From: pauls@icecreambar.css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: Freewheel road hubs
Organization: U of Michigan, ITD Research Systems
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:52:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.221229.15946@news.cs.indiana.edu>  
bwildasi@whale.cs.indiana.edu (Ben Wildasin) writes:
> 
> I would like to solicit the net's opinion on the various brands of
> freewheel-style road hubs (Phil Wood, Bullseye, Mavic, American Classic,
> Suntour Superbe Pro).  The most important criterion is durability: will  
the
> axles break? will the flanges separate? do the bearings need frequent
> servicing? Weight is a secondary but important consideration. (Does  
anyone
> know how much Bullseyes weigh?)

Not sure of weight, but Bullseyes are definitely light.  The thing that  
will assist you in finding hubs with stronger axles is to look for the  
design.  Basically, many of the American sealed designs effectively use a  
much fatter axle, even when it is aluminum (B-eye, A. Classic/Kingsbery).   
The Phil is another of those, though the axle is steel (and very stout).   
I have seen them broken (or more often bent) but only under extreme  
conditions or in tandem use.  Flanges on Bullseyes are separate, from the  
body of the hub shell, but I have never seen them separate.  The newer  
Phils are one piece, as are the American Classics.  Mavic uses small  
bearings which are (1) very smooth, (2) very expensive, and (3) more  
likely to fail than a larger bearing, like the 6001RS that you find in  
most of the other popular sealed hubs.  Phils require special tools for  
servicing; the others really just require something to get the bearing  
out.  A slide hammer (like the Cal-Van) is nice, but the little SunTour  
doohickie works fine too.

> Also, the Colorado Cyclist catalog claims that Phil Wood hubs eliminate  
the
> need for wheel dish, which offers a strength advantage. Are those claims
> accurate?

Sort of.  As you increase the size (width) of the freewheel, you need to  
increase the over-locknut dimension of the hub if you are going to make it  
without dish, you must simultaneously change the position of the left side  
(non-drive) hub flange to pull it off.  Certain combinations of hub and  
freewheel (with the right axle length on both sides) can make this turn  
out right--it depends on having the right amount of axle on both sides  
too.  Many people used to run 126mm (normal 6 spd) overlocknut dimension,  
and then build a wheel with no dish and use an ultra-6 freewheel.  That  
worked nice, but now there are virtually no ultra-6 freewheels.  Now you  
can build a hub with 130mm spacing and put a normal 6 or an ultra-7 on it  
(all sevens being ultra by definition) and get virtually no dish.  Your  
bike may or may not want to accommodate a 130mm spaced rear hub, but most  
newer bikes are built to that spec for the Shimano freehubs.  Remember  
that if you are changing your setup (which may involve getting a hub with  
minimal drive-side clearance for the freewheel in order to alleviate dish  
problems) you may run into chainline problems (BB spindle too short) as  
the freewheel moves toward the frame on the drive side.

> The hubs would be used for recreational/century use (no racing) on rough
> roads with a maximum bike + rider + gear load of about 180 lb (70 kg).

Well if you're looking at Phils, you're looking at a bit of overkill  
unless you are a very careless rider.  On the other hand, a bomber set of  
hubs should pretty much last you forever under a 70kg load.  Wow, bike +  
rider + gear = 70kg?  Are you a jockey or something?  My last touring set  
up (using campy high flange hubs with a normal amount of dish) was around  
115kg. I used fat tires (27x1 3/8), never flatted, never broke a spoke or  
bent an axle over 1000 miles of beeeeutiful Yugoslavian roads.

Good luck.
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles