D
M
M-gineering
Guest
Davosaurus Returns wrote:
> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> cranks? Thoughts?
>
Same as in 2007
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> cranks? Thoughts?
>
Same as in 2007
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
S
On Dec 17, 8:11 am, M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Davosaurus Returns wrote:
> > Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> > cranks? Thoughts?
>
> Same as in 2007
>
for those who are new to this (me!) is that a good thing or a bad
thing?
how do these compare to 2004 set?
> Davosaurus Returns wrote:
> > Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> > cranks? Thoughts?
>
> Same as in 2007
>
for those who are new to this (me!) is that a good thing or a bad
thing?
how do these compare to 2004 set?
H
Hank Wirtz
Guest
On Dec 17, 7:22 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 17, 8:11 am, M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:> Davosaurus Returns wrote:
> > > Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> > > cranks? Thoughts?
>
> > Same as in 2007
>
> for those who are new to this (me!) is that a good thing or a bad
> thing?
> how do these compare to 2004 set?
Integrated spindle & outboard bearings for FC-4503. The old FC-4403
was Octalink.That means larger bearings and a supposed increase in
stiffness from their wider placement.
I haven't ridden either, so I can't illuminate beyond that.
> On Dec 17, 8:11 am, M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:> Davosaurus Returns wrote:
> > > Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> > > cranks? Thoughts?
>
> > Same as in 2007
>
> for those who are new to this (me!) is that a good thing or a bad
> thing?
> how do these compare to 2004 set?
Integrated spindle & outboard bearings for FC-4503. The old FC-4403
was Octalink.That means larger bearings and a supposed increase in
stiffness from their wider placement.
I haven't ridden either, so I can't illuminate beyond that.
M
M-gineering
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 17, 8:11 am, M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Davosaurus Returns wrote:
>>> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
>>> cranks? Thoughts?
>> Same as in 2007
>>
> for those who are new to this (me!) is that a good thing or a bad
> thing?
> how do these compare to 2004 set?
Aluminium axle, badly sealed bearings, non-replacable axle prone to
wear. Take care of your 2004!
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
> On Dec 17, 8:11 am, M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Davosaurus Returns wrote:
>>> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
>>> cranks? Thoughts?
>> Same as in 2007
>>
> for those who are new to this (me!) is that a good thing or a bad
> thing?
> how do these compare to 2004 set?
Aluminium axle, badly sealed bearings, non-replacable axle prone to
wear. Take care of your 2004!
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
R
Ryan Cousineau
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Davosaurus Returns) wrote:
> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> cranks? Thoughts?
The new design is essentially the "Hollowtech II" external-bearing setup
that all Shimano's better road and MTB groups have been using for a few
years.
The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
lighter crank spindles.
Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
this is probably an improvement.
There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
breaking apart under load.
Note that in all cases, the external-bearing design is arguably a
workaround for the fact that standard BBs are too small to fit both
reliable bearings and big hollow spindles within their diameter.
Numerous makers (Pinarello, Trek, Cannondale) are now building
more-or-less proprietary oversized BBs into their top bikes. In the case
of Trek, they provide slip-fit bearings which will accept a Shimano
crankset.
Cannondale has released their BB30 (formerly Si) BB design to the world;
nobody else appears to be using it right now.
--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected] (Davosaurus Returns) wrote:
> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> cranks? Thoughts?
The new design is essentially the "Hollowtech II" external-bearing setup
that all Shimano's better road and MTB groups have been using for a few
years.
The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
lighter crank spindles.
Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
this is probably an improvement.
There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
breaking apart under load.
Note that in all cases, the external-bearing design is arguably a
workaround for the fact that standard BBs are too small to fit both
reliable bearings and big hollow spindles within their diameter.
Numerous makers (Pinarello, Trek, Cannondale) are now building
more-or-less proprietary oversized BBs into their top bikes. In the case
of Trek, they provide slip-fit bearings which will accept a Shimano
crankset.
Cannondale has released their BB30 (formerly Si) BB design to the world;
nobody else appears to be using it right now.
--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
M
Mike Jacoubowsky
Guest
> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> cranks? Thoughts?
It simply works. Boring & pathetically easy to service (just need an allen
wrench to pull the cranks off on the road, so if you're ever worried about a
chain getting REALLY jammed, it can be a good thing to have). Life could be
much worse for the mechanics who work with them. No complaints at all.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> cranks? Thoughts?
It simply works. Boring & pathetically easy to service (just need an allen
wrench to pull the cranks off on the road, so if you're ever worried about a
chain getting REALLY jammed, it can be a good thing to have). Life could be
much worse for the mechanics who work with them. No complaints at all.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
S
Scott Gordo
Guest
On Dec 17, 1:06 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Davosaurus Returns) wrote:
>
> > Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> > cranks? Thoughts?
>
> The new design is essentially the "Hollowtech II" external-bearing setup
> that all Shimano's better road and MTB groups have been using for a few
> years.
>
> The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
> major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
> two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
>
> The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
> lighter crank spindles.
>
> Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
> this is probably an improvement.
>
> There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
>
> I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
> complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
> of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
> breaking apart under load.
>
> Note that in all cases, the external-bearing design is arguably a
> workaround for the fact that standard BBs are too small to fit both
> reliable bearings and big hollow spindles within their diameter.
> Numerous makers (Pinarello, Trek, Cannondale) are now building
> more-or-less proprietary oversized BBs into their top bikes. In the case
> of Trek, they provide slip-fit bearings which will accept a Shimano
> crankset.
>
> Cannondale has released their BB30 (formerly Si) BB design to the world;
> nobody else appears to be using it right now.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau [email protected]://www.wiredcola.com/
> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
Van Dessel is working with BB30.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/newarrivals/12-17
"...next year's version promises to be even better with the addition
of a BB30 integrated bottom bracket system. Cannondale first pioneered
this system ages ago (and continues to use it today), but its recent
decision to open up the standard has been welcomed with open arms by
several frame and component manufacturers. By pressing the oversized
bearings directly into the shell and increasing the spindle diameter,
the system promises to be lighter, stiffer, and more durable than
conventional external-type cranksets. An adapter will allow the use of
standard threaded bottom brackets, too, if users are so inclined."
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Davosaurus Returns) wrote:
>
> > Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> > cranks? Thoughts?
>
> The new design is essentially the "Hollowtech II" external-bearing setup
> that all Shimano's better road and MTB groups have been using for a few
> years.
>
> The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
> major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
> two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
>
> The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
> lighter crank spindles.
>
> Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
> this is probably an improvement.
>
> There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
>
> I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
> complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
> of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
> breaking apart under load.
>
> Note that in all cases, the external-bearing design is arguably a
> workaround for the fact that standard BBs are too small to fit both
> reliable bearings and big hollow spindles within their diameter.
> Numerous makers (Pinarello, Trek, Cannondale) are now building
> more-or-less proprietary oversized BBs into their top bikes. In the case
> of Trek, they provide slip-fit bearings which will accept a Shimano
> crankset.
>
> Cannondale has released their BB30 (formerly Si) BB design to the world;
> nobody else appears to be using it right now.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau [email protected]://www.wiredcola.com/
> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
Van Dessel is working with BB30.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/newarrivals/12-17
"...next year's version promises to be even better with the addition
of a BB30 integrated bottom bracket system. Cannondale first pioneered
this system ages ago (and continues to use it today), but its recent
decision to open up the standard has been welcomed with open arms by
several frame and component manufacturers. By pressing the oversized
bearings directly into the shell and increasing the spindle diameter,
the system promises to be lighter, stiffer, and more durable than
conventional external-type cranksets. An adapter will allow the use of
standard threaded bottom brackets, too, if users are so inclined."
M
M-gineering
Guest
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
>> cranks? Thoughts?
>
> It simply works. Boring & pathetically easy to service
A nice little earner, the way these things go through bearings
(just need an allen
> wrench to pull the cranks off on the road, so if you're ever worried about a
> chain getting REALLY jammed, it can be a good thing to have).
You could have fun getting the plastic adjusting bolt out though, and
once the axle is grooved a hammer and punch is necessary
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
>> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
>> cranks? Thoughts?
>
> It simply works. Boring & pathetically easy to service
A nice little earner, the way these things go through bearings
(just need an allen
> wrench to pull the cranks off on the road, so if you're ever worried about a
> chain getting REALLY jammed, it can be a good thing to have).
You could have fun getting the plastic adjusting bolt out though, and
once the axle is grooved a hammer and punch is necessary
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
S
Scott Gordo
Guest
On Dec 17, 8:18 am, [email protected] (Davosaurus Returns) wrote:
> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> cranks? Thoughts?
They're not tubular like the higher-end Shimano cranks, but hollowed
out at the back like FSA Gossamers. No idea if that makes a
perceptible difference in flex or weight or whatever, just something
noticed that separates it from, I believe, 105 and up.
Anyone know if those chainrings okay on 10sp?
> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
> cranks? Thoughts?
They're not tubular like the higher-end Shimano cranks, but hollowed
out at the back like FSA Gossamers. No idea if that makes a
perceptible difference in flex or weight or whatever, just something
noticed that separates it from, I believe, 105 and up.
Anyone know if those chainrings okay on 10sp?
M
M-gineering
Guest
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
> major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
> two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
No it doesn't, as it has the required pressfit for the inner bearing
rings the marketing types of other brands think they can do without!
>
> The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
> lighter crank spindles.
Some are stiffer and/or lighter, some are not.. Sealdrag can be up 1000%
> Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
> this is probably an improvement.
?
If you avoided ISIS and DA it always got you home IME. When the
hollowtech2 races split you're walking
>
> There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
> I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
> complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
> of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
> breaking apart under load.
Before the advent of marketing square taper axles were troublefree too
-
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
> The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
> major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
> two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
No it doesn't, as it has the required pressfit for the inner bearing
rings the marketing types of other brands think they can do without!
>
> The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
> lighter crank spindles.
Some are stiffer and/or lighter, some are not.. Sealdrag can be up 1000%
> Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
> this is probably an improvement.
?
If you avoided ISIS and DA it always got you home IME. When the
hollowtech2 races split you're walking
>
> There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
> I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
> complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
> of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
> breaking apart under load.
Before the advent of marketing square taper axles were troublefree too
-
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
J
Jay Beattie
Guest
On Dec 17, 10:59 am, M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
> > major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
> > two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
>
> No it doesn't, as it has the required pressfit for the inner bearing
> rings the marketing types of other brands think they can do without!
>
>
>
> > The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
> > lighter crank spindles.
>
> Some are stiffer and/or lighter, some are not.. Sealdrag can be up 1000%
>
> > Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
> > this is probably an improvement.
>
> ?
> If you avoided ISIS and DA it always got you home IME. When the
> hollowtech2 races split you're walking
>
>
>
> > There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> > square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> > pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
> > I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
> > complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
> > of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
> > breaking apart under load.
>
> Before the advent of marketing square taper axles were troublefree too
>
> -
> /Marten
>
> info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
> > major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
> > two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
>
> No it doesn't, as it has the required pressfit for the inner bearing
> rings the marketing types of other brands think they can do without!
>
>
>
> > The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
> > lighter crank spindles.
>
> Some are stiffer and/or lighter, some are not.. Sealdrag can be up 1000%
>
> > Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
> > this is probably an improvement.
>
> ?
> If you avoided ISIS and DA it always got you home IME. When the
> hollowtech2 races split you're walking
>
>
>
> > There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> > square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> > pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
> > I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
> > complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
> > of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
> > breaking apart under load.
>
> Before the advent of marketing square taper axles were troublefree too
>
> -
> /Marten
>
> info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
J
Jay Beattie
Guest
On Dec 17, 10:59 am, M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
> > major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
> > two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
>
> No it doesn't, as it has the required pressfit for the inner bearing
> rings the marketing types of other brands think they can do without!
>
>
>
> > The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
> > lighter crank spindles.
>
> Some are stiffer and/or lighter, some are not.. Sealdrag can be up 1000%
>
> > Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
> > this is probably an improvement.
>
> ?
> If you avoided ISIS and DA it always got you home IME. When the
> hollowtech2 races split you're walking
>
>
>
> > There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> > square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> > pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
> > I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
> > complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
> > of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
> > breaking apart under load.
>
> Before the advent of marketing square taper axles were troublefree too
Mostly trouble free. I am waiting for the BlueRay BB, or is it the HD
BB . . . whatever it may be, it will be the best forever. -- Jay
Beattie.
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
> > major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
> > two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
>
> No it doesn't, as it has the required pressfit for the inner bearing
> rings the marketing types of other brands think they can do without!
>
>
>
> > The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
> > lighter crank spindles.
>
> Some are stiffer and/or lighter, some are not.. Sealdrag can be up 1000%
>
> > Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
> > this is probably an improvement.
>
> ?
> If you avoided ISIS and DA it always got you home IME. When the
> hollowtech2 races split you're walking
>
>
>
> > There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> > square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> > pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
> > I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
> > complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
> > of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
> > breaking apart under load.
>
> Before the advent of marketing square taper axles were troublefree too
Mostly trouble free. I am waiting for the BlueRay BB, or is it the HD
BB . . . whatever it may be, it will be the best forever. -- Jay
Beattie.
O
Ozark Bicycle
Guest
On Dec 17, 12:59 pm, M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
> > major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
> > two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
>
> No it doesn't, as it has the required pressfit for the inner bearing
> rings the marketing types of other brands think they can do without!
>
>
>
> > The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
> > lighter crank spindles.
>
> Some are stiffer and/or lighter, some are not.. Sealdrag can be up 1000%
>
> > Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
> > this is probably an improvement.
>
> ?
> If you avoided ISIS and DA it always got you home IME. When the
> hollowtech2 races split you're walking
>
>
>
> > There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> > square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> > pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
> > I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
> > complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
> > of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
> > breaking apart under load.
>
> Before the advent of marketing square taper axles were troublefree too
>
And how long before Shimano "walks away" from this current design and
introduces something !!NEW!! ?
Marketing never sleeps.......
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > The same idea, more or less, is available from virtually every other
> > major crank-maker, including Campagnolo (Ultra-Torque has an interesting
> > two-piece spindle, but follows the basic external-bearing principle).
>
> No it doesn't, as it has the required pressfit for the inner bearing
> rings the marketing types of other brands think they can do without!
>
>
>
> > The idea is to allow for bigger crank bearings and stiffer, stronger,
> > lighter crank spindles.
>
> Some are stiffer and/or lighter, some are not.. Sealdrag can be up 1000%
>
> > Given the odd failings of the previous "Hollowtech" pipe-spindle design,
> > this is probably an improvement.
>
> ?
> If you avoided ISIS and DA it always got you home IME. When the
> hollowtech2 races split you're walking
>
>
>
> > There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> > square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> > pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
> > I'm not sure if this stuff has been in service long enough to generate
> > complaints, but mountain bikers are usually pretty spectacular breakers
> > of parts, and I don't hear a lot about XTR, XT, Saint, or Hone cranks
> > breaking apart under load.
>
> Before the advent of marketing square taper axles were troublefree too
>
And how long before Shimano "walks away" from this current design and
introduces something !!NEW!! ?
Marketing never sleeps.......
D
David L. Johnson
Guest
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
I can provide a data point at slightly above 200lbs, with nary a problem
using square-taper cranks. Most people with problems are either bigger
still, or ride a whole lot more.
--
David L. Johnson
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
> There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
I can provide a data point at slightly above 200lbs, with nary a problem
using square-taper cranks. Most people with problems are either bigger
still, or ride a whole lot more.
--
David L. Johnson
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
J
Jay Beattie
Guest
On Dec 17, 5:03 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> > square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> > pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
>
> I can provide a data point at slightly above 200lbs, with nary a problem
> using square-taper cranks. Most people with problems are either bigger
> still, or ride a whole lot more.
>
I broke one Phil BB spindle center-span (not the failure mode
associated with the "design flaws" of square taper which was cracking
on left side face, IIRC). No Campy, Sugino, Shimano, TA, SunTour
failures -- all of which I used far less than the Phil. I broke a
half-dozen crank arms at various personal weights up to 225lbs (I'm
proudly below 200lbs now), so I have to assume that square taper
spindles are not that frail -- and less frail than crank arms. Now, I
have eaten up the bearings on a number of ISIS BBs, but as said
above, you can still ride home on shot bearings. -- Jay Beattie.
wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> > square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> > pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
>
> I can provide a data point at slightly above 200lbs, with nary a problem
> using square-taper cranks. Most people with problems are either bigger
> still, or ride a whole lot more.
>
I broke one Phil BB spindle center-span (not the failure mode
associated with the "design flaws" of square taper which was cracking
on left side face, IIRC). No Campy, Sugino, Shimano, TA, SunTour
failures -- all of which I used far less than the Phil. I broke a
half-dozen crank arms at various personal weights up to 225lbs (I'm
proudly below 200lbs now), so I have to assume that square taper
spindles are not that frail -- and less frail than crank arms. Now, I
have eaten up the bearings on a number of ISIS BBs, but as said
above, you can still ride home on shot bearings. -- Jay Beattie.
S
Steve Gravrock
Guest
On 2007-12-18, David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
>> There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
>> square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
>> pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
>
> I can provide a data point at slightly above 200lbs, with nary a problem
> using square-taper cranks. Most people with problems are either bigger
> still, or ride a whole lot more.
I'm a 200 lbs goofy-footed mountain biker -- pretty much the worst case
scenario that Jobst Brandt identified for square taper spindles. I've
never broken one. That said, I don't put on many miles at all off-road.
My road bike is ISIS, although those 2-piece Tiagra cranks are going to
start looking awfully good if I burn out another bottom bracket.
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
>> There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
>> square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
>> pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
>
> I can provide a data point at slightly above 200lbs, with nary a problem
> using square-taper cranks. Most people with problems are either bigger
> still, or ride a whole lot more.
I'm a 200 lbs goofy-footed mountain biker -- pretty much the worst case
scenario that Jobst Brandt identified for square taper spindles. I've
never broken one. That said, I don't put on many miles at all off-road.
My road bike is ISIS, although those 2-piece Tiagra cranks are going to
start looking awfully good if I burn out another bottom bracket.
O
Ozark Bicycle
Guest
On Dec 17, 8:53 pm, Steve Gravrock <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-12-18, David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> >> There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> >> square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> >> pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
>
> > I can provide a data point at slightly above 200lbs, with nary a problem
> > using square-taper cranks. Most people with problems are either bigger
> > still, or ride a whole lot more.
>
> I'm a 200 lbs goofy-footed mountain biker -- pretty much the worst case
> scenario that Jobst Brandt identified for square taper spindles.
IIRC, that "goofy footed" scenario involved Octalink, not square taper
spindles. And, there's little evidence to support it, in any case.
> I've never broken one. That said, I don't put on many miles at all off-road.
>
> My road bike is ISIS, although those 2-piece Tiagra cranks are going to
> start looking awfully good if I burn out another bottom bracket.
> On 2007-12-18, David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> >> There are some people here who are heavy enough to routinely break
> >> square-taper spindles. The fuzzy line seems to be somewhere around 200
> >> pounds before there's a problem. I'm not that heavy.
>
> > I can provide a data point at slightly above 200lbs, with nary a problem
> > using square-taper cranks. Most people with problems are either bigger
> > still, or ride a whole lot more.
>
> I'm a 200 lbs goofy-footed mountain biker -- pretty much the worst case
> scenario that Jobst Brandt identified for square taper spindles.
IIRC, that "goofy footed" scenario involved Octalink, not square taper
spindles. And, there's little evidence to support it, in any case.
> I've never broken one. That said, I don't put on many miles at all off-road.
>
> My road bike is ISIS, although those 2-piece Tiagra cranks are going to
> start looking awfully good if I burn out another bottom bracket.
W
Werehatrack
Guest
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:09:33 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> may have said:
>On Dec 17, 12:59 pm, M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Before the advent of marketing square taper axles were troublefree too
>>
>
>And how long before Shimano "walks away" from this current design and
>introduces something !!NEW!! ?
>
>Marketing never sleeps.......
Well, let's see. All of the principal competitors have their own
hollowtech-alike product, and some of the frame makers are going over
to proprietary or unprotected-spec oversize BB designs. At the
moment, there are more potentially incompatible flavors of BB vs crank
vs frame than has been the case for a while. The need for a wider BB
shell on the frames is probably going to spawn yet another round of
revisions, but I've seen no sign from Shimano of a move in that
direction, and SRAM doesn't appear to have convinced anyone to grab
the ISIS-II spec and run with it, either. So right now we're trapped
in a twisty little maze of standards, all different.
Thus the question devolves to one of "what can be done to convince the
buying public that what's available isn't good enough?" The answer to
this, in my opinion, lies in Shimano and the rest getting
bargain-basement versions of the inherently fragile current tech into
the fray. When *those* arrive, with the problems they will inherit
from corners cut too closely in choice of materials and employment of
manufacturing techniques, we should start to see enough failures in
low-time components. My bet is that the outboard-mounted bearings
will loosen and/or fail more often when they're made more cheaply and
are mounted in less carefully-constructed BB shells, and this will
provide the stepping stone to redefinition of the standard BB shell
size. If a new genuine industry standard can be agreed upon (fat
chance), we're probably looking at a long period of sharp dichotomy
between old and new BB design support; I'm expecting any new BB shell
spec to be enough wider than 73mm to preclude using old BBs via a pair
of adapter rings. I would not be surprised if the new spec was 85mm
wide or more.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
<[email protected]> may have said:
>On Dec 17, 12:59 pm, M-gineering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Before the advent of marketing square taper axles were troublefree too
>>
>
>And how long before Shimano "walks away" from this current design and
>introduces something !!NEW!! ?
>
>Marketing never sleeps.......
Well, let's see. All of the principal competitors have their own
hollowtech-alike product, and some of the frame makers are going over
to proprietary or unprotected-spec oversize BB designs. At the
moment, there are more potentially incompatible flavors of BB vs crank
vs frame than has been the case for a while. The need for a wider BB
shell on the frames is probably going to spawn yet another round of
revisions, but I've seen no sign from Shimano of a move in that
direction, and SRAM doesn't appear to have convinced anyone to grab
the ISIS-II spec and run with it, either. So right now we're trapped
in a twisty little maze of standards, all different.
Thus the question devolves to one of "what can be done to convince the
buying public that what's available isn't good enough?" The answer to
this, in my opinion, lies in Shimano and the rest getting
bargain-basement versions of the inherently fragile current tech into
the fray. When *those* arrive, with the problems they will inherit
from corners cut too closely in choice of materials and employment of
manufacturing techniques, we should start to see enough failures in
low-time components. My bet is that the outboard-mounted bearings
will loosen and/or fail more often when they're made more cheaply and
are mounted in less carefully-constructed BB shells, and this will
provide the stepping stone to redefinition of the standard BB shell
size. If a new genuine industry standard can be agreed upon (fat
chance), we're probably looking at a long period of sharp dichotomy
between old and new BB design support; I'm expecting any new BB shell
spec to be enough wider than 73mm to preclude using old BBs via a pair
of adapter rings. I would not be surprised if the new spec was 85mm
wide or more.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
M
Mike Jacoubowsky
Guest
>>> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
>>> cranks? Thoughts?
>>
>> It simply works. Boring & pathetically easy to service
>
> A nice little earner, the way these things go through bearings
??? Outboard bearings have been around for a couple years now, and in that
time we've sold darned few of them. Just seems to be a non-issue for road
bikes, although I have hear that areas with muckier weather do sell a fair
number of mountain bike versions. But not for us.
> (just need an allen
>> wrench to pull the cranks off on the road, so if you're ever worried
>> about a chain getting REALLY jammed, it can be a good thing to have).
>
> You could have fun getting the plastic adjusting bolt out though, and once
> the axle is grooved a hammer and punch is necessary
On greased axles? Again, we just haven't seen that to be the case.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"M-gineering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
>>> cranks? Thoughts?
>>
>> It simply works. Boring & pathetically easy to service
>
> A nice little earner, the way these things go through bearings
>
>
> (just need an allen
>> wrench to pull the cranks off on the road, so if you're ever worried
>> about a chain getting REALLY jammed, it can be a good thing to have).
>
> You could have fun getting the plastic adjusting bolt out though, and once
> the axle is grooved a hammer and punch is necessary
>
>
> --
> /Marten
>
> info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
>>> cranks? Thoughts?
>>
>> It simply works. Boring & pathetically easy to service
>
> A nice little earner, the way these things go through bearings
??? Outboard bearings have been around for a couple years now, and in that
time we've sold darned few of them. Just seems to be a non-issue for road
bikes, although I have hear that areas with muckier weather do sell a fair
number of mountain bike versions. But not for us.
> (just need an allen
>> wrench to pull the cranks off on the road, so if you're ever worried
>> about a chain getting REALLY jammed, it can be a good thing to have).
>
> You could have fun getting the plastic adjusting bolt out though, and once
> the axle is grooved a hammer and punch is necessary
On greased axles? Again, we just haven't seen that to be the case.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"M-gineering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Anyone managed to get ahold of the '08 2 piece Tiagra triple road
>>> cranks? Thoughts?
>>
>> It simply works. Boring & pathetically easy to service
>
> A nice little earner, the way these things go through bearings
>
>
> (just need an allen
>> wrench to pull the cranks off on the road, so if you're ever worried
>> about a chain getting REALLY jammed, it can be a good thing to have).
>
> You could have fun getting the plastic adjusting bolt out though, and once
> the axle is grooved a hammer and punch is necessary
>
>
> --
> /Marten
>
> info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
Similar threads
