|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Freewheel extractor and cassette lockring tool
Just to make sure, freewheel extractors and cassette lockring tools look
very similar, but you cannot use one in place of the other, can you? If this is confirmed, I hope the inventor of the freehub lockring dies in a painful way, for inventing a very slightly different and completely incompatible splining. ;-) No but seriously, you can only do such a very close but incompatible tool design on purpose! I fortunately have only bikes with freehubs at home, but at my parent's holiday home, we have both bikes with freewheels and bikes with freehubs and cassettes. The toolkit I bought has a freewheel extractor, so I will probably need to buy a lockring tool as well. -- Tanguy |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Freewheel extractor and cassette lockring tool
On 9/2/2020 9:38 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
Just to make sure, freewheel extractors and cassette lockring tools look very similar, but you cannot use one in place of the other, can you? If this is confirmed, I hope the inventor of the freehub lockring dies in a painful way, for inventing a very slightly different and completely incompatible splining. ;-) No but seriously, you can only do such a very close but incompatible tool design on purpose! I fortunately have only bikes with freehubs at home, but at my parent's holiday home, we have both bikes with freewheels and bikes with freehubs and cassettes. The toolkit I bought has a freewheel extractor, so I will probably need to buy a lockring tool as well. The UG FW tool, which is also the Campagnolo UD CS tool, has broader splines. The current HG CS remover's splines are smaller. Which makes sense to anyone who's removed a freewheel and a 40-nm lockring. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Freewheel extractor and cassette lockring tool
I am having a little trouble with all these acronyms, am I getting that
right? AMuzi, 2020-09-02 17:07+0200: The UG FW tool, which is also the Campagnolo UD CS tool, has broader splines. Shimano Uniglide freewheel tool = Campagnolo Ultra-Drive cassette tool, have broader splines. The current HG CS remover's splines are smaller. Which makes sense to anyone who's removed a freewheel and a 40-nm lockring. Shimano Hyperglide cassette tool have smaller splines. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. I understand that this is supposed to make sense when you have removed a freewheel with a lockring tightened at 40 nm. Except that freewheels do not have a lockring. Anyway, I have certainly removed freewheels that have been tightened over use, and that required more way more than 40 nm to unscrew (my entire weight on a 30 cm-long spanner is 200 nm, and that was not enough). It does make sense to have a tool with splines designed to avoid a risk of slipping under such a torque. What I do not understand is that, when someone at Shimano (I think) invented the freehub and removable cassette, they chose to design it with a lockring which splines are almost identical to those of the existing freewheels, but with very tiny differences just enough to make them incompatible with existing tools. I cannot believe they did that just to make the tool hold weaker because there was no need to apply a large torque. Imagine I invent a magical wood screw that requires less torque than existing one, and that, for that screw, I design a screw head that is almost identical to the hex ones, but that is a bit rounded so it is incompatible and designed so it slips at bit more easily. That would just be completely insane. Is that what they are, at Shimano's? :-) -- Tanguy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Freewheel extractor and cassette lockring tool
On 9/2/2020 10:46 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
I am having a little trouble with all these acronyms, am I getting that right? AMuzi, 2020-09-02 17:07+0200: The UG FW tool, which is also the Campagnolo UD CS tool, has broader splines. Shimano Uniglide freewheel tool = Campagnolo Ultra-Drive cassette tool, have broader splines. The current HG CS remover's splines are smaller. Which makes sense to anyone who's removed a freewheel and a 40-nm lockring. Shimano Hyperglide cassette tool have smaller splines. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. I understand that this is supposed to make sense when you have removed a freewheel with a lockring tightened at 40 nm. Except that freewheels do not have a lockring. Anyway, I have certainly removed freewheels that have been tightened over use, and that required more way more than 40 nm to unscrew (my entire weight on a 30 cm-long spanner is 200 nm, and that was not enough). It does make sense to have a tool with splines designed to avoid a risk of slipping under such a torque. What I do not understand is that, when someone at Shimano (I think) invented the freehub and removable cassette, they chose to design it with a lockring which splines are almost identical to those of the existing freewheels, but with very tiny differences just enough to make them incompatible with existing tools. I cannot believe they did that just to make the tool hold weaker because there was no need to apply a large torque. Imagine I invent a magical wood screw that requires less torque than existing one, and that, for that screw, I design a screw head that is almost identical to the hex ones, but that is a bit rounded so it is incompatible and designed so it slips at bit more easily. That would just be completely insane. Is that what they are, at Shimano's? :-) I have no idea but you might write to Shimano. To your hypothetical screw, that's exactly how the Phillips system was sold to Henry Ford. Automatic cam-out at a specified torque AND faster installation. Just because you don't know the benefits doesn't mean there are none. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Freewheel extractor and cassette lockring tool
AMuzi, 2020-09-02 18:49+0200:
On 9/2/2020 10:46 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: Imagine I invent a magical wood screw that requires less torque than existing one, and that, for that screw, I design a screw head that is almost identical to the hex ones, but that is a bit rounded so it is incompatible and designed so it slips at bit more easily. That would just be completely insane. Is that what they are, at Shimano's? :-) I have no idea but you might write to Shimano. To your hypothetical screw, that's exactly how the Phillips system was sold to Henry Ford. Automatic cam-out at a specified torque AND faster installation. Just because you don't know the benefits doesn't mean there are none. I know that, but the ability of the Philips head to slip under torque does have some value in that case. And the Pozidriv head was invented later as an improvement over the Philips one, not the reverse. The thinner splines of the Shimano cassette lockring tool may also allow easier slipping under high torque, but I really cannot imagine how this could be a benefit. First, to actually make it slip, you would have to apply a torque that is already way too high for a lockring before it starts to slip. And, if it eventually does, it would not cam out, but level the lockring splines, so the result would be a tightly screwed lockring, with damaged splines, almost impossible to remove. I could write to Shimano asking for explanations about their design history, but I doubt they would care to answer. And if they did, I would expect some marketing bull****, not technical and meaningful explanations. :-( -- Tanguy |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Freewheel extractor and cassette lockring tool
AMuzi, 2020-09-02 18:49+0200:
On 9/2/2020 10:46 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: Imagine I invent a magical wood screw that requires less torque than existing one, and that, for that screw, I design a screw head that is almost identical to the hex ones, but that is a bit rounded so it is incompatible and designed so it slips at bit more easily. That would just be completely insane. Is that what they are, at Shimano's? :-) I have no idea but you might write to Shimano. To your hypothetical screw, that's exactly how the Phillips system was sold to Henry Ford. Automatic cam-out at a specified torque AND faster installation. Just because you don't know the benefits doesn't mean there are none. I know that, but the ability of the Philips head to slip under torque does have some value in that case. And the Pozidriv head was invented later as an improvement over the Philips one, not the reverse. And they are compatible with each other, though in a degraded way for sure. The thinner splines of the Shimano cassette lockring tool may also allow easier slipping under high torque, but I really cannot imagine how this could be a benefit. First, to actually make it slip, you would have to apply a torque that is already way too high for a lockring before it starts to slip. And, if it eventually does, it would not cam out, but level the lockring splines, so the result would be a tightly screwed lockring, with damaged splines, almost impossible to remove. By the way, I am just criticizing Shimano here, not you or anyone else. Tool incompatibility is a pain, but I can understand it when the design is really different, like cottered and square crank axles. They serve the same purpose, but work in a different way, and they do not look the same. Even Philip and Pozidriv heads do not look the same when you know where to look. But incompatibility in pieces that serve the same purpose and look the same, with just tiny differences, this is something that is not only a pain, but also incomprehensible. And it adds confusion on top of that. Look at the bicycle toolsets: some include a freehub lockring tool, some a freewheel remover, and few have both. Now try to order the missing one: many online shops are using one word for the other, or the reverse, or using the same word for both, so you do not even know what you will get, and pictures are of no help of course, since both look just the same. Going to a physical store will not help, since you cannot even tell these tools apart by touching them, you need to try them on your unmounted rear wheel to be sure. :-( I could write to Shimano asking for explanations about their design history, but I doubt they would care to answer. And if they did, I would expect some marketing bull****, not technical and meaningful explanations. :-( -- Tanguy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Freewheel extractor and cassette lockring tool
On Wednesday, 2 September 2020 10:38:16 UTC-4, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
Just to make sure, freewheel extractors and cassette lockring tools look very similar, but you cannot use one in place of the other, can you? If this is confirmed, I hope the inventor of the freehub lockring dies in a painful way, for inventing a very slightly different and completely incompatible splining. ;-) No but seriously, you can only do such a very close but incompatible tool design on purpose! I fortunately have only bikes with freehubs at home, but at my parent's holiday home, we have both bikes with freewheels and bikes with freehubs and cassettes. The toolkit I bought has a freewheel extractor, so I will probably need to buy a lockring tool as well. -- Tanguy I have yet to use a Shimano lockting tool on a lock ring. I use my 1980s era Shimano freewheel remover to loosen and to tighten lockrings on my cassettes. Sometimes, close enough IS good enough. Cheers |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bottom Bracket Bearing extractor Tool (and more) | goixiz | Marketplace | 3 | April 19th 09 02:01 PM |
Homemade Self Extractor Ring Tightener – A Forking Good Tool | saam | Unicycling | 2 | January 25th 07 12:15 PM |
Gerber/Fiskars Cool Tool: crank extractor attachment | [email protected] | Techniques | 1 | May 14th 05 02:38 PM |
FS: Campy Crank Extractor Tool | Eric Lambi | Marketplace | 0 | August 2nd 04 04:47 PM |
mutant cassette lockring tool | g.daniels | Techniques | 4 | July 11th 03 04:38 PM |