Hmm.
I’ve watched this debate & hope that my comments will help.
A cone is specific to certain hub types in the variation of the taper. There are three different angles, I believe.
They all have the same ‘nominal bore’ in that when compressed so that the bore fits the layshaft, they will all have the same major outside diameter & the same minor diameter within acceptable tolerances.
You can prove this to yourself by placing a cone on a spare layshaft with its split in line with a spline then compressing the outside in the soft jaws of a vice. Have the split uppermost. Don’t worry for the purpose of this exercise that if the cone ‘springs’ open a little on the small end (minor diameter) add a piece of softwood or two with the soft jaws to compress it fully on to the layshaft.
The (now parallel) gap can vary, but the major diameter will be ‘Ø X’ & the minor diameter will be ‘Ø Y’ if the length is ‘Z’
That’s all there is to the theory of cones & how it will be forced to fit both hub & layshaft if fitted correctly.
I think that people can get their knickers in a twist over-analysing what is a simple, proven concept because the split means that the cone will naturally ‘spring’ (usually inwards a tad even from new) & that will be dependent upon variations in age, material, manufacture et cetera.
I would just add that the ‘datum’ face is @ the large (major diameter) end & should be ‘square’ (perpendicular) to the bore. The face of the small (minor diameter) end hardly matters a toss as nothing should get to touch it apart from fresh air. That’s why the length of the cone can vary without problem as long as the taper remains @ the correct angle.
I really hope to have only helped & suspect a few other engineers on this site will agree with my analysis which some of us may be a little complacent about & take for granted.
Please. Just don’t comment adversely about my attempt to help unless you really can prove otherwise.
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”