Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

21 - 40 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,525 Posts
wheel dish has nothing to do with needing space for the cassette. It has to do with how much space the cassette takes up.
Your statement referenced the "the big cassettes people use these days." The current 130mm road wheel spacing started in about 1990, so if you think that means "these days" compared to 7 and fewer cogs on the cassette/freewheel then have at it. A casual reader would not unreasonably assume that you were referencing 11 and 12 speed, which of course would be wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
This is what I said about dishing:
Wow tough crowd. Okay, dish is a result of needing to center the wheel on the axle of the rear hub. This effectively centers the rim with the frame as well. It’s true that this is because any cassette system would require dishing. Even the old 5 speed hub free wheels required dishing. Drive side spokes are generally 2 mm shorter than non drive sides and the angle of the drive side is steeper than the non-drive side. There are some offset rims such as a Velocity Aero Head rim that have the rim holes offset away from the drive side a few mm or so to reduce the amount of dish angle. I have built up these for my bike. There is still dish present just less drastic. The front rim is standard shape and not offset. To check your dish flip it over in the truing rack and check to insure the rim is centered both ways. If so your dish is correct. If for some strange reason there is an offset when you install it make sure there are no extra washers or shims on your axle. You could have a bent frame or it may have been incorrectly cold set to the 130mm if it was the previous narrower width frame.

I don’t recall a different conversation but I’m willling clarify anything if you provide more information
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
Yes older cassettes with less gears often were narrower and needed less dish and that’s what I meant by these days with more gears needing more wheel dish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Imagine all the different lockrings and axles we would need if cassettes actually took up a variable amount of space?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,871 Posts
rozanadana... I think he's responding to someone we have on ignore.
I want to hear more research on this "shorter cages can run longer stems". I more into "short stems and longer cages" on my bikes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Okay well my point is that dishing is still required even on older freewheels. I think the 130mm standard has been in place since 1989 and that was for 8 speed cassettes. After 8 speed the higher speeds simply reduced the spacing between cassettes as well as reducing the external width of the chains. The 8 speed Campagnolo cassette used a different spline pattern so there is no compatibility with the 9 sp+ Cassette pattern.
 

·
Banned Sock Puppet
Joined
·
13,593 Posts
Okay well my point is that dishing is still required even on older freewheels. I think the 130mm standard has been in place since 1989 and that was for 8 speed cassettes. After 8 speed the higher speeds simply reduced the spacing between cassettes as well as reducing the external width of the chains. The 8 speed Campagnolo cassette used a different spline pattern so there is no compatibility with the 9 sp+ Cassette pattern.
I don't know about Campy. Shimano and SRAM cassette 8, 9 and 10 speed freehubs are the same width, but the cogs became narrower as more speeds were added. Freehubs became wider once 11 speeds were introduced. Note, this did not change the 130mm hub spacing, but rather it moved the DS hub flange inward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Well Campagnolo has had the same cassette design since 9 -11 speed. Well I’m not sure about their 12 speed. I believe they just change the spacers I don’t think the gears are narrower. As far as 12 speed I haven’t looked at it as I just converted to 11s.

Does anyone know if the Campagnolo 12 cassette fits on a campy 11 speed cartridge?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
But most modern wheels are now disk brake which helps alleviate this issue.
with disk brakes?! with disk brakes you can do just about anything. my disk brakes have helped me find dates and remove unsightly blemishes, but if you want the rim to be centered in the bike and with the least amount of dish necessary disk brakes are no help. Then again, if you put the brake rotor on the inside of the hub flange that would allow the flanges to be further apart and make the wheel stronger while also greatly reducing brake wear. Something to consider if you've tried everything else
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
I think they must help since the disks are on the non drive side therefore creating deflection angles that are steeper similar to the drive side. Not much of a difference But perhaps different. I haven’t built a disc bike yet. Some of the other experts like CX wrench would know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
Do disk brake capable hubs require moving the hub flange inward to
make room for the rotor? If they do it’s another reason to hate disk brakes.

steep angles on both sides of the wheel and you have no support for the rim. The further the flanges are apart the greater the triangle diameter and strength.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Agreed about steeper angles being less preferred to shallower ones. I guess it’s still acceptable since they make rear disc hubs. In looking at some photos seems like the disc mount takes about 25mm or so on the non drive side. It could actually be that the reduction or rear angle deflection differentiation may still be stronger even though both are steeper than the front wheel. I know for example my Velocity arrow head rim is offset a little to reduce the difference some and it is not disc hub. Perhaps an engineer may want to interject on this. I know at least one guy who claims he is an engineer so maybe that guy could submit his input.
 

·
Banned Sock Puppet
Joined
·
13,593 Posts
Don't quote me on this but aren't disc brake hubs wider than 130mm (for road) and 135mm (for ATB)?
Also, with the introduction of disc brakes on front wheels, front rims are no offset relative to the flanges as well.
Yes. Most disc brake road bikes are now 12x100mm TA front and 12x142mm TA rear spacing. I have built 3 disc wheel sets and I can tell you there is considerably less tension disparity with a rear disc wheel. Of course with a disc brake wheel set, now the front also needs to be dished, but that is no big deal and the tension disparity there is very little.

As for mountain bikes, some are now 15x110 TA front, 12x148mm TA rear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ogre

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Yes. Most disc brake road bikes are now 12x100mm TA front and 12x142mm TA rear spacing. I have built 3 disc wheel sets and I can tell you there is considerably less tension disparity with a rear disc wheel. Of course with a disc brake wheel set, now the front also needs to be dished, but that is no big deal and the tension disparity there is very little.

As for mountain bikes, some are now 15x110 TA front, 12x148mm TA rear.
Well that answers it then. It's up to 142 for disc rears. Would have been nice to use that for more gears back there instead of that disc brake. With that spacing I think they could have gone to 14 gears
 
21 - 40 of 73 Posts
Top