hub spacing

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by fushman
this is prolly a silly question, but if so im sure someone will point that out for me, but anyways why not just make the rear hub wider and make throw on 1, 2, 10 more speeds, even tho i realize youd prolly only 12, or 13 at most for pros

CHAIN ANGLE and CHAIN STAY LENGTH will be the limiting factors preventing manufacturers going beyond the 135mm rear hub spacing length. The number of gears have so far stretched into the 10s while the max. rear hub spacing has remained at 135mm. In doing so the chains and cog spacing have narrowed to squeeze the 10s gears into the same space. Unless chainstay length will increase along with the wider rear hub spacing, one will not get an efficient chain angle [or chain line] to accomodate the wide gear ratios that you mentioned. But increasing chainstay length will not be efficient either.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by dennis dee
The number of gears have so far stretched into the 10s while the max. rear hub spacing has remained at 135mm.

Road spacing is 130,and mtb is 135.

thanks

how about up front, how optimized is 100mm? spacing for wheels and the fork and the rest of the bike in terms of strength and areodynamics, is it just a nice round number?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Road spacing is 130,and mtb is 135.

For road it is indeed 130 and mtb at 135mm. Wasn't pertaining to a road or an mtb but rear hub spacing in general be it for mtb or road use.

Below are the standard spacing for different bike types:
110 mm Rear track and other single-speed hubs.
120 mm Rear 5-speed, Ultra 6, newer track hubs.
126 mm Rear 6- and 7-speed (road).
130 mm Rear 7-speed (MTB) and 8- 9- and 10-speed (road).
135 mm Rear 7- 8- and 9-speed (MTB)
140 mm Rear tandem.
145 mm Rear tandem (newer models.)
160 mm Rear tandem (new Santana proposed standard.)

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by fushman
thanks

how about up front, how optimized is 100mm? spacing for wheels and the fork and the rest of the bike in terms of strength and areodynamics, is it just a nice round number?

On a related note, why are front wheels on road bikes the same size as rear wheels? Smaller front wheel would surely mean the wheel is lighter and stronger, less rotating mass, a stiffer fork, less air resistance and all sorts of other benefits. Or is it just because the UCI says so?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mjw_byrne
On a related note, why are front wheels on road bikes the same size as rear wheels? Smaller front wheel would surely mean the wheel is lighter and stronger, less rotating mass, a stiffer fork, less air resistance and all sorts of other benefits. Or is it just because the UCI says so?

Terry will sell you one with a smaller front wheel. If nothing else it looks goofy and you have to worry about 2 different tire and tube sizes. Why make life harder than it is?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Why make life harder than it is?

Uh, because of all the stuff I said above, i.e. lower weight, stiffer fork, less air resistance, stronger wheel and so on. Oh yeah, it would also eliminate toe/wheel overlap. As for it looking goofy - who cares? Looking cool won't win races or make you fitter. And dealing with 2 different tube/tyre sizes is easy - anyone with both a road bike and an mtb has to do that. Give me a worthwhile reason why it isn't done.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mjw_byrne
Uh, because of all the stuff I said above, i.e. lower weight, stiffer fork, less air resistance, stronger wheel and so on. Oh yeah, it would also eliminate toe/wheel overlap. Give me a worthwhile reason why it isn't done.

The ones I mentioned make Terrys a hard sell.Reason enough. Your reasons don't matter enough in the real world of non racing applications to.......well, really matter.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by dennis dee
For road it is indeed 130 and mtb at 135mm. Wasn't pertaining to a road or an mtb but rear hub spacing in general be it for mtb or road use.

Below are the standard spacing for different bike types:
110 mm Rear track and other single-speed hubs.
120 mm Rear 5-speed, Ultra 6, newer track hubs.
126 mm Rear 6- and 7-speed (road).
130 mm Rear 7-speed (MTB) and 8- 9- and 10-speed (road).
135 mm Rear 7- 8- and 9-speed (MTB)
140 mm Rear tandem.
145 mm Rear tandem (newer models.)
160 mm Rear tandem (new Santana proposed standard.)

btw why is tandem rear hub spacing wider?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mjw_byrne
Uh, because of all the stuff I said above, i.e. lower weight, stiffer fork, less air resistance, stronger wheel and so on. Oh yeah, it would also eliminate toe/wheel overlap. As for it looking goofy - who cares? Looking cool won't win races or make you fitter. And dealing with 2 different tube/tyre sizes is easy - anyone with both a road bike and an mtb has to do that. Give me a worthwhile reason why it isn't done.

when you're out riding, you're not dealing with both mtn and road; you only do that back at the car, or at home. I wouldn't want to have to carry two different sized tubes or tubulars when out riding. that's a worthwhile reason. don't be a [censored]. if you want it badly enough, I'm sure you can rig up a goofy looking bike with a smaller front. go to some time trials and you'll see some. too goofy for me to be seen on.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by rv
when you're out riding, you're not dealing with both mtn and road; you only do that back at the car, or at home. I wouldn't want to have to carry two different sized tubes or tubulars when out riding. that's a worthwhile reason. don't be a [censored]. if you want it badly enough, I'm sure you can rig up a goofy looking bike with a smaller front. go to some time trials and you'll see some. too goofy for me to be seen on.

youre right about the diff btw mtn and road not being an issue while on the road, but really carrying two different sized tubes is hardly a big deal at all. and have you heard of patches?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by rv
when you're out riding, you're not dealing with both mtn and road; you only do that back at the car, or at home. I wouldn't want to have to carry two different sized tubes or tubulars when out riding. that's a worthwhile reason. don't be a [censored]. if you want it badly enough, I'm sure you can rig up a goofy looking bike with a smaller front. go to some time trials and you'll see some. too goofy for me to be seen on.

Well if the front wheel was small, the extra tube/tubular would be small, and hence not much extra effort to carry. I'm not being a [censored], I'm suggesting a modification to the traditional way things are done that seems like it would bring a whole heap of benefits and few disadvantages, and I'm getting rude, dismissive responses. And for God's sake, what's the preoccupation with looking goofy? Shaved legs, spandex and aero helmets aren't exactly the height of sophistication in the first place, are they?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mjw_byrne
And for God's sake, what's the preoccupation with looking goofy? Shaved legs, spandex and aero helmets aren't exactly the height of sophistication in the first place, are they?

Gotta draw the line somewhere. But maybe you can pull it off if you substitute a a clown suit for the spandex.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mjw_byrne
Shaved legs, spandex and aero helmets aren't exactly the height of sophistication in the first place, are they?

I guess it depends on what circles you run (or ride) in. nothing quite like italian tailored lycra. and my wfe, and lots of other women who've been honest with me, like the shaved legs. ciao!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by rv
I guess it depends on what circles you run (or ride) in. nothing quite like italian tailored lycra. and my wfe, and lots of other women who've been honest with me, like the shaved legs. ciao!

Sure, I understand perfectly - was just saying that if possible improvements in sports were always rejected on the basis that they might look goofy, we'd still be riding round on bikes wearing suits and stuff.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mjw_byrne
Sure, I understand perfectly - was just saying that if possible improvements in sports were always rejected on the basis that they might look goofy, we'd still be riding round on bikes wearing suits and stuff.

ya but how much strong would it make the bike, youll still have to have the handle bars where they are, so youre just going to have a giant head tube or something

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by fushman
ya but how much strong would it make the bike, youll still have to have the handle bars where they are, so youre just going to have a giant head tube or something

Well, I was thinking that a smaller front wheel would mean the fork legs could be shorter, making the fork stiffer, possibly reducing weight etc. And a smaller wheel is undoubtedly stronger.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mjw_byrne
Well, I was thinking that a smaller front wheel would mean the fork legs could be shorter, making the fork stiffer, possibly reducing weight etc. And a smaller wheel is undoubtedly stronger.

Yeah,but to what real benefit?? Once something is strong enough,what is the point of stronger. If it was such a keen idea,and would sell,don't the think the manufacturers woul have already been all over it.You are just blowing alot of hooey. As someone mentioned, the HT and steerer has to be longer so there goes your weight savings. Don't beleive me,go take a look at the Terrys with small front wheels. It's a partial solution to a problem of small frames sizes, but 650 wheels rather than 700 works better all around.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Yeah,but to what real benefit?? Once something is strong enough,what is the point of stronger. If it was such a keen idea,and would sell,don't the think the manufacturers woul have already been all over it.You are just blowing alot of hooey. As someone mentioned, the HT and steerer has to be longer so there goes your weight savings. Don't beleive me,go take a look at the Terrys with small front wheels. It's a partial solution to a problem of small frames sizes, but 650 wheels rather than 700 works better all around.

Well it's obvious it's not widely thought to be commercially viable, isn't it, since the majority of manufacturers don't do it. I'm only having a casual discussion about bikes (quite common behaviour on a bike forum, yes?), not trying to tell people how to do things. I'm not "blowing" anything, hooey or otherwise. Lighten up a bit, man!