Bottom Bracket Noise

On 7/16/2016 2:59 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-16 07:56, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:47:59 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-15 12:29, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:16:29 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-15 09:57, jbeattie wrote:
Adding to my collection of bottom bracket noise that
isn't
from the bottom bracket: (1) fretting axle against rear
dropout with inadequately tightened QR. I had this
problem
on my CAAD 9, but it resulted in a distinctive click
or snap.
On my Roubaix, it is a persistent and loud creaking.
The rear
disk must really flex the QR


What? Do you have a motorcycle disc brake on there and the
girlfriend riding along on the luggage rack? Or too many
wheelies?

No, just a hydraulic rear disc -- and perhaps a QR that
is on
the ****ty side and which might have used a little more
adjusting
when I changed a rear flat earlier this week (now that I
think
about it). Many of my problems are self-inflicted.


Last time I helped a guy fix a rear flat I was surprised
that I
could almost push the QR lever with one finger.



(no through axles on this model -- which I will get
with my
next disc bike). Both front and rear need to be checked
regularly.


QR on the front with disc is a bad design because they
put the
caliper in the wrong location, behind the fork instead
of in
front. It won't come off but the expensive front fork
of my MTB
mount is already thoroughly worn inside the left mount
because
of that.

A through axle is a better design, that's for sure --
but QR
works fine if it is kept tight. Moving the caliper is
not the
answer, ...


It is. Because that pushes the axle into the fork instead
of out.
It would also result in less crud on the caliper during
muddy
winter rides. Sometimes it is so bad that I spritz a good
dose from
my water bottle onto it to exchange the grinding noise
against a
"HOOOO" noise.


... and I have seen no bikes ...


With bicycles that means nothing. That industry has a
long history
of doing some things wrong.


... or motorcycles with front-facing calipers. ...


Motorcycles don't have a QR so it's not an issue.


... The possible wheel ejection issues were appropriately
addressed with through axles. You murder equipment and
should
have through axles, as I have said before. Horses for
courses.


I am not a hardcore downhiller or anything close, just a
regular
XC rider. Ok, faster than others around here but not
twice as
fast. Considering that pretty much all XC MTB I ever saw
have QR
front axles one would expect that manufacturers would
figure this
out.

For most people, QRs work perfectly fine. With longer
travel shocks
and people riding more difficult single track, through
axles have
taken over.

Rear mounted calipers are superior from an engineering
standpoint.
Just sketch out the force vectors and you'll see why. They
present
and ejection risk (one that was hyped but hardly came to
pass) which
was addressed with more forward facing dropouts or through
axles or
stronger QRs and lawyer lips.


It was not addressed, just papered over. Lawyer lips are not
meant to actively hold a wheel but a last stop before the
axle comes out. The wear will continue.


Inadequately tightened QRs allow fretting -- that's what
you have.
You can deal with that by getting better QRs or a fork and
wheel with
through axles. That will not happen because it involves
actually
spending some money on appropriate equipment. Yes, I know
you've
tried everything, but the dumb engineers who make bicycles
can't get
it right -- except that they have. You just refuse to buy the
technology.


Wrong. On the advice of Andrew I have tried other brand QR,
such as Shimano. Makes not difference. Next up is kicking
out the QR, buying a longer Cro-Moly axles and using a
classic non-QR setup. Then I just carry one more wrench
although with my setup flats are almost non-existent.


A steel skewer, even no-name copies, with just about any
lubrication will secure a wheel tighter than a nutted
axle[1]. Through axles are of course a different thing.

[1] barring anomalous or exotic problems.

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

On 2016-07-17 03:58, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
A Wells MFG axle...oversized easing install but adding an attAchment pt..protect with a jamb nut..and nuts with floating washers on blue loctite.

Wher's the 123X!!@ wrench ....


No worries aboyut the wrench but do you have a link to that axle? Search
finds not axles under Wells MFG.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-07-16 15:24, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:59:09 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-16 07:56, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:47:59 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-15 12:29, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:16:29 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-15 09:57, jbeattie wrote:
Adding to my collection of bottom bracket noise that
isn't from the bottom bracket: (1) fretting axle against
rear dropout with inadequately tightened QR. I had this
problem on my CAAD 9, but it resulted in a distinctive
click or snap. On my Roubaix, it is a persistent and loud
creaking. The rear disk must really flex the QR


What? Do you have a motorcycle disc brake on there and the
girlfriend riding along on the luggage rack? Or too many
wheelies?

No, just a hydraulic rear disc -- and perhaps a QR that is
on the ****ty side and which might have used a little more
adjusting when I changed a rear flat earlier this week (now
that I think about it). Many of my problems are
self-inflicted.


Last time I helped a guy fix a rear flat I was surprised that
I could almost push the QR lever with one finger.



(no through axles on this model -- which I will get with
my next disc bike). Both front and rear need to be
checked regularly.


QR on the front with disc is a bad design because they put
the caliper in the wrong location, behind the fork instead
of in front. It won't come off but the expensive front fork
of my MTB mount is already thoroughly worn inside the left
mount because of that.

A through axle is a better design, that's for sure -- but QR
works fine if it is kept tight. Moving the caliper is not
the answer, ...


It is. Because that pushes the axle into the fork instead of
out. It would also result in less crud on the caliper during
muddy winter rides. Sometimes it is so bad that I spritz a good
dose from my water bottle onto it to exchange the grinding
noise against a "HOOOO" noise.


... and I have seen no bikes ...


With bicycles that means nothing. That industry has a long
history of doing some things wrong.


... or motorcycles with front-facing calipers. ...


Motorcycles don't have a QR so it's not an issue.


... The possible wheel ejection issues were appropriately
addressed with through axles. You murder equipment and
should have through axles, as I have said before. Horses for
courses.


I am not a hardcore downhiller or anything close, just a
regular XC rider. Ok, faster than others around here but not
twice as fast. Considering that pretty much all XC MTB I ever
saw have QR front axles one would expect that manufacturers
would figure this out.

For most people, QRs work perfectly fine. With longer travel
shocks and people riding more difficult single track, through
axles have taken over.

Rear mounted calipers are superior from an engineering
standpoint. Just sketch out the force vectors and you'll see why.
They present and ejection risk (one that was hyped but hardly
came to pass) which was addressed with more forward facing
dropouts or through axles or stronger QRs and lawyer lips.


It was not addressed, just papered over. Lawyer lips are not meant
to actively hold a wheel but a last stop before the axle comes out.
The wear will continue.

Yes, they are meant to save people from their failure to adequately
tighten a QR.


Exactly. However, that does not prevent the left side from sloshing
around and wearing down the aluminum, which is the point.


Inadequately tightened QRs allow fretting -- that's what you
have. You can deal with that by getting better QRs or a fork and
wheel with through axles. That will not happen because it
involves actually spending some money on appropriate equipment.
Yes, I know you've tried everything, but the dumb engineers who
make bicycles can't get it right -- except that they have. You
just refuse to buy the technology.


Wrong. On the advice of Andrew I have tried other brand QR, such
as Shimano. Makes not difference. Next up is kicking out the QR,
buying a longer Cro-Moly axles and using a classic non-QR setup.
Then I just carry one more wrench although with my setup flats are
almost non-existent.

Then use a solid axle because normal does not work for you. Again,
you could always spring for a through-axle fork and wheel, which is
the fix for your problem. That's what I would do, but then again, I
tend to take the easiest and cleanest route to a fix, which is not
the cheapest and not nearly Byzantine enough for some.


It's this simple: I am not going to throw away a $350 fork just because
some designer wasn't smart enough to see and prevent this. Getting rid
of the QR should fix that and is simple enough. Just have to find a
decent Cro-Moly axle that can take a beating.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-07-17 05:57, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/16/2016 2:59 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-16 07:56, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:47:59 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-15 12:29, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:16:29 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-07-15 09:57, jbeattie wrote:
Adding to my collection of bottom bracket noise that
isn't
from the bottom bracket: (1) fretting axle against rear
dropout with inadequately tightened QR. I had this
problem
on my CAAD 9, but it resulted in a distinctive click
or snap.
On my Roubaix, it is a persistent and loud creaking.
The rear
disk must really flex the QR


What? Do you have a motorcycle disc brake on there and the
girlfriend riding along on the luggage rack? Or too many
wheelies?

No, just a hydraulic rear disc -- and perhaps a QR that
is on
the ****ty side and which might have used a little more
adjusting
when I changed a rear flat earlier this week (now that I
think
about it). Many of my problems are self-inflicted.


Last time I helped a guy fix a rear flat I was surprised
that I
could almost push the QR lever with one finger.



(no through axles on this model -- which I will get
with my
next disc bike). Both front and rear need to be checked
regularly.


QR on the front with disc is a bad design because they
put the
caliper in the wrong location, behind the fork instead
of in
front. It won't come off but the expensive front fork
of my MTB
mount is already thoroughly worn inside the left mount
because
of that.

A through axle is a better design, that's for sure --
but QR
works fine if it is kept tight. Moving the caliper is
not the
answer, ...


It is. Because that pushes the axle into the fork instead
of out.
It would also result in less crud on the caliper during
muddy
winter rides. Sometimes it is so bad that I spritz a good
dose from
my water bottle onto it to exchange the grinding noise
against a
"HOOOO" noise.


... and I have seen no bikes ...


With bicycles that means nothing. That industry has a
long history
of doing some things wrong.


... or motorcycles with front-facing calipers. ...


Motorcycles don't have a QR so it's not an issue.


... The possible wheel ejection issues were appropriately
addressed with through axles. You murder equipment and
should
have through axles, as I have said before. Horses for
courses.


I am not a hardcore downhiller or anything close, just a
regular
XC rider. Ok, faster than others around here but not
twice as
fast. Considering that pretty much all XC MTB I ever saw
have QR
front axles one would expect that manufacturers would
figure this
out.

For most people, QRs work perfectly fine. With longer
travel shocks
and people riding more difficult single track, through
axles have
taken over.

Rear mounted calipers are superior from an engineering
standpoint.
Just sketch out the force vectors and you'll see why. They
present
and ejection risk (one that was hyped but hardly came to
pass) which
was addressed with more forward facing dropouts or through
axles or
stronger QRs and lawyer lips.


It was not addressed, just papered over. Lawyer lips are not
meant to actively hold a wheel but a last stop before the
axle comes out. The wear will continue.


Inadequately tightened QRs allow fretting -- that's what
you have.
You can deal with that by getting better QRs or a fork and
wheel with
through axles. That will not happen because it involves
actually
spending some money on appropriate equipment. Yes, I know
you've
tried everything, but the dumb engineers who make bicycles
can't get
it right -- except that they have. You just refuse to buy the
technology.


Wrong. On the advice of Andrew I have tried other brand QR,
such as Shimano. Makes not difference. Next up is kicking
out the QR, buying a longer Cro-Moly axles and using a
classic non-QR setup. Then I just carry one more wrench
although with my setup flats are almost non-existent.


A steel skewer, even no-name copies, with just about any lubrication
will secure a wheel tighter than a nutted axle[1]. Through axles are of
course a different thing.

[1] barring anomalous or exotic problems.


Wouldn't help because you still only have one surface to hold it at the
left side dropout. Meaning the QR nut (which safety-conscious riders
always have on the disc side) will stay put just like in my case but the
counter nut of the cone will not. As evidenced by marring of the skewer
where the axle ends on the left. IOW the left side sloshes as much as
the skewer has play inside the axle. Which grows due to marring. A
regular non-QR axle will hold on both sides of that left dropout.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/