Gene,
FWIW: My coach had Wallace hubs when I got it; they were toast and near
failure. The hubs were converted back to the original. This says nothing
about the Wallace design. It just indicates that any bearing needs to be
properly maintained or it will fail.
Just looking at the Wallace pics I don't see how the inner bearing can be
carrying an equal share of the load but I can see it adding safety margin
if one of the outers fail.
OBTW: My boat trailer is a 1974 and is still running the original bearings
while the replacement set that I carry are gotten too rusty to use.
Dick
>
>-- [ From: Eugene Fisher * EMC.Ver #3.1a PRODIGY ] --
>
>
>------- FORWARD, Original message follows -------
>
>Date: Tuesday, 07-Sep-99 03:20 AM
>
>From: Eugene Fisher \ PRODIGY: (JDDP32B)
>To: Ron Gina \ Internet: (raideron)
>
>Subject: Re: GMC: Wallace Hubs
>
>Ron
>
>Talk about urban myth, I think there is no good data on this net about
>these hubs. There was a RUMOR several months back that the original
>hubs by Wallace were ok but that some of the newer ones were failing. I
>think that rumor was heard at a conference..... no direct facts that I
>have seen......
>
>Caspro still offers a three bearing hub even though their catalog is a
>bunch of crap saying the normal hub "Sooner or later, they all fail,
>usually at about at 35,000 miles." This nets data shows that all of the
>failures we have data on have occurred on standard hubs with uncertain
>or poor maintenance.
>
>I think there are several on this net that are running 3 bearing hubs
>and they have not failed yet ---either. If you have not seen them I have
>pictures of the original brochure up on my web page. Go to my page and
>enter WALLACE into the search blank and you will find the reference.
>http://www.california.com/~eagle/
>
>If any one has real data on failures of the 3 bearing hubs would be good
>to read about it here.
>
>
>I for one am not going to spend 4000 hours of research for another
>answer to a $100 problem.
>
>gene
FWIW: My coach had Wallace hubs when I got it; they were toast and near
failure. The hubs were converted back to the original. This says nothing
about the Wallace design. It just indicates that any bearing needs to be
properly maintained or it will fail.
Just looking at the Wallace pics I don't see how the inner bearing can be
carrying an equal share of the load but I can see it adding safety margin
if one of the outers fail.
OBTW: My boat trailer is a 1974 and is still running the original bearings
while the replacement set that I carry are gotten too rusty to use.
Dick
>
>-- [ From: Eugene Fisher * EMC.Ver #3.1a PRODIGY ] --
>
>
>------- FORWARD, Original message follows -------
>
>Date: Tuesday, 07-Sep-99 03:20 AM
>
>From: Eugene Fisher \ PRODIGY: (JDDP32B)
>To: Ron Gina \ Internet: (raideron)
>
>Subject: Re: GMC: Wallace Hubs
>
>Ron
>
>Talk about urban myth, I think there is no good data on this net about
>these hubs. There was a RUMOR several months back that the original
>hubs by Wallace were ok but that some of the newer ones were failing. I
>think that rumor was heard at a conference..... no direct facts that I
>have seen......
>
>Caspro still offers a three bearing hub even though their catalog is a
>bunch of crap saying the normal hub "Sooner or later, they all fail,
>usually at about at 35,000 miles." This nets data shows that all of the
>failures we have data on have occurred on standard hubs with uncertain
>or poor maintenance.
>
>I think there are several on this net that are running 3 bearing hubs
>and they have not failed yet ---either. If you have not seen them I have
>pictures of the original brochure up on my web page. Go to my page and
>enter WALLACE into the search blank and you will find the reference.
>http://www.california.com/~eagle/
>
>If any one has real data on failures of the 3 bearing hubs would be good
>to read about it here.
>
>
>I for one am not going to spend 4000 hours of research for another
>answer to a $100 problem.
>
>gene