Re: [CR] reducing rear spacing back to 126mm - worth doing?

(Example: Books:Ron Kitching)

From: "Andrew R Stewart" <onetenth@earthlink.net>
To: "Eric Acuna" <moschika@gmail.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <F5787E09-0196-4640-B8D1-B69FB8C6928C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:24:59 -0500
Subject: Re: [CR] reducing rear spacing back to 126mm - worth doing?


Eric- I agree with Tom. Note that he didn't say anything about the frame aspect of changing the drop out width, as it should be. Excluding poor brazing or other manufacturing issues one can reset the width a few times and by a lot more then many think. (My first tandem was stretched from 120 to 140 w/out a problem). So pick the rear hub based on tandem suitability and not original frame spec. Andy.


----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Acuna
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:18 PM
Subject: [CR] reducing rear spacing back to 126mm - worth doing?



>i was going through the '77 paramount tandem and discovered that the rear
>spacing has been spread. the original spacing was 126mm and was fitted
>with a campy HF hub. i took off the rear wheel and discovered that it now
>stays open at around 133mm and that the hub that's crammed in there now is
>135mm.
>
> i want to replace the wheelset. should i look for a rear hub with 126mm
> spacing, like the campy/phil wood hubs? or look for a 130/135 hub?
>
> is reducing the spacing back to 126 from 133 too big of a reduction?
>
> eric acuna
> santa rosa, ca, usa
> _______________________________________________

Andrew R Stewart
Rochester, NY