Question About Cranks

George said:

This is a question about cranks, but it is not a crank question.
I learned about cotterless cranks around 1978.
Today, I saw a bike with an interesting crank set. On the right side
(i.e. on the chain ring side), there was no crank bolt. The area where
there would be a crank bolt was completely smooth. On the left side,
there was also no crank bolt, but the end of the crank arm near the
bottom bracket axle was slit and the crank arm was (apparently) held
on with an Allen screw "tangent" to the bottom bracket axle. (i.e.,
The crank arm was held in place in manner similar to the way a
seatpost is held in place by a bolt.)
Who makes this type of bottom bracket assembly? Does it work well? Why
is it made this way?

This is a two-piece crank, seems to be the wave of the future...most
better quality bikes currently available use this system. These use
"external" bearings, permitting the use of a larger diameter, hollow
spindle, saving weight and increasing stiffness. The larger diameter
bearings should also be longer-lived than the smaller bearings that
have to fit inside the bottom bracket shell with older systems.

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

Sheldon "Progress" Brown
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Our country is the world - our countrymen are mankind |
| --William Lloyd Garrison |
+---------------------------------------------------------+

Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

Sheldon Brown said:

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

Sheldon "Progress" Brown

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Jeff

In article <[email hidden]>,

JeffWills said:

Sheldon Brown said:

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

Sheldon "Progress" Brown

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Jeff

I think external bearings may have been what Sheldon was referring to,
along with the application to road bikes and MTBs.

That said, there's so much interesting weirdness happening in BMX parts,
not to mention developments that sometimes seem to be at cross-purposes
to that happening in road/MTB bikes, that it's worth checking their
stuff out more often.

For example, the trend in BMX is for the high-end stuff to use "Euro"
BBs, which is to say bottom brackets based around the smaller, threaded
MTB/road standards as opposed to the bigger, threadless, traditional BMX
BB. This is ironic since every trend in road BBs is headed towards
enlarging the BB one way (external bearings) or another (BB30,
Overdrive, whatever the Pinarello and Trek standards are...).

(BTW, Norco is currently selling their higher-end BMXs with something
called "Spanish" BB. What is that?)

For another thing, BMX is a neat source for oddball parts. You can get
complete left-side drivetrains for those bikes (the practical purpose
being for riders who prefer to do their grind tricks on the right side),
which have a few uses in odd projects (one I saw was a guy who used a
flip-flop hub and a LHD freewheel to run an auxiliary electric motor
mounted on the rear rack. It was a pretty tidy home-brew).

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

For another thing, BMX is a neat source for oddball parts. You can get
complete left-side drivetrains for those bikes (the practical purpose
being for riders who prefer to do their grind tricks on the right side),
which have a few uses in odd projects (one I saw was a guy who used a
flip-flop hub and a LHD freewheel to run an auxiliary electric motor
mounted on the rear rack. It was a pretty tidy home-brew).

Indeed. If I ever get around to building a FWD recumbent like I keep
threatening to do, I'm going to model the drivetrain around Rob
English's Hachi:
http://www.kingcycle.co.uk/hpvs/Hachi3.html
but with the second chain going down the left side. John Tetz did this
by modifying a freehub:
http://www.recumbents.com/mars/pages/proj/tetz/VFS/projtetzVFS02lefthanddrive.html
but I figure if I can just buy the parts I might as well spend the
money.

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Sheldon Brown said:

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.
Sheldon "Progress" Brown

JeffWills said:

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Yeah, my 1950s Magistroni steel crank has a similar pinch bolt on a
splined spindle. The Thun crank system has a spindle integral to the
right crank like DA, a splined spindle like DA, a left slit crank with
pinch bolt like DA, c. 1950s as well.

I think Sheldon's choice of 'pioneered' wasn't the best word but his
meaning was otherwise clear.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

-snip cranks-

Ryan Cousineau said:

(BTW, Norco is currently selling their higher-end BMXs with something
called "Spanish" BB. What is that?)

It's relatively new, between BSC and OPC!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

JeffWills said:

On Sep 3, 10:55 am, Sheldon Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sheldon "Progress" Brown

Quoted message said:

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Quoted message said:

Jeff

I think external bearings may have been what Sheldon was referring to,
along with the application to road bikes and MTBs.

That said, there's so much interesting weirdness happening in BMX parts,
not to mention developments that sometimes seem to be at cross-purposes
to that happening in road/MTB bikes, that it's worth checking their
stuff out more often.

For example, the trend in BMX is for the high-end stuff to use "Euro"
BBs, which is to say bottom brackets based around the smaller, threaded
MTB/road standards as opposed to the bigger, threadless, traditional BMX
BB. This is ironic since every trend in road BBs is headed towards
enlarging the BB one way (external bearings) or another (BB30,
Overdrive, whatever the Pinarello and Trek standards are...).

it's not really accurate to say that euro is the trend for high end
bmx. it's been the most common in race bikes for some time now. it's
seriously lost favor to mid and spanish everywhere else. a lot of
people are of the feeling that the bearings are really too small and
not durable enough.

Quoted message said:

(BTW, Norco is currently selling their higher-end BMXs with something
called "Spanish" BB. What is that?)

It is a standard which uses a bearing somewhat larger than what lives
in a euro bb, but smaller than american. The bearing cartridges are
press fit directly into the frame.

Mid works on the same principle but uses larger bearings, either
similar or the same as what would be found in an american sealed bb.

One thing going on right now in BMX that you don't hear much about is
all the mayhem ensuing from the rise of cheapo looseball BBs on lower
end bikes that use these standards. Some of them use proprietary
spindle sizes for which things like replacement sprocket adaptors,
locknuts, and lockwashers are straight up unavailable for. It sucks.

JeffWills said:

Sheldon Brown said:

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

Quoted message said:

Sheldon "Progress" Brown

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Jeff

There was a company making 'Sweet Wings" 15 years ago that did this
too. As usual, shimano can't come up with an idea of their own.
although what they make works quite well,

http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/FAIL-006.html

In article <[email hidden]>,

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Sheldon Brown said:

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.
Sheldon "Progress" Brown

JeffWills said:

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Yeah, my 1950s Magistroni steel crank has a similar pinch bolt on a
splined spindle. The Thun crank system has a spindle integral to the
right crank like DA, a splined spindle like DA, a left slit crank with
pinch bolt like DA, c. 1950s as well.

When you think about it the spindle should be integrated
with the non-drive sided (left) crank. It is the NDS to
spindle attachment that must transmit substantial pedaling
torque, while the DS crank attaches itself to the spider,
and thence to the chain rings. Hey! Who's in charge here?

Quoted message said:

I think Sheldon's choice of 'pioneered' wasn't the best word but his
meaning was otherwise clear.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system,
> but now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye
created two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah, my 1950s Magistroni steel crank has a similar pinch bolt on a
splined spindle. The Thun crank system has a spindle integral to
the right crank like DA, a splined spindle like DA, a left slit
crank with pinch bolt like DA, c. 1950s as well.

Quoted message said:

When you think about it the spindle should be integrated with the
non-drive sided (left) crank. It is the NDS to spindle attachment
that must transmit substantial pedaling torque, while the DS crank
attaches itself to the spider, and thence to the chain rings. Hey!
Who's in charge here?

If you consider how to attach a spindle to a crank and what torque the
spindle transmits you probably would do as others have and put pinch
bolts on the left crank and permanently anchor the spindle in the
right crank. The Campagnolo method is more complex and expensive. I
think they ran into patent problems and came up with theirs as a way
out.

You'll note that Shimano uses two pinch bolts, showing that they gave
this some thought and experimentation. I don't see how you propose to
locate such hardware on the right crank, and beyond that for what
reason. All torque that goes through the spindle is transmitted at
both ends equally. The V-shaped spline is used because it lends
itself to no-backlash attachment (something Octalink did not do) if
the mating part is clamped onto it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think Sheldon's choice of 'pioneered' wasn't the best word but
his meaning was otherwise clear.

This attachment was first used by Bullseye but they did it for a
different reason, having steel tubular welded cranks. That wouldn't
work well with the BB's of the day that were mostly square taper type.
I suspect the design was not lost in the memory of Shimano engineers,
because it has features that are ideal for steel tube to aluminum
crank attachment.

On the other hand, that Shimano took so long to recognize the flaw in
Octalink is a mystery to me.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

Quoted message said:

>> Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system,
>> but now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.
> "Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye
> created two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
>http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html
Yeah, my 1950s Magistroni steel crank has a similar pinch bolt on a
splined spindle. The Thun crank system has a spindle integral to
the right crank like DA, a splined spindle like DA, a left slit
crank with pinch bolt like DA, c. 1950s as well.

When you think about it the spindle should be integrated with the
non-drive sided (left) crank. It is the NDS to spindle attachment
that must transmit substantial pedaling torque, while the DS crank
attaches itself to the spider, and thence to the chain rings. Hey!
Who's in charge here?

If you consider how to attach a spindle to a crank and what torque the
spindle transmits you probably would do as others have and put pinch
bolts on the left crank and permanently anchor the spindle in the
right crank. The Campagnolo method is more complex and expensive. I
think they ran into patent problems and came up with theirs as a way
out.

I didn't look at the advertising material, but I think that one
problem Campagnolo was trying to solve has to do with the loose fit
between the inner bearing races and the spindle on Shimano cranks
which, according to some, causes wear on the spindle. Campagnolo has
bearings that are press fit on to the spindle. I have an Ultegra that
seems to be doing fine so far.-- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II"
>>> system, but now most of the major crank manufacturers have
>>> followed suit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye
>> created two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:

http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Yeah, my 1950s Magistroni steel crank has a similar pinch bolt on
> a splined spindle. The Thun crank system has a spindle integral
> to the right crank like DA, a splined spindle like DA, a left
> slit crank with pinch bolt like DA, c. 1950s as well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When you think about it the spindle should be integrated with the
non-drive sided (left) crank. It is the NDS to spindle attachment
that must transmit substantial pedaling torque, while the DS crank
attaches itself to the spider, and thence to the chain rings.
Hey! Who's in charge here?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you consider how to attach a spindle to a crank and what torque
the spindle transmits you probably would do as others have and put
pinch bolts on the left crank and permanently anchor the spindle in
the right crank. The Campagnolo method is more complex and
expensive. I think they ran into patent problems and came up with
theirs as a way out.

Quoted message said:

I didn't look at the advertising material, but I think that one
problem Campagnolo was trying to solve has to do with the loose fit
between the inner bearing races and the spindle on Shimano cranks
which, according to some, causes wear on the spindle. Campagnolo has
bearings that are press fit on to the spindle. I have an Ultegra
that seems to be doing fine so far.

As I have mentioned in earlier discussion about BB design, it's a huge
can of worms and I don't see an easy solution to the bearing problem
although I believe the crank attachment that Shimano has is a clean
one that should work reliably. Their outboard bearing can't be good
considering that inboard cups have failed on the right side from
fretting, fretting that has a red flag on it because it requires a
left hand thread, the best indicator of micro-motion.

The point you mention is another headache for which I see no solution
with the present design. This is such a high load interface that a
slip fit bearing has got to fret and leave rouge traces from wear. I
haven't worked with this BB but just looking at it at InterBike gave
me reason to stay clear of it, considering how many cranks and
spindles have withered under my feet.

We'll have to wait and see.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Jay Beattie said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II"
>>>> system, but now most of the major crank manufacturers have
>>>> followed suit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> "Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye
>>> created two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:

http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Yeah, my 1950s Magistroni steel crank has a similar pinch bolt on
>> a splined spindle. The Thun crank system has a spindle integral
>> to the right crank like DA, a splined spindle like DA, a left
>> slit crank with pinch bolt like DA, c. 1950s as well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> When you think about it the spindle should be integrated with the
> non-drive sided (left) crank. It is the NDS to spindle attachment
> that must transmit substantial pedaling torque, while the DS crank
> attaches itself to the spider, and thence to the chain rings.
> Hey! Who's in charge here?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you consider how to attach a spindle to a crank and what torque
the spindle transmits you probably would do as others have and put
pinch bolts on the left crank and permanently anchor the spindle in
the right crank. The Campagnolo method is more complex and
expensive. I think they ran into patent problems and came up with
theirs as a way out.

Quoted message said:

I didn't look at the advertising material, but I think that one
problem Campagnolo was trying to solve has to do with the loose fit
between the inner bearing races and the spindle on Shimano cranks
which, according to some, causes wear on the spindle. Campagnolo has
bearings that are press fit on to the spindle. I have an Ultegra
that seems to be doing fine so far.

As I have mentioned in earlier discussion about BB design, it's a huge
can of worms and I don't see an easy solution to the bearing problem
although I believe the crank attachment that Shimano has is a clean
one that should work reliably. Their outboard bearing can't be good
considering that inboard cups have failed on the right side from
fretting, fretting that has a red flag on it because it requires a
left hand thread, the best indicator of micro-motion.

The point you mention is another headache for which I see no solution
with the present design. This is such a high load interface that a
slip fit bearing has got to fret and leave rouge traces from wear. I
haven't worked with this BB but just looking at it at InterBike gave
me reason to stay clear of it, considering how many cranks and
spindles have withered under my feet.

eh? how does metal fatigue in 1970's cranks cause fear of 2000's cranks
bearing frettage?

Quoted message said:

We'll have to wait and see.

yes - it's much easier to criticize something from the comfort of the
sofa than is is to invest time, money and effort into physical testing
from which facts [and therefore valid opinions] could be drawn.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

Quoted message said:

>> Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system,
>> but now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye
> created two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
> http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah, my 1950s Magistroni steel crank has a similar pinch bolt on a
splined spindle. The Thun crank system has a spindle integral to
the right crank like DA, a splined spindle like DA, a left slit
crank with pinch bolt like DA, c. 1950s as well.

Quoted message said:

When you think about it the spindle should be integrated with the
non-drive sided (left) crank. It is the NDS to spindle attachment
that must transmit substantial pedaling torque, while the DS crank
attaches itself to the spider, and thence to the chain rings. Hey!
Who's in charge here?

If you consider how to attach a spindle to a crank and what torque the
spindle transmits you probably would do as others have and put pinch
bolts on the left crank and permanently anchor the spindle in the
right crank. The Campagnolo method is more complex and expensive. I
think they ran into patent problems and came up with theirs as a way
out.

You'll note that Shimano uses two pinch bolts, showing that they gave
this some thought and experimentation. I don't see how you propose to
locate such hardware on the right crank, and beyond that for what
reason. All torque that goes through the spindle is transmitted at
both ends equally. The V-shaped spline is used because it lends
itself to no-backlash attachment (something Octalink did not do) if
the mating part is clamped onto it.

As if to baffle us all, the latest XTR design uses a non pinch-bolt
attachment, as most clearly shown in this exploded diagram PDF:

http://bike.shimano.com/media/techdocs/content/cycle/EV/bikecomponents/FC
/EV-FC-M970-2592_v1_m56577569830608898.pdf

Basically, there's a "crank arm fixing bolt unit" that screws into the
end of the spindle, along with an "adjust nut" that apparently goes
between the crank arm and the BB shell, and which itself is held in
place with a pinch bolt. But note that the adjust nut is threaded
to...the inside of the left crank arm?!

Deeply worrying installation instructions here:

http://bike.shimano.com/media/techdocs/content/cycle/SI/XTR/FC-M970/15H0A
_EN_v1_m56577569830600538.PDF

For those of you who aren't MTBers, note that XT has historically
suffered from some of the same sorts of unique-bits weirdness that
Dura-Ace occasionally experiences.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think Sheldon's choice of 'pioneered' wasn't the best word but
his meaning was otherwise clear.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

JeffWills said:

On Sep 3, 10:55 am, Sheldon Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sheldon "Progress" Brown

Quoted message said:

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Quoted message said:

Jeff

I think external bearings may have been what Sheldon was referring to,
along with the application to road bikes and MTBs.

That said, there's so much interesting weirdness happening in BMX parts,
not to mention developments that sometimes seem to be at cross-purposes
to that happening in road/MTB bikes, that it's worth checking their
stuff out more often.

For example, the trend in BMX is for the high-end stuff to use "Euro"
BBs, which is to say bottom brackets based around the smaller, threaded
MTB/road standards as opposed to the bigger, threadless, traditional BMX
BB. This is ironic since every trend in road BBs is headed towards
enlarging the BB one way (external bearings) or another (BB30,
Overdrive, whatever the Pinarello and Trek standards are...).

(BTW, Norco is currently selling their higher-end BMXs with something
called "Spanish" BB. What is that?)

For another thing, BMX is a neat source for oddball parts. You can get
complete left-side drivetrains for those bikes (the practical purpose
being for riders who prefer to do their grind tricks on the right side),
which have a few uses in odd projects (one I saw was a guy who used a
flip-flop hub and a LHD freewheel to run an auxiliary electric motor
mounted on the rear rack. It was a pretty tidy home-brew).

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden]://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

I've got a friend who rides the new-school bmx stuff with one of those
small bb shells. The rear freewheel is a different mechanism, allowing
you to run smaller rear sprockets than the old screw-on 16-tooth,
which thereby allows him to run smaller front rings for greater
clearance.

Still not sure I understand why the small bb shell is a benefit
though.

/s

zencycle said:

JeffWills said:

On Sep 3, 10:55 am,Sheldon Brown<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sheldon "Progress" Brown

Quoted message said:

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Quoted message said:

Jeff

There was a company making 'Sweet Wings" 15 years ago that did this
too. As usual, shimano can't come up with an idea of their own.
although what they make works quite well,

http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/FAIL-006.html

+----------------------------------------------------+
| A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of |
| explanation. --H.H.Munro ("Saki"😉(1870-1916) |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Ryan Cousineau said:

JeffWills said:

Sheldon Brown said:

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

I think external bearings may have been what Sheldon was referring to,
along with the application to road bikes and MTBs.

Magic Motorcycle made their cranks with big-tube spindles and external
bearings a long time ago (early '90s?). http://patineto.smugmug.com/photos/53289989-O.jpg

I made an external bearing BB for my own bike in 1999:
http://picasaweb.google.com/chalo.colina/RedBike/photo#5106782846418368274

Shimano not only used the patented Bullseye design for their cranks,
but they waited a long time to let Roger Durham's patent expire while
producing a variety of inferior, sometimes defective alternatives.
Saying Shimano pioneered any part of the Hollowtech II system is
giving them far too much credit, and is unfair to real innovators in
the business.

Chalo

Ryan Cousineau said:

JeffWills said:

Sheldon Brown said:

Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

I think external bearings may have been what Sheldon was referring to,
along with the application to road bikes and MTBs.

Magic Motorcycle made their cranks with big-tube spindles and external
bearings a long time ago (early '90s?). http://patineto.smugmug.com/photos/53289989-O.jpg

I made an external bearing BB for my own bike in 1999:
http://picasaweb.google.com/chalo.colina/RedBike/photo#5106782846418368274

Shimano not only used the patented Bullseye design for their cranks,
but they waited a long time to let Roger Durham's patent expire while
producing a variety of inferior, sometimes defective alternatives.
Saying Shimano pioneered any part of the Hollowtech II system is
giving them far too much credit, and is unfair to real innovators in
the business.

Chalo

Chalo said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

JeffWills wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sheldon Brown wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Shimano pioneered this style, with their "Hollowtech II" system, but
> now most of the major crank manufacturers have followed suit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Pioneered"??? Well, maybe the external bearings, but Bullseye created
two-piece cranks somewhere around the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bikepro.com/products/cranks/bullseye.html

Quoted message said:

I think external bearings may have been what Sheldon was referring to,
along with the application to road bikes and MTBs.

Magic Motorcycle made their cranks with big-tube spindles and external
bearings a long time ago (early '90s?). http://patineto.smugmug.com/photos/53289989-O.jpg

I made an external bearing BB for my own bike in 1999:http://picasaweb.google.com/chalo.colina/RedBike/photo#51067828464183...

Shimano not only used the patented Bullseye design for their cranks,
but they waited a long time to let Roger Durham's patent expire while
producing a variety of inferior, sometimes defective alternatives.

Not paying to use a patent and thus not making a product is a Shimano
trait. No Shimano threadless headset. Until the DiaCompe(?) patent
expires. Shimano stopped licensing the Look pedal/cleat patent and
came up with SPD-R for awhile. Until the patent expired and then they
pioneered their SPD-SL Look copy.

I use the SPD-SL pedals and they are very good. I'm a Campagnolo man
but Shimano does make good pedals. Shimano brand SPD or SPD-SL are
the ones I use. The Shimano under bottom bracket cable guide works
well too.

Quoted message said:

Saying Shimano pioneered any part of the Hollowtech II system is
giving them far too much credit, and is unfair to real innovators in
the business.

Chalo