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

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

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

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

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

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

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