dishless wheels

Charles Ramsey said:

In 1979 I stopped in custom builder Ron Boi's bike shop. He was importing 130 mm campagnono axles
and building dishless wheels. He found out that when the dish was removed that there was enough
room for another cog welded to the back of the innermost cog provided that it was a 34 tooth. So
he was using a wide 6 or a narrow 7. Does any one get the idea that the rest of the industry
doesnt know what it is doing?

I don't think you know what you are writing about. Campagnolo road hubs of that era had gone from
120mm dropout spacing to 130mm then 135mm, all of it used by spacers between jam nut and cone on the
right side. These rear wheels had so much dish that spoke tension, right to left was greater than
2:1. Your hero probably found a way to add a sprocket to that with the restriction you mention.

The bicycle industry knows what it's about. You do not.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Charles Ramsey said:

In 1979 I stopped in custom builder Ron Boi's bike shop. He was importing 130 mm campagnono
axles and building dishless wheels. He found out that when the dish was removed that there was
enough room for another cog welded to the back of the innermost cog provided that it was a 34
tooth. So he was using a wide 6 or a narrow 7. Does any one get the idea that the rest of the
industry doesnt know what it is doing?

I don't think you know what you are writing about. Campagnolo road hubs of that era had gone from
120mm dropout spacing to 130mm then 135mm, all of it used by spacers between jam nut and cone on
the right side. These rear wheels had so much dish that spoke tension, right to left was greater
than 2:1. Your hero probably found a way to add a sprocket to that with the restriction you
mention.

The bicycle industry knows what it's about. You do not.

Are you absolutely certain? Isn't it possible that this *custom builder* could have been taking
those 130mm axles and spacing them sorta like American Classics and building wheels with
considerably less (if not zero) dishing? As a *custom builder* he could have built his bikes with
130mm spacing when the norm was 126 or thereabouts, and used the extra mm to center the hub.

Seems to me that the AC hubs are an extraordinarily logical alternative to the "bicycle industry"
standard. I'm not so sure that it does know what it's about, but perhaps you have rigorous
experimental data proving that the AC design does not work.

JP

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Are you absolutely certain? Isn't it possible that this *custom builder* could have been taking
those 130mm axles and spacing them sorta like American Classics and building wheels with
considerably less (if not zero) dishing? As a *custom builder* he could have built his bikes with
130mm spacing when the norm was 126 or thereabouts, and used the extra mm to center the hub.

Seems to me that the AC hubs are an extraordinarily logical alternative to the "bicycle industry"
standard. I'm not so sure that it does know what it's about, but perhaps you have rigorous
experimental data proving that the AC design does not work.

JP

I'm not sure there's a problem really. Dished wheels still hold up pretty well to the daily use and
abuse that we all serve up. We don't see a profusion of destroyed rear wheels generally. It's a
trade-off really, isn't it. On one hand, you can run minimal or zero dishing, but you're going to be
stuck with 5, 6 or narrow 7 cassettes. OTOH, you can have dishing and get a 10 sp cassette. Dishless
may be somewhat stronger and certainly more elegant in design, but maybe people prefer 10sp over 6
or 7 and that's why 6 speed is as dead as the dodo. Or maybe they're just making a cash grab by
making you "upgrade"! ;-)

Cheers,

Scott..

"S. Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Seems to me that the AC hubs are an extraordinarily logical alternative to the "bicycle
industry" standard. I'm not so sure that it does know what it's about, but perhaps you have
rigorous experimental data proving that the AC design does not work.

I'm not sure there's a problem really. Dished wheels still hold up pretty well to the daily use
and abuse that we all serve up. We don't see a profusion of destroyed rear wheels generally. It's
a trade-off really, isn't it. On one hand, you can run minimal or zero dishing, but you're going
to be stuck with 5, 6 or narrow 7 cassettes. OTOH, you can have dishing and get a 10 sp cassette.
Dishless may be somewhat stronger and certainly more elegant in design, but maybe people prefer
10sp over 6 or 7 and that's why 6 speed is as dead as the dodo.

Don't the AC hubs support 10spd cassettes? Their claim is that narrower flange spacing on the
non-drive side makes the wheels stronger because it allows a more balanced spoke tension, more than
making up for the supposed weakness from the narrower spacing. This would be the same effect as
taking a longer axle and putting spacers on the non-drive side to create more balanced spacing.

But I really don't see the requirement for 10 speeds on the back of most road bikes. A 7-speed
straight block will meet most racing requirements, especially when combined with a 39 small front.
When you get into something mountainous you space out the lowest 3-4 cogs, or go to a triple.
Besides, you can get 8 speeds in the old 126mm spacing with 9 speed cassette spacing, and if you
designed for it you could probably get a 9 using 10 speed cassette spacing. So is it better to use
the extra 4mm for ten speeds, or would it be better to use it to space out the non-drive side? It
would sure make wheel building less challenging (more room for error) for those of us who average
building only a single pair of wheels per year, but I don't think Shimano designs their equipment
with me in mind. This all brings us back to the question of whether current mainstream bicycle
practice in rear hubs is the best practice.

Or maybe they're just making

Quoted message said:

a cash grab by making you "upgrade"! ;-)

Could be. I still think that there is very little advantage in cassettes over freewheels, especially
if the axle is beefed up where it should be a la Phil. The biggest advantage I could see would be if
you could buy a cassette kit where you could mix and match your cogs- somewhat easier with a
cassette- but Shimano don't want you to do that, do they?

JP

"S. Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Are you absolutely certain? Isn't it possible that this *custom builder* could have been
taking those 130mm axles and spacing them sorta like American Classics and building wheels
with considerably less (if not zero) dishing? As a *custom builder* he could have built his
bikes with 130mm spacing when the norm was 126 or thereabouts, and used the extra mm to center
the hub.

Seems to me that the AC hubs are an extraordinarily logical alternative to the "bicycle
industry" standard. I'm not so sure that it does know what it's about, but perhaps you have
rigorous experimental data proving that the AC design does not work.

JP

I'm not sure there's a problem really. Dished wheels still hold up pretty well to the daily use
and abuse that we all serve up. We don't see a profusion of destroyed rear wheels generally. It's
a trade-off really, isn't it. On one hand, you can run minimal or zero dishing, but you're going
to be stuck with 5, 6 or narrow 7 cassettes. OTOH, you can have dishing and get a 10 sp cassette.
Dishless may be somewhat stronger and certainly more elegant in design, but maybe people prefer
10sp over 6 or 7 and that's why 6 speed is as dead as the dodo. Or maybe they're just making a
cash grab by making you "upgrade"! ;-)

Cheers,

Scott..

I am never absoulutely certain about any thing. ron boi built bicycles for lon haldeman and sue
nonorangelo. I talked to him about building a frame using a 135 mm phil wood tandem hub and 650B
wheels. The bike he rode used 18 spokes radial front and a special lacing he called crows foot rear
there was a picture of it in one of the magazines. Tom ritchey used a simular idea in his 2 by nine
system by using an offset rim and an offset 33 tooth cog santana used the same cog and shifted to it
by using an erikson ninth cog gizmo before shimano made a nine speed cogset.For years people wrote
in to bicycling magazing asking about using gears greater than 100 bicycling always said dont do it
you will damage your knees.I go to police auctions and pawn shops and do a certain amount of free
work for the poor I have never seen a true back wheel 99 percent of the people would be better off
with one less gear and a stronger rear wheel.I have kept my mouth shut this long because I consider
this ron boi's intellectual property.

Quoted message said:

Charles Ramsey said:

In 1979 I stopped in custom builder Ron Boi's bike shop. He was importing 130 mm campagnono axles
and building dishless wheels. He found out that when the dish was removed that there was enough
room for another cog welded to the back of the innermost cog provided that it was a 34 tooth. So
he was using a wide 6 or a narrow 7. Does any one get the idea that the rest of the industry
doesnt know what it is doing?

Quoted message said:

I don't think you know what you are writing about. Campagnolo road hubs of that era had gone from
120mm dropout spacing to 130mm then 135mm, all of it used by spacers between jam nut and cone on
the right side. These rear wheels had so much dish that spoke tension, right to left was greater
than 2:1. Your hero probably found a way to add a sprocket to that with the restriction you
mention.

The bicycle industry knows what it's about. You do not.

I think Mr Ramsay might be referring to the sixties/seventies, when Campagnolo supplied 120 and then
126mm hubs, not the dark years of the late eighties when their freewheel hubs had the
dysfunctionally long axle formats to which you refer. We could ring up Ron Boi and ask him, I
suppose, for a time line on this.

We in the Midwest have generally given Ron Boi well-earned respect for creativity and generally high
standards. Before I knew you, Jobst, I considered Mr Boi the expert on bicycle wheels.

I can't comment on the actual numbers ( 130mm?? seems big) but Ron Boi _was_ building wheels in the
seventies with extra left-side spacing to yeild less uneven spoke tension. I copied the idea from
him for my nicest bike - a wheel I've used for Sunday rides for many years with a nearly dishless
six speed setup.

The extra low gear cog hanging off the inside is not unique
- it's the way Ritchey makes his 2x9 system - but Ron Boi was the first guy I knew to take
that approach.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The extra low gear cog hanging off the inside is not unique
- it's the way Ritchey makes his 2x9 system - but Ron Boi was the first guy I knew to take that
approach.

I built an 8sp wheel on a 7sp cassette this way, by bolting a 32t cog to the back of a 12-28
cassette. Everyone said my derailer would go into the spokes, but it worked fine, with room to
spare. From experience I knew that an 8sp 12-32 cassette would be the perfect all-around mountain
bike gearing. Lo and behold, Shimano offered it a year later with XTR.

Matt O.

JP snipes anonymously:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In 1979 I stopped in custom builder Ron Boi's bike shop. He was importing 130 mm campagnono
axles and building dishless wheels. He found out that when the dish was removed that there was
enough room for another cog welded to the back of the innermost cog provided that it was a 34
tooth. So he was using a wide 6 or a narrow 7. Does any one get the idea that the rest of the
industry doesnt know what it is doing?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think you know what you are writing about. Campagnolo road hubs of that era had gone from
120mm dropout spacing to 130mm then 135mm, all of it used by spacers between jam nut and cone on
the right side. These rear wheels had so much dish that spoke tension, right to left was greater
than 2:1. Your hero probably found a way to add a sprocket to that with the restriction you
mention.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bicycle industry knows what it's about. You do not.

Quoted message said:

Are you absolutely certain? Isn't it possible that this *custom builder* could have been taking
those 130mm axles and spacing them sorta like American Classics and building wheels with
considerably less (if not zero) dishing? As a *custom builder* he could have built his bikes with
130mm spacing when the norm was 126 or thereabouts, and used the extra mm to center the hub.

Yes, I am absolutely sure. If he has a freewheel with 7-speeds, closely spaced, any axle he uses
will not get rid of the dish because the hubs are the same as Campagnolo started with 4-speeds and
no dish. On these FW's the smallest sprocket is as close to the right dropout as it can be with the
chain in that position, about 1mm clearance at most. With no axle o bearings in place, you cannot
center that hub (with FW screwed on) in the frame if you lay the right-most sprocket against the
right dropout.

Quoted message said:

Seems to me that the AC hubs are an extraordinarily logical alternative to the "bicycle industry"
standard. I'm not so sure that it does know what it's about, but perhaps you have rigorous
experimental data proving that the AC design does not work.

Who is "AC" and what makes their hubs different? I see only Ron Boi and "campagnono" hubs mentioned.
I assumed these are Campagnolo hubs.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

[email hidden] wrote:
: Who is "AC" and what makes their hubs different? I see only Ron Boi and "campagnono" hubs
: mentioned. I assumed these are Campagnolo hubs.

AC is American Classic.

from amclassic.comRoad Hubs.htmlOpen ↗

"American Classic Cassette Hubs make for a stronger wheel. Our rear hubs differ from our
competitor's hubs in that the flange spacing is narrower. Logically, you would think this results in
a weaker wheel, but in actuality, this makes for a sturdier, stiffer wheel.

Bill Shook designed the drive side flange to be as close as possible to the cogset for the best
triangulation. The non-drive flange is closer to centre, which results in the spoke tension being
more balanced when compared to our competitor's hubs. As the non-drive side spokes are tighter, the
wheel is much stronger. This means the non-drive spokes are sharing a larger percentage of the total
load when compared to hub designs using wider spaced flanges. This increases the expected fatigue
life of all the spokes, and makes for a lively and responsive wheel.

The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds up as a better, stronger, rear wheel."
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

David Reuteler said:

Quoted message said:

Who is "AC" and what makes their hubs different? I see only Ron Boi and "campagnono" hubs
mentioned. I assumed these are Campagnolo hubs.

Quoted message said:

AC is American Classic.

Quoted message said:

from amclassic.comRoad Hubs.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

"American Classic Cassette Hubs make for a stronger wheel. Our rear hubs differ from our
competitor's hubs in that the flange spacing is narrower. Logically, you would think this results
in a weaker wheel, but in actuality, this makes for a sturdier, stiffer wheel.

That is misleading. They didn't say how they meant that but laterally the wheel is softer and
radially it is no different, within a few micro inches. It would do them good to try to substantiate
such claims so it doesn't sound like info from spin doctors in Washington.

Quoted message said:

Bill Shook designed the drive side flange to be as close as possible to the cogset for the best
triangulation. The non-drive flange is closer to centre, which results in the spoke tension being
more balanced when compared to our competitor's hubs. As the non-drive side spokes are tighter,
the wheel is much stronger. This means the non-drive spokes are sharing a larger percentage of the
total load when compared to hub designs using wider spaced flanges. This increases the expected
fatigue life of all the spokes, and makes for a lively and responsive wheel.

Yes? But how does this give the benefits claimed... and not realized?

Quoted message said:

The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds up as a better, stronger, rear wheel."

In fact it may reduce spoke failure, but that is not an issue with well built dished wheels, so who
cares? Don't believe everything manufacturers claim.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The extra low gear cog hanging off the inside is not unique
- it's the way Ritchey makes his 2x9 system - but Ron Boi was the first guy I knew to take that
approach.

I built an 8sp wheel on a 7sp cassette this way, by bolting a 32t cog to the back of a 12-28
cassette. Everyone said my derailer would go into the spokes, but it worked fine, with room to
spare. From experience I knew that an 8sp 12-32 cassette would be the perfect all-around mountain
bike gearing. Lo and behold, Shimano offered it a year later with XTR.

Matt O.

Please dont be afraid to criticize me. That is exactly what he did. My latest experiment uses an xtr
900 hub refited with a 7 cog lx freehub. There is 1.85 mm between the large cog and the spokes at
the head and 3 mm between the small cog and the dropout. It has 54mm between the flanges the same as
the old campagnolo and a 13 30 7 speed cogset. It has zero dish. If I use a 28 tooth cog the
derailer rubs the spoke protector. A stick could force the derailer into the spokes at the lower
pully but it works fine on the road.

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The extra low gear cog hanging off the inside is not unique
- it's the way Ritchey makes his 2x9 system - but Ron Boi was the first guy I knew to take that
approach.

I built an 8sp wheel on a 7sp cassette this way, by bolting a 32t cog to the back of a 12-28
cassette. Everyone said my derailer would go into the spokes, but it worked fine, with room to
spare. From experience I knew that an 8sp 12-32 cassette would be the perfect all-around mountain
bike gearing. Lo and behold, Shimano offered it a year later with XTR.

Matt O.

Please dont be afraid to criticize me. That is exactly what he did. My latest experiment uses an xtr
900 hub refited with a 7 cog lx freehub. There is 1.85 mm between the large cog and the spokes at
the head and 3 mm between the small cog and the dropout. It has 54mm between the flanges the same as
the old campagnolo and a 13 30 7 speed cogset. It has zero dish. If I use a 28 tooth cog the
derailer rubs the spoke protector. A stick could force the derailer into the spokes at the lower
pully but it works fine on the road.

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

...If he has a freewheel with 7-speeds, closely spaced, any axle he uses will not get rid of the
dish because the hubs are the same as Campagnolo started with 4-speeds and no dish.

An example of the bicycle industry knowing what it's about? It sounds kinda like the rear bicycle
wheel owes its current design to Campagnolo avoiding the cost of retooling forty years ago.

I would be interested to know whether there is experimental evidence to show that the tension
imbalance in a properly dished 130mm (or
126mm) spaced wheel is not a factor in wheel failure during encounters with road hazards. To me,
that's the crucial question in whether a wheel design is the best it can be: how much of a
whack can it take without going out of round or true? Intuitively, the AC design or the
respaced axle seems like it would fare better; is there any evidence one way or the other?

Inquiring anonymously, JP