Cotters for cranks

Sergio Servadio said:

Cotters for cranks, for our beloved old commuters, are made out of
soft metal, and rightly so. They don't hold for long, but they are
cheap and easy to replace.

Quoted message said:

Were they so on the best racing bikes in the good old days? I can't
believe those riders would happily run the risk of pedaling with a
loose crank. So, were cotters any better at that time?

As I mentioned, the only ones I found durable were made by "Acier
Dupratnik", a name that was embossed lengthwise on three sides of the
cotters when the "wire" was rolled before making cotters. I made a
fixture that supported the cotter at a 3° angle in the milling machine
vise so they had exactly the same angle and depth of cut to assure
they would home in the Cinelli/Magistroni cranks correctly. All other
cotters I found were too soft and deformed in use.

Jobst Brandt

sergio said:

Cotters for cranks, for our beloved old commuters, are made out of
soft metal, and rightly so.
They don't hold for long, but they are cheap and easy to replace.

Were they so on the best racing bikes in the good old days?
I can't believe those riders would happily run the risk of pedalling
with a loose crank.
So, were cotters any better at that time?

Sergio
Pisa

as i recall, yes. there were definitely different grades and qualities.
some were much harder material than others. i can't remember brands
now, but there were definitely differences you cold tell if you ever
tried to "repair" them with a file. the ones that lasted longest were
the ones of harder steel and more precise dimensions.

jim beam said:

as i recall, yes. there were definitely different grades and qualities.
some were much harder material than others. i can't remember brands
now, but there were definitely differences you cold tell if you ever
tried to "repair" them with a file. the ones that lasted longest were
the ones of harder steel and more precise dimensions.

Are you implying that they were of standard shape? So also cranks must
have been.
In contrast, everytime a get a new cotter, nowadays, I know I have to
file it to fit.

Sergio
Pisa

sergio said:

jim beam said:

as i recall, yes. there were definitely different grades and qualities.
some were much harder material than others. i can't remember brands
now, but there were definitely differences you cold tell if you ever
tried to "repair" them with a file. the ones that lasted longest were
the ones of harder steel and more precise dimensions.

Are you implying that they were of standard shape? So also cranks must
have been.
In contrast, everytime a get a new cotter, nowadays, I know I have to
file it to fit.

IMO, no standard. I remember going to a shop with a
damaged cotter and spending a while trying to match
the thickness/angle of the flat face.

Ben

email hidden said:

IMO, no standard. I remember going to a shop with a
damaged cotter and spending a while trying to match
the thickness/angle of the flat face.

I remember a fair selection in the shop and still filing 50% of them
to get a proper fit. I always thought they were soft to allow for the
filing :-)

Sergio Servadio said:

Quoted message said:

as i recall, yes. there were definitely different grades and
qualities. some were much harder material than others. i can't
remember brands now, but there were definitely differences you cold
tell if you ever tried to "repair" them with a file. the ones that
lasted longest were the ones of harder steel and more precise
dimensions.

Quoted message said:

Are you implying that they were of standard shape? So also cranks
must have been. In contrast, every time a get a new cotter,
nowadays, I know I have to file it to fit.

That's right, and the slant cut they have is only an indication for
where the fit should be made. The flat is easily oriented upward in
the vise. Without that, the cotter could not be oriented properly.
That original cut is not intended for nor can it be used for
installation. I can't imagine what cotters jb is talking about that
were ready made.

Jobst Brandt

sergio said:

jim beam said:

as i recall, yes. there were definitely different grades and qualities.
some were much harder material than others. i can't remember brands
now, but there were definitely differences you cold tell if you ever
tried to "repair" them with a file. the ones that lasted longest were
the ones of harder steel and more precise dimensions.

Are you implying that they were of standard shape?

standard format, yes - round with one slanted face and an offset
threaded bit. but from brand to brand, the slanted bits were all over
the place in angle and depth. you caould often get away without filing
if you used two identical ones, but two odd ones, without filing, and
you had cranks at different angles!

Quoted message said:

So also cranks must
have been.

cranks were definitely standard.

Quoted message said:

In contrast, everytime a get a new cotter, nowadays, I know I have to
file it to fit.

just like the old days.

Quoted message said:

Sergio
Pisa

Quoted message said:

Sergio Servadio said:

Quoted message said:

as i recall, yes. there were definitely different grades and
qualities. some were much harder material than others. i can't
remember brands now, but there were definitely differences you cold
tell if you ever tried to "repair" them with a file. the ones that
lasted longest were the ones of harder steel and more precise
dimensions.

Quoted message said:

Are you implying that they were of standard shape? So also cranks
must have been. In contrast, every time a get a new cotter,
nowadays, I know I have to file it to fit.

That's right, and the slant cut they have is only an indication for
where the fit should be made. The flat is easily oriented upward in
the vise. Without that, the cotter could not be oriented properly.
That original cut is not intended for nor can it be used for
installation.

if they were both the same, of course you could use them with original
cut!!!

Quoted message said:

I can't imagine what cotters jb is talking about that
were ready made.

surprise?

sergio said:

Were they so on the best racing bikes in the good old days?
I can't believe those riders would happily run the risk of pedalling
with a loose crank.

After your many answers on the topic, for which I duly thank you, I
am even more curious about what must have happened during bike races
in the good old days, with cranks going loose and having to be
hammered back in along the route.

I think I'll ask Benjo Maso for some historic recollections.

Later

Sergio
Pisa

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

Quoted message said:

sergio said:

Were they so on the best racing bikes in the good old days?
I can't believe those riders would happily run the risk of pedalling
with a loose crank.

After your many answers on the topic, for which I duly thank you, I
am even more curious about what must have happened during bike races
in the good old days, with cranks going loose and having to be
hammered back in along the route.

I think I'll ask Benjo Maso for some historic recollections.

What a rider had to do when his crank went loose is fairly simple: just
continue with one crank and hoping he would find a smith or a bicycle mender
willing to lend his tools. It happened more than once, even after the second
world war. Fortunately in those years riders were allowed to change bicycle,
although it might take a lot of time before the equipment van was coming by.
In de Tour of 1948 Dutchman De Hoog had to ride 20 miles with one crank,
and the Italian Vittorio Seghezzi almost 50 miles. In another stage when his
saddle pin was broken, Seghezzi had already rode 30 miles with the saddle in
his hand (much too expensive to throw it away), so nobody can blame him to
have finished 44th and last...

Benjo Maso