Re: [CR]Bearings

(Example: Framebuilders:Tony Beek)

Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 23:56:48 -0700
From: "Kurt Sperry" <haxixe@gmail.com>
To: "Carb7008@cs.com" <Carb7008@cs.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Bearings
In-Reply-To: <212.2880043.2fda466f@cs.com>
References: <212.2880043.2fda466f@cs.com>
cc: biankita@earthlink.net
cc: biankita@earthlink.net

I agree and I'd only add that I was taught waaaaay back when that spinning a hub in your hand tells very, very little about how efficient that same hub

will be out on the road. Tiny differences in percieved "smoothness" will inevitably be lost in the noise of more significant factors most notably aero drag out in the real world. Kurt Sperry Bellingham WA

On 6/9/05, Carb7008@cs.com <Carb7008@cs.com> wrote:
>
> Garth, the only tip I can come up for you, since you say you are being
> careful, is that you may be adj the cones too tight. I find that even if I
> rebuild
> with a rough (relative to new) race and/or using old balls, if I don't
> apply
> any preload at all then the bearing feels fine in the hand. However the
> converse, if adj pristine bearing and have the slightest preload, then th e
> bearing
> is rough in the hand. Don't forget that tightening outer (mounting) axle
  
> nuts
> or quick-release tightens the cones as well. Some may disagree with my
> method, but zero clearance (the perfect adj) only applies in theory. In
  
> practice,
> its preferable to be loose rather than tight. Ball and cone bearings allo w
> for
> a great (relatively) latitude of misalignment, but only if they are loose
> enough to be able to move in response to misalignment.
>
> Jack Romans
>
> --
> fineartscrimshaw.com http://fineartscrimshaw.com