Shimanos' Integrated BB/Cranks
- Thread starter MtnBkrDon
- Start date
Been using the 03 XTR's for over a year now and they work great. Incredibly easy to install compared to the traditional BB setup and they are still running smooth. I usually went through 1 or 2 BB's with the old XTR cranks in a year. The new oversized ones are still running smooth and showing no signs of wear yet.
Thanks for the comments...
I wonder how that XTR performance and technology translates into the new XT version. It's former M752 $99US big store pricetag is up around $250US for the new M760 integrated model. That's putting it into Race Faces' Turbine LP price catagory. Still.. I just can't help but be intrigued by this integrated system. Shimano reinventing the wheel or forward thinking outside the box?
I wonder how that XTR performance and technology translates into the new XT version. It's former M752 $99US big store pricetag is up around $250US for the new M760 integrated model. That's putting it into Race Faces' Turbine LP price catagory. Still.. I just can't help but be intrigued by this integrated system. Shimano reinventing the wheel or forward thinking outside the box?
Performance has a decent price on the '04 cranks/bottom bracket combo and a great price on the '03 cranks. I'm typically not a fan of most things "proprietary", but sometimes the package just makes sense. Try the '04 and you'll dig the hell out of them.
K.
Its neither really since shimano didn't invent this system. This was used in BMX bikes a long time ago, it just wasn't executed properly back then so it dies out. The problem with current oversized spindles (ISIS, Octalink) is that the bearings end up being too small. The solution is to make BB shell wider. I think FSA was the one who proposed a new standard for a much wider BB. Shimano I guess was a step ahead and brought this idea back but refined it so it actually works this time. For now they solved the problem without having to change current standards. So in a way its proprietary but it was done in order to not have to change another standard (new frames basically). Seems everybody is catching up now since Race Face (and I believe Truvativ as well) is comming out with their own version of the external bearings. ISIS is slowly being dropped as in the end it sort of turned out to be a bad idea. The spindle is too large and bearings too small for it too be a long lasting solution. Even Chris King who co-developed it seems to have droppped it realizing this.
Interesting...
I considered the ISIS a positive step more in the way the crank mated to the bb vs square taper. I never considered the trade-off for the smaller bearings. This might also explain why I haven't been able to find a postive user consensus for ISIS BBs. Consider two Race Face ISIS products for example; Turbine Lp and Next Lp. Generally speaking, when you poll a group of users of these products you will on average consitently get a positive user rating but that same group will inevitably argue about the choice of BB's that spin them. I've yet to see a large polling group rate or review an ISIS BB consistent with a highly regarded ISIS crankset.
Seems the more logical choice is a larger BB shell standard. The comment here would be.. "um ya... good luck with that one"
I considered the ISIS a positive step more in the way the crank mated to the bb vs square taper. I never considered the trade-off for the smaller bearings. This might also explain why I haven't been able to find a postive user consensus for ISIS BBs. Consider two Race Face ISIS products for example; Turbine Lp and Next Lp. Generally speaking, when you poll a group of users of these products you will on average consitently get a positive user rating but that same group will inevitably argue about the choice of BB's that spin them. I've yet to see a large polling group rate or review an ISIS BB consistent with a highly regarded ISIS crankset.
Seems the more logical choice is a larger BB shell standard. The comment here would be.. "um ya... good luck with that one"
For those of you following this thread you can find some interesting info on FSA Megatech here:
http://www.oversizebb.com/
http://www.oversizebb.com/
I think this is a good idea with a few ups and downs. It seems like it would allow for a bit more chainline control since outboard bearings do seem to have that problem. It should also make for a very rigid BB do ue to the size of the shell which will give a lot more surface area for wider welds. One of the problems I see is that currently the external bearing solutions seem to accomplish the same thing without any new standards in frame construction. I'm not sure I like the fact that the cups are pressed in either. While it might save the hassle of threaded installation and possibility of damaging threads it brings in a lot of other potential problems. What happens after a few bearing replacements or reinstallations? I don't know if you've ever seen a frame that has had a headset pressed in and pulled a few times. It eventually gets to the point were you can push it in and remove it with your bare hands because the metal will have stretched enough at that point. In some cases the cups fall right out if you remove the fork. Needless to say a loose fit on your BB bearings would do a lot of damage to the shell (much like ovalizing a headtube). A threaded shell will last forever if handled properly. I would find it interesting if they make a double row bearing on each side setup on one of these shells. That would make for an insanely tough and long lasting BB.
