Help - is a bottom bracket meant to look like this?

Mark T pretended :

Quoted message said:

<www.flickr.com/photos/86862441@N00/1129535816/in/set-72157594346970347>

I take it the bottom bracket isn't meant to look like this. Has a crank-
bolt-thingy sheared off in it?

(apologies for quality - taken on camera phone that can't focus this close
up)

Looks fine to me (or as fine as that type of bracket ever were...). The
crank's secured with a nut, rather than a bolt. Do you not have the
parts? If not, a decent LBS should be able to help you.

However, it's just possible that it *is* a conventional axle, and that
a bolt *has* sheared off in it! You should be able to tell, though - I
can't, because (as you mention) the picture's a bit out of focus. I
think it's extremely unlikely, though.

--
Simon

"Mark T"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<www.flickr.com/photos/86862441@N00/1129535816/in/set-72157594346970347>

I take it the bottom bracket isn't meant to look like this. Has a crank-
bolt-thingy sheared off in it?

(apologies for quality - taken on camera phone that can't focus this close
up)

--
Mark T

Quite difficult to tell from the photgraphs but looks more like the crank
has a male thread for fixing a nut on and the thread has corroded/ been
stripped off.

MJP

Mark T said:

<www.flickr.com/photos/86862441@N00/1129535816/in/set-72157594346970347>

I take it the bottom bracket isn't meant to look like this. Has a crank-
bolt-thingy sheared off in it?

That looks like a traditional axle which takes a nut rather than a bolt.

Looking at the rest of the bike, from what I can see, it looks about the
right age and type of bike to have the nutted sort of axle.

Mark T said:

<www.flickr.com/photos/86862441@N00/1129535816/in/set-72157594346970347>

I take it the bottom bracket isn't meant to look like this. Has a
crank- bolt-thingy sheared off in it?

(apologies for quality - taken on camera phone that can't focus this
close up)

I agree with the other opinions; its a traditional axle with threads on end.
The cranks should be secured with a serrated nut (any good bike shop should
have them in their parts bin, shops which only sell things in sealed packets
might not have them).

As to the state of the bottom bracket.
Those axles are used in a cup/cone bottom bracket. If the cups are fine and
the axle doesn't have pits on it, then the whole assembly is probably fine.
(The axle will have a smooth wear stripe where the bearings run, this is
normal and "good", pits are distinct holes, not a smooth wear line).
Possibly new ball bearings and re-greasing may help (though make sure they
are a decent grade, there are quite a lot of rubbish ball bearings sold in
bike shops).

If not sure about setting up the bearing, then a modern cartridge type
(Shimano UN52, etc) should fit.

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

"Simon D" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark T pretended :

Quoted message said:

<www.flickr.com/photos/86862441@N00/1129535816/in/set-72157594346970347>

I take it the bottom bracket isn't meant to look like this. Has a crank-
bolt-thingy sheared off in it?

(apologies for quality - taken on camera phone that can't focus this
close up)

Looks fine to me (or as fine as that type of bracket ever were...). The
crank's secured with a nut, rather than a bolt. Do you not have the parts?
If not, a decent LBS should be able to help you.

However, it's just possible that it *is* a conventional axle, and that a
bolt *has* sheared off in it! You should be able to tell, though - I
can't, because (as you mention) the picture's a bit out of focus. I think
it's extremely unlikely, though.

--
Simon

You were right the first time, Simon. In the next photo you can see the
thread where the nut would screw on.

David Lloyd

Nigel Cliffe said:

Mark T said:

<www.flickr.com/photos/86862441@N00/1129535816/in/set-72157594346970347>

Quoted message said:

I take it the bottom bracket isn't meant to look like this. Has a
crank- bolt-thingy sheared off in it?

Quoted message said:

I agree with the other opinions; its a traditional axle with threads on end.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

If not sure about setting up the bearing, then a modern cartridge type
(Shimano UN52, etc) should fit.

Probably not - it looks like the infamous Raleigh 26tpi threaded BB.

As always, Sheldon Brown has a page on the subject:

http://sheldonbrown.com/raleigh26.html

--
Rob

[email hidden] laid this down on his screen :

Quoted message said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

If not sure about setting up the bearing, then a modern cartridge type
(Shimano UN52, etc) should fit.

Probably not - it looks like the infamous Raleigh 26tpi threaded BB.

As always, Sheldon Brown has a page on the subject:

http://sheldonbrown.com/raleigh26.html

I don't think so - I think you'll find (or Mark will find!) that the
one in the picture is a standard 1.370 x 24; it's a fairly standard
chainset and BB (possibly made by SR?). It's not a Raleigh manufactured
BB, I'm pretty sure.

Mark will need only to consider axle length, obviously, but again the
LBS should be able to help - if you *do* need a new BB, take the
complete chainset with you, Mark.

--
Simon

Quoted message said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Mark T said:

<www.flickr.com/photos/86862441@N00/1129535816/in/set-72157594346970347>

Quoted message said:

I take it the bottom bracket isn't meant to look like this. Has a
crank- bolt-thingy sheared off in it?

Quoted message said:

I agree with the other opinions; its a traditional axle with threads
on end.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

If not sure about setting up the bearing, then a modern cartridge
type (Shimano UN52, etc) should fit.

Probably not - it looks like the infamous Raleigh 26tpi threaded BB.

What makes you think that ?
The cone and lock ring look no different to those on two bikes of mine, and
those have "standard" BB threads, not Raleigh specials, so you must have
spotted a detail I have missed.

Quoted message said:

As always, Sheldon Brown has a page on the subject:

http://sheldonbrown.com/raleigh26.html

If it is a wierd thread BB, then an alternative option to Sheldon would be
to seek a BB for a shell with stripped threads.

A friend of mine bought one without hassle in the local (south Suffolk) bike
shop when his BB threads stripped (due to riding with loose BB in bike with
some rust in the BB). SJS list one for £20.

The SJS item is stated to need some spacing washers. So, with luck, those
will correspond to the "over width" nature of the Raleigh shell. Only
question remaining is whether the hole down the Raleigh shell will take the
cartridge.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Simon D said:

I don't think so - I think you'll find (or Mark will find!) that the
one in the picture is a standard 1.370 x 24; it's a fairly standard
chainset and BB (possibly made by SR?). It's not a Raleigh manufactured
BB, I'm pretty sure.

If you say so, but those 16mm flats on the cup do look pretty
conclusive.
I've never seen a standard threaded BB with that configuration. I
still
think the OP would be wise not to make assumptions on the point.

--
Rob

[email hidden] wrote on 16/08/2007 :

Quoted message said:

Simon D said:

I don't think so - I think you'll find (or Mark will find!) that the
one in the picture is a standard 1.370 x 24; it's a fairly standard
chainset and BB (possibly made by SR?). It's not a Raleigh manufactured
BB, I'm pretty sure.

If you say so, but those 16mm flats on the cup do look pretty
conclusive.
I've never seen a standard threaded BB with that configuration.

I have: early 80s, I'd say, though they may have been around later. I
don't remember seeing any Raleigh ones that were quite as nicely
chromed as the one in the picture.

(It's my age...) 😄

Quoted message said:

I
still
think the OP would be wise not to make assumptions on the point.

Fair enough.

--
Simon

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Simon D said:

I don't think so - I think you'll find (or Mark will find!) that the
one in the picture is a standard 1.370 x 24; it's a fairly standard
chainset and BB (possibly made by SR?). It's not a Raleigh manufactured
BB, I'm pretty sure.

If you say so, but those 16mm flats on the cup do look pretty
conclusive.
I've never seen a standard threaded BB with that configuration.

I spent a large part of yesterday afternoon messing about with just such
bottom brackets, and they certainly weren't old Raleigh ones. I thought
Raleigh stopped using 26tpi before cotterless bottom brackets became
commonplace anyway.

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've never seen a standard threaded BB with that configuration.

I spent a large part of yesterday afternoon messing about with just such
bottom brackets, and they certainly weren't old Raleigh ones.

I stand corrected. I've seen wider spaced spanner flats on standard
cups, but have only seen the 16mm spaced ones (which these look like)
on 26tpi cups. I live and learn.

Quoted message said:

I thought
Raleigh stopped using 26tpi before cotterless bottom brackets became
commonplace anyway.

No, there was quite an overlap. I found this out by being sold a
24tpi
cartridge BB which "couldn't fail to fit", since my BB shell was
"definitely standard".

It didn't. It wasn't.

--
Rob

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I stand corrected. I've seen wider spaced spanner flats on standard
cups, but have only seen the 16mm spaced ones (which these look like)
on 26tpi cups. I live and learn.

Me too - what I learned yesterday is that it's really not worth fiddling
around with knackered old stuff trying to make it work, it's much better
just to buy new parts. And for some reason a 16mm cone spanner is
better than a regular open-ended spanner for turning that sort of
adjusting cup (when I was a proper mechanic I had a wall full of special
tools for stuff like that).

Quoted message said:

No, there was quite an overlap. I found this out by being sold a
24tpi
cartridge BB which "couldn't fail to fit", since my BB shell was
"definitely standard".

It didn't. It wasn't.

Bum.

Quoted message said:

Simon D said:

I don't think so - I think you'll find (or Mark will find!) that the
one in the picture is a standard 1.370 x 24; it's a fairly standard
chainset and BB (possibly made by SR?). It's not a Raleigh
manufactured BB, I'm pretty sure.

If you say so, but those 16mm flats on the cup do look pretty
conclusive.
I've never seen a standard threaded BB with that configuration. I
still
think the OP would be wise not to make assumptions on the point.

I agree about being cautious in identifying the parts.

However, the two cup/cone BB's on my bikes have the same flats and look very
much like the ones in the picture. They are circa 16mm across the flats, and
can be adjusted using a normal spanner (if the cranks are removed).

The examples on my bikes are:
Circa 1977/78 Coventry Eagle 10-speed "racer", still on its original shells.
The bike is now my town/station hack.
Circa 1990 Nigel Dean World Tour. Cups now in the "just incase" spares bag
(for the Coventry Eagle) as the bike was changed to cartridge BB when I had
the frame re-sprayed a few years ago.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

in message <[email hidden]>, Nigel Cliffe

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Mark T wrote:
>

<www.flickr.com/photos/86862441@N00/1129535816/in/set-72157594346970347>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I take it the bottom bracket isn't meant to look like this. Has a
> crank- bolt-thingy sheared off in it?

Quoted message said:

I agree with the other opinions; its a traditional axle with threads
on end.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

If not sure about setting up the bearing, then a modern cartridge
type (Shimano UN52, etc) should fit.

Probably not - it looks like the infamous Raleigh 26tpi threaded BB.

What makes you think that ?
The cone and lock ring look no different to those on two bikes of mine,
and those have "standard" BB threads, not Raleigh specials, so you must
have spotted a detail I have missed.

The Raleigh specials were for cottered cranks. That is a square taper,
therefor it is not a Raleigh special. There are, of course, various
different square taper standards, but that's a separate problem!

There's no reason to believe there's anything wrong with that BB, unless
it's running rough. A bit of preventive maintenance (strip, clean,
regrease) would do no harm, provided you know how to adjust a cup-and-cone
BB. If not, just leave it alone - they are typically very reliable and
have long service life (often much better than modern cartridge systems.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605

Simon Brooke said:

The Raleigh specials were for cottered cranks. That is a square taper,
therefor it is not a Raleigh special.

This is definitely not so - the 26tpi jobs were definitely used for
some square taper BBs, late 70s, very early 80s. Not sure how widely
used, though, I may just have been unlucky.

No arguments with the rest of your post.

--
Rob

"rob on a bike" wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Raleigh specials were for cottered cranks. That is a square taper,
therefor it is not a Raleigh special.

This is definitely not so - the 26tpi jobs were definitely used for
some square taper BBs, late 70s, very early 80s. Not sure how widely
used, though, I may just have been unlucky.

This is true. 26 tpi BBs can be distinguished from standard threads because
they are about 72 mm. wide across the bare shell, as opposed to 68 mm. for
24 tpiu ones.

Mike Sales.