[Classicrendezvous] Re:tuning and evalutating hubs, was Re: smooth hubs

(Example: Framebuilders:Chris Pauley)

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:11:18 -0500
To: PeterGrenader <peterg@ixpres.com>, CYCLESTORE@aol.com
From: "Harvey M Sachs" <sachs@erols.com>
Cc: moos@penn.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <39FDB0FA.8A7E6894@ixpres.com>
References: <a0.b797d44.272de702@aol.com>
Subject: [Classicrendezvous] Re:tuning and evalutating hubs, was Re: smooth hubs

I've been out of town for most of this thread, but hope that a couple of notes will be useful. In no particular order, I'll make the following observations and (in some cases) assertions:

1) If you collect hubs for esthetic reasons, "smoothness" is nice. I like hubs that feel good in the hand. 2) Of course, large flange will "feel" better, because the larger shell has more intertia and coasts down better... 3) For best results in this test, be sure you don't have any close shields (as on "sealed" or cartridge bearing hubs), and use just a bit of oil to lube, not grease.

Now, what about if you actually build up wheels and ride on the hubs? 1) Be sure, if using QR hubs, to set them up a bit loose. To convince yourself, try what I call the Papadopoulos Test: Set up a bare hub "properly" w/o side play. Now, using a couple of wrenches to mimic the fork ends, or just clamp the naked hub in a fork. Spin it . Or try to. The QR skewer compresses the axle pretty strongly. If hubs are not just a bit loose, can bind in use. 2) For riding, I don't think that how easily a hub spins in the hand has anything to do with friction under load. If you are going to test hubs, you will have to load the bearings.

So, this should fan the flames of controversy. Polite controversy, of course. For what it is worth, I use whatever is appropriate on my few vintage bikes, but prefer cartridge bearings for the tandems and modern rides.

harvey sachs mclean Va.

At 10:33 AM 10/30/2000 -0700, PeterGrenader wrote:
>Hi-e......ah, Hi-e. The company I really want to love, but....
>I have had a number of hubsets from Harlan. The first were in the mid
>and the bearings were second to none. The second set were in the 80's and
>purchased with a set of his weirder and weird 200 and some-odd gram
>rivited rims
>and again, the bearing on these hubs were smooth as silk.
>I purchased my third set of Hi-e hubs two years ago for a set of time trial
>wheels I was building up. They were the first that I got with his unique
>freehub design, which is somewhat like the Hugi's and incorporates a
>freehub body
>which is not permanently attached the the hub and is held in place only by the
>quick release, which means is the wheel is out of the bike and the quick
>is removed, when you turn the wheel with the cogside down, the freehub
>body and
>cogs will immediately drop. Personally, I can live with this. If you
>know it's
>part of the design, you acclimate yourself to it's conventions. Also, it
>lubricating the freehub as easy as 1,2...3.
>The problem was the bearings. By comparison, the quality of this third set of
>hubs I received was awful. Very rough. Terribly so. And although the
>rear hub
>is a scant 195 grams which will make most serious weight weenies drool, the
>quality of the ride wasn't worth that thrill.
>Someday I will get around to replacing the factory installed bearings and
>at that
>time I'm sure they'll live up to their technical merit, but as they are,
>out of
>the box, they're almost worthless. Being a big fan of Harlan and his
>products for
>over 25 years I'm very sorry to say this, but that's the way it is.
>Peter Grenader
>CYCLESTORE@aol.com wrote:
> > Hi gang,
> >
> > Oh how a forgot about Hi-E and Weyless as the smooth hub debate will now,
> > certainly continue. Their must have been others that older brains can not
> > remember.
> >
> > Gilbert Anderson
> >
> > In a message dated 10/29/00 8:22:04 PM, moos@penn.com writes:
> >
> > << Ah, Harlan! I should have known the "mad scientist" of US components
> > would have
> > been the one to have actually conducted such a test. Shame to hear
> recently
> > than
> > Harlan is evidently easing into retirement - one of the really innovative
> > thinkers
> > in the industry, but he has certainly "done his time" and deserves to
> retire
> > if he
> > wishes. BTW, not sure my proposal of coupling an electric motor to the
> axle
> > is the
> > best way, since in actual operation, of course, it's the hub shell that
> > rotates
> > while the axle remains stationary. Driving the shell with the motor,
> however,
> > means one must device a more complicated coupling, ideally one with as
> few of
> > its
> > own efficiency issues as possible. Where does one find archives of
> Bicycling
> > Science? Maybe I should just read how Harlan did it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jerry Moos
> >
> > Monkeyman wrote:
> >
> > > >> My vote for the early 70's on smoothness was Campagnolo NR/SR(IT),
> Phil
> > Wood
> > > >> (US), Lambert(UK) and Maxicar(Fr) followed by the early Duraace
> and early
> > > >> Suntour Superbe. Later the field was cloudy as sealed cartridge
> bearing
> > > >> smoothed hubs out over many price ranges. It should be noted that
> Lambert
> > > >> hubs used sealed cartridge bearings.
> > >
> > > None of these are near as smooth as the Hi-E's and Weyless' of the same
> > > time from my view, though the Maxicars are close. If you're looking for
> > > tests on hub "smoothness" and relitive energy loss from the bearings and
> > > their surfaces, I think Harlan (Hi-E) has done them and they were
> published
> > > in Bicycling Science, I think. I also seen that England's Mike
> Burrows is
> > > working on some testing similar.
> > >
> > > enjoy,
> > > monkeyman
> > >
> > > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > Nobody can do everything,
> > > but if everybody did something
> > > everything would get done.
> > > -Gil Scott Heron-
> > > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!