2018 Torque Arm Tests, Splined Interface Design and Tabbed Washers

amberwolf · Apr 8, 2018

Merlin said:
What's wrong with the(normal flat axle) clamping dropouts we are using on the "big bikes"?

<Snip>

if I had a wish I would prefer an "update" about how the wires comes out of the motor. It's always shitty with the disc brake.
Always needing disc Spacers... Extend the brake bracket... Making it more flexing....

If you look at the original posts, that's a part of the reason for this new idea/testing: To leave the threaded axle itself the correct size to remain centered in the dropouts where it needs to be, to fit brake calipers where they are designed to be and end up correctly placed on the rotors.

It also ensures the dropouts never take the twisting load directly, so even if the torque arm fails to prevent axle rotation, the wheel should at least stay on the bike (which it doesn't always in a twisting failure that destroys dropouts, allowing teh wheel to be able to come off the bike entirely).

While that won't help if the axle actually snaps, the snapping is less likely to happen in the first place with a torque arm inboard of the threaded area, rather than within the threaded area, outboard of the stress riser at the start of the threaded area/shoulder.

Regarding the wire exit, I'd personally prefer to see a much larger ID bearing, with a "filler" ring that allows the wires to come out well outside the axle itself. Would allow a stronger axle, larger wire gauge, and separating hall and phase wires (these could even come out individually), and even allowing pretty much as much instrumentation wiring as desired, and even space for liquid cooling pipes or other "exotic" modifications.

Unfortunately this won't work with a rear wheel that has a disc brake *and* a cassette or freewheel. It can work on a front wheel, or on any rear wheel that has only a disc brake *or* a cassette/freewheel (the side without one can then be used as the wire exit side with the large ID bearing).

e-beach · Apr 8, 2018

I'm still thinking that at the 45 angle, with the structure required, it would remove too much material off the flats. Unless one adds a bit more material on the opposite end and adds an extra pinch bolt.

e-beach · Apr 8, 2018

amberwolf said:
.......
Regarding the wire exit, I'd personally prefer to see a much larger ID bearing, with a "filler" ring that allows the wires to come out well outside the axle itself. Would allow a stronger axle, larger wire gauge, and separating hall and phase wires (these could even come out individually), and even allowing pretty much as much instrumentation wiring as desired, and even space for liquid cooling pipes or other "exotic" modifications.

In other words, a complete redesign of a hub motor. 8)

Edit: Ok, just gave it a quick think. How about this.....Manufacture a new axle style. On the geared side, leave the axle design alone. On the disk break side make it more robust. Add a larger bearing. Make more room in the axle channel for a bigger wiring space. Change the side cover so the disk break has a larger center. Make disk break rotors to fit the new larger size, and counter any changes in the disk break caliper with necessery shims at the frame.

One wouldn't need to change the whole motor. What would be needed is a new style:

Axle
Side Cover
Bearing
Roter
Caliper frame shim.

amberwolf · Apr 8, 2018

It's a nice idea, but:

If you make a new disc mount, then no one can use the standard ISO discs on their existing brakes.

It'd probably end up like my Fusin geared hub that has some wierd custom rotor design, that can't accept an ISO rotor, and can only be used with their own--but they're out of business, so no rotors are available for anyone that has one of these motors.

Probably end up with different companies each making their own new rotor style, so you can only buy their rotors, and then when they change it again and stop making the old style you're screwed and have to buy a whole new motor just to use the new rotors.

Even if they all agree to make them to whatever the new "standard" would be, you're still stuck with whatever those rotors are made from, and whatever design they choose, and sizes they have available, etc.

The exception would be if someone started making adapters to allow use of the various floating rotors that are available for the ISO rotor standards. (but you still end up with the other potential issues).

That's why I said it'd only work (practically) if you don't have a rear disc mount, or you don't have a rear pedal chaindrive mount. (like scooter motors and up). And on these larger motors for scooters/mopeds/motorcycles, the brake rotor ID is larger anyway, so you could probably still have the rotor mount on there outside of the bearing.

As far as the "axle channel" goes, the whole point of the larger bearing is to have no axle channel. If you're still going to have one, I'd rather leave things alone completely and stay with what already "works", rather than changing to some new ID size standard for brake rotors and/or freewheel/cassette bodies.

Otherwise you've added complexity and manufacturing cost for the axle, the covers, the brake system, etc., without really fixing the problems that having an axle channel create in the first place (weaker axle, insufficient space for wiring, etc.) and without giving the easily-expanded options of the inner ring-spacer that can be drilled out (or replaced with one with more/larger holes) for various wiring / etc options.

Ianhill · Apr 8, 2018

I'm just a novice at this ive built a few personal rides mostly scooter's but I have done an A2B metro conversion with a mxus 3k turbo. I found the disc needed to be spaced out 5mm that was difficult to find in one piece so the disc match the standard mounts. I could still fit a 7 speed freewheel cog to the bike with no chain fowl but 1st and last gear had some serious chain bend going on

Due to the disc brake spacing I had no choice but to use outer outer torque arm's and the maximum thickness I could go was 4mm to still get full thread engagement so I used a high chromium stainless recommended to me then laser cut out to fit dual torque arms which is overkill to factorys single 3mm, but in a way this is my power limiter they are strong enough to have a fun ride aroind the 3kw mark but to fully thrash the motor to 8kw and melt it will cause damage in many ways fast.

The way i see it is even when I power this motor with 36v 40amp I find I can climb any incline with a 46/16 tooth setup on a moped 16 inch wheel so the spacing for the sake of gears at this power level is only to keep chain line straight in my eyes, that's why I've gone with a single speed drive that sits the cog in the middle of where the cassette would normally be so I've shifted the hub over and in turn put it's centre of mass more inline with the centre of the frame. I swapped my disc mount to the opposite side of the frames posts and the disc still aligned well.

I then used the spoke calculator got a rim and 10g spokes and laced the thing together after many nights of planning the hub feels nice and the single speed is nice and quiet which is a luxury for the chain length in the A2B metro bikes but being single speed converted i took 8 links out of the chain and now use a singe cog chain tensioner in replace of the derailer, as the swing arm is not horizontal it works very well and there's no chain slap, I'm proud of it like a baby I kept feeding till I know have a little one that can go into the wild.

But I think the moral of the story is not matter how much you plan the frame throw up issues and a hub design at 2kw plus with a low kv is more than capable of being single speed buying a ton of room.

I may be way out of tune and have used the wrong hub to begin with but 148mm dropout I had and that's what I went with, I know there's nothing technical here and just an experience but I know it can be done better and just hope a better design can evolve from people experiences.

Rather than using custom made spacers and so much fiddling to get a real good setup take patients and plenty of planning but much is learnt in turn.

e-beach · Apr 9, 2018

amberwolf said:
It's a nice idea, but:
If you make a new disc mount, then no one can use the standard ISO discs on their existing brakes.
It'd probably end up like my Fusin geared hub that has some wierd custom rotor design, that can't accept an ISO rotor, and can only be used with their own--but they're out of business, so no rotors are available for anyone that has one of these motors.

Well, the real answer to this thread is bicycle frames built for the motors. If standardized frames for 26" tires were built with dropouts designed for 10 x 14mm axles, and in a way to withstand regen or other breaking then every other standard 26" bike part could fit.
The could be built in 18,19,20 and 21 inch heights with big triangles. Only one color would be need, say white. Basic but suited for a hub motor.

Probably end up with different companies each making their own new rotor style, so you can only buy their rotors, and then when they change it again and stop making the old style you're screwed and have to buy a whole new motor just to use the new rotors. Even if they all agree to make them to whatever the new "standard" would be, you're still stuck with whatever those rotors are made from, and whatever design they choose, and sizes they have available, etc.

Yes it is true, we would be stuck with limited options, but repeat sales is what keeps a business in business. However if a proprietary rotor was made for non standard side cover then the rotor could be purchased and not a whole motor. It would be something one would have to accept for the cost of having a really solid torque arm for the motor.

The exception would be if someone started making adapters to allow use of the various floating rotors that are available for the ISO rotor standards. (but you still end up with the other potential issues).

Like loose screws maybe.

That's why I said it'd only work (practically) if you don't have a rear disc mount, or you don't have a rear pedal chaindrive mount. (like scooter motors and up). And on these larger motors for scooters/mopeds/motorcycles, the brake rotor ID is larger anyway, so you could probably still have the rotor mount on there outside of the bearing.

Less stuff in the way surly makes adaption easier.

As far as the "axle channel" goes, the whole point of the larger bearing is to have no axle channel. If you're still going to have one, I'd rather leave things alone completely and stay with what already "works", rather than changing to some new ID size standard for brake rotors and/or freewheel/cassette bodies.

I don't understand the "no axle channel" part . Gotta get the wires in there somehow. At some point, all hub motors have an axle channel. Usually it is after the bearings behind the side covers. As for leaving everything alone, that has brought us to the torque arm issue in the first place.

Otherwise you've added complexity and manufacturing cost for the axle, the covers, the brake system, etc., without really fixing the problems that having an axle channel create in the first place (weaker axle, insufficient space for wiring, etc.) and without giving the easily-expanded options of the inner ring-spacer that can be drilled out (or replaced with one with more/larger holes) for various wiring / etc options.

Maybe not. Once all the tooling is done, the manufacturing time and materials would be about the same. What would be limited would be the choice of manufactures. If we need it and only one company sells it then we would have to buy from them. Unless the Chinese see a profit in it.

As for a weaker axle, I have to disagree. A larger bearing with a larger ID give room for a larger OD on the axle. ie thicker axle. A channel for 10 awg wires would not weaken it at all. At least for most hub motors.

spinningmagnets · Apr 9, 2018

I can understand the value of pondering an improvement to the axle, and "as long as we're at it, why not completely redesign every part to make it perfect". But...I think the proposed changes in posts #1 and #2 are just fine. The current MAC geared motors have millions of happy users in their current iteration. Geared hubmotors are here to stay, and the MAC/BMC is about as big as customers will buy. 48V X 30A is 1440W, and I am not hearing about huge problems with axles breaking.

However, once a new standard is added to an existing axle size, it can also be added to direct drive hubs that use the same size axle. A 12mm axle with two 10mm flats on it (the common style) has two contact points resisting an axle spin-out. The torque-arm needs to be slightly weaker than the axle, or an over-power condition will break the axle. In this way, the TA gives the axle more leverage to resist spin-out.

The design-change proposal replaces two flats that have outermost contact points that are half of a 12mm diameter, so 6mm from the center of the axle. The proposed change uses 7 spline contact points with outermost contact points at 17mm diameter, so...8.5mm from the center of the axle.

2 X 6.0 mm vs
7 X 8.5 mm

That HAS to provide at least four times the breakage resistance, shouldn't it? I like voltages under 60V for safety (and cost), and a 12-FET controller with cool-running 3077's can provide temporary peaks of 50A, so...52V X 50A = 2600W, which is perfect for the current batch of 35mm wide-stator hubmotors, like the Leafbike, MXUS, and Edge.

Buk___ · Apr 9, 2018

spinningmagnets said:
The design-change proposal replaces two flats that have outermost contact points that are half of a 12mm diameter, so 6mm from the center of the axle. The proposed change uses 7 spline contact points with outermost contact points at 17mm diameter, so...8.5mm from the center of the axle.

2 X 6.0 mm vs
7 X 8.5 mm

That HAS to provide at least four times the breakage resistance, shouldn't it?

No! Multiplying the distance of the contact points from the centre of the axle makes no sense; it isn't the diameter of the axle that resists the torque.

It is the area of the material in torque plate, in the radial path of those contact points, that has to resist the torque.

Alan B · Apr 9, 2018

Changing the bicycle frames is a non starter, this would limit the choices too much, ebikes are not that big a fraction of the market.

So all we have to work with is the motor axle and the torque arm itself. Even changing the motor itself would be difficult.

Another thing to keep in mind is the difficulty of changing the tire when that is needed. Ideally something compatible with QR axles could be done. Not an easy design, to be sure. But something to consider.

Good discussion.

spinningmagnets · Apr 9, 2018

I am of the opinion that the torque-arm should be slightly less strong compared to the axle section that it is attached to, so it acts as a mechanical fuse. If there is an overpower event, I'm sure we would all hope that the tire-tread would lose traction first, but...there are many nearby examples of broken Crystalyte axles, and some builders would have preferred that the axle spin-out from a broken TA, so that...the phase wires and Hall wires would be easier, cheaper, and faster to repair.

edit: as the post below mentions, an axle spin-out is much more desirable than a broken axle, specifically because a broken axle can lead to a crash in traffic.

I am speaking of DD hubmotors with the same size axle, because...as the MAC/BMC approach 3000W, the heat would be much more of an issue compared to the strength of the torque-arm and axle connection. I feel this 17mm splined axle shank is a wonderful upgrade for a geared hubmotor (without the need to change the existing sideplate opening size).

I believe that the TA could easily be made MUCH stronger than the axle, while still fitting between the common 135mm drop-outs. Whether or not that would be desirable is up to those who would pay to have some made.

The graphic just above is courtesy of ES member "Farfle"...

Below is a pic from Tench, he moved the hub to a mid-mount, but...since he machined away the disc brake mount, and also swapped-in a sideplate bearing with a larger 3/4-inch ID, this is what that would look like with a custom square-shank axle:

Merlin · Apr 9, 2018

amberwolf said:
Merlin said:

What's wrong with the(normal flat axle) clamping dropouts we are using on the "big bikes"?

<Snip>

if I had a wish I would prefer an "update" about how the wires comes out of the motor. It's always shitty with the disc brake.
Always needing disc Spacers... Extend the brake bracket... Making it more flexing....

Click to expand...

If you look at the original posts, that's a part of the reason for this new idea/testing: To leave the threaded axle itself the correct size to remain centered in the dropouts where it needs to be, to fit brake calipers where they are designed to be and end up correctly placed on the rotors.

It also ensures the dropouts never take the twisting load directly, so even if the torque arm fails to prevent axle rotation, the wheel should at least stay on the bike (which it doesn't always in a twisting failure that destroys dropouts, allowing teh wheel to be able to come off the bike entirely).

While that won't help if the axle actually snaps, the snapping is less likely to happen in the first place with a torque arm inboard of the threaded area, rather than within the threaded area, outboard of the stress riser at the start of the threaded area/shoulder.

Regarding the wire exit, I'd personally prefer to see a much larger ID bearing, with a "filler" ring that allows the wires to come out well outside the axle itself. Would allow a stronger axle, larger wire gauge, and separating hall and phase wires (these could even come out individually), and even allowing pretty much as much instrumentation wiring as desired, and even space for liquid cooling pipes or other "exotic" modifications.

Unfortunately this won't work with a rear wheel that has a disc brake *and* a cassette or freewheel. It can work on a front wheel, or on any rear wheel that has only a disc brake *or* a cassette/freewheel (the side without one can then be used as the wire exit side with the large ID bearing).

thank you. indeed, sometimes and probably it lookes like i understand fully "english language"
but i missed a bit the point. now i got it =)

since i have switched from a great qublix frame to tupperware frame 2nd time my axe nuts come lose....
initially i heard squeeking and creaking noise when accelerating and pushing regen brake.
i found out it was the axle nut. a day later after a "quick ride" i heard it again.
ahhh the axle nuts again.....or?....nope....they was rock solid fixed.

what i found makes me very pissed about this tupperware frame again. it fits this topic very well and its for documentation purpose how your dropouts should NOT BE.

bitch starts spreading his legs ...clamping dropouts are a MUST

Buk___ · Apr 9, 2018

Alan B said:
Ideally something compatible with QR axles could be done. Not an easy design, to be sure.

It's not clear to me how you could have a QR axle without modifying the motor?

Buk___ · Apr 9, 2018

Alan B said:
Changing the bicycle frames is a non starter, this would limit the choices too much, ebikes are not that big a fraction of the market.

So all we have to work with is the motor axle and the torque arm itself. Even changing the motor itself would be difficult.

Another thing to keep in mind is the difficulty of changing the tire when that is needed.

What do you think to this design for (say) sub 2k hubs?

See for the description.

e-beach · Apr 9, 2018

Buk___ said:
Alan B said:

Ideally something compatible with QR axles could be done. Not an easy design, to be sure.

Click to expand...

It's not clear to me how you could have a QR axle without modifying the motor?

An axle channel for wiring with a through axle bore for the standard type QR or maybe a threaded cam and leaver device. One on each side.

IMO on your idea, (I roll around at just over 1kw) It looks interesting, but I just don't have the room on my dropout to use it.

Alan B · Apr 9, 2018

I was told to never allow the Cromotor to slide back in the horizontal dropouts, even though they are cromoly steel on the Warp frame. The forces are strong enough to spread the steel dropouts if you leave a gap there. So I seat the motor fully forward and use a chain tensioner, and never had any problems. Whoever designed that horizontal dropout didn't do their stress analysis or testing properly.

Also, NordLock washers have kept the nuts from getting loose while being easily removable. Dynamite combination. After a wheel change I tighten them daily, and they settle after a couple of days and don't move again. When it comes time to remove them you can feel the ramp INCREASE tension before it drops. So any motion tends to tighten them rather than release them. The nut is caught in a valley between two increasing tension hills (when applied properly).

Alan B · Apr 9, 2018

I thought one of the goals was to have a round 10mm axle, the larger flatted axles cause a lot of issues with the way they (don't) fit the frame dropouts.

Ianhill · Apr 9, 2018

Few pics of the frame, torque arms and the finished product I suppose I was damm lucky starting with an ebike with 148mm dropouts so the axle dropped straight in the frame no modding only the torque arm was to small for the oval of the larger mxus so I got some custom ones knocked up.

On second thoughts I would have made a screw clamp type but at the power levels even with full regen it's held out really well but I would never go above 3kw really on this Granny bike it's a joyful commuter and full of comfort it's a rolls Royce not a Caterham.

Again I run this at 36v 40amp and would never go over 13s to keep it compliant with the UK law.

View attachment 4
View attachment 3
View attachment 2
View attachment 1

Buk___ · Apr 9, 2018

e-beach said:
Buk___ said:

Alan B said:

Ideally something compatible with QR axles could be done. Not an easy design, to be sure.

Click to expand...

It's not clear to me how you could have a QR axle without modifying the motor?

Click to expand...

An axle channel for wiring with a through axle bore for the standard type QR or maybe a threaded cam and leaver device. One on each side.

Doesn't that constitute "modifying the motor"?

It would also mean having a round axle through the dropouts, and that only leave modifying the axle to allow the torque device to sit behind them dropouts?

e-beach said:
IMO on your idea, (I roll around at just over 1kw) It looks interesting, but I just don't have the room on my dropout to use it.

Yeah, it's too big for many/most frames.

It is easily adapted to a two piece, plate&arm arrangement, but it would be expensive to manufacture commercially I think.

e-beach · Apr 9, 2018

Buk___ said:
e-beach said:

Buk___ said:

Alan B said:

Ideally something compatible with QR axles could be done. Not an easy design, to be sure.

Click to expand...

It's not clear to me how you could have a QR axle without modifying the motor?

Click to expand...

An axle channel for wiring with a through axle bore for the standard type QR or maybe a threaded cam and leaver device. One on each side.

Click to expand...

Doesn't that constitute "modifying the motor"?

It would also mean having a round axle through the dropouts, and that only leave modifying the axle to allow the torque device to sit behind them dropouts?

Ok, yes and yes.

johnrobholmes · Apr 9, 2018

Justin already has designed a motor that is QR compatible, up to 20mm axles. It takes a larger bearing and different side covers to have room for it all. I had the pleasure of machining the axles for the prototype run, so I got quite familiar with the entire assembly.

http://www.ebikes.ca/shop/electric-bicycle-parts/motors/grinhub-fst.html

Alan B · Apr 9, 2018

Redesigning the motor's axle is probably within bounds. Changing bearings not so much.

amberwolf · Apr 9, 2018

e-beach said:
I don't understand the "no axle channel" part . Gotta get the wires in there somehow. At some point, all hub motors have an axle channel. Usually it is after the bearings behind the side covers.

They dont' *have* to have an axle channel--that's what I was talking about before. If the bearing's ID is larger than the axle, then a spacer ring fills the area between teh bearing and the axle. THen holes are drilled thru the spacer ring, and phase wires, hall wires, instrumentation (temperature/etc) wires, and potentially liquid cooling/etc tubes, can all be run thru that spacer ring.

The axle itself has no notches, holes, channels, etc., for these wires--they all pass completely outside it, and dont' even have to touch it at all.

It's an idea that's come up before. I'm not sure, but I think John in CR might've been the first one to suggest it. I've drawn up sketches and posted them in various hubmotor improvement / redesign / modification threads over the years, though I dont' have any links ATM.

I think someone has rebuilt a motor to do this, but I can't remember who and cant' find the thread lookign around right now. :/

As for a weaker axle, I have to disagree. A larger bearing with a larger ID give room for a larger OD on the axle. ie thicker axle. A channel for 10 awg wires would not weaken it at all. At least for most hub motors.

Even if it's thicker, it is still weaker with an axle channel than it would be without one. It might be stronger than a thinner axle with the same size axle channel, but still won't be as strong as it would be without any channel at all.

electricwheels.de · Apr 10, 2018

amberwolf said:
e-beach said:

I don't understand the "no axle channel" part . Gotta get the wires in there somehow. At some point, all hub motors have an axle channel. Usually it is after the bearings behind the side covers.

Click to expand...

They dont' *have* to have an axle channel--that's what I was talking about before. If the bearing's ID is larger than the axle, then a spacer ring fills the area between teh bearing and the axle. THen holes are drilled thru the spacer ring, and phase wires, hall wires, instrumentation (temperature/etc) wires, and potentially liquid cooling/etc tubes, can all be run thru that spacer ring.

The axle itself has no notches, holes, channels, etc., for these wires--they all pass completely outside it, and dont' even have to touch it at all.

It's an idea that's come up before. I'm not sure, but I think John in CR might've been the first one to suggest it. I've drawn up sketches and posted them in various hubmotor improvement / redesign / modification threads over the years, though I dont' have any links ATM.

I think someone has rebuilt a motor to do this, but I can't remember who and cant' find the thread lookign around right now. :/

it came up on page 2 of this thread here

liveforphysics · Apr 10, 2018

Perhaps use a vise to crush them back to snug against the axle block.

I've put a lot of power/torque into the Nyx dropouts and didn't have any issues, but I also haven't loaded the assembly without the nuts torqued.

Merlin said:
amberwolf said:

Merlin said:

What's wrong with the(normal flat axle) clamping dropouts we are using on the "big bikes"?

<Snip>

if I had a wish I would prefer an "update" about how the wires comes out of the motor. It's always shitty with the disc brake.
Always needing disc Spacers... Extend the brake bracket... Making it more flexing....

Click to expand...

If you look at the original posts, that's a part of the reason for this new idea/testing: To leave the threaded axle itself the correct size to remain centered in the dropouts where it needs to be, to fit brake calipers where they are designed to be and end up correctly placed on the rotors.

It also ensures the dropouts never take the twisting load directly, so even if the torque arm fails to prevent axle rotation, the wheel should at least stay on the bike (which it doesn't always in a twisting failure that destroys dropouts, allowing teh wheel to be able to come off the bike entirely).

While that won't help if the axle actually snaps, the snapping is less likely to happen in the first place with a torque arm inboard of the threaded area, rather than within the threaded area, outboard of the stress riser at the start of the threaded area/shoulder.

Regarding the wire exit, I'd personally prefer to see a much larger ID bearing, with a "filler" ring that allows the wires to come out well outside the axle itself. Would allow a stronger axle, larger wire gauge, and separating hall and phase wires (these could even come out individually), and even allowing pretty much as much instrumentation wiring as desired, and even space for liquid cooling pipes or other "exotic" modifications.

Unfortunately this won't work with a rear wheel that has a disc brake *and* a cassette or freewheel. It can work on a front wheel, or on any rear wheel that has only a disc brake *or* a cassette/freewheel (the side without one can then be used as the wire exit side with the large ID bearing).

Click to expand...

thank you. indeed, sometimes and probably it lookes like i understand fully "english language"
but i missed a bit the point. now i got it =)

since i have switched from a great qublix frame to tupperware frame 2nd time my axe nuts come lose....
initially i heard squeeking and creaking noise when accelerating and pushing regen brake.
i found out it was the axle nut. a day later after a "quick ride" i heard it again.
ahhh the axle nuts again.....or?....nope....they was rock solid fixed.

what i found makes me very pissed about this tupperware frame again. it fits this topic very well and its for documentation purpose how your dropouts should NOT BE.

bitch starts spreading his legs ...clamping dropouts are a MUST

Merlin · Apr 10, 2018

Didn't wonder why right side starts spreading.
It's simply aluminum. And it's not that thick. (6x12mm)
Axle nuts itself doesn't do that much against the force of the axle
That want to twist.
I have a video of it. On beginning you can't hear nothing.
After a simply 0-top speed run you can hear that sound also in the video.
And as I wrote... On checking nuts if they come again lose they were rock solid tighten.

On left side there is more swingarm flesh for the dropouts because of the brake mount.
The right side has on the downside the derailleur mount.
Only the right upside is the weakest point because it is simply only 6x12mm aluminium on the whole length of the dropout.

I thought also bending it back with a vise carefully.
But what should I say.
Put a normal (short) pipe wrench on it and squeeze with only one hand and voila... You can bend it very easy.

Anyway is bending (back) of aluminum never a good idea.
I wrote to nyx first asking what should I do now before I found out how easy it is to bend the dropouts. But after all disappointments I didn't expect "help"

I did maintenance all time on my bikes and are very picky about bad feelings or sounds that are not normal.
Not only because of the 80mph Club. And yes I also know that it isn't useful for dropouts pushing 18kw from a dead stop in it.
But never had issues with clamped dropouts.

I wasn't afraid of this non clamping dropouts because Stephane (doc) allready raped it to the max

... Now iam here, dropouts bend.
The whole swingarm is not for that heavy abuse.
The whole swingarm is flexing centimeters to the sides with that heavy wheel. Flexing helps the force applied finding the weakest point. This is why only right side dropout is bend.
Think about how much deforming is needed to let the dropout bend. 1/3 more as you can see?
Without bending the left side? Insane...

Sry for off topic... Disappointing on its high

2018 Torque Arm Tests, Splined Interface Design and Tabbed Washers

Administrator

10 MW

10 MW

Administrator

1 MW

10 MW

Moderator

10 kW

100 GW

Moderator

1 MW

Attachments

10 kW

10 kW

10 MW

100 GW

100 GW

1 MW

10 kW

10 MW

10 MW

100 GW

Administrator

100 W

100 TW

1 MW

Similar threads