J
jim beam
Guest
Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>while theory indicates that italian /can/ unscrew, i've never had it
>>happen to me either. it's not like the italians don't actually get
>>out & ride - they /would/ notice if it was a practical problem.
>
>
> It _is_ a practical problem-- that's why we have LH threaded parts in
> bikes, and why Peter emphasizes meticulous installation practice. The
> Italians use Italian threading not because it's a good idea, but just
> because that's the way they've always done it. And they started out
> doing it that way not because it was a good idea back then, but because
> it was cheap and expedient to manufacturers. Like the ridiculous
> mixture of metric diameters with inch thread pitches that is found in
> this and other Italian bike parts, the Italian RH threaded fixed cup is
> a testament to the industrial fossilization of the half-assed.
>
> Any threaded BB imposes more procedural requirements for installation
> and maintenance than does a one-piece crank (for example). This is
> mitigated by what most folks would acknowledge are the relative
> benefits of a three-piece crank, benefits that warrant the increase in
> expense, inconvenience, and complexity that comes with a three-piece
> crank. But is is obvious that whatever installation or maintenance
> penalty an Italian BB carries (as compared to an English BB) is not
> offset in any way whatsoever by a corresponding benefit. Not
> performance, weight, longevity, cost, or even availability. It's
> simply an inferior system that is disappearing because it _should_
> disappear.
>
> I submit that Italian manufacturers cling to their inferior thread
> standard today for reasons that are irrational; by now, there is not
> even a manufacturing cost benefit to them for using it. If it had been
> called the Turkish thread standard, they would have rejected it decades
> ago.
>
> Chalo Colina
>
i'm not defending it, just saying i've never had any problem with it!
you're right, l/h thread on the right side bb is a better idea, but r/h
thread is not the end of the world. as i say, i've never had one loosen
& i have 3 such bikes. similarly, i've repaired friends bikes with l/h
threads & found them to be loose. go figure.
btw, if they're clinging to the notion that a /metric/ thread is a good
idea, i'm with them. the metric system makes so much more sense.
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>while theory indicates that italian /can/ unscrew, i've never had it
>>happen to me either. it's not like the italians don't actually get
>>out & ride - they /would/ notice if it was a practical problem.
>
>
> It _is_ a practical problem-- that's why we have LH threaded parts in
> bikes, and why Peter emphasizes meticulous installation practice. The
> Italians use Italian threading not because it's a good idea, but just
> because that's the way they've always done it. And they started out
> doing it that way not because it was a good idea back then, but because
> it was cheap and expedient to manufacturers. Like the ridiculous
> mixture of metric diameters with inch thread pitches that is found in
> this and other Italian bike parts, the Italian RH threaded fixed cup is
> a testament to the industrial fossilization of the half-assed.
>
> Any threaded BB imposes more procedural requirements for installation
> and maintenance than does a one-piece crank (for example). This is
> mitigated by what most folks would acknowledge are the relative
> benefits of a three-piece crank, benefits that warrant the increase in
> expense, inconvenience, and complexity that comes with a three-piece
> crank. But is is obvious that whatever installation or maintenance
> penalty an Italian BB carries (as compared to an English BB) is not
> offset in any way whatsoever by a corresponding benefit. Not
> performance, weight, longevity, cost, or even availability. It's
> simply an inferior system that is disappearing because it _should_
> disappear.
>
> I submit that Italian manufacturers cling to their inferior thread
> standard today for reasons that are irrational; by now, there is not
> even a manufacturing cost benefit to them for using it. If it had been
> called the Turkish thread standard, they would have rejected it decades
> ago.
>
> Chalo Colina
>
i'm not defending it, just saying i've never had any problem with it!
you're right, l/h thread on the right side bb is a better idea, but r/h
thread is not the end of the world. as i say, i've never had one loosen
& i have 3 such bikes. similarly, i've repaired friends bikes with l/h
threads & found them to be loose. go figure.
btw, if they're clinging to the notion that a /metric/ thread is a good
idea, i'm with them. the metric system makes so much more sense.
