should I use loose balls or retainers?

Hi again,

I'm at the point in my build where I'm just waiting for the Frame
Saver to set up and hopefully will begin final assembly tonight (yay!)

One question - when using loose ball bottom brackets and headsets,
should I reinstall the caged ball bearings, or simply replace with
(more) loose ball bearings? ISTR someone recommending that the latter
be done, that the cages were simply for ease of initial assembly, but
ISTR also that someone had said that the cages kept the balls from
rubbing against each other so they would stay perfectly spherical
longer. Opinions? I do have an assortment of ball bearings so using
the loose balls doesn't hold me up at all.

thanks

nate

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:26:21 -0700, N8N wrote:

Hi again,

I'm at the point in my build where I'm just waiting for the Frame Saver
to set up and hopefully will begin final assembly tonight (yay!)

I hope pictures follow!


One question - when using loose ball bottom brackets and headsets,
should I reinstall the caged ball bearings, or simply replace with
(more) loose ball bearings? ISTR someone recommending that the latter
be done, that the cages were simply for ease of initial assembly, but
ISTR also that someone had said that the cages kept the balls from
rubbing against each other so they would stay perfectly spherical
longer.

I read that thread too (no, I don't read all of them!): wouldn't the cage
and or the bearing races have some 'erosional' effect on the balls
anyway? And in either case wouldn't it be slight?? I'd have thought that
most people would have changed the bearings on a whim before there was
any great effect from the balls breaking down. I've never changed the
bearings in one of my bikes, still turns nice and smooth. Over the 20
years the bearings will last I think there will be value for money on
either case. However, logic suggests to me that load over more rather
than fewer bearings is better, so loose?

On Sep 17, 9:26*am, N8N wrote:
Hi again,

I'm at the point in my build where I'm just waiting for the Frame
Saver to set up and hopefully will begin final assembly tonight (yay!)

One question - when using loose ball bottom brackets and headsets,
should I reinstall the caged ball bearings, or simply replace with
(more) loose ball bearings? *ISTR someone recommending that the latter
be done, that the cages were simply for ease of initial assembly, but
ISTR also that someone had said that the cages kept the balls from
rubbing against each other so they would stay perfectly spherical
longer. *Opinions? *I do have an assortment of ball bearings so using
the loose balls doesn't hold me up at all.

Do which ever in practice is the least pain in the ass. Like you might
find using the cage on the bottom frame cup to be a pIA saver, but the
upper balls, not so much. BB bearings are usually nice and big, and
will behave if you use plenty of grease.

On Sep 17, 8:55*am, landotter wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:26*am, N8N wrote:

Hi again,

I'm at the point in my build where I'm just waiting for the Frame
Saver to set up and hopefully will begin final assembly tonight (yay!)

One question - when using loose ball bottom brackets and headsets,
should I reinstall the caged ball bearings, or simply replace with
(more) loose ball bearings? *ISTR someone recommending that the latter
be done, that the cages were simply for ease of initial assembly, but
ISTR also that someone had said that the cages kept the balls from
rubbing against each other so they would stay perfectly spherical
longer. *Opinions? *I do have an assortment of ball bearings so using
the loose balls doesn't hold me up at all.

Do which ever in practice is the least pain in the ass. Like you might
find using the cage on the bottom frame cup to be a pIA saver, but the
upper balls, not so much. BB bearings are usually nice and big, and
will behave if you use plenty of grease.

I'm with Otter. Use whatever is easier, which usually is caged
bearings. Easier to maintain and replace and you always know if you
are missing bearings. If you use loose bearings, get a magnet to
collect them.

On Sep 17, 12:08*pm, " wrote:
On Sep 17, 8:55*am, landotter wrote:





On Sep 17, 9:26*am, N8N wrote:

Hi again,

I'm at the point in my build where I'm just waiting for the Frame
Saver to set up and hopefully will begin final assembly tonight (yay!)

One question - when using loose ball bottom brackets and headsets,
should I reinstall the caged ball bearings, or simply replace with
(more) loose ball bearings? *ISTR someone recommending that the latter
be done, that the cages were simply for ease of initial assembly, but
ISTR also that someone had said that the cages kept the balls from
rubbing against each other so they would stay perfectly spherical
longer. *Opinions? *I do have an assortment of ball bearings so using
the loose balls doesn't hold me up at all.

Do which ever in practice is the least pain in the ass. Like you might
find using the cage on the bottom frame cup to be a pIA saver, but the
upper balls, not so much. BB bearings are usually nice and big, and
will behave if you use plenty of grease.

I'm with Otter. Use whatever is easier, which usually is caged
bearings. Easier to maintain and replace and you always know if you
are missing bearings. If you use loose bearings, get a magnet to
collect them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ages ago, BC ( Before Cartridge bearings...) I had to open up my BB
because of crunching noises and rough turning, I discovered the
retainer had broken apart and the pieces had made a mess of things; it
simplified things and increased reliability doing away with the
retainers

On 17 Sep, 15:37, Keiron wrote:

However, logic suggests to me that load over more rather
than fewer bearings is better, so loose?

Falacy. The retainer spaces the balls evenly and accurately
preventing high loads on the two lowest balls. The retainer permits a
localised reservoir of grease, essential when using such a viscous
medium. The retainer prevents ball to ball contact, which gives an
extended service life.

On Sep 17, 11:33*am, Still Just Me!
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:08:08 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On Sep 17, 8:55*am, landotter wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:26*am, N8N wrote:

Hi again,

I'm at the point in my build where I'm just waiting for the Frame
Saver to set up and hopefully will begin final assembly tonight (yay!)

One question - when using loose ball bottom brackets and headsets,
should I reinstall the caged ball bearings, or simply replace with
(more) loose ball bearings? *ISTR someone recommending that the latter
be done, that the cages were simply for ease of initial assembly, but
ISTR also that someone had said that the cages kept the balls from
rubbing against each other so they would stay perfectly spherical
longer. *Opinions? *I do have an assortment of ball bearings so using
the loose balls doesn't hold me up at all.

Do which ever in practice is the least pain in the ass. Like you might
find using the cage on the bottom frame cup to be a pIA saver, but the
upper balls, not so much. BB bearings are usually nice and big, and
will behave if you use plenty of grease.

I'm with Otter. Use whatever is easier, which usually is caged
bearings. Easier to maintain and replace and you always know if you
are missing bearings. If you use loose bearings, get a magnet to
collect them.

I believe we held this discussion in detail about a week ago.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:15:30 -0400, Still Just Me! wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:51:54 -0700 (PDT), someone
wrote:

Falacy. The retainer spaces the balls evenly and accurately preventing
high loads on the two lowest balls. The retainer permits a localised
reservoir of grease, essential when using such a viscous medium. The
retainer prevents ball to ball contact, which gives an extended service
life.

I thought we already doused your fallacies on this subject?

I'm marginally convinced. What's the other side of the story?

On 18 Sep, 19:10, Keiron wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:15:30 -0400, Still Just Me! wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:51:54 -0700 (PDT), someone
wrote:

Falacy. *The retainer spaces the balls evenly and accurately preventing
high loads on the two lowest balls. *The retainer permits a localised
reservoir of grease, essential when using such a viscous medium. *The
retainer prevents ball to ball contact, which gives an extended service
life.

I thought we already doused your fallacies on this subject?

I'm marginally convinced. What's the other side of the story?

That would be ignorance. Better a happy fool, eh?

On 18 Sep, 23:33, Still Just Me!
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:10:23 GMT, Keiron

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:15:30 -0400, Still Just Me! wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:51:54 -0700 (PDT), someone
wrote:

Falacy. *The retainer spaces the balls evenly and accurately preventing
high loads on the two lowest balls. *The retainer permits a localised
reservoir of grease, essential when using such a viscous medium. *The
retainer prevents ball to ball contact, which gives an extended service
life.

I thought we already doused your fallacies on this subject?

I'm marginally convinced. What's the other side of the story?

There's no support for wear from "ball to ball" contact *- at least
not in any significant way. *They are not packed so tight that there
is aggressive ball to ball interaction. The balls are loaded between
axle and race or between race and race with a headset. Any ball to
ball contact is unloaded.


Ignorance. Take a cap of a coffee'biscuit tin or similar, put
pennies around the circumference and use your finger to represent the
axle/spindle. Apply the load. A gap is formed in the direction of
the load and the two balls either side have a greater load placed
through them between axle and housing due to their displacement. To
get past the gap, they must speed up relative to the other balls. In
reality the other balls at their lower loading are being worn due to
the skidding of the bearing tracks past them. So more wear and more
fatigue.

*There's no support for the "two lowest balls" having more wear than
the others and even if there was, the bearings rotate and the "two
lowest" is a temporary condition.

The bearing cups are stationary and it is their bearing surface which
fails at the bottom of the cup when loose balls are used with grease
exclusively. The extra loading caused by not using a retainer will
also crack some balls. This is the usual reason for disassembly and
inspection of the bearing track of the cups and spindle will also show
some fatigue. Choose a superior lubricant than the original and then
you may get away with not using retainers.


I'd rather have the additional bearing or two taking load. In a hub or
BB, that's about a 10% increase in bearing surface.

Simple.