I stuck with freewheels for a long time. Probably, mostly because I already had a bunch of perfectly good hubs, not to mention frames with 126 mm rear spacing. I especially found 7 speed freewheels (13-28) with a 50/40/28 very nice on my touring bikes.
I struggled through the dry period of increasingly hard to find freewheels. Eventually, I bought a set of wheels with a 9 speed, 12-27 cassette. I found that I really liked the ability to use 12 and then 11 toothed cassettes because I could reduce the size of the rings. Eventually I migrated to a 44/30 crank with an 11-28 cassette or 12-27 with 48/34/26 triples. The former gave me the same low as a racing triple by only giving up one gear at the top, and the latter gives me a good shifting pattern, a pretty low mid gear and a great escape, which I can't get with a freewheel. Cassettes are indeed easier to remove that freewheels, but I don't think its a big deal, although I admit to having stripped the threads on on one free hub. I do have two complaints about cassettes. First, the low end ones don't shift reliably in 9 speed mode. They don't hold the chain and jump around. I have not found this to be a problem with the better Ultegra and HG cassettes. Second, they are harder to clean. I use to simply run a thin strip of cloth between cogs to clean up freewheels, but that doesn't work with cassettes. And to boot, Shimano has drilled a gazillion little holes in the cogs which collect muck and are very difficult to clean. michael, take care of Self; it's one of a kind and irreplaceable On Jun 8, 12:44 pm, Jim Cloud <cloud...@aol.com> wrote: > With the subject of freewheels on a recent post, I thought it would be > of some interest to quote a piece of Rivendell history from the first > Rivendell catalog (Summer 1996). > > "Freewheels > > "We don't sell cassettes. There's nothing wrong with cassettes, but > there's something fishy about the way they're promoted. Cassettes > support axles better, so you don't break axles; but Bullseye, Phil and > others have proven that you can totally eliminate axle-flex and > breakages with a better designed freewheel hub. More likely, the real > reason cassettes have overtaken freewheels is to increase production > efficiency for the large hub makers. We and many others find > freewheels quicker and easier to change than cassettes; and freewheels > certainly have versatility on their side. Freewheel availability has > got to be a concern for anybody with freewheel hubs. Cassettes change > often enough to make year-to-year compatibility an issue, so it's not > as though once you've got your cassette body, you'll always be able to > get the cogs. But there's little incentive for anybody who ever made > freewheels to continue making them. Shimano still makes one cheap > model, SunTour is history. Regina-the company still exists, but we > hear they're making conveyor belts or something. Sachs, the great > German hope, still offers a full line of freewheels, but the word is > they'd like to cut back their selection. Factories see freewheels as > money-eaters." > > I don't wish to insinuate that something Grant Peterson wrote in 1996 > is representative of his present opinion. It's still interesting, > however, to see how some (including me) would have chosen a freewheel > equipped bike at that time in preference of a cassette. I'm > personally quite satisfied with the choice I made for my 1996 > Rivendell Standard and feel that its given me good service and will > continue to do so in the future. > > Jim Cloud > Tucson, AZ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
