KH hub flange is super close to Oracle bearing holder on non disc side. If I use a 2mm spacer it will in turn reduce spline engagement with the cranks by 2mm.
I’m thinking the KH frame is slightly different and a bit farther away possibly since the two are sold together. Nimbus oracles are sold with thier ISIS hub. There’s a chance no one has put these two together yet. Lucky me.
I’m not sure how I’m moving forward at this time. I’ll either run it or replace the KH hub and cranks with Nimbus.
This is unfortunate. I have faced a similar issue on a QX series (pre RGB) frame that is know to have wide bearing holders and had a grinding session on the inner part to get some clearance with a Nimbus ISIS hub. Not pretty but functional.
The conclusion may be: on ISIS-designed frames, it is important to keep in mind tolerances are différent than for Qaxle hubs (and may require some adaptation work…)
If it turns without touching I‘d leave it as is. If you are concerned you can also make a 1mm spacer with the help of a lathe …or a grinder …or a file. Are you riding hard? If not, 1mm or even 2mm less spline engagement aren‘t ideal, but will probably work just fine.
I think there should be a spacer on the opposite side of the bearing. If you reduce that by 2 mm, your cranks will maintain the same engagement. You’ll bend the frame a tiny bit by spacing the bearings further apart, but I suspect that this would not be a big deal.
Two other fixes are filing the bearing holder (as others have suggested), or you can hit the bend of the spokes with a hammer to push it closer to the flange. (Some wheel builders recommend doing that anyway to “bed in” the spokes.)
The Nimbus Oracle frame is aluminum so I won’t be grinding it. I would worry about the structural integrity unlike steel
Yep, no lathe here though.
Yes and if only the hub and cranks were sent with a variety of spacers like Profile used to do. In this case you only get 2 spacers meant to go between the bearings and the cranks. The axle size makes finding spacers very hard since the ID and OD do not exist in the bicycle market anywhere I can find yet. The closest is a 1 inch headset spacer which is the same OD but the ID is bigger and has slop on the axle.
So I have fully tensioned the spokes and it made a hair’s width more clearance but not much more. Also the rotor bolts are very close to the holders as well. Spooky for an aluminum frame.
Blockquote
You could buy 6mm spacers and take them to a shop. Parting 1mm off shouldn‘t be a big deal. Or you could have them machined from bar stock.
As far as filing an aluminium frame is concerned: many have done it (me included, to use it in combination with a Schlumpf hub). Given the tiny amount that would be needed in your case, structural integrity shouldn‘t be an issue. I had to take off more since the wheel touched the frame so hard it wouldn‘t even rotate, had even to file the frame leg for the spoke bends to have enough clearance.
Then again, despite the tight tolerances it appears to work as is, so no real need for any modifications at all.
Depending on how big the difference is, that could be fine. All it needs to do is space the parts axially, a bit of play wouldn’t matter as long as it’s not excessive.
Kind of what @finnspin has suggested
so if you are comfortable rebuilding the wheel you can use some spoke head washers to bring the spokes closer to the flange (below is a Schlumpf hub but it doesn’t matter, the logic still applies fine to any hub).
Isn’t the q-axle a 24mm ID bearing? these would offer pretty fine adjustments for that https://www.jensonusa.com/wheels-manufacturing-24mm-spacers-1mm-spacers-for-24mm-pack10?loc=usa&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=18444120634&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIuLDY-Z3TjwMVzM7CBB1mRyLrEAQYASABEgJ1CfD_BwE
Had not thought of that! Thanks.
Solid tip. Thank you!
