MTB cone type wheel bearings.

On Apr 20, 4:41*pm, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:12 AM, thirty-six wrote:









On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee wrote:
thirty-six considered Fri, 19 Apr 2013
03:12:00 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Apr 19, 4:07 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:11 pm, James wrote:

On 19/04/13 08:38, Phil W Lee wrote:

*considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06
+1000 the perfect time to write:
The quote is not clear because it does not define what the increase is
with respect to. *I have read other papers that say cageless bearings
run hotter than caged bearings - thus more friction losses in the
cageless variety.

Unless you can explain how adding multiple points of sliding contact
can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact, that
falls well short of sensible.

What is a design with only rolling contact? *If you mean a cage less
rolling bearing (ball or roller), then please explain how sliding
contact is avoided when there is no cage to keep the rolling elements
from touching?

Please also explain to me, as I've obviously lost me bearings, why a
google search yields results such as;

"Ball Cage Effect
The early forms of ball bearings were full-ball types without ball
cages. Friction between balls caused loud
noise, made high-speed rotation impossible and shortened the service
life. Twenty years later, a Caged Ball
design was developed for ball bearings. The new design enabled
high-speed rotation at a low noise level,
and extended the service life despite the reduced number of balls used.
It marked a major development in
the history of ball bearings.
Similarly, the quality of needle bearings was significantly improved by
the caged needle structure.
With cage-less, full-ball types of ball bearings, balls make metallic
contact with one another and
produce loud noise. In addition, they rotate in opposite directions,
causing the sliding contact between two
adjacent balls to occur at a speed twice the ball-spinning rate. It
results in severe wear and shortens the
service life.
In addition, without a cage, balls make point contact to increase
bearing stress, thus facilitating
breakage of the oil film. In contrast, each caged ball contacts the cage
over a wide area. Therefore, the oil
film does not break, the noise level is low and balls can rotate at a
high speed, resulting in a long
service life."

(google "site:tech.thk.com Caged Ball SHS")

Looks to me like they're advertising their design feature.

I left all my bearing catalogs behind when I retired, but I know for
sure that a bearing's load capacity is increased when the number of
balls increases. For ordinary industrial ball bearings, the type with
the cage is called a Conrad bearing; it's the basic type. *The type
that crams an extra ball or two into the groove is called a slot-fill
bearing, or full complement bearing. *Its radial load capacity is
definitely higher, due to the higher ball count. *(Its axial load
capacity is far lower, due to the groove.)

It may be that caged ball bearings are better for high speeds, but
that has nothing to do with bicycle applications. *With the cycling
penchant for light weight, we're more concerned with getting
sufficient load capacity out of the smallest, lightest assembly. *That
calls for a full complement of bearing balls.

The SKF site is good for browsing and learning. *Seehttp://www.skf..com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-bearin...
for example.

- Frank Krygowski

without the spacer the balls are forced against each other and
ovalise.

What forces them against each other?

I'm not submitting an argument for courtroom entertainment, I have not
the words. * They just do.

Why would it force the balls against each other, but somehow not force
the balls against the spacer?

I've seen more bearings wrecked by a spacer breaking up inside than
all other causes put together, which doesn't say much for the lifespan
enhancing properties of the cage.

I've seen more monkeys. *Good cages installed correctly with good
balls last.

* * * * The bearing has a shorter lifespan whatever speed it turns
unless there is a constant oil feed, in which case it might not matter
with a low speed application and a saving can be made on bearing size,
which is useful when loads are 10 tonnes and bearing speed is below
10rev/min.

When bicycles were oiled before riding the use of unspaced balls was
acceptable but when laziness and Brandtian thoughts of putting money
into the pockets of the oil companies became more prevelant, a belief
was born that bicycle bearings could work without routine attention to
lubrication.

I questioned the notion that bicycles don't need oiling in 1983. *It
seemed that bicycle shops were encouraging laziness and with further
experience I found that bearings generally failed within two years,
unless the bicycle was annually serviced. *Clever eh?

When a bearing heavily loaded and run at low speed as on a bicycle it
becomes even more important that when grease is used it is
sufficiently fluid at the operating temperature that the balls are
continually wetted. *There is also some pumping of a correctly
specified grease which pushes the debris away from the balls and track
and brings in clean lubricant. *I have found calcium grease with extra
oil to be most suitable for the wheel and crank bearings. * MoS2 can
also be used to help the load capacity and extend bearing life almost
indefinitely as long as routine checks are made that the bearing is
still wet and there is no stiffness or grittiness when examination is
made with a stethescope.

The only way MoS2 can extend the life of the bearing is by limiting
the effects of wear.
It reduces friction - but if that allows the balls to skid instead of
roll, it'll make things worse, not better.

Have you been drinking again?

It's main benefit is in sliding contacts, where friction reduction has
the greatest benefit.
Once there's any sliding going on in a roller bearing, you are already
into damage limitation.

There is always sliding, unless the bearing is getting torn apart,
which is what happens when your banana munching mates run bearings
without a lubricant.

I think you are having trouble understanding the meaning of "high
speed" in relation to bearings.

You also beleive in Daddy Christmas and the tooth fairy.

Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed
that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.
That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.

I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard
"cycle" grease with loose balls. *At the upper riding speeds the
grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.
The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. * The
balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail
from fatigue. *If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome
balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning
that up.

The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls, as long as they
are spherical, will spin so providing adequate lubrication above 12mph
(chosen from the air).

My regular speeds were up to around 40mph and less frequently 68mph.
I trashed wheel bearings regularly for a few years, more than my mates
probably because I liked those long downhill runs. *I gave up on their
(and shop) recommendations as my demands were obviously greater than
the regular racer. *I sought out speed. * A ball only fill with a
slack grease did not withstand my use, the wheel bearings had to be
either regularly oiled, when ball only, or caged with a slack
grease.

A well designed retainer (such as Campagnolo's #2101 whose

Yes, the Campag' retainers are good.

patents have expired now; analogs available cheaply from
Sugino,Tange etc) holds a full count of balls and performs
as well as loose bearings with quicker assembly. No downside
at all.

It performs better as it prevents grease cavitation. Most Campag'
bearings had oil holes, the top models were at the hub centre and used
for racing whereby it was simpler to prepare the bike for the race.


Many inexpensive designs are just barely functional. We need
to distinguish between significant factors (number of load
points, bearing quality, cup and cone material,

There's not a lot in it as long as there is no swarf in the bearing
and a lubricant that is up to the job. My budget Sachs and Joytech
hubs are fine, because I cleaned them out of swarf and used my mix of
calcium grease and 3in1 and Weldtite oil.

concentricity, hardness and finish etc) and minor factors
such as whether a retainer is supplied in the set.

I'd suspect some budget bike having poor bearings but not any stock
replacement hubs.


Confounding all that, Murphy's Law shows us that your
average guy installs retainers backwards about half the
time, a problem with no obvious solution.


two sugars in a cuppa can help the morning staff.

On Apr 20, 6:24*pm, "Ian Field"
wrote:
"AMuzi" wrote in message

...









On 4/20/2013 10:12 AM, thirty-six wrote:
On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee wrote:
thirty-six considered Fri, 19 Apr 2013
03:12:00 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Apr 19, 4:07 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:11 pm, James wrote:

On 19/04/13 08:38, Phil W Lee wrote:

*considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013
08:11:06
+1000 the perfect time to write:
The quote is not clear because it does not define what the increase
is
with respect to. *I have read other papers that say cageless
bearings
run hotter than caged bearings - thus more friction losses in the
cageless variety.

Unless you can explain how adding multiple points of sliding contact
can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact, that
falls well short of sensible.

What is a design with only rolling contact? *If you mean a cage less
rolling bearing (ball or roller), then please explain how sliding
contact is avoided when there is no cage to keep the rolling elements
from touching?

Please also explain to me, as I've obviously lost me bearings, why a
google search yields results such as;

"Ball Cage Effect
The early forms of ball bearings were full-ball types without ball
cages. Friction between balls caused loud
noise, made high-speed rotation impossible and shortened the service
life. Twenty years later, a Caged Ball
design was developed for ball bearings. The new design enabled
high-speed rotation at a low noise level,
and extended the service life despite the reduced number of balls
used.
It marked a major development in
the history of ball bearings.
Similarly, the quality of needle bearings was significantly improved
by
the caged needle structure.
With cage-less, full-ball types of ball bearings, balls make metallic
contact with one another and
produce loud noise. In addition, they rotate in opposite directions,
causing the sliding contact between two
adjacent balls to occur at a speed twice the ball-spinning rate. It
results in severe wear and shortens the
service life.
In addition, without a cage, balls make point contact to increase
bearing stress, thus facilitating
breakage of the oil film. In contrast, each caged ball contacts the
cage
over a wide area. Therefore, the oil
film does not break, the noise level is low and balls can rotate at a
high speed, resulting in a long
service life."

(google "site:tech.thk.com Caged Ball SHS")

Looks to me like they're advertising their design feature.

I left all my bearing catalogs behind when I retired, but I know for
sure that a bearing's load capacity is increased when the number of
balls increases. For ordinary industrial ball bearings, the type with
the cage is called a Conrad bearing; it's the basic type. *The type
that crams an extra ball or two into the groove is called a slot-fill
bearing, or full complement bearing. *Its radial load capacity is
definitely higher, due to the higher ball count. *(Its axial load
capacity is far lower, due to the groove.)

It may be that caged ball bearings are better for high speeds, but
that has nothing to do with bicycle applications. *With the cycling
penchant for light weight, we're more concerned with getting
sufficient load capacity out of the smallest, lightest assembly. *That
calls for a full complement of bearing balls.

The SKF site is good for browsing and learning.
Seehttp://www.skf.com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-bearin...
for example.

- Frank Krygowski

without the spacer the balls are forced against each other and
ovalise.

What forces them against each other?

I'm not submitting an argument for courtroom entertainment, I have not
the words. * They just do.

Why would it force the balls against each other, but somehow not force
the balls against the spacer?

I've seen more bearings wrecked by a spacer breaking up inside than
all other causes put together, which doesn't say much for the lifespan
enhancing properties of the cage.

I've seen more monkeys. *Good cages installed correctly with good
balls last.

* * * * The bearing has a shorter lifespan whatever speed it turns
unless there is a constant oil feed, in which case it might not matter
with a low speed application and a saving can be made on bearing size,
which is useful when loads are 10 tonnes and bearing speed is below
10rev/min.

When bicycles were oiled before riding the use of unspaced balls was
acceptable but when laziness and Brandtian thoughts of putting money
into the pockets of the oil companies became more prevelant, a belief
was born that bicycle bearings could work without routine attention to
lubrication.

I questioned the notion that bicycles don't need oiling in 1983. *It
seemed that bicycle shops were encouraging laziness and with further
experience I found that bearings generally failed within two years,
unless the bicycle was annually serviced. *Clever eh?

When a bearing heavily loaded and run at low speed as on a bicycle it
becomes even more important that when grease is used it is
sufficiently fluid at the operating temperature that the balls are
continually wetted. *There is also some pumping of a correctly
specified grease which pushes the debris away from the balls and track
and brings in clean lubricant. *I have found calcium grease with extra
oil to be most suitable for the wheel and crank bearings. * MoS2 can
also be used to help the load capacity and extend bearing life almost
indefinitely as long as routine checks are made that the bearing is
still wet and there is no stiffness or grittiness when examination is
made with a stethescope.

The only way MoS2 can extend the life of the bearing is by limiting
the effects of wear.
It reduces friction - but if that allows the balls to skid instead of
roll, it'll make things worse, not better.

Have you been drinking again?

It's main benefit is in sliding contacts, where friction reduction has
the greatest benefit.
Once there's any sliding going on in a roller bearing, you are already
into damage limitation.

There is always sliding, unless the bearing is getting torn apart,
which is what happens when your banana munching mates run bearings
without a lubricant.

I think you are having trouble understanding the meaning of "high
speed" in relation to bearings.

You also beleive in Daddy Christmas and the tooth fairy.

Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed
that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.
That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.

I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard
"cycle" grease with loose balls. *At the upper riding speeds the
grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.
The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. * The
balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail
from fatigue. *If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome
balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning
that up.

The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls, as long as they
are spherical, will spin so providing adequate lubrication above 12mph
(chosen from the air).

My regular speeds were up to around 40mph and less frequently 68mph.
I trashed wheel bearings regularly for a few years, more than my mates
probably because I liked those long downhill runs. *I gave up on their
(and shop) recommendations as my demands were obviously greater than
the regular racer. *I sought out speed. * A ball only fill with a
slack grease did not withstand my use, the wheel bearings had to be
either regularly oiled, when ball only, or caged with a slack
grease.

A well designed retainer (such as Campagnolo's #2101 whose patents have
expired now; analogs available cheaply from Sugino,Tange etc) holds a full
count of balls and performs as well as loose bearings with quicker
assembly. No downside at all.

Many inexpensive designs are just barely functional. We need to
distinguish between significant factors (number of load points, bearing
quality, cup and cone material, concentricity, hardness and finish etc)
and minor factors such as whether a retainer is supplied in the set.

Confounding all that, Murphy's Law shows us that your average guy installs
retainers backwards about half the time, a problem with no obvious
solution.

Wouldn't someone spot something so obviously wrong when they try to adjust
the bearing for free rolling without play?!

maybe you are thinking of ...

On Apr 20, 9:06*pm, davethedave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:52:36 -0700, Dan O wrote:
Well, if the cage itself is ~static relative to the balls' rotation,
maybe it's less sliding force overall than two rolling balls rubbing
against each other (?)

That said, I prefer the idea of loose balls.

Me too. I can't stand those lycra shorts. The movement in an enclosed
space causes much more friction.
--
davethedave

try greasin em wi castor oil.

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:36*pm, wrote:

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:12:55 AM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:

On Apr 20, 1:54*am, Phil W Lee wrote:



Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed



that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance..



That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.



I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard



"cycle" grease with loose balls. *At the upper riding speeds the



grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.



The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. * The



balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail



from fatigue. *If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome



balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning



that up.



I'm a little curious how you observed the grease "cavitating" while riding at high speeds.





I did the sensible option and recreated the rotating wheel with the

dustcap pulled from the left side of the rear wheel, by putting the

bike upside down and turning the cranks.

Hmm. And that allowed you to observe microscopic bubbles within the opaque grease? Wow.

My first technical job (part time, while in college) was as a hydraulic laboratory technician, so the type of cavitation I'm most familiar with occurs in a restricted intake of a hydraulic pump. Pressure drops below the vapor pressure at certain spots in the flow, the fluid forms micro bubbles which are then pressurized just within the pump. The rapid collapse of the bubbles causes shock waves that eventually erode pump metal. Same thing happens, under slightly different conditions, with some boat propellers, I understand. But cavitation in a bicycle bearing must mean something else, and in any case, I don't see how little bubbles of air would interfere with an oil film on balls or races.

Cor Frank, your training/

conditioning has worked well, hasn't it? Don't you remember running

on the beach naked, in and out of the sea, you know when life was just

great?

I haven't been naked on a beach for almost two years now. But that incident didn't have anything to do with bearings of any kind. Visibility was fine, so I never even needed to know which way was north.

*And if you did observe cavitation (did you mean air bubbles in the grease?) why you think it would have a deleterious effect on the lubrication.



I don't need to think it, it does.

Ah.

I've ridden the bearings with that

setup of lubrication and none lasted 18 months despite fancy teflon-

loaded bicycle specific grease.



The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls...



And how or why the cage would stop the air bubbles in the grease.



It just does, no-one persuades it either way, it has no auditory or

mental capacity. That's just the way it is.

Ah.

Even 68 mph works out to only about 850 rpm for a typical bike wheel. *In the world of bearing design, that definitely qualifies as low speed. *It's below the idling speed of a lot of engines, below what auto, motorcycle and trailer wheels do for many tens of thousands of maintenance-free miles.



Yes, it is low-speed for a caged bearing but goes beyond the limits of

an uncaged bearing due to cavitation of grease.

Ah.

- Frank Krygowski

On Apr 21, 2:30*am, wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:36*pm, wrote:

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:12:55 AM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:

On Apr 20, 1:54*am, Phil W Lee wrote:

Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed

that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.

That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.

I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard

"cycle" grease with loose balls. *At the upper riding speeds the

grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.

The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. * The

balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail

from fatigue. *If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome

balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning

that up.

I'm a little curious how you observed the grease "cavitating" while riding at high speeds.

I did the sensible option and recreated the rotating wheel with the

dustcap pulled from the left side of the rear wheel, by putting the

bike upside down and turning the cranks.

Hmm. *And that allowed you to observe microscopic bubbles within the opaque grease? *Wow.

So f88ing clever you ARE. Just do it. the cavitation is clear, the
grease rises away and the paleness can be seen over a band the area at
least 1/4 width of the balls, in line with the track of the balls.


My first technical job (part time, while in college) was as a hydraulic laboratory technician, so the type of cavitation I'm most familiar with occurs in a restricted intake of a hydraulic pump.

yes, the balls act like a pump, pushing the grease out, as there is
nothing to retain it.

*Pressure drops below the vapor pressure at certain spots in the flow, the fluid forms micro bubbles which are then pressurized just within the pump. *The rapid collapse of the bubbles causes shock waves that eventually erode pump metal. *Same thing happens, under slightly different conditions, with some boat propellers, I understand. *But cavitation in a bicycle bearing must mean something else, and in any case, I don't see how little bubbles of air would interfere with an oil film on balls or races.

They join up in about 20 seconds. Just do it.


*Cor Frank, your training/

conditioning has worked well, hasn't it? * Don't you remember running

on the beach naked, in and out of the sea, you know when life was just

great?

I haven't been naked on a beach for almost two years now. *But that incident didn't have anything to do with bearings of any kind. *Visibility was fine, so I never even needed to know which way was north.

you were thinking in words, didn't venture into the "polluted" sea and
life wasn't great..

*And if you did observe cavitation (did you mean air bubbles in the grease?) why you think it would have a deleterious effect on the lubrication.

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:17:30 PM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:41*pm, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/20/2013 10:12 AM, thirty-six wrote:



















On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee wrote:

thirty-six considered Fri, 19 Apr 2013

03:12:00 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



On Apr 19, 4:07 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Apr 18, 8:11 pm, James wrote:



On 19/04/13 08:38, Phil W Lee wrote:



*considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06

+1000 the perfect time to write:

The quote is not clear because it does not define what the increase is

with respect to. *I have read other papers that say cageless bearings

run hotter than caged bearings - thus more friction losses in the

cageless variety.



Unless you can explain how adding multiple points of sliding contact

can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact, that

falls well short of sensible.



What is a design with only rolling contact? *If you mean a cage less

rolling bearing (ball or roller), then please explain how sliding

contact is avoided when there is no cage to keep the rolling elements

from touching?



Please also explain to me, as I've obviously lost me bearings, why a

google search yields results such as;



"Ball Cage Effect

The early forms of ball bearings were full-ball types without ball

cages. Friction between balls caused loud

noise, made high-speed rotation impossible and shortened the service

life. Twenty years later, a Caged Ball

design was developed for ball bearings. The new design enabled

high-speed rotation at a low noise level,

and extended the service life despite the reduced number of balls used.

It marked a major development in

the history of ball bearings.

Similarly, the quality of needle bearings was significantly improved by

the caged needle structure.

With cage-less, full-ball types of ball bearings, balls make metallic

contact with one another and

produce loud noise. In addition, they rotate in opposite directions,

causing the sliding contact between two

adjacent balls to occur at a speed twice the ball-spinning rate. It

results in severe wear and shortens the

service life.

In addition, without a cage, balls make point contact to increase

bearing stress, thus facilitating

breakage of the oil film. In contrast, each caged ball contacts the cage

over a wide area. Therefore, the oil

film does not break, the noise level is low and balls can rotate at a

high speed, resulting in a long

service life."



(google "site:tech.thk.com Caged Ball SHS")



Looks to me like they're advertising their design feature.



I left all my bearing catalogs behind when I retired, but I know for

sure that a bearing's load capacity is increased when the number of

balls increases. For ordinary industrial ball bearings, the type with

the cage is called a Conrad bearing; it's the basic type. *The type

that crams an extra ball or two into the groove is called a slot-fill

bearing, or full complement bearing. *Its radial load capacity is

definitely higher, due to the higher ball count. *(Its axial load

capacity is far lower, due to the groove.)



It may be that caged ball bearings are better for high speeds, but

that has nothing to do with bicycle applications. *With the cycling

penchant for light weight, we're more concerned with getting

sufficient load capacity out of the smallest, lightest assembly. *That

calls for a full complement of bearing balls.



The SKF site is good for browsing and learning. *Seehttp://www.skf.com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-bearin...

for example.



- Frank Krygowski



without the spacer the balls are forced against each other and

ovalise.



What forces them against each other?



I'm not submitting an argument for courtroom entertainment, I have not

the words. * They just do.



Why would it force the balls against each other, but somehow not force

the balls against the spacer?



I've seen more bearings wrecked by a spacer breaking up inside than

all other causes put together, which doesn't say much for the lifespan

enhancing properties of the cage.



I've seen more monkeys. *Good cages installed correctly with good

balls last.



* * * * The bearing has a shorter lifespan whatever speed it turns

unless there is a constant oil feed, in which case it might not matter

with a low speed application and a saving can be made on bearing size,

which is useful when loads are 10 tonnes and bearing speed is below

10rev/min.



When bicycles were oiled before riding the use of unspaced balls was

acceptable but when laziness and Brandtian thoughts of putting money

into the pockets of the oil companies became more prevelant, a belief

was born that bicycle bearings could work without routine attention to

lubrication.



I questioned the notion that bicycles don't need oiling in 1983. *It

seemed that bicycle shops were encouraging laziness and with further

experience I found that bearings generally failed within two years,

unless the bicycle was annually serviced. *Clever eh?



When a bearing heavily loaded and run at low speed as on a bicycle it

becomes even more important that when grease is used it is

sufficiently fluid at the operating temperature that the balls are

continually wetted. *There is also some pumping of a correctly

specified grease which pushes the debris away from the balls and track

and brings in clean lubricant. *I have found calcium grease with extra

oil to be most suitable for the wheel and crank bearings. * MoS2 can

also be used to help the load capacity and extend bearing life almost

indefinitely as long as routine checks are made that the bearing is

still wet and there is no stiffness or grittiness when examination is

made with a stethescope.



The only way MoS2 can extend the life of the bearing is by limiting

the effects of wear.

It reduces friction - but if that allows the balls to skid instead of

roll, it'll make things worse, not better.



Have you been drinking again?



It's main benefit is in sliding contacts, where friction reduction has

the greatest benefit.

Once there's any sliding going on in a roller bearing, you are already

into damage limitation.



There is always sliding, unless the bearing is getting torn apart,

which is what happens when your banana munching mates run bearings

without a lubricant.



I think you are having trouble understanding the meaning of "high

speed" in relation to bearings.



You also beleive in Daddy Christmas and the tooth fairy.



Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high speed

that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.

That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.



I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard

"cycle" grease with loose balls. *At the upper riding speeds the

grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.

The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. * The

balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will fail

from fatigue. *If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome

balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning

that up.



The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls, as long as they

are spherical, will spin so providing adequate lubrication above 12mph

(chosen from the air).



My regular speeds were up to around 40mph and less frequently 68mph.

I trashed wheel bearings regularly for a few years, more than my mates

probably because I liked those long downhill runs. *I gave up on their

(and shop) recommendations as my demands were obviously greater than

the regular racer. *I sought out speed. * A ball only fill with a

slack grease did not withstand my use, the wheel bearings had to be

either regularly oiled, when ball only, or caged with a slack

grease.



A well designed retainer (such as Campagnolo's #2101 whose



Yes, the Campag' retainers are good.



patents have expired now; analogs available cheaply from

Sugino,Tange etc) holds a full count of balls and performs

as well as loose bearings with quicker assembly. No downside

at all.



It performs better as it prevents grease cavitation. Most Campag'

bearings had oil holes, the top models were at the hub centre and used

for racing whereby it was simpler to prepare the bike for the race.





Many inexpensive designs are just barely functional. We need

to distinguish between significant factors (number of load

points, bearing quality, cup and cone material,



There's not a lot in it as long as there is no swarf in the bearing

and a lubricant that is up to the job. My budget Sachs and Joytech

hubs are fine, because I cleaned them out of swarf and used my mix of

calcium grease and 3in1 and Weldtite oil.



concentricity, hardness and finish etc) and minor factors

such as whether a retainer is supplied in the set.



I'd suspect some budget bike having poor bearings but not any stock

replacement hubs.





Confounding all that, Murphy's Law shows us that your

average guy installs retainers backwards about half the

time, a problem with no obvious solution.





two sugars in a cuppa can help the morning staff.

Seems to me that an oiling port in the middle of a hub or on thye right side of a bottom bracket would require a LOT of oil before the oil reached the bearings on either side. I do not think that a few drops of oil in either location would do much good at all. How much oild did it take anyway?

Cheers

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 23:06:14 +0300, davethedave
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:52:36 -0700, Dan O wrote:

Well, if the cage itself is ~static relative to the balls' rotation,
maybe it's less sliding force overall than two rolling balls rubbing
against each other (?)

That said, I prefer the idea of loose balls.

Me too. I can't stand those lycra shorts. The movement in an enclosed
space causes much more friction.


Use grease :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

"Sir Ridesalot" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:17:30 PM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:41 pm, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/20/2013 10:12 AM, thirty-six wrote:



















On Apr 20, 1:54 am, Phil W Lee wrote:

thirty-six considered Fri, 19 Apr 2013

03:12:00 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



On Apr 19, 4:07 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Apr 18, 8:11 pm, James wrote:



On 19/04/13 08:38, Phil W Lee wrote:



considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013
08:11:06

+1000 the perfect time to write:

The quote is not clear because it does not define what the
increase is

with respect to. I have read other papers that say cageless
bearings

run hotter than caged bearings - thus more friction losses in
the

cageless variety.



Unless you can explain how adding multiple points of sliding
contact

can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact,
that

falls well short of sensible.



What is a design with only rolling contact? If you mean a cage
less

rolling bearing (ball or roller), then please explain how sliding

contact is avoided when there is no cage to keep the rolling
elements

from touching?



Please also explain to me, as I've obviously lost me bearings,
why a

google search yields results such as;



"Ball Cage Effect

The early forms of ball bearings were full-ball types without
ball

cages. Friction between balls caused loud

noise, made high-speed rotation impossible and shortened the
service

life. Twenty years later, a Caged Ball

design was developed for ball bearings. The new design enabled

high-speed rotation at a low noise level,

and extended the service life despite the reduced number of balls
used.

It marked a major development in

the history of ball bearings.

Similarly, the quality of needle bearings was significantly
improved by

the caged needle structure.

With cage-less, full-ball types of ball bearings, balls make
metallic

contact with one another and

produce loud noise. In addition, they rotate in opposite
directions,

causing the sliding contact between two

adjacent balls to occur at a speed twice the ball-spinning rate.
It

results in severe wear and shortens the

service life.

In addition, without a cage, balls make point contact to increase

bearing stress, thus facilitating

breakage of the oil film. In contrast, each caged ball contacts
the cage

over a wide area. Therefore, the oil

film does not break, the noise level is low and balls can rotate
at a

high speed, resulting in a long

service life."



(google "site:tech.thk.com Caged Ball SHS")



Looks to me like they're advertising their design feature.



I left all my bearing catalogs behind when I retired, but I know
for

sure that a bearing's load capacity is increased when the number
of

balls increases. For ordinary industrial ball bearings, the type
with

the cage is called a Conrad bearing; it's the basic type. The
type

that crams an extra ball or two into the groove is called a
slot-fill

bearing, or full complement bearing. Its radial load capacity is

definitely higher, due to the higher ball count. (Its axial load

capacity is far lower, due to the groove.)



It may be that caged ball bearings are better for high speeds, but

that has nothing to do with bicycle applications. With the
cycling

penchant for light weight, we're more concerned with getting

sufficient load capacity out of the smallest, lightest assembly.
That

calls for a full complement of bearing balls.



The SKF site is good for browsing and learning.
Seehttp://www.skf.com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-bearin...

for example.



- Frank Krygowski



without the spacer the balls are forced against each other and

ovalise.



What forces them against each other?



I'm not submitting an argument for courtroom entertainment, I have
not

the words. They just do.



Why would it force the balls against each other, but somehow not
force

the balls against the spacer?



I've seen more bearings wrecked by a spacer breaking up inside than

all other causes put together, which doesn't say much for the
lifespan

enhancing properties of the cage.



I've seen more monkeys. Good cages installed correctly with good

balls last.



The bearing has a shorter lifespan whatever speed it turns

unless there is a constant oil feed, in which case it might not
matter

with a low speed application and a saving can be made on bearing
size,

which is useful when loads are 10 tonnes and bearing speed is below

10rev/min.



When bicycles were oiled before riding the use of unspaced balls
was

acceptable but when laziness and Brandtian thoughts of putting
money

into the pockets of the oil companies became more prevelant, a
belief

was born that bicycle bearings could work without routine attention
to

lubrication.



I questioned the notion that bicycles don't need oiling in 1983.
It

seemed that bicycle shops were encouraging laziness and with
further

experience I found that bearings generally failed within two years,

unless the bicycle was annually serviced. Clever eh?



When a bearing heavily loaded and run at low speed as on a bicycle
it

becomes even more important that when grease is used it is

sufficiently fluid at the operating temperature that the balls are

continually wetted. There is also some pumping of a correctly

specified grease which pushes the debris away from the balls and
track

and brings in clean lubricant. I have found calcium grease with
extra

oil to be most suitable for the wheel and crank bearings. MoS2
can

also be used to help the load capacity and extend bearing life
almost

indefinitely as long as routine checks are made that the bearing is

still wet and there is no stiffness or grittiness when examination
is

made with a stethescope.



The only way MoS2 can extend the life of the bearing is by limiting

the effects of wear.

It reduces friction - but if that allows the balls to skid instead
of

roll, it'll make things worse, not better.



Have you been drinking again?



It's main benefit is in sliding contacts, where friction reduction
has

the greatest benefit.

Once there's any sliding going on in a roller bearing, you are
already

into damage limitation.



There is always sliding, unless the bearing is getting torn apart,

which is what happens when your banana munching mates run bearings

without a lubricant.



I think you are having trouble understanding the meaning of "high

speed" in relation to bearings.



You also beleive in Daddy Christmas and the tooth fairy.



Cages can have their uses in bearings that are sufficiently high
speed

that bunching of the balls would have severe effects on the balance.

That is certainly not the case in anything on a bicycle.



I've seen the effect of running a bicycle wheel bearing in a standard

"cycle" grease with loose balls. At the upper riding speeds the

grease cavitates and the balls roll on a single axis, without spin.

The tracks as well as the balls are not adequately lubricated. The

balls will wear taking them out of sphericity and the tracks will
fail

from fatigue. If left long enough without adequate lubrication, ome

balls may crack in two and get caught up with the cage so churning

that up.



The cage stops the cavitation of grease and the balls, as long as
they

are spherical, will spin so providing adequate lubrication above
12mph

(chosen from the air).



My regular speeds were up to around 40mph and less frequently 68mph.

I trashed wheel bearings regularly for a few years, more than my
mates

probably because I liked those long downhill runs. I gave up on
their

(and shop) recommendations as my demands were obviously greater than

the regular racer. I sought out speed. A ball only fill with a

slack grease did not withstand my use, the wheel bearings had to be

either regularly oiled, when ball only, or caged with a slack

grease.



A well designed retainer (such as Campagnolo's #2101 whose



Yes, the Campag' retainers are good.



patents have expired now; analogs available cheaply from

Sugino,Tange etc) holds a full count of balls and performs

as well as loose bearings with quicker assembly. No downside

at all.



It performs better as it prevents grease cavitation. Most Campag'

bearings had oil holes, the top models were at the hub centre and used

for racing whereby it was simpler to prepare the bike for the race.





Many inexpensive designs are just barely functional. We need

to distinguish between significant factors (number of load

points, bearing quality, cup and cone material,



There's not a lot in it as long as there is no swarf in the bearing

and a lubricant that is up to the job. My budget Sachs and Joytech

hubs are fine, because I cleaned them out of swarf and used my mix of

calcium grease and 3in1 and Weldtite oil.



concentricity, hardness and finish etc) and minor factors

such as whether a retainer is supplied in the set.



I'd suspect some budget bike having poor bearings but not any stock

replacement hubs.





Confounding all that, Murphy's Law shows us that your

average guy installs retainers backwards about half the

time, a problem with no obvious solution.





two sugars in a cuppa can help the morning staff.

Seems to me that an oiling port in the middle of a hub or on thye right
side of a bottom bracket would require a LOT of oil before the oil reached
the bearings on either side. I do not think that a few drops of oil in
either location would do much good at all. How much oild did it take
anyway?

Can't be anywhere near as bad as a Sturmey-Archer 3-sp hub - the oil runs
out the sprocket carrier bearing long before it gets anywhere near the
spindle cones.

On Apr 21, 6:45*am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:17:30 PM UTC-4, thirty-six wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:41*pm, AMuzi wrote:



time, a problem with no obvious solution.

two sugars in a cuppa can help the morning staff.

Seems to me that an oiling port in the middle of a hub or on thye right side of a bottom bracket would require a LOT of oil before the oil reached the bearings on either side. I do not think that a few drops of oil in either location would do much good at all. How much oild did it take anyway?


Just enough to slacken the calcium grease already installed .
Certainly less than a teaspoon for the initial fill and usually only a
few drops every 6 months after. It's as well to check the grease
fluidity every month of riding and decide whether the grease is
dragging.

Calcium grease is very tenacious stuff, has long chains or summat
(I've forgotton all the technical wordies) and stiffens considerably
as the oils evaporate to create obvious drag in the bearing well
before it becomes substandard at lubrication. For a cycle bearing it
seems ideal. The crank bearing may be checked simply by turning the
crank with one finger near to the bearing Depending on actually how
frequent I have been at riding, oiling, the weather, if i'd left my
bike next to the radiator, bl;ah de blah, this may be a couple of
drops a side every 3 or 4 months or ten if I'd left it a couple of
years or so. It's simple enough to lean the bike according to which
precise bearing one wishes to oil. With oil holes on the hub
dustcaps, it is as well to use them. With the rear wheel i just oil
from the left, leaning the bike to the right the whole time, letting
the oil run through along the hubshell. This also creates a reservoir
of oil in the hubshell making for longer times between oiling. :-)

The key to this simple seemingly infrequent (compared to oiling
alone) attention working so well is the installed calcium grease. If
the wheel or cranks do not spin with a light touch when I go to leave
the house, it's time for the oil can. I put in just enough so that
the bearings are free. It does not matter if there is a little drag
from the grease, it's not enough to notice when riding but it easily
noticable with a wheel free of the ground in that it quickly comes to
a stop. Same when backspinning the cranks. IIRC there was a
recommendation that the cranks should freely turn backwards three
times from a regular speed on a freewheel machine and the wheels
should turn 20 times 9forwards on back wheel).

My crank bearing oil port on my "criterium" bike is simply a small
hole in the middle of the crank bearing liner accessed through the
"aero" bottom bracket shell. I just lift the bike onto the garden
wall and lean it over and give it a short squirt to one side and keep
turning for a couple of minutes turning the bike round to lean the
other way as the grease loosens it's hold. I do it by feel, the
other side may loosen up just through the excess of oil for the first
side. What I have found is that an excess of oil may be squirted in
and as long as the bike is righted as soon as the grease starts to
slacken, it will not take in the excess oil and flood out of the ends.

On 19/04/13 13:50, David Scheidt wrote:
Frank wrote:
:On Apr 18, 8:11 pm, wrote:
: On 19/04/13 08:38, Phil W Lee wrote:
:
: considered Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:11:06
: +1000 the perfect time to write:
: The quote is not clear because it does not define what the increase is
: with respect to. I have read other papers that say cageless bearings
: run hotter than caged bearings - thus more friction losses in the
: cageless variety.
:
: Unless you can explain how adding multiple points of sliding contact
: can reduce friction over a design with only rolling contact, that
: falls well short of sensible.
:
: What is a design with only rolling contact? If you mean a cage less
: rolling bearing (ball or roller), then please explain how sliding
: contact is avoided when there is no cage to keep the rolling elements
: from touching?
:
: Please also explain to me, as I've obviously lost me bearings, why a
: google search yields results such as;
:
: "Ball Cage Effect
: The early forms of ball bearings were full-ball types without ball
: cages. Friction between balls caused loud
: noise, made high-speed rotation impossible and shortened the service
: life. Twenty years later, a Caged Ball
: design was developed for ball bearings. The new design enabled
: high-speed rotation at a low noise level,
: and extended the service life despite the reduced number of balls used.
: It marked a major development in
: the history of ball bearings.
: Similarly, the quality of needle bearings was significantly improved by
: the caged needle structure.
: With cage-less, full-ball types of ball bearings, balls make metallic
: contact with one another and
: produce loud noise. In addition, they rotate in opposite directions,
: causing the sliding contact between two
: adjacent balls to occur at a speed twice the ball-spinning rate. It
: results in severe wear and shortens the
: service life.
: In addition, without a cage, balls make point contact to increase
: bearing stress, thus facilitating
: breakage of the oil film. In contrast, each caged ball contacts the cage
: over a wide area. Therefore, the oil
: film does not break, the noise level is low and balls can rotate at a
: high speed, resulting in a long
: service life."
:
: (google "site:tech.thk.com Caged Ball SHS")

:Looks to me like they're advertising their design feature.

:I left all my bearing catalogs behind when I retired, but I know for
:sure that a bearing's load capacity is increased when the number of
:balls increases. For ordinary industrial ball bearings, the type with
:the cage is called a Conrad bearing; it's the basic type. The type
:that crams an extra ball or two into the groove is called a slot-fill
:bearing, or full complement bearing. Its radial load capacity is
:definitely higher, due to the higher ball count. (Its axial load
:capacity is far lower, due to the groove.)

Conrad and slot fill bearings are relevant to bearings designed to
carry a purely radial load. Remember, of course, that a cup and cone
bicycle bearing is an angular contact bearing, which can carry radial and
axial loads in different proportion by varying the angles of the races.
Importantly, they can be made as a full complement bearing without
needing the slot for assembly, since they come apart axially. The Conrad
bearing solved James's objection that without a cage, the balls will
move, which does lead to bearing failure. But with a full complement of
balls, you don't need a cage to maintain spacing, since there's no extra
space to dispalce into. The cage is really just for easy of assembly
(and maybe stocking spares). It's often used to reduce the number of
balls in the bearing, but it needn't be.



My objection was not only that the balls can move and not be evenly
spaced, but that they press against one another without a cage, and the
relative motion between the rubbing surfaces is in opposing directions.

The pressure and speed of relative motion is greater than that seen when
there is a cage to keep the balls separated.

It has been noted that full compliment bearings run hotter, and need
better lubrication flow (than a caged bearing) to maintain a lubrication
film between the balls. I.e. there is more friction and wear. The type
of lubrication required for longevity is not so easy to achieve in a
bicycle hub or BB.

--
JS.