Re: [CR] dumb design, was A tale of two hubs?


Example: Framebuilders:Dario Pegoretti

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:47:12 -0600
Thread-Topic: Re: [CR] dumb design, was A tale of two hubs?
thread-index: AcurqO65OlPJXMVQTaSfdrepIVomaQ==
From: "John Hurley" <JHurley@jdabrams.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR] dumb design, was A tale of two hubs?


Dale Phelps wrote:

"I don't know if other CR members have the experience of bent rear spindles (since it does not rotate, it is a spindle, not an axle)..."

For those who obsess over correct terminology, peace be unto you. There is no need to revise your bicycling lexicon. Both axles and spindles may be fixed or rotating without having to change their names. The default condition is probably fixed, as horse-drawn vehicles such as wagons, carts, carriages, etc., have from of old had wheels that turned on fixed axles.

When an axle rotates, it is probably more correct to refer to it as a shaft. The bicycle bottom bracket houses a crank shaft, not an axle, but if you want to call it an axle, it's okay by me.

John Hurley Hoping not to be folded, spindled, mutilated, or given the shaft in Austin, Texas, USA