Cycling UK Forum

If you think your brakes perform adequately, then the expensive Jagwire may not be worth the extra cost. Also, there are different qualities and prices, I got the cheapest, that was around 15 quid, the "kevlar compressionless PRO BRAKE HOUSING". That was 3 meters, so you could upgrade the rear brake, which benefits most, on two bikes.
In my case, I couldn't get a set of cantilevers to brake well despite constant tweaking and faffing, and these fancy outers were a very noticeable improvement.

The Jagwire compressionless outers are expensive, but they really are an improvement over regular housing, particularly on the rear brake, be it rim or cable disc brake. I tried their cheapest compressionless variant on a dreadful cantilever, and it was money well spend.

As someone suggested chucking these brakes away and replacing them with TRP Spyres, I have to add that I have seen a set of TRPs doing exactly the same thing. It wasn't my bike, and never had a chance to look closer into it or try to sort it out.
I did take apart a different set of Spyres and they work as just like that, three balls that roll along ramps and move the piston out as the actuator arm rotates.

I also believe it's an adjustment issue, I would try new pads, or at least not as worn as the current ones, and tweaking with travel, cable length etc.

Well, you wouldn't cut out the flange, only the narrow section of the sleeve. BB shells are (or rather used to be) 68 or 73 mm, 5 mm difference, which seems to be the same as the bit of narrow section of the sleeve marked by the ridge.
That was my assumption because I could see no reason for that ridge to be there, but thinking again, I got it wrong. Hollowtech BB's come with 3 spacers that put together are the 5 mm difference between road and MTB BB shells.
So really, I don't have a clue what that ridge might be for. Someone else might though.

I believe they all Hollowtech BB's have L and R markings for some obscure reason, but they can be mounted either way.
As for the circumferential ridge, I always assumed, it was there to help you cut and shorten the sleeve from 73 to 67 mm if you wanted to mount it on a shorter BB shell. But I may be wrong here, I just assumed so and never read anything to confirm this assumption.

If it is only a matter of adjusting, you can always do that on any cup-and-cone hub working on one side only, that is, one cone and locknut, and that will adjust both bearings.
What I would do is taking it apart, the internal assembly comes out as a whole unit and you don't disturb any connector wires. One issue is that many Shimano hubs require a large octagonal spanner to undo the internal assembly.

Taking it apart will allow to do two things:
1- With the internal assembly out and away from the shell magnets, you will be able to feel more precisely how smooth or notchy the bearing on the connector side is.
2- You will be able to fully service and inspect the other bearing and, crucially, the state of this bearing (damaged races/balls) will give you an indication of how the connector side bearing might be.

If they seem reasonably well, just put everything back with one bearing properly clean and lubed and provided it is well adjusted, you'll get plenty of miles out of the hub.
If the races and balls on the bearing that you undo are very damaged, both sides will be most likely equally damaged and, in this case, you have nothing to lose if you attempt to service/repair the bearing in the internal assembly (connector side).

Servicing hubs is straight forward if you just need to clean, lube and replace balls. If you need cones, they can be difficult to source. Same goes for the whole internal assembly, often sold as a spare, if you can find it. Try to identify the parts in your particular hub and see if they are available anywhere. Not easy these days.

Check out Da Brim.

https://dabrim.com/

I doubt corrosion played a part here. I mentioned a M756 flange failure that I know first hand, it was an immaculate new hub on a loaded touring bike (barely a few months old). It also snapped on the drive side right on one of the cutouts. I see no reason why corrosion would choose to attack precisely that spot.
Aluminium oxidation occurs faster than that of steel because aluminium has a stronger affinity for oxygen, but rather than flaking and eating through, it forms a hard surface skin and then the oxidation process stops. The process of anodizing to protect aluminium is a form of oxidation. That's why I doubt corrosion could cause any deep damage and a crack and failure at a spot where there are more obvious likely culprits, higher spoke tension and a weakened flange subjected to traction torque.

I have read some reports online of Rohloff flange failures, but they are rare or even negligible.
Rohloff and other IGH flanges are less likely to fail than regular rear hubs for a very simple reason: IGH wheels are not dished. As cassettes get more cogs, wheels have to be increasingly dished and the spokes on the drive side have to be tensioned almost double as much as the non drive side. If you add transmission torque on top of that, no wonder that some flanges fail on that side, like the M756 pictured above.
A friend of mine had exactly the same failure with a M756. It is a great hub, old school Shimano XT with steel axle, but those silly weight saving cutouts certainly weaken the flange.

There are several types of DOT fluids, the commonly used, polyglycol-based types 3, 4 and 5 have a boiling point of 205, 230 and 260 degrees C. That is fresh fluid out of a sealed container, once exposed to the environment it gradually absorbs humidity and the boiling point can go down by up to third (in two years roughly, reaching 3 to 4% water content).

Some brake manufacturers use DOT fluid.

Shimano (and Tektro, I believe) use mineral oil, not DOT. Shimano's is supposed to have a boiling point of 280 degrees, plus, not being hygroscopic, it won't decay as DOT fluids do.

Interesting to know. In the case mentioned above of the fluid reaching the boiling point, what brake was it and what fluid did it use?

We have currently at home all types of brakes. The Shimano XT hydraulic disc brakes on a KTM tourer are just a dream: you can stop confidently on any gradient with only your little finger. Never had any issues, squeaking, rubbing etc, and I have done nothing beyond changing pads for about 5 years. I know I should bleed and replace fluid and all that, but their performance has always been superb.
The cable discs on a Trek 520 are good, nothing like the XT hydraulics, but I still rate them above rim brakes. They require more faffing around to readjust as the pads wear but still, they work well and are a simple, easily repairable piece of kit. They are Hayes single piston actuation calipers, not the ubiquitous TRP Spyres that create more problems than they solve with their dual piston movement and many design flaws.
The V-brakes on a folding bike are fine and bite well, but on long tours their performance fades when they overheat on long descents or in wet weather. I feel far more confident with the cable discs, but I admit it's not a fair comparison, one being a folder and the other a fully fledged steel tourer.
Finally, I still use my 90´s steel bike with cantilevers but feel a bit if a Kamikaze on serious rides. I have read all about yoke angles, straddle cables, toe in etc, and I cannot get them to work anywhere near the V's.

I own a Speed TR, bought second hand, that I have used on a few tours, fully loaded with camping gear. I doubt your frame crack is a recurring issue or design flaw. Also, I know a few Speed TR owners and I have never heard of any frame failure, the only issue that I have seen reported online is frame hinges developing play and wear.


It is a great bike that rides better than most folders (apart from the fact that it weighs a tone),
so I definitely think it's worth repairing. Bear in mind that the interior of the seat tube has to be perfectly round. Any burrs or welding seams protruding on the inside of the tube with prevent the seat post from sliding in when you fold the bike. If not the most elegant, the easiest approach is probably to weld a sleeve on the outside of the seat tube. Being a common 4130 steel frame, you have no problems finding someone to do that job.

Defective? Interesting... and disappointing. Could you elaborate on that? Was it surface pitting, sphericity? Was it visible to the naked eye?
Mine, unused ones, look flawless to the naked eye, but I can see surface flaws and cracks under a 60 X magnifying lens. But not sure if that is acceptable.

Sorry Gregory, I just saw that post above was also yours. I understand that they appeared fine but crumbled after very light use. I have to open up my hub and have a look.

I ordered grade 10, AISI 52100. It´s a 100 pack, from Simply Bearings. Forgot the price.
I would only buy from suppliers that clearly specify grade and hardness. "Hardened" or "cycling quality bearings" is most likely not good enough for a decent hub.

I use alcohol. As a second choice, acetone, but being very careful not to spill any on any painted parts.