Conventional front wheel cup and cone bearings have 10x 3/16" ball bearings per side, whereas the rear wheel has 9x 1/4" ball bearings per side.

enter image description here

Manufacturers have been on a continuous quest over time, to simplify bikes in terms of ease of assembly, and of inventory. To the point putting retainer rings on ball bearings makes 9 items into one on the rear, and saves one or two balls. This will also speed assembly.

enter image description here

Seven 1/4" balls in a retainer do the same job as Eight or Nine balls outside a retainer.

I'm guessing that the smaller the bearing, the more will fit in the equivalent sized race, so the number and size are directly linked.

So why have a different size of bearing for the front vs the back?

Is the weight load on the rear is enough to require fewer and larger bearings?

Or the lack of weight on the front wheel is sufficiently different to allow smaller, possibly cheaper ball bearings?

Is there a rationale? Or is it another of those "this is how its always been"

This has puzzled me for a while, SE lacks any relevant question, and even searching the web comes up with no good answers.

  • 2
    While the routine load on the front is about half that on the back (wear), the shock load (spalling) is probably similar. Wear probably dominates
    – Chris H
    Commented Dec 17, 2017 at 11:58
  • 2
    And it should be noted that better quality bearings do not use cages. Commented Dec 17, 2017 at 14:39
  • 1
    @EricShain -- I've had 20-30 wheel hubs apart in the past year. Pretty much all of them, save for the cheapest, are cageless. There is more wear/drag on a cage than on bare balls touching. Commented Dec 17, 2017 at 19:13
  • 2
    @DanielRHicks I’m an engineer and can attest that for demanding applications with high-end bearings, they pretty much all use separators. Bikes are a pretty low speed application so perhaps the somewhat higher load capacity is more important.
    – Eric S
    Commented Dec 17, 2017 at 19:27
  • 1
    @EricShain - I'm an engineer too. Commented Dec 17, 2017 at 19:33

1 Answer 1


First of all, the standard Shimano cup-and-cone bearing size is not necessary. Take their own XTR FH-M975: this had 3/16th bearings in a rear hub.

One thing I considered just now was that an MTB will sometimes be on only one of the hubs, so it is unlikely that there are issues to do with damaging either bearing size in this way.

What is left is the typical average load distribution; bearing size and load are both factors in bearing life. As such, my overall conclusion is actually that this is a bearing life issue more than anything else. They're simply attempting to obtain the same life from the front and rear. Even as bearings improve, this provides a valid reason to keep the size disparity to increase rear bearing life.

Outside of cup-and-cone, one can take the Hope Pro2 Evo for example: The front takes 20x32x7 while the rear takes 17x30x7. The bearings in both are the same size, but the rear has fewer of them. I'm guessing that the front only takes more bearings to increase the cartridge radius to accommodate larger axle standards. It's worth noting there are another 3 bearings in the freewheel of the hub, I'm unsure how this affects things, but then there are also bearings in the Shimano freehub. Anecdotally, the rear bearings on my Pro2 Evo needed replacing sooner than the front.

The load really is significantly different! Lennard Zinn on measuring rear and front load: "Don't be surprised if it's 70/30." For otherwise-identical bearings, the load it can take increases with size.

The above is not ideal as it deals with 6000 series cartridge bearings, where the number of bearings varies as well as their size, but it shows clearly that the the load rating increases with size of bearing (when the width increases).

If you want to get more in depth with regard to anything and everything bearing related, then check out and explore starting from

My final thought is that cup-and-cone are the staple of cheap hubs. Any change would presumably increase costs (at least initially) and go against standard expectations for bearing sizes. Any increase in cost to a manufacturer is passed on to the consumer. In the case of budget hubs there's really no advantage to the consumer for the increased cost. I mean, they work; they work very well for a very long time when maintained; and surprisingly well for surprisingly long even when they're not!

Even if you could show this or that improvement in weight or rolling in an optimised hub, would this actually translate to more profit? I doubt it very much. So manufacturers just keep things the way they've been, because there's no advantage to be had for the company by changing it.

Also consider the complaints from people that you messed with bearing sizes. No doubt there will be enough people who will put the wrong bearings into the new hub, who will then proceed complain that your company sucks! There are countless examples of technically sub-optimal solutions everywhere you look, many of them are however optimal for profits.

I strongly believe (but can't prove) that a simple philosophy that "both wheels should last equally long" was the main driving force behind the initial decision.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.