Shimano cone intercompatibility?

Chad said:

Esteemed gentlepeople of the newsgroup:

Pete Biggs' link on the cone-pictures question got me thinking.

One year ago, I felt my Bianchi Volpe's front wheel's stock
Tiagra hub was running a bit rough. Disassembly of the hub
confirmed one tiny pit right in the cone's bearing path.
I called five LBSs, asking them if they had a replacement.
No, No, No, No, and yes. I flung myself nine miles up the road on
the MTB. Seems the salesman, (I don't think the term mechanic
fits) lacking a true match, had "guesstimated" a Deore front cone
"compatible". I eyeballed the my pitted cone and the ostensible match,
noting the Deore race is cut at a more gradual angle than the steeper
Tiagra. I bought the tidbit for $9 as I seemed to lack alternatives. One
year and some 1500 miles on that bike later, I'm still riding it and the
hub turns smoothly, but I still harbor some doubts as to the best course of
action.
What SHOULD I have done in the circumstance?
Should I order a better match from bikehensteeth.com?
Or keep running the apparently empirically-determined-to-be-
compatible sucker?
from the PDF's:
Tiagra: Cone (M9 x 10.4 mm) Y-21H 98080
Deore: Cone (M9 x 11.5 mm) Y-21L 98020

Since they both run 10x3/16 balls the differences are in
overall length ( add/subtract washer?) and diameter at the
dust seal. Your deore cone is close enough.

You _did_ rebuild after a thorough cleaning with new balls,
right?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi said:

Since they both run 10x3/16 balls the differences are in
overall length ( add/subtract washer?) and diameter at the
dust seal. Your deore cone is close enough.

You _did_ rebuild after a thorough cleaning with new balls,
right?

Sure enough, because of the ubiquity of 3/16" balls, rags,
and grease. Good point though, thanks.

cheer

Chad

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:09:35 GMT, Chad <[email hidden]>

may have said:

[snip]
One
year and some 1500 miles on that bike later, I'm still riding it and the
hub turns smoothly, but I still harbor some doubts as to the best course of
action.

What SHOULD I have done in the circumstance?

Well, "should" is a question that can only be answered with an
opinion; IMO, you took a reasonable course of action at the time. The
only other one which might have made sense *to me* was to paint-spot
the axle to note the location of the pit, rotate that to the upper
position when the wheel was installed, and ride on until a more
exact-fit cone could be obtained. It's possible that it may be in
this list:

http://www.loosescrews.com/index.cgi?c=Hub&sc=Cones&tc=Shimano%20Front

Quoted message said:

Should I order a better match from bikehensteeth.com?

If thine cone offend thee, pluck it out.

Quoted message said:

Or keep running the apparently empirically-determined-to-be-
compatible sucker?

Okay, a reality check. Ball bearing assemblies of this type are
amazingly forgiving about parts mismatch; there are limits, but it's
still possible to get away with a lot of not-as-designed lash-up
without causing dire results. Still, the best results from a properly
designed assembly will be with the bits that it was intended to use.
How much of a difference will it make? Without seeing how much
mismatch there is, it's hard to even guess; my instincts, however,
tell me that the best way to see whether you really need to be
concerned is to take the assembly apart and see how it's wearing both
on the side with the Deore cone and on the other side. If nothing
seems amiss, then the chances are good that it's working okay.

Quoted message said:

from the PDF's:

Tiagra: Cone (M9 x 10.4 mm) Y-21H 98080
Deore: Cone (M9 x 11.5 mm) Y-21L 98020

A slight difference in length, not enough to worry about; the
difference in the shaping of the contact area may cause odd thrust
characteristics, but you'd never notice it in my opinion.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.