Question about bearing cones.

AMuzi wrote:
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.


Okay, well I'm going to get out my vernier and thread gauges at the
weekend, and make double sure of what I'm looking for. I've seen some
advertised as Campagnolo 7/32" cones (which would explain why some of
the ones I have lying around are too tight and others are too loose),
and they look so much like the old ones (they have much shorter overall
length) that I'm tempted to get them. But, of course, I now know that I
need to be much surer of what I'm getting :-)

Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
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.


Okay, well I'm going to get out my vernier and thread gauges at the
weekend, and make double sure of what I'm looking for.* I've seen some
advertised as Campagnolo 7/32" cones (which would explain why some of
the ones I have lying around are too tight and others are too loose),
and they look so much like the old ones (they have much shorter overall
length) that I'm tempted to get them.* But, of course, I now know that I
need to be much surer of what I'm getting :-)

Hang on, 7/32" would be tiny, I think. :-) I wonder what I'm looking
at? Anyway, the Campagnolo ones look more correct in general. Shorter,
and with a narrower 'collar' (or whatever you'd call the bit between the
innermost [most central to the hub] ground down outer bit and the
threaded inner bit). Much less metal altogether.

On Thursday, 31 October 2019 11:15:05 UTC-4, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
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...Â* 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!Â* I'm sure I can find something there.Â* 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?Â* 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.Â* 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").Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* I got a replacement axle set (axle,
cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'.Â* Maybe they are
standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things?Â* 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.
Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* The thread
is the same, but the lands are not cut into the metal as
deeply as the old ones.Â* Thay are a bit 'fatter'.Â* 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.


Okay, well I'm going to get out my vernier and thread gauges at the
weekend, and make double sure of what I'm looking for.Â* I've seen some
advertised as Campagnolo 7/32" cones (which would explain why some of
the ones I have lying around are too tight and others are too loose),
and they look so much like the old ones (they have much shorter overall
length) that I'm tempted to get them.Â* But, of course, I now know that I
need to be much surer of what I'm getting :-)

Hang on, 7/32" would be tiny, I think. :-) I wonder what I'm looking
at? Anyway, the Campagnolo ones look more correct in general. Shorter,
and with a narrower 'collar' (or whatever you'd call the bit between the
innermost [most central to the hub] ground down outer bit and the
threaded inner bit). Much less metal altogether.

7/32" is only 1/32" less than 1/4". Not that tiny.

CHeers

On 10/31/2019 10:14 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
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.


Okay, well I'm going to get out my vernier and thread
gauges at the weekend, and make double sure of what I'm
looking for. I've seen some advertised as Campagnolo
7/32" cones (which would explain why some of the ones I
have lying around are too tight and others are too loose),
and they look so much like the old ones (they have much
shorter overall length) that I'm tempted to get them.
But, of course, I now know that I need to be much surer of
what I'm getting :-)

Hang on, 7/32" would be tiny, I think. :-) I wonder what
I'm looking at? Anyway, the Campagnolo ones look more
correct in general. Shorter, and with a narrower 'collar'
(or whatever you'd call the bit between the innermost [most
central to the hub] ground down outer bit and the threaded
inner bit). Much less metal altogether.


heh heh.
Besides 'standards' we also have jargon!

The shorthand '7/32" cone' means a Campagnolo #25R for use
with 7/32" balls, as opposed to a Campagnolo #25 cone for
use with 3/16" balls.


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

AMuzi wrote:
On 10/31/2019 10:14 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
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.


Okay, well I'm going to get out my vernier and thread
gauges at the weekend, and make double sure of what I'm
looking for.* I've seen some advertised as Campagnolo
7/32" cones (which would explain why some of the ones I
have lying around are too tight and others are too loose),
and they look so much like the old ones (they have much
shorter overall length) that I'm tempted to get them.
But, of course, I now know that I need to be much surer of
what I'm getting :-)

Hang on, 7/32" would be tiny, I think. :-)* I wonder what
I'm looking at?* Anyway, the Campagnolo ones look more
correct in general.* Shorter, and with a narrower 'collar'
(or whatever you'd call the bit between the innermost [most
central to the hub] ground down outer bit and the threaded
inner bit).* Much less metal altogether.


heh heh.
Besides 'standards' we also have jargon!

The shorthand '7/32" cone' means a Campagnolo #25R for use with 7/32"
balls, as opposed to a Campagnolo #25 cone for use with 3/16" balls.


Okay :-) Well, I measured the old balls, and they were 3/16". But I'll
stop chattering now, and wait until I get a chance to measure things.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 31 October 2019 11:15:05 UTC-4, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
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...Â* 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!Â* I'm sure I can find something there.Â* 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?Â* 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.Â* 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").Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* I got a replacement axle set (axle,
cones, skewer)
hoping that they were 'all the same'.Â* Maybe they are
standardised now,
otherwise why even sell such things?Â* 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.
Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* The thread
is the same, but the lands are not cut into the metal as
deeply as the old ones.Â* Thay are a bit 'fatter'.Â* 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.


Okay, well I'm going to get out my vernier and thread gauges at the
weekend, and make double sure of what I'm looking for.Â* I've seen some
advertised as Campagnolo 7/32" cones (which would explain why some of
the ones I have lying around are too tight and others are too loose),
and they look so much like the old ones (they have much shorter overall
length) that I'm tempted to get them.Â* But, of course, I now know that I
need to be much surer of what I'm getting :-)

Hang on, 7/32" would be tiny, I think. :-) I wonder what I'm looking
at? Anyway, the Campagnolo ones look more correct in general. Shorter,
and with a narrower 'collar' (or whatever you'd call the bit between the
innermost [most central to the hub] ground down outer bit and the
threaded inner bit). Much less metal altogether.

7/32" is only 1/32" less than 1/4". Not that tiny.

CHeers


I thought it was a spindle diameter :-)

On 10/31/2019 11:02 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 10/31/2019 10:14 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
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.


Okay, well I'm going to get out my vernier and thread
gauges at the weekend, and make double sure of what I'm
looking for. I've seen some advertised as Campagnolo
7/32" cones (which would explain why some of the ones I
have lying around are too tight and others are too loose),
and they look so much like the old ones (they have much
shorter overall length) that I'm tempted to get them.
But, of course, I now know that I need to be much surer of
what I'm getting :-)

Hang on, 7/32" would be tiny, I think. :-) I wonder what
I'm looking at? Anyway, the Campagnolo ones look more
correct in general. Shorter, and with a narrower 'collar'
(or whatever you'd call the bit between the innermost [most
central to the hub] ground down outer bit and the threaded
inner bit). Much less metal altogether.


heh heh.
Besides 'standards' we also have jargon!

The shorthand '7/32" cone' means a Campagnolo #25R for use
with 7/32" balls, as opposed to a Campagnolo #25 cone for
use with 3/16" balls.


Okay :-) Well, I measured the old balls, and they were
3/16". But I'll stop chattering now, and wait until I get a
chance to measure things.

In a quality 3/16" ball front hub I would use a classic era
Shimano 600 axle set which are well made, plentiful and
cheap. Bring your old axle set and a caliper to your
friendly LBS. Or a Campagnolo NuovoTipo/GrandSport front
cone, likely more expensive than the complete Shimano set.

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

On 10/31/2019 7:26 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/31/2019 7:02 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Interesting link, thanks.Â* 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.

OK, I'll bite, how is axle "compression" a misnomer? Is there an
alternate process by which tightening the QR removes a tiny bit of play
in the bearings?

Mark J.

On 10/31/2019 11:35 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 10/31/2019 7:26 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/31/2019 7:02 AM, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
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.

OK, I'll bite, how is axle "compression" a misnomer? Is
there an alternate process by which tightening the QR
removes a tiny bit of play in the bearings?

Mark J.


The locknuts press into the fork end and the axle deflects
but doesn't actually compress.

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

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:

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

It's not actually a misnomer... the axle does compress slightly, while the QR shaft stretches out a bit. Steel is an elastic material, and responds to stress accordingly. Same thing with bolts, come to think of it... that's why we use torque wrenches.
Cables probably stretch a little too, but only under tension, and not much. Once the tension is released, the cable (or axle) goes back to its original length. The apparent increase in length is actually mostly due to a decrease in the effective length of the cable housing as the cable "beds in" to the lining.
:-)