S
square taper cranks - who's left making them?
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
O
[email protected] wrote:
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
Well, Sugino comes to mind; good quality at a fair price.
There's still alot of Campy square taper stuff out there, too. And alot
of lower end, non-brand name stuff (e.g., some of the Nashbar branded
cranks).
IMO, square taper cranks will still be available long after Octalink
and ISIS have disappeared.
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
Well, Sugino comes to mind; good quality at a fair price.
There's still alot of Campy square taper stuff out there, too. And alot
of lower end, non-brand name stuff (e.g., some of the Nashbar branded
cranks).
IMO, square taper cranks will still be available long after Octalink
and ISIS have disappeared.
L
Llatikcuf
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
Sugino, still makes a nice crankset:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx2.html
T.A. is still makes a square taper, expensive in the USA:
http://www.specialites-ta.com/produits/crank_gb.htm
I believe Zinn still makes customs:
'http://www.zinncycles.com/cranks.aspx
Tune Bigfoot:
http://store.prostores.com/servlet/sveltecycles/Detail?no=21
Campy Xenon is still a square, probably some low end (OEM) Shimano
also. Other than that, I think it's limited to NOS and EBay.
I still have squares on all three of my bikes, Campy and old RaceFace
stuff. ISIS felt good, but BBs are trash. Never tried OctaLink, have
yet to try this external system.
-nate
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
Sugino, still makes a nice crankset:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx2.html
T.A. is still makes a square taper, expensive in the USA:
http://www.specialites-ta.com/produits/crank_gb.htm
I believe Zinn still makes customs:
'http://www.zinncycles.com/cranks.aspx
Tune Bigfoot:
http://store.prostores.com/servlet/sveltecycles/Detail?no=21
Campy Xenon is still a square, probably some low end (OEM) Shimano
also. Other than that, I think it's limited to NOS and EBay.
I still have squares on all three of my bikes, Campy and old RaceFace
stuff. ISIS felt good, but BBs are trash. Never tried OctaLink, have
yet to try this external system.
-nate
R
> Campy Xenon is still a square, probably some low end (OEM) Shimano
> also. Other than that, I think it's limited to NOS and EBay.
For 2007 I think the Campagnolo triple cranksets are square taper.
Only the 135mm bcd and 112/110mm bcd, adn 110mm bcd cranks are the new
torque coupler thing in the middle of the bottom bracket shell. If a
triple frightens you, its easy to just not mount an inner ring and use
a double length bottom bracket. You would have to check if the forged
inner ring lugs clear the chainstay on the shorter bottom bracket. If
not, then they can be easily ground off. Thus making it a permanent
double crank. I've thought about doing this since the only Campagnolo
cranks I ever see with 42 inner rings are triples. Buy a triple and
get rid of the inner ring and lugs and you have a wonderful riding
53-42 double crankset.
>
> I still have squares on all three of my bikes, Campy and old RaceFace
> stuff.
Me too. Chorus double, Centaur triple, RaceFace Turbine LP 94mm bcd
only using the outer and middle positions for a micro compact, and
Deore DX triple.
ISIS felt good, but BBs are trash. Never tried OctaLink, have
> yet to try this external system.
>
> -nate
> also. Other than that, I think it's limited to NOS and EBay.
For 2007 I think the Campagnolo triple cranksets are square taper.
Only the 135mm bcd and 112/110mm bcd, adn 110mm bcd cranks are the new
torque coupler thing in the middle of the bottom bracket shell. If a
triple frightens you, its easy to just not mount an inner ring and use
a double length bottom bracket. You would have to check if the forged
inner ring lugs clear the chainstay on the shorter bottom bracket. If
not, then they can be easily ground off. Thus making it a permanent
double crank. I've thought about doing this since the only Campagnolo
cranks I ever see with 42 inner rings are triples. Buy a triple and
get rid of the inner ring and lugs and you have a wonderful riding
53-42 double crankset.
>
> I still have squares on all three of my bikes, Campy and old RaceFace
> stuff.
Me too. Chorus double, Centaur triple, RaceFace Turbine LP 94mm bcd
only using the outer and middle positions for a micro compact, and
Deore DX triple.
ISIS felt good, but BBs are trash. Never tried OctaLink, have
> yet to try this external system.
>
> -nate
E
[email protected] wrote:
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
Most track tracks still seem to be square taper: Sugino, Stronglight,
TA, Miche, Campy...
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
Most track tracks still seem to be square taper: Sugino, Stronglight,
TA, Miche, Campy...
A
Anthony DeLorenzo
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
I was wondering about that myself, as I just bought a set of FSA square
taper mountain bike cranks at LBS on Friday that are out of production.
White Industries makes beautiful singlespeed square taper cranks that I
have promised myself I will use on a bike at least once in my lifetime.
http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a lot
of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm planning
to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
Regards,
Anthony
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
I was wondering about that myself, as I just bought a set of FSA square
taper mountain bike cranks at LBS on Friday that are out of production.
White Industries makes beautiful singlespeed square taper cranks that I
have promised myself I will use on a bike at least once in my lifetime.
http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a lot
of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm planning
to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
Regards,
Anthony
W
William O'Hara
Guest
> http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
>
> Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
> using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a lot
> of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
>
> I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm planning
> to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
I am totally confused by the bike industry. Read my question on
head tubes. I just read that square taper is more efficient than
any of these crazy things such as external BB or ISIS by a huge
magnitude. Obviously Campy knew something. I've been trying to
read everything on this since my ISIS drive BB lasted only 2000
miles(yet another post).
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
J
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Guest
William O'Hara wrote:
> > http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
> >
> > Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
> > using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a lot
> > of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
> >
> > I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm planning
> > to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
>
> I am totally confused by the bike industry. Read my question on
> head tubes. I just read that square taper is more efficient than
> any of these crazy things such as external BB or ISIS by a huge
> magnitude. Obviously Campy knew something. I've been trying to
> read everything on this since my ISIS drive BB lasted only 2000
> miles(yet another post).
Yes: <http://www.topeak.com/2006/products/minipumps/roadmorphg.php>.
The efficiency differences between bottom brackets with decent bearings
[1] must be minimal. The weight differences are also typically
negligible when related to real world performance
A larger diameter BB shell standard would be useful for some, as the
square taper is undersized from a durability (fatigue resistance)
perspective (both of the spindle and the attached cranks).
[1] I did have a cheap Shimano LP-37 go bad in the middle of a group
ride, and the increase in friction was enough that it made it hard to
keep up. When I removed the BB, I was not able to rotate the spindle
with my bare hands.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> > http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
> >
> > Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
> > using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a lot
> > of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
> >
> > I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm planning
> > to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
>
> I am totally confused by the bike industry. Read my question on
> head tubes. I just read that square taper is more efficient than
> any of these crazy things such as external BB or ISIS by a huge
> magnitude. Obviously Campy knew something. I've been trying to
> read everything on this since my ISIS drive BB lasted only 2000
> miles(yet another post).
Yes: <http://www.topeak.com/2006/products/minipumps/roadmorphg.php>.
The efficiency differences between bottom brackets with decent bearings
[1] must be minimal. The weight differences are also typically
negligible when related to real world performance
A larger diameter BB shell standard would be useful for some, as the
square taper is undersized from a durability (fatigue resistance)
perspective (both of the spindle and the attached cranks).
[1] I did have a cheap Shimano LP-37 go bad in the middle of a group
ride, and the increase in friction was enough that it made it hard to
keep up. When I removed the BB, I was not able to rotate the spindle
with my bare hands.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
J
William O'Hara writes:
>> http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
>> Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
>> using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a
>> lot of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
>> I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm
>> planning to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
> I am totally confused by the bike industry. Read my question on
> head tubes. I just read that square taper is more efficient than
> any of these crazy things such as external BB or ISIS by a huge
> magnitude. Obviously Campy knew something. I've been trying to
> read everything on this since my ISIS drive BB lasted only 2000
> miles(yet another post).
I think you are using the wrong term to describe the crank/spindle
interface. There is no efficiency in that joint but rather reliability
and durability. You could say the cottered crank was ideal if you
ignore that it only worked well with steel cranks and that the
bearings were too small in diameter, and that it took skill to install
properly.
The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball bearings
and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not only do the
spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most bicycle
mechanics. For this reason there is a division about assembly with
and without grease. Cranks have been split from excessive press fit
but how these came about seems to still mystifies the manufacturers,
having never themselves been able to reproduce such failures...
although to cause it is simple. As a rule they don't read wreck.bike
and seem not to know how.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-001.html
picture 011 or the seventh picture. This was achieved by repeatedly
tightening the spindle bolt after use. It did not require grease. A
spindle bolt will break before damaging force can occur on the crank.
The ISIS method fails on several fronts and doesn't address the
bearing problem, using the same old cottered crank spindle diameter
and bearing cups. Besides, the spline is difficult to manufactured
and solves a non existent problem.
Shimano built the Octalink that has had a backlash flaw since its
beginning. Shimano didn't understand that and came out with a second
version with deeper splines that had the same failing as the first.
The current state of the art is the overhung bearing and no pressed on
cranks. Shimano using the pinch bolt design on a spline at the left
crank, and Campagnolo meshing a hollow spindle with a saw toothed
spline in the center. Both of these solve the torque and force
problem, although the Shimano method is simpler and less expensive.
What they don't do is address the BB thread forces that have required
a left hand thread or extreme torque to not unscrew. The left hand
thread is proof that the threads move or the thread direction would
make no difference. The bearing cups are supplied with Loctite type
thread retention, which does not work with such high loads. This is
the current weak spot and we will have to wait and see how they work.
Jobst Brandt
>> http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
>> Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
>> using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a
>> lot of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
>> I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm
>> planning to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
> I am totally confused by the bike industry. Read my question on
> head tubes. I just read that square taper is more efficient than
> any of these crazy things such as external BB or ISIS by a huge
> magnitude. Obviously Campy knew something. I've been trying to
> read everything on this since my ISIS drive BB lasted only 2000
> miles(yet another post).
I think you are using the wrong term to describe the crank/spindle
interface. There is no efficiency in that joint but rather reliability
and durability. You could say the cottered crank was ideal if you
ignore that it only worked well with steel cranks and that the
bearings were too small in diameter, and that it took skill to install
properly.
The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball bearings
and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not only do the
spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most bicycle
mechanics. For this reason there is a division about assembly with
and without grease. Cranks have been split from excessive press fit
but how these came about seems to still mystifies the manufacturers,
having never themselves been able to reproduce such failures...
although to cause it is simple. As a rule they don't read wreck.bike
and seem not to know how.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-001.html
picture 011 or the seventh picture. This was achieved by repeatedly
tightening the spindle bolt after use. It did not require grease. A
spindle bolt will break before damaging force can occur on the crank.
The ISIS method fails on several fronts and doesn't address the
bearing problem, using the same old cottered crank spindle diameter
and bearing cups. Besides, the spline is difficult to manufactured
and solves a non existent problem.
Shimano built the Octalink that has had a backlash flaw since its
beginning. Shimano didn't understand that and came out with a second
version with deeper splines that had the same failing as the first.
The current state of the art is the overhung bearing and no pressed on
cranks. Shimano using the pinch bolt design on a spline at the left
crank, and Campagnolo meshing a hollow spindle with a saw toothed
spline in the center. Both of these solve the torque and force
problem, although the Shimano method is simpler and less expensive.
What they don't do is address the BB thread forces that have required
a left hand thread or extreme torque to not unscrew. The left hand
thread is proof that the threads move or the thread direction would
make no difference. The bearing cups are supplied with Loctite type
thread retention, which does not work with such high loads. This is
the current weak spot and we will have to wait and see how they work.
Jobst Brandt
W
William O'Hara
Guest
[email protected] wrote in news:45203fd8$0$34502
[email protected]:
> The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball bearings
> and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not only do the
> spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most bicycle
> mechanics. For this reason there is a division about assembly with
> and without grease. Cranks have been split from excessive press fit
> but how these came about seems to still mystifies the manufacturers,
> having never themselves been able to reproduce such failures...
> although to cause it is simple. As a rule they don't read wreck.bike
> and seem not to know how.
The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface of
the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the crank
in areas unrelated to the discussion.
The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional BB
as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These also
last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor in regards
to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only lasted me 2k in mileage.
I had a shimano BB that didn't last too longer either, but I forgot that
only until just now.
I am probably going to head for the external BB in my new bike. I have
several strong inclinations for frame right now.
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
[email protected]:
> The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball bearings
> and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not only do the
> spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most bicycle
> mechanics. For this reason there is a division about assembly with
> and without grease. Cranks have been split from excessive press fit
> but how these came about seems to still mystifies the manufacturers,
> having never themselves been able to reproduce such failures...
> although to cause it is simple. As a rule they don't read wreck.bike
> and seem not to know how.
The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface of
the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the crank
in areas unrelated to the discussion.
The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional BB
as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These also
last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor in regards
to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only lasted me 2k in mileage.
I had a shimano BB that didn't last too longer either, but I forgot that
only until just now.
I am probably going to head for the external BB in my new bike. I have
several strong inclinations for frame right now.
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
J
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Guest
William O'Hara wrote:
> [email protected] wrote in news:45203fd8$0$34502
> [email protected]:
>
> > The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball bearings
> > and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not only do the
> > spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most bicycle
> > mechanics. For this reason there is a division about assembly with
> > and without grease. Cranks have been split from excessive press fit
> > but how these came about seems to still mystifies the manufacturers,
> > having never themselves been able to reproduce such failures...
> > although to cause it is simple. As a rule they don't read wreck.bike
> > and seem not to know how.
>
> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface of
> the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the crank
> in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>
> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional BB
> as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These also
> last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor in regards
> to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only lasted me 2k in mileage.
> I had a shimano BB that didn't last too longer either, but I forgot that
> only until just now.
I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer $5 or
less.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> [email protected] wrote in news:45203fd8$0$34502
> [email protected]:
>
> > The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball bearings
> > and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not only do the
> > spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most bicycle
> > mechanics. For this reason there is a division about assembly with
> > and without grease. Cranks have been split from excessive press fit
> > but how these came about seems to still mystifies the manufacturers,
> > having never themselves been able to reproduce such failures...
> > although to cause it is simple. As a rule they don't read wreck.bike
> > and seem not to know how.
>
> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface of
> the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the crank
> in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>
> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional BB
> as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These also
> last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor in regards
> to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only lasted me 2k in mileage.
> I had a shimano BB that didn't last too longer either, but I forgot that
> only until just now.
I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer $5 or
less.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
J
Tom Sherman writes:
>>> The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball
>>> bearings and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not
>>> only do the spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most
>>> bicycle mechanics. For this reason there is a division about
>>> assembly with and without grease. Cranks have been split from
>>> excessive press fit but how these came about seems to still
>>> mystifies the manufacturers, having never themselves been able to
>>> reproduce such failures... although to cause it is simple. As a
>>> rule they don't read wreck.bike and seem not to know how.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-001.html
>>> picture 011 or the seventh picture. This was achieved by
>>> repeatedly tightening the spindle bolt after use. It did not
>>> require grease. A spindle bolt will break before damaging force
>>> can occur on the crank.
>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface
>> of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the
>> crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
[the seventh picture]
Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the cranks
a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If that's the
level of power you are concerned about you should quit bicycling.
> I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
> were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer $5
> or less.
So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
Jobst Brandt
>>> The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball
>>> bearings and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not
>>> only do the spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most
>>> bicycle mechanics. For this reason there is a division about
>>> assembly with and without grease. Cranks have been split from
>>> excessive press fit but how these came about seems to still
>>> mystifies the manufacturers, having never themselves been able to
>>> reproduce such failures... although to cause it is simple. As a
>>> rule they don't read wreck.bike and seem not to know how.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-001.html
>>> picture 011 or the seventh picture. This was achieved by
>>> repeatedly tightening the spindle bolt after use. It did not
>>> require grease. A spindle bolt will break before damaging force
>>> can occur on the crank.
>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface
>> of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the
>> crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
[the seventh picture]
Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the cranks
a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If that's the
level of power you are concerned about you should quit bicycling.
> I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
> were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer $5
> or less.
So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
Jobst Brandt
W
William O'Hara
Guest
[email protected] wrote in news:45205c22$0$34552
[email protected]:
>>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface
>>> of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the
>>> crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>
> [the seventh picture]
>
> Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
A whole bunch were cracks of the crank arm away from the joint area.
I don't know how the stress on crank arm is relevant at all. We are
thinking of stress of the crank arm on the joint, anyways
>>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
>
> If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the cranks
> a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If that's the
> level of power you are concerned about you should quit bicycling.
> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
Since they must being getting much more friction than the traditional
design. Why wouldn't friction reduce reliability?
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
[email protected]:
>>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface
>>> of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the
>>> crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>
> [the seventh picture]
>
> Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
A whole bunch were cracks of the crank arm away from the joint area.
I don't know how the stress on crank arm is relevant at all. We are
thinking of stress of the crank arm on the joint, anyways
>>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
>
> If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the cranks
> a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If that's the
> level of power you are concerned about you should quit bicycling.
> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
Since they must being getting much more friction than the traditional
design. Why wouldn't friction reduce reliability?
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
C
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:38:38 -0500, "William O'Hara"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote in news:45205c22$0$34552
>[email protected]:
>
>>>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface
>>>> of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the
>>>> crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>>
>> [the seventh picture]
>>
>> Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
>
>A whole bunch were cracks of the crank arm away from the joint area.
>I don't know how the stress on crank arm is relevant at all. We are
>thinking of stress of the crank arm on the joint, anyways
>
>>>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>>>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>>>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>>>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>>>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>>>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
>>
>> If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the cranks
>> a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If that's the
>> level of power you are concerned about you should quit bicycling.
>> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
>
>Since they must being getting much more friction than the traditional
>design. Why wouldn't friction reduce reliability?
Dear Bill,
Old-fashioned bottom brackets and cranks last an amazingly long time
if installed correctly.
The friction and wear are already so low that reducing them further
amounts to sandpapering the hood ornament on a Mercedes in hopes of
reducing wind drag.
You can indeed make a large relative improvement in bearing drag, but
the absolute reduction is so small that you'll have trouble measuring
it, contrary to the more heated marketing nonsense.
Worrying about the drag and wear on your crank is roughly akin to
worrying about the weight of your chain. By paying ten times as much
for a titanium chain with holes drilled in it, you can reduce the
chain's weight 10% or 25% or some such figure from a cheap chain.
But you're saving only about 50 to 100 grams on a bicycle and rider
that are in the neighborhood of 100,000 grams. A sneeze during your
ride could easily have as much effect.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote in news:45205c22$0$34552
>[email protected]:
>
>>>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface
>>>> of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the
>>>> crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>>
>> [the seventh picture]
>>
>> Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
>
>A whole bunch were cracks of the crank arm away from the joint area.
>I don't know how the stress on crank arm is relevant at all. We are
>thinking of stress of the crank arm on the joint, anyways
>
>>>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>>>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>>>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>>>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>>>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>>>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
>>
>> If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the cranks
>> a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If that's the
>> level of power you are concerned about you should quit bicycling.
>> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
>
>Since they must being getting much more friction than the traditional
>design. Why wouldn't friction reduce reliability?
Dear Bill,
Old-fashioned bottom brackets and cranks last an amazingly long time
if installed correctly.
The friction and wear are already so low that reducing them further
amounts to sandpapering the hood ornament on a Mercedes in hopes of
reducing wind drag.
You can indeed make a large relative improvement in bearing drag, but
the absolute reduction is so small that you'll have trouble measuring
it, contrary to the more heated marketing nonsense.
Worrying about the drag and wear on your crank is roughly akin to
worrying about the weight of your chain. By paying ten times as much
for a titanium chain with holes drilled in it, you can reduce the
chain's weight 10% or 25% or some such figure from a cheap chain.
But you're saving only about 50 to 100 grams on a bicycle and rider
that are in the neighborhood of 100,000 grams. A sneeze during your
ride could easily have as much effect.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
J
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Guest
[email protected] aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> > I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
> > were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer $5
> > or less.
>
> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
I did not disassemble either BB, but they were extremely rough feeling
and one had enough internal friction that I could not rotate the
spindle by hand. I assume that the bearings failed, but can only
speculate as to whether it was the races, balls, or both.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> > I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
> > were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer $5
> > or less.
>
> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
I did not disassemble either BB, but they were extremely rough feeling
and one had enough internal friction that I could not rotate the
spindle by hand. I assume that the bearings failed, but can only
speculate as to whether it was the races, balls, or both.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
J
William O'Hara writes:
>>>>> The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball
>>>>> bearings and cups and has been burdened with them ever since.
>>>>> Not only do the spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to
>>>>> most bicycle mechanics. For this reason there is a division
>>>>> about assembly with and without grease. Cranks have been split
>>>>> from excessive press fit but how these came about seems to still
>>>>> mystifies the manufacturers, having never themselves been able
>>>>> to reproduce such failures... although to cause it is simple.
>>>>> As a rule they don't read wreck.bike and seem not to know how.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-001.html
>>>>> picture 011 or the seventh picture. This was achieved by
>>>>> repeatedly tightening the spindle bolt after use. It did not
>>>>> require grease. A spindle bolt will break before damaging force
>>>>> can occur on the crank.
>>>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the
>>>> interface of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the
>>>> metal in the crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>> [the seventh picture]
>> Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
> A whole bunch were cracks of the crank arm away from the joint area.
> I don't know how the stress on crank arm is relevant at all. We are
> thinking of stress of the crank arm on the joint, anyways
[the seventh picture]
Did you look at that picture and if so, what is "unrelated"? Your
statement above is "unrelated to the discussion" if anything.
>>>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>>>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>>>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>>>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>>>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>>>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
>> If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the
>> cranks a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If
>> that's the level of power you are concerned about you should quit
>> bicycling.
>>> I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
>>> were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer
>>> $5 or less.
>> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
> Since they must being getting much more friction than the
> traditional design. Why wouldn't friction reduce reliability?
Who said they are getting more friction? That's BS. They use the
same bearing balls and steel races and until they spall, they have the
same friction as the most expensive ones.
Stop repeating myth and lore!
Jobst Brandt
>>>>> The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball
>>>>> bearings and cups and has been burdened with them ever since.
>>>>> Not only do the spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to
>>>>> most bicycle mechanics. For this reason there is a division
>>>>> about assembly with and without grease. Cranks have been split
>>>>> from excessive press fit but how these came about seems to still
>>>>> mystifies the manufacturers, having never themselves been able
>>>>> to reproduce such failures... although to cause it is simple.
>>>>> As a rule they don't read wreck.bike and seem not to know how.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-001.html
>>>>> picture 011 or the seventh picture. This was achieved by
>>>>> repeatedly tightening the spindle bolt after use. It did not
>>>>> require grease. A spindle bolt will break before damaging force
>>>>> can occur on the crank.
>>>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the
>>>> interface of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the
>>>> metal in the crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>> [the seventh picture]
>> Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
> A whole bunch were cracks of the crank arm away from the joint area.
> I don't know how the stress on crank arm is relevant at all. We are
> thinking of stress of the crank arm on the joint, anyways
[the seventh picture]
Did you look at that picture and if so, what is "unrelated"? Your
statement above is "unrelated to the discussion" if anything.
>>>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>>>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>>>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>>>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>>>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>>>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
>> If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the
>> cranks a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If
>> that's the level of power you are concerned about you should quit
>> bicycling.
>>> I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
>>> were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer
>>> $5 or less.
>> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
> Since they must being getting much more friction than the
> traditional design. Why wouldn't friction reduce reliability?
Who said they are getting more friction? That's BS. They use the
same bearing balls and steel races and until they spall, they have the
same friction as the most expensive ones.
Stop repeating myth and lore!
Jobst Brandt
J
Tom Sherman writes:
>>> I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but
>>> those were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle
>>> manufacturer $5 or less.
>> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
> I did not disassemble either BB, but they were extremely rough
> feeling and one had enough internal friction that I could not rotate
> the spindle by hand. I assume that the bearings failed, but can only
> speculate as to whether it was the races, balls, or both.
So you threw the bicycle away, as is, and bought a new one. Is that
it? How can you write this stuff after having been around wreck.bike
so long, and not wince when you post such stuff. If you make claims
of mechanical failures, at least explain what failed. I can cause
such a failure if I tighten bearing clearance enough, but I wouldn't
claim the product was faulty here in these pages.
Jobst Brandt
>>> I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but
>>> those were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle
>>> manufacturer $5 or less.
>> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
> I did not disassemble either BB, but they were extremely rough
> feeling and one had enough internal friction that I could not rotate
> the spindle by hand. I assume that the bearings failed, but can only
> speculate as to whether it was the races, balls, or both.
So you threw the bicycle away, as is, and bought a new one. Is that
it? How can you write this stuff after having been around wreck.bike
so long, and not wince when you post such stuff. If you make claims
of mechanical failures, at least explain what failed. I can cause
such a failure if I tighten bearing clearance enough, but I wouldn't
claim the product was faulty here in these pages.
Jobst Brandt
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
Of course not...Campanolo, shimano, TA, to name three...many more I am
sure.
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
Of course not...Campanolo, shimano, TA, to name three...many more I am
sure.
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> > Campy Xenon is still a square, probably some low end (OEM) Shimano
> > also. Other than that, I think it's limited to NOS and EBay.
>
> For 2007 I think the Campagnolo triple cranksets are square taper.
> Only the 135mm bcd and 112/110mm bcd, adn 110mm bcd cranks are the new
> torque coupler thing in the middle of the bottom bracket shell. If a
> triple frightens you, its easy to just not mount an inner ring and use
> a double length bottom bracket. You would have to check if the forged
> inner ring lugs clear the chainstay on the shorter bottom bracket.
Still 111 for the triple...115.5 for oversized seatubes...115.5 was
never for chainstay clearance but FD inward travel.
If
> not, then they can be easily ground off. Thus making it a permanent
> double crank. I've thought about doing this since the only Campagnolo
> cranks I ever see with 42 inner rings are triples. Buy a triple and
> get rid of the inner ring and lugs and you have a wonderful riding
> 53-42 double crankset.
>
> >
> > I still have squares on all three of my bikes, Campy and old RaceFace
> > stuff.
>
> Me too. Chorus double, Centaur triple, RaceFace Turbine LP 94mm bcd
> only using the outer and middle positions for a micro compact, and
> Deore DX triple.
>
>
> ISIS felt good, but BBs are trash. Never tried OctaLink, have
> > yet to try this external system.
> >
> > -nate
> > Campy Xenon is still a square, probably some low end (OEM) Shimano
> > also. Other than that, I think it's limited to NOS and EBay.
>
> For 2007 I think the Campagnolo triple cranksets are square taper.
> Only the 135mm bcd and 112/110mm bcd, adn 110mm bcd cranks are the new
> torque coupler thing in the middle of the bottom bracket shell. If a
> triple frightens you, its easy to just not mount an inner ring and use
> a double length bottom bracket. You would have to check if the forged
> inner ring lugs clear the chainstay on the shorter bottom bracket.
Still 111 for the triple...115.5 for oversized seatubes...115.5 was
never for chainstay clearance but FD inward travel.
If
> not, then they can be easily ground off. Thus making it a permanent
> double crank. I've thought about doing this since the only Campagnolo
> cranks I ever see with 42 inner rings are triples. Buy a triple and
> get rid of the inner ring and lugs and you have a wonderful riding
> 53-42 double crankset.
>
> >
> > I still have squares on all three of my bikes, Campy and old RaceFace
> > stuff.
>
> Me too. Chorus double, Centaur triple, RaceFace Turbine LP 94mm bcd
> only using the outer and middle positions for a micro compact, and
> Deore DX triple.
>
>
> ISIS felt good, but BBs are trash. Never tried OctaLink, have
> > yet to try this external system.
> >
> > -nate
Q
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Guest
Lsts not forget PhilWood as well...as somebody mentioned, square taper
will still be around when some are searching in vain for ISIS or
Octalink...
Anthony DeLorenzo wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
>
> I was wondering about that myself, as I just bought a set of FSA square
> taper mountain bike cranks at LBS on Friday that are out of production.
>
>
> White Industries makes beautiful singlespeed square taper cranks that I
> have promised myself I will use on a bike at least once in my lifetime.
>
> http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
>
> Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
> using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a lot
> of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
>
> I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm planning
> to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
>
> Regards,
> Anthony
will still be around when some are searching in vain for ISIS or
Octalink...
Anthony DeLorenzo wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
>
> I was wondering about that myself, as I just bought a set of FSA square
> taper mountain bike cranks at LBS on Friday that are out of production.
>
>
> White Industries makes beautiful singlespeed square taper cranks that I
> have promised myself I will use on a bike at least once in my lifetime.
>
> http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
>
> Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
> using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a lot
> of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
>
> I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm planning
> to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
>
> Regards,
> Anthony
Similar threads
S
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 407
Q
J
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 990
A
N
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 1K
D
F
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 1K
P
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 2K
