jameso wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:15 am
And bent axles.
Big risk with that extended axle type though. A lot of bending load on the unsupported section between the hub shell and the fork end. That's why I didn't buy the extended axle version of the SON for my Jones, not convinced it'd be a good idea with a TA even. Esp under the load you had there! : ) Trip looks good... SON have a 150mm full-width shell hub now?
Yeah, it's not confidence inspiring and by far not just seemed but also turned out to be the weakest link of that build. Yet it was the unsupported area at the fork's dropouts itself. This has in my experience always been the area where the axle would bend using different hubs, QRs, forks…
If you make the dropout thinner to gain more support on the axle, you cause a different problem (fork dropouts too thin).
It's a dog chasing his own tail. You can only get out of it by going with a TA. I can remember some frames in the late '90 to have had some strange sort of proprietary screw axles, but they were reserved for the continous prototype like frames.
Wheelies would've solved the problem too.
Yes, SON have a 150 x 15 mm TA hub.
There's a little story to why I took some risks with sticking with the 135 mm QR:
I didn't like the looks of it either and it had just been announced in the very winter, when I built up my first fatbike - and I was really happy to see it available. Chosen frame and fork had front and rear QR and it was a very lightweight (and wobbly/soft/comfy/etc.) ti frame, so there was a theme going on anyways ;-)
Due to the functionality (like new) of my by now I think 7 years old 135 mm QR SON I had a fork made to go with it, since the fork being less than half the price of the hub, let alone re-building the wheel with the new hub.
Once I test rode the new bike with a load close to what I had on it during the actual trip end of last year, I was afraid I'd kill myself, it was really, really weak up front. I know myself, if there's a nice descent I like to fly. This combination was a bit scary. It was a strange and tense fun on the descents...
Riding the bike "hard" at home (little test ride, to bed in the pads and check gearing etc.) was able to get the QR loose. I worked into roughening the contact areas which may have helped a bit. During the trip I regularly checked the QR and rarely had to retighten it. When removing the wheel to fix the damaged tyre (twice - beyond the maxalami stage) I didn't realise the axle was bent, or it wasn't bent at that point.
Only when wanting to pull the axle out of the hub completely to get the bike ready for the flight I realised the damage.
Was a Hope QR.
Never again. I was asking for trouble, but slipped away without.
I tried to save money and risked getting hurt, with a crappy riding sensation.
Bonus: due to the amount of give, the front was quite comfy on hits.
To make it short:
The whole QR design is too weak for what can be done (doesn't mean it should be done - but go figure, some are curious) by bike. It always has been and still is.