Re: [CR] Cone Failure Causes

(Example: Production Builders)

Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:28:45 -0700
From: <mrrabbit@mrrabbit.net>
To: <Carb7008@cs.com>
References: <cd0.50e45963.383a27ca@cs.com>
In-Reply-To:
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR] Cone Failure Causes


Sounds more like a discussions of cones and pitting in general - not Normandy hubs.

OFF TOPIC?

=8-)

Robert Shackelford San Jose, CA USA

Quoting Carb7008@cs.com:
> Just an observation and theory (not original I'm sure): After several
> recent Normandy hub rebuilds, in all cases, I found much greater damage to
> freewheel-side cone than anywhere else (otherside cone or hub
> races)...probably
> due to unsupported lever-effect.
>
> More to my point (which I'm getting to), I also found, in most cases, the
> freewheel-side cone to be brinnelled, spalled, or otherwise pitted at a
> single location along the cone race. I theorize that because the cone does
> not
> rotate (like hub races) a single (downward-side) point on the cone takes the
>
> maximum load...all of the time! I guess some would argue that a "properly"
> adjusted and lubricated cup/cone minimizes this effect. I'd buy that...but
> minimize does not equate to eliminate.
>
> So how to further minimize and/or prevent this damage? How 'bout rotating
> axle (w/cones) periodically? Easy enough to do but how often? I'll leave
> that to your discretion.
>
> Except for this disclaimer, the foregoing proposal ignores that present-day
> riders may be 50 or more lbs heavier than what designers envisioned, along
> with other contributing factors.
>
> Jack Romans
> Sacramento, California
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> --
> PRIVACY WARNING: For auditing purposes, a copy of this message has been
> saved in a permanent database.
>

--
PRIVACY WARNING: For auditing purposes, a copy of this message has been
saved in a permanent database.