Bearings = Better Loose or Caged?

On 23 Aug, 17:05, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:17 am, Ben C wrote:



On 2009-08-23, Chalo wrote:

Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Once upon a time bicycles came with non-cartridge bearings. Some of
these bearings were loose ball bearings whilst some had the ball
bearings captured in cages to make servicing easier. What I am
thinking is that the loose ball bearings, because there would be more
of them and thus more load bearing surface than if they were caged,
would be better than the caged bearings. Is this true?

More balls can support higher loads. *But full-complement bearing
balls rub against the faces of loaded rolling balls rather than
relatively stationary unloaded cages, and thus they incur higher
bearing drag. *You can feel the difference even while turning the
races of unmounted full-complement bearing cartridges versus Conrad
type caged ball bearing cartridges.

Is it worth the effort to replace caged bearings with loose ball
bearings in these areas?

It doesn't hurt. *It probably doesn't help, either.

Putting loose balls in a headset that's starting to index a bit can
solve the indexing problem.

The other problem with a cage is that sometimes when things go
pear-shaped the cage breaks up and gets dragged around scouring out the
races and things.

But I don't go around taking cages out of working stuff (if it ain't
broke).

I just had a (Shimano XT M770) rear hub apart and discovered a caged
bearing on the non-drive side behind a seal that was pressed into the
hub. *Loose balls I could have fished out and more easily cleaned and
overhauled the hub without disturbing the seal. *(The other side -
inside the freehub - has loose bearings behind a seal that Shimano
explicitly says should not be "disassembled".)

I guess I'm going to investigate my options for either replacing the
caged bearings with loose, or routinely removing and replacing the
seal (which I guess I'll have to do at least one for the first option
anyway) for hub and wheel bearing service. *(it looks from the service
diagram like the M770 front has caged bearings behind a *seal on both
sides.)

I guess you use some kind of puller to get such a seal out, and then
like a socket and hammer to put it back in (or the new replacement if
you munged it).

Some sheilds can be tight and removing them by force will distort
them. I'd be tempted to drill an oiling port in it as it stands.
Flush everything out using a pipe brush (bottle brush or tooth brush
etc if you want) and kerosene. Oil it through the oiling port in
future using a thick oil from a squirt can.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:15:09 -0700 (PDT), someone wrote:

On 23 Aug, 17:05, _
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:15:05 -0400, Still Just Me *- wrote:

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:13:46 -0700 (PDT), someone
wrote:

Without a spacer the balls are pushed tightly together and the weight
is carried on the two lowest balls only, which means early fatigue
failure of the cones bearing *track or balls

You'd really need to cite some references on something like that.
Sounds like serious conjecture to me.

Not serious, laughable.

The spacer makes no difference to the clearance between the balls and the
races. *Any assymetry of load due to excessive clearance (due to variations
in ball size) will occur regardless of spacers; and of course, all bearings
where the use of spacers is optional are adjustable for clearance.

This claim of spacers preventing failure by such a method is just as
reliable as the assertion that brake bolts are "hardened chromoly".

Try to comprehend before responding, pillock.

Insults are a sign that the user has no other support for his claims.

On 2009-08-23, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Ben C? (in umbra) wrote:
[...]
Putting loose balls in a headset that's starting to index a bit can
solve the indexing problem.

I take it you didn't try this in the day when dimpled head bearings
were common and removing the cage and adding two balls produced the
same effect.

Well, I had some dimpled bearings, took out the cage and put lots of
balls in without one, and it stopped indexing and has been fine now for
about 3 years and quite a few thousand km.

[...]
The other problem with a cage is that sometimes when things go
pear-shaped the cage breaks up and gets dragged around scouring out
the races and things.

What causes things to go "pear-shaped" and what is the result.

My guess is the whole thing being far too loose (due to neglected
maintenance).

("Pear-shaped" is just a British expression for when things have gone
wrong somehow. Nothing in the bearings is actually shaped like a pear.)

But I don't go around taking cages out of working stuff (if it ain't
broke).

Why not if you believe it has benefit?

In case I take it all apart and put it back together wrong.

("Pear-shaped" is just a British expression for when things have gone
wrong somehow. Nothing in the bearings is actually shaped like a pear.)

On the Yank side of the Pond we say things "have gone south" (with due
respect to those living South of the Mason-Dixon line...) or "sideways".

In article
,
Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Hi there.

Once upon a time bicycles came with non-cartridge bearings. Some of
these bearings were loose ball bearings whilst some had the ball
bearings captured in cages to make servicing easier. What I am
thinking is that the loose ball bearings, because there would be more
of them and thus more load bearing surface than if they were caged,
would be better than the caged bearings. Is this true?

Yes.

I know that an advantage to the caged bearing design was that you
could prolong the life of a bearing surface by removing the caged
bearings and inserting loose bearings.

I do not understand what you say to be an advantage of cages.
Cages are used by manufacturers to reduce assembly cost.

I usually place loose bearings in all of my cup-and-cone bearing
applications when I am servicing my vintage bicycles and have the
headset, bottom bracket and/or wheel apart.

Is it worth the effort to replace caged bearings with loose ball
bearings in these areas?

It is for me. Do you see an advantage in caged
bearing balls for yourself?

--
Michael Press

On Aug 23, 11:10 am, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Dan Overman wrote:
Once upon a time bicycles came with non-cartridge bearings. Some
of these bearings were loose ball bearings whilst some had the
ball bearings captured in cages to make servicing easier. What I
am thinking is that the loose ball bearings, because there would
be more of them and thus more load bearing surface than if they
were caged, would be better than the caged bearings. Is this
true?
More balls can support higher loads. But full-complement bearing
balls rub against the faces of loaded rolling balls rather than
relatively stationary unloaded cages, and thus they incur higher
bearing drag. You can feel the difference even while turning the
races of unmounted full-complement bearing cartridges versus
Conrad type caged ball bearing cartridges.
Is it worth the effort to replace caged bearings with loose ball
bearings in these areas?
It doesn't hurt. It probably doesn't help, either.
Putting loose balls in a headset that's starting to index a bit can
solve the indexing problem.
The other problem with a cage is that sometimes when things go
pear-shaped the cage breaks up and gets dragged around scouring out
the races and things.
But I don't go around taking cages out of working stuff (if it
ain't broke).
I just had a (Shimano XT M770) rear hub apart and discovered a caged
bearing on the non-drive side behind a seal that was pressed into
the hub. Loose balls I could have fished out and more easily
cleaned and overhauled the hub without disturbing the seal. (The
other side - inside the freehub - has loose bearings behind a seal
that Shimano explicitly says should not be "disassembled".)
I guess I'm going to investigate my options for either replacing the
caged bearings with loose, or routinely removing and replacing the
seal (which I guess I'll have to do at least one for the first
option anyway) for hub and wheel bearing service. (it looks from
the service diagram like the M770 front has caged bearings behind a
seal on both sides.)

I think you'll find that assembling that hub without the cage will be
difficult and can lead to a single ball can slip out of its place and
jam the assembly. Such an assembly must often be done with stiff
grease that will hole bearing balls in place while the parts are
assembled. However, freewheels with large-heel-radius ratchet pawls
should not be assembled with grease. That can make them rebound too
slowly making poor engagement while trying to engage a grease filled
ratchet ramp.

I guess you use some kind of puller to get such a seal out, and then
like a socket and hammer to put it back in (or the new replacement if
you munged it).

Removal may be destructive.

Yep.

I'm not clear on why you want to remove
these parts rather than rinse them and re-lubricate. There should be
no grease in there so cleaning and oiling is easy. Use 10-20W oil
unless you are operating in sub freezing weather where 10W oil is
best. Don't use spray lubes (aka solvents).


The benefit of your knowledge and experience is sincerely
appreciated. Maybe I wasn't clear, though - I'm talking about the
wheel (axle) bearings. I would prefer to be able to remove the
bearing balls when servicing - in order to more thoroughly and easily
clean and inspect the bearings and races.

http://techdocs.shimano.com/media/te...9830621150.PDF

Michael Press wrote:

*Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Is it worth the effort to replace caged bearings with loose ball
bearings in these areas?

It is for me. Do you see an advantage in caged
bearing balls for yourself?

That's spoken like a man who's never lain on the floor fishing cat
hair and dead bugs out from underneath the fridge in the pursuit of
that stray ball bearing.

Chalo

Chalo Colina wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Is it worth the effort to replace caged bearings with loose ball
bearings in these areas?
It is for me. Do you see an advantage in caged
bearing balls for yourself?

That's spoken like a man who's never lain on the floor fishing cat
hair and dead bugs out from underneath the fridge in the pursuit of
that stray ball bearing.

Not that a cat would ever help the bearings to go astray!

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us
that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of
us do not. - Jay Griffiths

On Aug 23, 2:14 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Chalo Colina wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Is it worth the effort to replace caged bearings with loose ball
bearings in these areas?
It is for me. Do you see an advantage in caged
bearing balls for yourself?

That's spoken like a man who's never lain on the floor fishing cat
hair and dead bugs out from underneath the fridge in the pursuit of
that stray ball bearing.

Not that a cat would ever help the bearings to go astray!


I was laying on my back underneath a van, working on a roadside heater
core bypass for a broken heater hose. I had parts laying on a rag so
as not to get lost in the gravel. A car pulls up, the door opens, and
a big dog comes bounding out. Do you suppose he goes about whatever
it is they stopped for? No, he makes a beeline for the rag that my
parts were on, snatches it up, and runs away.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Hi there.

Once upon a time bicycles came with non-cartridge bearings. Some of
these bearings were loose ball bearings whilst some had the ball
bearings captured in cages to make servicing easier. What I am
thinking is that the loose ball bearings, because there would be more
of them and thus more load bearing surface than if they were caged,
would be better than the caged bearings. Is this true?

I know that an advantage to the caged bearing design was that you
could prolong the life of a bearing surface by removing the caged
bearings and inserting loose bearings.

I usually place loose bearings in all of my cup-and-cone bearing
applications when I am servicing my vintage bicycles and have the
headset, bottom bracket and/or wheel apart.

Is it worth the effort to replace caged bearings with loose ball
bearings in these areas?

"loose ball bearings, because there would be more of them"

Not necessarily true. Yes, bearing retainers were invented
in Chicago during WWII to use a smaller count and speed
assembly. In many bicycle applications such as crank
bearings, there are/were indeed 5, 7 and 9 ball retainers
intended to save balls with a smaller count.

Campagnolo developed the 11 ball retainer shape 2
generations ago and that design has passed out of patent
protection. Now, premium quality Japanese (Tange, Sugino)
11-ball retainers are readily available at a low price.
There's no difference in use from loose balls and assembly
is much quicker.

In most headsets the same is true although headset design
varies a lot. Usually you will use the same count loose or
in retainers for many relatively modern headset.

Traditional design hubs do not lend themselves to retainers
due to lack of space so most quality systems (current
Shimano) are loose, Campagnolo "big bearing" hubs such as
current Record use a retainer. The very bottom of the heap
(steel Chinese hubs) have 5 or 7 ball retainers so a small
improvement may be achieved, theoretically, with loose balls.

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