(Andy M-S) said:Ted Bennett said:(Chalo) said:Now you can appreciate why Shimano used a proprietary bearing cartridge instead of an
industrial standard one.
Youch. Don't cut yourself with that thing, Chalo.
But you speak the truth, and it is so lame, so unecessary, so petty for Shimano to do that.
I beg to differ. I assume that by "industrial standard" you have in mind the tytpical sorts of
cartridge bearings you see in wheels. But you really, REALLY wouldn't want one of those in a
headset. In a headset, the bearing is loaded heavily from the side (of the bearing). Think about
where the races are in a standard cartidge bearing, and you'll see why this is a bad idea. IOW,
the load is 90 degrees off from where it's supposed to be.
Shimano's headset bearings are designed for that load--look at the races, which are designed for
the side (relative to the bearing) loading that headsets experience.
There are many kinds of industrial cartridge bearings. Some, like the "deep groove radial" type
commonly used in bikes and electric motors, are made to accept a high radial load and a smaller
thrust load. Others are made with angular contact races, cylindrical or tapered rollers rather than
balls, or with a full ball complement. Here's an example of an industrial cartridge bearing that
outperforms Shimano's overpriced junk in every respect:
nationalprecision.combb11a.htmOpen ↗ Thrust load rating 2200lbs. for the 1" headset-sized one.
I can buy these specialty *aircraft* bearings as cheaply as Shimano's headset bearings in quantity
of 1. If they were a common bike part, they'd obviously be much cheaper.
There isn't any kind of bearing used in Shimano parts that doesn't have a better, cheaper, and
replaceable industrial equivalent. They go their own way because it's cheaper for them and more
expensive for you. That's good for their bottom line but not for yours.
Chalo Colina