Talk to me about bottom brackets

[dstein]

Why are more expensive bottom brackets more expensive? What do you gain? Is it just durability? Or is there any sort of performance gain (ie, does it roll smoother, faster, etc)?

I've worked on most bike parts now minus the bottom bracket and headset. About to change cranks on my hunqapillar form the Sugino triple (with a 107 or 110 bb) to a White Industries Eno (with a 113 bb). Trying to figure out if I go w/ the $40 bb on Riv's site? Or a White Industries or something similar? This bike will see 500-1000 miles a year on dirt and some mud. And support the occasional overnighter.

[Bill Lindsay]

There is no massive performance benefit to expensive BBs.  Nobody has ever said "Hey, I just upgraded my bottom bracket and now I'm way faster!".  If they did say that, they were delusional.  $40 bottom brackets work great and you don't touch them for 5 years or so.  

I own two White Industries Bottom Brackets.  One I bought for a really light build and I bought their expensive Titanium BB.  The other one is a steel unit I bought along with a White Industries VBC crankset.  I bought it because it seemed right to match the crankset with the BB, and because White Industries is a very good supporter of Bay Area Youth Cycling, and I felt good figuring out another way to put money in their register.  I like to reward local companies that employ nice people and give a lot back to the cycling community.  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Lungimsam]

Here are some articles on brackets:
https://janheine.wordpress.com/category/components/bottom-brackets/

There should be one of the articles talking about bracket structure and features.

[Ryan Fleming]

I have to say...I have Phil BBs on my rivs, but those SKF BBs do sound amazing especially with a 10-year guarantee. For the money, it sounds like these SKF BBs  are hard to beat.Now if it makes you faster....we may be into mechanical doping  territory here... :)

Compass delivery service is excellent, too. OT  I ordered 3 pairs of Compass tires and I got them in under a week shipped to Canada. Riding impressions to follow

[David Stein]

Oh right, I forget weight is also a thing people consider ;). I also like the match of white industries crank to white industries bottom bracket and love supporting a CA business. Though buying from Riv also fulfills that for me a bit.

So are we mostly talking durability and maintenance then? Better with more expensive models?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/uQgg6v9B0tk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bill Lindsay]

It would be closer simplification to use the triangle of features:  Light, Strong, Cheap.  Choose two.  If it's light and strong, it won't be cheap.  If it's light and cheap, it wont be durable.  If it's strong and cheap, it won't be light.  The $40 BB you buy from Riv will be durable and cheap.  An SKF is a weird outlier, because it is neither cheap nor light, but it's SUPER durable.  

[Lungimsam]

There are bottom brackets, and there are bottom braquets...I'm not sure where the price cutoff is. 

[Garth]

FWIW, for those that buy the Tange LN-7922 BB that Riv sells, you can also get the steel cup version model LN-3922 for about $30 shipped .  For myself the cutoff would be White BB if I bought a White crank, otherwise stick with the Tange steel version for Sugino XD cranks.  Paying top dollar does not necessarily mean it will last any longer, it's just more expensive.  The SKF has a long warranty, but anyone who knows anything about warranties the truth of them is in the details, conditions, where to send it, who pays for shipping and such if and when you really do need it .

For the JH readers .... http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f2/skf-phil-wood-29563-2-print.html

Jan Heine

Re: SKF or Phil Wood

Conventional cartridge bearing bottom brackets last a long time, IF you DON'T ride in wet or worse, snowy, conditions.

[Ron Mc]

me

I'm a big boy, and I stand hard.  The original splined crank on that Raleigh stripped out under me climbing home from campus in Austin in '78.  

I have 3 SKF BB on 3 bikes.  Jan warranties them for 10 years.  They're overbuilt and I'll take it.  

[BSWP]

I have a Phil BB in my '98 LongLow, and I have not paid it any attention in all these years and miles. I'm heavy (230 pounds wet) and tall, so a lot of torque passes through the cranks (Ritchey Logic) and the BB, and both have been rock solid for 17 years now. Would a cheaper BB have failed by now? I dunno... but it spins smooth and I don't think I need to worry about it.

- Andrew, Berkeley

[iamkeith]

White Industries & Phil are my favorites too, though I have too many bikes, so I find I can justify the cost only for my best and most utilized bikes. For those, I've never regretted the cost or felt they were overkill. Not mentioned yet is that they are really LIFETIME parts , since the bearings can be replaced easily and cheaply and quickly. Ive done so many times - unbeatable musa service from both companies. Shimano cartridges are disposable.

White has a neat ability to micro-adjust bearing preload. As Bill mentioned, their Ti is good for a weight conscious build with an unexpectedly low premium.

Phil offers ability to perfect chainline with many options for spindle length and offset , including custom! For a bike with odd shell length (like a 100mm fat bike), they are the only option.

Down side of Phil is the need for a proprietary installation tool , whereas White uses shimano standard. (Or as Sheldon said: Phil is actually the standard/inventor, while shimano and subsequently most others adopted the slightly different standard, just to be difficult.)

[ascpgh]

My view of BBs revolves around correct dimensions, function and service. Those that are the correct spindle length and permit snug but safe clearance of stays, have accurate fit of tapers with the crank arms never used odd interface BBs and don't abide with external bearings and their cranks), stay installed and last under my use get my vote. My MB-0 made me a Mavic BB fan and put them in my bikes before the cartridge units hit the market.

My Rambouillet started with a TA Zephyr triple on a Phil, more recently I dropped the inner ring, spacers and hardware to run as a wide double and needed a shorter spindle. At nearly the same time I was dong a post-winter cleaning of my commuter and its two year-old Phil's bearings were trashed. In response to these collective observations of service life and cost to refurbish, I put an SKF for the Ram and threw an appropriate size Shimano UN-51 into the commuter. The 14 year-old Phil not regularly operated in the winter slop was smooth as butter.

I never got around to dropping $46 plus cross country postage to rebuild the Phil and it sits in my tool box with its much older, still serviceable kin, the commuter got demoted in my stable, its replacement and OEM UN-55 that remains serviceable after two winters. 

I agree with Jan Heine that winter differentiates the durability of cartridge bearing vs sealed BB units. No snow/slush service of my SKF, so I cannot say definitively that it is my new all-around answer, but I can add that I didn't have a very good front fender/flap situation during the short-lived Phil use on the commuter compared to my current set up which may be prolonging the garden variety unit's service. 

Keeping the spray and slop off your bottom bracket is the first step, a sealed unit is the next if your objective is a BB that keeps working. 

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

[Scott Henry]

You might get some longevity, but if you are really only riding in the
1000 miles a year, the cheapest shimano cartridge would be the way to
go. You can get a UN-55 for less than $25.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

[Steve Palincsar]

Of course, 1,000 miles per year on dirt and mud isn't quite the same thing as 1,000 miles per year on paved roads.

[Philip Kim]

white industries stainless steel BB are nice, but they run sizes specific for their cranks.

otherwise, I would just get a phil bb (for adjust-ability), or an SFK (if you don't wanna buy extra phil tools). 

i've used shimano un55/75's and they are great bang for the buck, but do require frequent replacement if you're riding a lot in dirt/mud/rain.

lately i've invested a bit more in parts and have become more of a "set it and forget it" type.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:27:49 PM UTC-4, dstein wrote:

[Mark Reimer]

Price definitely does NOT equate to greater longevity ALL the time. I've thrashed a Phil BB in less than a year. Why? Well because I ride in sub-freezing temperatures for about half the year. The bike sees a lot of freeze/thaw cycles. I'm running a Phil BB with the 'mud guards' that press into the BB cups, which are designed to significantly reduce the amount of water and slush that contact the bearing seals. Still, less than a year...? Paying for a Phil gets you some other nice perks though, like the ability to fine tune your chain line, a huge range of lengths, ability to pull the spindle to an offset position, etc.

On my commuter bike, which I often use in the wettest nastiest weather (it's a ti frame), I have the cheapest BB I could find. I think it's maybe 10-15 bucks. It's coming up on five years old now, still smooth as silk. I shudder when I think of trying to remove it from the ti frame after all this time though.

For me, when the Phil BB goes I will be replacing it with a SKF BB. The seals and overall design looks SO much more robust. The warranty is great, but I'd buy it even without the warranty. Without needing to buy installation rings and two tools like Phil requires, I think they come out cheaper than a Phil BB anyway. 

Haven't tried a White BB yet, but I've got one sitting in a box ready to go. It's a 108mm though, not sure what I'd even use that on. 

For a mid-range price with great performance, I've heard a ton of positive reviews for the IRD QB-95 bottom brackets. That seems to be the 'nice BB of choice' at my local bike shop.

[Mike in WA]

Different kettle of fish from the square taper world, but I'll be upgrading to a Chris King Threadfit BB ($155) when my disposable Shimano BB ($20) goes bad. Riding in dirt and wet conditions all the time leads to a lot of grime, and I found the cheapo bottom brackets go bad in about a year. With the King design, you can easily flush out and add new grease with a special tool, whereas the Shimanos say "do not disassemble" on the cups and you have to just throw them away when they get contaminated. I'd rather have something that is serviceable and won't creak or squeak (like some cheap BB's do because of larger mfg. tolerances) over the long term. 

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 1:27:49 PM UTC-7, dstein wrote:

[Mark Reimer]

Yeah, that is a pretty cool BB. I see White Industries is making an external BB version of their ENO/VBC cranks now, which means I'm not dead set on running square taper all the time (I'm a big fan of their cranks). That threadfit combined with white cranks would make for a super hot and long lasting combo. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/uQgg6v9B0tk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 04/28/2016 12:11 PM, Mike in WA wrote:
> Different kettle of fish from the square taper world, but I'll be
> upgrading to a Chris King Threadfit BB ($155) when my disposable
> Shimano BB ($20) goes bad. Riding in dirt and wet conditions all the
> time leads to a lot of grime, and I found the cheapo bottom brackets
> go bad in about a year. With the King design, you can easily flush out
> and add new grease with a special tool, whereas the Shimanos say "do
> not disassemble" on the cups and you have to just throw them away when
> they get contaminated. I'd rather have something that is serviceable
> and won't creak or squeak (like some cheap BB's do because of larger
> mfg. tolerances) over the long term.

How long do you think it will take you to break even?

[Mark Reimer]

A long time, probably close to ten years hah! But then again, if I was interested in just riding something cheap that did the job, I wouldn't own a Riv, would I....

[Mike in WA]

$45 for each cheap BB replacement with labor and they may go bad sooner than a year. I would expect the cost would amortize in 3-4 years and the King won't have inevitable creaking during that time. I expect the Kings would last basically forever with regular maintenance. Less stuff in the landfill too. 

[Mark Reimer]

Ah right, I forgot about labour costs. I just do my own so it only costs time. And time spent working on a bike is time well spent IMO.

[Bill Lindsay]

In addition, there's the inherently good and pleasing act of doing maintenance on your bike.  I know this guy who says that he removes his chain and soaks it in mineral spirits every 100 miles.  He rides several thousand miles per year, so I figure he's removing and soaking a chain at least once per week.  He must enjoy it and I admire the devotion.  I personally also like the act of maintaining my bike.  It's a way to express gratitude to the machine that I cherish.  Except those times when I'm lazy and don't feel like working on my bike....

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, Ca

[Philip Kim]

oh wow, did not know about this before now. thanks this could be really cool.

[Lungimsam]

Someone said SKFs are heavier than other bbs.
So just how much heavier is an SKF than other bbs?

[Bill Lindsay]

The entire range of square taper BB weights is from about 140g to about 300g.  SKF and cheap Shimanos are at or just below 300g.  SKFs are heavy and expensive but they last an incredibly long time, even in lousy conditions.  

Other cheap BBs can be around 240g.  The lightest cheap disposable BB I've seen is an Origin 8.  

Ti BB spindles can save about 100g and cost about $100 more.  People like to round 100g to a quarter-pound. 

[Steve Palincsar]

On 04/28/2016 01:06 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote:
> In addition, there's the inherently good and pleasing act of doing
> maintenance on your bike. I know this guy who says that he removes
> his chain and soaks it in mineral spirits every 100 miles.

Cest m'oi

> He rides several thousand miles per year,

For the past several years, between seven and eleven thousand per year

> so I figure he's removing and soaking a chain at least once per week.

Sometimes as many as three times a week, sometimes less, depending on
how the rotation is going

> He must enjoy it and I admire the devotion.

It's usually a pleasant way to check over the bike and make sure
everything's working well. It's not onerous or painful -- just shake
the can once in a while -- and then after a few minutes, hang the chain
to let it dry and then reinstall and reapply T9.

> I personally also like the act of maintaining my bike. It's a way to
> express gratitude to the machine that I cherish. Except those times
> when I'm lazy and don't feel like working on my bike....

+1 And for those times or those jobs you really don't feel like doing,
there's the LBS, and using them gives you the opportunity to help
support the LBS.

[Garth]

  A 110mm SKF weighs in at a whopping 291 grams.    Wow , a real hunk of lead !  Ahahaahahahahahah      All about nothing.

[Ron Mc]

I guess it adds up when you carry it around for 50,000 mi

[Ginz]

In this situation, when a square taper is called for, I'd go for a Shimano, see how long it lasts and if you need a new BB in one year or five, re-evaluate. 

I scrounged my Phils from swap meets and what not so my investment was far lower. 

[Garth]

  Again . .  all about nothing !    Hey .... how much does that glass of water you just drank weigh ?   "Oh man . . . that extra weight is really a burden !"   "After I pee I feel so light !"   Ahahahaahahahahah !

     So it is with everything . .  . relative nonsense !    Relative to nothing but it's own relativity . 

    As usual . . . . just ride baby !   just ride !!

Hey ,  whatcha got for a ride ?     What-ever, it rides so let's ride ! 

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !  

[Steve Palincsar]

On 04/28/2016 02:48 PM, Garth wrote:

  Again . .  all about nothing !    Hey .... how much does that glass of water you just drank weigh ?   "Oh man . . . that extra weight is really a burden !"   "After I pee I feel so light !"   Ahahahaahahahahah !

[Gum N Nuts]

What does Riv use for stock bottom brackets? I'm curious because I've had two different ones - one from a fully built-by-riv cheviot and one from a hillborne frameset - completely eat it. The one on the cheviot lasted about two hundred miles, maybe a thousand on the hillborne. No weird weather, sometimes loaded for camping but otherwise pretty normal riding. Replaced with $25 shimanos both times and no further worry after several thousand more miles on each. 

[George Schick]

Oy.  These posts make me long for the days when BB's were sold with axles, cups, and bearings as a separate but inclusive "kit".  IIRC, Grant had several posts in his early Riv Readers lamenting the advent of cartridge bearing BB's in lieu of the old fashioned adjustable type and I don't blame him (I may have to peruse the readers to find some of these comments).  Except that no one makes them anymore.  It kinda reminds me of what a gear-head once told me when I asked him about repacking wheel bearings on automobile front axles, "Nobody does it; that's why they've gone to sealed cartridge bearings."  So here we are, similarly, in the world of cartridge bike BB's whether we like it or not, tossing the old cheap units in the trash when they start to go South and/or lauding the high-dollar ones for lasting longer.  Have we advanced?  Well, it's kinda like the argument that's been hashed back and forth about threadless vs. threaded headsets: the one seems to facilitate manufacturing and assembly, the other has its place among those who want to take the time and patience to properly clean and maintain their bikes.

[Jan Heine]

The old cup-and-cone bottom brackets were great when I was a student with more time than money. Back then, I enjoyed working on bottom brackets. But it never made sense from a monetary perspective. Even at $ 7 an hour, overhauling my BB twice a year was $ 14 in time alone. If the BB lasts 10 years, I've spent $ 140 of my time. And the cup-and-cone BB wasn't cheap - I recall a Campy BB costing (back then) $ 80. In today's dollars, that would be more than an SKF BB.

These days, I am terribly busy, and I prefer riding my bike over working on it. That is why money spent on components that I never have to think about is money well spent. All too often does it happen on Bicycle Quarterly test bikes that the night before a big ride, I discover a problem and have to scramble to fix it. And these are new bikes!

As to BB weight, there isn't much you can do. Yes, you can replace the spindle with titanium, but remember that titanium is much less strong than steel. And when BB spindles were originally designed, the engineers who designed them weren't stupid. They made them as big as they need to be, using very strong CrMo steel. Even a stainless spindle will be less strong. Replacing a CrMo part with an identically dimensioned titanium part invites trouble.

You could design a BB with a titanium spindle, but you'd have to start from scratch. You'd make the bottom bracket shell of the bike bigger to make room for the bigger spindle. You'd make the crank bigger, too, so the bigger spindle fits. The end result probably would be heavier than what you started with.

There is a way around this, by using a lighter material for the cranks, too. That is why carbon cranks make sense only with modern BBs and vice versa. (The original Campy carbon cranks with a square taper were heavier than our René Herse aluminum cranks!) The carbon cranks actually aren't lighter than aluminum ones, but the BB is lighter, so overall, you save weight. However, much of the savings come from the tiny bearings, which you need to replace annually on most models.

I am a lightweight rider, and I don't tend to break components, so I sometimes am tempted by a titanium spindle. Then I think of the consequences if it breaks (almost certain to crash), and I realize that it's not worth the risk. 

It's interesting to note that none of the titanium BBs are made by companies who have their components fatigue-tested to the universally accepted industry standards.

Disclosure: Compass Bicycles Ltd. sell SKF bottom brackets.

Jan Heine

Compass Bicycles Ltd.

www.compasscycle.com

[Patrick Moore]

FWIW, when I first bought a Phil bb for my '99 gofast fixed gear, I called Phil and asked if the ti spindle would hold up to grunting up hills in a 75" gear. The rep on the phone said, "Oh yes, you don't have to worry, we have track sprinters use them." So far, so good.

FWIW and YMMV and so forth. If I were to buy another bb, at least for any other bike than the lightweight gofast, I'd at least seriously consider a SKF bb -- what's not to like apart from 100 grams?i But there have been plenty of ti square taper bbs on the market, of which I've owned at least 4 or 5 different models, and at least 7 different instances overall, and I don't recall hearing stories about breakage.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews.

By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.

Other professional writing services.

http://www.resumespecialties.com/

www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique,  Vereinigte Staaten

****************************************************************************************

The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a circumference on the contours of which all conditions, distinctions, and individualities revolve. Chuang Tzu

Stat crux dum volvitur orbis. (The cross stands motionless while the world revolves.) Carthusian motto

It is we who change; He remains the same. Eckhart

Kinei hos eromenon. (It moves [all things] as the beloved.) Aristotle

[Lee Legrand]

http://www.velominati.com/tradition/royce/

Royce bottom bracket

[RichS]

Not to hijack the BB questions but Steve's regimen of cleaning his chains gets me thinking about the two chains I've broken in the last six months. Perhaps my chains aren't being cleaned and lubed enough! No problems yet with my Riv supplied Shimano BBs.

Thanks,

Richard 

[Philip Kim]

i've gotten a hillborne & chev. both had tange BB's.

[Mark Reimer]

My Atlantis arrived with a Tange 113mm BB. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/uQgg6v9B0tk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[René Sterental]

Slightly off topic... How do you determine the proper width of the bottom bracket?

- when getting a custom frame and a set of cranks you've never had before?

- when switching to a new different crankset than what you had before?

René 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Clayton.sf]

Crank makers typically recommend a certain length.

[Patrick Moore]

With modern, 2-piece cranksets with 1 arm attached to the spindle, the spindle length is a given for the crank model, and crank models generally work only within rather strict limits, that is, for certain types of frames and rear hubs. For the older type of 3 piece square taper cranksets, with arms both separate from the spindle, mfs recommend a spindle length for a given rear hub width, sometimes modified by the width of the chainstays where the are crossed by the rotating arms. But if you want to mix and match, say, to use an old Deore triple on a 5 speed or, at the other extreme, a 10 speed rear road bike, you'll need to experiment or ask someone who has combined the 2 and knows the chainline wrt to the width of the rear hub.

The situation can also be complicated by how you want to center your chain, and whether you value chainline over minimum Q. I've used a 108 mm spindle and a 145 mm spindle on almost identical frames, the choice determined by chainline option, Q or "tread" or width between the outside faces of the crank arms at pedal interfaces, gearing choices, rear hub width, and of course the crank arm flare.

Patrick "learned the hard way that flared crank designs used different spindle lengths than straight ones" Moore

[Ron Mc]

Rene, here, Jan has a really good table  http://www.compasscycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/skf_bb_chart.pdf

[René Sterental]

Thanks guys!

That's what I was looking for! I'm waiting for my custom and am doing mental exercises to prepare for its build. 

René 

On Sunday, May 1, 2016, Garth <gart...@gmail.com> wrote:

Rene,  the answer if literally, it can  vary  , sometimes alot !  Even with mfr. "recommendations".  For example the Sugino XD I run a Tange 107mm bb on one bike and on another I have a 110mm but could also use the 113mm.  When I bought a TA Carmina triple once I askeď Bilenky even before I bought it what size I may need for a bowed stay Rivendell frame.  The 116mm was spot on, even though I had read others saying I'd need it longer.  It could help to have some different sized cartiridges on hand , either new or old worn out ones if you are really unsure and want to know for sure. Ring size also can play a large part along with the shape of the stays in the best bb length for a particular frame. Always ask the retailer if applicable and do search the internet as someone has likely asked he same question.

[Grant @ Rivendell]

BB spindle length:

It's always safe and usually best to use the bb the crank maker recommends, or (more to the point) a dimensional equivalent. I'm not going to address taper here, just quick notes about length. It comes down to chainline, which has nothing to do with the chain. Almost everything anybody could possibly say about CL has already been said by Sheldon on his site, but I don't remember whether he addressed derailers there, so I will fast here. Chainline is how far out from the center of the seat tube the middle ring on a triple sits, or the midpoint between two rings on a double sits.

There are two common chainlines, I mean three:

43 or 43.5mm (I forget)--for road doubles
47.5mm -- for road triples and hybrid-like bikes.
50.5 or 51(I forget) -- for mtn bikes

"For" means "typical," not "the only way."
But what it means is that mtn bike front derailers can reach farther out and can't drag in as close as road front derailers.

Example: If you put a Sugino or Silver crank on a 110mm bb spindle, the chainline will be 47.5, and an XT or any other mtn front derailer will be able to shift to the big ring, but not to the small one. To fix that, you put a 113mm bb spindle, which changes the CL from 47.5 to 50.5, and it all works.

There is no perfect correlation bwt Q-Factor and CL. In general, mtn cranks are for bow-legged cowboys and they have high Q's, but it's easy to design and make great mtn cranks with mtn bike CLs and low-Q's (under 163?). The mtn crank makers don't generally do that, though, because then their cranks won't fit onto lots of expensive and prestigious bikes that have chainstays that stick out too far in the wrong spots and so require higher Q-Factors.

This doesn't address durability, but it's rare to hear of $40 bb's crapping out. Not unheard of, but it's not unheard of at any price, either. We are going to stock an ol' cup-and-cone style BB in ass't lengths sometime this year. It will cost more and we'll refuse to sell it to -- how do I best say this? -- a "newbie with romantic/retro sensibilities but no experience with this kind of BB." We certainly won't quit selling the $40 Shimano bbs, which are so good. What we will do, when it all happens, is extol the theoretical virtues of the old kind...which, given the reliabiliy of the new kind, are undeniable, but may not matter.
G

[Mark Reimer]

Haha! I'm terribly curious how you'll determine who qualifies as a "newbie with romantic/retro sensibilities but no experience with this kind of BB."

You know, up till this moment I had zero interest in cup and cone bb's, and never would imagine considering going back to one. maybe that's because I'm not aware of a quality option out there. But given the fact that my environment destroys bearings in every BB I've tried, including Phil Wood, within a season, maybe a cup and cone would be exactly what I need. Self-serviceable with nothing but a couple special wrenches and a tube of grease. Hmmm.... 

Say Grant - who will be manufacturing these BB's? 

[Brian Campbell]

Phil Wood! ;-)

[Mark Reimer]

Nope. You must've missed my comment. Phil wood bearings are for sunny California. My Phil BB and hub bearings never last more than a winter. They are not suitable for cold and wet climates. And don't get me started on their free hubs hah

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/uQgg6v9B0tk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Ron Mc]

Saturday morning I rode 40 mi after a big rain rain - we had 5" the night before. There were pretty good clay washes that splashed on the bike, but also rode through standing water at one end of a boardwalk and running water under some of the road overpasses.  Just hosed it down when I got home, and don't worry about the SKF BB.  

[Mark Reimer]

Man. I gotta get one of those SKF's soon. That sounds perfect. 

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Ron Mc <bulld...@gmail.com> wrote:

Saturday morning I rode 40 mi after a big rain rain - we had 5" the night before. There were pretty good clay washes that splashed on the bike, but also rode through standing water at one end of a boardwalk and running water under some of the road overpasses.  Just hosed it down when I got home, and don't worry about the SKF BB.  

--

[Ron Mc]

Mark, it was a messy ride in a really fun way.  The boardwalk is 1600' across a marsh.  The family of mallards that had nested there were all up on the boardwalk.  I asked if the water was too wet for them, but they didn't answer.  

[Grant Petersen]

Here's one, and forgive my continued warning. I promise you this is not good old fashioned reverse psychology.

This style emerged because it's simple and it works. It got extinguished in the late '80s or early '90s NOT because after a hundred or more years some smart modern mechanic found a flaw that all before him or her had overlooked, but because they're a minor pita to learn how to adjust.  There's the theory of adjustment, which is simple and is this:

The fixed cup on the drive side goes in with a shop tool, and crank it hard.

Grease the cup and/or the ringed bearings, then place them balls-facing-outward in the cup.

While your fingers or brush is greasy, you might as well grease the adjustable/non-drive side cup and bearings, too. While you're at it, get grease on the cones (bearing surfaces) of the spindle, and heck, great the belly of the spindle, too. Why not?

Insert the plastic accordion sleeve, which strictly isn't necessary. It's there to isolate the assembly from water that might leak in from above. But many cool guys ditch the plastic.

Then insert the spindle with the correct (usually long) side sticking out the fixed cup.

With the bearings greased and facing outward (from the bike's point of view, so INTO the left cup), grease the threads on the adjustable/left side cup and screw it in. You'll need a "pin tool" to complete this job.

Some threads will be sticking out. Put the notched lock ring on those threads.

The final adjustment takes some skill and time and experience and feel, which is why nobody uses these as original equiment anymore. It cannot be done with power tools, and you don't want a first-timer adjusting your bb. Any conscientious individual can do it just fine, but it'll take many tries and retries to nail the adjustment, because as you tighten the lockring against the shell, it has the effect of pulling out (loosening) the adjustment. So, you get what seems like a perfect adjustment, then you go to lock it in and it loosens, and it loosens because the adjustable cup gets pulled outward, away from the bearings.

The skill and feel come in by knowing how too-tight to make it to account for the loosening, and different bottom brackets and frames will require different amounts. You sometimes try to hold the adjustable cup's adjustment with the pin tool as you lock it there with the lockring, but sometimes tightening the lockring makes the adjustable cup move, anyway. It's the opposite of Plug-n-Play, but the thing is, it is NOT THAT HARD as long as you don't require perfection on your first-thru-fourth tries. As a home mechanic, you need to buy some tools. The fixed cup should be put in with a shop tool, and new bike shops might not even have those anymore. The cheap tools are the lockring tool and pin tool, and in the old days you could get them both for $30 combined, but I don't know what it is these days, and a normal bike shop won't stock them.

The Tange BB's will be available in a range of dimensions, Eleven caged balls, not nine. Hard and smooth, best finish. Some details still being worked on, and we're not the drivers of this project, but have had some input. There is no ETA on 'em. Strike 2.8!

[Mark Reimer]

Very cool! Yup, that explanation mirrors my personal experience. Couple of tries till it feels bang-on with the lock ring. Just like adjusting hub cones, or cage-bearing headsets. That BB looks pretty nice. I'm definitely up for trying one of these again. 

[Brian Campbell]

I think you missed my winky eye emoticon. It was a joke about your Phil Wood experience...ahh the interweb....

[Mark Reimer]

Ah...whoops. Yup, sometimes things get lost in translation. Gotcha... ;-)

[René Sterental]

Thanks for the explanation on CL, derailers and Q factor Grant. Quite helpful.

I'm one of those who doesn't qualify for that "old-school" BB, not yet anyway... :-)

René 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[R Shannon]

That Tange BB is a stunning pieces of hardware! I'd be tempted to try it just for the experience. Grant, thank you for the info and preview.

Richard

[Patrick Moore]

I learned to adjust left-side cups the hard way, cheap, Indian threading, using Vise Grips for the lockring and a nail and hammer for the cup. But I did get them adjusted.

Interesting, at least the older British Racing Tricycles use leftside bb cups and lockrings at each inside end to adjust bearing play on the axle stubs. That's awkward, because you can't get in front of the assembly face-on, as you can with a bottom bracket.

As for longevity: I hear that Campy and perhaps old Dura Ace cup and cone bb assemblies last as long as anything else out there? I do know that I've ridden at least 2 Phils in heavy rain and grit and, in one case, even submerged one in 2' of water, with no problems. But I too would probably choose a SKS for really heavy duty use.

My vote for the best value-for-money crank/bb bearing assembly type is the Ashtabula; I wonder if these could be refined and lightened? Carbon fiber? But, in any event, they seem indestructible, even after riding through streams and watching muddy water flow out upon emerging.

[Grant Petersen]

"The hard, cheap, Indian threading way, using Vise Grips for the lockring and a nail and hammer for the cup" is one of the most fantastic descriptions of anything I've ever read. Good point about Ashtabula cranks. A guy came by the other day with one of those, and of course it was on a ten-year old hundred-dollar (today's dollars) bike, but it was pared down to nothing, not an unnecessary molecule of metal on it, and ... I though wow, kind of neat. Bigger and more bearings inside would be good, but has anybody ever ridden one of these guys to destruction?

No need to start a kickstarter campaign to bring back the bad-ol' Ashtabula, but ... they are no laughing stocks.

[Garth]

  How cool, Tange cup and cone BB's !    I do rather miss them .   I always found them no brainers to work on, thanks to Eugene Sloane's New Complete Book of Bicycling !   I bought it new as a teen and learned everything about how to do all my own mechanic works from it.  Taking the bike to the shop seemed just too drawn out .  Why would I want to wait to do this or that on my bike when it's right here in front of me ? 
 Doh !  

 It was only later when worked in a bike shop assembling and repairing bikes did I discover they made really really cool tools for jobs like bottom bracket shells and cups and installing headsets that back then prolly were not for sale to the public or easily obtained.  They had a full Campy shop tool kit  . . .  . wow! I was like a kid in a candy store, so much fun !!  Ahahahaahahahahahaha .

[Brewster Fong]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:52:55 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:

My vote for the best value-for-money crank/bb bearing assembly type is the Ashtabula; I wonder if these could be refined and lightened? Carbon fiber? But, in any event, they seem indestructible, even after riding through streams and watching muddy water flow out upon emerging.

Patrick,

Where have you been?! Yes, Look has its one-piece, carbon fiber (what else?!) Ashtabula-type crank on the market since about 2011:

Zed 2 crankset:

http://branfordbike.com/images/library/features/look_zed2crank_small_11_f.jpg

http://www.bikerumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Praxis-Works-OEM-Chainrings-Look-Crankset-2.jpg

Zed 3 crankset:

http://www.lookcycle.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/560x374/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/z/3/z3_03.jpg

http://www.lookcycle.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/560x374/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/z/3/z3_02.jpg

I think you have to find a Look dealer to get more info. 

I did find Glory Cycles has the Zed 2 for $1250:

http://glorycycles.com/look-zed-2-crankset/

So it's not cheap!

Good Luck!

[Brewster Fong]

Patrick, never mind!  It appears the Look Zed cranksets are only compatible with frames that have a 65mm bottom bracket shell?!  It is my understand that even Look only offers one frame that fits this crank?! 

http://www.lookcycle.com/en/us/route/velos/695-light-bike.html

But I did find one shop that has this frameset and crankset "on sale" for $4550!

https://www.racycles.com/road/look/look-695-aerolight-premium-ipack-3051

Calfee is the only other builder I found who offers a frame for this crank, but is a package deal, but it is only for its Manta Pro frameset module that retails for $6095, and includes; Chris King Inset 7, Enve/Whisky fork, Look ZED2 crankset and Praxis Works chainrings.  That's a lot of money....Good Luck!

[Patrick Moore]

Well, it seems I am prescient or something. Now if they could make something like that out of cold forged aluminum, I'd be more interested.

Look claims 320 grams sans rings and doubtless bolts; what about the bearings -- included in that claimed 320 grams? What would 2 rings and hardware add?

Frankly, this design, with appropriately wide bb shell, seems to make more sense than external bearings in a smaller shell. 

Meanwhile, of course, the old square taper system works at least as well as the Ashtabula without many of the drawbacks -- weight, limitations on crank arm design, use of cartridge bearing assemblies, and so forth.

But Ashtabulas, with all their drawbacks, certainly have a history of shrugging off decades of neglect and working well. 

Segway (tm): what, in all y'all's opinion, is the very best design for a bb bearing assembly? Me, I really think that some sort of refinement of the Ashtabula makes most sense.

Note that I've struggled with cheap, Indian made cottered cranksets, and I've used Raleigh cottered systems, too, which are hugely better. But certainly the cotter system was well left behind by the "cotterless" system, as they used to call square taper setups until at least the '60s.

Patrick "bottom bracket = that short, thick frame tube; spindle = the crank axle; bb bearing assembly = the bearings and such" Moore

[Patrick Moore]

I'll let y'all into another secret at no additional charge: nail and hammer, with medium sized nut for anvil, work well for breaking and re-assembling chains.