Upgrade, or replace?
Ed Castine
I've got a pair of Rollerblade Burner 212s, I'm fairly happy with them
but I'm thinking of replacing the bearings and wheels to get more
speed. I've already added bearing spacers, which didn't seem to make
much of a difference.
Am I better off with a more performance-oriented skate, or will
upgraded components make my Burners perform? They fit great and I'm
very comfortable in them, so I would love to keep using them. On a
side note, I saw them on sale for $59 yesterday (I paid $99 last
summer, marked down from $149).
I'm thinking that better bearings and taller, harder wheels will get
me where I want to be. Opinions?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Rick Schippers
>I've got a pair of Rollerblade Burner 212s, I'm fairly happy with them
>but I'm thinking of replacing the bearings and wheels to get more
>speed. I've already added bearing spacers, which didn't seem to make
>much of a difference.
The bearings in the burner 212's are fine. If you cleaned them every
now and then, than you should be fine by using them.
If i were you i'd go for a set of larger and maybe a bit harder
wheels. That will definately make some difference. The 74mm 80a wheels
that came with the burner's a are bit small. I use 80mm 82a wheels in
my burner 212's and I'm very happy with that. The bigger size really
makes quite a big difference.
>Am I better off with a more performance-oriented skate, or will
>upgraded components make my Burners perform? They fit great and I'm
>very comfortable in them, so I would love to keep using them. On a
>side note, I saw them on sale for $59 yesterday (I paid $99 last
>summer, marked down from $149).
I got a pair of burner 212's and a pair of Salomon TR8's myself. The
Salomon's are 'faster' skates than the burner's, but i do like the fit
of the burner better than the Salomon's.
If I were you i'd just go for a set of 80mm wheels and use them in
your burners. This way you'll have great skate, with good performance
and it saves you quite a a lot of money for buying other skates.
Rick
I am Nomad
>I've been skating about 2 years now, all recreational and fitness.
>I've got a pair of Rollerblade Burner 212s, I'm fairly happy with them
>but I'm thinking of replacing the bearings and wheels to get more
>speed. I've already added bearing spacers, which didn't seem to make
>much of a difference.
>
>Am I better off with a more performance-oriented skate, or will
>upgraded components make my Burners perform? They fit great and I'm
>very comfortable in them, so I would love to keep using them. On a
>side note, I saw them on sale for $59 yesterday (I paid $99 last
>summer, marked down from $149).
>
>I'm thinking that better bearings and taller, harder wheels will get
>me where I want to be. Opinions?
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
BOTH!!! A comfy boot is a blessing. In fact, so much of a blessing you should
ALSO buy the boots you like if they are on sale, as your present comfy boots
WILL wear out, and you will kick yourself for not having bought the replacement
set.
And then, throw some ABEC-5s in, with some larger wheels of the same hardness.
ZOOM!!!!
Bill Fuhrmann
> now and then, than you should be fine by using them.
> If i were you i'd go for a set of larger and maybe a bit harder
> wheels. That will definately make some difference. The 74mm 80a wheels
> that came with the burner's a are bit small. I use 80mm 82a wheels in
> my burner 212's and I'm very happy with that. The bigger size really
> makes quite a big difference.
Bingo! The difference between ABEC1 and ABEC7 bearings on your speed will
be less than changing to metal spacers which you said you didn't notice.
The wheels will do the most improvement in your skate.
> >upgraded components make my Burners perform? They fit great and I'm
> >very comfortable in them, so I would love to keep using them. On a
> >side note, I saw them on sale for $59 yesterday (I paid $99 last
> >summer, marked down from $149).
Fit and comfort are extremely important.
Skates with longer stiffer frames will improve things but not as noticeable
as the wheels and no where near as cheaply. Of course, longer stiffer
frames PLUS larger, harder wheels will still go faster.
Skates that give you more flexibility in your stride will also help.
The largest thing to improve your speed is to improve YOUR skill. Find a
good fast skater who can teach and have them show you how to stride. You
would be amazed at how many "racers" some people can pass on hard plastic
boot, 4 wheel skates.
> If I were you i'd just go for a set of 80mm wheels and use them in
> your burners. This way you'll have great skate, with good performance
> and it saves you quite a a lot of money for buying other skates.
Ditto. Go for a few more years while working on skills and then find a
better skate that really fits your foot and what you want to do.
WildChild
I just read Rick's post and I agree--you may find yourself preferring the
feel of the old skates over new ones. I'm two weeks into trying to adjust
to a new pair of Salomon TR-9's after years in RB Macroblades. I'm still
more comfortable on the Macros--I can wear em all day but only last about
an hour in the Sallys.....
Get a new set of bearings, good ABEC 3's are all you need but if you're on
a head trip get 5's, and some 80mm/82 or 84 duro wheels and enjoy.
WC
I am Nomad
wrote:
>> The bearings in the burner 212's are fine. If you cleaned them every
>> now and then, than you should be fine by using them.
>> If i were you i'd go for a set of larger and maybe a bit harder
>> wheels. That will definately make some difference. The 74mm 80a wheels
>> that came with the burner's a are bit small. I use 80mm 82a wheels in
>> my burner 212's and I'm very happy with that. The bigger size really
>> makes quite a big difference.
>
>Bingo! The difference between ABEC1 and ABEC7 bearings on your speed will
>be less than changing to metal spacers which you said you didn't notice.
>
Ignore Bill. He thinks that he knows better than the rest of us.
If you want to tell for sure, put some 1s in two wheels, and 5s in the other
two. Then quickly move the blade wheels along a flat surface and pick the whole
skate up. (Like you used to do with your hotwheel cars-remember? "Vroom,
vroom...") Notice how the 1s stop spinning far faster than the 5s? Well, Bill
thinks that is irrelevant, but the rest of us know that bearings which stop
faster eat more energy.
If you want to have real fun, time them out. However much longer the 5s spin is
how much more efficient they are. If they roll twice as long as 1s, they are
consuming half as much of your work in the form of friction. It also means that
in order to maintain the same speed, you will only need to expend half as much
energy with the 5s as with the 1s.
Eric Edwards
>On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:46:12 -0500, "Bill Fuhrmann" <bfuh...@isd.UNKNOWN.net>
>>be less than changing to metal spacers which you said you didn't notice.
>>
>
>Ignore Bill. He thinks that he knows better than the rest of us.
Well, I don't know about "the rest of us", but he seems to know more
than you.
>If you want to tell for sure, put some 1s in two wheels, and 5s in the other
>two. Then quickly move the blade wheels along a flat surface and pick the whole
>skate up. (Like you used to do with your hotwheel cars-remember? "Vroom,
>vroom...") Notice how the 1s stop spinning far faster than the 5s?
No, actually. I don't. Because, they don't. By far the biggest
difference between bearings is the lubricant. Put heavy grease in your
ABEC7's and they'll be slow. Put light oil in your ABEC1's and they'll
be very fast. From experience, I can tell you that (with stock lube),
Terminator ABEC3's are much faster than Killer Bee ABEC5's. I've taken
*unrated*, not even ABEC1, sealed bearings and made them as fast as my
Zerodrag ABEC5's, simply by replacing the heavy grease with light oil.
If you have more time than money, I recommend cleaning out the grease and
replacing it with light oil. If you have more money than time, get some
SKF's. They're fast out of the box and because they're greased and have
rubber seals, they stay that way for a long time. NTN's are cheaper
(but still not cheap) and probably last even longer (rubber seals on
both sides) but they're stock lube is a little slower.
--
Real courtesy requires human effort and understanding.
Never let your machine or your habit send courtesy copies.
Duncan Clarke
>
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:46:12 -0500, "Bill Fuhrmann" <bfuh...@isd.UNKNOWN.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Bingo! The difference between ABEC1 and ABEC7 bearings on your speed will
> >be less than changing to metal spacers which you said you didn't notice.
>
> Ignore Bill. He thinks that he knows better than the rest of us.
And you know more than the manufacturers?
http://www.minibearings.com.au/skate.htm
> If you want to tell for sure, put some 1s in two wheels, and 5s in the other
> two. Then quickly move the blade wheels along a flat surface and pick the whole
> skate up. (Like you used to do with your hotwheel cars-remember? "Vroom,
> vroom...") Notice how the 1s stop spinning far faster than the 5s? Well, Bill
> thinks that is irrelevant, but the rest of us know that bearings which stop
> faster eat more energy.
>
> If you want to have real fun, time them out. However much longer the 5s spin is
> how much more efficient they are. If they roll twice as long as 1s, they are
> consuming half as much of your work in the form of friction. It also means that
> in order to maintain the same speed, you will only need to expend half as much
> energy with the 5s as with the 1s.
So you think the unloaded weight is that important? OK, try this
experiment with oil lubricated ABEC 1 bearings, and compare them to
grease packed ABEC 5's and you will see the opposite.
Please stop discussing issues about which you have no clue.
Looks like Darrell Cosgrove and johns have company...
--
Duncan Clarke --> Inline skating & Air Cooled VW's
http://inlineskate.co.uk - http://bugrunners.co.uk
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.14 - uptime: 19:30 5 users - SETI work units: 808
Rick Schippers
>
>two. Then quickly move the blade wheels along a flat surface and pick the whole
>skate up. (Like you used to do with your hotwheel cars-remember? "Vroom,
>vroom...") Notice how the 1s stop spinning far faster than the 5s? Well, Bill
>thinks that is irrelevant, but the rest of us know that bearings which stop
>faster eat more energy.
In my opinion this is a load of crap :) I have skated with the
bearings that came with the burner 212's (Abec 3 killerbees) and i
have also put in some SKF ABEC5 bearings that came with my Salomon
TR8's, which are wideley considered some of the best bearings you can
get. The difference between thos is hardly noticable! Changing the
wheel size / hardness however makes a huge difference!
>If you want to have real fun, time them out. However much longer the 5s spin is
>how much more efficient they are. If they roll twice as long as 1s, they are
>consuming half as much of your work in the form of friction. It also means that
>in order to maintain the same speed, you will only need to expend half as much
>energy with the 5s as with the 1s.
This really is crap! Performance of bearings under pressure (Your
body-weight) and the stress of the stride, is TOTALLY different than
performance without any pressure.
The Abec 3 killerbees that came with the burner 212's really are good
bearings, if you did some maintenance on them every now and then,
there's really no need to replace them.
Rick
Rick Schippers
>No, actually. I don't. Because, they don't. By far the biggest
>difference between bearings is the lubricant. Put heavy grease in your
>ABEC7's and they'll be slow. Put light oil in your ABEC1's and they'll
>be very fast. From experience, I can tell you that (with stock lube),
>Terminator ABEC3's are much faster than Killer Bee ABEC5's. I've taken
>*unrated*, not even ABEC1, sealed bearings and made them as fast as my
>Zerodrag ABEC5's, simply by replacing the heavy grease with light oil.
Replacing the thick grease with a light oil (i use teflon spray with
ptfe myself, but any speed oil you can get in a skate store should
work fine) will make some difference, however not that much either.
Light oiled bearings are a bit faster, but they do require a bit more
maintenance than thick greased bearings. That's probably why most
skate manufacturers pack their bearings with thick grease.
Rick
Bill Fuhrmann
> Please stop discussing issues about which you have no clue.
>
> Looks like Darrell Cosgrove and johns have company..
Thank you. However, like Darrell and Johns, he knows all and cannot
possibly be wrong even after being corrected by unanimous acclimation of the
people on the group.
Ed Castine
get some new wheels and try a lighter oil next time I clean my
bearings. And please try to get along better, you guys bicker worse
than my kids :-)
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:31:23 -0400, Ed Castine <ecas...@navisite.com>
wrote:
>I've been skating about 2 years now, all recreational and fitness.
>I've got a pair of Rollerblade Burner 212s, I'm fairly happy with them
>but I'm thinking of replacing the bearings and wheels to get more
>speed. I've already added bearing spacers, which didn't seem to make
>much of a difference.
>
>Am I better off with a more performance-oriented skate, or will
>upgraded components make my Burners perform? They fit great and I'm
>very comfortable in them, so I would love to keep using them. On a
>side note, I saw them on sale for $59 yesterday (I paid $99 last
>summer, marked down from $149).
>
I am Nomad
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 23:07:14 -0400, I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:46:12 -0500, "Bill Fuhrmann" <bfuh...@isd.UNKNOWN.net>
>>>Bingo! The difference between ABEC1 and ABEC7 bearings on your speed will
>>>be less than changing to metal spacers which you said you didn't notice.
>>>
>>
>>Ignore Bill. He thinks that he knows better than the rest of us.
>
>Well, I don't know about "the rest of us", but he seems to know more
>than you.
>
If "know" means "guesses based upon personal conjecture", yeah, I guess he
knows a LOT more than I ever will.
Do the test with the bearings. Compare the roll times. At that point you have
hard numbers to work with.
I am Nomad
<dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>I am Nomad wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:46:12 -0500, "Bill Fuhrmann" <bfuh...@isd.UNKNOWN.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bingo! The difference between ABEC1 and ABEC7 bearings on your speed will
>> >be less than changing to metal spacers which you said you didn't notice.
>>
>> Ignore Bill. He thinks that he knows better than the rest of us.
>
>And you know more than the manufacturers?
>
>http://www.minibearings.com.au/skate.htm
>
I encourage EVERYONE to follow this link, as it shows the true nature of this
"manufacturer." They admit that they have done NO scientific studies, but think
bearings are irrelevant.
In short, just the kind of "research" that people like Bill and Duncan
love--sheer conjecture.
Of course, their advice is to buy the cheapest bearings possible, as they wear
out quickly, and then proceed to sell you their cheap bearings...
Wow! With scientific studies like that, who needs math?
I am Nomad
wrote:
>>Ignore Bill. He thinks that he knows better than the rest of us.
>>
>>If you want to tell for sure, put some 1s in two wheels, and 5s in the other
>>two. Then quickly move the blade wheels along a flat surface and pick the whole
>>skate up. (Like you used to do with your hotwheel cars-remember? "Vroom,
>>vroom...") Notice how the 1s stop spinning far faster than the 5s? Well, Bill
>>thinks that is irrelevant, but the rest of us know that bearings which stop
>>faster eat more energy.
>
>In my opinion this is a load of crap :) I have skated with the
>bearings that came with the burner 212's (Abec 3 killerbees) and i
>have also put in some SKF ABEC5 bearings that came with my Salomon
>TR8's, which are wideley considered some of the best bearings you can
>get. The difference between thos is hardly noticable! Changing the
>wheel size / hardness however makes a huge difference!
>
Then do the side by side.
I'll admit that wheels play a major role, but if bearing A eats twice as much
energy as bearing B, it don't take rocket science to know which bearing will
work better for you.
I am Nomad
wrote:
>Duncan Clarke <dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote about I am Nomad :
Probably because being corrected by people who ignore facts just doesn't
impress the knowledgable person all that much...
While people like you and Duncan claim to be the GODS of Skate, I encourage
everyone to throw in different bearings and do their OWN rolling test.
Now, I realize that frightens people like you, because if everyone thought for
themselves, you'd look like idiots instead of self-appointed gurus...
But, you are just going to have to face that fear.
Don't listen to ME, or DUNCAN, or BILL, take your different-rated bearings, and
grease, and do side-by-side rolling tests, as the results are FACT!
I am Nomad
>Much thanks to those who provided useful information. I'm going to
>get some new wheels and try a lighter oil next time I clean my
>bearings. And please try to get along better, you guys bicker worse
>than my kids :-)
>
Hey, I do not suffer fools gladly. Never have, never will.
Eric Edwards
>If "know" means "guesses based upon personal conjecture", yeah, I guess he
>knows a LOT more than I ever will.
>
>Do the test with the bearings. Compare the roll times. At that point you have
>hard numbers to work with.
I have. I've done AB comparisons in actual skating. I've done roll
tests on long, shallow downslopes. I've compared identical bearings with
different lubricants. I have ABEC3's in my inventory that so much
faster than some manufacturers ABEC5's (different lubes of course) that
you can tell the difference just my feel. And the roll tests weren't
close either.
Now I'm asking you: Do you own more than 2 sets of bearings? Do you
own bearings from more than one manufacturer? Have you ever changed the
lubricant in a bearing?
Rick Schippers
>energy as bearing B, it don't take rocket science to know which bearing will
>work better for you.
But that just isn't true! The difference in bearings is very small. Ok
granted if you have el cheapo crap bearings it'll probably make some
differences, but all the bearings the come with the major brand skates
really are ok. And it won't make any noticable difference if you
replace them with Abec 32655745856's
Rick
I am Nomad
>On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 14:13:37 -0400, I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>If "know" means "guesses based upon personal conjecture", yeah, I guess he
>>knows a LOT more than I ever will.
>>
>>Do the test with the bearings. Compare the roll times. At that point you have
>>hard numbers to work with.
>
>I have. I've done AB comparisons in actual skating. I've done roll
>tests on long, shallow downslopes. I've compared identical bearings with
>different lubricants. I have ABEC3's in my inventory that so much
>faster than some manufacturers ABEC5's (different lubes of course) that
>you can tell the difference just my feel. And the roll tests weren't
>close either.
While I would agree that unlike SOME skaters who are in here, you have at least
done some studies. However, these are NOT identical scenarios tests. The cheap
way to assure the SAME spin gets applied to the bearings is to spin them
(both/all) while on the skates.
Besides, can you think of an easier and cheaper way to find out what
bearing/lube combo works best?
>
>Now I'm asking you: Do you own more than 2 sets of bearings?
Yes.
> Do you
>own bearings from more than one manufacturer?
Yes. And I have encountered 5s that were slower than 3s. (Which is why I
suggest sude-by-side.
> Have you ever changed the
>lubricant in a bearing?
No, and I NEVER will. It is simply FAR too expensive!
Bearings are $1.75 to $3.00 each in bulk-cheaper to replace than clean when you
factor in the time.
I am Nomad
wrote:
>>I'll admit that wheels play a major role, but if bearing A eats twice as much
Once again--"common knowledge" passed off as fact. This is what HURTS skating.
To everyone who wants to find the best bearing/lube combinations, simply place
the different ones into the same skate, roll the skate across a flat surface
and pick it up. (This has assured you have applied the same force to all
wheels.) Then compare the amount of times it takes for each wheel to stop
spinning. If bearing(s) A stop spinning in half the time as bearing(s) B, you
now know that the A bearings are half as efficient, or consume twice as much of
your energy.
Jp van Zanten
When I have cleaned my bearings and put them back in the frame or while replaced
by newones, no wheels is turning in the same speed. With the same type of
bearings!!. Due to the fact that settlement of bearings have to take place first.
When you compare oilbearings whith greasebearings, there is a significant
difference too. Altough this can be the same bearings.
How can you give such a test to the people, if you cannot compare the same type of
bearings in this way?
This is nonsense.
Trowing away your bearings when they are dirty too.
Jp
I am Nomad
wrote:
>Hello, I am Nomad,
>
>When I have cleaned my bearings and put them back in the frame or while replaced
>by newones, no wheels is turning in the same speed. With the same type of
>bearings!!. Due to the fact that settlement of bearings have to take place first.
>When you compare oilbearings whith greasebearings, there is a significant
>difference too. Altough this can be the same bearings.
>How can you give such a test to the people, if you cannot compare the same type of
>bearings in this way?
>This is nonsense.
>Trowing away your bearings when they are dirty too.
The reason for the difference in speed is because new lube or not, you have
worn your bearings out differently--i.e. packing bad bearings in good grease
will NOT make them as good as good bearings in good grease.
A lot of the "Gods of Skate" (TM) on this group will tell you that bearings
make no difference whatsoever, and that is pure bullshit. The skating mags all
discuss the better bearings. The REAL pro skaters (who do not have the time for
here) all have bearing preferences when they are interviewed. However, a few
people on here run around claiming that it is all hype. What you should do is
judge for yourself. Next time you are throwing in new bearings, do a little
side-by-side testing. If your results are like me, you will wind up with 5s all
the time--until you get one wet inside, and have to throw on some 3s to until
the new 5s arrive...
But, do not trust the bearings makers, do not trust the skate shops, do not
trust the "Gods of Skate" (TM), do not trust me--do some testing yourself and
get results you CAN trust.
Matthew T. Russotto
I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
}
}Once again--"common knowledge" passed off as fact. This is what HURTS skating.
}To everyone who wants to find the best bearing/lube combinations, simply place
}the different ones into the same skate, roll the skate across a flat surface
}and pick it up. (This has assured you have applied the same force to all
}wheels.) Then compare the amount of times it takes for each wheel to stop
}spinning. If bearing(s) A stop spinning in half the time as bearing(s) B, you
}now know that the A bearings are half as efficient, or consume twice as much of
}your energy.
Try this with a set of dry (unlubricated) bearings. Now try skating
on those. Your test is not particularly useful, as the important
thing is performance under load
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Matthew T. Russotto
I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
}A lot of the "Gods of Skate" (TM) on this group will tell you that bearings
}make no difference whatsoever, and that is pure bullshit. The skating mags all
}discuss the better bearings. The REAL pro skaters (who do not have the time for
}here) all have bearing preferences when they are interviewed.
Yeah, they prefer the bearings made by their sponsors :-)
Jp van Zanten
I am Nomad wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:31:28 +0200, Jp van Zanten <zing...@vanzetti.tmfweb.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello, I am Nomad,
> >
> >When I have cleaned my bearings and put them back in the frame or while replaced
> >by newones, no wheels is turning in the same speed. With the same type of
> >bearings!!. Due to the fact that settlement of bearings have to take place first.
> >When you compare oilbearings whith greasebearings, there is a significant
> >difference too. Altough this can be the same bearings.
> >How can you give such a test to the people, if you cannot compare the same type of
> >bearings in this way?
> >This is nonsense.
> >Trowing away your bearings when they are dirty too.
>
> The reason for the difference in speed is because new lube or not, you have
> worn your bearings out differently--i.e. packing bad bearings in good grease
> will NOT make them as good as good bearings in good grease.
>
> A lot of the "Gods of Skate" (TM) on this group will tell you that bearings
> make no difference whatsoever, and that is pure bullshit. The skating mags all
> discuss the better bearings. The REAL pro skaters (who do not have the time for
> here) all have bearing preferences when they are interviewed. However, a few
> people on here run around claiming that it is all hype. What you should do is
> judge for yourself. Next time you are throwing in new bearings, do a little
> side-by-side testing. If your results are like me, you will wind up with 5s all
> the time--until you get one wet inside, and have to throw on some 3s to until
> the new 5s arrive...
>
> But, do not trust the bearings makers, do not trust the skate shops, do not
> trust the "Gods of Skate" (TM), do not trust me--do some testing yourself and
> get results you CAN trust.
That's why I wrote my story.
Like I said, wether I use cleaned bearings or new bearings it's the same story.
You have always push and pull the wheels to make them run best.
But you never know when it's best, after pushing 1, 2 or 3 times or more.
That's why your test is false.
When you are very happy with your Abec5's that's good. You feel comfortable on them.
But it is not objective.
One (official) test of a German consumersleague said last year that there is
remarkable little difference in the different kind of bearings. While testing
different kind of skates.
And most pro skaters are very religious about there material. (That means they are not
objective).
This winter my girlfriend (a good speedskater) used abec1 oil bearings. Because of the
bad weather. I cleaned them about twice a week.
And they where as good as new, at the end of the winter. Later she switched to better
bearings (Boss abec5, later Boss Titanium) to attend the competition season. She could
not feel the difference. (While she can reach speeds up to 45km). So what do I have to
believe?
We only switched to the titaniumbearings because there quiet rustresistant. But while
80% of the races where held in the rain this year, the bearings had to be cleaned
every time. (Twice a week often).
So trowing them away is a very expensive suggestion you do. Wich is (Maybe) good for
one that cleans bearings twice a year. But not a good general advice.
>
>
> >
> >Jp
> >
I am Nomad
Russotto) wrote:
>In article <qg35pssvdt31spseb...@4ax.com>,
>I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>}
>}Once again--"common knowledge" passed off as fact. This is what HURTS skating.
>}To everyone who wants to find the best bearing/lube combinations, simply place
>}the different ones into the same skate, roll the skate across a flat surface
>}and pick it up. (This has assured you have applied the same force to all
>}wheels.) Then compare the amount of times it takes for each wheel to stop
>}spinning. If bearing(s) A stop spinning in half the time as bearing(s) B, you
>}now know that the A bearings are half as efficient, or consume twice as much of
>}your energy.
>
>Try this with a set of dry (unlubricated) bearings. Now try skating
>on those. Your test is not particularly useful, as the important
>thing is performance under load
You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
better under an identical load???
Rick Schippers
> >Try this with a set of dry (unlubricated) bearings. Now try skating
> >on those. Your test is not particularly useful, as the important
> >thing is performance under load
>
> You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
> better under an identical load???
Under a load the perfomance of the bearings in COMPLETELY different than
in the rolltest you suggest. So yes that could very well be the case.
Rick
Eric Edwards
>Under a load the perfomance of the bearings in COMPLETELY different than
>in the rolltest you suggest. So yes that could very well be the case.
It wouldn't hurt to actually describe in detail where this different
comes from. Personally, I'm skeptical. Any friction present in the
spin test is still going to be there under load. The question really
becomes: what additional sources of friction are present under load that
can completely overwhelm the friction seen in the spin test?
Duncan Clarke
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:11:30 +0000, Rick Schippers <ri...@penguinpowered.com> wrote:
> >Under a load the perfomance of the bearings in COMPLETELY different than
> >in the rolltest you suggest. So yes that could very well be the case.
>
> It wouldn't hurt to actually describe in detail where this different
> comes from. Personally, I'm skeptical. Any friction present in the
> spin test is still going to be there under load. The question really
> becomes: what additional sources of friction are present under load that
> can completely overwhelm the friction seen in the spin test?
Without load, there will be very little friction caused by
metal-on-metal friction. Surface friction is proportional to the normal
force. It is unaffected by the speed of the spin. Unloaded, the normal
will be a total of a few grams, but when skating this is about 100 -
1000 times as great (assuming a perfectly flat surface, and just rolling
[1]).
The major cause of friction in an unloaded bearing is the lubricant.
it's like the bearings are swimming through mud. To highlight this,
take 2 grease packed bearings, and clean all of the grease out of one.
It should now spin for a lot longer than the greased ones. This
frictional force is only dependant on the speed the bearings are
rolling, not the load on them.
[1] - when more load is added to the bearings by pushing on them, or by
hitting bumps on rough surfaces, the friction goes up again accordingly.
--
Duncan Clarke --> Inline skating & Air Cooled VW's
http://inlineskate.co.uk - http://bugrunners.co.uk
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.14 - uptime: 23:36 6 users - SETI work units: 816
Eric Edwards
>On 9 Aug 2000 20:19:01 GMT, ese...@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 14:13:37 -0400, I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>>If "know" means "guesses based upon personal conjecture", yeah, I guess he
>>>knows a LOT more than I ever will.
>>>
>>>Do the test with the bearings. Compare the roll times. At that point you have
>>>hard numbers to work with.
>>
>>I have. I've done AB comparisons in actual skating. I've done roll
>>tests on long, shallow downslopes. I've compared identical bearings with
>>different lubricants. I have ABEC3's in my inventory that so much
>>faster than some manufacturers ABEC5's (different lubes of course) that
>>you can tell the difference just my feel. And the roll tests weren't
>>close either.
>
>While I would agree that unlike SOME skaters who are in here, you have at least
>done some studies. However, these are NOT identical scenarios tests. The cheap
>way to assure the SAME spin gets applied to the bearings is to spin them
>(both/all) while on the skates.
>
>Besides, can you think of an easier and cheaper way to find out what
>bearing/lube combo works best?
The spin test is the only thing you can do in a store and it is better
than nothing. If you already have the bearings, I recommend finding a
long, shallow downslope, preferably with a slight upslope at the end.
Put your skates on and do a roll test. The one that rolls the furthest
wins. If you can't tell for which is better because they're close or
there's a slight breeze then it probably doesn't matter anyway.
>
>>
>>Now I'm asking you: Do you own more than 2 sets of bearings?
>
>Yes.
>
>> Do you
>>own bearings from more than one manufacturer?
>
>Yes. And I have encountered 5s that were slower than 3s. (Which is why I
>suggest sude-by-side.
>
>> Have you ever changed the
>>lubricant in a bearing?
>
>No, and I NEVER will. It is simply FAR too expensive!
You should. If only for the learning experience.
>
>Bearings are $1.75 to $3.00 each in bulk-cheaper to replace than clean when you
>factor in the time.
Depends. Good bearings often come with crappy lubricant. I select
bearings mostly on their ability to resist contamination. Many have
awful designs that leak like sieves. I recently bought a set of
bearings from an industrial source. 6082RS. The design is very similar
to NTN. Looks like a very well made bearing. $0.44/each. The catch?
The grease they come with is slow as molasses. Replace it with oil and
they fly.
And re-lubing isn't really that bad if you have the right bearings to
start with. C-clips are for the birds. Get bearings with rubber seals.
They're trivial to insert and replace and they keep the dirt out much
better than a metal shield.
I'm still looking for something comparable to whatever SKF packs in
their bearings.
Matthew T. Russotto
}Russotto) wrote:
}
}>In article <qg35pssvdt31spseb...@4ax.com>,
}>}To everyone who wants to find the best bearing/lube combinations, simply place
}>}the different ones into the same skate, roll the skate across a flat surface
}>}and pick it up. (This has assured you have applied the same force to all
}>}wheels.) Then compare the amount of times it takes for each wheel to stop
}>}spinning. If bearing(s) A stop spinning in half the time as bearing(s) B, you
}>}now know that the A bearings are half as efficient, or consume twice as much of
}>}your energy.
}>
}>on those. Your test is not particularly useful, as the important
}>thing is performance under load
}
}
}You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
}better under an identical load???
I'm saying it's quite possible, yes. A bearing that spins freely
under no load might well actually bind under load.
I am Nomad
wrote:
>[..]
>
>> >Try this with a set of dry (unlubricated) bearings. Now try skating
>> >on those. Your test is not particularly useful, as the important
>> >thing is performance under load
>>
>> You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
>> better under an identical load???
>
>Under a load the perfomance of the bearings in COMPLETELY different than
>in the rolltest you suggest. So yes that could very well be the case.
>
>Rick
You got any REFERENCES for this conjecture.
I am Nomad
<dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> It wouldn't hurt to actually describe in detail where this different
>> comes from. Personally, I'm skeptical. Any friction present in the
>> spin test is still going to be there under load. The question really
>> becomes: what additional sources of friction are present under load that
>> can completely overwhelm the friction seen in the spin test?
>
>Without load, there will be very little friction caused by
>metal-on-metal friction. Surface friction is proportional to the normal
>force. It is unaffected by the speed of the spin. Unloaded, the normal
>will be a total of a few grams, but when skating this is about 100 -
>1000 times as great (assuming a perfectly flat surface, and just rolling
>[1]).
>
>The major cause of friction in an unloaded bearing is the lubricant.
>it's like the bearings are swimming through mud. To highlight this,
>take 2 grease packed bearings, and clean all of the grease out of one.
>It should now spin for a lot longer than the greased ones. This
>frictional force is only dependant on the speed the bearings are
>rolling, not the load on them.
>
>[1] - when more load is added to the bearings by pushing on them, or by
>hitting bumps on rough surfaces, the friction goes up again accordingly.
>
Sorry Duncan.--not buying the bullshit. You got a VALID reference for any of
this, and HOW bad bearings sans load become better bearings under load OTHER
THAN "it is possible"???
I am Nomad
>On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:12:13 -0400, I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>On 9 Aug 2000 20:19:01 GMT, ese...@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 14:13:37 -0400, I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>>>If "know" means "guesses based upon personal conjecture", yeah, I guess he
>>>>knows a LOT more than I ever will.
>>>>
>>>>Do the test with the bearings. Compare the roll times. At that point you have
>>>>hard numbers to work with.
>>>
>>>I have. I've done AB comparisons in actual skating. I've done roll
>>>tests on long, shallow downslopes. I've compared identical bearings with
>>>different lubricants. I have ABEC3's in my inventory that so much
>>>faster than some manufacturers ABEC5's (different lubes of course) that
>>>you can tell the difference just my feel. And the roll tests weren't
>>>close either.
>>
>>While I would agree that unlike SOME skaters who are in here, you have at least
>>done some studies. However, these are NOT identical scenarios tests. The cheap
>>way to assure the SAME spin gets applied to the bearings is to spin them
>>(both/all) while on the skates.
>>
>>Besides, can you think of an easier and cheaper way to find out what
>>bearing/lube combo works best?
>
>The spin test is the only thing you can do in a store and it is better
>than nothing.
Which is why the "Gods of Skate" here hate it--removes their ability to spew
theory as fact.
> If you already have the bearings, I recommend finding a
>long, shallow downslope, preferably with a slight upslope at the end.
>Put your skates on and do a roll test. The one that rolls the furthest
>wins. If you can't tell for which is better because they're close or
>there's a slight breeze then it probably doesn't matter anyway.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Now I'm asking you: Do you own more than 2 sets of bearings?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>> Do you
>>>own bearings from more than one manufacturer?
>>
>>Yes. And I have encountered 5s that were slower than 3s. (Which is why I
>>suggest sude-by-side.
>>
>>> Have you ever changed the
>>>lubricant in a bearing?
>>
>>No, and I NEVER will. It is simply FAR too expensive!
>
>You should. If only for the learning experience.
>>
>>Bearings are $1.75 to $3.00 each in bulk-cheaper to replace than clean when you
>>factor in the time.
>
>Depends. Good bearings often come with crappy lubricant. I select
>bearings mostly on their ability to resist contamination. Many have
>awful designs that leak like sieves. I recently bought a set of
>bearings from an industrial source. 6082RS. The design is very similar
>to NTN. Looks like a very well made bearing. $0.44/each. The catch?
>The grease they come with is slow as molasses. Replace it with oil and
>they fly.
I am inclined to agree. I just got some Swiss Chromes that are pretty smooth,
until I hit them with the WD-40.
CRUNCH
GRIND
And that was BEFORE I put them in the wheels. (Doing a cleaning job on them.)
>
>And re-lubing isn't really that bad if you have the right bearings to
>start with. C-clips are for the birds. Get bearings with rubber seals.
>They're trivial to insert and replace and they keep the dirt out much
>better than a metal shield.
Yeah--I am beginning to grudgingly admit that the only way to have a good
bearing is to do it yourself...
I am Nomad
Russotto) wrote:
>In article <nrr6pscvjes7cd7vc...@4ax.com>,
>I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>}On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:49:21 GMT, russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T.
>}Russotto) wrote:
>}
>}>In article <qg35pssvdt31spseb...@4ax.com>,
>}>I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>}>}
>}>}Once again--"common knowledge" passed off as fact. This is what HURTS skating.
>}>}To everyone who wants to find the best bearing/lube combinations, simply place
>}>}the different ones into the same skate, roll the skate across a flat surface
>}>}and pick it up. (This has assured you have applied the same force to all
>}>}wheels.) Then compare the amount of times it takes for each wheel to stop
>}>}spinning. If bearing(s) A stop spinning in half the time as bearing(s) B, you
>}>}now know that the A bearings are half as efficient, or consume twice as much of
>}>}your energy.
>}>
>}>Try this with a set of dry (unlubricated) bearings. Now try skating
>}>on those. Your test is not particularly useful, as the important
>}>thing is performance under load
>}
>}
>}You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
>}better under an identical load???
>
>I'm saying it's quite possible, yes. A bearing that spins freely
>under no load might well actually bind under load.
It is also possible for your skate to spontaeously grow wings and take you
flying around town, but I wouldn't wait for it. I also would take the bearings
that spin freely with no load over those that spin like glue under no load and
HOPE they loosen up under a load.
I am Nomad
<dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>Eric Edwards wrote:
>>
>> The spin test is the only thing you can do in a store and it is better
>> than nothing.
>
>As it proves absolutely nothing, it's a waste of time entirely. In
>fact, the worst bearings may spin the best when unloaded, because there
>are huge gaps between the bearings and the races...
>
>--
Once again Duncan tries to have everyone take his word for everything...
Duncan Clarke
>
> The spin test is the only thing you can do in a store and it is better
> than nothing.
As it proves absolutely nothing, it's a waste of time entirely. In
fact, the worst bearings may spin the best when unloaded, because there
are huge gaps between the bearings and the races...
--
Duncan Clarke --> Inline skating & Air Cooled VW's
http://inlineskate.co.uk - http://bugrunners.co.uk
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.14 - uptime: 1 day 8:33 - SETI work units: 817
Jp van Zanten
I am Nomad wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:11:30 +0000, Rick Schippers <ri...@penguinpowered.com>
> wrote:
>
> >[..]
> >
> >> >Try this with a set of dry (unlubricated) bearings. Now try skating
> >> >on those. Your test is not particularly useful, as the important
> >> >thing is performance under load
> >>
> >> You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
> >> better under an identical load???
> >
> >Under a load the perfomance of the bearings in COMPLETELY different than
> >in the rolltest you suggest. So yes that could very well be the case.
> >
> >Rick
>
> You got any REFERENCES for this conjecture.
Can you for yours?
Is your second name Johns?
Jp
Eric Edwards
>On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:40:50 +0100, Duncan Clarke
><dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>>Without load, there will be very little friction caused by
>>metal-on-metal friction. Surface friction is proportional to the normal
>>force. It is unaffected by the speed of the spin. Unloaded, the normal
>>will be a total of a few grams, but when skating this is about 100 -
>>1000 times as great (assuming a perfectly flat surface, and just rolling
>>[1]).
>>
>>The major cause of friction in an unloaded bearing is the lubricant.
>>it's like the bearings are swimming through mud. To highlight this,
>>take 2 grease packed bearings, and clean all of the grease out of one.
>>It should now spin for a lot longer than the greased ones. This
>>rolling, not the load on them.
>>
>>[1] - when more load is added to the bearings by pushing on them, or by
>>hitting bumps on rough surfaces, the friction goes up again accordingly.
>>
>
>Sorry Duncan.--not buying the bullshit. You got a VALID reference for any of
>this,
It's fairly basic physics, actually. No reference should be necessary.
> and HOW bad bearings sans load become better bearings under load OTHER
>THAN "it is possible"???
That's the real question. A mechanism for increased friction from load
has been identified. The magnitude is still unknown. My suspicion
(only a suspicion) is that that magnitude is quite small. "Skate"
bearings are actually intended for industrial machinery. Conventional
wisdom is that industrial loads are much higher those encountered in
skating. If so then it would seem that a bearing that experience
significant binding under skating load would not survive at all in
industrial applications.
Eric Edwards
>Eric Edwards wrote:
>>
>> The spin test is the only thing you can do in a store and it is better
>> than nothing.
>
>As it proves absolutely nothing, it's a waste of time entirely. In
>fact, the worst bearings may spin the best when unloaded, because there
>are huge gaps between the bearings and the races...
I've never seen this happen. Have you? With a new, undamaged bearing?
As bearings go, Swiss bearings are pretty loose. I've never heard
anyone complain about them binding.
The Witless Child
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:51:45 GMT, russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T.
> Russotto) wrote:
>
> >In article <nrr6pscvjes7cd7vc...@4ax.com>,
> >}Russotto) wrote:
> >}
> >}>In article <qg35pssvdt31spseb...@4ax.com>,
> >}>}To everyone who wants to find the best bearing/lube combinations, simply place
> >}>}the different ones into the same skate, roll the skate across a flat surface
> >}>}and pick it up. (This has assured you have applied the same force to all
> >}>}wheels.) Then compare the amount of times it takes for each wheel to stop
> >}>}spinning. If bearing(s) A stop spinning in half the time as bearing(s) B, you
> >}>}now know that the A bearings are half as efficient, or consume twice as much of
> >}>}your energy.
> >}>
> >}>on those. Your test is not particularly useful, as the important
> >}>thing is performance under load
> >}
> >}
> >}You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
> >}better under an identical load???
> >
> >under no load might well actually bind under load.
>
> It is also possible for your skate to spontaeously grow wings and take you
> flying around town, but I wouldn't wait for it. I also would take the bearings
> that spin freely with no load over those that spin like glue under no load and
> HOPE they loosen up under a load.
Where I would choose the smoothest feeling roll regardles of speed.
--
"Thirteen steps, LEADS TO NOWHERE!!!!" PanterA
Duncan Clarke
>
> Sorry Duncan.--not buying the bullshit. You got a VALID reference for any of
> THAN "it is possible"???
OK, if you must. It is basic physics, so I'll use my first year physics
book:
"Physics" published by Addison-Wesley; ISBN: 0201565188
Force of sliding friction between 2 solid bodies =
Coefficient of friction * normal force
(section 7.5, page 127)
Force of fluid friction of body through a viscous liquid =
- drag coefficient of body * coefficient of viscosity * velocity
(section 7.6, page 130)
If you then don't know what to do with these formulae, that is down to
your own ignorance, not my imagination! If you still don't believe me,
go buy the book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201565188/qid=966076113/sr=1-1/026-5084112-8564428
--
Duncan Clarke --> Inline skating & Air Cooled VW's
http://inlineskate.co.uk - http://bugrunners.co.uk
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.14 - uptime: 6:33 4 users - SETI work units: 818
Matthew T. Russotto
Eric Edwards
>In article <tbh9pscu8u6i9d7c8...@4ax.com>,
>I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>}On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:51:45 GMT, russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T.
>}Russotto) wrote:
>}
>}>}
>}>}You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
>}>}better under an identical load???
>}>
>}>I'm saying it's quite possible, yes. A bearing that spins freely
>}>under no load might well actually bind under load.
>}
>}
>}It is also possible for your skate to spontaeously grow wings and take you
>}flying around town, but I wouldn't wait for it. I also would take the bearings
>}that spin freely with no load over those that spin like glue under no load and
>}HOPE they loosen up under a load.
>
>I guess you still haven't tried the dry-bearing test.
Since any bearing can have any or no lubricant, I guess I don't see your
point.
Matthew T. Russotto
Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
}On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 19:25:24 GMT, Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
}>In article <tbh9pscu8u6i9d7c8...@4ax.com>,
}>I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
}>}On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:51:45 GMT, russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T.
}>}Russotto) wrote:
}>}
}>}>}
}>}>}You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
}>}>}better under an identical load???
}>}>
}>}>I'm saying it's quite possible, yes. A bearing that spins freely
}>}>under no load might well actually bind under load.
}>}
}>}
}>}It is also possible for your skate to spontaeously grow wings and take you
}>}flying around town, but I wouldn't wait for it. I also would take the bearings
}>}that spin freely with no load over those that spin like glue under no load and
}>}HOPE they loosen up under a load.
}>
}>I guess you still haven't tried the dry-bearing test.
}
}Since any bearing can have any or no lubricant, I guess I don't see your
}point.
Nomad thinks that you can tell how good a bearing will work by spinning the
wheels on a skate and noteing how long it takes them to stop spinning.
A dry bearing will typically spin much faster than a lubricated
bearing in this test. But try skating on it and it doesn't work too
well.
Eric Edwards
Yes, but the context is new bearings, either not purchased yet or still
returnable. They always have lubricant. If you don't intend to
dump and replace the existing lubricant before use, a spin test is
worth doing. If a skater removes the lubricant and then skates on them
dry and they bind, that's the fault of the skater, not the bearing.
Jp van Zanten
Eric Edwards wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:13:00 GMT, Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
> >In article <slrn8pbadc...@spica.exile.org>,
> >Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
> >}On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 19:25:24 GMT, Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
> >}>I guess you still haven't tried the dry-bearing test.
> >}
> >}Since any bearing can have any or no lubricant, I guess I don't see your
> >}point.
> >
> >Nomad thinks that you can tell how good a bearing will work by spinning the
> >wheels on a skate and noteing how long it takes them to stop spinning.
> >A dry bearing will typically spin much faster than a lubricated
> >bearing in this test. But try skating on it and it doesn't work too
> >well.
>
> Yes, but the context is new bearings, either not purchased yet or still
> returnable.
Well, think of it like the difference between oilbearings and grease bearings.
And imho, different type of grease can cause different types if spinning.
Even when used in the same bearings.
> They always have lubricant. If you don't intend to
> dump and replace the existing lubricant before use, a spin test is
> worth doing.
> If a skater removes the lubricant and then skates on them
> dry and they bind, that's the fault of the skater, not the bearing.
This was not an advice, but a theoretical thing. Just to show that this test always work, but
is false.
But, while the difference in bearings isn't this big, go on. Buy the bearings you like and be
happy with them.
Only thing is, you maybe pay more then necessary
Jp
Eric Edwards
>
>
>Eric Edwards wrote:
>> If a skater removes the lubricant and then skates on them
>> dry and they bind, that's the fault of the skater, not the bearing.
>
>This was not an advice, but a theoretical thing. Just to show that this test always work, but
>is false.
Every test is false. No test is sufficiently complete to cover every
possible condition. That doesn't mean we should give up on testing. In
this case, under and non-lubricated bearings are not known to be sold at
all. The utility of a test can not be reduced, much less eliminated by
a non-occurring exception.
>But, while the difference in bearings isn't this big, go on. Buy the bearings you like and be
>happy with them.
>Only thing is, you maybe pay more then necessary
Not at all. Those who do not test pay more since they are less able to
determine if a cheaper bearing is sufficient.
Even if you're willing to dump and relube, a spin test isn't entirely
useless. If the manufacturer is unwilling to put decent grease in the
bearing then I'm inclined to more closely scrutinize other aspects of
the bearing. And not having to replace the lubricant has value as well.
My time is limited. If I don't have to mess with my bearings, I'd
rather not. My NTN's have in the neighborhood of 3000 miles on them.
They're still on the original lubricant. Still fast too. They cost
$50/set. I have some other bearings that cost $7/set. But the stock
lube is awful. I "charged" the time to clean out and oil the cheap
bearings as an experiment. There's no way to justify it as a cost
savings.
Jp van Zanten
The way you interprete things is completly different from mine.
So I'm not gonna answer all off your statements. Would be a waste of time.
Only thing I can say, is that I bought a set of unlubricatet bearings, with oil inserted in a
package.
They where Boss Titanium.
Luck.
Jp
Eric Edwards wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:04:28 +0200, Jp van Zanten <zing...@vanzetti.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Eric Edwards wrote:
> >> If a skater removes the lubricant and then skates on them
> >> dry and they bind, that's the fault of the skater, not the bearing.
> >
> >This was not an advice, but a theoretical thing. Just to show that this test always work, but
> >is false.
>
> Every test is false. No test is sufficiently complete to cover every
> possible condition. That doesn't mean we should give up on testing. In
> this case, under and non-lubricated bearings are not known to be sold at
> all. The utility of a test can not be reduced, much less eliminated by
> a non-occurring exception.
I bought 2 sets of Boss Titanium unlubricated. They had some oil in the package, But they left it
out, because you could add your own.
I am Nomad
Real fascinating. And your usual style--throw out some physics formulae that
does not apply, and use it as proof.
NOTHING here addresses how bearings get BETTER under load, which is what you
claimed happens.
Skip the bullshit child, you are not dealing with one.
I am Nomad
wrote:
>
>
>I am Nomad wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:11:30 +0000, Rick Schippers <ri...@penguinpowered.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >[..]
>> >
>> >> >Try this with a set of dry (unlubricated) bearings. Now try skating
>> >> >on those. Your test is not particularly useful, as the important
>> >> >thing is performance under load
>> >>
>> >> You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
>> >> better under an identical load???
>> >
>> >Under a load the perfomance of the bearings in COMPLETELY different than
>> >in the rolltest you suggest. So yes that could very well be the case.
>> >
>> >Rick
>>
>> You got any REFERENCES for this conjecture.
>
>Can you for yours?
>Is your second name Johns?
>
>Jp
>
Listen, the RULE of debate is the person ASSERTING the claim is the one who is
required to PROVIDE the references.
If all you can do is hurl insults, I guess we all know how valid YOUR arguments
are.
I am Nomad
>On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 02:31:42 +0100, Duncan Clarke <dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>Eric Edwards wrote:
>>>
>>> The spin test is the only thing you can do in a store and it is better
>>> than nothing.
>>
>>As it proves absolutely nothing, it's a waste of time entirely. In
>>fact, the worst bearings may spin the best when unloaded, because there
>>are huge gaps between the bearings and the races...
>
>I've never seen this happen. Have you? With a new, undamaged bearing?
>As bearings go, Swiss bearings are pretty loose. I've never heard
>anyone complain about them binding.
Forget it. All Duncan ever does is swear he is right, and we should all believe
him because he is a "God of Skate".
I am Nomad
Russotto) wrote:
>In article <slrn8pbadc...@spica.exile.org>,
>Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
>}On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 19:25:24 GMT, Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
>}>In article <tbh9pscu8u6i9d7c8...@4ax.com>,
>}>I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>}>}On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:51:45 GMT, russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T.
>}>}Russotto) wrote:
>}>}
>}>}>}
>}>}>}You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
>}>}>}better under an identical load???
>}>}>
>}>}>I'm saying it's quite possible, yes. A bearing that spins freely
>}>}>under no load might well actually bind under load.
>}>}
>}>}
>}>}It is also possible for your skate to spontaeously grow wings and take you
>}>}flying around town, but I wouldn't wait for it. I also would take the bearings
>}>}that spin freely with no load over those that spin like glue under no load and
>}>}HOPE they loosen up under a load.
>}>
>}>I guess you still haven't tried the dry-bearing test.
>}
>}Since any bearing can have any or no lubricant, I guess I don't see your
>}point.
>
>Nomad thinks that you can tell how good a bearing will work by spinning the
>wheels on a skate and noteing how long it takes them to stop spinning.
>A dry bearing will typically spin much faster than a lubricated
>bearing in this test. But try skating on it and it doesn't work too
>well.
Had Mat ever tried this, he would know a dry bearing spins poorly...
Matthew T. Russotto
Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
}
}Every test is false. No test is sufficiently complete to cover every
}possible condition. That doesn't mean we should give up on testing. In
}this case, under and non-lubricated bearings are not known to be sold at
}all. The utility of a test can not be reduced, much less eliminated by
}a non-occurring exception.
The utility of the test has yet to be established in the first place.
Another confounding factor: Break-in. A greased bearing may be very
stiff when new, but roll very freely after a few hundred rotations.
There's no particular reason to believe spin after break-in is
strongly correlated with spin before break-in.
I am Nomad
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:05:49 -0400, I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>Had Mat ever tried this, he would know a dry bearing spins poorly...
>
>You mean free spin? Dry bearings spin very very well.
Try it some time. Then coat them with WD-40.
You would do well to experiment BEFORE talking.
I am Nomad
<dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>I'm an uneducated fool when it comes to bearings, but even i know that a
>dry bearing spins like a dream. how?? because i have bothered to strip
>and repack bearings. i've seen my killer bees spinning so long, i had to
>sit them back on their axles in the frame, 'cause my arm was too sore to
>hold them any longer.
>
Maybe next time you should give them a coating of a light speed lube, or even
WD-40, so you could learn that they will then spin longer!
God, doesn't ANYONE do a little research before making up their facts?
I am Nomad
<dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>I am Nomad wrote:
>>
>> Real fascinating. And your usual style--throw out some physics formulae that
>> does not apply, and use it as proof.
>
>I have given the proof, and included the formulae.
Stop your fucking lying. As ALWAYS, you have thrown out a related physics rule
and then used it "prove" you are correct.
NOTHING in anything you posted demonstrated how bearings under load could get
worse in one pair and BETTER in another.
Oh, and in case you forget, as you are wont to do, we are discussing SKATE
bearings.
Eric Edwards
>Had Mat ever tried this, he would know a dry bearing spins poorly...
You mean free spin? Dry bearings spin very very well.
--
Eric Edwards
>In article <slrn8pcl2i...@spica.exile.org>,
>Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
>}
>}Every test is false. No test is sufficiently complete to cover every
>}possible condition. That doesn't mean we should give up on testing. In
>}this case, under and non-lubricated bearings are not known to be sold at
>}all. The utility of a test can not be reduced, much less eliminated by
>}a non-occurring exception.
>
>The utility of the test has yet to be established in the first place.
The utility is that lets you find bearings that fast from the start and
don't require "fixing". 'Would have thought that was obvious. If you
don't see a benefit there then there really is nothing more to discuss.
>Another confounding factor: Break-in. A greased bearing may be very
>stiff when new, but roll very freely after a few hundred rotations.
>There's no particular reason to believe spin after break-in is
>strongly correlated with spin before break-in.
Some greased bearings need no break-in at all. Others benefit from
break-in but spin reasonably well from the start. I know I'm not fond
of skating on slow bearings waiting for them to (hopefully) break in.
Are you?
Eric Edwards
>Ha, Eric, you keep surprising me.
>The way you interprete things is completly different from mine.
>So I'm not gonna answer all off your statements. Would be a waste of time.
>Only thing I can say, is that I bought a set of unlubricatet bearings, with oil inserted in a
>package.
>They where Boss Titanium.
The presence of the oil in the packaging with the bearings should have
been a clue that the bearings are meant to be oiled, not used dry.
Matthew T. Russotto
Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
}On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:25:32 GMT, Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
}>In article <slrn8pcl2i...@spica.exile.org>,
}>Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
}>}
}>}Every test is false. No test is sufficiently complete to cover every
}>}possible condition. That doesn't mean we should give up on testing. In
}>}this case, under and non-lubricated bearings are not known to be sold at
}>}all. The utility of a test can not be reduced, much less eliminated by
}>}a non-occurring exception.
}>
}>The utility of the test has yet to be established in the first place.
}
}The utility is that lets you find bearings that fast from the start and
}don't require "fixing". 'Would have thought that was obvious.
Simple, obvious, and wrong. It tests only the most minor contribution
to a bearing's friction, while completely neglecting the major ones.
}>Another confounding factor: Break-in. A greased bearing may be very
}>stiff when new, but roll very freely after a few hundred rotations.
}>There's no particular reason to believe spin after break-in is
}>strongly correlated with spin before break-in.
}
}Some greased bearings need no break-in at all. Others benefit from
}break-in but spin reasonably well from the start. I know I'm not fond
}of skating on slow bearings waiting for them to (hopefully) break in.
}Are you?
Given the amount I skate, a bit of slowness for a mile or less makes very
little difference. All those other miles are a lot more important.
Matthew T. Russotto
Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
}On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 11:18:06 +0200, Jp van Zanten <zing...@vanzetti.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
}>Ha, Eric, you keep surprising me.
}>The way you interprete things is completly different from mine.
}>So I'm not gonna answer all off your statements. Would be a waste of time.
}>Only thing I can say, is that I bought a set of unlubricatet bearings, with oil inserted in a
}>package.
}>They where Boss Titanium.
}
}The presence of the oil in the packaging with the bearings should have
}been a clue that the bearings are meant to be oiled, not used dry.
The Boss Titaniums I have came with a little package of lubricant,
but were greased (actually, it appears to be what's usually called a
"gel") to start with. I'm surprised they ship dry bearings; part of
the reason for shipping them lubed is to protect them during shipment.
But maybe the Titaniums don't have that problem.
Duncan Clarke
>
> Real fascinating. And your usual style--throw out some physics formulae that
> does not apply, and use it as proof.
I have given the proof, and included the formulae. You then asked for
references which I supplied. I have proved my case, you have yet to do
the same. When you can prove that the force of static friction and the
force of fluid friction "do not apply" as I have explained, then please
do so. If you can't then please shut the hell up.
> NOTHING here addresses how bearings get BETTER under load, which is what you
> claimed happens.
Did you not read the preceding article. It states in there the
reasons. As I can now tell that you have NO knowledge of physics, I
will make it easer for you:
As the load on the bearing increases, the static friction increases, but
the force of fluid friction does not. This means that without load, the
largest factor is the fluid friction, dependant on the lubricant,
whereas when loaded, the largest factor is the static friction,
dependant on the bearing itself.
With both good and bad bearings, the friction when loaded is more than
when unloaded. In bad bearings it is MUCH more, but in good bearings it
is only slightly more.
If you can accept this, then could you accept the following scenario is
possible?
| Good bearings with bad lube | Bad Bearings with good lube
---------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------
Unloaded | 20 | 10
Loaded | 25 | 50
When you spin the bearings in the shop, you find how good the lubricant
is, but how can you then infer from this how good the bearing is? You
would have chosen the bad ones in this case.
> Skip the bullshit child, you are not dealing with one.
When you disprove me, or even make an attempt, I will listen but until
then I will ignore your ravings and urge others to do the same.
--
Duncan Clarke --> Inline skating & Air Cooled VW's
http://inlineskate.co.uk - http://bugrunners.co.uk
--
vert - kernel: 2.2.14 - uptime: 1 day 21:09 - SETI work units: 822
dan marshall
dry bearing spins like a dream. how?? because i have bothered to strip
and repack bearings. i've seen my killer bees spinning so long, i had to
sit them back on their axles in the frame, 'cause my arm was too sore to
hold them any longer.
Maybe it should be "I am Moron" ?!?!
John's has definately got competition here. by the way, where are you
johns? i'm sure you'd have some equally good advice.
if you don't know the game you're playing, do us all a favour and don't
play!
d.
> >}>}>}You REALLY think that bearing that are half as good at rest are going to do
> >}>}>}better under an identical load???
> >}>}>
> >}>}>I'm saying it's quite possible, yes. A bearing that spins freely
> >}>}>under no load might well actually bind under load.
> >}>}
> >}>}
> >}>}It is also possible for your skate to spontaeously grow wings and take you
> >}>}flying around town, but I wouldn't wait for it. I also would take the bearings
> >}>}that spin freely with no load over those that spin like glue under no load and
> >}>}HOPE they loosen up under a load.
> >}>
> >}>I guess you still haven't tried the dry-bearing test.
> >}
> >}Since any bearing can have any or no lubricant, I guess I don't see your
> >}point.
> >
> >Nomad thinks that you can tell how good a bearing will work by spinning the
> >wheels on a skate and noteing how long it takes them to stop spinning.
> >A dry bearing will typically spin much faster than a lubricated
> >bearing in this test. But try skating on it and it doesn't work too
> >well.
>
Eric Edwards
>On 14 Aug 2000 00:28:36 GMT, ese...@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:05:49 -0400, I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
I have. They spin very well. When you did it, were your bearings
damaged or something?
Eric Edwards
>In article <slrn8pefq3...@spica.exile.org>,
>Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
>}The utility is that lets you find bearings that fast from the start and
>}don't require "fixing". 'Would have thought that was obvious.
>
>Simple, obvious, and wrong. It tests only the most minor contribution
>to a bearing's friction, while completely neglecting the major ones.
Since we all know that the spin test mostly measures lubrication, you
are saying that lubrication is a minor contributer to friction. You
must use white lithium grease in your bearings, right? After all, it's
just a minor contributer to friction.
>}Some greased bearings need no break-in at all. Others benefit from
>}break-in but spin reasonably well from the start. I know I'm not fond
>}of skating on slow bearings waiting for them to (hopefully) break in.
>}Are you?
>
>Given the amount I skate, a bit of slowness for a mile or less makes very
>little difference. All those other miles are a lot more important.
I have *never* had a greased bearing speed up significantly after a mile
or less. A couple of hundred miles, maybe.
The Witless Child
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:13:48 +1200, dan marshall
> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> >dry bearing spins like a dream. how?? because i have bothered to strip
> >and repack bearings. i've seen my killer bees spinning so long, i had to
> >sit them back on their axles in the frame, 'cause my arm was too sore to
> >hold them any longer.
> >
>
> WD-40, so you could learn that they will then spin longer!
Of course it will. But you infered that dry bearings will spin poorly, which some clearly
don't.
>
> God, doesn't ANYONE do a little research before making up their facts?
Pi**ing hypocrite.
--
"Thirteen steps, LEADS TO NOWHERE!!!!" PanterA
Jp van Zanten
Because you refuse to understand people. A discussion is an interaction between
people.
Jp
I am Nomad wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 02:20:10 +0100, Duncan Clarke
> <dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >I am Nomad wrote:
> >>
> >> Real fascinating. And your usual style--throw out some physics formulae that
> >> does not apply, and use it as proof.
> >
> >I have given the proof, and included the formulae.
>
Matthew T. Russotto
Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
}On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:08:00 GMT, Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
}>In article <slrn8pefq3...@spica.exile.org>,
}>Eric Edwards <ese...@news9.exile.org> wrote:
}>}The utility is that lets you find bearings that fast from the start and
}>}don't require "fixing". 'Would have thought that was obvious.
}>
}>Simple, obvious, and wrong. It tests only the most minor contribution
}>to a bearing's friction, while completely neglecting the major ones.
}
}Since we all know that the spin test mostly measures lubrication, you
}are saying that lubrication is a minor contributer to friction. You
}must use white lithium grease in your bearings, right? After all, it's
}just a minor contributer to friction.
I've used it. Works OK -- better than Black Hole High Performance
Lube, which ain't saying much. The main problem I had with it is the spray
stuff contains a volatile carrier which takes a while to evaporate,
and in the meantime the bearings act almost unlubricated.
}>Given the amount I skate, a bit of slowness for a mile or less makes very
}>little difference. All those other miles are a lot more important.
}
}I have *never* had a greased bearing speed up significantly after a mile
}or less. A couple of hundred miles, maybe.
I've had them loosen up just by spinning by hand for a while. And
after a short amount of skating. After a couple hundred miles, I
doubt any increase in speed is a result of breaking in the lubricant.
I am Nomad
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:18:57 -0400, I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>On 14 Aug 2000 00:28:36 GMT, ese...@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:05:49 -0400, I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>>>>Had Mat ever tried this, he would know a dry bearing spins poorly...
>>>
>>>You mean free spin? Dry bearings spin very very well.
>>
>>
>>Try it some time.
>
>I have. They spin very well. When you did it, were your bearings
>damaged or something?
No--brand new and dry. Then I added WD-40 and they spun a LOT better.
See, the question isn't whether or not they spin when dry, it is whether or not
lubrication helps reduce friction. (If you need more of a clue, look up
"lubricant" in the dictionary.)
I am Nomad
wrote:
>Looks like a monolog to me.
>Because you refuse to understand people. A discussion is an interaction between
>people.
>
>Jp
Oh, I wanted a DEBATE, which is an exchange of ideas, and when done properly,
facts.
If I wanted a discussion based upon emotion and whim, I would talk to my girl
friend.
I am Nomad
wrote:
>I am Nomad wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:13:48 +1200, dan marshall
>> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm an uneducated fool when it comes to bearings, but even i know that a
>> >dry bearing spins like a dream. how?? because i have bothered to strip
>> >and repack bearings. i've seen my killer bees spinning so long, i had to
>> >sit them back on their axles in the frame, 'cause my arm was too sore to
>> >hold them any longer.
>> >
>>
>> Maybe next time you should give them a coating of a light speed lube, or even
>> WD-40, so you could learn that they will then spin longer!
>
>Of course it will. But you infered that dry bearings will spin poorly, which some clearly
>don't.
>
They ALWAYS spin poorly when compared to lubricated.
I am Nomad
>I am Nomad wrote:
>>
>> Real fascinating. And your usual style--throw out some physics formulae that
>> does not apply, and use it as proof.
>
Once again, NONE of this shows HOW it is POSSIBLE for good bearings to go BAD
under load, and bad bearings to go GOOD.
PLEASE! Stop throwing out unrelated THEORY in an attempt to CONFUSE the issue!
We both known you have offered a theory, and NOTHING else.
The Witless Child
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:38:17 +0100, Duncan Clarke
> <dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >I am Nomad wrote:
> >>
> >> this, and HOW bad bearings sans load become better bearings under load OTHER
> >> THAN "it is possible"???
> >
> >OK, if you must. It is basic physics, so I'll use my first year physics
> >book:
> >
> >"Physics" published by Addison-Wesley; ISBN: 0201565188
> >
> >Force of sliding friction between 2 solid bodies =
> > Coefficient of friction * normal force
> > (section 7.5, page 127)
> >
> >Force of fluid friction of body through a viscous liquid =
> > - drag coefficient of body * coefficient of viscosity * velocity
> > (section 7.6, page 130)
> >
> >If you then don't know what to do with these formulae, that is down to
> >your own ignorance, not my imagination! If you still don't believe me,
> >go buy the book:
> >
> >http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201565188/qid=966076113/sr=1-1/026-5084112-8564428
> >
>
> does not apply, and use it as proof.
Aren't you even gonna check the formluae to see if he's using the right ones?
>
> NOTHING here addresses how bearings get BETTER under load, which is what you
> claimed happens.
>
> Skip the bullshit child, you are not dealing with one.
--
The Witless Child
>
> >I am Nomad wrote:
> >>
> >> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm an uneducated fool when it comes to bearings, but even i know that a
> >> >dry bearing spins like a dream. how?? because i have bothered to strip
> >> >and repack bearings. i've seen my killer bees spinning so long, i had to
> >> >sit them back on their axles in the frame, 'cause my arm was too sore to
> >> >hold them any longer.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Maybe next time you should give them a coating of a light speed lube, or even
> >> WD-40, so you could learn that they will then spin longer!
> >
> >Of course it will. But you infered that dry bearings will spin poorly, which some clearly
> >don't.
> >
>
> They ALWAYS spin poorly when compared to lubricated.
Ah, now we see the "comparison" claim.
dan marshall
Just give it up.
And rack off!
d.
dan marshall
poor soul.
Jp van Zanten
Pitty your girlfriend.
Jp
I am Nomad wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 02:20:10 +0100, Duncan Clarke
> >> <dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I am Nomad wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Real fascinating. And your usual style--throw out some physics formulae that
> >> >> does not apply, and use it as proof.
> >> >
> >> >I have given the proof, and included the formulae.
> >>
Juha Happonen
I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote in message
news:jmkgpssa3g7hh5ojf...@4ax.com...
>
> >I am Nomad wrote:
> >>
> >> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm an uneducated fool when it comes to bearings, but even i know that
a
> >> >dry bearing spins like a dream. how?? because i have bothered to strip
> >> >and repack bearings. i've seen my killer bees spinning so long, i had
to
> >> >sit them back on their axles in the frame, 'cause my arm was too sore
to
> >> >hold them any longer.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Maybe next time you should give them a coating of a light speed lube,
or even
> >> WD-40, so you could learn that they will then spin longer!
> >
> >Of course it will. But you infered that dry bearings will spin poorly,
which some clearly
> >don't.
> >
>
> They ALWAYS spin poorly when compared to lubricated.
>
Hi
Yesterday I did some spinning tests with my SKF ABEC 5 bearings. First I
cleaned those carafully to take all that greese out. After drying those I
made some spin test. Without any lubrication those were spinning something
like 30 seconds. After adding one drop of thin oil to the same bearing
spinning was stopped after few rounds and time was something like 3 seconds.
In comparison bethween dry and greased bearing diferece was even bigger. So
to me it's obvious that that these spinning tests in shop don't make any
sense. You are only testing viscosity and amount of grease in your bearings
and that is not really so relevat thing to "study" with your ball bearing
viscosimeter :-).
___
"A theory is something nobody believes, except the person who made it.
An experiment is something everybody believes, except the person who made
it."
Albert Einstein
Ps.
Idiot is a person who belives nothing but knows everything.
Eric Edwards
>to me it's obvious that that these spinning tests in shop don't make any
>sense. You are only testing viscosity and amount of grease in your bearings
>and that is not really so relevat thing to "study" with your ball bearing
>viscosimeter :-).
Unless, the viscosity of the grease *is* what you're trying to measure.
With better protected bearings like SKF, you can go for many months,
possibly years, on the original lubricant.
I am Nomad
wrote:
>I am Nomad wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:38:17 +0100, Duncan Clarke
>> <dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>> >I am Nomad wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sorry Duncan.--not buying the bullshit. You got a VALID reference for any of
>> >> this, and HOW bad bearings sans load become better bearings under load OTHER
>> >> THAN "it is possible"???
>> >
>> >OK, if you must. It is basic physics, so I'll use my first year physics
>> >book:
>> >
>> >"Physics" published by Addison-Wesley; ISBN: 0201565188
>> >
>> >Force of sliding friction between 2 solid bodies =
>> > Coefficient of friction * normal force
>> > (section 7.5, page 127)
>> >
>> >Force of fluid friction of body through a viscous liquid =
>> > - drag coefficient of body * coefficient of viscosity * velocity
>> > (section 7.6, page 130)
>> >
>> >If you then don't know what to do with these formulae, that is down to
>> >your own ignorance, not my imagination! If you still don't believe me,
>> >go buy the book:
>> >
>> >http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201565188/qid=966076113/sr=1-1/026-5084112-8564428
>> >
>>
>> Real fascinating. And your usual style--throw out some physics formulae that
>> does not apply, and use it as proof.
>
>Aren't you even gonna check the formluae to see if he's using the right ones?
He isn't. Here is the magic clue: He never shows HOW the formulae is actually
applied. Duncan is a long time practitioner of baffle them with bullshit, and
you can always tell because he never, ever, shows how the formulae applies to
what he is claiming.
I am Nomad
<dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>You have a girlfriend?!?!?!?
>
>poor soul.
>
Hmmm... I see you have nothing to add to the debate...
I am Nomad
wrote:
>I am Nomad wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:57:31 +0100, The Witless Child <Som...@Somewhere.in.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I am Nomad wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:13:48 +1200, dan marshall
>> >> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I'm an uneducated fool when it comes to bearings, but even i know that a
>> >> >dry bearing spins like a dream. how?? because i have bothered to strip
>> >> >and repack bearings. i've seen my killer bees spinning so long, i had to
>> >> >sit them back on their axles in the frame, 'cause my arm was too sore to
>> >> >hold them any longer.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Maybe next time you should give them a coating of a light speed lube, or even
>> >> WD-40, so you could learn that they will then spin longer!
>> >
>> >Of course it will. But you infered that dry bearings will spin poorly, which some clearly
>> >don't.
>> >
>>
>> They ALWAYS spin poorly when compared to lubricated.
>
>Ah, now we see the "comparison" claim.
Well, what did you THINK we were discussing when discussing lubricants and
load???
I am Nomad
<dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>How many times will it need to be proven before you finally accept it.
>
Hey, I already, and with firm conviction and belief, understand that lubed
bearings spin better than unlubed. (Provided you don't use lube with the
consistency of tar, of course.)
I am Nomad
wrote:
>Words like "fuck off", do not come out of emotions?
>Pitty your girlfriend.
>
Another troll with nothing to add to the debate.
I am Nomad
wrote:
>
>I am Nomad <No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote in message
>news:jmkgpssa3g7hh5ojf...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:57:31 +0100, The Witless Child
><Som...@Somewhere.in.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I am Nomad wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:13:48 +1200, dan marshall
>> >> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I'm an uneducated fool when it comes to bearings, but even i know that
>a
>> >> >dry bearing spins like a dream. how?? because i have bothered to strip
>> >> >and repack bearings. i've seen my killer bees spinning so long, i had
>to
>> >> >sit them back on their axles in the frame, 'cause my arm was too sore
>to
>> >> >hold them any longer.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Maybe next time you should give them a coating of a light speed lube,
>or even
>> >> WD-40, so you could learn that they will then spin longer!
>> >
>> >Of course it will. But you infered that dry bearings will spin poorly,
>which some clearly
>> >don't.
>> >
>>
>> They ALWAYS spin poorly when compared to lubricated.
>>
>
>Hi
>
>Yesterday I did some spinning tests with my SKF ABEC 5 bearings. First I
>cleaned those carafully to take all that greese out. After drying those I
>made some spin test. Without any lubrication those were spinning something
>like 30 seconds. After adding one drop of thin oil to the same bearing
>spinning was stopped after few rounds and time was something like 3 seconds.
>In comparison bethween dry and greased bearing diferece was even bigger. So
>to me it's obvious that that these spinning tests in shop don't make any
>sense. You are only testing viscosity and amount of grease in your bearings
>and that is not really so relevat thing to "study" with your ball bearing
>viscosimeter :-).
>
>
True. Now test them with a LIGHT, SPEED oil, or very light lubricant of any
type. And, that is the whole point of all of this--in order to find out what
works best, you have to do side-by-side testing. If the best oil you have on
hand slows them down, instead of speeding them up, you need new lube IF speed
is your desire.
Of course, the faster the speed, the less the protection. I, for one, prefer to
go faster and have less protection on the bearings. (Christ, the moleskin I
wear on my heels costs more than bearings!)
JFordOrl
my thoughts (all unproven)! Bearings: Dry lubricated bearings do not have as
much internal resistance to turning as oiled, gelled, or greased bearings, so
they spin freely when unloaded. But, they might not last long due to internal
friction when loaded! ABEC rating system: The higher the ABEC rating of a
bearing, the less the internal clearances. Higher ABEC bearings will graunch
with smaller particles in them than lower ABEC bearings. Bearing quality:
Bearing quality depends on the quality of the materials they are made of, and
the quality (precision) of the machining of those materials, as well as the
matching up of piece parts. Wheels: When a person skates their legs are not
always straight up and down, thus the wheels are not always riding
perpendicurlarly to the ground. As you stroke outwards, the leg and foot begin
to tilt outwards, thus increasing the contact between the side of the wheel and
the ground. That side of the wheel is NOT spinning at the same inches per
second. The tip of the wheel is spining or moving at a faster inches per second
than the inner hub of the wheel, thus as you stroke outwards, the grinding
friction on the various parts of the wheel increases. If it were physically
possible, try skating on the sides of the wheels for as far as possible, then
compare this to gliding on just the tip of the wheel with it perpendicular to
the gound - I bet you glide faster and farther! Skating is a DYNAMIC exercise,
and much needs to be taken into account. I am done, sorry for the length!
I am Nomad
<dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>You're an absolute tosser.
>
>when was the last time you added anything of any worth at all to this
>group, except perhaps someone new to laugh at and take to bits...
>
>i can't believe your arrogant approach.
>
>skating doesn't need fools like you.
>
>d.
*yawn*
>
>I am Nomad wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:08:58 +1200, dan marshall
>> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >You have a girlfriend?!?!?!?
>> >
>> >poor soul.
>> >
>>
>> Hmmm... I see you have nothing to add to the debate...
I am Nomad
<dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>You forgot the last bit of that line.
>
>"...when they are under load"
>
>because without it you are simply further showing your blindness.
>
>My advice to anyone reading this is that you should ignore what "I am
>Moron" has to say, and to everyone who is trying to show him what is the
>truth, just give it up and hope he goes away
>
>He's so arrogant, he's never going to listen
>
>that's all
>
>d.
*yawn*
*yawn*
>
>
>I am Nomad wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:00:47 +1200, dan marshall
>> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >How many times will it need to be proven before you finally accept it.
>> >
>>
dan marshall
"...when they are under load"
because without it you are simply further showing your blindness.
My advice to anyone reading this is that you should ignore what "I am
Moron" has to say, and to everyone who is trying to show him what is the
truth, just give it up and hope he goes away
He's so arrogant, he's never going to listen
that's all
d.
I am Nomad wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:00:47 +1200, dan marshall
> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> >How many times will it need to be proven before you finally accept it.
> >
>
dan marshall
when was the last time you added anything of any worth at all to this
group, except perhaps someone new to laugh at and take to bits...
i can't believe your arrogant approach.
skating doesn't need fools like you.
d.
I am Nomad wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:08:58 +1200, dan marshall
> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> >You have a girlfriend?!?!?!?
> >
> >poor soul.
> >
>
> Hmmm... I see you have nothing to add to the debate...
>
dan marshall
I am Nomad wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:05:36 +1200, dan marshall
> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> >You're an absolute tosser.
> >
> >when was the last time you added anything of any worth at all to this
> >group, except perhaps someone new to laugh at and take to bits...
> >
> >i can't believe your arrogant approach.
> >
> >skating doesn't need fools like you.
> >
> >d.
>
> *yawn*
>
> >
The Witless Child
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:28:10 +0100, The Witless Child <Som...@Somewhere.in.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >I am Nomad wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:13:48 +1200, dan marshall
> >> >> <dk...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I'm an uneducated fool when it comes to bearings, but even i know that a
> >> >> >dry bearing spins like a dream. how?? because i have bothered to strip
> >> >> >and repack bearings. i've seen my killer bees spinning so long, i had to
> >> >> >sit them back on their axles in the frame, 'cause my arm was too sore to
> >> >> >hold them any longer.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe next time you should give them a coating of a light speed lube, or even
> >> >> WD-40, so you could learn that they will then spin longer!
> >> >
> >> >Of course it will. But you infered that dry bearings will spin poorly, which some clearly
> >> >don't.
> >> >
> >>
> >> They ALWAYS spin poorly when compared to lubricated.
> >
>
> Well, what did you THINK we were discussing when discussing lubricants and
> load???
You claim dry bearings spin worse than lubricated, but a freshly greased bearing will no
where near spin as long as a dry one when unloaded.
I am Nomad
wrote:
Gee--silly me! I expected you to have enough IQ to know we were discussing a
SPEED lubricant, as opposed to a THINCK and HEAVY bearing PROTECTING lubricant.
My mistake. I know. It is MY fault for assuming you had SOME common sense.
After this long on Usenet, I SHOULD have known better.
The Witless Child
Gee silly me. You expecte me to pay attention to a thread of stupidity, all of which is
caused by you.
>
> My mistake. I know. It is MY fault for assuming you had SOME common sense.
Why do think my name is "The Witless Child" butt-monkey?
>
> After this long on Usenet, I SHOULD have known better.
You wouldn't know irony if it slapped across your face and then ran away.
Jp van Zanten
You all don't understand.
IamNomad is trying to have a DEBATE.
He is not trying to make sense. He is only defending his theories against every attack on them.
He is not emotional, because words are not emotional. As long as you use them for DEBATING.
You all cannot see that IamNomad is a GOD OF DEBATE.
He uses agrassion when it's neccesary, and sweet words when it helps his DEBATE.
He try's to put back statements he made,when the people do not react.
He ignores reason, and doesn't react if he can't disagree.
He doesn't help people with his comments, because this is emotional.
But do not take this personal. It's all for the sake of DEBATE.
Most of us do not understand this, because where living on a lower thinking level. When we discuss
things, we think we need to be right to defend a proposition. Thats low level interaction. But when
you're a GOD OF DEBATE you're above this.
I myself do not like this war of words, but some people like the idea of combat in a newsgroup. And
to me IamNomad is the best.
IamNomad you are really my HERO. I admire your skills of DEBATE so much, I get confused every time I
think about them.
I almost long to DEBATE with you.
Can you please stop now, because otherwise it may cause a real burst out of emotions.
And that would be very UNDEBATICAL.
Prevent me from this sin.
Please????
Your biggest fan,
Jp
P.S. If this where to much words for you, I could make a resumption
If there's nothing you can disagree with, I could making something up.
Just for your pleasure.
Matthew T. Russotto
JFordOrl <jfor...@aol.com> wrote:
}Boy, I tried to stay out of this fray! But, I just couldn't resist. Here are
}my thoughts (all unproven)! Bearings: Dry lubricated bearings do not have as
}much internal resistance to turning as oiled, gelled, or greased bearings, so
}they spin freely when unloaded. But, they might not last long due to internal
}friction when loaded!
True.
}ABEC rating system: The higher the ABEC rating of a
}bearing, the less the internal clearances. Higher ABEC bearings will graunch
}with smaller particles in them than lower ABEC bearings.
Not true. ABEC rates precision, not clearance.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Gordon Sanders
>JFordOrl <jfor...@aol.com> wrote:
>>ABEC rating system: The higher the ABEC rating of a
>>bearing, the less the internal clearances. Higher ABEC bearings will
>>graunch
>>with smaller particles in them than lower ABEC bearings.
>
>Not true. ABEC rates precision, not clearance.
Actually I think that is what he is talking about. Clearance/precision both
being how close the parts are together... low precision/high clearance means
that there would be lots of vibration (relatively speaking) High precision/low
clearance... much tighter lower vibration...
This discussion is getting insane.... we all kow what the correct answer is.
Let's let Nomad continue to live in his fantasy world.
Gordon Sanders
to respond.... please remove my wheels.... :-)
Rick Schippers
<No...@accesstoledo.delSPAMme.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 02:20:10 +0100, Duncan Clarke
><dun...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>>I am Nomad wrote:
>>>
>>> Real fascinating. And your usual style--throw out some physics formulae that
>>> does not apply, and use it as proof.
>>
>>I have given the proof, and included the formulae. You then asked for
>>references which I supplied. I have proved my case, you have yet to do
>>the same. When you can prove that the force of static friction and the
>>force of fluid friction "do not apply" as I have explained, then please
>>do so. If you can't then please shut the hell up.
>>
>>> NOTHING here addresses how bearings get BETTER under load, which is what you
>>> claimed happens.
>>
>>Did you not read the preceding article. It states in there the
>>reasons. As I can now tell that you have NO knowledge of physics, I
>>will make it easer for you:
>>
>>As the load on the bearing increases, the static friction increases, but
>>the force of fluid friction does not. This means that without load, the
>>largest factor is the fluid friction, dependant on the lubricant,
>>whereas when loaded, the largest factor is the static friction,
>>dependant on the bearing itself.
>>
>>With both good and bad bearings, the friction when loaded is more than
>>when unloaded. In bad bearings it is MUCH more, but in good bearings it
>>is only slightly more.
>>
>>If you can accept this, then could you accept the following scenario is
>>possible?
>>
>> | Good bearings with bad lube | Bad Bearings with good lube
>>---------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------
>>Unloaded | 20 | 10
>>Loaded | 25 | 50
>>
>>When you spin the bearings in the shop, you find how good the lubricant
>>is, but how can you then infer from this how good the bearing is? You
>>would have chosen the bad ones in this case.
>>
>>> Skip the bullshit child, you are not dealing with one.
>>
>>When you disprove me, or even make an attempt, I will listen but until
>>then I will ignore your ravings and urge others to do the same.
>>
>Once again, NONE of this shows HOW it is POSSIBLE for good bearings to go BAD
>under load, and bad bearings to go GOOD.
>
>PLEASE! Stop throwing out unrelated THEORY in an attempt to CONFUSE the issue!
>We both known you have offered a theory, and NOTHING else.
>
This abolutely does show exactly what is happening. It is backed up
with the physics, and you dismiss it as irrelevant. This is definately
relevant and shows that your rolltest is absolutely worthless.
Rick