square taper cranks - who's left making them?

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Llatikcuf wrote:
> [email protected] says...
>
> > > That doesn't solve the fretting problem, the one that requires a left
> > > hand thread in the right hand cup.....snip.....
>
> Joshua Putnam wrote:
>
> > With all due respect, you're an outlier -- what vanishingly small
> > percentage of bikes ever hit 150,000 miles? Or even 50,000 miles?
>
>
> Hit it right on the nose, Jobst does seem to be more than three
> standard deviations to the right...

We could design a BB for the combination of Jobst's mileage [1] and
Chalo's mass.

[1] Kilometerage when he takes his Alpine cycling vacation?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm TOP POSTED:
> 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...

Will square taper outlive Ashtabula?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[William O'Hara]

> I take it that your answer is no, you haven't got any figures for how
> many watts of drag you're talking when you said "much LESS drag" in
> one kind of crank versus another.

Why don't you read the article, which I had already mentioned once
before and GAVE THE LINK. There is a big problem with a bunch of
readers on this newsgroup. They interject with aim of being rude
and do not read every post. How many times should I repost the link?
I should not even have to post a link. You should be able to find
it in two seconds on your own accord.

Bill


--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:13:57 -0500, "William O'Hara"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I take it that your answer is no, you haven't got any figures for how
>> many watts of drag you're talking when you said "much LESS drag" in
>> one kind of crank versus another.
>
>Why don't you read the article, which I had already mentioned once
>before and GAVE THE LINK. There is a big problem with a bunch of
>readers on this newsgroup. They interject with aim of being rude
>and do not read every post. How many times should I repost the link?
>I should not even have to post a link. You should be able to find
>it in two seconds on your own accord.
>
>Bill

Dear Bill,

If you can post a link to an article showing watts of drag on
different cranks, I'll be happy to read it. That's why I asked.

But posting a link to a magazine and a vague description is scarcely
the same thing.

If you feel that it should take me only two seconds to find a vaguely
described article, how long would it have taken you to post the link
instead of writing silly posts about how everyone should read every
post?

Particlarly if, like the post that I replied to, no link was included.

Please take two seconds to share the information that you have with
the rest of us. Otherwise, I take it that you don't have a link to
data about drag tests on bicycle cranks.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[William O'Hara]

> If you can post a link to an article showing watts of drag on
> different cranks, I'll be happy to read it. That's why I asked.

You could have pulled it out in top ten google search simple
by putting friction, bottom, and bracket.

--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:08:36 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

> I broke a crank at least once per year for many years, as have guys I
> ride with. This year in the Alps my friend discovered a half cracked
> pedal eye on one crank as we left Lienz (A) toward the Großglockner. By
> rinding seated the entire climb, he was able to not have the crack
> advance.
>
> This was important in two ways. We were able to get to Zell am See in
> one piece and I had verification that these failures arise from standing
> while climbing hills, something of which I was fairly certain already,
> because I climb standing, my back doesn't want to do that sitting.

Have you broken any since using your chamfered collet? Have you gotten
anyone else to use it?

Matt O.

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:53:03 -0500, "William O'Hara"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> If you can post a link to an article showing watts of drag on
>> different cranks, I'll be happy to read it. That's why I asked.
>
>You could have pulled it out in top ten google search simple
>by putting friction, bottom, and bracket.

Dear Bill,

Sorry, but that's weasel-worded marketing hype. If you'd been reading
the newsgroup, you would have known that it's been discredited
repeatedly.

Here's the nonsense in question:

"Independent lab measurements by Bike Testing, Inc. have pegged that
figure [for bottom bracket drag] at as much as nearly 4% of total
power output."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=2006/reviews/FSA_MegaExo

Technically, the statement can be called true, since the weasel phrase
"as much as nearly 4%" includes losses down to 0% and rpm up to
20,000--which is when power losses of almost 4% due to bearing drag do
indeed occur.

But at bicycling rpm of only around 100 rpm, crank bearing drag is
ignored.

It's easy to see why. Flip a derailleur bike upside down and note that
you can easily push the pedals around backward with one finger.

You're fighting the spring-loaded freewheel pawl mechanism, the tiny
and inefficient jockey pulleys, the chain losses, the crank bearings,
the pedal bearings, and the minuscule wind drag of the crank
windmilling around

But you can still turn the crank with the tip of your little finger.

Now slip the chain off and level the crank.

It should start turning under the weight of a ball-point pen.

If that's 4% of your power, then you're putting less than the weight
of 25 ball-point pens onto the pedal.

Of course, Jobst pointed this out to you more briefly a few posts ago:

"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."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/3239a6792232be60

That thing there is called a link. It's often used on RBT to point to
what we're talking about, which saves lots of time and foolishness.
Refusing to give it is considered a strong sign of a weak argument.

But cheer up--this will all be forgotten by next week.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

Matt O'Toole writes:

>> I broke a crank at least once per year for many years, as have guys
>> I ride with. This year in the Alps my friend discovered a half
>> cracked pedal eye on one crank as we left Lienz (A) toward the
>> Großglockner. By rinding seated the entire climb, he was able to
>> not have the crack advance.

>> This was important in two ways. We were able to get to Zell am See
>> in one piece and I had verification that these failures arise from
>> standing while climbing hills, something of which I was fairly
>> certain already, because I climb standing, my back doesn't want to
>> do that sitting.

> Have you broken any since using your chamfered collet? Have you
> gotten anyone else to use it?

One of my friends had his new cranks modified after having a pedal eye
failure and of course, we've never seen another on his bicycle,
considering that he weighs less than 150lbs while I haven't had one
since I did that and I don't have the date when I installed that.

Let me add that I don't check my cranks for cracks anymore and took a
2000+ mile tour in the Alps this summer and have no cracks.

Jobst Brandt

 

[William O'Hara]

> "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."

You can easily pull up prior articles. You hound me for
details. There is nothing wrong with the article nor has
it been repeatedly discredited. You just want to make a sport
out of being a jackass. I'm not talking about power, which
is Jobst's thoughts about my concern.

I think that you should ride with an ISIS BB or Octalink and see how
soon it fails. It is a sealed cartidge, which poor Jobst did not
seem to realize.

There are differences in the bbs. The splines are different
in length, thickness, The installation of the balls are
different. The design stinks. There is so much more friction
in the BB and this causes failure. People are pointing this out
on the newsgroup. There are stories written up about crank/bb
interface failing, which is jobst's complaint. Yet, there are
people starting to complain about SEIZED bbs.

Where the heck do you think a seized BB comes from?

Trust me, I won't forgot next week.

--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> Matt O'Toole writes:
>
>>> I broke a crank at least once per year for many years, as have guys
>>> I ride with. This year in the Alps my friend discovered a half
>>> cracked pedal eye on one crank as we left Lienz (A) toward the
>>> Großglockner. By rinding seated the entire climb, he was able to
>>> not have the crack advance.
>
>>> This was important in two ways. We were able to get to Zell am See
>>> in one piece and I had verification that these failures arise from
>>> standing while climbing hills, something of which I was fairly
>>> certain already, because I climb standing, my back doesn't want to
>>> do that sitting.
>
>> Have you broken any since using your chamfered collet? Have you
>> gotten anyone else to use it?
>
> One of my friends had his new cranks modified after having a pedal eye
> failure and of course, we've never seen another on his bicycle,
> considering that he weighs less than 150lbs while I haven't had one
> since I did that and I don't have the date when I installed that.
>
> Let me add that I don't check my cranks for cracks anymore and took a
> 2000+ mile tour in the Alps this summer and have no cracks.
>
> Jobst Brandt

so because i have no elephant sitting in my living room watching my tv
and drinking my beer, does that mean elephants are afraid of bicycles?
i have a bicycle in my living room you see, so it's safe for me to draw
that conclusion, right?

fact is jobst, both metallurgy and design have improved substantially
since the days of your failures. both eliminate the need to undertake
crank surgery. while your modification has merit, it doesn't allow you
to claim fatigue elimination without acknowledging the other
improvements. what you should really do is undertake this mod on a
failure-prone n.o.s. campy super record crank and then keep proper
mileage records. then we'll see if it really works.

 

[Hank Wirtz]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>
> 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...
>

Phil Wood rocks as well for still supporting threadings other than English
and Italian. I'm running an '06 Centaur crank with a 110.5mm ISO Phil on my
1975 French-threaded Peugeot.

They also do Swiss for those old Motobecanes, and Raleigh threading, too.