Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
"El Whatever"
Joined
·
18,889 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I still remember when axles were solid. Later this changed to hollow (QR's to blame) and the industry claimed those were better 'cause they were lighter and more resistant. Now they're going back to solid.

My thinking is that hollow is better (not because the QR but 'cause the mechanical properties).

What's wrong???
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
48,237 Posts
Warp2003 said:
I still remember when axles were solid. Later this changed to hollow (QR's to blame) and the industry claimed those were better 'cause they were lighter and more resistant. Now they're going back to solid.

My thinking is that hollow is better (not because the QR but 'cause the mechanical properties).

What's wrong???
Who is going back to solid axles?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
basic engineering

shiggy��� said:
Who is going back to solid axles?
Basic mechanics of materials that hollow axles have most of the strength of solid axles and can weigh a lot less. But really I'd be more interested in how the axles were heat treated and what the quality control is like.
 

·
"El Whatever"
Joined
·
18,889 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Shimano Saint for example...

shiggy©®™ said:
Who is going back to solid axles?
Those are using a solid axle now. Maybe the new Hone will do too. This is for the rear end only. Front the use is for hollow axles only.

Frank:
I'm aware of those stuff. You know, with hollow you distrubute the masses farther from the mass center which produces greater moments of inertia and produce a more resistent cross section (which is why all this oversize rage in MTB tubing).
Also some decent HT and strict machining control would be at hand .... but that's my point. What is the engineer's idea behind solid new solid axles. An adequate engineered part would avoid those extra grams used in solid axles...

I'm aware also that the threads for cones, derr. and stuff eat a part of the resistance of the axle but I still think hollow is a bit better.
 

·
President, CEO of Earth
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
Hollow axles are not supposed to be stronger. THe claim I always heard (and believed) is that the amount of material removed to make the hollow axle is insignificant. The amount of strength you lose is about equivilent to the strength added by the quick release skewer put through the hole.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
48,237 Posts
Warp2003 said:
Those are using a solid axle now. Maybe the new Hone will do too. This is for the rear end only. Front the use is for hollow axles only.

Frank:
I'm aware of those stuff. You know, with hollow you distrubute the masses farther from the mass center which produces greater moments of inertia and produce a more resistent cross section (which is why all this oversize rage in MTB tubing).
Also some decent HT and strict machining control would be at hand .... but that's my point. What is the engineer's idea behind solid new solid axles. An adequate engineered part would avoid those extra grams used in solid axles...

I'm aware also that the threads for cones, derr. and stuff eat a part of the resistance of the axle but I still think hollow is a bit better.
Saint is a freeride group. They are looking for extra strength and it uses a through axle to help stiffen the rear end of bike when it is bolted in. The derailleur bolts to the axle and a QR skewer can not be used.

One of the advantages of a QR hub (especially pre-cassette hubs) is if the axle breaks the skewer holds everything together. With a bolt-on hub it can come apart.
 

·
"El Whatever"
Joined
·
18,889 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Understood...

Anyway... I'd prefer an oversized hollow axle with a QR (and skewer, of course). If you increase the wall thickness you can gain more strength and keep a decent weight.

It should be my more "Trail-oriented" mind. Freeriders would like it more solid.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
48,237 Posts
Warp2003 said:
Anyway... I'd prefer an oversized hollow axle with a QR (and skewer, of course). If you increase the wall thickness you can gain more strength and keep a decent weight.

It should be my more "Trail-oriented" mind. Freeriders would like it more solid.
Most higher-end cartridge bearing hubs do have large diameter hollow axles (no or few threads) with end caps that step down to fit in the dropouts and a large diameter face that helps stiffen the interface with the frame/fork.

Chris King uses 19.5 mm axles
American Classic: 17 mm (front)
DT 240: 15 mm
 

·
My bike was -TWO- Wheels!
Joined
·
576 Posts
shiggy©®™ said:
Saint is a freeride group. They are looking for extra strength and it uses a through axle to help stiffen the rear end of bike when it is bolted in. The derailleur bolts to the axle and a QR skewer can not be used.

One of the advantages of a QR hub (especially pre-cassette hubs) is if the axle breaks the skewer holds everything together. With a bolt-on hub it can come apart.
Yup, I broke a axle on ym old hardtail and I didnt realize it was broken, thought my cones were out of adjustmeant by a lot. Pulled out my skewer and my whole axle came with it.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top