If a builder puts the axle in backwards depending on the fixture design, or accidentally has a gap between the hard stop and shoulder shoulder it could be misaligned. Additionally a dummy axle with no shoulder at all (what this thread seems to be about) requires extra work to be set centered in the fixture.
I’m just not seeing the benefit to the other designs, I could understand somewhat if the case was that a builder has a pile straight no shoulder dummy axles that they paid nothing for in which case they could modify the dummy axles or the fixture to accommodate them. Why would a fixture designer opt for a dummy axle design that leaves room for user error?
It seems like it would just put the fixture maker in a position where they could potentially lose a lot of time supporting a product that doesn’t do what the customer needs.
I always encourage the questioning of the standards. The way we currently do things is never a great justification for how we should do things in the future.
New ideas will always face a lot of criticism. If a new idea novel idea was obvious, someone would have done it already. This is why the criticism I get from the open hanger, open fixture, and UDH does not bother me. It just means I need a better way of demonstrating the benefits and I need to bring more stakeholders on board.
Honestly, I looked, and I can’t find anything. I understand your argument that you can always adapt a smaller diameter to a larger one, but not visa versa, but I don’t think that’s enough to get people on board.
I think there are two big pain points builders face with dummy axles:
Having to buy so many different types
I counted 26 different rear dummy axles from paragon!
Not having a reliable way to clock your dropouts
If a larger diameter system gives more space to create a modular/adjustable dummy, or gives room to index the angle relative to the chainstays, I think it would be a great idea.
A larger diameter dummy axle could have a single or even a double reference feature. I am not proposing any specific design, nor am I proposing the eradication of the legacy standard. I am only suggesting that other designs may have advantages, but are not easily adopted because fixtures are limited to the narrow diameter of the legacy system.
This response anticipates evolution and is therefore particularly welcome.
There are a multitude of possibilities, and some of them MAY require a larger diameter axle. Some already exist and others are(or may be) in development. A fixture design that anticipates design development will not easily become obsolete. The fixture designer could even offer their own axles, which offer advantages over the legacy system.
I propose that designers consider this. A new type of fixture that incorporates new axles with specific advantages could be introduced to the market. There is no disadvantage in someone offering a fixture that anticipates dummy axle evolution AND supports the legacy system.
or a feature for cheaper fixtures that arent proofed on a cmm to allow for shimming apple and orange comparison sounds like operator error is a possibility but hey thats not a tribology/kinetics problem that the guy using it/pricing problem,
it seems to me lots of guys seem to be chasing thous or microns all the time , when i did this for a living all i did was write reams on why what or how decisions get made after 12 years you the reality is a hobby bulder cant even hit dimensions they chase , and the fixture only needs to be perfect that one time they ever build a frame so an mdf board and vee blocks will do, there comes a point where chasing the accuracy dragon and the minutae are pointless so sure its nice to sit and talk shop reality a mm or two in bicycle world is nothing
My fixture is set up for standard dummy axles now and it works well for what I need. If I wanted to build a frame that featured a dished wheel I could easily adjust my axle mounting to do so.
I should count all mine. Among the weirder ones:
-120x20 TA, just in case you need a rigid fork that takes the same wheel as your Risse Bigfoot.
-24TA (forget what the length is right now) for the same situation if you have a Maverick DUC and you desperately need a rigid fork to match.
-110QR/bolt on, though I guess that’s a pretty normal size if you do BMX.
-150x12, from back in the day when I was doing DH sleds.
-135, 142, and 148 6mm offset axles, long story.
-170 and 190 QR, from that short period when fatbikes became a thing but through axles hadn’t yet gotten popular.
To bring this discussion back on topic, I think there is definitely room to create a modular dummy axle system to reduce cost and material waste, maybe not for the existing users, but for the future.
Maybe that needs a 1in dummy sleeve, or maybe it can be done with the current standard, but I think the community and toolmakers need to see the potential before they can buy-in.
This is another advantage of the open-fixture project, you can branch off designs and sub-assemblies however you want. If someone wants to design a 28.9999 DUB standard dummy holder to show the world what we are missing, no one can stop you!
PMW dummy axles are either $35 or $75 each. I believe we didn’t change the Anvil pricing when we acquired their old stock and design information. I could be wrong, but I’m sure about the current pricing
Hey1
its jeff from sputnik tool.
I am and have been quietly and steadily making tools for the last 27 years.
before i explain my reasoning for my dropouts i will preface it with what i tell all my customers.
There are a lot of ways to make bikes and as long as the end product is straight i don’t care what you do!
there are a couple of reasons my dropout axles are different then the “anvil” standard.
I prefer the .750" inner step because i have always felt that there is a chance for internal stresses to twist the axle when you remove so much material from it with hard drastic changes in diameter. even the heat from brazing dropouts may cause some minor movement in the axle. I have always felt dropout location is super important in the framebuilding process. a few thousands of an inch deviation in the dropout location can seriously effect the wheel check of a bike. So , anything i can do to ensure a stable platform to hold the drops is important.
With regards to the one sided shoulder that needs to be bumped up against the axle tower. Sure it is something you need to be aware of but it is quit obvious when you see it in the jig. one side has a square shoulder and the other has a large chamfer and is at least .5" from the other side of the axle tower. By having a “one sided” axle you accomplish a couple of things.
you always put the axle in the same way every time.
you can remove the frame from the jig without having to break down any of your setups.
you create consistency and repeatability. With manufacturing(which you are all doing) consistency and repeatability are key to creating a product that will meets the standards you define. with the anvil standard there is a .003-.006"gap between the axle shoulder and the axle tower. this is not a huge number but one of many variables that can stack up and effect your end product.
I am all for more industry standards but not if they are something i do not believe in.
Now, I’ve never run into any of the problems you describe with the Anvil axles and I’ve made at a bare minimum 2000 frames and forks on the system, but at least those are logical reasons.
Reading above where some of the points had already been covered, for example , Machining the centre of a bar, We have found this to be true axles can twist and bend . We resorted eventually to using Square Ground stock sat in a VEE
You could extrapolate that the bottom bracket has the same margin for error , in fact probably more so , What happens if you put the bb in backwards? and the LH thread is on the opposite side. I know some plain BBs are marked but they don’t have a massive flange telling you which side is the datum side , obviously its pretty difficult to put a lugged BB in the wrong way but operator error is always an option, are you going to blame the fixture designer for this too?
but
Simply put if you cannot put an axle in the right way despite it being clearly explained how and despite there being a massive flange on one side for you to butt it up hard against a machined face , you probably should leave bicycle building alone
Suggesting realigning an entire fixture to suit your needs if an offset requirement is needed is idiocy in a production environment. Perhaps if you are building 1 frame a year this is acceptable, but what is so important if you are building 1 frame in your lifetime that you place such demanding constraints and question the way professional fixture builder construct their products?
There are plenty of proven options out there , pick one it is absolutely irrelevant at the level of ability 90% of the posters here work at to have any effect
The reasons you laid out make perfect sense to me:
less material removal
less warping
An un-ambiguous datum reference
I’m all for questioning standards and trying to phase in improvements. And in this case, I think you have some very valid points.
Few questions:
Do you sell axles separately? I can’t seem to find them on the site.
Can you release a drawing for the Sputnik dummy standard?
I know I am sounding like a broken record, but the open fixture I am working on is agnostic to standards. If you release a drawing for the sputnik standard, I can create a separate dummy axle clamp to accommodate sputnik axles.
