Lighter Dura Ace Octalink BB?

[Terry Morse]

A Muzi wrote:

> Yes we sometimes forget that riders want something just
> because they want it. That should be reason enough.

Indeed. I was listening to a discussion about components the other
day (at the local coffee house, of course). The most compelling
arguments were made over how "sexy" this or that part was. No
mention of functionality, which I presume all parts are assumed to
have.

For the record, the sexiest component was the Shimano Hollowtech II
crankset. Which, for the record, consists of 4 parts: R crank w.
spindle, L crank, 2 cups with bearings.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Weisse Luft]

If Hollowtech II is no stiffer, I must be imagining things like the absolute silence when climbing out of the saddle. I also doubt one couuld ever bend the integral spindle in a crash because there is very little unsupported length unlike square tapered or even Octalink designs.

 

[Mark Janeba]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> Jim-<< just because the marketing droids get let loose on a product launch
> doesn't mean they were anywhere /near/ the product development lab. >><BR><BR>
>
> In the last 15 years or so I will say they seem to be on another planet. Little
> to nuthin in the last 15 years can be seen as a good idea, that makes cycling
> better, more enjoyable. Nothing to keep the person on a bike and keep them
> there. Not since lever mounted shifting and clipless pedals.

I'd agree with your list of silly non-meaningul "innovations," but has
it really been that long for STI/ERGO? Isn't ERGO a mid-nineties thing?
(I think STI was late 80's) I guess ramped cassette cogs go back even
further; that would be another candidate for major improvements in
component design;

Other innovations:
Recent: I'm very fond of my dual-pivot brakes (having worked with nearly
every other kind at length), though I know some others here don't share
that view. They may have been made before, but surely never in current
quality.
Modern stay-dry clothing fabrics that don't stink as much as early
synthetics.

Not so recent:
Lycra shorts (mid to early eighties), as suggested by some major cycling
luminary quoted here a while back.
Quality clincher tires (I don't mean the color in the sidewalls), so we
don't need to glue: mid eighties.

Any other nominations?

Mark Janeba

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 20:39:37 GMT, Mark Janeba
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>> Jim-<< just because the marketing droids get let loose on a product launch
>> doesn't mean they were anywhere /near/ the product development lab. >><BR><BR>
>>
>> In the last 15 years or so I will say they seem to be on another planet. Little
>> to nuthin in the last 15 years can be seen as a good idea, that makes cycling
>> better, more enjoyable. Nothing to keep the person on a bike and keep them
>> there. Not since lever mounted shifting and clipless pedals.
>
>I'd agree with your list of silly non-meaningul "innovations," but has
>it really been that long for STI/ERGO? Isn't ERGO a mid-nineties thing?
>(I think STI was late 80's) I guess ramped cassette cogs go back even
>further; that would be another candidate for major improvements in
>component design;
>
>Other innovations:
>Recent: I'm very fond of my dual-pivot brakes (having worked with nearly
>every other kind at length), though I know some others here don't share
>that view. They may have been made before, but surely never in current
>quality.
>Modern stay-dry clothing fabrics that don't stink as much as early
>synthetics.
>
>Not so recent:
>Lycra shorts (mid to early eighties), as suggested by some major cycling
>luminary quoted here a while back.
>Quality clincher tires (I don't mean the color in the sidewalls), so we
>don't need to glue: mid eighties.
>
>Any other nominations?
>
>Mark Janeba

Dear Mark,

I have a vague notion that mountain bike riders have been
pleased with improvements in front and rear shocks and with
disk brakes in the last fifteen years.

I suspect that the cost and reliability of the basic digital
speedometer has improved markedly, too, although I don't
know when the first ones appeared.

Along the same lines, the blinking LED safety lights have
probably dropped in price and improved in reliability over
the same period.

Possibly quick-connect-style chain links?

(And there's always the rise of the internet, which makes it
easier and cheaper to find, order, and figure out all the
weird parts.)

But it's hard to think of any major recent breakthroughs in
basic bicycling outside the marketing department.

Of course, being clumsy, clueless, and impatient, I love it
when any parts that require careful fitting and adjustment
are replaced by slap-in cartridges.

Carl Fogel

 

[Tom Ace]

Mark Janeba wrote:

> Any other nominations?

Rohloff Speedhub. Planetary hub gears aren't new,
but having this wide a range of gears available
in sequence with one control is a real advance.
Indexing that doesn't depend on accurate cable
adjustment is nice too.

Tom Ace

 

[[email protected]]

Is the DA outer cartridge wall alloy or steel? I konw the XT level
cartridge outer shell is Steel. I've suspected that alloy could be
subsutited here.
Best for the Holidays, John

 

[Weisse Luft]

Is the DA outer cartridge wall alloy or steel? I konw the XT level
cartridge outer shell is Steel. I've suspected that alloy could be
subsutited here.
Best for the Holidays, John

Neither. Its Zytel (tm). Cups and center spool of the 7800 series together weigh in at 94-95 grams for the imperial threading. This is somewhat heavier than the 7700 series sans axle but the total system is still lighter than the 7700 series.

 

[A Muzi]

[email protected] wrote:
> I suspect that the cost and reliability of the basic digital
> speedometer has improved markedly, too, although I don't
> know when the first ones appeared.

The first bike computer we sold (1977? 78?)was by Veltec -
years before they met SiDi. It was a hand-soldered
breadboard and used a Kodak battery larger than today's
computers. The control panel was 5x7 inches x 3/4" deep. I
know of at least one rider still using it on a regular basis.

Cateye #100 (1980) was smaller than that but still 2x3
inches and an inch tall. The big display showed a bar graph
besides digital readout. Cateye's Mity/Vectra design of
1984 is pretty much today's popular computer in size,
format, even the same battery.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:59:48 +1100, Weisse Luft
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] Wrote:
>> Is the DA outer cartridge wall alloy or steel? I konw the XT level
>> cartridge outer shell is Steel. I've suspected that alloy could be
>> subsutited here.
>> Best for the Holidays, John
>
>Neither. Its Zytel (tm). Cups and center spool of the 7800 series
>together weigh in at 94-95 grams for the imperial threading. This is
>somewhat heavier than the 7700 series sans axle but the total system is
>still lighter than the 7700 series.

Dear Dudley and Weisse,

While the nylon resin Zytel is a polymer, isn't steel an
alloy of iron, carbon, and whatever else caught the
metallurgist's fancy?

That is, am I just nit-picking, or am I missing some British
meaning for "alloy" that distinguishes it from steels?

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:36:39 -0600, A Muzi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> I suspect that the cost and reliability of the basic digital
>> speedometer has improved markedly, too, although I don't
>> know when the first ones appeared.
>
>The first bike computer we sold (1977? 78?)was by Veltec -
>years before they met SiDi. It was a hand-soldered
>breadboard and used a Kodak battery larger than today's
>computers. The control panel was 5x7 inches x 3/4" deep. I
>know of at least one rider still using it on a regular basis.
>
>Cateye #100 (1980) was smaller than that but still 2x3
>inches and an inch tall. The big display showed a bar graph
>besides digital readout. Cateye's Mity/Vectra design of
>1984 is pretty much today's popular computer in size,
>format, even the same battery.

Dear Andrew,

Any idea what that 1984 Cateye cost?

This site suggests that a 2004 $10 Schwinn speedometer costs
the equivalent of %5.44 in 1984 dollars:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

This site shows $10 in 2003 being about the same as $5.68 in
1984:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

I'm planning to indulge myself on what looks like an $80
ultrasonic windspeed device, which I expect will be down to
$10 in 2024:

http://www.ambientweather.com/dainwi.html

It's not just that people on Goodnight Avenue are careless
about maintaining their ornamental windmills. They're not
showing any signs of adding large digital windspeed displays
for my convenience.

Carl Fogel

 

[Andrew Lee]

<[email protected]> wrote:
> That is, am I just nit-picking, or am I missing some British
> meaning for "alloy" that distinguishes it from steels?
>
> Carl Fogel

He was using bikespeak or perhaps JoeAmericaspeak, where "alloy" means any
alloy (maybe even non-alloy) of aluminum. I think it only works for
stuctural parts though. For example, you wouldn't wrap your left over
turkey with alloy foil.

Andrew Lee

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Andrew Lee" <whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That is, am I just nit-picking, or am I missing some British
> > meaning for "alloy" that distinguishes it from steels?
> >
> > Carl Fogel
>
> He was using bikespeak or perhaps JoeAmericaspeak, where "alloy" means any
> alloy (maybe even non-alloy) of aluminum. I think it only works for
> stuctural parts though. For example, you wouldn't wrap your left over
> turkey with alloy foil.

Linguistically, I think this happened because we have long had a name
for the iron-carbon alloy used most commonly by magnetic bicycles:
steel.

Note that aluminum, being less common and less important in metalwork
until well into the 20th century, didn't get gifted with a name for its
common alloyed forms. Further, unalloyed aluminum is considerably less
useful and less common than unalloyed iron, so almost every "aluminum"
component worth using is actually an aluminum alloy, which is what they
were commonly called (probably to make the parts sound more
scienterrific and marketable), and which got shortened to the terribly
incorrect "alloy" by people who didn't use that word in any other
bicyclic context.

The unalloyed error of using "alloy" this way was thus not easily
detected by the layman, and it fell into common use. Allied with the
fact that alloyed variations of Al are among the most common bike
materials, and a short word for this stuff was naturally popular.

But that is trivia.
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Andrew Lee wrote:

> He was using bikespeak or perhaps JoeAmericaspeak, where "alloy" means any
> alloy (maybe even non-alloy) of aluminum. I think it only works for
> stuctural parts though. For example, you wouldn't wrap your left over
> turkey with alloy foil.

The foil used for wrapping food is most likely (commercially) pure
aluminium, as this material has high formability, ductility, and
resistance to corrosion.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Andrew Lee" <whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>
>
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>That is, am I just nit-picking, or am I missing some British
>>>meaning for "alloy" that distinguishes it from steels?
>>>
>>>Carl Fogel
>>
>>He was using bikespeak or perhaps JoeAmericaspeak, where "alloy" means any
>>alloy (maybe even non-alloy) of aluminum. I think it only works for
>>stuctural parts though. For example, you wouldn't wrap your left over
>>turkey with alloy foil.
>
>
> Linguistically, I think this happened because we have long had a name
> for the iron-carbon alloy used most commonly by magnetic bicycles:
> steel....

The common (and useful) division is ferrous alloys (wrought iron, steel,
cast iron) that have iron as the base metal, and non-ferrous alloys
that use a metal other than iron as the base.

Metals with significant components beyond the base metal should be
referred to as (metal) alloy, since the alloy will vary greatly from the
base metal in the properties of tensile strength, yield strength,
hardness and ductility.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Jim-<< but heres
why *I* am switching to the FSA bb/crank with an otherwise Chorus drive
train from a Chorus bb and crank on my new bike; I could not get my
Chorus to stop creaking and clicking. period. >><BR><BR>

I say good for you. Altho I don't agree that these components are prone to
noise, at least you changed something to 'fix' something. Not just change it
'cuz', like shimano and Campagnolo does all the time.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Jim-<< (Thanks for the most-excellent wheels, Peter) >><BR><BR>

You are welcome.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Mark-<< I'd agree with your list of silly non-meaningul "innovations," but has
it really been that long for STI/ERGO? Isn't ERGO a mid-nineties thing?
>><BR><BR>

Click shifting middle-late 80s, STI in about 1989, ERGO in late 1991. Ramped or
somehow 'shaped' cogs were integral for index shifting to really work.

I will add compact cranks to my list of 'good' things,
not much else.



Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Weisse Luft]

Plastics ARE alloyed but Zytel is technically a composite as it is a different phase material in the polymer, that being chopped fiberglass.

 

[jim beam]

A Muzi wrote:
> jim c wrote:
>
>> This has been an interesting thread, Ive learned "poopycock" and
>> "Messianic campagnolicism", both terms which I will now use as if I
>> invented them. But seriously, I would like to add a bit of the human
>> element to the discussion. We choose much of our equipment because it
>> just plain strikes a chord with us or makes us feel better in some
>> way. Sometimes we even rationalize our decisions with a little pseudo
>> science, which is where a lot of these threads get started, but heres
>> why *I* am switching to the FSA bb/crank with an otherwise Chorus
>> drive train from a Chorus bb and crank on my new bike; I could not get
>> my Chorus to stop creaking and clicking. period.
>> Now I know Ive left a very wide gap for many people to jump in and ask
>> "have you..." or "did you..." or "just because..." but the bottom line
>> is that, to the best of my ability to understand the physics involved
>> and the products available, I have decided to switch interfaces. Could
>> it be a mistake? yes. Could it coincidentally work out for me? yes. I
>> promise that I will never claim that it is a "better" interface,
>> really I do.
>
> Well written!
>
> Yes we sometimes forget that riders want something just because they
> want it. That should be reason enough.
>
doesn't that leave the door wide open for the sales droids?

 

[jim beam]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Jim-<< just because the marketing droids get let loose on a product launch
> doesn't mean they were anywhere /near/ the product development lab. >><BR><BR>
>
> In the last 15 years or so I will say they seem to be on another planet. Little
> to nuthin in the last 15 years can be seen as a good idea, that makes cycling
> better, more enjoyable. Nothing to keep the person on a bike and keep them
> there. Not since lever mounted shifting and clipless pedals.
>
> All the cuurent 'stuff', like threadless, 1 1/8 inch, compact, carbon ass ends,
> spline, boutique wheels, oversized handlebars, integrated HS...all just goop.
>
> \Jim writes-<< maybe, but they're better than small diameter tapered spindles.
> there's
> simply no technical argument against better bearings, lighter weight &
> better stiffness/fatigue properties. >><BR><BR>
>

peter, again, i respect your campy knowledge & advice, so what follows
is technical, not personal.

> Bearings are the same quality, just not servicable. Lighter weight at the
> expense of poor reliability is dumb(DA cup and ball BB),

roller bearings bear load better than ball. that's not disputable.

> and better stiffness
> is not something that is actually happening. Your square taper BB is not
> twisting, your aluminum cranks are not flexing.

the math for torsion or bending show otherwise. that's why shimano can
trade superior design for weight savings. campy aluminum record crank +
bb = 820g, 03 dura-ace crank + bb = 738g. campy carbon crank + bb =
734g, 04 dura-ace crank/bb combo = 646g.

> If they were, they wopuld
> break. i suspect is something else. You and Jobst can argue that one out.

as in, "if it breaks, it's not my design - it must need a better
material"??? yeah, right. materials people get frustrated by that one
all the time. with that kind of ignorance, i wonder how some engineers
ever manage to graduate.

>
> BTW-I have seen many DA/ultegra/105 cranks destroyed by poor installation. I
> have also seen XT/XTR MTB cranks break because they like to go in one direction
> only, don't like to be 'jumped'.

poor installation affects campy too [and imo, the square taper is one of
the most troublesome designs out there - not that it's inherently
non-functional, but because it's not idiot tolerant]. i've never seen
any octalink spindles break, and i've not seen any on the web either,
but hey, let's assume that they do. the argument that "they like to go
in one direction only" is yet another wildly ridiculous jobstism. just
because he's aggressive, voluble and deliberately presents opinions as
fact [for whatever unfathomable reason] doesn't make him right. you of
all people should have learned not to swallow that bait by now.

>
> BUT shimano and Octalink are parting ways.
>
> The one piece thing is a $50 solution to a $5 problem.

like carbon campy cranks?

don't get me wrong, i like campy stuff. i have two bikes kitted out
with record & veloce. but i have shimano too, and with the exception of
the brakes, for which campy cannot be touched, the shimano cranks are
awesome & gear shifting is much better. spd pedals are absolutely the best.

>
> Peter Chisholm
> Vecchio's Bicicletteria
> 1833 Pearl St.
> Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535
> http://www.vecchios.com
> "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"