Jim, Thanks for the info. I didn't know that flip flop hubs in the longer spacings were so readily available. They must have a fair bit of axle showing though. When I had a ss freewheel mounted on an old campi hub recently all that axle sticking out looked a bit odd to me. I suppose they (the longer axles that is) might be more likely to bend too, though I don't think I would worry about it much.
On Apr 9, 2:52 am, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com> wrote: > Some trivia about 120 mm spacing: many of the typical 120 mm SS hubs have a > 130 mm version available that has the same hub body on a wider axle and the > same 42 mm chainline. My White Industries eccentric flip-flop hub is 135 mm > with a 42 mm chainline on the fixed side. > > In other words, there is not necessarily a difference in chainline in the > different width hubs UNLESS you're using one of the 135 mm SS MTB hubs on the > market. If the chainline is 42 mm, regardless of overall hub spacing, you can > use the same narrow BB and narrow-tread crank, provided the chainring and > crankarms clear the chainstays. > > 120 mm is only an advantage if you already have a stash of hubs/wheels in > that size and/or you believe that maintaining "traditional" dimensions is > important and/or you want to run genuine track-bike parts (which Riv > doesn't). 130 mm or 135 mm would give the added advantage of being capable of > accepting a cassette hub with a spacer kit and 1, 2, or even 3 cogs. Not that > 120 mm spacing detracts from the coolness or quality of Riv's SS attempts - > just trying to point out that the argument for/against one hub width > dimension and another is not one-sided. -- 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.
