MTB ISIS bottom bracket choices

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

Quoted message said:

Going through MTBR.com, there are few parts of a bike that have been more
problematic than the bottom bracket. Numerous reports of short-life,
abbreviated rides because of ISIS bottom bracket failure infest MTBR, and

it

Quoted message said:

seems that unless you have a Phil Wood, your BB will find an untimely

death

Quoted message said:

in minutes.

So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small? Are there any that
don't develop play in short periods of time?

Phil Wood owners may just be pussyfooting the BB and thus, it looks like

it

Quoted message said:

has a good track record, but it in fact may not be. Plus, the ones that

buy

Quoted message said:

PW products usually aren't your typical mountain biking type... i.e.

they're

Quoted message said:

[censored] expensive.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Why not keep this on alt.m-b, man?

In my experience, anything with a RaceFace name is bombproof. Anything
except the first-generation RF b.b.s, that is...but that problem was fixed.

The TruVativ b.b.s get a lot of love, and everyone seems to have good things
to say about FSA - especially in terms of performance vs. price - so I guess
you can't go wrong.

Buy a Phil Wood for $100-300 (plus the special Phil tools) and have it last
you 10 years, or, in that time, buy three RF b.bs. Think of it this way:
what will be the next big crank-to-spindle mounting methods that replaces
ISIS? Are you going to have ISIS cranks on that bikes for the life of the
Phil Wood? Are all cranks going to go the way of Shimano XTR one-piece (I
hope not)? Are you even going to have that bike in 2, 5, or 10 years?

So my reasoning is...unless you have one of those wicked [censored]-off PW
singlespeeds and need to keep it all Phil all the time, get a
cheap-by-comparison RaceFace bracket.

Chris
(only hates Shimano b.b.s)

Quoted message said:

Why not keep this on alt.m-b, man?

So my reasoning is...unless you have one of those wicked [censored]-off PW
singlespeeds and need to keep it all Phil all the time, get a
cheap-by-comparison RaceFace bracket.

Odd... I thought I HAD posted it on amb...

I see your logic and it makes sense. However, MTBR posters claim BB death
on the order of tens of rides. Not good. It's not even specific to certain
makes, either.

My RaceFace SRX stock BB has a tiny bit of play, but not enough to bother
me. I was contemplating what to replace it with.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

ZeeExSixAre said:

Going through MTBR.com, there are few parts of a bike that have been more
problematic than the bottom bracket. Numerous reports of short-life,
abbreviated rides because of ISIS bottom bracket failure infest MTBR, and it
seems that unless you have a Phil Wood, your BB will find an untimely death
in minutes.

So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small? Are there any that
don't develop play in short periods of time?

I don't have an answer to your question as I use square taper BBs on
all my bikes but it seems to me that if you are forced to reduce the
size of the bearings in order to squeeze a larger axle in the
available space, bearing life is going to be reduced. An older XTR BB
I saw had a whole bunch of roller bearings to (presumably) make up for
the much smaller diameter angular contact ball bearings they were
forced to use; whether this was effective in extending bearing life I
have no idea - do any of the ISIS BBs do this?

Anyway, now you have me wondering what happened to the 'oversize' BB
standard that was being put forth a year or so ago? I hope it hasn't
been rejected simply because it is an improvement that might actually
be needed!

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chris B. [email protected] said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:59:27 -0400, "ZeeExSixAre"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small? Are there any that
don't develop play in short periods of time?

I don't have an answer to your question as I use square taper BBs on
all my bikes but it seems to me that if you are forced to reduce the
size of the bearings in order to squeeze a larger axle in the
available space, bearing life is going to be reduced. An older XTR BB
I saw had a whole bunch of roller bearings to (presumably) make up for
the much smaller diameter angular contact ball bearings they were
forced to use; whether this was effective in extending bearing life I
have no idea - do any of the ISIS BBs do this?

Anyway, now you have me wondering what happened to the 'oversize' BB
standard that was being put forth a year or so ago? I hope it hasn't
been rejected simply because it is an improvement that might actually
be needed!

It's probably still out there, but I think that the current hot setup is
to emulate the Bullseye/Hollowtech II integrated crank setup with
outboard bearings.

A review of the Bullseye:

http://www.bicycling.com/gear/review/0,3307,892,00.html?category_id=361&a
rticle_type_id=62&family_id=123

http://tinyurl.com/2778h

Race Face now makes the X-Type BB/crankset, which is an obvious
knock-off of the Hollowtech II, which is a post-patent knock-off of the
Bullseye design.

Imitation is the sincerest form of improvement,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club