12

Conventional front wheel cup and cone bearings have 10x 3/16" ball bearings per side, whereas the rear wheel has 9x 1/4" ball bearings per side.

enter image description here

Manufacturers have been on a continuous quest over time, to simplify bikes in terms of ease of assembly, and of inventory. To the point putting retainer rings on ball bearings makes 9 items into one on the rear, and saves one or two balls. This will also speed assembly.

enter image description here

Seven 1/4" balls in a retainer do the same job as Eight or Nine balls outside a retainer.

I'm guessing that the smaller the bearing, the more will fit in the equivalent sized race, so the number and size are directly linked.

So why have a different size of bearing for the front vs the back?

Is the weight load on the rear is enough to require fewer and larger bearings?

Or the lack of weight on the front wheel is sufficiently different to allow smaller, possibly cheaper ball bearings?

Is there a rationale? Or is it another of those "this is how its always been"

This has puzzled me for a while, SE lacks any relevant question, and even searching the web comes up with no good answers.

Criggie
  • 124,066
  • 14
  • 180
  • 423
  • This might be a good question for the new https://engineering.stackexchange.com/ beta site too – Criggie Dec 17 '17 at 08:52
  • Having only stripped a couple of sets of rear bearings and no front ones, this is ideas for experts to consider. I don't know if the availability of space is a consideration: the back is more complex with a free hub and while wider (i) that doesn't help much and (ii) the cogs have to go somewhere. Perhaps there's more pressure for the front to be thin for aero reasons. On the other hand perhaps it's just a matter of which standards were adopted where (e.g. old nutted axles had different threads front and rear; maybe for overlapping reasons). – Chris H Dec 17 '17 at 11:57
  • 2
    While the routine load on the front is about half that on the back (wear), the shock load (spalling) is probably similar. Wear probably dominates – Chris H Dec 17 '17 at 11:58
  • Generally, the rear bearing races have a larger diameter and use larger balls. This is presumably because the load is greater on the rear, both due to having more weight and having the stresses of the drive train to deal with. – Daniel R Hicks Dec 17 '17 at 14:38
  • 2
    And it should be noted that better quality bearings do not use cages. – Daniel R Hicks Dec 17 '17 at 14:39
  • @DanielRHicks I'm not so sure about bikes, but in most other applications, high quality ball bearings nearly always have spacers or cages. This is because when balls touch, the relative velocity of the touching surface is twice the surface velocity causing high wear rates. Since there is no contact force with the cage or spacer, the wear is low assuming even a modicum of lubricant. – Eric S Dec 17 '17 at 16:10
  • 1
    @EricShain -- I've had 20-30 wheel hubs apart in the past year. Pretty much all of them, save for the cheapest, are cageless. There is more wear/drag on a cage than on bare balls touching. – Daniel R Hicks Dec 17 '17 at 19:13
  • The question is not about cages/retainers. That's an example of how manufacturers simplify the assembly process. Why has no-one standardised on 1/4" OR 3/16" bearings for both wheels? – Criggie Dec 17 '17 at 19:24
  • 2
    @DanielRHicks I’m an engineer and can attest that for demanding applications with high-end bearings, they pretty much all use separators. Bikes are a pretty low speed application so perhaps the somewhat higher load capacity is more important. – Eric S Dec 17 '17 at 19:27
  • 1
    @EricShain - I'm an engineer too. – Daniel R Hicks Dec 17 '17 at 19:33
  • 1
    I don't know the real answer but I suspect it's either a fairly sophisticated one that has to do with deflection of bearing surfaces, friction from the different possible configurations given the different loads front and rear, the calculation for how much actual difference there is in contact area between the sizes, etc, or it may also just be inertia in the business. Either way I think you need to be a bearing engineer to really say. – Nathan Knutson Dec 18 '17 at 03:52
  • Understand that most bearings could be made significantly smaller and still give reasonable life. One major reason for having larger bearings is simply that the hub needed to be larger for some reason. And, for a given scenario, it makes sense to use larger balls (and a smaller number of them -- down to the 7-9 range) rather than using more balls. – Daniel R Hicks Dec 20 '17 at 14:00
  • And additional load on the rear wheel is the reaction force as a result of it being the drive wheel. – StayOnTarget Jun 27 '20 at 14:33

1 Answers1

6

First of all, the standard shimano cup and cone bearing size is not necessary, take their own XTR FH-M975, this had 3/16th bearings in a rear hub.

One thing I considered just now was that an MTB will sometimes be on only one of the hubs, so it is unlikely that there are issues to do with damaging either bearing size in this way.

What is left is the typical average load distribution; bearing size and load are both factors in bearing life, as such my overall conclusion is actually that this is a bearing life issue more than anything else, they're simply attempting to obtain the same life from the front and rear. Even as bearings improve this provides a valid reason to keep the size disparity to increase rear bearing life.

http://www.skf.com/us/products/bearings-units-housings/principles/bearing-selection-process/bearing-size/size-selection-based-on-rating-life/index.html

Outside of cup and cone one can take the Hope Pro2 Evo for example, the front takes 20x32x7 while the rear takes 17x30x7, the bearings in both are the same size, but the rear has less of them. I'm guessing that the front only takes more bearings to increase the cartridge radius to accomodate larger axel standards. It's worth noting there are another 3 bearings in the freewheel of the hub, I'm unsure how this affects things, but then there are also bearings in the shimano freehub. Edit: Anecdotally the rear bearings on my pro2 evo needed replacing sooner than the front.

The load really is significantly different:

Lennard Zinn on measuring rear and front load, and "don't be surprised if it's 70/30"

http://www.velonews.com/2015/01/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-faq-weight-distribution-compatibility_357312

For otherwise identical bearings the load it can take increases with size.

https://www.bearingworks.com/bearing-sizes/

The above is not ideal as it deals with 6000 series cartridge bearings, where the number of bearings varies as well as their size, but it shows clearly that the the load rating increases with size of bearing (when the width increases).

If you want to get more in depth with regard to anything and everything bearing related then check out and explore starting from

http://www.skf.com/us/products/bearings-units-housings/principles/bearing-selection-process/bearing-size/index.html

http://www.nmbtc.com/bearings/engineering/load-life/

EDIT: My final thought is that cup and cone are the staple of cheap hubs, any change would presumably increase costs (at least initially) and go against standard expectations for bearing sizes, any increase in cost to a manufacturer is passed on to the consumer, in the case of budget hubs there's really no advantage to the consumer for the increased cost, I mean, they work, they work very well for a very long time when maintained, and surprisingly well for surprisingly long even when they're not! Even if you could show this or that improvement in weight or rolling in an optimised hub, would this actually translate to more profit? I doubt it very much. So manufactures just keep things the way they've been, because there's no advantage to be had for the company by changing it.

Also consider the complaints from people that you messed with bearing sizes, no doubt there will be enough people who will put the wrong bearings into the new hub, who will then proceed complain that your company sucks! There are countless examples of technically sub-optimal solutions everywhere you look, many of them are however optimal for profits.

I strongly believe (but can't prove) that a simple philosophy that "both wheels should last equally long" was the main driving force behind the initial decision.