"Paul Southworth" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_s0mb.37983$A%[email protected]...
> In article <
[email protected]>, Jim D
> <
[email protected]*.._no*spam> wrote:
> >So I'm starting to think about a new set of cranks & bottom bracket for my cyclocross bike. I
> >have always had square BB spindles on my bikes, but since I now have so many options I'd like
> >some opinion from anyone who has used or regularly worked on the spline drive stuff. They
> >definitely look like an improvement, but does the average mountain or road cyclist see an
> >advantage? Is the square stuff going to vanish eventually?
My crystal ball says Octalink is the one that will go away, and that square taper will still be with
us for a long, long time.
Octalink is flawed, a poor design. Shimano has already dropped it with the new Dura Ace, and will
probably phase it out over the next few years, in favor of the new DA design. However, since there's
so much of it out there already, parts should still be available for quite awhile.
ISIS is a better design than Octalink, and not proprietary like the new Shimano DA system. It may
become the new non-Shimano standard, or it may go away. There's really no telling.
> >I guess I'm mostly interested because the square stuff seems so much cheaper. I have a bunch of
> >bikes and it is nice to keep components as standard as possible. I trend away from Shimano as
> >much as I can, so I guess my real options are ISIS vs square(unless someone here can give me a
> >good reason to go Shimano).
> Yeah I bought a Truvativ Rouleur ISIS road crank because I thought "ISIS is new and cool, square
> taper is so yesterday!"
> Unfortunately it ended up being impossible to obtain correct chain line, even using all
> manufacturer-recommended parts. Retried on several frames using both Truvativ and FSA BBs. It's
> just not going to work. I have no idea what the manufacturer was thinking, the chainline specs
> they advertise are just not what I get.
There's always this risk when fooling around with nonstandard components. Note that this has nothing
to do with the crank/BB having ISIS splines -- it's simply the wrong BB axle length. Perhaps the
right one is not even available. But that's a Truvativ/FSA problem, not an ISIS one.
> My lame old Campy cranks with their "obsolete" square taper BB work a lot better. Totally
> pointless money pit.
> I'm going back to what works - getting a "superior design" at the expense of inferior chain line
> is no improvement.
Unless you need the slightly lighter hollow axle, or you're big enough to be breaking spindles,
there's no advantage to these new BBs for you.
> Also while I'm ranting about this ****, those aluminum self-extractor bolts that Truvativ sells
> are junk.
Yup, those are a bad idea. Shimano once made some better ones, but they still stuck. The biggest
problem is the allen head crank bolts, which almost always eventually get stripped. (My crank has
been stuck on my bike for two years.)
6/8mm allen heads are just not strong enough. They're fine for one-time use on automotive CV joints,
but not bicycle cranks that have to come off occasionally. Traditional 14/15mm hex bolts are a
much better solution.
The original idea (ie, sales gimmick) of self-extractors was field serviceability. Now that we have
well-sealed cartridge BBs, there's almost no reason to take your crank off in the field.
Matt O.