|
|
|
| Bearing Reviews (4976 Posts)
|
| Bearing |
Review |
|
rockets test
|
|
On 3/26/2006
WAX
wrote in from
United States
(67.176.nnn.nnn)
Dan, Ron, Mark ...45 mph dead on tail wind...steel rockets pressed into Sector 9 Goddess of speed wheels..on our 23 second 1/4 mile hill (on a normal, no wind day)..SMOKING FAST...I was smoking my bros on thier bones swiss bearings, speed trucks drop decks and bigger wheels...these rock, just keep em clean, and lubed and they will take care of you, I dont see how these are failing on anyone who cleans their brearings...a dude in a suburban followed me on 1 run and said I over 45...and not even on a speedboard..
|
|
|
|
|
re: dh rockets test
|
|
On 3/26/2006
dan@csu
wrote in from
United States
(216.17.nnn.nnn)
ron, i sent you an email. thank you for the offer, i'm very excited to see what you're working with! mile high mark (the fu*kin man by the way), you know i like the biltins too but we'll have to see whats up with dh rockets eh? so... stay tuned for a review!!!
|
|
|
|
|
DH Rockets?
|
|
On 3/25/2006
Mile High Mark
wrote in from
United States
(206.124.nnn.nnn)
Ron,
I"d be very interested in seeing the new DH Rockets. One of the guys we sponsor was wearing out Rockets with 90-97mm wheels, and had to switch to Biltins.
|
|
|
|
|
ROCKET NATION!
|
|
On 3/25/2006
caddy
wrote in from
United States
(206.135.nnn.nnn)
NUFF SAID!!
|
|
|
|
|
Fastest
|
|
On 3/25/2006
RocknRon
wrote in from
United States
(68.69.nnn.nnn)
Slim, Well said.
dan, I was refering to Ceramic Rockets being the fastest, not the Steel Rockets. The Rockets are my economy Skatepark/Vert Skate Bearing. Ceramic Rockets are designed for blazing speed. We can even keep them in stock. We are completly maxed out. Skateshops wait about 2 weeks and Retail orders are made to order and take 2 days. All Ceramic Rockets are custom made to order. Some shops want 10-20-30 sets at a time and we have a 5 set max per month for skateshops. Thats how big the demand is right now. Rockets on the other hand we can produce thousands of sets per day and have no limitations.
dan@csu
Email me your address and I will send you a free set of our soon to be released Downhill Rocket Design that only Mike Masey and myself has ridden. It will be more what your looking for. Free of Charge. Thank you for trying Rockets. You may be the perfect candidate to "test run" our initial design. Let me know what size spacers your ride as well.
Skateboarding just Rocks, dosnt it!!!!!????
YEAH!!!!!! Here's us older guys still pushing these things around! Skatebaording has saved my life as it has many of your's Im sure....
|
|
|
|
|
fastest
|
|
On 3/22/2006
slim
wrote in from
(71.146.nnn.nnn)
Ron's Rockets are fast for vert skating, which is a different application than downhill. In vert, there are lots of stops and starts and so bearings getting up to speed quickly is more important than "top speed" (no one is going very fast in a pool, no matter what they think). Downhill becomes more about top speed, and initial spin up isn't so critical.
|
|
|
|
|
Quality vs. Quantity
|
|
On 3/21/2006 J-Berg
wrote in from
United States
(163.176.nnn.nnn)
It's interesting that some people who produce bearings
only make what will sell. While others make the best possible
bearing they can and let the quality speak for itself. Kudos
to RocknRon.
|
|
|
|
|
re:
|
|
On 3/20/2006 dan@csu
wrote in from
United States
(216.17.nnn.nnn)
out of steel rockets, ceramic pt's, reds, swiss, swiss 6, ceramic swiss, and biltin 7's (all that i've tried either on mine or a buddy's board, all with appropriate spacers), i've only come to a few conclusions.
1. for an average downhill racing course with a mix of turns/straight, biltin 7's are the fastest. they feel noticeably more solid in slides than anything else, seem a tiny bit slower accelerating, but once up to speed are fine. seal system really needs improving.
2. steel rockets have a great seal system and are very precisely machined. don't seem as fast as biltins for downhill, but are my bearing of choice for everything else.
3. ceramic swiss are a huge rip off, couldn't notice much diff. tween' them and regular swiss.
4. pleasure tool stuff is pretty low quality, which is too bad because the people who operate PT are really nice.
SO, i'd have to disagree that rockets are the fastest no ?'s asked, but that's not to say i don't like them because i really do. quite frankly, i don't think the average bomber would notice much diff. at all between any of these bearings, it's just that the integrated spacer on the biltins really truly is nice. so now i want to see a biltin with the oust moc 9 air seal system (the best seal out there?) that would be heaven!
|
|
|
|
|
Rocket metal questions
|
|
On 3/20/2006
bara
wrote in from
United States
(204.78.nnn.nnn)
Just bought my first set of Rockets, but havent installed them yet. To date, i've ridden mostly Bones Swiss, but also have Oust 9's and some PT's.
I've read somewhere that Rockets are better for park riding than downhill or slalom. Any truth to that?...can bearings be MADE for one specific type of riding over another?....isnt fast fast no matter what the terrain?....that being asked, could i see more speed with the non-ceramic Rockets over the bearings i currently run?
|
|
|
|
|
Best Bearings ??
|
|
On 3/18/2006
RocknRon
wrote in from
United States
(68.69.nnn.nnn)
Ceramic Rockets are Guaranteed as the fastest Skateboard Bearings. Bomb straight down a big hill on these babies, I dare ya. Feel the speed of the Ceramic Rockets which are built and designed by a bearing engineer and skateboarder.
Pro Riders:Mike Masey, Kevin Staab, T-Hawk, Lance Mountain, Jeff Grosso, Brian Patch, Mike Smith, Bennett Harada, Benji Galloway, Jake Piasecki, Andrew Mercado, MSK, Don Hamilton, Jay Smith, Wrex Cook, Apryl Woodcock, Davo of Skaterbuilt all ride Ceramic Rockets and are on our Pro or Flow Team. Watch any of these guys at the next event you see. We also have an outstanding Amateur Team.
Bearings are not the same.
Rockets, Bilt-in's, Ninjas are well made bearings. Beware of a"ABEC" anything is my advise.
Jeff Kassan... Email me your address and I will send you a FREE set of bearings that will be the fastest bearings you have ever ridden. You can test a set for me and you can tell us what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
Best Bearings?
|
|
On 3/17/2006
Steven King
wrote in from
United States
(71.134.nnn.nnn)
Check out Hugh R's reviews at http://www.hugh308.homestead.com/skate_launch_page.html. Read the "bearing wars" links.
... for some perspective on ceramic vs. steel.
|
|
|
|
|
best bearings
|
|
On 3/16/2006 dan@csu
wrote in from
United States
(216.17.nnn.nnn)
there are no best bearings. some are better than others for certain types of riding though.
|
|
|
|
|
What are the best bearings?
|
|
On 3/15/2006
Sam
wrote in from
United States
(216.17.nnn.nnn)
Hey I know that there are alot of companies making bearings out there and ezpeacially on the internet they're always saying they have the best bearings. Right now i have greesball bearings from sector nine and they are working really good. I someone could just tell me what the best bearings out there are i wold really apriciate that. id prefer if you send the information to my email which is
Frankenstein@frii.com
Thanks,
Sam
|
|
|
|
|
Chaput's bearings
|
|
On 3/15/2006
Jeff Kasson
wrote in from
United States
(24.210.nnn.nnn)
I have been using Chris's bearings for a couple of years. After 30+ years of skating, this is the best design ever rendered. I can tighten down to the max, and they scream. No wiggling. I honestly don't know why anyone choses other bearings. It doesn't make sense to me...
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks--and oops
|
|
On 3/15/2006
JBH
wrote in from
United States
(165.134.nnn.nnn)
Good two-post spiel, Chuck. Thanks for the thorough explanation.
And a big oops to myself. I was rereading my post from March 10 headed "Slim's question," and I realized that what he was asking was the opposite of where I ended up taking the discussion. He was asking about the diff. in speed between a "loose" setup (locknut backed off to allow free spin) vs. a squarely aligned one. My apologies, Slim. Sumtimes I dont reed too gud.
And to be totally honest, I'm pretty close to being one of the 99.99% who don't think at all about how precisely their bearings fit. If they're relatively clean and quiet and don't bind up excessively, I'm pretty well satisfied. But it is nice to get edjumacated now & then.
|
|
|
|
|
Preload
|
|
On 3/13/2006
Chris Chaput
wrote in from
United States
(66.116.nnn.nnn)
Skaters don't want to "preload" their bearings. We call it "pinching" or "binding" because the only thing that we notice is that the wheels roll slower. And because they roll slower (considerably slower), and because we have only gravity and/or our muscles to use as a motor, we don't really care about the possibility of extending bearing life. That would be like saying that, "the bad news is, you will live in pain, but the good news is, you're going to live a long time".
With skate bearings, you basically want to have the hanger, axle, locknut and the inner races of your bearings act as one solid, precise system. If not for the fact that it would be impossible to put a wheel on, you could cut the grooves right into a 12mm steel axle to make the inner races and just add balls and outer races. You won't even need a locknut! You want the distance between the grooves of the inner races to be identical to (or slightly greater than) the distance between the grooves of the outer races. Ideally, you'd fix the outer races of the bearings into the hub, but it's not that practical to permanently glue the bearings in or to make a mechanical fastener that does this. So, we live with a press-fit bearing in a hard PU hub, and it works well enough to have 99.99% of all skaters not even think about it.
And yes, "sealing" the deal would help to keep the whole system cleaner, because after all, we don't skate in a clean-room.
|
|
|
|
|
Bearings - Some Answers...
|
|
On 3/13/2006 Chuck Gill
wrote in from
United States
(65.139.nnn.nnn)
So what should we wish for in a skateboard bearing?
Quality materials: I am not aware of any skateboard bearing vendor revealing the materials used for rolling element (balls) or races, other than the ceramic ball guys who want to brag that they are using the good stuff (SiNO4...or is it SiNO3? I forget). I'd love to hear what we are being sold for races and balls. Heat treatments also matter, as do any possible surface/hardening/plating/coating treatments.
Low slop: I referred in a previous post (Friday?) to internal radial clearance (IRC), and negative IRC. Obviously negative IRC (tight fit between the races and the balls - yes - they would be pinched) is not needed here (see immediately previous post - we don't need the stiffness and can't tolerate the start-up torque requirements). But I would think it would be good to minimize, to a certain point, the amount of IRC. As CC alluded to a time or two previously, slop is bad. Slop is waste. Slop robs us of speed. It also matters to reduce slop to a minimum if we are going to allow the load on the bearings to flop back and forth (cross over). Hand-in-hand with slop reduction is consistency in ball size; you would want all the balls within an individual bearing to be the same diameter within some pretty small number, say on the order of 50 millionths of an inch. The balls can vary more from bearing to bearing, but shouldn't vary by much within an individual bearing. I'm not sure if this is something ABEC ratings control or not...
Smoothness/finish of the balls and raceways: Here is one of those places where ABEC ratings do not cover it, but *should* give a relaitve clue when dealing with quality suppliers. It stands to reason that if more time/effort/expense are being put into the things ABEC ratings cover, they will also be put into getting better finishes on these items.
Lubrication: Need one that will stand up to the use we put it through (not terribly demanding, relatively speaking), will not fly or wash off until purposefully washed off, better if it doesn't attract dirt.
Alignment of all the parts: This also falls under the category of eliminating slop. Ideally we would have a tight fit of the inner races on the shafts, but none of us would like building that. So, a close fit is almost as good. 8mm axles anyone? Squared shoulders on trucks, nuts, and spacers are very important too - and there are certainly several folks willing to help us out in those matters.
Finally, how wide a spacer? Just wide enough that when you sock down on the axle nut the bearings won't bind. In a perfect world, .000 - .001 or so wider than your hub spacing. In "the real world of skateboarding applications," a few mils over to meet whatever tolerance range we see in hubs (no, I don't know what that is, wish I did).
Hope this two-post spiel did more to clarify than muddy....
|
|
|
|
|
Bearings and the Curious JBH's Questions
|
|
On 3/13/2006 Chuck Gill
wrote in from
United States
(65.139.nnn.nnn)
Jonathan, let me see if I can give you good answers to your questions...
First, distinguish between "skateboard applications" and "the real world."
"The real world" being classical machine design and as I mentioned before, "skateboard applications" being how we use them, nowhere near their design limits and subject to different concerns.
"Real world:" It is a given that bearings will provide a low-friction support for a rotating shaft. ABEC ratings come into use based, yes, in part on the shaft speed, as well as other perceived quality/durability needs. It is also a give that the HP/torque/energy lost to the bearings will be minimal/negligible compared to the HP/torque/energy of the system. The main concerns then become (1) will the bearing meet life requirements, and (2) will it be stiff enough to prevent dynamic instability of the shaft? Life capability is determined by many factors including material selection, ABEC rating, tolerances of mating parts, proper design and/or proper selection of design parameters, cleanliness during build and operation, proper lubrication/cooling, and proper load/preload, among other criteria. Stiffness is determined, in part, by factors such as adequate preload, rolling element design and count, material selection, fits with mating parts, etc.
The element we are discussing is preload: look a the picture of the squished bearing assembly in CC's post a ways down - this is a model of proper loading in a duplex ball system. Picture the load path; it goes from the shoulder of the truck hanger into the inner race on the left, crosses through the balls from lower left to upper right, into the outer race, through the core and into the outer race of the right-hand bearing, crossing through the balls on the outside of the wheel from upper left to lower right, the finally out through the inner race and into the retaining nut. In a traditional system, adequate preload would be greater then the amount of imposed load in either direction; this will guarantee the bearings remain loaded in the direction discussed above and will not "cross over". If there is not adequate preload, an imposed load on the shaft can overcome the preload and cause one of the bearing to become unloadedbriefly while the load "crosses over." When this happens, life and dynamic stability both suffer; life because the lose balls can skid causing serious damage, and stability because an unloaded bearing is structurally "soft" and can allow dynamic instability to set in, potentially destroying the system (or at very least inducing an unacceptably high vibration level).
These concerns only apply with high-speed machinery; as the ABEC nay-sayers periodically post, "skateboard applications" do not take bearings anywhere near their speed/life limits. Life is not in serious jeopardy because the loads just aren't that high, comapred to the bearings' capabities. Radial loads are always higher than axial loads, and even a big-boy-model generating 250 lbs of load (then divide that by 8, or 12 if you ride a 6-wheeler) ain't squat in relative terms. Dynamic stabilty is not a concern because (1) speeds are relatively very low, and (2) the "shaft length" is ridiculously short with bearings spaced at only .400 or so. So, using bearings in "skateboard applications" we free ourselves from conventional machine design worries since we are not pushing the bearing anywhere near their limits. The most important concerns become initial friction and running friction, both of which are governed by things like hardness of materials, smoothness/finish of balls and raceways, and lubricant. We get away with operating our bearings under conditions of cleanliness that would be appalling to machine design purists simply because we are pushing them so far below their capability.
Now, to try and directly answer your questions, keeping this background in mind:
Yes, preloading bearings can be thought of as "somewhat like constantly doing a hard GS turn," only one bearing is loaded as though turning one way, the other as though turning the other way. And both are loaded higher than that GS turn would load them, so that turning in either direction will not cause either to unlaod. Yes, this means the balls would be riding somewhat up on the sides of te races and not the bottoms - this is what ball bearings should properly do. And yes, in "skateboard applications" it does mean it would go slower since, unlike "the real world" of classical machine design the torque in the shaft (wheel in this case) is *NOT* significantly higher than the start-up torque (drag) of the preloaded bearings.
So, what's the answer?
|
|
|
|
|
spacers
|
|
On 3/13/2006
slim
wrote in from
(71.146.nnn.nnn)
""What keeps the bearing spacer in a traditional bearing system from rubbing against the truck axle with each wheel rotation?"
The pressure of the axle nut being tight is supposed to hold it in place so that it doesn't move at all, along with the inner race of the bearings, and the speed rings. But as you've discovered, either most spacers are too small, or the wheels you are using have core areas that are bigger than they are supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Do bearing spacers actually introduce MORE heat and friction ?
|
|
On 3/13/2006 NYC Asphalt Surfer
wrote in from
United States
(70.19.nnn.nnn)
I'm a big fan of the simplicity of Biltin Bearings, which I have started to use on some of my setups. The only problem that I have with Biltins is that they seem to get dirty fairly quickly. I also, however, have several sets of Pleasure Tool ABEC7 Sealed bearings (green seals) which seem to work fine without spacers and seem to be much less prone to "contamination" than my Biltins.
I originally tried to use bearing spacers with my Pleasure Tools, but even after purchasing from a couple of different sources, I could never find spacers that were sized properly. I would get a new set of wheels, bearings, speed washers, and spacers -- put it all together, tighten the axle nut, and then "Voila!" -- the wheel would stop spinning altogether excatly like using no bearing spacer at all.
This got me to thinking, "What keeps the bearing spacer in a traditional bearing system from rubbing against the truck axle with each wheel rotation?
Anyway, I think that Biltins are fantastic, but wish that they were less prone to contamination...
|
|
|
|
|
arg
|
|
On 3/11/2006 dan@csu
wrote in from
United States
(216.17.nnn.nnn)
i hate it when i buy something just to have an upgraded version come out. if i had it my way, there would be a company who made the best quality, fastest stuff, but made it ugly as hell to keep prices low. oh well college is cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
Going where...
|
|
On 3/11/2006
Civ
wrote in from
Canada
(24.141.nnn.nnn)
I hope you mean a lean towards rubber seals in your bearings, really the only thing that hurts them. I dont like cleaning bearings, the metal shields lead to more cleaning.
|
|
|
|
|
Perceptions
|
|
On 3/11/2006
Chris Chaput
wrote in from
United States
(66.116.nnn.nnn)
Then it sounds like you guys will like the future of Biltin Bearings.
Neither shields nor seals contact the balls, but seals contact the inner race of the bearing with a thin membrane at the innermost portion of the seal. In the past, I made them with shields in order to minimize friction, and with a cage orientation that made them easier to clean. You don't have to remove the shield, and you can flush out, brush out, and blow out any debris that gets into your bearings. I think that I overestimated the number of people who clean their bearings, and underestimated the number of people who would smash their shields with a socket or skate key during assembly. Perhaps if I also provided a cleaning solution, people would clean their bearings more. Maybe not...
When you use two normal seals per bearing, there are four points of contact in a single wheel. The friction is virtually undetectable while riding, but unfortunately skateboarders are notorious for using "the spin test" as a way of testing a bearing's speed. They spin a wheel with lubed bearings in it without any load on it whatsoever, and see how long the wheel spins for. It's silly. Seals do a better job of keeping your bearings clean, but what's the point if no one wants the bearings because they perform poorly during the beloved "spin test"? It's beyond silly, but if I say what I really think of the spin test I'll be offending 99.9% of the skating population. So one of the challenges of making a good bearing is one of perceptions, and not just performance. I ride the products that I design and I don't want to sell out performance in the name of people pleasing. I'm not going to remove all of the important lubricant, blow in some pixie dust or evaporated snake oil, put some typical 608 bearings in a "103a" wheel on a nominal axle without any spacers, and leave the locknut loose, just to win the spin test. I just can't do it. Winning the spin test means losing the performance test. I don't want a wheel or a bearing that sounds fast or appears fast but rides slow.
There is a happy medium, and I think that you'll like where I'm going with this.
|
|
|
|
|
shields
|
|
On 3/11/2006
slim
wrote in from
(71.146.nnn.nnn)
Shields aren't supposed to contact the balls, which should make them faster. But it is possible to design "non-contact seals" as well and that would be the best of both worlds - keeping the dirt out and lube in without sacrificing speed.
Chuck, thanks for the comments. Post more when you can!
|
|
|
|
|
biltin shields
|
|
On 3/10/2006 dan@csu
wrote in from
United States
(216.17.nnn.nnn)
chris, while you're educating us, i was wondering why you made the biltin with metal shields as you did; i'd have to agree that they're only OK at deterring dirt etc. are the shields actually faster if kept clean, or was it just more cost effective?
|
|
|
|
|
