Hubs, old vs new?

bikenut2010

Senior Retro Guru
I mostly ride my old steel bikes, tho' I do have a carbon. The group sets and wheels are Campag and find on a group ride, guys are pedalling to keep up with me while I freewheel downhill; my wheels are generally chorus or similar campag hubs and Mavic or Fir rims ( clinchers )...do the old old Campag hubs have spookily low rolling resistance compared to the wheels that are supplied 'off the shelf' with most mid range modern bikes? Even a humble mirage group set seems to out-perform, and Record simply flies...
Couple of mates wondered about rebuilding their wheels with a better hubset to keep up with my old steeds! any recommendations / opinions / comments? Happy New Year to all! :mrgreen:
 
Campag hubs always seem to have better finished bearings than Shimano. They always spin smoother and quieter. However it might also be that you have lower wind resistance...
There are few hubs that can beat mid-90s Campag Record, especially as they have the grease port in the middle.
 
well I do ride low and tucked in if I can... and yes the grease port gets a good shot of TF2 this time of year to keep the muck out! anything comparable for newer wheels without breaking the bank?
 
Re: Hubs, old vs new?)

Cup and cone run a lot faster than normal cartridge bearings.
Cartridge bearings are fitted to most "fashionable" wheelsets.
You then have to pay through the nose for a ceramic upgrade to bring your bearings closer to cup and cone performance.
And it's all done to save money and make the hubs idiot proof.......

IIRC, Shimano D-A hubs are the lowest drag/smoothest rolling hubs, there was an article in one of the German mags two or three years back.

There are dozens of other factors at play tho: weight, aerodynamics, rolling resistance for starters.
(The tyres on mid range road bikes are often utter garbage.)
 
2 of my steelies have low profile front rims and deep section rear...was this a fashion thing back in the 90s?
Tyres usually Conti GP4000 or Vittoria pro 3 or similar
 
If you want to go faster downhill without pedalling try sticking one leg out straight behind you. Two would be faster, but very unlikely.
Another old timers trick, like the squirt of water in the old tubulars.
Keith
 
Bikenut... Not quite clear who might be riding what in your riding group, but I don't think it's any surprise that, all else being equal, say, 22lbs of steel gets to the bottom of a hill a bit quicker than, say, 18lbs of carbon? Didn't early TDF riders have strategies for loading their bikes with extra weight at the top of a mountain for the descent ?

Apart from that I'm with mattr on cup'n'cone versus cartridge.
 
Maybe you've just been eating more pies than them? :D

While there can be a noticeable difference in hub smoothness when turning the spindles by hand, hub friction is way down the list of things that csn affect speed when out on the road. Aerodynamics and weight are far far more important when freewheeling downhill.
 
Weight isn't relevant, I think. Gravity is 9.81 m/s irrespective. But rolling (tyres/bearings) and wind resistance do matter. I found the same thing last year when I was on the only old bike on the Herts 100 and flew downhill past young fit types on mostly carbon bikes. I tend to ride very low with a flat back (cos I do my stretches every day).
 
I don't think the grease port in the Record hubs really does anything - it's just there for bling and old time's sake like the d-rings on the qr ends. I've never squirted lube into my hubs although they get stripped and re-greased periodically, yet on downhill stretches I still used to breeze past riders on their mid-range low-spoke factory wheels-with-go-faster-stickers. Not sure if Record uses a higher grade of bearing, but being of a small and thin persuasion I reckon downhill velocity is largely a function of frontal area. That said, nutters like Kelly and Yates who were far from tiny would be hitting 70mph on alpine descents.
 
Back
Top