Bottom Bracket Rebuild vs Cartridge

Larry said:

I'm overhauling a great (1980s) sport/touring Bianchi with Ishiwata
tubes, and having trouble with the bottom bracket. I took out the
races (9 ballbearings), cleaned everything with WD40 and elbow grease,
repacked the BB with 9 new ballbearings (of the correct size) on each
side and, of course, fresh grease.

I have adjusted the BB to the point where it no longer spins smoothly,
yet there is still some (some is too much) play in the spindle. I was
hoping for spinning smoothly with no slop in the spindle.

I must be a retro grouch, because I'd prefer keeping this bottom
bracket to putting in a so-called sealed bearing cartridge. Just think
of the weight savings of this older technology! Plus, if it gets water
in it, no big deal. Instead of replacing the cartridge, I can squirt
some WD-40 in the seat tube to replace the water and then pour in some
Phils tenacious or even chain saw lube, and be on my way. Rebuild at
my leasure. But, I've got cartridge BBs on some of my other bikes and
have had no problems with them. Maybe I should keep it simple, and
just put in a cartridge?

I recall that when replacing the 9-ballbearing race with just
bearings, you could put in a 10th ballbearing. Might a 10th
ballbearing help?

What do you think? Can I salvage this BB or should I go for a
cartridge?

Thanks,
Larry

Sometimes the tube facings on old bikes can cause the bearing races to
be out of alignment when you tighten the lock ring. A cartridge BB
will often solve this type of problem.

Larry said:

I'm overhauling a great (1980s) sport/touring Bianchi with Ishiwata
tubes, and having trouble with the bottom bracket. I took out the
races (9 ballbearings), cleaned everything with WD40 and elbow grease,
repacked the BB with 9 new ballbearings (of the correct size) on each
side and, of course, fresh grease.

I have adjusted the BB to the point where it no longer spins smoothly,
yet there is still some (some is too much) play in the spindle. I was
hoping for spinning smoothly with no slop in the spindle.

Well, this does show one limitation of cup&cone bottom brackets.
One reply suggested that the shell facing might not be flat any
more, this is a likely cause. Either that, or a cup is mis-threaded or
maybe the axle is bent/cracked. Or maybe you really have too many balls in
one of the races, or one slipped in between.

You know, tucking in a cheap cartridge will keep you in business for
thousands of miles. Then you just go get another one. Throw-away
society? Yes, but the economics are on the side of disposable bottom
brackets now.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
_`\(,_ | death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
(_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
-- J. R. R. Tolkein

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

Quoted message said:

On 27 Apr 2005 06:00:15 -0700, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

because I'd prefer keeping this bottom
bracket to putting in a so-called sealed bearing cartridge.

Quoted message said:

Sometimes the tube facings on old bikes can cause the bearing races to
be out of alignment when you tighten the lock ring. A cartridge BB
will often solve this type of problem.

a) read the post
b) suggest a facing tool

Larry said:

I'm overhauling a great (1980s) sport/touring Bianchi with Ishiwata
tubes, and having trouble with the bottom bracket. I took out the
races (9 ballbearings), cleaned everything with WD40

WD40 is not the ideal solvent for this, but with enough elbow grease it
can do the job.

Quoted message said:

and elbow grease,
repacked the BB with 9 new ballbearings (of the correct size) on each
side and, of course, fresh grease.

Should be 11 balls each side, 1/4"

Quoted message said:

I have adjusted the BB to the point where it no longer spins smoothly,
yet there is still some (some is too much) play in the spindle. I was
hoping for spinning smoothly with no slop in the spindle.

I must be a retro grouch, because I'd prefer keeping this bottom
bracket to putting in a so-called sealed bearing cartridge. Just think
of the weight savings of this older technology! Plus, if it gets water
in it, no big deal. Instead of replacing the cartridge, I can squirt
some WD-40 in the seat tube to replace the water and then pour in some
Phils tenacious or even chain saw lube, and be on my way. Rebuild at
my leasure. But, I've got cartridge BBs on some of my other bikes and
have had no problems with them. Maybe I should keep it simple, and
just put in a cartridge?

That's what I would do, very much lower hassle factor.

Quoted message said:

I recall that when replacing the 9-ballbearing race with just
bearings, you could put in a 10th ballbearing. Might a 10th
ballbearing help?

11 is the correct number. I always throw away the cheapo 9-ball
retainers, loose balls is a considerable improvement.

Make sure there's a protective plastic sleeve between the cups...lots of
bikes used to omit this invisible but important part.

See also my old article on this:

http://sheldonbrown.com/tooltips/bbadj.html

Sheldon "Yegg" Brown
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| There are 10 kinds of people in this world: |
| Those who understand the binary system, and those who don't |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
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

In Sheldon Brown said:

Larry wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm overhauling a great (1980s) sport/touring Bianchi
with Ishiwata tubes, and having trouble with the bottom
bracket. I took out the races (9 ballbearings), cleaned
everything with WD40

Quoted message said:

WD40 is not the ideal solvent for this, but with enough
elbow grease it can do the job.

What solvent would you recommend?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I recall that when replacing the 9-ballbearing race with
just bearings, you could put in a 10th ballbearing.
Might a 10th ballbearing help?

Quoted message said:

11 is the correct number. I always throw away the cheapo
9-ball retainers, loose balls is a considerable
improvement.

If 11 balls is correct, why do they supply 9-ball retainers?
How could they possibly work?

kMike

"Michael Wileman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

11 is the correct number. I always throw away the cheapo
9-ball retainers, loose balls is a considerable
improvement.

If 11 balls is correct, why do they supply 9-ball retainers?
How could they possibly work?

The "retainers" not only retain, they space and prevent balls from skidding
one-against-another. Spacing is only an issue if less than the ideal number
of balls are used, and skidding damage is probably below noise level in wear
considerations, at such low loads and speeds.

It's possible that a retainer is cheaper to the maunfacturer than two more
balls; and probable that assembly costs are less.

Michael Wileman said:

In Sheldon Brown said:

Larry wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm overhauling a great (1980s) sport/touring Bianchi
with Ishiwata tubes, and having trouble with the bottom
bracket. I took out the races (9 ballbearings), cleaned
everything with WD40

Quoted message said:

WD40 is not the ideal solvent for this, but with enough
elbow grease it can do the job.

What solvent would you recommend?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I recall that when replacing the 9-ballbearing race with
just bearings, you could put in a 10th ballbearing.
Might a 10th ballbearing help?

Quoted message said:

11 is the correct number. I always throw away the cheapo
9-ball retainers, loose balls is a considerable
improvement.

If 11 balls is correct, why do they supply 9-ball retainers?
How could they possibly work?

retainers are often used on new parts since they cut down on installation
time, and time is money. The bearing will work "OK" with them, but they
can't be better than loose balls, since there is more to rub against and
there are (in this case) fewer balls. 9 balls w/o the retainer could in
itself be the problem, since they would not distribute themselves
uniformly around the race.

Put in as many balls as will fit without binding. For any cup-and-cone
bottom bracket I've seen, that would be 11 1/4" balls, as has been
mentioned by others.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and
_`\(,_ | Excellence.
(_)/ (_) |

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

because I'd prefer keeping this bottom
bracket to putting in a so-called sealed bearing cartridge.

Quoted message said:

Sometimes the tube facings on old bikes can cause the bearing races to
be out of alignment when you tighten the lock ring. A cartridge BB
will often solve this type of problem.

a) read the post
b) suggest a facing tool

Adding one more benefit to the modern cartridge BB was relevant to the
original post.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>because I'd prefer keeping this bottom
>bracket to putting in a so-called sealed bearing cartridge.

Quoted message said:

Sometimes the tube facings on old bikes can cause the bearing races to
be out of alignment when you tighten the lock ring. A cartridge BB
will often solve this type of problem.

a) read the post
b) suggest a facing tool

Adding one more benefit to the modern cartridge BB was relevant to the
original post.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

You missed the benefit to cycle shop owners - a cartridge costs a lot more
than 18 (or22) new balls.

I said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

11 is the correct number. I always throw away the cheapo
9-ball retainers, loose balls is a considerable
improvement.

Michael Wileman asked

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If 11 balls is correct, why do they supply 9-ball retainers?
How could they possibly work?

jtaylor explained:

Quoted message said:

The "retainers" not only retain, they space and prevent balls from skidding
one-against-another. Spacing is only an issue if less than the ideal number
of balls are used...

It's possible that a retainer is cheaper to the maunfacturer than two more
balls; and probable that assembly costs are less.

Right. Assembly costs are definitely less. Follow the money!

Sheldon "Cynic?" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------+
| The power of accurate observation is called |
| cynicism by those who have not got it. |
| - G. B. Shaw |
+-----------------------------------------------+
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

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

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >because I'd prefer keeping this bottom
> >bracket to putting in a so-called sealed bearing

cartridge.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Sometimes the tube facings on old bikes can cause the

bearing races to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> be out of alignment when you tighten the lock ring. A

cartridge BB

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> will often solve this type of problem.
>

a) read the post
b) suggest a facing tool

Adding one more benefit to the modern cartridge BB was

relevant to the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

original post.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

You missed the benefit to cycle shop owners - a cartridge

costs a lot more

Quoted message said:

than 18 (or22) new balls.

Facing and balls cost more than a cartridge BB. I also doubt it
is a facing problem, assuming it is a decent frame and that the
BB worked at some point in the past. The cups are probably shot,
or the spindle. I would put in a cartridge BB even if the old
open bearing BB still worked, being that I ride a lot in the
rain. BTW, I seriously doubt that dumping chain saw oil down the
seat tube is going to get lubrication to the bearings, although
it may do a nice job of lubricating the center portion of the BB
axle. -- Jay Beattie.

Sheldon Brown said:

Right. Assembly costs are definitely less. Follow the money!

Sheldon "Cynic?" Brown

I just happend to be looking at the website of Tien Hsin today. I
didn't see any ad copy for their 9 ball bottom bracket bearings, but here is
how they describe one of their headsets:

"The 858 is the assemblers best friend. Featuring our semicatridge
bearings, this versatile headset is delivered ready to be
installed into the frame. No need for greasing or subassembly. For
the consumer the added benefit is a heatset with superior water
resistance and longevity versus standard designs."

So clearly they are thinking these thoughts.

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I said:

Quoted message said:

>11 is the correct number. I always throw away the cheapo
>9-ball retainers, loose balls is a considerable
>improvement.

Michael Wileman asked

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If 11 balls is correct, why do they supply 9-ball retainers?
How could they possibly work?

jtaylor explained:

Quoted message said:

The "retainers" not only retain, they space and prevent balls from

skidding

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one-against-another. Spacing is only an issue if less than the ideal

number

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of balls are used...

It's possible that a retainer is cheaper to the maunfacturer than two

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

balls; and probable that assembly costs are less.

Right. Assembly costs are definitely less. Follow the money!

Sheldon "Cynic?" Brown

Sheldon, does it actually make that much of a difference adding more balls
to the BB?
I'm still using the retainers and haven't had a problem. I clean, re-grease
and adjust once a year.
I'm also "not" using the plastic insert. I mangled one up trying to get it
out years ago, never reinstalled it, but never had a problem with excessive
dirt getting into the BB area. I do pack a lot of grease in the bearings,
and also put a light coating on the inside of the BB shell. I also grease
my seatpost once a year. Yes I do cycling in the rain.
-tom

Tom Nakashima said:

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I said:

>>11 is the correct number. I always throw away the cheapo
>>9-ball retainers, loose balls is a considerable
>>improvement.

Michael Wileman asked

Quoted message said:

>If 11 balls is correct, why do they supply 9-ball retainers?
>How could they possibly work?

jtaylor explained:

Quoted message said:

The "retainers" not only retain, they space and prevent balls

from

Quoted message said:

skidding

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one-against-another. Spacing is only an issue if less than the

ideal

Quoted message said:

number

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of balls are used...

It's possible that a retainer is cheaper to the maunfacturer than

two

Quoted message said:

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

balls; and probable that assembly costs are less.

Right. Assembly costs are definitely less. Follow the money!

Sheldon "Cynic?" Brown

Sheldon, does it actually make that much of a difference adding more

balls

Quoted message said:

to the BB?
I'm still using the retainers and haven't had a problem. I clean,

re-grease

Quoted message said:

and adjust once a year.
I'm also "not" using the plastic insert. I mangled one up trying to

get it

Quoted message said:

out years ago, never reinstalled it, but never had a problem with

excessive

Quoted message said:

dirt getting into the BB area. I do pack a lot of grease in the

bearings,

Quoted message said:

and also put a light coating on the inside of the BB shell. I also

grease

Quoted message said:

my seatpost once a year. Yes I do cycling in the rain.
-tom

More bearings means more bearing surface for the load to run on, which
means you'd expect more life for the same amount of maintenance.
However you're regreasing diligently enough that the difference will be
between getting 9 and 11 years of service (yes I know it doesn't work
entirely like that).

Cheap retainers also crumple up fairly quickly, we do a brisk trade in
replacing them with loose balls or cartridge units. If yours are still
alive after this long then they're fine.

I am, however, interested to know what that little plastic sleeve does.
I replace it in customers' bikes purely as a courtesy, same as I
replace spoke protectors or those little things that wipe the hub
clean, but I've never seen any particular use for it.

quote='Jim Smith'Sheldon Brown said:

Right. Assembly costs are definitely less. Follow the money!

Sheldon "Cynic?" Brown

I just happend to be looking at the website of Tien Hsin today. I
didn't see any ad copy for their 9 ball bottom bracket bearings, but here is
how they describe one of their headsets:

"The 858 is the assemblers best friend. Featuring our semicatridge
bearings, this versatile headset is delivered ready to be
installed into the frame. No need for greasing or subassembly. For
the consumer the added benefit is a heatset with superior water
resistance and longevity versus standard designs."

So clearly they are thinking these thoughts.[/QUOTE]

Dear Jim,

It's a common but understandable misconception that replacing caged bearings with a greater number of loose balls is an improvement.

Caged bearings actually last longer and work better:

techno-isel.comH860P061 2.htmlOpen ↗

The cages allow higher speeds, prevent bearing-to-bearing contact, provide better lubrication, and increase bearing life. There's a slight reduction in maximum load, but that's not a problem with a well-designed bearing--the bearings in a bicycle wear instead of being crushed.

That caged bearings are easier to pop into place is just a wonderful bonus.

Carl Fogel

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

Quoted message said:

More bearings means more bearing surface for the load to run on, which
means you'd expect more life for the same amount of maintenance.
However you're regreasing diligently enough that the difference will be
between getting 9 and 11 years of service (yes I know it doesn't work
entirely like that).

Cheap retainers also crumple up fairly quickly, we do a brisk trade in
replacing them with loose balls or cartridge units. If yours are still
alive after this long then they're fine.

I am, however, interested to know what that little plastic sleeve does.
I replace it in customers' bikes purely as a courtesy, same as I
replace spoke protectors or those little things that wipe the hub
clean, but I've never seen any particular use for it.

According to Sheldon's website on BB, section on the plastic inserts, it's
to prolong keeping the dirt, dust, water off the bearings, but like I said,
I've don't use the plastic insert, and haven't noticed any difference in
dirt getting into the bearings.

btw, my ball retainer is the older Campagnolo metal retainer (going on 12
years now), never seen a plastic one, they actually make a plastic retainer?
Campagnolo?
-tom

Carl Fogel said:

It's a common but understandable misconception that replacing caged
bearings with a greater number of loose balls is an improvement.

Caged bearings actually last longer and work better:

http://www.techno-isel.com/Tic/H860/HTML/H860P061_2.html

The cages allow higher speeds, prevent bearing-to-bearing contact,
provide better lubrication, and increase bearing life. There's a slight
reduction in maximum load, but that's not a problem with a well-designed
bearing--the bearings in a bicycle wear instead of being crushed.

That's not true in the case of bicycle applications.

If you read the "Advantages of Caged Ball(tm)" hype on that Web page,
you'll see that the only advantages they clain are in reduction of heat
generation.

Bicycle parts don't rotate fast enough for this to be an issue.

Bicycle bearings actually are subject to rather high loadings, and it is
well established that more is better.

This looks like advertising hype to me, trying to make the use of
cheaper bearings seem like an "upgrade."

It reminds me of the way bike companies have learned they can skimp on
the number of spokes in a wheel, saving large amounts of money and also
represent it as a "benefit" to the user.

Sheldon "Not As Gullible As Carl" Brown
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| You can fool some of the people all of the time, |
| and those are the ones we're after! --Anon. |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
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:

Carl Fogel said:

It's a common but understandable misconception that replacing caged
bearings with a greater number of loose balls is an improvement.

Caged bearings actually last longer and work better:

http://www.techno-isel.com/Tic/H860/HTML/H860P061_2.html

The cages allow higher speeds, prevent bearing-to-bearing contact,
provide better lubrication, and increase bearing life. There's a slight
reduction in maximum load, but that's not a problem with a well-designed
bearing--the bearings in a bicycle wear instead of being crushed.

That's not true in the case of bicycle applications.

If you read the "Advantages of Caged Ball(tm)" hype on that Web page,
you'll see that the only advantages they clain are in reduction of heat
generation.

Bicycle parts don't rotate fast enough for this to be an issue.

Bicycle bearings actually are subject to rather high loadings, and it is
well established that more is better.

This looks like advertising hype to me, trying to make the use of
cheaper bearings seem like an "upgrade."

It reminds me of the way bike companies have learned they can skimp on
the number of spokes in a wheel, saving large amounts of money and also
represent it as a "benefit" to the user.

Sheldon "Not As Gullible As Carl" Brown
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| You can fool some of the people all of the time, |
| and those are the ones we're after! --Anon. |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
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

Dear Sheldon,

The advantages of caged bearings are fairly well known and
include (among other things) less heat, less friction, less
drag, less wear, better lubrication, longer life, higher
operating speeds, and--horrors!--easier assembly.

Here's another notorious marketing-driven site that mentions
such advantages as reduced drag at the bottom of the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_bearings

They slyly hide behind the mask of objectivity by mentioning
that a few extra balls could indeed support a greater load.

That both loose and caged bearings will work well in
bicycles suggests how light the loads are and how low the
speeds are.

In motorcycles, where both loads and speeds are
significantly higher, caged ball bearings are standard
(where other designs are not used).

Carl "Hopelessly Convinced By the Bearing Industry" Fogel

"Sheldon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

It's a common but understandable misconception that replacing

caged

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bearings with a greater number of loose balls is an

improvement.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Caged bearings actually last longer and work better:

http://www.techno-isel.com/Tic/H860/HTML/H860P061_2.html

The cages allow higher speeds, prevent bearing-to-bearing

contact,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

provide better lubrication, and increase bearing life.

There's a slight

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

reduction in maximum load, but that's not a problem with a

well-designed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bearing--the bearings in a bicycle wear instead of being

crushed.

Quoted message said:

That's not true in the case of bicycle applications.

If you read the "Advantages of Caged Ball(tm)" hype on that Web

page,

Quoted message said:

you'll see that the only advantages they clain are in reduction

of heat

Quoted message said:

generation.

Bicycle parts don't rotate fast enough for this to be an issue.

Bicycle bearings actually are subject to rather high loadings,

and it is

Quoted message said:

well established that more is better.

This looks like advertising hype to me, trying to make the use

of

Quoted message said:

cheaper bearings seem like an "upgrade."

Bushings. The future is bushings. -- Jay Beattie.