Need a clue to take off cranks - Help?!?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Jbk, Feb 22, 2004.

  1. Jbk

    Jbk Guest

    I'm a novice mechanic trying to rehabilitate a bike abandoned by a friend. It's a Nishiki Sport (mtn
    bike), ~10 years old. I'm trying to replace the bottom bracket, which has disintegrated. I took off
    the nuts where the cranks (apparently) attach to the bottom bracket but I can't figure out how to
    get the cranks off. Here are 3 close-up pictures: http://johnkim.myserver.org/public/bike/ I looked
    at some how-to books & websites to no avail. Can someone provide a clue? Thanks,

    -John
     
    Tags:


  2. Doc

    Doc Guest

    You need a crank extractor,see your local bike shop to buy one and ask to
    the guy how to use it. Good luck! Jim.
    "JBK" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
    news:[email protected]...
    > I'm a novice mechanic trying to rehabilitate a bike abandoned by a friend. It's a Nishiki
    > Sport (mtn bike), ~10 years old. I'm trying to replace the bottom bracket, which has
    > disintegrated. I took off the nuts where the cranks (apparently) attach to the bottom bracket
    > but I can't figure out
    how
    > to get the cranks off. Here are 3 close-up pictures: http://johnkim.myserver.org/public/bike/ I
    > looked at some how-to books & websites to no avail. Can someone provide a clue? Thanks,
    >
    > -John
     
  3. Dan Daniel

    Dan Daniel Guest

    On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:28:40 -0800, "JBK"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I'm a novice mechanic trying to rehabilitate a bike abandoned by a friend. It's a Nishiki Sport
    >(mtn bike), ~10 years old. I'm trying to replace the bottom bracket, which has disintegrated. I
    >took off the nuts where the cranks (apparently) attach to the bottom bracket but I can't figure out
    >how to get the cranks off. Here are 3 close-up pictures: http://johnkim.myserver.org/public/bike/ I
    >looked at some how-to books & websites to no avail. Can someone provide a clue? Thanks,
    >
    >-John
    >
    >

    http://www.parktool.com/repair_help/FAQrCarm.shtml

    Looks as if your axle has a threaded end. The photos on the Park site show mainly ones that have
    internal threads. No biggie- you just need to back off the inner part of the crank puller tool
    enough so that it pushes against the end while *thoroughly threaded* into the crank arm.

    Be careful threading the tool on- go slow, backwards until you feel it drop into the end of the
    threads and then thread. Don't force. Grease on the threads of the tool is helpful.
     
  4. Jbk

    Jbk Guest

    "Dan Daniel" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Looks as if your axle has a threaded end.

    Yes, the ends are threaded (and had nuts on each end, which I took off [2nd picture]).

    > back off the inner part of the crank puller tool enough so that it pushes against the end while
    > *thoroughly threaded* into the crank arm.

    I hope this makes more sense once I get a crank extractor, but ... what's holding the crank in place
    right now? Is it friction? Or is it screwed in somehow? Or some sort of clip?

    I took a look at some crank extractors online and there seem to be universal ones that fit both
    threaded axles and square axles. I hope something like that works for my bike. I'll swing by a local
    bikeshop tomorrow and see what they have.

    Thanks Doc & Dan.

    -John
     
  5. Vic

    Vic Guest

    On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:03:37 -0800, "JBK"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Dan Daniel" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Looks as if your axle has a threaded end.
    >
    >Yes, the ends are threaded (and had nuts on each end, which I took off [2nd picture]).
    >
    >> back off the inner part of the crank puller tool enough so that it pushes against the end while
    >> *thoroughly threaded* into the crank arm.
    >
    >I hope this makes more sense once I get a crank extractor, but ... what's holding the crank in
    >place right now? Is it friction? Or is it screwed in somehow? Or some sort of clip?

    It's basically friction.

    The crank arm is mounted on a tapered square drive, and the retaining bolt has pushed the arm onto
    this taper with considerable force.

    Have a look at:

    http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tooltips/cotterless.html

    for more info.

    >
    >I took a look at some crank extractors online and there seem to be universal ones that fit both
    >threaded axles and square axles. I hope something like that works for my bike. I'll swing by a
    >local bikeshop tomorrow and see what they have.
    >
    >Thanks Doc & Dan.
    >
    >-John
    >

    a) Top posting.
    b) What's the worst thing about UseNet?
     
  6. Ronald

    Ronald Guest

    > a) Top posting.
    > q) What's the worst thing about UseNet?

    You prefer spam over top posting?!

    "vic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:03:37 -0800, "JBK" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >"Dan Daniel" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Looks as if your axle has a threaded end.
    > >
    > >Yes, the ends are threaded (and had nuts on each end, which I took off
    [2nd
    > >picture]).
    > >
    > >> back off the inner part of the crank puller tool enough so that it pushes against the end while
    > >> *thoroughly threaded* into the crank arm.
    > >
    > >I hope this makes more sense once I get a crank extractor, but ... what's holding the crank in
    > >place right now? Is it friction? Or is it screwed in somehow? Or some sort of clip?
    >
    > It's basically friction.
    >
    > The crank arm is mounted on a tapered square drive, and the retaining bolt has pushed the arm onto
    > this taper with considerable force.
    >
    > Have a look at:
    >
    > http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tooltips/cotterless.html
    >
    > for more info.
    >
    > >
    > >I took a look at some crank extractors online and there seem to be
    universal
    > >ones that fit both threaded axles and square axles. I hope something like that works for my bike.
    > >I'll swing by a local bikeshop tomorrow and see
    what
    > >they have.
    > >
    > >Thanks Doc & Dan.
    > >
    > >-John
    > >
    >
    >
    > a) Top posting.
    > q) What's the worst thing about UseNet?
     
  7. Vic

    Vic Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:20:21 +0100, "Ronald"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> a) Top posting.
    >> q) What's the worst thing about UseNet?
    >
    >You prefer spam over top posting?!
    >

    Weeelll, yes and no: I really don't give a toss about newsgroup spam, as I only ever have to
    download the headers. Yes, it pushes worthy stuff off some high-traffic groups, but with a decent
    newsfeed, this ain't ever fatal.

    Spammers are like incontinent feral animals, recognising no rules and rspecting nothing and nobody.

    Top-posting newsgroup participants really should know better.

    Vic.

    a) Top posting.
    b) What's the worst thing about UseNet?
     
  8. S o r n i

    S o r n i Guest

    vic wrote:
    > Top-posting newsgroup participants really should know better.
    >
    > Vic.
    >
    > a) Top posting.
    > q) What's the worst thing about UseNet?

    Didn't it used to say /most annoying/ thing?

    Bill "more accurate, IMO" S.
     
  9. Vic

    Vic Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:40:47 GMT, "S o r n i"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >vic wrote:
    >> Top-posting newsgroup participants really should know better.
    >>
    >> Vic.
    >>
    >> a) Top posting.
    >> q) What's the worst thing about UseNet?
    >
    >Didn't it used to say /most annoying/ thing?
    >
    >Bill "more accurate, IMO" S.
    >

    I'm not sure... I'll do a quick Google later to check.

    Vic.

    q) What's the most annoying thing about UseNet?
    r) Pedantry.
     
  10. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:20:21 +0100, "Ronald"
    <[email protected]> may have said:

    >> a) Top posting.
    >> q) What's the worst thing about UseNet?
    >
    >You prefer spam over top posting?!

    a) because I don't read it, and wouldn't respond to it, so it doesn't cause me to have to fix the
    format before I can do something with it.
    b) why is spam less annoying than top posting?
    c) yes, though I am known to delete both *unread*.
    d) You prefer spam over top posting?!

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  11. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:38:00 +0000, vic <[email protected]>
    may have said:

    >On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:40:47 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>vic wrote:
    >>> Top-posting newsgroup participants really should know better.
    >>>
    >>> Vic.
    >>>
    >>> a) Top posting.
    >>> q) What's the worst thing about UseNet?
    >>
    >>Didn't it used to say /most annoying/ thing?
    >>
    >>Bill "more accurate, IMO" S.
    >>
    >
    >I'm not sure... I'll do a quick Google later to check.
    >
    >Vic.
    >
    >
    >q) What's the most annoying thing about UseNet?
    >a) Pedantry.

    AOL may be worse than pedantry.

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
Loading...
Loading...