Outboard BB really do anything?
RS
bearings really make for a useable and/or noticeable difference over older
systems? Would especially like to hear from anyone who switched out
an ISIS or Octalink for a current outboard bearing type of crank.
thanks
riggo...@hotmail.com
Forget 'em. Adopt BB30 now.
RS
e83ceb...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, riggo...@hotmail.com
says...
built for it?
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Outboard bearings was the 'solution' to the poor design Octalink,
followed by the poor ISIS. Nether were an improvement to square taper,
just something 'new' started in 1997 by shimano. Being the gorilla,
Octalink(that shimano never licensed BB wise), waned and shimano
started outboard bearings, and all crank makers came on board with,
Campagnolo being the last to market it. Octalink and ISIS answered no
question, solved no problem with regards to square taper but you see
what the market has done. BB30 is being embraced by frame makers,
along with 1 1/4 and 1.5 inch lower headtubes because it makes it
easier(cheaper) for frame makers to hook great big tubes to bigger
tubes(BB shell and headtube). Crank makers that are embracing BB30 are
assuming all frame makers are going to go that way, but we'll see. FSA
hasn't seen a new idea it didn't like as shown by their speed in
making an ISIS, then outboard, then BB30 crank. A gent from FSA once
told me right after they started the outboard bearing design they
would rather copy than create.
Derk
>BB30 is being embraced by frame makers,
Does this mean that if BB30 will become the standard, we'll have to buy new
frames the moment that no more octalink/outboard BB will be available?
Derk
riggo...@hotmail.com
> In article <86ea583f-4440-4c76-87c6-
> e83cebde9...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, riggodee...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> >On May 28, 11:59 pm, RS <r_schil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Square taper to octalink to ISIS to outboard bearings. Do the outboard
> >> bearings really make for a useable and/or noticeable difference over older
> >> systems? Would especially like to hear from anyone who switched out
> >> an ISIS or Octalink for a current outboard bearing type of crank.
>
> >> thanks
>
> >Forget 'em. Adopt BB30 now.
>
> Yep, I forgot to list that and it is probably viable. But you need a frame that's
> built for it?
Right, you gotta get a frame with the larger BB shell. Cannondale is
leading the charge...
BTW, I was joking about becoming an early adopter. BB30 might be
"viable" but, really, what's the point? Other than to separate you
from more $ in the quest for "more stiffness" that you don't need.
Nothing wrong with the ol' square taper design for 99 and 44/100% of
all cyclists out there. Marketing is the most powerful force in the
universe...
Personally, I find the whole "outboard" thing offensive on purely
aesthetic grounds. I prefer my headset cups on the outside and my BB
bearings on the inside...I guess that makes me "old school" or maybe
just "old".
jim beam
>> Square taper to octalink to ISIS to outboard bearings. �Do the outboard
>> bearings really make for a useable and/or noticeable difference over older
>> systems? � Would especially like to hear from anyone who switched out
>> an ISIS or Octalink for a current outboard bearing type of crank.
>>
>> thanks
>
> Outboard bearings was the 'solution' to the poor design Octalink,
sorry peter, that's not an accurate assessment - octalink is an
excellent design solution to a very real problem. while it may not have
been an everyday occurrence, the physical design of square taper renders
it more susceptible to fatigue than the larger pipe spindle designs:
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-001.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-002.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-003.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-004.jpg
it's simply a function of skin stress. larger diameter means lower
stress and thus less fatigue. thus, octalink showed the way to
solution. continuing from that, the next step has to be outboard
bearing because it's not possible to get a larger spindle inside a
standard bb shell and still have bearings inside as well.
all the bleating about the supposed "poor design" of octalink was
generated by jobst brandt who, somewhat typically, failed to notice one
of its small but very important design features and thus he criticizes
octalink for a failure mode that doesn't exist.
Jay Beattie
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> > On May 28, 9:59�pm, RS <r_schil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Square taper to octalink to ISIS to outboard bearings. �Do the outboard
> >> bearings really make for a useable and/or noticeable difference over older
> >> systems? � Would especially like to hear from anyone who switched out
> >> an ISIS or Octalink for a current outboard bearing type of crank.
>
> >> thanks
>
> > Outboard bearings was the 'solution' to the poor design Octalink,
>
> sorry peter, that's not an accurate assessment - octalink is an
> excellent design solution to a very real problem. while it may not have
> been an everyday occurrence, the physical design of square taper renders
> it more susceptible to fatigue than the larger pipe spindle designs:
>
>
> it's simply a function of skin stress. larger diameter means lower
> stress and thus less fatigue. thus, octalink showed the way to
> solution. continuing from that, the next step has to be outboard
> bearing because it's not possible to get a larger spindle inside a
> standard bb shell and still have bearings inside as well.
>
> all the bleating about the supposed "poor design" of octalink was
> generated by jobst brandt who, somewhat typically, failed to notice one
> of its small but very important design features and thus he criticizes
> octalink for a failure mode that doesn't exist.
>
>
>
> > followed by the poor ISIS. Nether were an improvement to square taper,
> > just something 'new' started in 1997 by shimano. Being the gorilla,
> > Octalink(that shimano never licensed BB wise), waned and shimano
> > started outboard bearings, and all crank makers came on board with,
> > Campagnolo being the last to market it. Octalink and ISIS answered no
> > question, solved no problem with regards to square taper but you see
> > what the market has done. BB30 is being embraced by frame makers,
> > along with 1 1/4 and 1.5 inch lower headtubes because it makes it
> > easier(cheaper) for frame makers to hook great big tubes to bigger
> > tubes(BB shell and headtube). Crank makers that are embracing BB30 are
> > assuming all frame makers are going to go that way, but we'll see. FSA
> > hasn't seen a new idea it didn't like as shown by their speed in
> > making an ISIS, then outboard, then BB30 crank. A gent from FSA once
> > told me right after they started the outboard bearing design they
It is interesting that all of those are '70/80s Campy NR spindles from
open bearing BBs. Are there pictures of Shimano cartridge BB square-
taper spindles failing? Not saying they didn't, but I never saw one
fail -- just had bearings go south after many, many miles of riding.
I killed ISIS (and to a lesser extent Octalink) bearings in short
order -- within a few thousand miles. The latest one was an expensive
FSA -- but FSA would not touch it because the company had abandoned
ISIS. As it turned out, I had broken the ISIS crank, too. The female
insert in the CF arm had cracked all to hell. FSA did not have a
replacement arm because, again, they had abandoned ISIS. I now have
expensive key chain fobs. -- Jay Beattie.
Derk
> I killed ISIS (and to a lesser extent Octalink) bearings in short
> order -- within a few thousand miles.
Huh? Octalink lasts about 3 years on my bikes, which is at least 35000 km or
slightly more.
Derk
John Thompson
Why? Square taper has been deprecated for years now, yet is still
readily available.
BB30 will require you to buy new frames only if you're the type of
person who always has to have the latest and most expensive equipment.
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
Jay Beattie
Sorry, bad writing. What I meant to convey is that the bearings on
the Octalink are better than the ISIS BBs and last longer -- at least
in my experience. I toasted an FSA and a TruVativ ISIS BB in very
short order. I have had much better luck with Octalink (road). Both
Octalink and ISIS have OS spindles and similar tiny bearing problems,
so I don't know why one would be better than the other, but that has
been my experience. -- Jay Beattie.
Derk
> Why? Square taper has been deprecated for years now, yet is still
> readily available.
I couldn't buy a new BB for my 15 year old D-A any more.
> BB30 will require you to buy new frames only if you're the type of
> person who always has to have the latest and most expensive equipment.
This changing of standards all the time makes me sick. I have over 10
Octalinks in stock here, so I'm OK for the years to come.
Derk
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> >BB30 is being embraced by frame makers,
>
> Does this mean that if BB30 will become the standard, we'll have to buy new
> frames the moment that no more octalink/outboard BB will be available?
>
> Derk
BB30 frames can use conventional cranks and BBs. BUT if ya get a BB30
crank, it has to match the frame with that system. Not all frame
makers are going to embrace this.
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
> On May 29, 5:54 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 9:59�pm, RS <r_schil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> Square taper to octalink to ISIS to outboard bearings. �Do the outboard
> > >> bearings really make for a useable and/or noticeable difference over older
> > >> systems? � Would especially like to hear from anyone who switched out
> > >> an ISIS or Octalink for a current outboard bearing type of crank.
>
> > >> thanks
>
> > > Outboard bearings was the 'solution' to the poor design Octalink,
>
> > sorry peter, that's not an accurate assessment - octalink is an
> > excellent design solution to a very real problem. while it may not have
> > been an everyday occurrence, the physical design of square taper renders
> > it more susceptible to fatigue than the larger pipe spindle designs:
>
Not to mention that there were many thousands of square taper Campag
BB spindles and the percentage of breakage was low. I didn't keep the
3 octalink BBs that I replaced that broke in the center of the spindle
nor the octalink cranks that failed from 'lash, mostly MTB ones where
a rider gets airborne and then lands. To state that Octalink and ISIS
was produced by shimano and others to fix the huge square taper
breakage problem of Campagnolo is silly.
russell...@yahoo.com
> John Thompson wrote:
> > Why? Square taper has been deprecated for years now, yet is still
> > readily available.
>
> I couldn't buy a new BB for my 15 year old D-A any more.
103 mm JIS taper is what your Dura Ace crankset uses. Three readily
available sources below.
http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=16123&category=3166
Sugino
http://www.tokenproducts.com/05htm/products.php?pc1id=29 Token
http://www.philwood.com/SpecStainlessBB.htm Phil Wood
andre...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no question that square taper bbs work fine, provided that
they are properly installed and they are not ultra light. Thy have
passed the test of time quite succesfully. Regarding the new BBs, what
they promise is to make the whole bb stiffer and hence "providing a
better ride. Plus, supposedly, they are easy to change (not that the
square taper were not). I still have square taper BBs in all my bikes.
The people that I ride with have mostly newer bikes with outboard
BBsand other latest tech stuff. Nobody seems to get faster whenever
the switch to a new bike. The question is for someone who is
considerig the investment: Does the new technology improve riding
considerably? Can you sprint, climb better and feel a more responsive
bike? Can anyone who has switched BBs feel a significant difference?
If ayone has tried them and feel the difference, Then, it is certainly
worth it.
A couple of things that I notice make a significant difference in
speed. One is more trainning. The other is aerobars.
Andres
jim beam
you really should have - these are the first i've ever seen reported.
next one you get, please post here - i'd love to examine it.
> nor the octalink cranks that failed from 'lash, mostly MTB ones where
> a rider gets airborne and then lands. To state that Octalink and ISIS
> was produced by shimano and others to fix the huge square taper
> breakage problem of Campagnolo is silly.
one more problem with square taper and "lash", i've had a number of them
work loose over the years. and on many occasion i've stopped to help
mtb riders with that problem too. i've never had an octalink crank work
loose and i've never had to stop and help anyone else with a loose
octalink crank either.
Michael Press
<be754b19-a079-4ff2...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"andre...@aol.com" <andre...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 6:19 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> > On May 29, 9:49 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 29, 5:54 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
> >
> > > > > On May 28, 9:59?pm, RS <r_schil...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >> Square taper to octalink to ISIS to outboard bearings. ?Do the outboard
> > > > >> bearings really make for a useable and/or noticeable difference over older
> > > > >> systems? ? Would especially like to hear from anyone who switched out
How will it make the bottom bracket stiffer? And to what purpose?
The critical design problem around bottom brackets is limiting
twist of the chainstays; twist induced by large pedaling forces.
Another design problem is the chainstay to bottom bracket joint.
--
Michael Press
andre...@aol.com
> In article
> <be754b19-a079-4ff2-b7cf-ea1bbb687...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
I don't know, and I am the wrong person to ask. I don't have Outboard
BB nor do I make that claim. The people that promote the outboard BBs
claim that they are stiffer and that they result in more pedaling
power. Since I have square taper I cannot make that claim.
RS
d45eea...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, jbea...@lindsayhart.com
says...
Octalink. Same size spindle on both, one uses 8 teeth and the other 10 so
really no significant difference. The crital component, as you say, is that there
is exactly the same amount of bearing space in ISIS and Octalink so its odd
that ISIS developed a bad reputation.
andre...@aol.com
Square tapers will work loose if not properly installed pretty
quickly, not over the years. If they are properly installed, they will
not work themselves loose. Octalinks and Isis have only been sold for
two to three years and then they were discontinued. I am sure that if
they are properly installed, they will last for a long time. However,
too many reports of failures lead to them being redesigned. Square
tapers have been in existence for several decades, so comparisons in
terms of durability are not adequate. Since people would report
failures w/ octalink and the did not offer an incredible advantage
over square taper, they were abandoned soon.
Regarding people that you will find with loose BBs, that is likely in
cases were people just purchased a new bike that was not properly
adjusted, or people who recently had a tuneup and the bb had not been
properly tightened. That, or they rode five times in five years. If
you use plumbers tape on the crack bolts, the don't work themselves
loose even if they are poorly tightened.
A problem that I would find with square tapers were on the Italian
threaded ones. They required that the fixed cup would turn in a
direction that would work itself loose unless it was really tight in
the BB shell. This requires either a fancy and expensive Hozan tool
that held the cup wrench in place to tighten the fixed cup, or a home
made devise that would do the same function. Most shade tree mechanics
and a bunch of bike shops had neither. This would lead new Italian
threaded bike BBs to work themselves loose.
Andres
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>>>>> Square taper to Octalink to ISIS to outboard bearings. �Do
>>>>>>> the outboard bearings really make for a useable and/or
>>>>>>> noticeable difference over older systems? Would especially
>>>>>>> like to hear from anyone who switched out an ISIS or Octalink
>>>>>>> for a current outboard bearing type of crank.
>>>>>> Outboard bearings was the 'solution' to the poor design
>>>>>> Octalink,
>>>>> sorry peter, that's not an accurate assessment - octalink is an
>>>>> excellent design solution to a very real problem. while it may
>>>>> not have been an everyday occurrence, the physical design of
>>>>> square taper renders it more susceptible to fatigue than the
>>>>> larger pipe spindle designs:
Octalink is not a good design because it has torsional backlash. That
is, its splines are a free fit that under load exhibits small backlash
and this small rotation unscrews the retaining bolt. It does this
gradually every time the rider stands on the pedals with the right
foot forward (the only time the spindle transmits reverse torque).
This goes to the point where there is insufficient engagement of the
short spline and the ends shear off. Shimano, thnking their spline
was not long enough, lengthened the spline a little for the second
version, which also had the same problem.
That is why Octalink failed and is cancelled.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-001.jpg
>>>>> it's simply a function of skin stress. larger diameter means
>>>>> lower stress and thus less fatigue. thus, octalink showed the
>>>>> way to solution. continuing from that, the next step has to be
>>>>> outboard bearing because it's not possible to get a larger
>>>>> spindle inside a standard bb shell and still have bearings
>>>>> inside as well. all the bleating about the supposed "poor
>>>>> design" of octalink was generated by jobst brandt who, somewhat
>>>>> typically, failed to notice one of its small but very important
>>>>> design features and thus he criticizes octalink for a failure
>>>>> mode that doesn't exist.
Not so. Stresses are not to high in htese designs. The problem is
that they don't work in the manner the designer visualized the problem
as with the Octalink spline in which torsional backlash was not
understood. The same occurs with stacked-gear driven overhead cams in
motors. The gears all have torsional tooth backlash even though there
is no slack during amnual adjustment. When running, thse cam drives
and cams make a horrible chatter as the backlash slaps back and forth.
>>>>>> followed by the poor ISIS. Nether were an improvement to
>>>>>> square taper, just something 'new' started in 1997 by shimano.
>>>>>> Being the gorilla, Octalink(that shimano never licensed BB
>>>>>> wise), waned and shimano started outboard bearings, and all
>>>>>> crank makers came on board with, Campagnolo being the last to
>>>>>> market it. Octalink and ISIS answered no question, solved no
>>>>>> problem with regards to square taper but you see what the
>>>>>> market has done. BB30 is being embraced by frame makers, along
>>>>>> with 1 1/4 and 1.5 inch lower headtubes because it makes it
>>>>>> easier(cheaper) for frame makers to hook great big tubes to
>>>>>> bigger tubes(BB shell and headtube). Crank makers that are
>>>>>> embracing BB30 are assuming all frame makers are going to go
>>>>>> that way, but we'll see. FSA hasn't seen a new idea it didn't
>>>>>> like as shown by their speed in making an ISIS, then outboard,
>>>>>> then BB30 crank. A gent from FSA once told me right after they
>>>>>> started the outboard bearing design they would rather copy than
>>>>>> create.
>>>> It is interesting that all of those are '70/80s Campy NR spindles
>>>> from open bearing BBs. Are there pictures of Shimano cartridge
>>>> BB square- taper spindles failing? Not saying they didn't, but I
>>>> never saw one fail -- just had bearings go south after many, many
>>>> miles of riding.
>>>> I killed ISIS (and to a lesser extent Octalink) bearings in short
>>>> order -- within a few thousand miles. The latest one was an
>>>> expensive FSA -- but FSA would not touch it because the company
>>>> had abandoned ISIS. As it turned out, I had broken the ISIS
>>>> crank, too. The female insert in the CF arm had cracked all to
>>>> hell. FSA did not have a replacement arm because, again, they
>>>> had abandoned ISIS. I now have expensive key chain fobs. -- Jay
>>>> Beattie.
>>> Not to mention that there were many thousands of square taper
>>> Campag BB spindles and the percentage of breakage was low. I
>>> didn't keep the 3 octalink BBs that I replaced that broke in the
>>> center of the spindle
>> you really should have - these are the first I've ever seen
>> reported. next one you get, please post here - I'd love to examine
>> it.
>>> nor the octalink cranks that failed from 'lash, mostly MTB ones
>>> where a rider gets airborne and then lands. To state that
>>> Octalink and ISIS was produced by shimano and others to fix the
>>> huge square taper breakage problem of Campagnolo is silly.
Ot's not the airborn part that causes this problem but rather riders
who stand with the right foot forward which causes reverse torque on
the spline.
>> one more problem with square taper and "lash", I've had a number of
>> them work loose over the years. and on many occasion I've stopped
>> to help mtb riders with that problem too. I've never had an
>> octalink crank work loose and I've never had to stop and help
>> anyone else with a loose octalink crank either.
You didn't have any goofy footed riders!
> Square tapers will work loose if not properly installed pretty
> quickly, not over the years. If they are properly installed, they
> will not work themselves loose. Octalinks and Isis have only been
> sold for two to three years and then they were discontinued. I am
> sure that if they are properly installed, they will last for a long
> time. However, too many reports of failures lead to them being
> redesigned. Square tapers have been in existence for several
> decades, so comparisons in terms of durability are not adequate.
> Since people would report failures w/ octalink and the did not offer
> an incredible advantage over square taper, they were abandoned soon.
If a square taper is not installed with adequate torque, it will lift
off and deform the compression side of the contact faces. Once this
occurs, the crank of a goofy footed rider will repeatedly loosen as it
rotates into the deformed formerly square bore.
> Regarding people that you will find with loose BBs, that is likely
> in cases were people just purchased a new bike that was not properly
> adjusted, or people who recently had a tuneup and the bb had not
> been properly tightened. That, or they rode five times in five
> years. If you use plumbers tape on the crack bolts, the don't work
> themselves loose even if they are poorly tightened.
Loose BB is loose ball bearings, not a crank attachment problem.
Therefore, it is unrelated to the type crank attachment.
> A problem that I would find with square tapers were on the Italian
> threaded ones. They required that the fixed cup would turn in a
> direction that would work itself loose unless it was really tight in
> the BB shell. This requires either a fancy and expensive Hozan tool
> that held the cup wrench in place to tighten the fixed cup, or a
> home made devise that would do the same function. Most shade tree
> mechanics and a bunch of bike shops had neither. This would lead
> new Italian threaded bike BBs to work themselves loose.
I think this has drifted into foreign territory. BB adjustent and
crank attachments are unrelated design problems. Aside from that, as
I have mentioned before on this forub, wherever you find a left hand
thread in a structural attachment, you are looking at a faulty design.
That goes for BB's, pedals, or auto left hand wheels of old.
The left hand thread is used where the retaining screw is being used
to support a rotating load. Screws are suppoed to supply compression
force between two mating parts. Radial loads should not be carried or
the part will displace radially. As I pointed out, precession is not
understood by most engineers and that is why such designs get to
market.
Octalink fails because it cannot reliably support reverse torque.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>>>>> Square taper to Octalink to ISIS to outboard bearings. �Do
>>>>>>> the outboard bearings really make for a useable and/or
>>>>>>> noticeable difference over older systems? Would especially
>>>>>>> like to hear from anyone who switched out an ISIS or Octalink
>>>>>>> for a current outboard bearing type of crank.
>>>>>> Outboard bearings was the 'solution' to the poor design
>>>>>> Octalink,
>>>>> sorry peter, that's not an accurate assessment - octalink is an
>>>>> excellent design solution to a very real problem. while it may
>>>>> not have been an everyday occurrence, the physical design of
>>>>> square taper renders it more susceptible to fatigue than the
>>>>> larger pipe spindle designs:
Octalink is not a good design because it has torsional backlash. That
is, its splines are a free fit that under load exhibits small backlash
and this small rotation unscrews the retaining bolt. It does this
gradually every time the rider stands on the pedals with the right
foot forward (the only time the spindle transmits reverse torque).
This goes to the point where there is insufficient engagement of the
short spline and the ends shear off. Shimano, thnking their spline
was not long enough, lengthened the spline a little for the second
version, which also had the same problem.
That is why Octalink failed and is cancelled.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-001.jpg
>>>>> it's simply a function of skin stress. larger diameter means
>>>>> lower stress and thus less fatigue. thus, octalink showed the
>>>>> way to solution. continuing from that, the next step has to be
>>>>> outboard bearing because it's not possible to get a larger
>>>>> spindle inside a standard bb shell and still have bearings
>>>>> inside as well. all the bleating about the supposed "poor
>>>>> design" of octalink was generated by jobst brandt who, somewhat
>>>>> typically, failed to notice one of its small but very important
>>>>> design features and thus he criticizes octalink for a failure
>>>>> mode that doesn't exist.
Not so. Stresses are not to high in htese designs. The problem is
that they don't work in the manner the designer visualized the problem
as with the Octalink spline in which torsional backlash was not
understood. The same occurs with stacked-gear driven overhead cams in
motors. The gears all have torsional tooth backlash even though there
is no slack during amnual adjustment. When running, thse cam drives
and cams make a horrible chatter as the backlash slaps back and forth.
>>>>>> followed by the poor ISIS. Nether were an improvement to
>>>>>> square taper, just something 'new' started in 1997 by shimano.
>>>>>> Being the gorilla, Octalink(that shimano never licensed BB
>>>>>> wise), waned and shimano started outboard bearings, and all
>>>>>> crank makers came on board with, Campagnolo being the last to
>>>>>> market it. Octalink and ISIS answered no question, solved no
>>>>>> problem with regards to square taper but you see what the
>>>>>> market has done. BB30 is being embraced by frame makers, along
>>>>>> with 1 1/4 and 1.5 inch lower headtubes because it makes it
>>>>>> easier(cheaper) for frame makers to hook great big tubes to
>>>>>> bigger tubes(BB shell and headtube). Crank makers that are
>>>>>> embracing BB30 are assuming all frame makers are going to go
>>>>>> that way, but we'll see. FSA hasn't seen a new idea it didn't
>>>>>> like as shown by their speed in making an ISIS, then outboard,
>>>>>> then BB30 crank. A gent from FSA once told me right after they
>>>>>> started the outboard bearing design they would rather copy than
>>>>>> create.
>>>> It is interesting that all of those are '70/80s Campy NR spindles
>>>> from open bearing BBs. Are there pictures of Shimano cartridge
>>>> BB square- taper spindles failing? Not saying they didn't, but I
>>>> never saw one fail -- just had bearings go south after many, many
>>>> miles of riding.
>>>> I killed ISIS (and to a lesser extent Octalink) bearings in short
>>>> order -- within a few thousand miles. The latest one was an
>>>> expensive FSA -- but FSA would not touch it because the company
>>>> had abandoned ISIS. As it turned out, I had broken the ISIS
>>>> crank, too. The female insert in the CF arm had cracked all to
>>>> hell. FSA did not have a replacement arm because, again, they
>>>> had abandoned ISIS. I now have expensive key chain fobs. -- Jay
>>>> Beattie.
>>> Not to mention that there were many thousands of square taper
>>> Campag BB spindles and the percentage of breakage was low. I
>>> didn't keep the 3 octalink BBs that I replaced that broke in the
>>> center of the spindle
>> you really should have - these are the first I've ever seen
>> reported. next one you get, please post here - I'd love to examine
>> it.
>>> nor the octalink cranks that failed from 'lash, mostly MTB ones
>>> where a rider gets airborne and then lands. To state that
>>> Octalink and ISIS was produced by shimano and others to fix the
>>> huge square taper breakage problem of Campagnolo is silly.
It's not the airborn part that causes this problem but rather riders
who stand with the right foot forward which causes reverse torque on
the spline.
>> one more problem with square taper and "lash", I've had a number of
>> them work loose over the years. and on many occasion I've stopped
>> to help mtb riders with that problem too. I've never had an
>> octalink crank work loose and I've never had to stop and help
>> anyone else with a loose octalink crank either.
You didn't have any goofy footed riders!
> Square tapers will work loose if not properly installed pretty
> quickly, not over the years. If they are properly installed, they
> will not work themselves loose. Octalinks and Isis have only been
> sold for two to three years and then they were discontinued. I am
> sure that if they are properly installed, they will last for a long
> time. However, too many reports of failures lead to them being
> redesigned. Square tapers have been in existence for several
> decades, so comparisons in terms of durability are not adequate.
> Since people would report failures w/ octalink and the did not offer
> an incredible advantage over square taper, they were abandoned soon.
If a square taper is not installed with adequate torque, it will lift
off and deform the compression side of the contact faces. Once this
occurs, the crank of a goofy footed rider will repeatedly loosen as it
rotates into the deformed formerly square bore.
> Regarding people that you will find with loose BBs, that is likely
> in cases were people just purchased a new bike that was not properly
> adjusted, or people who recently had a tuneup and the bb had not
> been properly tightened. That, or they rode five times in five
> years. If you use plumbers tape on the crack bolts, the don't work
> themselves loose even if they are poorly tightened.
Loose BB is loose ball bearings, not a crank attachment problem.
Therefore, it is unrelated to the type crank attachment.
> A problem that I would find with square tapers were on the Italian
> threaded ones. They required that the fixed cup would turn in a
> direction that would work itself loose unless it was really tight in
> the BB shell. This requires either a fancy and expensive Hozan tool
> that held the cup wrench in place to tighten the fixed cup, or a
> home made devise that would do the same function. Most shade tree
> mechanics and a bunch of bike shops had neither. This would lead
> new Italian threaded bike BBs to work themselves loose.
I think this has drifted into foreign territory. BB adjustent and
Ryan Cousineau
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Well, stiffness sells, but virtually all the recent sexy carbon frames
are putting big chunks of carbon around the BB.
A fairly typical example is the Cervelo Soloist Carbon:
http://www.cervelo.com/bikes.aspx?bike=SLC2008
Observe how the BB shell now appears to be dwarfed by the frame members
in contact with it; the down tube flares to the full width of the BB
before it makes contact, as well as being rather deeper than the BB. The
chainstays are very nearly as deep, and just as wide. Where a
traditional frame would have a chainstay bridge, this frame's "BB shell"
basically doesn't stop until it has finished filling in the chainstay
bridge area.
In that context, a bigger BB spindle is stiffer, though I don't know how
important that is. It is also stronger, and the attachment to the cranks
is also generally stronger. The bigger-diameter spindle leaves no room
for effective bearings, so these designs move the bearings outside of
the spindle.
External-bearing designs are so obviously a hack on the current BB
standard that an oversized BB specification (BB30 or maybe the Trek
spec; probably not Pinarello's mOst) is the logical next step.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> In article <f2e2a6a5-cd11-4caa-805a-
> d45eeae11...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, jbeat...@lindsayhart.com
John Dacey autopsied an Octalink bottom bracket
and found that the spindle is necked down and that
it contains a race with seven 7/32" bearing balls
(on one side at least).
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/bdb48b8cb1123c67
IIRC, people who have opened these up say they
are rather like a ship-in-a-bottle.
I don't know what the bearings in a typical ISIS bb are.
Would anyone with a toasted ISIS bb care to cut or
crush it open and look inside?
Ben
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Why, things break, not unusual.
>
> > nor the octalink cranks that failed from 'lash, mostly MTB ones where
> > a rider gets airborne and then lands. To state that Octalink and ISIS
> > was produced by shimano and others to fix the huge square taper
> > breakage problem of Campagnolo is silly.
>
> one more problem with square taper and "lash", i've had a number of them
> work loose over the years. and on many occasion i've stopped to help
> mtb riders with that problem too. i've never had an octalink crank work
> loose and i've never had to stop and help anyone else with a loose
> octalink crank either.
As anecdotal as your pictures of the NR spindles that have broken. In
23 years, no square taper crank I have installed, including my own,
has ever come loose. Square taper has served the cycling community
well and still does. Octalink, ISIS, outboard bearings and now BB30 is
the stuff of the marketeers, not the engineers. When I read how the
BB30 will be 'stiffer, lighter, making cycling significantly better',
like I read recently in Brain, it makes me roll my eyes. Not much of
the bike in the last 2 decades has made a 'significant' difference in
cycling enjoyment. Index, lever mounted shifting, clipless pedals,
improvements in bike fit and training and nutrition, yep, but most of
the gizmos don't. Back of Velonews, Look with integrated seatmast,
"enhances torsional rigidity, improves handling and comfort." ohh
please.......
jim beam
> Andres Muro wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Square taper to Octalink to ISIS to outboard bearings. �Do
>>>>>>>> the outboard bearings really make for a useable and/or
>>>>>>>> noticeable difference over older systems? Would especially
>>>>>>>> like to hear from anyone who switched out an ISIS or Octalink
>>>>>>>> for a current outboard bearing type of crank.
>
>>>>>>> Outboard bearings was the 'solution' to the poor design
>>>>>>> Octalink,
>
>>>>>> sorry peter, that's not an accurate assessment - octalink is an
>>>>>> excellent design solution to a very real problem. while it may
>>>>>> not have been an everyday occurrence, the physical design of
>>>>>> square taper renders it more susceptible to fatigue than the
>>>>>> larger pipe spindle designs:
>
> Octalink is not a good design because it has torsional backlash.
that's untrue jobst. as usual, you have failed to properly observe all
of the design. for a straight tooth shaft, you would be correct.
however, this is a shaft whose teeth bottom onto radiused edges, thus
wedging the interface against lash, just like a wedged taper does.
> That
> is, its splines are a free fit
incorrect. see above.
> that under load exhibits small backlash
> and this small rotation unscrews the retaining bolt.
but it doesn't. see above.
> It does this
> gradually every time the rider stands on the pedals with the right
> foot forward (the only time the spindle transmits reverse torque).
but it doesn't. see above.
> This goes to the point where there is insufficient engagement of the
> short spline and the ends shear off.
like any other interface, if some idiot fails to observe the correct
fitting procedure, fasteners loosen, and then teeth can shear. that's a
feature of /any/ interface.
> Shimano, thnking their spline
> was not long enough, lengthened the spline a little for the second
> version, which also had the same problem.
no jobst, they were merely differentiating between the road and mtb
markets.
>
> That is why Octalink failed and is cancelled.
but it didn't and it's not. indeed, the interface has been revived for
their integrated bb designs. you should bother to look at one some time.
>
> http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-001.jpg
>
>>>>>> it's simply a function of skin stress. larger diameter means
>>>>>> lower stress and thus less fatigue. thus, octalink showed the
>>>>>> way to solution. continuing from that, the next step has to be
>>>>>> outboard bearing because it's not possible to get a larger
>>>>>> spindle inside a standard bb shell and still have bearings
>>>>>> inside as well. all the bleating about the supposed "poor
>>>>>> design" of octalink was generated by jobst brandt who, somewhat
>>>>>> typically, failed to notice one of its small but very important
>>>>>> design features and thus he criticizes octalink for a failure
>>>>>> mode that doesn't exist.
>
> Not so. Stresses are not to high in htese designs.
so then they don't break??? oh, wait, here's an engineer confused about
fatigue again...
> The problem is
> that they don't work in the manner the designer visualized
see above!
> the problem
> as with the Octalink spline in which torsional backlash was not
> understood.
no, the person not bothering to observe the design properly hasn't
understood.
> The same occurs with stacked-gear driven overhead cams in
> motors. The gears all have torsional tooth backlash even though there
> is no slack during amnual adjustment. When running, thse cam drives
> and cams make a horrible chatter as the backlash slaps back and forth.
red herring.
but it doesn't happen.
>
>>> one more problem with square taper and "lash", I've had a number of
>>> them work loose over the years. and on many occasion I've stopped
>>> to help mtb riders with that problem too. I've never had an
>>> octalink crank work loose and I've never had to stop and help
>>> anyone else with a loose octalink crank either.
>
> You didn't have any goofy footed riders!
"goofy footed" is a typical jobstian device to trivialize what is in
fact an expected loading mode. if your design requires a user to not do
something that is entirely to be expected, then your design is inadequate.
>
>> Square tapers will work loose if not properly installed pretty
>> quickly, not over the years. If they are properly installed, they
>> will not work themselves loose. Octalinks and Isis have only been
>> sold for two to three years and then they were discontinued. I am
>> sure that if they are properly installed, they will last for a long
>> time. However, too many reports of failures lead to them being
>> redesigned. Square tapers have been in existence for several
>> decades, so comparisons in terms of durability are not adequate.
>> Since people would report failures w/ octalink and the did not offer
>> an incredible advantage over square taper, they were abandoned soon.
>
> If a square taper is not installed with adequate torque, it will lift
> off and deform the compression side of the contact faces. Once this
> occurs, the crank of a goofy footed rider will repeatedly loosen as it
> rotates into the deformed formerly square bore.
no kidding.
>
>> Regarding people that you will find with loose BBs, that is likely
>> in cases were people just purchased a new bike that was not properly
>> adjusted, or people who recently had a tuneup and the bb had not
>> been properly tightened. That, or they rode five times in five
>> years. If you use plumbers tape on the crack bolts, the don't work
>> themselves loose even if they are poorly tightened.
>
> Loose BB is loose ball bearings, not a crank attachment problem.
> Therefore, it is unrelated to the type crank attachment.
>
>> A problem that I would find with square tapers were on the Italian
>> threaded ones. They required that the fixed cup would turn in a
>> direction that would work itself loose unless it was really tight in
>> the BB shell. This requires either a fancy and expensive Hozan tool
>> that held the cup wrench in place to tighten the fixed cup, or a
>> home made devise that would do the same function. Most shade tree
>> mechanics and a bunch of bike shops had neither. This would lead
>> new Italian threaded bike BBs to work themselves loose.
>
> I think this has drifted into foreign territory. BB adjustent and
> crank attachments are unrelated design problems. Aside from that, as
> I have mentioned before on this forub, wherever you find a left hand
> thread in a structural attachment, you are looking at a faulty design.
repetition of a misconception and misunderstanding doesn't make your
problem go away jobst! you /would/ be right for a square tooth design,
but it's not, so you're barking up the wrong tree. just like you barked
up the wrong tree on "residual stress" - you failed to observe the
actual situation.
> That goes for BB's, pedals, or auto left hand wheels of old.
>
> The left hand thread is used where the retaining screw is being used
> to support a rotating load. Screws are suppoed to supply compression
> force between two mating parts. Radial loads should not be carried or
> the part will displace radially. As I pointed out, precession is not
> understood by most engineers and that is why such designs get to
> market.
>
> Octalink fails because it cannot reliably support reverse torque.
just like metal fatigue can be eliminated from a material with no
fatigue endurance limit?
jim beam
but it is unusual for octalink. i've never seen any broken octalink
spindle, and to be honest, the only person i've ever heard of having
seen one is you!
>>> nor the octalink cranks that failed from 'lash, mostly MTB ones where
>>> a rider gets airborne and then lands. To state that Octalink and ISIS
>>> was produced by shimano and others to fix the huge square taper
>>> breakage problem of Campagnolo is silly.
>> one more problem with square taper and "lash", i've had a number of them
>> work loose over the years. and on many occasion i've stopped to help
>> mtb riders with that problem too. i've never had an octalink crank work
>> loose and i've never had to stop and help anyone else with a loose
>> octalink crank either.
>
> As anecdotal as your pictures of the NR spindles that have broken. In
> 23 years, no square taper crank I have installed, including my own,
> has ever come loose. Square taper has served the cycling community
> well and still does. Octalink, ISIS, outboard bearings and now BB30 is
> the stuff of the marketeers, not the engineers.
that's not true. the math is all about a stiffer bb. feed some numbers
into the formula at the bottom of this page if you don't believe me.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/torsion-shafts-d_947.html
> When I read how the
> BB30 will be 'stiffer, lighter, making cycling significantly better',
> like I read recently in Brain, it makes me roll my eyes. Not much of
> the bike in the last 2 decades has made a 'significant' difference in
> cycling enjoyment. Index, lever mounted shifting, clipless pedals,
> improvements in bike fit and training and nutrition, yep, but most of
> the gizmos don't. Back of Velonews, Look with integrated seatmast,
> "enhances torsional rigidity, improves handling and comfort." ohh
> please.......
>
there's marketing, and there are people unable to filter.
jim beam
true - let me re-word my statement since it appears to be ambiguous: my
experience over the years has been that of having had a number of square
taper cranks work loose.
> Octalinks and Isis have only been sold for
> two to three years and then they were discontinued.
untrue. octalink has been out for a decade and is still sold/supported
by shimano.
> I am sure that if
> they are properly installed, they will last for a long time. However,
> too many reports of failures lead to them being redesigned.
what failures? we have q.s.p.c with allegedly three failures, and no
others. unless you mean loosening, which is jobstian myth, not reality.
> Square
> tapers have been in existence for several decades, so comparisons in
> terms of durability are not adequate. Since people would report
> failures w/ octalink and the did not offer an incredible advantage
> over square taper, they were abandoned soon.
but they do, they're noticeably stiffer, at least to us big heavy guys,
Tom Kunich
message
news:f4ced17e-bdac-4b2d...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Back of Velonews, Look with integrated seatmast,
> "enhances torsional rigidity, improves handling and comfort." ohh
> please.......
Well, at least it makes the bike unsalable as a used bike since you probably
can't get it to fit anyone else after you hacksaw the frame to fit yourself.
Certainly that is a great help to the manufacturer.
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
No V1 Octalink cranks for shimano in 2008, V2 only, only low end. I
think there are more square taper cranks than V2 as well, but would
have to check. . Only 2 V1 BBs made now, 105 and DA. No doubt this
'design' is going away.
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in
>
> > Back of Velonews, Look with integrated seatmast,
> > "enhances torsional rigidity, improves handling and comfort." ohh
> > please.......
>
> Well, at least it makes the bike unsalable as a used bike since you probably
> can't get it to fit anyone else after you hacksaw the frame to fit yourself.
> Certainly that is a great help to the manufacturer.
No doubt plus no test ride bikes where you can get the seat height at
least close. Means if you are gonna sell Looks or whatever, have a
fleet of them, different seat heights and sizes, BUT sell no other cuz
can't afford to. Plus, end of the year, time to sell demos..that's
gonna be tough as well.
jim beam
so? only "low end" square taper is now available! and because "high
end" is not available doesn't mean it's gone away!
> I
> think there are more square taper cranks than V2 as well, but would
> have to check. . Only 2 V1 BBs made now, 105 and DA. No doubt this
> 'design' is going away.
again, DA doesn't mean it's "gone away". and "no doubt" is highly doubtful.
Tom Kunich
> so? only "low end" square taper is now available! and because "high end"
> is not available doesn't mean it's gone away!
When did Phil Wood become low end?
> again, DA doesn't mean it's "gone away". and "no doubt" is highly
> doubtful.
What it means is that they had a lot left in stock because no one wanted to
buy expensive BB's for a losing proposition.
jim beam
> "jim beam" <spamv...@bad.example.net> wrote in message >
>> so? only "low end" square taper is now available! and because "high
>> end" is not available doesn't mean it's gone away!
>
> When did Phil Wood become low end?
sorry, i thought we were talking "shimano". of course, someone like
chalo can machine a whole new spindle for you from something
aerospace-exotic, but i don't think that would count as "shimano" either.
>
>> again, DA doesn't mean it's "gone away". and "no doubt" is highly
>> doubtful.
>
> What it means is that they had a lot left in stock because no one wanted
> to buy expensive BB's for a losing proposition.
how odd - as soon as shimano announce that they were continuing to
support octalink with continued sales of new 105 and da spindles, this
stuff is suddenly "left in stock". perhaps you'd better call tom
ritchie and tell him that the octalink interface he paid good money to
license is going to be an expensive embarrassment when all those cranks
he manufactures to fit have nothing to work with. will you let us know
how that call goes please? thanks so much.
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
The ones that were recalled or some other?
We are already seeing people with V1 XTR with no BB to support it. So,
if ya have a first gen V1 XTR BB go south, instead of a $50 BB, a $400
crank
jim beam
but that's not news - it hasn't been supported in years.
> So,
> if ya have a first gen V1 XTR BB go south, instead of a $50 BB, a $400
> crank
so use a 105 bb. same interface, 3.0mm difference in chain line which
can be adjusted with a spacer.
here's another consideration - that xtr crank was not sold in anywhere
/near/ the same volume as the v2 xt cranks - even when they were new, i
only recall one person i know having had one, everybody else having xt
or race face and old square taper bb spindles. there has to be a limit
to "support" for a low volume product. and that's why v2 bb spindles
are still well supported. that xtr crank had an odd chain ring spider
diameter too iirc - again, not much point arguing about the bb if you
can't get rings.
Frank Krygowski
>
> here's another consideration - that xtr crank was not sold in anywhere
> /near/ the same volume as the v2 xt cranks - even when they were new, i
> only recall one person i know having had one, everybody else having xt
> or race face and old square taper bb spindles.
Your friends had old square taper spindles? I thought those were so
archaic and fatigue prone that they could never get "old" without
failing!
Must have been a gently-pedaling Retro Club, I guess! ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
jim beam
hey, idiot, where's your buddy timmy the retard? i thought you two
needed to tag-team?
It's Chris
money on new stuff just to keep their bikes running when the find out
their current gear has ben needlessly rendered obsolete.
Just My Very Heartfeld Opinion.
- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner
It's Chris
>BTW, I was joking about becoming an
>early adopter. BB30 might be "viable"
>but, really, what's the point? Other than
>to separate you from more $ in the quest
>for "more stiffness" that you don't need.
>Nothing wrong with the ol' square taper
>design for 99 and 44/100% of all cyclists
>out there. Marketing is the most powerful
>force in the universe...
>Personally, I find the whole "outboard"
>thing offensive on purely aesthetic
>grounds. I prefer my headset cups on the
>outside and my BB bearings on the
>inside...I guess that makes me "old
>school" or maybe just "old".
Not old, just sensable. I often wonder why so few people questioned why
the manufacturers went to all that trouble to stuff the headset bearings
IN the frame, only to turn around a day later and yank the bb bearings
OUT?
It's Chris
>Huh? Octalink lasts about 3 years on my
>bikes, which is at least 35000 km or
>slightly more.
>Derk
I have over 47,000 miles (well over 75,000 Km) on my Sugino AeroTour
square taper crank and BB, and both are still working as fine as they
did when I installed them 15 mountainous years ago.