Question about bearing cones.

John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:59:27 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 12:00:59 PM UTC-4, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 4:33:28 AM UTC-4, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Steve Weeks wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 6:11:28 AM UTC-5, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The cones in the front wheel bearings are very pitted and creaky,
and I'd like to get some replacements... I can't find much on the web regarding this...

I've had good luck finding replacements he https://wheelsmfg.com/products/hub-parts/all-cones.html

Steve


Thanks! I'm sure I can find something there. I'll see if they ship to
the UK :-)

BTW, when they talk of the 'diameter' (8, 9, 9.5, 10mm) is that the
diameter of the axle /before/ tapping (i.e. the bare bar), or is it the
overall diameter of the threaded bits (which generally look a bit larger
to me), or the 'bottoms' of the thread grooves? Does (for example) 8mm
translate directly to the M8 metric thread size?

Thread sizes refer to the outside (or major) diameter of the male threads... but
see below.

Yes, threads are often larger than the rod or tube in its unthreaded condition.
That happens when the threads are rolled (pressed) into the metal, which is the
best way. Threads that are cut should be about the same diameter as the uncut
rod.

Except that threads tend to be just a little under their nominal size. That's
because the extreme tips of threads are difficult to make to a razor-sharp point,
and they don't help the strength of the thread anyway. So they may be formed to
have (say) 75% of the theoretical thread profile, omitting the 25% at the point.
That makes a nominal 8mm thread slightly less than true 8mm. How much less? It
varies.


I'd imagined that pressing the thread was cheaper, but less satisfactory
way of doing it, since it seems rather crude. But maybe things have
moved on since I was a lad :-)

That method of making threads is called "rolling." They use hardened dies of the
proper shape to press into the parent metal and cause it to flow upward to form
the peaks of the threads. It's actually much better than cutting the threads.
Rolled threads have a grain structure that flows into the threads, instead of
being sliced apart where a die or cutting tool cuts the valley. That makes
stronger threads.



In my workshop, I've hung a little chart that covers metric, U.S. and Whitworth
threads, ranked by major diameters. To identify a thread, I measure its major
diameter using calipers, then see which sizes it might be. I confirm by
measuring the thread pitch (that is, the number of threads per inch, or
millimeters per thread).

- Frank Krygowski


Does anything still use Whitworth now? I've a bit of a soft-spot for
Whitworth sizes since I used to mess about with old Britich bikes when I
was a lad (and still have a neglected one resting in the garage). My
Whitworth spanners don't get out much nowadays.

Here in the U.S., I think Whitworth threads have always been rare. I hardly ever
encounter them. But my chart does cover them.

- Frank Krygowski

Having once owned a "British motorcycle" I can assure you that
Whitworth threaded fasteners are rare :-)
--
cheers,

John B.


For that reason, I would never throw away an old fastener, no matter the
condition; even though I am /almost/ certain that I will never use them.
:-) Fortunately, here in the UK, it is still possible to get such things.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:25:13 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 10:53 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 3:33 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Steve Weeks wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 6:11:28 AM UTC-5, Dan S.
MacAbre wrote:
The cones in the front wheel bearings are very pitted and
creaky,
and I'd like to get some replacements...* I can't find
much on the web regarding this...

I've had good luck finding replacements he
https://wheelsmfg.com/products/hub-parts/all-cones.html

Steve


Thanks!* I'm sure I can find something there.* I'll see if
they ship to the UK :-)

BTW, when they talk of the 'diameter' (8, 9, 9.5, 10mm) is
that the diameter of the axle /before/ tapping (i.e. the
bare bar), or is it the overall diameter of the threaded
bits (which generally look a bit larger to me), or the
'bottoms' of the thread grooves?* Does (for example) 8mm
translate directly to the M8 metric thread size?

It's the outer diameter of the thread, less thread
tolerance[1]. Standard bolt-on fronts are m8x1.0, QR
fronts are m9x1.0 and so on. Typical:

https://i394.photobucket.com/albums/.../DIN912_M6.jpg



Cheaper fat tire style bikes use 'heavy duty' fronts with
m9.5x1.0 and m10x1.0 of generally lower quality.

Going back to earlier times (older than your bike), a host
of variables ensue such as French metric m9x0.9,
Campagnolo 9f26, Raleigh 1/4-26W (measures 7.8mm) and mo

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...-standards.jpg



[1] Standard hardware runs well below 100% thread
engagement so the actual measurement across the thread
peaks will be less than the nominal size. see also:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/FWTHREAD.JPG

and
https://www.engineersedge.com/thread...engagement.htm



Thanks again.* I don't know whether it's because I live in
the UK, but most of the axle descriptions I see are in
Imperial sizes (i.e. 5/16" and 3/8").* I know there is
backward compatibility to consider, and that (of necessity)
most of these things will be the nearest approximate
equivalents; but I guess that the actual thread pitch is the
most important factor.* So, do all bike components have
metric threads now? it may seem a silly question, but I have
worked with computer specialists from the US that have no
idea what (for example) a 10mm page margin looks like, and I
feel that there is some resistance over there. I quite
understand that, of course - there is still some resistance
over here :-)

Yes, all current products are standard (DIN, JIS, etc) metric.

1980s era Ofmega axle sets with the nicely precision ground cone faces
are threaded 9f26 front and 10f26 rear, a 55-degree WW thread also used
by Gippiemme and Campagnolo until 2000.

A Shimano or other common metric cone will stick on the axle after two
turns or so.


I found that some cones I'd saved off other bikes did indeed get stuck
after a few turns. I got a replacement axle set (axle, cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'. Maybe they are standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things? But those new sets just ended up
pushing the balls out of the old cups after a short while.

Still, I now have some specific threads to look for, so thanks for that.
This is certainly one of the more informative groups :-)

" But those new sets just ended up pushing the balls out of the old
cups after a short while."

This sounds as though you are doing something wrong. Assuming the
proper size cup and cone and balls you shouldn't be able to "push the
balls out" with a big hammer.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 10/30/2019 7:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:25:13 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 10:53 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 3:33 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Steve Weeks wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 6:11:28 AM UTC-5, Dan S.
MacAbre wrote:
The cones in the front wheel bearings are very pitted and
creaky,
and I'd like to get some replacements... I can't find
much on the web regarding this...

I've had good luck finding replacements he
https://wheelsmfg.com/products/hub-parts/all-cones.html

Steve


Thanks! I'm sure I can find something there. I'll see if
they ship to the UK :-)

BTW, when they talk of the 'diameter' (8, 9, 9.5, 10mm) is
that the diameter of the axle /before/ tapping (i.e. the
bare bar), or is it the overall diameter of the threaded
bits (which generally look a bit larger to me), or the
'bottoms' of the thread grooves? Does (for example) 8mm
translate directly to the M8 metric thread size?

It's the outer diameter of the thread, less thread
tolerance[1]. Standard bolt-on fronts are m8x1.0, QR
fronts are m9x1.0 and so on. Typical:

https://i394.photobucket.com/albums/.../DIN912_M6.jpg



Cheaper fat tire style bikes use 'heavy duty' fronts with
m9.5x1.0 and m10x1.0 of generally lower quality.

Going back to earlier times (older than your bike), a host
of variables ensue such as French metric m9x0.9,
Campagnolo 9f26, Raleigh 1/4-26W (measures 7.8mm) and mo

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...-standards.jpg



[1] Standard hardware runs well below 100% thread
engagement so the actual measurement across the thread
peaks will be less than the nominal size. see also:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/FWTHREAD.JPG

and
https://www.engineersedge.com/thread...engagement.htm



Thanks again. I don't know whether it's because I live in
the UK, but most of the axle descriptions I see are in
Imperial sizes (i.e. 5/16" and 3/8"). I know there is
backward compatibility to consider, and that (of necessity)
most of these things will be the nearest approximate
equivalents; but I guess that the actual thread pitch is the
most important factor. So, do all bike components have
metric threads now? it may seem a silly question, but I have
worked with computer specialists from the US that have no
idea what (for example) a 10mm page margin looks like, and I
feel that there is some resistance over there. I quite
understand that, of course - there is still some resistance
over here :-)

Yes, all current products are standard (DIN, JIS, etc) metric.

1980s era Ofmega axle sets with the nicely precision ground cone faces
are threaded 9f26 front and 10f26 rear, a 55-degree WW thread also used
by Gippiemme and Campagnolo until 2000.

A Shimano or other common metric cone will stick on the axle after two
turns or so.


I found that some cones I'd saved off other bikes did indeed get stuck
after a few turns. I got a replacement axle set (axle, cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'. Maybe they are standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things? But those new sets just ended up
pushing the balls out of the old cups after a short while.

Still, I now have some specific threads to look for, so thanks for that.
This is certainly one of the more informative groups :-)

" But those new sets just ended up pushing the balls out of the old
cups after a short while."

This sounds as though you are doing something wrong. Assuming the
proper size cup and cone and balls you shouldn't be able to "push the
balls out" with a big hammer.
--
cheers,

John B.


Right.

Besides threading, one need measure cone outer diameter,
overall depth and most importantly diameter at the ball
interface. Inspection of the cup for wear after cleaning can
save a lot of time- toss out the damaged ones before more
labor. Oh, and use the correct count of the correct ball
size. Record copies use 7/32" balls, most other fronts 3/16".

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

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:33:42 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/30/2019 7:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:25:13 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 10:53 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 3:33 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Steve Weeks wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 6:11:28 AM UTC-5, Dan S.
MacAbre wrote:
The cones in the front wheel bearings are very pitted and
creaky,
and I'd like to get some replacements... I can't find
much on the web regarding this...

I've had good luck finding replacements he
https://wheelsmfg.com/products/hub-parts/all-cones.html

Steve


Thanks! I'm sure I can find something there. I'll see if
they ship to the UK :-)

BTW, when they talk of the 'diameter' (8, 9, 9.5, 10mm) is
that the diameter of the axle /before/ tapping (i.e. the
bare bar), or is it the overall diameter of the threaded
bits (which generally look a bit larger to me), or the
'bottoms' of the thread grooves? Does (for example) 8mm
translate directly to the M8 metric thread size?

It's the outer diameter of the thread, less thread
tolerance[1]. Standard bolt-on fronts are m8x1.0, QR
fronts are m9x1.0 and so on. Typical:

https://i394.photobucket.com/albums/.../DIN912_M6.jpg



Cheaper fat tire style bikes use 'heavy duty' fronts with
m9.5x1.0 and m10x1.0 of generally lower quality.

Going back to earlier times (older than your bike), a host
of variables ensue such as French metric m9x0.9,
Campagnolo 9f26, Raleigh 1/4-26W (measures 7.8mm) and mo

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...-standards.jpg



[1] Standard hardware runs well below 100% thread
engagement so the actual measurement across the thread
peaks will be less than the nominal size. see also:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/FWTHREAD.JPG

and
https://www.engineersedge.com/thread...engagement.htm



Thanks again. I don't know whether it's because I live in
the UK, but most of the axle descriptions I see are in
Imperial sizes (i.e. 5/16" and 3/8"). I know there is
backward compatibility to consider, and that (of necessity)
most of these things will be the nearest approximate
equivalents; but I guess that the actual thread pitch is the
most important factor. So, do all bike components have
metric threads now? it may seem a silly question, but I have
worked with computer specialists from the US that have no
idea what (for example) a 10mm page margin looks like, and I
feel that there is some resistance over there. I quite
understand that, of course - there is still some resistance
over here :-)

Yes, all current products are standard (DIN, JIS, etc) metric.

1980s era Ofmega axle sets with the nicely precision ground cone faces
are threaded 9f26 front and 10f26 rear, a 55-degree WW thread also used
by Gippiemme and Campagnolo until 2000.

A Shimano or other common metric cone will stick on the axle after two
turns or so.


I found that some cones I'd saved off other bikes did indeed get stuck
after a few turns. I got a replacement axle set (axle, cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'. Maybe they are standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things? But those new sets just ended up
pushing the balls out of the old cups after a short while.

Still, I now have some specific threads to look for, so thanks for that.
This is certainly one of the more informative groups :-)

" But those new sets just ended up pushing the balls out of the old
cups after a short while."

This sounds as though you are doing something wrong. Assuming the
proper size cup and cone and balls you shouldn't be able to "push the
balls out" with a big hammer.
--
cheers,

John B.


Right.

Besides threading, one need measure cone outer diameter,
overall depth and most importantly diameter at the ball
interface. Inspection of the cup for wear after cleaning can
save a lot of time- toss out the damaged ones before more
labor. Oh, and use the correct count of the correct ball
size. Record copies use 7/32" balls, most other fronts 3/16".

And something that used to be standard and probably still is that one
used one less than the total number of balls that filled the race.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:25:13 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 10:53 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 3:33 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Steve Weeks wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 6:11:28 AM UTC-5, Dan S.
MacAbre wrote:
The cones in the front wheel bearings are very pitted and
creaky,
and I'd like to get some replacements...* I can't find
much on the web regarding this...

I've had good luck finding replacements he
https://wheelsmfg.com/products/hub-parts/all-cones.html

Steve


Thanks!* I'm sure I can find something there.* I'll see if
they ship to the UK :-)

BTW, when they talk of the 'diameter' (8, 9, 9.5, 10mm) is
that the diameter of the axle /before/ tapping (i.e. the
bare bar), or is it the overall diameter of the threaded
bits (which generally look a bit larger to me), or the
'bottoms' of the thread grooves?* Does (for example) 8mm
translate directly to the M8 metric thread size?

It's the outer diameter of the thread, less thread
tolerance[1]. Standard bolt-on fronts are m8x1.0, QR
fronts are m9x1.0 and so on. Typical:

https://i394.photobucket.com/albums/.../DIN912_M6.jpg



Cheaper fat tire style bikes use 'heavy duty' fronts with
m9.5x1.0 and m10x1.0 of generally lower quality.

Going back to earlier times (older than your bike), a host
of variables ensue such as French metric m9x0.9,
Campagnolo 9f26, Raleigh 1/4-26W (measures 7.8mm) and mo

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...-standards.jpg



[1] Standard hardware runs well below 100% thread
engagement so the actual measurement across the thread
peaks will be less than the nominal size. see also:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/FWTHREAD.JPG

and
https://www.engineersedge.com/thread...engagement.htm



Thanks again.* I don't know whether it's because I live in
the UK, but most of the axle descriptions I see are in
Imperial sizes (i.e. 5/16" and 3/8").* I know there is
backward compatibility to consider, and that (of necessity)
most of these things will be the nearest approximate
equivalents; but I guess that the actual thread pitch is the
most important factor.* So, do all bike components have
metric threads now? it may seem a silly question, but I have
worked with computer specialists from the US that have no
idea what (for example) a 10mm page margin looks like, and I
feel that there is some resistance over there. I quite
understand that, of course - there is still some resistance
over here :-)

Yes, all current products are standard (DIN, JIS, etc) metric.

1980s era Ofmega axle sets with the nicely precision ground cone faces
are threaded 9f26 front and 10f26 rear, a 55-degree WW thread also used
by Gippiemme and Campagnolo until 2000.

A Shimano or other common metric cone will stick on the axle after two
turns or so.


I found that some cones I'd saved off other bikes did indeed get stuck
after a few turns. I got a replacement axle set (axle, cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'. Maybe they are standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things? But those new sets just ended up
pushing the balls out of the old cups after a short while.

Still, I now have some specific threads to look for, so thanks for that.
This is certainly one of the more informative groups :-)

" But those new sets just ended up pushing the balls out of the old
cups after a short while."

This sounds as though you are doing something wrong. Assuming the
proper size cup and cone and balls you shouldn't be able to "push the
balls out" with a big hammer.
--
cheers,

John B.


WHen I said 'pushing out', I meant that after a few miles, they were no
longer in the lands, and were in the dust cap. I certainly did
something wrong - I assumed that cones were all standardised. Maybe
they are now, since the ones that seem to be commonly available are
described in very little detail, or maybe I was just looking in the
wrong places. But the ones I got are larger than the old ones. The
thread is the same, but the lands are not cut into the metal as deeply
as the old ones. Thay are a bit 'fatter'. So I now realise it is not
as simple as I first thought. :-)

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:33:30 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:25:13 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 10:53 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 3:33 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Steve Weeks wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 6:11:28 AM UTC-5, Dan S.
MacAbre wrote:
The cones in the front wheel bearings are very pitted and
creaky,
and I'd like to get some replacements...* I can't find
much on the web regarding this...

I've had good luck finding replacements he
https://wheelsmfg.com/products/hub-parts/all-cones.html

Steve


Thanks!* I'm sure I can find something there.* I'll see if
they ship to the UK :-)

BTW, when they talk of the 'diameter' (8, 9, 9.5, 10mm) is
that the diameter of the axle /before/ tapping (i.e. the
bare bar), or is it the overall diameter of the threaded
bits (which generally look a bit larger to me), or the
'bottoms' of the thread grooves?* Does (for example) 8mm
translate directly to the M8 metric thread size?

It's the outer diameter of the thread, less thread
tolerance[1]. Standard bolt-on fronts are m8x1.0, QR
fronts are m9x1.0 and so on. Typical:

https://i394.photobucket.com/albums/.../DIN912_M6.jpg



Cheaper fat tire style bikes use 'heavy duty' fronts with
m9.5x1.0 and m10x1.0 of generally lower quality.

Going back to earlier times (older than your bike), a host
of variables ensue such as French metric m9x0.9,
Campagnolo 9f26, Raleigh 1/4-26W (measures 7.8mm) and mo

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...-standards.jpg



[1] Standard hardware runs well below 100% thread
engagement so the actual measurement across the thread
peaks will be less than the nominal size. see also:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/FWTHREAD.JPG

and
https://www.engineersedge.com/thread...engagement.htm



Thanks again.* I don't know whether it's because I live in
the UK, but most of the axle descriptions I see are in
Imperial sizes (i.e. 5/16" and 3/8").* I know there is
backward compatibility to consider, and that (of necessity)
most of these things will be the nearest approximate
equivalents; but I guess that the actual thread pitch is the
most important factor.* So, do all bike components have
metric threads now? it may seem a silly question, but I have
worked with computer specialists from the US that have no
idea what (for example) a 10mm page margin looks like, and I
feel that there is some resistance over there. I quite
understand that, of course - there is still some resistance
over here :-)

Yes, all current products are standard (DIN, JIS, etc) metric.

1980s era Ofmega axle sets with the nicely precision ground cone faces
are threaded 9f26 front and 10f26 rear, a 55-degree WW thread also used
by Gippiemme and Campagnolo until 2000.

A Shimano or other common metric cone will stick on the axle after two
turns or so.


I found that some cones I'd saved off other bikes did indeed get stuck
after a few turns. I got a replacement axle set (axle, cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'. Maybe they are standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things? But those new sets just ended up
pushing the balls out of the old cups after a short while.

Still, I now have some specific threads to look for, so thanks for that.
This is certainly one of the more informative groups :-)

" But those new sets just ended up pushing the balls out of the old
cups after a short while."

This sounds as though you are doing something wrong. Assuming the
proper size cup and cone and balls you shouldn't be able to "push the
balls out" with a big hammer.
--
cheers,

John B.


WHen I said 'pushing out', I meant that after a few miles, they were no
longer in the lands, and were in the dust cap. I certainly did
something wrong - I assumed that cones were all standardised. Maybe
they are now, since the ones that seem to be commonly available are
described in very little detail, or maybe I was just looking in the
wrong places. But the ones I got are larger than the old ones. The
thread is the same, but the lands are not cut into the metal as deeply
as the old ones. Thay are a bit 'fatter'. So I now realise it is not
as simple as I first thought. :-)

No bearings aren't all the same :-( In fact one of the problems with
bicycles is that over the years a myriad difference parts, threads,
bearings, practically everything, has been made so working on anything
more than a few years old always presents the problem "is this going
to fit?".

But there is a great deal of information available, some here and some
in other places. You might try
https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair...and-adjustment
for an article about wheel bearings by a company that makes bicycle
tools. Or search on the Web for "Sheldon Brown" who wrote about just
about everything on or about bicycles.

Or ask here. Everybody is happy to help.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:33:30 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:25:13 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 10:53 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 3:33 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Steve Weeks wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 6:11:28 AM UTC-5, Dan S.
MacAbre wrote:
The cones in the front wheel bearings are very pitted and
creaky,
and I'd like to get some replacements...* I can't find
much on the web regarding this...

I've had good luck finding replacements he
https://wheelsmfg.com/products/hub-parts/all-cones.html

Steve


Thanks!* I'm sure I can find something there.* I'll see if
they ship to the UK :-)

BTW, when they talk of the 'diameter' (8, 9, 9.5, 10mm) is
that the diameter of the axle /before/ tapping (i.e. the
bare bar), or is it the overall diameter of the threaded
bits (which generally look a bit larger to me), or the
'bottoms' of the thread grooves?* Does (for example) 8mm
translate directly to the M8 metric thread size?

It's the outer diameter of the thread, less thread
tolerance[1]. Standard bolt-on fronts are m8x1.0, QR
fronts are m9x1.0 and so on. Typical:

https://i394.photobucket.com/albums/.../DIN912_M6.jpg



Cheaper fat tire style bikes use 'heavy duty' fronts with
m9.5x1.0 and m10x1.0 of generally lower quality.

Going back to earlier times (older than your bike), a host
of variables ensue such as French metric m9x0.9,
Campagnolo 9f26, Raleigh 1/4-26W (measures 7.8mm) and mo

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...-standards.jpg



[1] Standard hardware runs well below 100% thread
engagement so the actual measurement across the thread
peaks will be less than the nominal size. see also:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/FWTHREAD.JPG

and
https://www.engineersedge.com/thread...engagement.htm



Thanks again.* I don't know whether it's because I live in
the UK, but most of the axle descriptions I see are in
Imperial sizes (i.e. 5/16" and 3/8").* I know there is
backward compatibility to consider, and that (of necessity)
most of these things will be the nearest approximate
equivalents; but I guess that the actual thread pitch is the
most important factor.* So, do all bike components have
metric threads now? it may seem a silly question, but I have
worked with computer specialists from the US that have no
idea what (for example) a 10mm page margin looks like, and I
feel that there is some resistance over there. I quite
understand that, of course - there is still some resistance
over here :-)

Yes, all current products are standard (DIN, JIS, etc) metric.

1980s era Ofmega axle sets with the nicely precision ground cone faces
are threaded 9f26 front and 10f26 rear, a 55-degree WW thread also used
by Gippiemme and Campagnolo until 2000.

A Shimano or other common metric cone will stick on the axle after two
turns or so.


I found that some cones I'd saved off other bikes did indeed get stuck
after a few turns. I got a replacement axle set (axle, cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'. Maybe they are standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things? But those new sets just ended up
pushing the balls out of the old cups after a short while.

Still, I now have some specific threads to look for, so thanks for that.
This is certainly one of the more informative groups :-)

" But those new sets just ended up pushing the balls out of the old
cups after a short while."

This sounds as though you are doing something wrong. Assuming the
proper size cup and cone and balls you shouldn't be able to "push the
balls out" with a big hammer.
--
cheers,

John B.


WHen I said 'pushing out', I meant that after a few miles, they were no
longer in the lands, and were in the dust cap. I certainly did
something wrong - I assumed that cones were all standardised. Maybe
they are now, since the ones that seem to be commonly available are
described in very little detail, or maybe I was just looking in the
wrong places. But the ones I got are larger than the old ones. The
thread is the same, but the lands are not cut into the metal as deeply
as the old ones. Thay are a bit 'fatter'. So I now realise it is not
as simple as I first thought. :-)

No bearings aren't all the same :-( In fact one of the problems with
bicycles is that over the years a myriad difference parts, threads,
bearings, practically everything, has been made so working on anything
more than a few years old always presents the problem "is this going
to fit?".

But there is a great deal of information available, some here and some
in other places. You might try
https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair...and-adjustment
for an article about wheel bearings by a company that makes bicycle
tools. Or search on the Web for "Sheldon Brown" who wrote about just
about everything on or about bicycles.

Or ask here. Everybody is happy to help.
--
cheers,

John B.


Interesting link, thanks. I had never considered that a skewer could
significantly shorten an axle when tightened.

On 10/30/2019 11:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:33:42 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/30/2019 7:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:25:13 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 10:53 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 3:33 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Steve Weeks wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 6:11:28 AM UTC-5, Dan S.
MacAbre wrote:
The cones in the front wheel bearings are very pitted and
creaky,
and I'd like to get some replacements... I can't find
much on the web regarding this...

I've had good luck finding replacements he
https://wheelsmfg.com/products/hub-parts/all-cones.html

Steve


Thanks! I'm sure I can find something there. I'll see if
they ship to the UK :-)

BTW, when they talk of the 'diameter' (8, 9, 9.5, 10mm) is
that the diameter of the axle /before/ tapping (i.e. the
bare bar), or is it the overall diameter of the threaded
bits (which generally look a bit larger to me), or the
'bottoms' of the thread grooves? Does (for example) 8mm
translate directly to the M8 metric thread size?

It's the outer diameter of the thread, less thread
tolerance[1]. Standard bolt-on fronts are m8x1.0, QR
fronts are m9x1.0 and so on. Typical:

https://i394.photobucket.com/albums/.../DIN912_M6.jpg



Cheaper fat tire style bikes use 'heavy duty' fronts with
m9.5x1.0 and m10x1.0 of generally lower quality.

Going back to earlier times (older than your bike), a host
of variables ensue such as French metric m9x0.9,
Campagnolo 9f26, Raleigh 1/4-26W (measures 7.8mm) and mo

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...-standards.jpg



[1] Standard hardware runs well below 100% thread
engagement so the actual measurement across the thread
peaks will be less than the nominal size. see also:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/FWTHREAD.JPG

and
https://www.engineersedge.com/thread...engagement.htm



Thanks again. I don't know whether it's because I live in
the UK, but most of the axle descriptions I see are in
Imperial sizes (i.e. 5/16" and 3/8"). I know there is
backward compatibility to consider, and that (of necessity)
most of these things will be the nearest approximate
equivalents; but I guess that the actual thread pitch is the
most important factor. So, do all bike components have
metric threads now? it may seem a silly question, but I have
worked with computer specialists from the US that have no
idea what (for example) a 10mm page margin looks like, and I
feel that there is some resistance over there. I quite
understand that, of course - there is still some resistance
over here :-)

Yes, all current products are standard (DIN, JIS, etc) metric.

1980s era Ofmega axle sets with the nicely precision ground cone faces
are threaded 9f26 front and 10f26 rear, a 55-degree WW thread also used
by Gippiemme and Campagnolo until 2000.

A Shimano or other common metric cone will stick on the axle after two
turns or so.


I found that some cones I'd saved off other bikes did indeed get stuck
after a few turns. I got a replacement axle set (axle, cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'. Maybe they are standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things? But those new sets just ended up
pushing the balls out of the old cups after a short while.

Still, I now have some specific threads to look for, so thanks for that.
This is certainly one of the more informative groups :-)

" But those new sets just ended up pushing the balls out of the old
cups after a short while."

This sounds as though you are doing something wrong. Assuming the
proper size cup and cone and balls you shouldn't be able to "push the
balls out" with a big hammer.
--
cheers,

John B.


Right.

Besides threading, one need measure cone outer diameter,
overall depth and most importantly diameter at the ball
interface. Inspection of the cup for wear after cleaning can
save a lot of time- toss out the damaged ones before more
labor. Oh, and use the correct count of the correct ball
size. Record copies use 7/32" balls, most other fronts 3/16".

And something that used to be standard and probably still is that one
used one less than the total number of balls that filled the race.
--
cheers,

John B.


Right. Where one is uncertain about ball count, our systems
will run just fine with one short but will fail promptly
with one over.

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

On 10/31/2019 3:33 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:25:13 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"

wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 10:53 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 3:33 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Steve Weeks wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 6:11:28 AM UTC-5, Dan S.
MacAbre wrote:
The cones in the front wheel bearings are very
pitted and
creaky,
and I'd like to get some replacements... I can't find
much on the web regarding this...

I've had good luck finding replacements he
https://wheelsmfg.com/products/hub-parts/all-cones.html

Steve


Thanks! I'm sure I can find something there. I'll
see if
they ship to the UK :-)

BTW, when they talk of the 'diameter' (8, 9, 9.5,
10mm) is
that the diameter of the axle /before/ tapping (i.e. the
bare bar), or is it the overall diameter of the threaded
bits (which generally look a bit larger to me), or the
'bottoms' of the thread grooves? Does (for example) 8mm
translate directly to the M8 metric thread size?

It's the outer diameter of the thread, less thread
tolerance[1]. Standard bolt-on fronts are m8x1.0, QR
fronts are m9x1.0 and so on. Typical:

https://i394.photobucket.com/albums/.../DIN912_M6.jpg




Cheaper fat tire style bikes use 'heavy duty' fronts with
m9.5x1.0 and m10x1.0 of generally lower quality.

Going back to earlier times (older than your bike), a
host
of variables ensue such as French metric m9x0.9,
Campagnolo 9f26, Raleigh 1/4-26W (measures 7.8mm) and
mo

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...-standards.jpg




[1] Standard hardware runs well below 100% thread
engagement so the actual measurement across the thread
peaks will be less than the nominal size. see also:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/FWTHREAD.JPG


and
https://www.engineersedge.com/thread...engagement.htm




Thanks again. I don't know whether it's because I live in
the UK, but most of the axle descriptions I see are in
Imperial sizes (i.e. 5/16" and 3/8"). I know there is
backward compatibility to consider, and that (of
necessity)
most of these things will be the nearest approximate
equivalents; but I guess that the actual thread pitch
is the
most important factor. So, do all bike components have
metric threads now? it may seem a silly question, but I
have
worked with computer specialists from the US that have no
idea what (for example) a 10mm page margin looks like,
and I
feel that there is some resistance over there. I quite
understand that, of course - there is still some
resistance
over here :-)

Yes, all current products are standard (DIN, JIS, etc)
metric.

1980s era Ofmega axle sets with the nicely precision
ground cone faces
are threaded 9f26 front and 10f26 rear, a 55-degree WW
thread also used
by Gippiemme and Campagnolo until 2000.

A Shimano or other common metric cone will stick on the
axle after two
turns or so.


I found that some cones I'd saved off other bikes did
indeed get stuck
after a few turns. I got a replacement axle set (axle,
cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'. Maybe they are
standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things? But those new sets
just ended up
pushing the balls out of the old cups after a short while.

Still, I now have some specific threads to look for, so
thanks for that.
This is certainly one of the more informative groups :-)

" But those new sets just ended up pushing the balls out
of the old
cups after a short while."

This sounds as though you are doing something wrong.
Assuming the
proper size cup and cone and balls you shouldn't be able
to "push the
balls out" with a big hammer.
--
cheers,

John B.


WHen I said 'pushing out', I meant that after a few miles,
they were no longer in the lands, and were in the dust cap.
I certainly did something wrong - I assumed that cones were
all standardised. Maybe they are now, since the ones that
seem to be commonly available are described in very little
detail, or maybe I was just looking in the wrong places.
But the ones I got are larger than the old ones. The thread
is the same, but the lands are not cut into the metal as
deeply as the old ones. Thay are a bit 'fatter'. So I now
realise it is not as simple as I first thought. :-)

You've stumbled on our industry's secret- 'standards' are
each unique and there are a host of them, more every day.
Not at all different from crank bearing formats or tire
sizes in that regard.

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

On 10/31/2019 7:02 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:33:30 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"

wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:25:13 +0000, "Dan S. MacAbre"

wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 10:53 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 10/29/2019 3:33 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Steve Weeks wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 6:11:28 AM UTC-5,
Dan S.
MacAbre wrote:
The cones in the front wheel bearings are very
pitted and
creaky,
and I'd like to get some replacements... I can't
find
much on the web regarding this...

I've had good luck finding replacements he
https://wheelsmfg.com/products/hub-parts/all-cones.html


Steve


Thanks! I'm sure I can find something there. I'll
see if
they ship to the UK :-)

BTW, when they talk of the 'diameter' (8, 9, 9.5,
10mm) is
that the diameter of the axle /before/ tapping
(i.e. the
bare bar), or is it the overall diameter of the
threaded
bits (which generally look a bit larger to me), or the
'bottoms' of the thread grooves? Does (for
example) 8mm
translate directly to the M8 metric thread size?

It's the outer diameter of the thread, less thread
tolerance[1]. Standard bolt-on fronts are m8x1.0, QR
fronts are m9x1.0 and so on. Typical:

https://i394.photobucket.com/albums/.../DIN912_M6.jpg




Cheaper fat tire style bikes use 'heavy duty' fronts
with
m9.5x1.0 and m10x1.0 of generally lower quality.

Going back to earlier times (older than your bike),
a host
of variables ensue such as French metric m9x0.9,
Campagnolo 9f26, Raleigh 1/4-26W (measures 7.8mm)
and mo

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...-standards.jpg




[1] Standard hardware runs well below 100% thread
engagement so the actual measurement across the thread
peaks will be less than the nominal size. see also:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/FWTHREAD.JPG


and
https://www.engineersedge.com/thread...engagement.htm




Thanks again. I don't know whether it's because I
live in
the UK, but most of the axle descriptions I see are in
Imperial sizes (i.e. 5/16" and 3/8"). I know there is
backward compatibility to consider, and that (of
necessity)
most of these things will be the nearest approximate
equivalents; but I guess that the actual thread pitch
is the
most important factor. So, do all bike components have
metric threads now? it may seem a silly question, but
I have
worked with computer specialists from the US that
have no
idea what (for example) a 10mm page margin looks
like, and I
feel that there is some resistance over there. I quite
understand that, of course - there is still some
resistance
over here :-)

Yes, all current products are standard (DIN, JIS, etc)
metric.

1980s era Ofmega axle sets with the nicely precision
ground cone faces
are threaded 9f26 front and 10f26 rear, a 55-degree WW
thread also used
by Gippiemme and Campagnolo until 2000.

A Shimano or other common metric cone will stick on
the axle after two
turns or so.


I found that some cones I'd saved off other bikes did
indeed get stuck
after a few turns. I got a replacement axle set (axle,
cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'. Maybe they are
standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things? But those new
sets just ended up
pushing the balls out of the old cups after a short while.

Still, I now have some specific threads to look for, so
thanks for that.
This is certainly one of the more informative groups
:-)

" But those new sets just ended up pushing the balls out
of the old
cups after a short while."

This sounds as though you are doing something wrong.
Assuming the
proper size cup and cone and balls you shouldn't be able
to "push the
balls out" with a big hammer.
--
cheers,

John B.


WHen I said 'pushing out', I meant that after a few
miles, they were no
longer in the lands, and were in the dust cap. I
certainly did
something wrong - I assumed that cones were all
standardised. Maybe
they are now, since the ones that seem to be commonly
available are
described in very little detail, or maybe I was just
looking in the
wrong places. But the ones I got are larger than the old
ones. The
thread is the same, but the lands are not cut into the
metal as deeply
as the old ones. Thay are a bit 'fatter'. So I now
realise it is not
as simple as I first thought. :-)

No bearings aren't all the same :-( In fact one of the
problems with
bicycles is that over the years a myriad difference
parts, threads,
bearings, practically everything, has been made so working
on anything
more than a few years old always presents the problem "is
this going
to fit?".

But there is a great deal of information available, some
here and some
in other places. You might try
https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair...and-adjustment

for an article about wheel bearings by a company that
makes bicycle
tools. Or search on the Web for "Sheldon Brown" who wrote
about just
about everything on or about bicycles.

Or ask here. Everybody is happy to help.
--
cheers,

John B.


Interesting link, thanks. I had never considered that a
skewer could significantly shorten an axle when tightened.

It's well known and easily demonstrated. Like 'cable
stretch', axle 'compression' is a misnomer but the effect
manifests much like that.

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