According to the Shimano website I need a UN52 BB for the Tiagra triple chainset I just ordered. However, this appears to be obsolete information, because neither Wiggle nor Parker stock anything called UN52. Both Wiggle and Parker stock something called a UN53, but this is a square-tapered BB and I /think/ the new chainset is octalink...
Does anyone know what UN52 equates to in current Shimano terminology?
(I shall give Parker a call tomorrow anyway - they are bound to know what BB goes with the chainset they are selling me, but second opinions appreciated.)
According to the Shimano website I need a UN52 BB for the Tiagra triple chainset I just ordered. However, this appears to be obsolete information, because neither Wiggle nor Parker stock anything called UN52. Both Wiggle and Parker stock something called a UN53, but this is a square-tapered BB and I /think/ the new chainset is octalink...
Does anyone know what UN52 equates to in current Shimano terminology?
Unless it's changed fairly recently, Tiagra requires a square taper.
According to the Shimano website I need a UN52 BB for the Tiagra triple chainset I just ordered. However, this appears to be obsolete information, because neither Wiggle nor Parker stock anything called UN52. Both Wiggle and Parker stock something called a UN53, but this is a square-tapered BB and I /think/ the new chainset is octalink...
Does anyone know what UN52 equates to in current Shimano terminology?
(I shall give Parker a call tomorrow anyway - they are bound to know what BB goes with the chainset they are selling me, but second opinions appreciated.)
d.
UN52 are square taper, I believe UN53 has usurped UN52. UN72/3 is higher quality. Check with Parkers, they will keep you right.
According to the Shimano website I need a UN52 BB for the Tiagra triple chainset I just ordered. However, this appears to be obsolete information, because neither Wiggle nor Parker stock anything called UN52. Both Wiggle and Parker stock something called a UN53, but this is a square-tapered BB and I /think/ the new chainset is octalink...
Does anyone know what UN52 equates to in current Shimano terminology?
UN53 is the new version of UN52. UN72 & UN73 are the better models. All four are interchangeable. Chain Reaction's prices on these are good.
Check the pdf diagram on Shimano Europe website to see if the latest Tiagra is Octalink or not. (I tried but it crashed my computer).
According to the Shimano website I need a UN52 BB for the Tiagra triple chainset I just ordered. However, this appears to be obsolete information, because neither Wiggle nor Parker stock anything called UN52. Both Wiggle and Parker stock something called a UN53, but this is a square-tapered BB and I /think/ the new chainset is octalink...
Does anyone know what UN52 equates to in current Shimano terminology?
UN53 is the new version of UN52. UN72 & UN73 are the better models. All four are interchangeable. Chain Reaction's prices on these are good.
Check the pdf diagram on Shimano Europe website to see if the latest Tiagra is Octalink or not. (I tried but it crashed my computer).
According to the Shimano website I need a UN52 BB for the Tiagra triple chainset I just ordered. However, this appears to be obsolete information, because neither Wiggle nor Parker stock anything called UN52. Both Wiggle and Parker stock something called a UN53, but this is a square-tapered BB and I /think/ the new chainset is octalink...
Does anyone know what UN52 equates to in current Shimano terminology?
(I shall give Parker a call tomorrow anyway - they are bound to know what BB goes with the chainset they are selling me, but second opinions appreciated.)
d.
if it is a FC 4403 you're in luck and can use a square taper 113mm axle
The 2005 FC 4404 is spoiled with the already obsolete octalink (MTB version, NOT compatible with the other road cranksets!), but they probably had to something with all that tooling they didn't need anymore. -- --- Marten Gerritsen
if it is a FC 4403 you're in luck and can use a square taper 113mm
axle
Thanks, that sounds pretty definitive.
Quoted message said:
The 2005 FC 4404 is spoiled with the already obsolete octalink (MTB version, NOT compatible with the other road cranksets!), but they probably had to something with all that tooling they didn't need anymore.
So is Octalink being replaced with ISIS? Or is ISIS a completely different standard?
Thanks Jeremy and Pete. Good stuff. I found the service instructions on the Shimano website but didn't manage to find that exploded diagram. Very useful. It does indeed look pretty much like a square job.
So is Octalink being replaced with ISIS? Or is ISIS a completely different standard?
Different. Basically Octalink = Shimano and ISIS = Everyone Else (though some other manufacturers /do/ make Octalink chainsets as well).
--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ World Domination? Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)
So is Octalink being replaced with ISIS? Or is ISIS a completely different standard?
It's all too confusing.
Shimano came out with Octalink, (introduced as the multi serrated pipe spindle bottom bracket). As the designlimitations became very appearent with weaker alloys, a second design was introduced for LX/XT MTB's
Shimano would not grant licences, so indepent companies got together and came up with ISIS, which is easier to manufacture and adressed a few designproblems
Shimano is now abandoning octalink in favour of cranksets with a integrated axle and a BMX style clamp for the LH crank.
Given that they briefly had a multi serrated axle (and diskbrakes) in the 70's, they will probaly reintroduce a non standard pitch chain and funny pedal eyes soon too 😉
if it is a FC 4403 you're in luck and can use a square taper 113mm
axle
Thanks, that sounds pretty definitive.
Quoted message said:
The 2005 FC 4404 is spoiled with the already obsolete octalink (MTB version, NOT compatible with the other road cranksets!), but they probably had to something with all that tooling they didn't need anymore.
So is Octalink being replaced with ISIS? Or is ISIS a completely different standard?
It's all too confusing.
This is just Shimano playing the Microsoft game. If you're dominant in a market, and you produce things which are incompatible with the accepted standards, people who have bought one of your components are going to have to buy more, and more, and more of your components because they're not compatible with the standard components. Smaller manufacturers who do not make a complete range of components can't compete with this and thus gradually get pushed to the margins of the market.
There is no convincing benefit to the consumer of any of the non-tapered-square bottom bracket standards. The benefit is only to Shimano. Don't be tempted down that road.
if it is a FC 4403 you're in luck and can use a square taper 113mm
axle
Thanks, that sounds pretty definitive.
Quoted message said:
The 2005 FC 4404 is spoiled with the already obsolete octalink (MTB version, NOT compatible with the other road cranksets!), but they probably had to something with all that tooling they didn't need anymore.
So is Octalink being replaced with ISIS? Or is ISIS a completely different standard?
It's all too confusing.
d.
There's Octalink, Octalink II (for MTBs) and now there's Hollowtech II, which puts the bearings outboard of the BB shell. What they should really have done is start making BBs for the BMX sized shell, then they could have had huge bearings and fat axles without increasing the Q-factor. Anyway, Octalink spares should be available until the cranks snap, should anyone have this type. Old Shimano stuff is in reasonably good supply, except maybe 7-speed rear hubs which are like hen's teeth (buy a 9 speed and add a spacer if you don't want to do the full conversion).
