Outboard BB really do anything?

andresmuro@aol.com

On May 30, 6:19Â*am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 9:49Â*am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 5:54Â*am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > > Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> > > > On May 28, 9:59�pm, RS <r_schil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> Square taper to octalink to ISIS to outboard bearings. �Do the outboard
> > > >> bearings really make for a useable and/or noticeable difference over older
> > > >> systems? � Would especially like to hear from anyone who switched out
> > > >> an ISIS or Octalink for a current outboard bearing type of crank.
>
> > > >> thanks
>
> > > > Outboard bearings was the 'solution' to the poor design Octalink,
>
> > > sorry peter, that's not an accurate assessment - octalink is an
> > > excellent design solution to a very real problem. Â*while it may not have
> > > been an everyday occurrence, the physical design of square taper renders
> > > it more susceptible to fatigue than the larger pipe spindle designs:
>
> > >http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/...ghttp://pardo.n....
>
> > > it's simply a function of skin stress. Â*larger diameter means lower
> > > stress and thus less fatigue. Â*thus, octalink showed the way to
> > > solution. Â*continuing from that, the next step has to be outboard
> > > bearing because it's not possible to get a larger spindle inside a
> > > standard bb shell and still have bearings inside as well.
>
> > > all the bleating about the supposed "poor design" of octalink was
> > > generated by jobst brandt who, somewhat typically, failed to notice one
> > > of its small but very important design features and thus he criticizes
> > > octalink for a failure mode that doesn't exist.
>
> > > > followed by the poor ISIS. Nether were an improvement to square taper,
> > > > just something 'new' started in 1997 by shimano. Being the gorilla,
> > > > Octalink(that shimano never licensed BB wise), waned and shimano
> > > > started outboard bearings, and all crank makers came on board with,
> > > > Campagnolo being the last to market it. Octalink and ISIS answered no
> > > > question, solved no problem with regards to square taper but you see
> > > > what the market has done. BB30 is being embraced by frame makers,
> > > > along with 1 1/4 and 1.5 inch lower headtubes because it makes it
> > > > easier(cheaper) for frame makers to hook great big tubes to bigger
> > > > tubes(BB shell and headtube). Crank makers that are embracing BB30 are
> > > > assuming all frame makers are going to go that way, but we'll see. FSA
> > > > hasn't seen a new idea it didn't like as shown by their speed in
> > > > making an ISIS, then outboard, then BB30 crank. A gent from FSA once
> > > > told me right after they started the outboard bearing design they
> > > > would rather copy than create.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > It is interesting that all of those are '70/80s Campy NR spindles from
> > open bearing BBs. Are there pictures of Shimano cartridge BB square-
> > taper spindles failing? Â*Not saying they didn't, but I never saw one
> > fail -- just had bearings go south after many, many miles of riding.
>
> > I killed ISIS (and to a lesser extent Octalink) bearings in short
> > order -- within a few thousand miles. The latest one was an expensive
> > FSA -- but FSA would not touch it because the company had abandoned
> > ISIS. As it turned out, I had broken the ISIS crank, too. Â*The female
> > insert in the CF arm had cracked all to hell. FSA did not have a
> > replacement arm because, again, they had abandoned ISIS. I now have
> > expensive key chain fobs. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Not to mention that there were many thousands of square taper Campag
> BB spindles and the percentage of breakage was low. I didn't keep the
> 3 octalink BBs that I replaced that broke in the center of the spindle
> nor the octalink cranks that failed from 'lash, mostly MTB ones where
> a rider gets airborne and then lands. To state that Octalink and ISIS
> was produced by shimano and others to fix the huge square taper
> breakage problem of Campagnolo is silly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is no question that square taper bbs work fine, provided that
they are properly installed and they are not ultra light. Thy have
passed the test of time quite succesfully. Regarding the new BBs, what
they promise is to make the whole bb stiffer and hence "providing a
better ride. Plus, supposedly, they are easy to change (not that the
square taper were not). I still have square taper BBs in all my bikes.
The people that I ride with have mostly newer bikes with outboard
BBsand other latest tech stuff. Nobody seems to get faster whenever
the switch to a new bike. The question is for someone who is
considerig the investment: Does the new technology improve riding
considerably? Can you sprint, climb better and feel a more responsive
bike? Can anyone who has switched BBs feel a significant difference?
If ayone has tried them and feel the difference, Then, it is certainly
worth it.

A couple of things that I notice make a significant difference in
speed. One is more trainning. The other is aerobars.

Andres