Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!ut-sally!utastro!matt
From: matt@utastro.UUCP (Matt Wood)
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: Fixing inexpensive bikes
Message-ID: <134@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Dec-85 12:10:38 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.134
Posted: Thu Dec  5 12:10:38 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Dec-85 07:52:16 EST
References: <609@wjvax.wjvax.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 23

In article <609@wjvax.wjvax.UUCP>, curl@wjvax.UUCP (Jim Curl) writes:
> A question for you experienced bicycle mechanics:
> 
> I am currently overhauling a relatively inexpensive ($250) bike and have
> discovered that it is sometimes impossible to adjust the hubs or the
> bottom bracket as desired.  The manual that I am using says to adjust
> until there is no (or *very* little) play and no tightness or binding.
> With my less than perfect machine, however, I find that I am having to
> compromise between one of two evils:  A little more play than I would
> ideally like, or some tightness/binding.
> 
> I realize that either one of these situations leads to early wearing out of
> the associated components, but given the alternatives, which is preferable?
> 
Leave it loose.  You'll trash the bearings and cups v. quickly if it's binding
much.


-- 
		Matt A. Wood 
		Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712  
		{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!matt	(UUCP)
		matt@astro.UTEXAS.EDU.				(Internet)