Cup & Cone Bottom Brackets - Any Sources?



John Thompson wrote:

>> Steel as a material has an infinite fatigue life with the loads
>> applied by whimpy cyclists, but as actually used in bicycle frames,
>> it does not -- at least based on my experience. I have cracked a
>> number of steel frames -- probably due to overheating of the lugs
>> or some other glitch in fabrication. My longest surviving high
>> mileage frame is a 1986 Cannondale T1000. That's old school
>> aluminum. I am not so sure about the new stuff.


> My oldest frames are a couple of steel Atalas from the early 70s
> (1970 and 1972). The older one is built up as my daily commuting
> bike, the other is a fixed gear I ride 100 or so miles a week spring
> through autumn. The older Atala failed at the BB/seat tube joint 20
> some years ago, probably due to a cheap pressed BB shell. The
> failure was a crack that extended all the way around the base of the
> seat tube socket. The seat tube itself was not involved, so I was
> able to sweat the old shell off and braze in a nice investment cast
> shell to replace it. It's been going strong ever since.


Well that still doesn't answer the question about how many miles "old"
the bicycle is. I generally ride 10,000 miles per year according to
my odometer, so a 20 year old frame has some significant miles on it.
The only frame fatigue failures I have experienced were with Cinelli
style (sloping) fork crowns that typically have internal lugs that
cannot be feathered at the transition to the fork blades. They broke
exactly where the fork crown ended in the fork blade. Since then I
have stayed away from such forks that seem to have taken over nearly
all major brands that used brazed fork crowns. Too bad. It was a
stylishly bad mechanical design.

Other than that, I had plenty of crank fatigue failures, about one
every year or more until I modified that interface to a more
reasonable design, of a tapered conical seat instead of the fretting
flat faced pedal axle that augers itself into the crank until failure.
Since modification I have ridden Shimano cranks from that era but with
modification and haven't had a failure since.

Jobst Brandt
 
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2008-04-01, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> still just me wrote:

>
>>> but fixing a frame that is otherwise still serviceable he not
>>> only avoids wasting resources but keeps a valued old friend by his
>>> side for years to come.

>
>> nonsensical claptrap.

>
> How so? It makes sense to me.
>
>> i really don't give a flying one about who says what. i state the
>> facts. repairing an old frame with known flaws is a failed opportunity
>> to gain first hand experience of improvements that have occurred in the
>> last 3+ decades of frame design and manufacture.

>
> For a top notch racer that might be an issue. But for most riders and
> bikes, the improvements in frame design and manufacturing of the last
> several decades are much less compelling. And I suspect many more people
> fall into the latter category than the former.
>


most anyone can achieve sufficient speed downhill to experience shimmy
on a large frame steel tube bike. small frame users may not view this
as a concern since their frames don't have this problem as frequently,
but those of us that use big frames find this to be a big deal. and
it's one easily solved on modern frames with big tubes and thus higher
torsional stiffness. i think that to dismiss this as "much less
compelling" is failure to understand the issue, and more, inability to
understand how easily it is solved.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> John Thompson wrote:
>
>>> Steel as a material has an infinite fatigue life with the loads
>>> applied by whimpy cyclists, but as actually used in bicycle frames,
>>> it does not -- at least based on my experience. I have cracked a
>>> number of steel frames -- probably due to overheating of the lugs
>>> or some other glitch in fabrication. My longest surviving high
>>> mileage frame is a 1986 Cannondale T1000. That's old school
>>> aluminum. I am not so sure about the new stuff.

>
>> My oldest frames are a couple of steel Atalas from the early 70s
>> (1970 and 1972). The older one is built up as my daily commuting
>> bike, the other is a fixed gear I ride 100 or so miles a week spring
>> through autumn. The older Atala failed at the BB/seat tube joint 20
>> some years ago, probably due to a cheap pressed BB shell. The
>> failure was a crack that extended all the way around the base of the
>> seat tube socket. The seat tube itself was not involved, so I was
>> able to sweat the old shell off and braze in a nice investment cast
>> shell to replace it. It's been going strong ever since.

>
> Well that still doesn't answer the question about how many miles "old"
> the bicycle is. I generally ride 10,000 miles per year according to
> my odometer, so a 20 year old frame has some significant miles on it.
> The only frame fatigue failures I have experienced were with Cinelli
> style (sloping) fork crowns that typically have internal lugs that
> cannot be feathered at the transition to the fork blades. They broke
> exactly where the fork crown ended in the fork blade. Since then I
> have stayed away from such forks that seem to have taken over nearly
> all major brands that used brazed fork crowns. Too bad. It was a
> stylishly bad mechanical design.
>
> Other than that, I had plenty of crank fatigue failures, about one
> every year or more until I modified that interface to a more
> reasonable design, of a tapered conical seat instead of the fretting
> flat faced pedal axle that augers itself into the crank until failure.
> Since modification I have ridden Shimano cranks from that era but with
> modification and haven't had a failure since.
>


your modification is to the pedal eye. cranks used to break at the
spider, the arm, and the pedal eye. these days, they hardly ever break
at any of these locations. that's because of superior design and
metallurgy. if your modification eliminated pedal eye failure, arm and
spider failure rates would continue unaffected and thus they would
continue to break frequently, which they don't.

conclusion: your pedal eye modification is irrelevant since others have
solved the problems for you. much like vacuum degassed stainless spoke
steels solved the spoke fatigue problems you were alleging to have also
"cured".
 
Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-04-01, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 5:10�pm, John Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 2008-03-31, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Thompson wrote:
>>>>> How do you "wear out" a frame? Damage, yes -- either through neglect or
>>>>> abuse, or what have you. But "wear out?"
>>>> Corrosion (metal frames),
>>> I'd file that under "neglect."
>>>
>>>> fatigue (metal and composite)
>>> Not an issue with a properly designed steel frame, but certainly a
>>> potential issue with aluminum. I'm not aware of composites having
>>> fatigue failures, but I may just be ignorant on that point.
>>>
>>>> and degradation of epoxy and adhesives (composite).
>>> Disposable frames, then. I'll stick with steel, thank you.

>> Steel as a material has an infinite fatigue life with the loads
>> applied by whimpy cyclists, but as actually used in bicycle frames, it
>> does not -- at least based on my experience.

>
> I think what Jim was saying was only some kinds of steel have an
> infinite fatigue life (or "no endurance limit").


that's muddled.

an endurance limit is where infinite fatigue life is demonstrated.


> I think it's mild steel
> that does.


correct.


> So maybe a $60 Roadmaster Fury has an infinite fatigue life
> below some load. If so someone should tell their marketing department.
>
> The steel used for decent bikes is different alloys, with
> cleverly-designed impurities in it (and maybe more carbon?) which make
> it stronger but mean it does fatigue eventually just like aluminium,
> whatever the load.


correct.


>
> You might think "no endurance limit" meant "endures forever", but it
> doesn't, it means "no stress below which you don't get any fatigue".


endurance limit, is the maximum cyclical load at which you can still
achieve infinite fatigue life.
 
On 2008-04-02, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2008-04-01, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mar 31, 5:10?pm, John Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 2008-03-31, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> How do you "wear out" a frame? Damage, yes -- either through neglect or
>>>>>> abuse, or what have you. But "wear out?"
>>>>> Corrosion (metal frames),
>>>> I'd file that under "neglect."
>>>>
>>>>> fatigue (metal and composite)
>>>> Not an issue with a properly designed steel frame, but certainly a
>>>> potential issue with aluminum. I'm not aware of composites having
>>>> fatigue failures, but I may just be ignorant on that point.
>>>>
>>>>> and degradation of epoxy and adhesives (composite).
>>>> Disposable frames, then. I'll stick with steel, thank you.
>>> Steel as a material has an infinite fatigue life with the loads
>>> applied by whimpy cyclists, but as actually used in bicycle frames, it
>>> does not -- at least based on my experience.

>>
>> I think what Jim was saying was only some kinds of steel have an
>> infinite fatigue life (or "no endurance limit").

>
> that's muddled.


Correct. I always get that muddled.

> an endurance limit is where infinite fatigue life is demonstrated.
>
>
>> I think it's mild steel
>> that does.

>
> correct.
>
>
>> So maybe a $60 Roadmaster Fury has an infinite fatigue life
>> below some load. If so someone should tell their marketing department.
>>
>> The steel used for decent bikes is different alloys, with
>> cleverly-designed impurities in it (and maybe more carbon?) which make
>> it stronger but mean it does fatigue eventually just like aluminium,
>> whatever the load.

>
> correct.
>
>
>>
>> You might think "no endurance limit" meant "endures forever", but it
>> doesn't, it means "no stress below which you don't get any fatigue".

>
> endurance limit, is the maximum cyclical load at which you can still
> achieve infinite fatigue life.


Yes, so if you have no endurance limit, then you can't have infinite
fatigue life.
 
Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-04-02, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2008-04-01, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 31, 5:10?pm, John Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-03-31, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> How do you "wear out" a frame? Damage, yes -- either through neglect or
>>>>>>> abuse, or what have you. But "wear out?"
>>>>>> Corrosion (metal frames),
>>>>> I'd file that under "neglect."
>>>>>
>>>>>> fatigue (metal and composite)
>>>>> Not an issue with a properly designed steel frame, but certainly a
>>>>> potential issue with aluminum. I'm not aware of composites having
>>>>> fatigue failures, but I may just be ignorant on that point.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and degradation of epoxy and adhesives (composite).
>>>>> Disposable frames, then. I'll stick with steel, thank you.
>>>> Steel as a material has an infinite fatigue life with the loads
>>>> applied by whimpy cyclists, but as actually used in bicycle frames, it
>>>> does not -- at least based on my experience.
>>> I think what Jim was saying was only some kinds of steel have an
>>> infinite fatigue life (or "no endurance limit").

>> that's muddled.

>
> Correct. I always get that muddled.
>
>> an endurance limit is where infinite fatigue life is demonstrated.
>>
>>
>>> I think it's mild steel
>>> that does.

>> correct.
>>
>>
>>> So maybe a $60 Roadmaster Fury has an infinite fatigue life
>>> below some load. If so someone should tell their marketing department.
>>>
>>> The steel used for decent bikes is different alloys, with
>>> cleverly-designed impurities in it (and maybe more carbon?) which make
>>> it stronger but mean it does fatigue eventually just like aluminium,
>>> whatever the load.

>> correct.
>>
>>
>>> You might think "no endurance limit" meant "endures forever", but it
>>> doesn't, it means "no stress below which you don't get any fatigue".

>> endurance limit, is the maximum cyclical load at which you can still
>> achieve infinite fatigue life.

>
> Yes, so if you have no endurance limit, then you can't have infinite
> fatigue life.


correct.

there is a mechanism for this too, it's not a random phenomenon. in low
strength steel alloys, it's associated with solute carbon atoms being
able to diffuse into the lattice voids of dislocations and "lock" them
in place. [no dislocation movement, no fatigue.] in some titanium
alloys, the same phenomenon exists with diffusing oxygen atoms.