Galaxy axle

[Punkawallah]

Hi all,
I’m considering swapping out the solid rear axle on my ‘83 Galaxy for a ‘quick release’ one. The ‘worryworts’ at the back of my head are telling me that if the designer thought it a good idea, then they would have blood well included one in the original spec. The most it supports is my fat arse and a couple of side panniers (about a stone between them).
Any thoughts on the advisability of making my life easier vs potential failure?
Cheers.

 

[Paulus]

I have QR axles on my 1975 Galaxy and several other of my bikes which have toured extensively over the years with no problems.
Just make sure you get the correct length axles.

 

[Dogtrousers]

The only thing that springs to mind is that your frame probably has horizontal dropouts so unless the wheel nuts are done up good and tight you could pull the wheel out of line and end up with the tyre rubbing on the chain stay.

I have a Dawes Shadow of similar vintage. I have brutalised it to accept a modern rear wheel and that has QRs. Before I got used to doing the QR up good and tight I did maybe once run into that problem so it's not a big deal.

Go ahead. No real significant problem.

 

[Teamfixed]

No problem at all, Loads of touring loaded and not with QR. My partners Galaxy has QR as does my Raleigh Randonnuer.

 

[MichaelW2]

The proper Shimano/Campagnolo style of QR can be used in horizontal dropouts. Many regard hollow axles as better for touring since they are under compression not tension. A broken solid axle us a show stopper.

 

[Punkawallah]

The proper Shimano/Campagnolo style of QR can be used in horizontal dropouts. Many regard hollow axles as better for touring since they are under compression not tension. A broken solid axle us a show stopper.

Yup. I’ve come across bent solid axles, but not broken. Seen a couple of broken QR axles - MTB’s.

 

[Ajax Bay]

QR's are fine. This age Galaxy has horizontal drop outs as most bikes were back then and indeed for decades: the QR hollow axle has been around for almost a century. Suggest the QR, properly secured, is a more consistent, assured way of making the dropout/axle interface sensibly tight cf a nutted axle and an dumbbell spanner (on the road).
The system weight is not an issue: torque/force is rider limited.
The QR obviously requires to be properly adjusted and closed with hand distorting force, beyond the 90 degree point.
On @MichaelW2 assertion anecdatally I have broken a hollow axle (road bike) and not because of my immense power (10 years ago). Probable cause: insufficiently secured in horizontal dropouts.
Of course a broken hollow axle doesn't really matter with a QR: you only need the two end sections: the axle will stay together under compression.

 

[Punkawallah]

My thanks for the input, folks. It does have horizontal drop outs, and the possibility of ‘slippage’ is not something I’d considered - good call. I’d have to size them, of course, but with luck a MTB front should do it. Worth offering up’, anyway. And if not there are a variety of sizes on the market, and I have a hacksaw :-)

 

[Cycleops]

You'll be absolutely fine unless of course you like to do this:

 

[biggs682]

@Punkawallah you will more than likely have to cut the back one down

 

[Dogtrousers]

Incidentally, Sheldon makes the distinction between "Enclosed Cam" and "Exposed Cam" QRs. https://sheldonbrown.com/skewers.html

He's a bit sniffy about exposed cam QRs and warns against using them with horizontal dropouts

The result is that the exposed-cam type provides very much less clamping force for a given amount of hand force on the lever.
Fortunately, the move toward "boutique" skewers happened after the industry had mostly moved to frames with vertical dropouts and forks with "lawyer lips."
The exposed-cam skewers are generally OK for vertical dropouts in back, and for forks with "lawyer lips", but should not be relied on with horizontal dropouts or plain forks.

I think that enclosed cam QRs look much better and would suit a Galaxy far better aesthetically.

But personally I've found on my tatty Dawes, exposed cam QRs have done OK. And I did once break an enclosed cam QR. In my keenness to hold the wheel properly in the horizontal dropout I over tightened it. It held fine until I released it, whereupon it fell to bits. Fortunately I was in my garage at the time.

 

[Punkawallah]

Incidentally, Sheldon makes the distinction between "Enclosed Cam" and "Exposed Cam" QRs. https://sheldonbrown.com/skewers.html

He's a bit sniffy about exposed cam QRs and warns against using them with horizontal dropouts



I think that enclosed cam QRs look much better and would suit a Galaxy far better aesthetically.

But personally I've found on my tatty Dawes, exposed cam QRs have done OK. And I did once break an enclosed cam QR. In my keenness to hold the wheel properly in the horizontal dropout I over tightened it. It held fine until I released it, whereupon it fell to bits. Fortunately I was in my garage at the time.

A lucky escape :x) The intention is to match the enclosed cam skewer of the front wheel. or Source a pair to suit. I hadn’t got to the point of checking with Sheldon, yet - but good catch, thanks.

 

[raleighnut]

If going for a hollow axle I'd fit 'security skewers' these tighten with an allen key and are IMHO far superior.

 

[Dogtrousers]

If going for a hollow axle I'd fit 'security skewers' these tighten with an allen key and are IMHO far superior.

Superior in what way?

(Not picking a fight by the way, just curious. I've never seen one)

 

[Ajax Bay]

If going for a hollow axle I'd fit 'security skewers' these tighten with an allen key and are IMHO far superior.

Yes, in what way "superior"? I suggest that, for consistent tightness assurance they are not (see rationale in my post above).
The Galaxy's rear wheel (freewheel and 5/6 sprockets) will be super-ignored by a would be thief.