Snapped spindle

[silva]

Please explain why light in races is cheating and it would be helpful if you didn’t make the answer several pages long.

If the 100 metres winner wins because his shoes weights half his competitors shoes, then he didn't win due to his better body performance but due to his halfweight shoes.
That explanation should be Obvious, but since you asked: Glad To Help!

 

[Webbo2]

If the 100 metres winner wins because his shoes weights half his competitors shoes, then he didn't win due to his better body performance but due to his halfweight shoes.
That explanation should be Obvious, but since you asked: Glad To Help!

So what is your point. People have been trying to make bikes faster and more efficient to ride since they were invented.
Everyone has the means to make their bike lighter so I can’t see why you keep banging about it.

 

[silva]

That didn't age well...

By the way: one problem with that inward shifting is the change of the chain line of the crank.

If you're going to continue posting assertions that are so easy to recognise as wrong that even I can realise that, then please don't contradict yourself.
It would be much better if you wouldn't post wrong assertions.

E.

What is your "that", that "didn't age well":

but cranks, spiders and axles aren't wearing parts,

That was exactly the invention reason of the "taper" in "square taper": allowing to compensate for wear. Nothing needs to be replaced, the crank just shifts abit further on the axle, and as long as it doesn't bottom out, No Problem in the Champaign Room Sir!

You are comparing wear due to crank installation, to wear due to riding.
What you said yourself in post #695:
"And for the record: square taper cranks wear out at the square taper every time they are taken off and put on again."

Wear occurs where surfaces engage eachother. Chain rollers engaging sprocket teeth, chain rollers spinning over chain bushings/pins, balls of bearings over the surfaces they roll over.
Right crank sits fixed on the spider, in HollowTech 2 even also fixed on the axle, left crank sits fixed on the axle.
They are mounted on eachother.
So, how can their fail then be due to... wear?
The HollowTech 2 failures are just due to minimalistic design for the Church of the Light Religion = ample reserve = material that deforms enough to create defects, that then grow to Disaster.
As pictures showed: even around the pincher bolts of the left crank, resulting in addition in Shimano's Check For Close To Disaster Inspection Manual for Dealers.
This spindle crack is just another such fail location of the design.
While 20 grammes more material in its wall (hollow) towards the inside would have make it 29% stronger resisting the torsion force exerted along the left crank, as the site calculators showed.

That this Weight Whining occurs on the Racing Floors, where sponsors may deliver a new crankset every Race, and a new bicycle every Season, fine. Because fatigue has the number of load cycles as a prime function.
But as a standard for everyone, LoL?

 

[silva]

So what is your point. People have been trying to make bikes faster and more efficient to ride since they were invented.
Everyone has the means to make their bike lighter so I can’t see why you keep banging about it.

Safety is my point, of course.
Where have you been, the last forum century?
Also, having to 1 Leg Limp 3 or 30 Miles after a crankset failure, well, that's NOT a Fun Day, Night, and, the Bill to Repair, Neither.
Thankfully, thanks to Complaining People, Shimano was forced (though on their site they name it "voluntary recall", LOL!) to Accept the latter.

 

[silva]

The hard surfaces of the shaft abrase a tiny bit of the relatively soft aluminium of the cranks every time the cranks are pulled off. Every time the cranks are tightened the aluminium is compressed and has a tendency to float away. (*)
That is what I meant with "wear".

E.

(*) Off-Topic - From my time as an electrician apprentice in the former GDR: Copper was strategic material and therefore were aluminium wires widely used for normal electrical installations like in office buildings or residential houses. In the early times the wires were clamped with screws in the joint boxes. Due to the pressure from the screws and the heat input from the electric current the aluminium wires began to float away from the pressure. That led to higher contact resistance, higher resistance led to higher temperatures which softened the aluminium and in the end to several flat fires. Later the wires were connected with ferrules and this specific problem was at least mitigated.

About the first, and again, that is precisely why the square taper axle ends where made taper: to be able to compensate for that wear. Instead of having to buy everytime the play becomes unacceptable (and it worsens itself, because play = movement), a new crank(set), you can just tension it further, upto the limit (bottom out).

About your declared off-topic: it actually isn't - it's precisely what Shimano did in its Hollow Technology 2 design: replacing massive material with structures (to reduce weight) "connected" to eachother with specialties that at least mitigate...
And as proven: the mitigation didn't suffice, and they messed 'round 7 years to solve it: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/snapped-spindle.309571/post-7597831
... while denying 10 years to customers their fault.

It's now to hope that their 2019+ production stays in the Clear Waters it's said to be in now...

 

[raleighnut]

If the 100 metres winner wins because his shoes weights half his competitors shoes, then he didn't win due to his better body performance but due to his halfweight shoes.
That explanation should be Obvious, but since you asked: Glad To Help!

That was the argument against Zola Budd running barefoot in the Olympics..................Unfair advantage,

 

[Dogtrousers]

700 posts!

 

[classic33]

As Already mentioned Quite Some Times in this Thread: this is about an axle under torsion force of a human leg.
NOT an axle under load of the weight of a bike, its rider, its whatever luggage and its whatever Bouncings and Humpings, alike your Sturmey Archer hub.

READ WHAT WAS SAID.
The axle twisted under load, from the power supplied by a pair of human legs.

 

[classic33]

What is your "that", that "didn't age well":



You are comparing wear due to crank installation, to wear due to riding.
What you said yourself in post #695:
"And for the record: square taper cranks wear out at the square taper every time they are taken off and put on again."

Wear occurs where surfaces engage eachother. Chain rollers engaging sprocket teeth, chain rollers spinning over chain bushings/pins, balls of bearings over the surfaces they roll over.
Right crank sits fixed on the spider, in HollowTech 2 even also fixed on the axle, left crank sits fixed on the axle.
They are mounted on eachother.
So, how can their fail then be due to... wear?
The HollowTech 2 failures are just due to minimalistic design for the Church of the Light Religion = ample reserve = material that deforms enough to create defects, that then grow to Disaster.
As pictures showed: even around the pincher bolts of the left crank, resulting in addition in Shimano's Check For Close To Disaster Inspection Manual for Dealers.
This spindle crack is just another such fail location of the design.
While 20 grammes more material in its wall (hollow) towards the inside would have make it 29% stronger resisting the torsion force exerted along the left crank, as the site calculators showed.

That this Weight Whining occurs on the Racing Floors, where sponsors may deliver a new crankset every Race, and a new bicycle every Season, fine. Because fatigue has the number of load cycles as a prime function.
But as a standard for everyone, LoL?

So your attempts at saving money on your bike maintenance means you're a weight whiner. POT KETTLE BLACK springs to mind.

And it throws your non-wearing theory out.

 

[EckyH]

What is your "that", that "didn't age well":

Your assertions, not mine, are contradictious to each other - and that in a fairly short time.

You are comparing wear due to crank installation to wear due to riding.

Nope.

Instead of having to buy everytime the play becomes unacceptable (and it worsens itself, because play = movement),

Moving cranks (or in your words: play) on a square taper are signs of incorrect assembly or poor maintenance or both.

E.

 

[Webbo2]

Safety is my point, of course.
Where have you been, the last forum century?
Also, having to 1 Leg Limp 3 or 30 Miles after a crankset failure, well, that's NOT a Fun Day, Night, and, the Bill to Repair, Neither.
Thankfully, thanks to Complaining People, Shimano was forced (though on their site they name it "voluntary recall", LOL!) to Accept the latter.

Where have I been the last forum century. I have been riding my bike probably a lot further, faster and up more hills than your good self.😉

 

[Ajax Bay]

The axle twisted under load, from the power supplied by a pair of human legs.

To be fair, it's likely that these extremely rare cases of an H2 spindle failing under torsional stress is not "from the power supplied by a pair of human legs".
The top of the envelope stress is instantaneously achieved through "a pair of human legs" but they are in the 'transmission chain'. The force is generated by two feet (at 3 and 9 o'clock) each pressing with half bodyweight x a factor depending on the instantaneous vertically resolved anti-gravitational deceleration on landing. This is more likely for MTBs ('air'/landing).
Longer cranks will increase the torsional moment linearly with length.
Such torsion is, of course, way more that mere pedalling, hoyever powerful, can achieve.
The spindle may not fail at that moment but contribute to future failure.
H2 spindles are designed (diameter and thickness) accordingly times a safety factor. Minute manufacturing flaws or wear from the bearings causing, for example, stress risers will mean that very very occasionally, spindles fail. See post #3 on Page 1 of this quite excellent thread.

 

[Jenkins]

If the 100 metres winner wins because his shoes weights half his competitors shoes, then he didn't win due to his better body performance but due to his halfweight shoes.
That explanation should be Obvious, but since you asked: Glad To Help!

So does that make you a cheat? You're using a bike with missing teeth on the chainring/sprocket so it's lighter than a bike with a fully intact chainring/sprocket. Bloody weight weenie

And given the state of your drivetrain you have the nerve to quote...

Safety is my point, of course.

 

[fossyant]

Safety is my point, of course.

Says the person who rides fixed with most of the gear teeth missing. Hey ho, not died yet !

 

[classic33]

So does that make you a cheat? You're using a bike with missing teeth on the chainring/sprocket so it's lighter than a bike with a fully intact chainring/sprocket. Bloody weight weenie

And given the state of your drivetrain you have the nerve to quote...

Sorta what I was hinting at

So your attempts at saving money on your bike maintenance means you're a weight whiner. POT KETTLE BLACK springs to mind.

And it throws your non-wearing theory out.