommendations as my demands were obviously greater than
the regular racer. I sought out speed. A ball only fill with a
slack grease did not withstand my use, the wheel bearings had to be
either regularly oiled, when ball only, or caged with a slack
grease.
Ian Field
Apr 20, 2013, 11:31:30 AM4/20/13
to
"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:10o3n8pcfqvvugrmp...@4ax.com...
> "Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> considered Fri, 19 Apr
> I'd ditch the retainers, and fill the races with good quality balls.
> But then I'm not paying minimum wage to some school-leaver to throw
> the bike together.
> I think the simple answer is that you can get the best result by using
> loose balls, but a reasonable result, particularly using unskilled or
> semi-skilled workers, with retainers. Retainers make it more
> difficult to foul things up.
Not judging by the number of bearings I've encountered with scrunched
> But then I'm not paying minimum wage to some school-leaver to throw
> the bike together.
> I think the simple answer is that you can get the best result by using
> loose balls, but a reasonable result, particularly using unskilled or
> semi-skilled workers, with retainers. Retainers make it more
> difficult to foul things up.
retainers and balls loose in the housing!
frkr...@gmail.com
Apr 20, 2013, 11:36:51 AM4/20/13
to
> The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls...
And how or why the cage would stop the air bubbles in the grease.
> My regular speeds were up to around 40mph and less frequently 68mph.
> I trashed wheel bearings regularly for a few years, more than my mates
>
> probably because I liked those long downhill runs. I gave up on their
>
> (and shop) recommendations as my demands were obviously greater than
>
> the regular racer. I sought out speed. A ball only fill with a
>
> slack grease did not withstand my use, the wheel bearings had to be
>
> either regularly oiled, when ball only, or caged with a slack
>
> grease.
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
Apr 20, 2013, 11:41:24 AM4/20/13
to
patents have expired now; analogs available cheaply from
Sugino,Tange etc) holds a full count of balls and performs
as well as loose bearings with quicker assembly. No downside
at all.
Many inexpensive designs are just barely functional. We need
to distinguish between significant factors (number of load
points, bearing quality, cup and cone material,
concentricity, hardness and finish etc) and minor factors
such as whether a retainer is supplied in the set.
Confounding all that, Murphy's Law shows us that your
average guy installs retainers backwards about half the
time, a problem with no obvious solution.
Ian Field
Apr 20, 2013, 1:24:48 PM4/20/13
to
"AMuzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:kkucpi$sol$1...@dont-email.me...
the bearing for free rolling without play?!
davethedave
Apr 20, 2013, 4:06:14 PM4/20/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:52:36 -0700, Dan O wrote:
> Well, if the cage itself is ~static relative to the balls' rotation,
> maybe it's less sliding force overall than two rolling balls rubbing
> against each other (?)
>
> That said, I prefer the idea of loose balls.
Me too. I can't stand those lycra shorts. The movement in an enclosed
> Well, if the cage itself is ~static relative to the balls' rotation,
> maybe it's less sliding force overall than two rolling balls rubbing
> against each other (?)
>
> That said, I prefer the idea of loose balls.
space causes much more friction.
--
davethedave
Ian Field
Apr 20, 2013, 5:03:37 PM4/20/13
to
"davethedave" <davedfo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m29b4a...@dtd.zapto.org...
unfurnished basement".
thirty-six
Apr 20, 2013, 7:01:43 PM4/20/13
to
On Apr 20, 4:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:12:55 AM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed
>
> > > that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.
>
> > > That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.
>
> > I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard
>
> > "cycle" grease with loose balls. At the upper riding speeds the
>
> > grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.
>
> > The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. The
>
> > balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail
>
> > from fatigue. If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome
>
> > balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning
>
> > that up.
>
> I'm a little curious how you observed the grease "cavitating" while riding at high speeds.
I did the sensible option and recreated the rotating wheel with the
> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:12:55 AM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed
>
> > > that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.
>
> > > That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.
>
> > I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard
>
> > "cycle" grease with loose balls. At the upper riding speeds the
>
> > grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.
>
> > The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. The
>
> > balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail
>
> > from fatigue. If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome
>
> > balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning
>
> > that up.
>
> I'm a little curious how you observed the grease "cavitating" while riding at high speeds.
dustcap pulled from the left side of the rear wheel, by putting the
bike upside down and turning the cranks. Cor Frank, your training/
conditioning has worked well, hasn't it? Don't you remember running
on the beach naked, in and out of the sea, you know when life was just
great?
> And if you did observe cavitation (did you mean air bubbles in the grease?) why you think it would have a deleterious effect on the lubrication.
setup of lubrication and none lasted 18 months despite fancy teflon-
loaded bicycle specific grease.
>
> > The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls...
>
> And how or why the cage would stop the air bubbles in the grease.
It just does, no-one persuades it either way, it has no auditory or
> > The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls...
>
> And how or why the cage would stop the air bubbles in the grease.
mental capacity. That's just the way it is. Try persuading it with a
cup of chamomile tea if you like. I wasn't too bothered, so left it
be.
>
> > My regular speeds were up to around 40mph and less frequently 68mph.
>
> Even 68 mph works out to only about 850 rpm for a typical bike wheel. In the world of bearing design, that definitely qualifies as low speed. It's below the idling speed of a lot of engines, below what auto, motorcycle and trailer wheels do for many tens of thousands of maintenance-free miles.
an uncaged bearing due to cavitation of grease.
>
> > I trashed wheel bearings regularly for a few years, more than my mates
>
> > probably because I liked those long downhill runs. I gave up on their
>
> > (and shop) recommendations as my demands were obviously greater than
>
> > the regular racer. I sought out speed. A ball only fill with a
>
> > slack grease did not withstand my use, the wheel bearings had to be
>
> > either regularly oiled, when ball only, or caged with a slack
>
> > grease.
>
> Well, I'm glad you found a regimen that works for you. I've tried oiling bearings (and still do a bit of it when I'm too lazy to re-pack a hub) but I eventually decided I didn't care for the seemingly inevitable seepage and resulting dirt accumulation. YMMV.
initially slackened with 3in1 cycle-oil and topping it up every 6
months with a few drops of, latterly, Weldtite cycle oil.
You still must cling to your beliefs eh?
thirty-six
Apr 20, 2013, 7:17:30 PM4/20/13
to
> patents have expired now; analogs available cheaply from
> Sugino,Tange etc) holds a full count of balls and performs
> as well as loose bearings with quicker assembly. No downside
> at all.
bearings had oil holes, the top models were at the hub centre and used
for racing whereby it was simpler to prepare the bike for the race.
>
> Many inexpensive designs are just barely functional. We need
> to distinguish between significant factors (number of load
> points, bearing quality, cup and cone material,
and a lubricant that is up to the job. My budget Sachs and Joytech
hubs are fine, because I cleaned them out of swarf and used my mix of
calcium grease and 3in1 and Weldtite oil.
> concentricity, hardness and finish etc) and minor factors
> such as whether a retainer is supplied in the set.
replacement hubs.
>
> Confounding all that, Murphy's Law shows us that your
> average guy installs retainers backwards about half the
> time, a problem with no obvious solution.
>
thirty-six
Apr 20, 2013, 7:18:13 PM4/20/13
to
On Apr 20, 6:24 pm, "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
maybe you are thinking of ...
wrote:
thirty-six
Apr 20, 2013, 7:18:59 PM4/20/13
to
frkr...@gmail.com
Apr 20, 2013, 9:30:22 PM4/20/13
to
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
> On Apr 20, 4:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:12:55 AM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed
>
> >
>
> > > > that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.
>
> >
>
> > > > That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.
>
> >
>
> > > I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard
>
> >
>
> > > "cycle" grease with loose balls. At the upper riding speeds the
>
> >
>
> > > grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.
>
> >
>
> > > The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. The
>
> >
>
> > > balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail
>
> >
>
> > > from fatigue. If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome
>
> >
>
> > > balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning
>
> >
>
> > > that up.
>
> >
>
> > I'm a little curious how you observed the grease "cavitating" while riding at high speeds.
>
>
>
>
>
> I did the sensible option and recreated the rotating wheel with the
>
> dustcap pulled from the left side of the rear wheel, by putting the
>
> bike upside down and turning the cranks.
Hmm. And that allowed you to observe microscopic bubbles within the opaque grease? Wow.
> On Apr 20, 4:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:12:55 AM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed
>
> >
>
> > > > that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.
>
> >
>
> > > > That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.
>
> >
>
> > > I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard
>
> >
>
> > > "cycle" grease with loose balls. At the upper riding speeds the
>
> >
>
> > > grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.
>
> >
>
> > > The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. The
>
> >
>
> > > balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail
>
> >
>
> > > from fatigue. If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome
>
> >
>
> > > balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning
>
> >
>
> > > that up.
>
> >
>
> > I'm a little curious how you observed the grease "cavitating" while riding at high speeds.
>
>
>
>
>
> I did the sensible option and recreated the rotating wheel with the
>
> dustcap pulled from the left side of the rear wheel, by putting the
>
> bike upside down and turning the cranks.
My first technical job (part time, while in college) was as a hydraulic laboratory technician, so the type of cavitation I'm most familiar with occurs in a restricted intake of a hydraulic pump. Pressure drops below the vapor pressure at certain spots in the flow, the fluid forms micro bubbles which are then pressurized just within the pump. The rapid collapse of the bubbles causes shock waves that eventually erode pump metal. Same thing happens, under slightly different conditions, with some boat propellers, I understand. But cavitation in a bicycle bearing must mean something else, and in any case, I don't see how little bubbles of air would interfere with an oil film on balls or races.
> Cor Frank, your training/
>
> conditioning has worked well, hasn't it? Don't you remember running
>
> on the beach naked, in and out of the sea, you know when life was just
>
> great?
> > And if you did observe cavitation (did you mean air bubbles in the grease?) why you think it would have a deleterious effect on the lubrication.
>
>
>
> I don't need to think it, it does.
> I've ridden the bearings with that
>
> setup of lubrication and none lasted 18 months despite fancy teflon-
>
> loaded bicycle specific grease.
>
> >
>
> > > The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls...
>
> >
>
> > And how or why the cage would stop the air bubbles in the grease.
>
>
>
> It just does, no-one persuades it either way, it has no auditory or
>
> mental capacity. That's just the way it is.
> > Even 68 mph works out to only about 850 rpm for a typical bike wheel. In the world of bearing design, that definitely qualifies as low speed. It's below the idling speed of a lot of engines, below what auto, motorcycle and trailer wheels do for many tens of thousands of maintenance-free miles.
>
>
>
> Yes, it is low-speed for a caged bearing but goes beyond the limits of
>
> an uncaged bearing due to cavitation of grease.
- Frank Krygowski
thirty-six
Apr 20, 2013, 9:52:17 PM4/20/13
to
On Apr 21, 2:30 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 4:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:12:55 AM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed
>
> > > > > that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.
>
> > > > > That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.
>
> > > > I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard
>
> > > > "cycle" grease with loose balls. At the upper riding speeds the
>
> > > > grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.
>
> > > > The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. The
>
> > > > balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail
>
> > > > from fatigue. If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome
>
> > > > balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning
>
> > > > that up.
>
> > > I'm a little curious how you observed the grease "cavitating" while riding at high speeds.
>
> > I did the sensible option and recreated the rotating wheel with the
>
> > dustcap pulled from the left side of the rear wheel, by putting the
>
> > bike upside down and turning the cranks.
>
> Hmm. And that allowed you to observe microscopic bubbles within the opaque grease? Wow.
So f88ing clever you ARE. Just do it. the cavitation is clear, the
> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 4:36 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:12:55 AM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed
>
> > > > > that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.
>
> > > > > That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.
>
> > > > I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard
>
> > > > "cycle" grease with loose balls. At the upper riding speeds the
>
> > > > grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.
>
> > > > The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. The
>
> > > > balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail
>
> > > > from fatigue. If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome
>
> > > > balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning
>
> > > > that up.
>
> > > I'm a little curious how you observed the grease "cavitating" while riding at high speeds.
>
> > I did the sensible option and recreated the rotating wheel with the
>
> > dustcap pulled from the left side of the rear wheel, by putting the
>
> > bike upside down and turning the cranks.
>
> Hmm. And that allowed you to observe microscopic bubbles within the opaque grease? Wow.
grease rises away and the paleness can be seen over a band the area at
least 1/4 width of the balls, in line with the track of the balls.
>
> My first technical job (part time, while in college) was as a hydraulic laboratory technician, so the type of cavitation I'm most familiar with occurs in a restricted intake of a hydraulic pump.
nothing to retain it.
> Pressure drops below the vapor pressure at certain spots in the flow, the fluid forms micro bubbles which are then pressurized just within the pump. The rapid collapse of the bubbles causes shock waves that eventually erode pump metal. Same thing happens, under slightly different conditions, with some boat propellers, I understand. But cavitation in a bicycle bearing must mean something else, and in any case, I don't see how little bubbles of air would interfere with an oil film on balls or races.
>
> > Cor Frank, your training/
>
> > conditioning has worked well, hasn't it? Don't you remember running
>
> > on the beach naked, in and out of the sea, you know when life was just
>
> > great?
>
> I haven't been naked on a beach for almost two years now. But that incident didn't have anything to do with bearings of any kind. Visibility was fine, so I never even needed to know which way was north.
life wasn't great..
>
> > > And if you did observe cavitation (did you mean air bubbles in the grease?) why you think it would have a deleterious effect on the lubrication.
>
> > I don't need to think it, it does.
>
> Ah.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've ridden the bearings with that
>
> > setup of lubrication and none lasted 18 months despite fancy teflon-
>
> > loaded bicycle specific grease.
>
> > > > The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls...
>
> > > And how or why the cage would stop the air bubbles in the grease.
>
> > It just does, no-one persuades it either way, it has no auditory or
>
> > mental capacity. That's just the way it is.
>
> Ah.
>
> > > Even 68 mph works out to only about 850 rpm for a typical bike wheel. In the world of bearing design, that definitely qualifies as low speed. It's below the idling speed of a lot of engines, below what auto, motorcycle and trailer wheels do for many tens of thousands of maintenance-free miles.
>
> > Yes, it is low-speed for a caged bearing but goes beyond the limits of
>
> > an uncaged bearing due to cavitation of grease.
>
> Ah.
>
go and have a tin of beans.
> > > And if you did observe cavitation (did you mean air bubbles in the grease?) why you think it would have a deleterious effect on the lubrication.
>
> > I don't need to think it, it does.
>
> Ah.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've ridden the bearings with that
>
> > setup of lubrication and none lasted 18 months despite fancy teflon-
>
> > loaded bicycle specific grease.
>
> > > > The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls...
>
> > > And how or why the cage would stop the air bubbles in the grease.
>
> > It just does, no-one persuades it either way, it has no auditory or
>
> > mental capacity. That's just the way it is.
>
> Ah.
>
> > > Even 68 mph works out to only about 850 rpm for a typical bike wheel. In the world of bearing design, that definitely qualifies as low speed. It's below the idling speed of a lot of engines, below what auto, motorcycle and trailer wheels do for many tens of thousands of maintenance-free miles.
>
> > Yes, it is low-speed for a caged bearing but goes beyond the limits of
>
> > an uncaged bearing due to cavitation of grease.
>
> Ah.
>
Sir Ridesalot
Apr 21, 2013, 1:45:33 AM4/21/13
to
Cheers
J.B.Slocomb
Apr 21, 2013, 7:12:03 AM4/21/13
to
--
Cheers,
John B.
Ian Field
Apr 21, 2013, 12:37:06 PM4/21/13
to
"Sir Ridesalot" <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:2250b9ef-2cd3-49ad...@googlegroups.com...
out the sprocket carrier bearing long before it gets anywhere near the
spindle cones.
thirty-six
Apr 21, 2013, 1:08:11 PM4/21/13
to
Certainly less than a teaspoon for the initial fill and usually only a
few drops every 6 months after. It's as well to check the grease
fluidity every month of riding and decide whether the grease is
dragging.
Calcium grease is very tenacious stuff, has long chains or summat
(I've forgotton all the technical wordies) and stiffens considerably
as the oils evaporate to create obvious drag in the bearing well
before it becomes substandard at lubrication. For a cycle bearing it
seems ideal. The crank bearing may be checked simply by turning the
crank with one finger near to the bearing Depending on actually how
frequent I have been at riding, oiling, the weather, if i'd left my
bike next to the radiator, bl;ah de blah, this may be a couple of
drops a side every 3 or 4 months or ten if I'd left it a couple of
years or so. It's simple enough to lean the bike according to which
precise bearing one wishes to oil. With oil holes on the hub
dustcaps, it is as well to use them. With the rear wheel i just oil
from the left, leaning the bike to the right the whole time, letting
the oil run through along the hubshell. This also creates a reservoir
of oil in the hubshell making for longer times between oiling. :-)
The key to this simple seemingly infrequent (compared to oiling
alone) attention working so well is the installed calcium grease. If
the wheel or cranks do not spin with a light touch when I go to leave
the house, it's time for the oil can. I put in just enough so that
the bearings are free. It does not matter if there is a little drag
from the grease, it's not enough to notice when riding but it easily
noticable with a wheel free of the ground in that it quickly comes to
a stop. Same when backspinning the cranks. IIRC there was a
recommendation that the cranks should freely turn backwards three
times from a regular speed on a freewheel machine and the wheels
should turn 20 times 9forwards on back wheel).
My crank bearing oil port on my "criterium" bike is simply a small
hole in the middle of the crank bearing liner accessed through the
"aero" bottom bracket shell. I just lift the bike onto the garden
wall and lean it over and give it a short squirt to one side and keep
turning for a couple of minutes turning the bike round to lean the
other way as the grease loosens it's hold. I do it by feel, the
other side may loosen up just through the excess of oil for the first
side. What I have found is that an excess of oil may be squirted in
and as long as the bike is righted as soon as the grease starts to
slacken, it will not take in the excess oil and flood out of the ends.
James
Apr 21, 2013, 6:27:11 PM4/21/13
to
On 19/04/13 13:50, David Scheidt wrote:
spaced, but that they press against one another without a cage, and the
relative motion between the rubbing surfaces is in opposing directions.
The pressure and speed of relative motion is greater than that seen when
there is a cage to keep the balls separated.
It has been noted that full compliment bearings run hotter, and need
better lubrication flow (than a caged bearing) to maintain a lubrication
film between the balls. I.e. there is more friction and wear. The type
of lubrication required for longevity is not so easy to achieve in a
bicycle hub or BB.
--
JS.
> Conrad and slot fill bearings are relevant to bearings designed to
> carry a purely radial load. Remember, of course, that a cup and cone
> bicycle bearing is an angular contact bearing, which can carry radial and
> axial loads in different proportion by varying the angles of the races.
> Importantly, they can be made as a full complement bearing without
> needing the slot for assembly, since they come apart axially. The Conrad
> bearing solved James's objection that without a cage, the balls will
> move, which does lead to bearing failure. But with a full complement of
> balls, you don't need a cage to maintain spacing, since there's no extra
> space to dispalce into. The cage is really just for easy of assembly
> (and maybe stocking spares). It's often used to reduce the number of
> balls in the bearing, but it needn't be.
>
>
My objection was not only that the balls can move and not be evenly
> carry a purely radial load. Remember, of course, that a cup and cone
> bicycle bearing is an angular contact bearing, which can carry radial and
> axial loads in different proportion by varying the angles of the races.
> Importantly, they can be made as a full complement bearing without
> needing the slot for assembly, since they come apart axially. The Conrad
> bearing solved James's objection that without a cage, the balls will
> move, which does lead to bearing failure. But with a full complement of
> balls, you don't need a cage to maintain spacing, since there's no extra
> space to dispalce into. The cage is really just for easy of assembly
> (and maybe stocking spares). It's often used to reduce the number of
> balls in the bearing, but it needn't be.
>
>
spaced, but that they press against one another without a cage, and the
relative motion between the rubbing surfaces is in opposing directions.
The pressure and speed of relative motion is greater than that seen when
there is a cage to keep the balls separated.
It has been noted that full compliment bearings run hotter, and need
better lubrication flow (than a caged bearing) to maintain a lubrication
film between the balls. I.e. there is more friction and wear. The type
of lubrication required for longevity is not so easy to achieve in a
bicycle hub or BB.
--
JS.
James
Apr 21, 2013, 7:38:32 PM4/21/13
to
rub against each other.
With the axle forced down, wouldn't you expect the balls to slide toward
the top of the cup? Perhaps the effect changes with the amount of load
and lubrication? Or perhaps the balls are held at the bottom due to
binding and friction between them - again causing unnecessary wear and
friction.
> Second, it's not clear to me that the lateral force between adjacent
> balls is very large at all. Surely it's much smaller than the vertical
> load on the balls. If there's not much lateral load, there can't be
> much friction loss between the balls.
bearings run hotter than similar caged bearings, and require better
lubrication flow to maintain lubrication film on the bearings where they
rub.
Don't forget the balls surfaces are moving in opposite directions where
they rub. I think they will have trouble rolling freely, and end up
doing more skidding and sliding.
> Third, keep in mind that the proposal to reduce friction by use of a
> separator is once again trying to reduce an infinitesmal.
preference is still for a caged bearing, even if it has to be slightly
larger to achieve the same theoretical static and dynamic load rating.
I will suffer the infinitesimal extra weight in preference for
infinitesimal less friction and measurable longer bearing life. That's
just my choice. You can use full compliment bearings as you like, or
even purple riding shorts ;-)
--
JS
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages