| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 955.1 | I'll try, but... | USWAV8::CLELAND | Lifes just 1 long Timex commercial | Fri Jan 06 1989 17:20 | 54 |
|
Don't know about spoke lengths.
But, your gearing formulae would probably be better off
utilizing gear "ratios", instead of gear "inches".
Use inches to decide which ratio, on what sized wheel is
best suited to your style of riding. As far as deciding what
gear ratios could be used, an array could be filled with all
the relative gear ratios, and then searched to assemble the
best combination of ratios.
Of course, a conversion from the input of the cyclists
favorite gear inches (according to wheel size) to the
corresponding gear ratio is neccessary. This is confusing.
As in, a gear ratio of 2:1 would mean, perhaps there are
21 teeth on the rear cog, then there would have to be 42
teeth on the front chainring in order to have a ratio of 2:1.
BUT, the wheel size will affect the distance traveled with
one revolution of the crankarms. A 27" wheel will obviously
travel farther than a 20" wheel, with one revolution of the
crank. SO, I now calculate gear inches as the distance that
my wheel travels with one rev of the crank (in said gear).
What's the gear inches if your bike is in first gear? Mark
the floor, slowly pedal the crank one rev (while in 1st gear)
and measure the distance traveled. That's the gear inches
that is your 1st gear.
I know I'm going to be pummeled with hate mail, and hit and
run notes, but with all the confusion of "gears", how the
hel' is a simple application to be coded to calculate an
individuals optimal "gearing"?
Gear ratios:
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
-----------------------------------------------------------
42 | 3.23 | 3 | 2.80 | 2.62 | 2.47 | 2.33 | 2.21
| | | | | | |
52 | 4 | 3.71 | 3.47 | 3.25 | 3.06 | 2.89 | 2.74
An optimal gear ratio has minimal overlaps? No?
Search a more complete array than the one above, looking
for the combinations that offer the least amount of over-
lapping of gears, and choosing those that fall within a
certain range. The optimal range is determined by whatever
is the cyclist's favorite gear "inches".
This is so confusing...
|
| 955.2 | | TALLIS::JBELL | Ceci n'est pas une pipe. | | Sun Jan 08 1989 13:12 | 18 |
| > crank. SO, I now calculate gear inches as the distance that
> my wheel travels with one rev of the crank (in said gear).
> What's the gear inches if your bike is in first gear? Mark
> the floor, slowly pedal the crank one rev (while in 1st gear)
> and measure the distance traveled. That's the gear inches
> that is your 1st gear.
It sounds like you're talking about "development". That's the distance
that the bike travels per pedal turn. I think that it's used
in some European countries as the standard measure of a gear.
I have a gearing program that came across usenet a while back.
(Those who are paranoid about trojan horses can run it in a captive account.)
Wouldn't the best of all be to calculate mechanical advantage?
This would account for changes in crank length.
-Jeff
|
| 955.3 | another planet calls in... | SUSHI::KMACDONALD | drywall 'til ya drop! | Mon Jan 09 1989 17:41 | 22 |
| > An optimal gear ratio has minimal overlaps? No?
No, not if you're me anyway! optimal means MAXIMAL overlaps, being as
I'm one of the few folks in the world that advocate 1-step gearing, as
opposed to the more common 1/2 or 1 1/2 step gearing.
my setup - gear inches increasing ======>
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
(1 in above represents 1st gear, 2 is 2nd...)
So, a complete run thru the gears, in order is 1-2-3-8-9-10. Only a
single shift of the large chainrings anywhere in the order, and each new
gear a single step away is only a single shift (of either the front or
the back).
> This is so confusing...
It's meant to be :-)
ken
|
| 955.4 | "Optimal" eh ? | ULTRA::BURGESS | | Mon Jan 09 1989 19:39 | 20 |
|
Surely "Optimal" needs to include some consideration of the
rider's needs (wants) ???
If you want to build muscle power stay on the big ring up
front and the little cogs at the back. For building aerobic base, go
for the little ring at the front with the big cogs at the back. If the
objective is to make things as easy as possible in order to retain as
much winter fat as you can all the way through spring, summer and
fall - that's easy, just freewheel down all the hills and hitch hike
rides from pick_up trucks to get to the top again:-^) There is a
serious question here; how "efficient" do you want your cycling to
be ? Do you want training efficiency or transportation efficiency ?
A 7 hour century on a clunker may be much more efficient exercise than
a sub 5 hour century on a carbon-fibre / micro light / unobtainium
alloy / helium filled tyres on disque wheeled / expenso bike (Duhh,
maybe I exagerated a little there...).
Reg {fixed 'til spring, and maybe beyond}
|
| 955.5 | Read the gearing note, don't repeat it here | SMURF::BINDER | And the quarterback is *toast*! | Mon Jan 09 1989 20:34 | 29 |
| Re: .2 et seq.
Go look at note 920 for a gearing discussion:
920.0 General gearing commentary
920.1 Mathematics of progression design
.
. (Interesting discussion)
.
920.9 Location of the program that will do what you want
without subjecting you to risk of a virus. (If you
don't trust the object copy, I'll mail you the
source! All I ask is that you give me credit if
you pass it on.)
Your suggestion that we use gear ratios instead of gear inches (or
developments) is a little off-base. Ratios are meaningless. Suppose
I have a 48/24. That's a 2:1 ratio, but is it a 54-inch gear (4.309)
because I have 27-inch wheels, or is it a 40-inch gear (3.192) because
I have a Moulton with 20-inch wheels?
Gear inches are commonly used in the English-speaking cycling press
because almost everyone, even Europeans whose native languages are not
English and who prefer developments, understands how to use gear inches.
As for spoke lengths, I think I have a formula, maybe I'll get round to
taking a whack at a program to determine spoke lengths.
- Dick
|
| 955.6 | Spoke Length Programs | TRUCKS::DEARLOVE | Happiness is your own Cluster ! | Tue Jan 10 1989 03:19 | 186 |
|
Hi,
Attached are a couple of programs I wrote for a friend to print
out some tables that would allow him to select the correct spoke
lengths for a variety of variables (crosses,number of spokes,wheel
diameter,hub diameter I think)
One basic assumption I made was that the distance between the hub
flanges is fairly constant and I chose 66mm.
They are BASIC programs and will print out a lot of tables which
should cover all the combinations you will ever need. You may need
to modify them slightly to get them to print on your required printer.
I wrote it to work on a hard copy terminal.
They do seem to call up the correct spoke lengths as we used it
to select the spokes for a set a wheels he built for me.
Mike
10 REM SPOKE LENGTH PROGRAM
20 REM THIS PROGRAM WILL CALCULATE AND PRINT OUT THE SPOKE LENGTHS NEEDED FOR
30 REM VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF HUB,RIM,NUMBERS OF SPOKES AND CROSSES.
40 REM THE OUTPUT WILL BE PRINTED IN THE FORM OF TABLES BASED AROUND NUMBERS OF
50 REM SPOKES AND CROSSES.
60 PRINT CHR$(12%)
200 REM SETUP VARIABLES
210 H1=12\H2=30
220 W1=270\W2=324
230 DIM L(36,54)
240 DIM C1(36)
250 DIM C2(56)
260 C=0\D=0
1000 REM MAIN PROGRAM
1010 FOR X = 0 TO 4
1020 FOR N = 24 TO 48 STEP 4
1025 IF N= 44 GOTO 1070
1030 A= (360/N)*2
1040 A= A*X
1045 A= (2*PI)*(A/360)
1050 GOSUB 4000\REM CALC SPOKE LENGTH
1060 GOSUB 3000\REM PRINT ARRAY
1070 NEXT N
1080 GOSUB 2000\REM CLEAR ARRAY
1090 NEXT X
1100 STOP
2000 REM CLEAR ARRAY SUBROUTINE
2010 FOR L1 = 0 TO 36
2020 FOR L2=0 TO 54
2030 L(L1,L2)=0
2040 NEXT L2
2050 NEXT L1
2990 RETURN
3000 REM PRINT ARRAY SUBROUTINE
3005 PRINT CHR$(12%);
3006 PRINT " SPOKE LENGTH TABLES"
3008 PRINT " ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES"
3009 print "THE BRACING ANGLE HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR WITH A FLANGE WIDTH OF 66mm"
3010 PRINT "NUMBER OF SPOKES",N
3020 PRINT "NUMBER OF CROSSES",X
3030 PRINT "HUB RADIUS = ";
3040 FOR H=H1 TO H2
3050 PRINT H;" ";
3060 NEXT H
3065 PRINT
3070 PRINT "WHEEL RADIUS"
3080 FOR W=0 TO W2-W1
3090 PRINT W+W1;" ";
3100 FOR M=0 TO H2-H1
3110 PRINT INT(L(M,W));" ";
3120 NEXT M
3125 PRINT
3130 M=0
3140 NEXT W
3150 W=0
3990 RETURN
4000 REM CALCULATE SPOKE LENGTH SUBROUTINE
4010 FOR R1=H1 TO H2
4020 C1(C)=R1
4030 C=C+1
4040 FOR R2=W1 TO W2
4050 C2(D)=RS
4060 D=D+1
4070 R6=R1*SIN(A)
4080 R5=(R1*R1)-(R6*R6)
4090 R5=SQR(R5)
4095 R4=R2-R5
4100 R3=(R6*R6)+(R4*R4)
4110 R3=SQR(R3)
4120 REM ALLOW FOR BRACING ANGLE - ASSUME HUB IS 66mm BETWEEN FLANGES
4125 R3 = (R3*R3)+(33*33)
4127 R3 = SQR(R3)
4130 L(C-1,D-1)=R3
4140 NEXT R2
4150 D=0
4160 NEXT R1
4170 C=0
4990 RETURN
--------------
10 REM SPOKE LENGTH PROGRAM
20 REM THIS PROGRAM WILL CALCULATE AND PRINT OUT THE SPOKE LENGTHS NEEDED FOR
30 REM VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF HUB,RIM,NUMBERS OF SPOKES AND CROSSES.
40 REM THE OUTPUT WILL BE PRINTED IN THE FORM OF TABLES BASED AROUND NUMBERS OF
50 REM SPOKES AND CROSSES.
60 PRINT CHR$(12%)
200 REM SETUP VARIABLES
210 H1=30\H2=48
220 W1=270\W2=324
230 DIM L(36,54)
240 DIM C1(36)
250 DIM C2(56)
260 C=0\D=0
1000 REM MAIN PROGRAM
1010 FOR X = 0 TO 4
1020 FOR N = 24 TO 48 STEP 4
1025 IF N= 44 GOTO 1070
1030 A= (360/N)*2
1040 A= A*X
1045 A= (2*PI)*(A/360)
1050 GOSUB 4000\REM CALC SPOKE LENGTH
1060 GOSUB 3000\REM PRINT ARRAY
1070 NEXT N
1080 GOSUB 2000\REM CLEAR ARRAY
1090 NEXT X
1100 STOP
2000 REM CLEAR ARRAY SUBROUTINE
2010 FOR L1 = 0 TO 36
2020 FOR L2=0 TO 54
2030 L(L1,L2)=0
2040 NEXT L2
2050 NEXT L1
2990 RETURN
3000 REM PRINT ARRAY SUBROUTINE
3005 PRINT CHR$(12%);
3006 PRINT " SPOKE LENGTH TABLES"
3008 PRINT " ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES"
3009 print "THE BRACING ANGLE HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR WITH A FLANGE WIDTH OF 66mm"
3010 PRINT "NUMBER OF SPOKES",N
3020 PRINT "NUMBER OF CROSSES",X
3030 PRINT "HUB RADIUS = ";
3040 FOR H=H1 TO H2
3050 PRINT H;" ";
3060 NEXT H
3065 PRINT
3070 PRINT "WHEEL RADIUS"
3080 FOR W=0 TO W2-W1
3090 PRINT W+W1;" ";
3100 FOR M=0 TO H2-H1
3110 PRINT INT(L(M,W));" ";
3120 NEXT M
3125 PRINT
3130 M=0
3140 NEXT W
3150 W=0
3990 RETURN
4000 REM CALCULATE SPOKE LENGTH SUBROUTINE
4010 FOR R1=H1 TO H2
4020 C1(C)=R1
4030 C=C+1
4040 FOR R2=W1 TO W2
4050 C2(D)=RS
4060 D=D+1
4070 R6=R1*SIN(A)
4080 R5=(R1*R1)-(R6*R6)
4090 R5=SQR(R5)
4095 R4=R2-R5
4100 R3=(R6*R6)+(R4*R4)
4110 R3=SQR(R3)
4120 REM ALLOW FOR BRACING ANGLE - ASSUME HUB IS 66mm BETWEEN FLANGES
4125 R3 = (R3*R3)+(33*33)
4127 R3 = SQR(R3)
4130 L(C-1,D-1)=R3
4140 NEXT R2
4150 D=0
4160 NEXT R1
4170 C=0
4990 RETURN
|
| 955.7 | Strange... | USWAV7::CLELAND | Lifes just 1 long Timex commercial | Tue Jan 10 1989 13:02 | 44 |
|
Re .5
I beg to differ with you, sir.
I've read the aforementioned topic, which is why I mentioned
that I probably would be shunned for wanting to measure how
far my bike traveled with one revolution of the crank arm.
Gear inches originate from the old 54" inch wheeled machines
of yesteryear. Since a 27" wheel is half the size of the old
54's, then it is said that a 2:1 gear ratio, applied to a 27"
wheel, has the same gear inches as an old 54" bike. I base
my argument on the fact that a 54" diameter wheel does not
travel 54 inches with one revolution. One must compute the
circumference of the wheel in order to determine how far it
will travel in one turn. The term, "54 inch gear" is merely
an old habit being preserved for posterity. A 54" inch gear
is therefor a 1:1 gear ratio applied to 54" diameter wheel.
Also, gear ratios are indeed useful, sir. Anyone trying to
implement their own cog selections on a freewheel should
first determine which gears will give them the widest variety.
In other words, which gears will enable them to truthfully
say that they have 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, or 21 speeds. An
overlap can be used constructively, but then you no longer
have a ten speed bicycle. This is fine. If the person loves
his gears, then he's a happy camper.
All I was trying to do, was to establish what goals this
"application" should strive to accomplish. Should it try to
create a gear ratio with certain gears equivalent in ratio?
Or should it try to achieve the widest variety of ratios?
The real problem I can see is the different needs of the
racer, and the tourist. Racers might want certain gears to
overlap, whereas a tourer might have a different preference.
To state that ratios are useless when making cog selections
is absurd, sir. In fact, in order to match gears between the
small & large chainwheels, one must compare the ratios of
the gears.
Please expound.
|
| 955.8 | | SUSHI::KMACDONALD | drywall 'til ya drop! | Tue Jan 10 1989 13:22 | 16 |
| re .7 ====
gear ratios are sort of the heart of the whole matter of gear selection,
true, and if you're only working on a single bike with a single wheel
size, are a reasonable way to compute things. For a given gear ratio and
wheel size, the 'gear inches' and 'distance travelled per crank stroke'
are all essentially equivalent, just multiply by the appropriate factor
to convert between them. The value of the gear inches measurement is
that it accounts for wheel size, and thus you can relate measurements
taken from one bike to another. E.G. if I have a 20" wheel bike with an
80 gear inch combo on it, I may want to set up my 27" wheel bike with
the same gear inch size, so that I would exert a similar amount of
energy while in the same gear. The actual gear ratios would be
different, however. 'distance travelled per stroke' is gear inches x pi.
ken
|
| 955.9 | I vote for gear-inches | RAINBO::WASSER | John A. Wasser | Tue Jan 10 1989 16:57 | 19 |
| > To state that ratios are useless when making cog selections
> is absurd, sir. In fact, in order to match gears between the
> small & large chainwheels, one must compare the ratios of
> the gears.
"Gear Ratio" (front teeth divided by back teeth), "Gear-Inches"
(gear ratio times wheel diameter) and "Development" (inches traveled
per crank revolution) can all be used interchangably. Gear-inches
and development have the advantage that they can be directly
compared between bicycles of differing wheel size and are therefore
used extensively in the literature of bicycling.
A table of gear-inches or development would be just as good for
detecting overlaping gears as a table of gear ratios. Since
gear-inches and development can be compared between bicycles and
are no harder to compute (given that the wheel size is known)
it would be advantageous for a program to present its output
in gear-inches or development rather than as pure ratios.
|
| 955.10 | REbuttal of rebuttal re: inches v. ratios | SMURF::BINDER | And the quarterback is *toast*! | Tue Jan 10 1989 17:40 | 66 |
| Re: .7, .8, .9
From .7:
> To state that ratios are useless when making cog selections
> is absurd...
I tried to forestall your objection in .5 by including both gear inches
and metric developments in my example contrasting a 27-inch-wheeled bike
with a 20-inch-wheeled Moulton. I think .8 and .9 have answered you; if
you're dissatisfied with their answers, I'll try to expand on them.
The program I wrote to calculate gearing works in gear inches. I must
admit that it does actually deal with the ratios between fromt and rear
cogs, indirectly, in the process of calculating inches:
front_ring X wheel_size
inches = -------------------------
rear_cog
But its output is in inches - see the following example - because that's
the unit most understood in the English-speaking cycling world. I agree
that it *is* an old- fashioned measurement, but then the earth is about
14,000 kilometers in diameter - and meters have been around a lot longer
than gear inches. :-) Example for a 27-inch Alpine:
Cogs | 52 41
------+-------------
14 | 100.3 79.1
17 | 82.6 65.1
20 | 70.2 55.3
23 | 61.0 48.1
27 | 52.0 41.0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
52 | | X |X X | X | X |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
41 |X X | X | X | X| | | |
This example shows clearly that one can use gear inches to determine
overlaps as effectively as using ratios; but there is much additional
information here, such that this gearing progression can be compared
directly to another in terms of their utility to the live cyclist, even
if the other progression is on a Moulton. Hey, why not!! Here's the
same progression, calculated for a Moulton:
Cogs | 60 47
------+-------------
12 | 100.0 78.3
14 | 85.7 67.1
27 | 70.6 55.3
20 | 60.0 47.0
23 | 52.2 40.9
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
52 | | X X |X | X | X |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
41 |X X | X | X | X | | | |
Well. It's doable if you use a TA crankset...
- Dick
|
| 955.11 | Inches ain't accurate | USWAV7::CLELAND | Too cold for pedaling you say? | Thu Jan 12 1989 11:47 | 30 |
|
I see that I am unable to convey my point.
One must not try to buck a system utilized by practically
every cyclist alive on this planet.
I myself am unable, or perhaps unwilling to use the concept
of gear inches, simply because it is not an accurate measure-
ment of the distance traveled. True, it is a fairly consistent
measurement, but it is not at all accurate. (The way that I
want to use it)
The simple fact that, a 54 inch gear will not propel you
54 inches down the road, disturbs me greatly. Therefore, the
"technology" is flawed, and unsuitable in this day and age.
I see that it is me who must adapt, as the rest of the world
sure as heck isn't... Not when a standard has been so deeply
adopted by an endearing population.
Oh well...
|
| 955.12 | multiply by pi | NAC::LANDRY | | Thu Jan 12 1989 12:45 | 11 |
|
Gear inches was never intended to indicate the distance
travelled down the road. Rather it is based on the diameter
measurement of the diameter of old-style "ordinary"
bicycles.
Gear inches times pi gives you "road inches" travelled per
crank revolution.
chris
|
| 955.13 | log(mech. adv.) | TALLIS::JBELL | Ceci n'est pas une pipe. | | Thu Jan 12 1989 12:55 | 16 |
| Why use development? You only really need it if you are going to
calculate you're speed by multiplying it by your cadence. This is
redundant, because any device that measures cadence is probably also going
have a speed readout as well.
The real reason to figure gearing is so that you can select the right sprockets.
It seems to me that the most appropriate measure would be the
log of the mechanical advantage. This allows for variations
in crank size and in wheel size.
The log part is because that's how it feels to the rider
(i.e. when you want to shift, it is when you want to change
by 5% or 10%, not by 6 inches or .3 meters).
-Jeff
|
| 955.14 | Mech. adv. and logs gives you gear inches! | SMURF::BINDER | And the quarterback is *toast*! | Thu Jan 12 1989 20:29 | 42 |
| Re: .13
> It seems to me that the most appropriate measure would be the log of
> the mechanical advantage. The log part is because that's how it feels
> to the rider...
The logarithmic feel is exactly why you have to calculate using the nth
root as I outlined in 920.1, and as my program does. The exponentiation
cancels out the logarithmic feedback, and you end up with a linear
sensation of net effort change when you shift. Each gear is a change of
the same net percentage from the gear above or below it.
One missed point here is that using mechanical advantage is exactly what
you're doing with gear inches - a 54-inch gear has exactly half the
mechanical advantage that a 27-inch gear has.
> The real reason to figure gearing is so that you can select the right
> sprockets.
Yup. And using the front/back ratio is insufficient until the size of
the wheel is brought into the equation, because it doesn't account for
mechanical advantage. As soon as the wheel size is factored in, you're
working with gear inches or development, either one, but using develop-
ment at this point introduces an extra step, the multiplication by pi.
Why bother?
> Why use development? You only really need it if you are going to
> calculate you're speed by multiplying it by your cadence.
Almost true. Development also gives you trip distance if you count
crank revs. But I honestly don't care how far I go per crank rev. I'm
far too concerned with other things to count crank revs and remember
what gear I was in at the time until I get home to write it all down and
figure out how far I went or how fast I was going when I passed that
stop sign 'long about half an hour back. So I use a computer that
reports current speed average speed, max speed, trip miles, and cadence.
So I end up back at gear inches as the most convenient unit to work with
- not only because others speak the language, but also because it's a
unit that contains all the information I need.
- Dick
|
| 955.15 | | TALLIS::JBELL | Ceci n'est pas une pipe. | | Fri Jan 13 1989 10:57 | 10 |
| > One missed point here is that using mechanical advantage is exactly what
> you're doing with gear inches - a 54-inch gear has exactly half the
> mechanical advantage that a 27-inch gear has.
Almost.
There's also crank length. (although few people alter it by more than 5%)
-Jeff
|
| 955.16 | What's a 700c gear, then? | USWAV7::CLELAND | Too cold for pedaling you say? | Tue Jan 17 1989 16:54 | 45 |
| Re .12
> Gear inches was never intended to indicate the distance
> travelled down the road. Rather it is based on the diameter
> measurement of the diameter of old-style "ordinary"
> bicycles.
Precisely! By george I think someone understands!
Actually, the correct english would read: "Gear inches were never..."
Gears didn't exist when gear-inches were initially utilized for
"comparison". That's the key word. To me, gear inches apply to
fixed-gear apparatus.
A computer doesn't need to know your "gear inches" to give you
usable data, it needs to know how far your wheel travels during
one revolution. Then it gives you data according to how many times
the wheel rotates during a given period of time. So, what assumptions
can be made? Gear inches are useful for comparisons, but meaningless
when a person starts to pedal his bike?
Oh well, I think I'm just confusing myself here...
When I setup my machines, it's easy. They all have 700c wheels!
I don't worry that I need a 27" (700c) gear to climb up the side of
(Actually, the wheel size would make this gear)
(a 26.97 inch gear? This gear stuff? Aaurgghh!)
a barn. I say to myself, "I'll need a 1:1 gear ratio to get my a**
up the side of that barn". I guess I'm probably just cheating then...
Or am I just doing what's easiest for me?
|
| 955.17 | East of the greater maynard area, about 5,000 Km. | ULTRA::BURGESS | | Tue Jan 17 1989 18:14 | 15 |
|
Gear inches may be gear inches... ...OK.
re whichever note it was that claimed "almost universal use of gear
inches" (something like that).
There is a country called "France" where many of the
populace may fairly be described as being, "cycling literate".
I believe that it is quite common there to use centimeters travelled per
crank revolution when discussing gearing.
Reg
{they also measure fuel economy in litres per 100 Kms, but thats
another subject; ....or IS it ???}
|
| 955.18 | What do you know? It works!! | WELSWS::HEMMINGS | Lanterne Rouge | Mon Feb 06 1989 06:15 | 19 |
|
Thanks for the code - I copied it over and got a Basic$guru to help
me adapt it to VMS. The guy said he couldn't imagine why anyone
should want such garbage - when he went home and mentioned to his
wife he had spent some time with me getting a program to print out
loads of tables for spoke length, she said she had an aquaintance
at work who needed the same thing !!
Anyway, bottom line is I rebuilt my wife's old Lambert hubs into
MA2's over the weekend using a 290 mm length from the tables and
they are PERFECT. I did some experimentation for reduced lengths
on the dish side of gear-sided and in theory you probably need 2
mm less but in practice it seems to work OK if you use the same.
I suppose 6 speed normal width or 7 speed narrow may need looking
at but with 6 speed narrow blocks it is fine.
Thanks again.......
Roule Britannia.
|