BB taper- Campy and Shimano
res09c5t
I'm curious about the difference between Campy and Shimano BB tapers. I
wasn't aware there was a difference until recently and don't think I have
ever worried about it- I may just have been lucky in my choices. Some
retailers seem to stress this, others don't.
From what I've found in quick googling, it appears the angle of taper is the
same but that one starts smaller than the other so the potential exists to
"bottom out" the crank bolt before the arm is tight. Is this correct?
What else do I need to know?
Thanks!
Lyle
Lou Holtman
"res09c5t" <res09c5tr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uiznf.11972$Ea6.570@trnddc08...
Yes. There is ISO (European, Campy) and there is JIS (Japanees, Shimano).
JIS taper is bigger at the end (12.73 mm versus 12.6 mm). If you put a JIS
crank on a ISO taper it goes further up the taper with the possibility of
bottom out the crank bolt and messing up the chainline. Putting a ISO crank
on a JIS taper the crank goes not far enough, and therefore it's weaker and
again your chainline is messed up. Don't do it if you have the choice and
you always have the choice. ;-)
Lou
Qui si parla Campagnolo
shimano and Campag tapers are the same in degrees but shimano are
larger in millimeters. Should not mix. shimano BBs will expand the
Campag crank flats, Campag BBs and shimano crank and the crank can go
on to far, bottoming and then getting loose, ruining the crank.
Sheldon Brown
>>I'm curious about the difference between Campy and Shimano BB tapers. I
>>wasn't aware there was a difference until recently and don't think I have
>>ever worried about it- I may just have been lucky in my choices. Some
>>retailers seem to stress this, others don't.
>>
>>From what I've found in quick googling, it appears the angle of taper is the
>>same but that one starts smaller than the other so the potential exists to
>>"bottom out" the crank bolt before the arm is tight. Is this correct?
>>
>
> shimano and Campag tapers are the same in degrees but shimano are
> larger in millimeters. Should not mix. shimano BBs will expand the
> Campag crank flats, Campag BBs and shimano crank and the crank can go
> on to far, bottoming and then getting loose, ruining the crank.
This is all true in theory, but is rarely a problem in practice.
Several of my personal bikes violate this stricture with no ill effects.
I've got Campagnolo and TA cranks on Shimano cartridge bottom brackets
on several different bikes, with no problems.
My fixed-gear tandem uses Shimano 105 cranks on Campagnolo bottom
brackets, also with no problems.
Of course if the crank does get loose, you must not ride it, but
otherwise, if the chainline is OK there's no problem.
Sheldon "http://sheldonbrown.com/picchio" Brown
+---------------------------------------------------+
| In theory, there's no difference between theory |
| and practice; but, in practice, there is. |
+---------------------------------------------------+,
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
Lou Holtman
If you know there are two types of BB tapers why 'mess' up things. All
the right parts are widely available and are not more expensive.
Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
Alex Rodriguez
>If you know there are two types of BB tapers why 'mess' up things. All
>the right parts are widely available and are not more expensive.
Assuming you are buying new parts, this is true. Sometimes you have parts
lying around that you want to use, so you mix and match. I get the impression
that Sheldon has _LOTS_ of parts.
-------------
Alex
Sheldon Brown
>> I've got Campagnolo and TA cranks on Shimano cartridge bottom brackets
>> on several different bikes, with no problems.
>>
>> My fixed-gear tandem uses Shimano 105 cranks on Campagnolo bottom
>> brackets, also with no problems.
>>
>> Of course if the crank does get loose, you must not ride it, but
>> otherwise, if the chainline is OK there's no problem.
>
Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> If you know there are two types of BB tapers why 'mess' up things. All
> the right parts are widely available and are not more expensive.
A part I already own is always going to be 100% cheaper and more
available than a part I need to buy.
Sheldon "It Works" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| In recent times, modern science has developed to give mankind, |
| for the first time in the history of the human race, a way of |
| securing a more abundant life which does not simply consist in |
| taking away from someone else. -- Karl Taylor Compton, 1938 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Lou Holtman
> I wrote:
>
>>> I've got Campagnolo and TA cranks on Shimano cartridge bottom
>>> brackets on several different bikes, with no problems.
>>>
>>> My fixed-gear tandem uses Shimano 105 cranks on Campagnolo bottom
>>> brackets, also with no problems.
>>>
>>> Of course if the crank does get loose, you must not ride it, but
>>> otherwise, if the chainline is OK there's no problem.
>>
>>
> Lou Holtman wrote:
>
>>
>> If you know there are two types of BB tapers why 'mess' up things. All
>> the right parts are widely available and are not more expensive.
>
>
> A part I already own is always going to be 100% cheaper and more
> available than a part I need to buy.
That is tue. My 'philosophy' is buy the matching parts in the beginning
and use them till they are worn. Then replace them with matching parts
again. So I have no parts lying around doing nothing. That's even cheaper.
Donald Gillies
way to the outside edge of the spindle, or at least, the flats will be
wide enough to handle both types of cranksets. This type of spindle
should not have a compatability problem - bottoming out would not be
possible.
It's only a nasty manufacturer that might curve up the flats "by this
time the crankset must have ended" that could get you into trouble
(hint : neither sugino nor campagnolo make parts to destroy parts from
other makers, i'm thinking of another maker ...)
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
Donald Gillies
>From what I've found in quick googling, it appears the angle of taper is the
>same but that one starts smaller than the other so the potential exists to
>"bottom out" the crank bolt before the arm is tight. Is this correct?
In some cases a bottom bracket spindle will have flats that go all the
way to the outside edge of the spindle, or at least, the flats will be
wide enough to handle both types of cranksets. This type of spindle
should not have a compatability problem - bottoming out would not be
possible.
Why would ANY maker produce a bottom bracket that doesn't work with
parts from another maker? Those would be EXTRA BUSINESS, would they
not ?? The ONLY maker who _might_ do this is a maker who holds a
monopolist position - such as Shimano - and Sheldon has stated that in
his experience Shimano bottom brackets work with Campagnolo and TA
cranksets.
We should do our best to lay this cycling wive's tale to rest.
41
Lou Holtman wrote:
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
> > A part I already own is always going to be 100% cheaper and more
> > available than a part I need to buy.
>
>
> That is tue. My 'philosophy' is buy the matching parts in the beginning
> and use them till they are worn. Then replace them with matching parts
> again. So I have no parts lying around doing nothing. That's even cheaper.
Sales, freebies, hand me downs, working at a bike shop, planned
obsolescence, and marketing-driven product cycles all disprove your
thesis.
A Muzi
Donald Gillies wrote:
> and Sheldon has stated that in
> his experience Shimano bottom brackets work with Campagnolo and TA
> cranksets.
> We should do our best to lay this cycling wive's tale to rest.
I think Sheldon said there were instances where it worked
fine for him ( my experience too).
But I don't think he meant to say that one should generally
switch them across all models of TA and Campagnolo cranks.
Sheldon?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Lou Holtman
"41" <KingGe...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1134531550.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not in my case ;-)
When I buy/put together a new bike I think things over well and stick with
my choices until I sell/trade in the bike for a new one. Till then you just
have to suppress marketing driven upgrade urges.
There is no need to put a mismatching a crank with the wrong BB taper.
Lou
Lou Holtman
"A Muzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:11pvnpt...@corp.supernews.com...
> -snip-
>
> Donald Gillies wrote:
> > and Sheldon has stated that in
> > his experience Shimano bottom brackets work with Campagnolo and TA
> > cranksets.
> > We should do our best to lay this cycling wive's tale to rest.
>
> I think Sheldon said there were instances where it worked
> fine for him ( my experience too).
>
> But I don't think he meant to say that one should generally
> switch them across all models of TA and Campagnolo cranks.
>
And certainly not encourage it.
Lou
Basjan
news:11345540...@news-ext.oce.nl...
Yawn - boooring!
Bought a Chorus crankset in pristine shape for $30, had a Shimano bottom
bracket in the toolbox - both now proudly feature on my singlespeed without
problems. So why buy the matching Shimano crankset for $100?
Basjan
russell...@yahoo.com
Why take the very real risk of destroying your Chorus crankset with an
incorrectly tapered bottom bracket? Do you use imperial Allen wrenches
and hex wrenches on metric bolts and cap screws because you have them
around? Aren't they close enough?
Why on earth would you consider buying a $100 Shimano crankset for your
Shimano botto bracket? That is how people spend far more than they
need to, by not thinking. Pay $50 for a brand new Chorus bottom
bracket for your $30 Chorus crankset. Or pay $40 for any house brand
or discounted crankset. They all use Shimano bottom brackets.
Nashbar, Performance, etc. all have cheap cranksets every day.
Lou Holtman
"Basjan" <jaa...@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:dnpdfo$cuq$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
Boring? Well, I'm not trying to entertain you. Buying a new (?) 100 dollar
Shimano crankset would be stupid, I agree. When I got a good deal on a nice
Chorus crankset I would look for a good deal on any Campy bottom bracket.
I'm sure that will not be a problem;. 20-30 dollar should cover the bill.
Lou
Sheldon Brown
I asserted:
>>>>A part I already own is always going to be 100% cheaper and more
>>>>available than a part I need to buy.
>>>
Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> Not in my case ;-)
> When I buy/put together a new bike I think things over well and stick with
> my choices until I sell/trade in the bike for a new one. Till then you just
> have to suppress marketing driven upgrade urges.
> There is no need to put a mismatching a crank with the wrong BB taper.
All generalizations are false.
That sort of consumerist by-the-book ethos works for lots of folks, with
normal store-bought bikes, but some of us are of a more experimentalist
turn of mind.
For this sort of approach, trial and error is often the only way to go,
since the "specs" do not exist or do not apply to the application.
I gave three examples of "mismatched" tapers in a previous message, but
perhaps some details will help explain my rationale:
•I had long desired a fixed-gear tandem, and when I had an opportunity
to buy some older 105 cranksets in the 165 length I favor for fixed gear
use, VERY cheap on closeout, I snapped up a few sets.
Some years later I came upon a used Picchio tandem frameset, which I
acquired by barter. It came with two nice Campagnolo Record bottom
brackets installed. I decided to try installing the 105 cranks on the
existing bottom brackets and see how it worked. As it turned out, the
chainline came out basically perfect for this application, so why would
I want to discard the nice Campagnolo bottom brackets?
http://harriscyclery.com/picchio
•When I built up the Hetchins frame I bought on eBay, I wanted to use a
wide-range double, specifically a TA 50-28 setup that I already owned.
For this type of a double setup, you don't want the normal chainline
that puts the cassette in line with the space halfway between the rings.
Instead, I wanted the 50 tooth ring to be usable with all 9 sprockets
of my 12-28 cassette. The idea is to run on the 50 tooth ring 99% of
the time, but to keep the 28 chainring available for unusually tough
climbs, or for when I am seriously tuckered out.
This is not a setup that could be sold on a commercial bike, because it
depends on the rider understanding that the 28 tooth chainring is not to
be used with the smaller rear sprockets.
http://sheldonbrown.com/hetchins
•My Thorn Raven touring bike uses a Rohloff hub. I had a low end
Campagnolo double crankset, maybe a Mirage, maybe Veloce, not sure
which, that came off of a bike that I had converted to a triple.
The stock Campagnolo bottom bracket would have put the 53 tooth
chainring at about 46 mm, but the Rohloff hub wants a 54 mm chainline.
I don't think there is any Campagnolo bottom bracket that is long enough
to provide that chainline. The Raven came with a Shimano clone bb. I
installed the Campagnolo crank onto that bb (I think it was a 110) and
measured the chainline. It was too close in, but that bottom bracket
provided me with a point of reference, so I was able to calculate what
length Shimano BB would give the desired chainline. I installed it and
it has been working great.
Sheldon "Custom" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Always listen to the experts. |
| They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. |
| Then do it. --Robert A. Heinlein |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Alex Potter (59)
>
> http://harriscyclery.com/picchio
>
Sheldon, that url redirects to http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/picchio
and gives a 404
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> and Sheldon has stated that in his experience Shimano bottom
>> brackets work with Campagnolo and TA cranks.
>> We should do our best to lay this cycling wive's tale to rest.
> I think Sheldon said there were instances where it worked fine for
> him ( my experience too).
> But I don't think he meant to say that one should generally switch
> them across all models of TA and Campagnolo cranks.
I rode Shimano and Campagnolo spindles interchangeably for years until
a Campagnolo spindle broke in torsion through the faces of the taper.
Since then I have ridden only Shimano spindles and cranks.
I found no difference between them and the wear pattern on the flats
look the same with mixed sets (cranks and spindles). I get the
impression this is another one of those wreck.bike subjects that get
started by the same kind of people who write computer viruses, taking
pleasure in introducing havoc into other peoples lives.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> Sheldon has stated that in his experience Shimano bottom brackets
>>> work with Campagnolo and TA cranks.
>>> We should do our best to lay this cycling wive's tale to rest.
>> I think Sheldon said there were instances where it worked fine for
>> him ( my experience too).
>> But I don't think he meant to say that one should generally switch
>> them across all models of TA and Campagnolo cranks.
> And certainly not encourage it.
Oh! And what do you get out of offering such admonishments? How about
some technical basis for your fear mongering.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>>>> A part I already own is always going to be 100% cheaper and more
>>>>>> available than a part I need to buy.
>>>>> That is tue. My 'philosophy' is buy the matching parts in the
>>>>> beginning and use them till they are worn. Then replace them
>>>>> with matching parts again. So I have no parts lying around doing
>>>>> nothing. That's even cheaper.
>>>> Sales, freebies, hand me downs, working at a bike shop, planned
>>>> obsolescence, and marketing-driven product cycles all disprove
>>>> your thesis.
>>> Not in my case ;-) When I buy/put together a new bike I think
>>> things over well and stick with my choices until I sell/trade in
>>> the bike for a new one. Till then you just have to suppress
>>> marketing driven upgrade urges. There is no need to put a
>>> mismatching a crank with the wrong BB taper.
>> Yawn - boooring!
>> Bought a Chorus crankset in pristine shape for $30, had a Shimano
>> bottom bracket in the toolbox - both now proudly feature on my
>> singlespeed without problems. So why buy the matching Shimano
>> crankset for $100?
> Why take the very real risk of destroying your Chorus crankset with
> an incorrectly tapered bottom bracket? Do you use imperial Allen
> wrenches and hex wrenches on metric bolts and cap screws because you
> have them around? Aren't they close enough?
Hold it! How does this destroy cranks and what is the "incorrectly
tapered bottom bracket" that you envision. What is incorrect about
it? Where do you get "the very real risk" stuff. On what are you
basing that claim? This is all so absurd. "Don't use Cinelli bar
tape on Specialized bars because there is a real risk involved"
> Why on earth would you consider buying a $100 Shimano crankset for
> your Shimano botto bracket? That is how people spend far more than
> they need to, by not thinking. Pay $50 for a brand new Chorus
> bottom bracket for your $30 Chorus crankset. Or pay $40 for any
> house brand or discounted crankset. They all use Shimano bottom
> brackets. Nashbar, Performance, etc. all have cheap cranksets every
> day.
Why on earth, or for that matter, on Mars, do you make such proposals?
Jobst Brandt
russell...@yahoo.com
A far more correct scenario would be using a 26.4 Cinelli handlebar on
a TTT 25.8 stem. Just widen the TTT stem out enough to get it to fit
over the too big bar. No risk I'm sure. Or just use the larger
Shimano bottom bracket so less of the taper is engaged on the aluminum
Campagnolo crankset. Aren't you the one who has decried the antique
square taper bottom bracket for years? Yet you suggest its OK to have
less of the bottom bracket taper engaged with the aluminum crankset?
Wouldn't that increase the rate of fretting occurring between the taper
and aluminum crankset? Less surface area to handle the same amount of
force? Seems to me the more surface area engaged between the bottom
bracket taper and the aluminum crankset, the longer the time period
before the problems you talk about will occur.
Lou Holtman
I don't want to scare anyone. But the dimension of a JIS and a ISO taper
differ and a Campy crank is designed for a ISO taper and the old Shimano
crank for a JIS taper. How much taper length (is that the correct word?)
do we need? Well I don't know. Is there enough safety margin to put a
Campy crank on a JIS tapered BB? I don't now either. All I wanted to say
is that if you have a choice (ie when buying new) match a Campy crank
with a ISO tapered BB.
Friend of mine cracked a Campy crank on a JIS tapered BB. Is this of
statistical value? I don't think so, but he had a difficult time to get
the crank warranted.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
You bet. I'll bet with enough cobbling, you could get that MFord
waterpump to morph onto that Chevy engine....
'fear mongering'...not talking about alternative cancer treatments
here...bicycles, toys.
Jay Beattie
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
news:1134586739.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
A little over the top on the fear mongering thing, but I think
the general statement is true that you are not going to have any
serious problems if you mix and match square tapered BB spindles.
That seems to be a pretty simple proposition, and something I
have been doing for 30 years without any problems. The whole
thing is becoming more academic by the day, however, with the
Shimano and ISIS splined systems and the integrated drive systems
like the DuraAce and FSA among many others. I am starting to
feel like I am in the middle of a Shimano AX redux. It's a
terrible time to be buying a crank. -- Jay Beattie.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> Bought a Chorus crankset in pristine shape for $30, had a Shimano
>>>> bottom bracket in the toolbox - both now proudly feature on my
>>>> singlespeed without problems. So why buy the matching Shimano
>>>> crankset for $100?
>>> Why take the very real risk of destroying your Chorus crankset
>>> with an incorrectly tapered bottom bracket? Do you use imperial
>>> Allen wrenches and hex wrenches on metric bolts and cap screws
>>> because you have them around? Aren't they close enough?
>> Hold it! How does this destroy cranks and what is the "incorrectly
>> tapered bottom bracket" that you envision. What is incorrect about
>> it? Where do you get "the very real risk" stuff. On what are you
>> basing that claim? This is all so absurd. "Don't use Cinelli bar
>> tape on Specialized bars because there is a real risk involved"
> A far more correct scenario would be using a 26.4 Cinelli handlebar
> on a TTT 25.8 stem. Just widen the TTT stem out enough to get it to
> fit over the too big bar. No risk I'm sure. Or just use the larger
> Shimano bottom bracket so less of the taper is engaged on the
> aluminum Campagnolo crankset.
There is no parallel there. A bar that doesn't fit into the stem is
not going to be installed. If you tried this you would realize how
silly that example is. Just spreading the opening is not going to
allow the bar to be installed, the clamp curvature being too small. I
suppose you didn't notice that bar tape is not one of the things that
must "fit".
> Aren't you the one who has decried the antique square taper bottom
> bracket for years? Yet you suggest its OK to have less of the
> bottom bracket taper engaged with the aluminum crankset? Wouldn't
> that increase the rate of fretting occurring between the taper and
> aluminum crankset? Less surface area to handle the same amount of
> force? Seems to me the more surface area engaged between the bottom
> bracket taper and the aluminum crankset, the longer the time period
> before the problems you talk about will occur.
Your line of questioning reminds me of Carl Fogel and his endless
rhetorical questions, never offering an iota of useful information.
You'll notice similarly that nothing in the above paragraph can be
attributed to you since you only asked questions to advance your
position. Crude ploy, that.
OK, You want to play that game, how much less area did you measure on
the example you chose? In contrast, I rode many years on such
combinations with no ill effects and no visible difference in
engagement depth although there may have been some as irrelevant as
that was.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>>> Sheldon has stated that in his experience Shimano bottom
>>>>> brackets work with Campagnolo and TA cranks. We should do our
>>>>> best to lay this cycling wive's tale to rest.
>>>> I think Sheldon said there were instances where it worked fine
>>>> for him ( my experience too).
>>>> But I don't think he meant to say that one should generally
>>>> switch
>>> And certainly not encourage it.
>> Oh! And what do you get out of offering such admonishments? How
>> about some technical basis for your fear mongering.
> I don't want to scare anyone. But the dimension of a JIS and a ISO
> taper differ and a Campy crank is designed for a ISO taper and the
> old Shimano crank for a JIS taper. How much taper length (is that
> the correct word?) do we need? Well I don't know. Is there enough
> safety margin to put a Campy crank on a JIS tapered BB? I don't now
> either. All I wanted to say is that if you have a choice (ie when
> buying new) match a Campy crank with a ISO tapered BB.
Well... I'm waiting. How big is the difference and how much
engagement difference does this cause on a crank? Just fear mongering
with JIS and ISO buzzwords gets you no points.
> Friend of mine cracked a Campy crank on a JIS tapered BB. Is this of
> statistical value? I don't think so, but he had a difficult time to get
> the crank warranted.
What failed and where? You conspicuously don't mention that. So
what's the upshot?
I had more than two dozen cranks fail, mostly Campagnolo Record and a
couple of Shimano Dura Ace. None of them failed in the taper. Nearly
all broke in the pedal eye. I took one pair of Shimano cranks out of
service because they were developing cracks in the corners of their
tapers after having been used only on matching Shimano spindles for
far longer than ones that broke in th pedal eye.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>>> Sheldon has stated that in his experience Shimano bottom
>>>>> brackets work with Campagnolo and TA cranks. We should do our
>>>>> best to lay this cycling wive's tale to rest.
>>>> I think Sheldon said there were instances where it worked fine
>>>> for him ( my experience too).
>>>> But I don't think he meant to say that one should generally
>>>> switch them across all models of TA and Campagnolo cranks.
>>> And certainly not encourage it.
>> Oh! And what do you get out of offering such admonishments? How
>> about some technical basis for your fear mongering.
> You bet. I'll bet with enough cobbling, you could get that MFord
> waterpump to morph onto that Chevy engine...
> 'fear mongering'... not talking about alternative cancer treatments
> here... bicycles, toys.
Could you please decipher that. I see no analogy between water pumps
and crank tapers, tapers that fit without modification and serve well.
The cancer reference is even farther afield unless you can tie that
together somehow. Please...
Jobst Brandt
RonSonic
wrote:
>
>Sheldon "It Works" Brown
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| In recent times, modern science has developed to give mankind, |
>| for the first time in the history of the human race, a way of |
>| securing a more abundant life which does not simply consist in |
>| taking away from someone else. -- Karl Taylor Compton, 1938 |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Cool quote.
Ron
A Muzi
>>>and Sheldon has stated that in his experience Shimano bottom
>>>brackets work with Campagnolo and TA cranks.
>>>We should do our best to lay this cycling wive's tale to rest.
> Andrew Muzi writes:
>>I think Sheldon said there were instances where it worked fine for
>>him ( my experience too).
>>But I don't think he meant to say that one should generally switch
>>them across all models of TA and Campagnolo cranks.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> I rode Shimano and Campagnolo spindles interchangeably for years until
> a Campagnolo spindle broke in torsion through the faces of the taper.
> Since then I have ridden only Shimano spindles and cranks.
>
> I found no difference between them and the wear pattern on the flats
> look the same with mixed sets (cranks and spindles). I get the
> impression this is another one of those wreck.bike subjects that get
> started by the same kind of people who write computer viruses, taking
> pleasure in introducing havoc into other peoples lives.
I agree that over much is made of this.
It's a particularly poor area for categorical expressions.
Sure, there are situations where I would use the 'wrong'
spindle. And cases where I wouldn't. Like where the spindle
pokes through the arm fully before the bolt is in.
But your application, Jobst, isn't germaine here. Your
spindle's from a Shimano BB7400. That's the exact dimensions
of Campagnolo's 1046a on purpose - as were many premium
quality crank bearings of the era. Shimano began to deviate
from the 50-year standard with their 'odd' taper section
long after yours, in the era of cartridge systems.
A Muzi
Lou Holtman wrote:
> Friend of mine cracked a Campy crank on a JIS tapered BB. Is this of
> statistical value? I don't think so, but he had a difficult time to get
> the crank warranted.
That's unfortunate. Drives up prices for honest people.
Where exactly did Campagnolo err when your buddy willfully
wrecked their product?
Basjan
Lou, I am not arguing here, I am just stating that is actually fun to "play
around with what you have" (no sexual connotation intended). I had the $12
bottom bracket in the toolbox, and liked the look of the Chorus crankset,
especially for $30. I have a couple of other variations on the bike, such as
a drilled out rear brake stay to make the modern brake bolt fit. Sure I
loose frame strength, but not significant or troublesome enough. Sure it is
"better" to have exact matches, but as I said, the status quo also is often
a bit less entertaining...
Basjan
Lou Holtman
dollar
> > Shimano crankset would be stupid, I agree. When I got a good deal on a
> > nice
> > Chorus crankset I would look for a good deal on any Campy bottom
bracket.
> > I'm sure that will not be a problem;. 20-30 dollar should cover the
bill.
> >
> > Lou
>
> Lou, I am not arguing here, I am just stating that is actually fun to
"play
> around with what you have" (no sexual connotation intended). I had the $12
> bottom bracket in the toolbox, and liked the look of the Chorus crankset,
> especially for $30. I have a couple of other variations on the bike, such
as
> a drilled out rear brake stay to make the modern brake bolt fit. Sure I
> loose frame strength, but not significant or troublesome enough. Sure it
is
> "better" to have exact matches, but as I said, the status quo also is
often
> a bit less entertaining...
Well, then we agree ;-)
Bottom brackets are boring and the Chorus crankset looks very nice indeed.
happy rides on your single speed
Lou
Sheldon Brown
become as much a religious issue as chain maintenance, but l'espirit de
l'escalier strikes, so here are further thoughts.
Mixing these standards constitutes what Sutherland's calls a "class B fit."
That is to say, it's serviceable as long as you don't repeatedly go back
on forth:
You can most likely get away with mounting "Coke" cranks on a "Pepsi"
bottom bracket, but if you then mount 'em on a "Coke" BB, then another
"Pepsi" BB and so forth, repeatedly, that's asking for trouble because
the soft aluinumm of the cranks does conform itself to fit whichever
spindle you mount it on. If you keep going back and forth, it is liable
to become oversized.
This was also more of an issue back in the days of cup-and-cone bottom
brackets, because crank removal/re-installation was part of routine
maintenance back then...you had to remove the cranks to service the
bottom bracket.
With the pervasive adoption of cartridge bottom brackets, there's no
longer any need for messing with this interface on a routine basis, and
generally the cranks won't be getting removed unless and until the
bottom bracket croaks.
Sheldon "Times Change" Brown
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, |
| as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, |
| to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. |
| --Anatole France |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Bill Sornson
> It is with reluctance that I prolong this thread, which bids fair to
> become as much a religious issue as chain maintenance, but l'espirit
> de l'escalier strikes, so here are further thoughts.
>
> Mixing these standards constitutes what Sutherland's calls a "class B
> fit."
> That is to say, it's serviceable as long as you don't repeatedly go
> back on forth:
>
> You can most likely get away with mounting "Coke" cranks on a "Pepsi"
> bottom bracket, but if you then mount 'em on a "Coke" BB, then another
> "Pepsi" BB and so forth, repeatedly, that's asking for trouble because
> the soft aluinumm of the cranks does conform itself to fit whichever
> spindle you mount it on. If you keep going back and forth, it is
> liable to become oversized.
>
> This was also more of an issue back in the days of cup-and-cone bottom
> brackets, because crank removal/re-installation was part of routine
> maintenance back then...you had to remove the cranks to service the
> bottom bracket.
>
> With the pervasive adoption of cartridge bottom brackets, there's no
> longer any need for messing with this interface on a routine basis,
> and generally the cranks won't be getting removed unless and until the
> bottom bracket croaks.
>
> Sheldon "Times Change" Brown
Let's see if JB accuses SB of "fear mongering"! :o)
am...@physics.utoronto.ca
Sheldon Brown wrote:
> I gave three examples of "mismatched" tapers in a previous message, but
> perhaps some details will help explain my rationale:
I found your chainline article informative when building my
singlespeed.
In fact the mismatch between Campy and Shimano tapers gives you another
variable to find the right chainline with.
I used a Super Record crank but I wanted a Shimano sealed BB for it's
durability. I was able to find the right axle length to give me a good
chainline. (I could've used a Miche track BB but this was cheaper).
In this pic you can see the inner ring is almost grazing the chanstay,
this is further in than you'd want for a shifting setup but I can use
the chainring in the outer position.
http://www.midweekclub.ca/class/pinn2.jpg
-Amit
Jasper Janssen
>Lou Holtman wrote:
>> Friend of mine cracked a Campy crank on a JIS tapered BB. Is this of
>> statistical value? I don't think so, but he had a difficult time to get
>> the crank warranted.
>
>That's unfortunate. Drives up prices for honest people.
>
>Where exactly did Campagnolo err when your buddy willfully
>wrecked their product?
It seems impossible to wreck a campy crank simply because of installing it
on a JIS BB. The JIS BB is larger, so there is no issue with bottoming
out. Of course, you can wreck any square-taper crank on any spindle by
overtightening it, which is the usual failure mode.
Jasper
Qui si parla Campagnolo
I think both Andy and I have seen Campagnolo cranks, forced onto JIS
tapers, and the crank isn't 'wrecked' but it won't work on a Campag
taper any longer either. The crank will go all the way onto the Campag
spindle and move past the end of the crank flats, meaning it won't
become tight.
If Campag BBs were scarce, short supply, very expensive I would see why
people mix and match but Campagnolo BBs are plentiful and not expensive
so when I hear a customer gets a shimano BB cuz, 'the bike shop
couldn't find a Campagnolo one', I see a lazy, inept bike shop.
Lots of those, even some here in the republic.