cyclops/saris hub damage with 10sp Shimano cassettes

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
jim beam wrote:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
http://www.aboc.com.au/images/galler.../DSCF3807.html
happens all the time with "boutique" shimano-copy hubs. shimano know
this - that's why their free hub bodies are either steel, ti, or deep
spline aluminum. embarrassingly basic error if you ask me.

stick to shimano or mavic or someone that knows how to make a proper
[steel or ti or deep spline aluminum] freehub body.
Or don't and suffer the consequences... er, except that you won't. Truth
is, it's virtually unknown to have someone actually have their cassette
cogs spin on the mechanism because they've dug in as shown in the photos
(and, by the way, my own cassette body looks a lot worse than what's
shown in the photos).
sorry mike, but when i pay serious bucks for a boutique hub, i want the
thing to work. without being damaged through some moron's non-engineering
oversight. it's not like this is hard to get right.
This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
greater
failure than something "better."
"deficient"? do they yield?

Octalink spindles don't yield, but I've seen enough cranks where the
spline interface is chewed up worse than an aluminum freehub shell to be
happy something better is out there. Jobst has proposed the cause of
this failure, and his thesis seems sensible to me.

octalink may not be idiot-proof, but nor is square taper. i've never
had an octalink crank loosen, let alone get chewed, but i take the
trouble to torque correctly. i currently own 7 bikes with octalink
cranks. i weigh #205. i have many thousands of miles on them - the
oldest one about 18k. never a blink of trouble. until i experience it,
i say it's mechanic error. factory torque is a good deal higher than is
averagely possible with a 4" hex wrench.


Ironically, the spindles are probably just fine,

why's that ironic?

jim beam wrote:
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
jim beam wrote:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
http://www.aboc.com.au/images/galler.../DSCF3807.html

happens all the time with "boutique" shimano-copy hubs. shimano
know this - that's why their free hub bodies are either steel,
ti, or deep spline aluminum. embarrassingly basic error if you
ask me.

stick to shimano or mavic or someone that knows how to make a
proper [steel or ti or deep spline aluminum] freehub body.
Or don't and suffer the consequences... er, except that you won't.
Truth is, it's virtually unknown to have someone actually have
their cassette cogs spin on the mechanism because they've dug in
as shown in the photos (and, by the way, my own cassette body
looks a lot worse than what's shown in the photos).
sorry mike, but when i pay serious bucks for a boutique hub, i want
the thing to work. without being damaged through some moron's
non-engineering oversight. it's not like this is hard to get right.
This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink &
Isis splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no
evidence of greater failure than something "better."
"deficient"? do they yield?

Octalink spindles don't yield, but I've seen enough cranks where the
spline interface is chewed up worse than an aluminum freehub shell to
be happy something better is out there. Jobst has proposed the cause
of this failure, and his thesis seems sensible to me.

octalink may not be idiot-proof, but nor is square taper. i've never
had an octalink crank loosen, let alone get chewed, but i take the
trouble to torque correctly. i currently own 7 bikes with octalink
cranks. i weigh #205. i have many thousands of miles on them - the
oldest one about 18k. never a blink of trouble. until i experience it,
i say it's mechanic error. factory torque is a good deal higher than is
averagely possible with a 4" hex wrench.

i should add, i've had a number of square taper cranks loosen.



Ironically, the spindles are probably just fine,

why's that ironic?

In article ,
jim beam wrote:

jim beam wrote:
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
jim beam wrote:

Octalink spindles don't yield, but I've seen enough cranks where the
spline interface is chewed up worse than an aluminum freehub shell to
be happy something better is out there. Jobst has proposed the cause
of this failure, and his thesis seems sensible to me.

octalink may not be idiot-proof, but nor is square taper. i've never
had an octalink crank loosen, let alone get chewed, but i take the
trouble to torque correctly. i currently own 7 bikes with octalink
cranks. i weigh #205. i have many thousands of miles on them - the
oldest one about 18k. never a blink of trouble. until i experience it,
i say it's mechanic error. factory torque is a good deal higher than is
averagely possible with a 4" hex wrench.

i should add, i've had a number of square taper cranks loosen.

Ironically, the spindles are probably just fine,

why's that ironic?

Well, I suppose it isn't, strictly speaking, but the main reason the
Octalink design arrived was to solve the poor interface of the
square-taper, and also the weakness of the spindles under heavy loads
(meaining mostly heavy riders or rougher MTB races).

With Octalink, the spindle failures disappeared, but then cranks started
getting chewed up.

As to the nature of "mechanic's error," that's fair comment, but it's
rather like many human error issues: if the humans aren't working
according to the engineering spec, it's usually easier to change the
engineering than the humans.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
http://www.aboc.com.au/images/galler.../DSCF3807.html
happens all the time with "boutique" shimano-copy hubs. shimano know
this - that's why their free hub bodies are either steel, ti, or deep
spline aluminum. embarrassingly basic error if you ask me.

stick to shimano or mavic or someone that knows how to make a proper
[steel or ti or deep spline aluminum] freehub body.

Or don't and suffer the consequences... er, except that you won't. Truth
is, it's virtually unknown to have someone actually have their cassette
cogs spin on the mechanism because they've dug in as shown in the photos
(and, by the way, my own cassette body looks a lot worse than what's
shown in the photos).

sorry mike, but when i pay serious bucks for a boutique hub, i want the
thing to work. without being damaged through some moron's non-engineering
oversight. it's not like this is hard to get right.

This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of greater
failure than something "better."

Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as impeding
the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
annoyance.

A machine part bearing a static load that it is designed for must
not break. This is not a case of an anomalous failure, but
designed in failure. Unacceptable.

--
Michael Press

This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
greater
failure than something "better."

Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as
impeding
the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
annoyance.

A machine part bearing a static load that it is designed for must
not break. This is not a case of an anomalous failure, but
designed in failure. Unacceptable.

--
Michael Press

Which I would go along with except...

.... to the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with an incidence of
failure.

There seems to be a redefinition going on of failure. It's no longer
required that something actually fail in use. Rather, an appearance that it
*might* fail is all that's required. The irony is that this thread has
caused me to re-think what's gone on with my own hub, which actually looks
worse than the one referenced by the original poster. But all this talk
about potential failure without anyone claiming actual failure has convinced
me I don't need to be concerned. However, I still forwarded my own photos to
the manufacturer (Bontrager, in this case) since, if there's an easy way to
avoid the cogs biting into the mechanism, it would make it a bit easier to
remove them. And be less scary-looking too.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
greater
failure than something "better."

Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as
impeding
the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
annoyance.
A machine part bearing a static load that it is designed for must
not break. This is not a case of an anomalous failure, but
designed in failure. Unacceptable.

--
Michael Press

Which I would go along with except...

... to the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with an incidence of
failure.

it /has/ failed. it has yielded. that shouldn't happen. particularly
not on a $1500 hub!


There seems to be a redefinition going on of failure. It's no longer
required that something actually fail in use. Rather, an appearance that it
*might* fail is all that's required. The irony is that this thread has
caused me to re-think what's gone on with my own hub, which actually looks
worse than the one referenced by the original poster. But all this talk
about potential failure without anyone claiming actual failure has convinced
me I don't need to be concerned. However, I still forwarded my own photos to
the manufacturer (Bontrager, in this case) since, if there's an easy way to
avoid the cogs biting into the mechanism, it would make it a bit easier to
remove them. And be less scary-looking too.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On May 14, 2:32 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

Which I would go along with except...

... to the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with an incidence of
failure.

There seems to be a redefinition going on of failure. It's no longer
required that something actually fail in use. Rather, an appearance that it
*might* fail is all that's required. The irony is that this thread has
caused me to re-think what's gone on with my own hub, which actually looks
worse than the one referenced by the original poster. But all this talk
about potential failure without anyone claiming actual failure has convinced
me I don't need to be concerned. However, I still forwarded my own photos to
the manufacturer (Bontrager, in this case) since, if there's an easy way to
avoid the cogs biting into the mechanism, it would make it a bit easier to
remove them. And be less scary-looking too.

Mike,
There *is* an easy way to avoid it. Two, actually ... use steel for
the freehub, or copy the Dura-Ace 10sp freehub splines. Not only is
it an easy fix, but it's an easy one to test and by now, it's an old
problem, 10sp has been around for some time now.

It is a failure of the design of the part such that it does not behave
as a freehub body should. Not that it's going to break and cause
injury (phew .. no need to worry about expensive legal action ...),
but it is not correct behaviour of the part. Cassettes should slide
off freehubs, rather than requiring multiple chainwhips and hammers
after a small amount of use. The design is flawed. It needs to be
fixed. The evidence of same is overwhelming. You yourself have been
in touch with Trek/Bontrager, as have I with them and Saris, they
*know* it's wrong. The fix is *easy*. Too much time in sales &
marketing must really rot human brains, I think.

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
This reminds me of threads about how seriously-deficient Octalink & Isis
splines are. Lots of talk about how bad a design, but no evidence of
greater
failure than something "better."

Yes, it would be convenient if you didn't have to rotate cogs backward to
extract them because they dug into the hub. But I don't see it as
impeding
the function of the bike, or in fact as anything more than a minor
annoyance.

A machine part bearing a static load that it is designed for must
not break. This is not a case of an anomalous failure, but
designed in failure. Unacceptable.

Which I would go along with except...

... to the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with an incidence of
failure.

There seems to be a redefinition going on of failure. It's no longer
required that something actually fail in use. Rather, an appearance that it
*might* fail is all that's required. The irony is that this thread has
caused me to re-think what's gone on with my own hub, which actually looks
worse than the one referenced by the original poster. But all this talk
about potential failure without anyone claiming actual failure has convinced
me I don't need to be concerned. However, I still forwarded my own photos to
the manufacturer (Bontrager, in this case) since, if there's an easy way to
avoid the cogs biting into the mechanism, it would make it a bit easier to
remove them. And be less scary-looking too.

I use failure to mean degradation of the part: gouging in this case.

--
Michael Press

rooman Wrote:
Token made a single piece 10speed in 06, machined from a solid lump of
alloy with Ti and other exotica. (aimed at pros I was told). It isnt in
their 07 product list so the price must have forced them to drop it. I
have held one in my hand so they did exist. They now make two piece
cassettes across a range of 9/10 speeds
see : http://www.tokenproducts.com/05htm/products.php

Fwooargh!

Ya should have put a pron warning on that!

Mmmm... Shiny....


--
suzyj