square taper cranks - who's left making them?
stev...@gmail.com
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
Well, Sugino comes to mind; good quality at a fair price.
There's still alot of Campy square taper stuff out there, too. And alot
of lower end, non-brand name stuff (e.g., some of the Nashbar branded
cranks).
IMO, square taper cranks will still be available long after Octalink
and ISIS have disappeared.
Llatikcuf
> Have these all gone the way of the dodo?
Sugino, still makes a nice crankset:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx2.html
T.A. is still makes a square taper, expensive in the USA:
http://www.specialites-ta.com/produits/crank_gb.htm
I believe Zinn still makes customs:
'http://www.zinncycles.com/cranks.aspx
Tune Bigfoot:
http://store.prostores.com/servlet/sveltecycles/Detail?no=21
Campy Xenon is still a square, probably some low end (OEM) Shimano
also. Other than that, I think it's limited to NOS and EBay.
I still have squares on all three of my bikes, Campy and old RaceFace
stuff. ISIS felt good, but BBs are trash. Never tried OctaLink, have
yet to try this external system.
-nate
russell...@yahoo.com
> also. Other than that, I think it's limited to NOS and EBay.
For 2007 I think the Campagnolo triple cranksets are square taper.
Only the 135mm bcd and 112/110mm bcd, adn 110mm bcd cranks are the new
torque coupler thing in the middle of the bottom bracket shell. If a
triple frightens you, its easy to just not mount an inner ring and use
a double length bottom bracket. You would have to check if the forged
inner ring lugs clear the chainstay on the shorter bottom bracket. If
not, then they can be easily ground off. Thus making it a permanent
double crank. I've thought about doing this since the only Campagnolo
cranks I ever see with 42 inner rings are triples. Buy a triple and
get rid of the inner ring and lugs and you have a wonderful riding
53-42 double crankset.
>
> I still have squares on all three of my bikes, Campy and old RaceFace
> stuff.
Me too. Chorus double, Centaur triple, RaceFace Turbine LP 94mm bcd
only using the outer and middle positions for a micro compact, and
Deore DX triple.
eow...@gmail.com
Most track tracks still seem to be square taper: Sugino, Stronglight,
TA, Miche, Campy...
Anthony DeLorenzo
I was wondering about that myself, as I just bought a set of FSA square
taper mountain bike cranks at LBS on Friday that are out of production.
White Industries makes beautiful singlespeed square taper cranks that I
have promised myself I will use on a bike at least once in my lifetime.
http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a lot
of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm planning
to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
Regards,
Anthony
William O'Hara
> http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
>
> Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
> using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a lot
> of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
>
> I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm planning
> to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
I am totally confused by the bike industry. Read my question on
head tubes. I just read that square taper is more efficient than
any of these crazy things such as external BB or ISIS by a huge
magnitude. Obviously Campy knew something. I've been trying to
read everything on this since my ISIS drive BB lasted only 2000
miles(yet another post).
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
William O'Hara wrote:
> > http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
> >
> > Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
> > using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a lot
> > of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
> >
> > I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm planning
> > to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
>
> I am totally confused by the bike industry. Read my question on
> head tubes. I just read that square taper is more efficient than
> any of these crazy things such as external BB or ISIS by a huge
> magnitude. Obviously Campy knew something. I've been trying to
> read everything on this since my ISIS drive BB lasted only 2000
> miles(yet another post).
Yes: <http://www.topeak.com/2006/products/minipumps/roadmorphg.php>.
The efficiency differences between bottom brackets with decent bearings
[1] must be minimal. The weight differences are also typically
negligible when related to real world performance
A larger diameter BB shell standard would be useful for some, as the
square taper is undersized from a durability (fatigue resistance)
perspective (both of the spindle and the attached cranks).
[1] I did have a cheap Shimano LP-37 go bad in the middle of a group
ride, and the increase in friction was enough that it made it hard to
keep up. When I removed the BB, I was not able to rotate the spindle
with my bare hands.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> http://www.whiteind.com/ENO_Products/cranks.html
>> Shimano, Sugino and Campagnolo seem to be your other options. I am
>> using a set of the Shimano FC-M460 on a mountain bike that gets a
>> lot of riding, and they have been excellent. Not too expensive.
>> I agree with others, they are not going away completely. I'm
>> planning to stick to square taper on all my bikes.
> I am totally confused by the bike industry. Read my question on
> head tubes. I just read that square taper is more efficient than
> any of these crazy things such as external BB or ISIS by a huge
> magnitude. Obviously Campy knew something. I've been trying to
> read everything on this since my ISIS drive BB lasted only 2000
> miles(yet another post).
I think you are using the wrong term to describe the crank/spindle
interface. There is no efficiency in that joint but rather reliability
and durability. You could say the cottered crank was ideal if you
ignore that it only worked well with steel cranks and that the
bearings were too small in diameter, and that it took skill to install
properly.
The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball bearings
and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not only do the
spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most bicycle
mechanics. For this reason there is a division about assembly with
and without grease. Cranks have been split from excessive press fit
but how these came about seems to still mystifies the manufacturers,
having never themselves been able to reproduce such failures...
although to cause it is simple. As a rule they don't read wreck.bike
and seem not to know how.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-001.html
picture 011 or the seventh picture. This was achieved by repeatedly
tightening the spindle bolt after use. It did not require grease. A
spindle bolt will break before damaging force can occur on the crank.
The ISIS method fails on several fronts and doesn't address the
bearing problem, using the same old cottered crank spindle diameter
and bearing cups. Besides, the spline is difficult to manufactured
and solves a non existent problem.
Shimano built the Octalink that has had a backlash flaw since its
beginning. Shimano didn't understand that and came out with a second
version with deeper splines that had the same failing as the first.
The current state of the art is the overhung bearing and no pressed on
cranks. Shimano using the pinch bolt design on a spline at the left
crank, and Campagnolo meshing a hollow spindle with a saw toothed
spline in the center. Both of these solve the torque and force
problem, although the Shimano method is simpler and less expensive.
What they don't do is address the BB thread forces that have required
a left hand thread or extreme torque to not unscrew. The left hand
thread is proof that the threads move or the thread direction would
make no difference. The bearing cups are supplied with Loctite type
thread retention, which does not work with such high loads. This is
the current weak spot and we will have to wait and see how they work.
Jobst Brandt
William O'Hara
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball bearings
> and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not only do the
> spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most bicycle
> mechanics. For this reason there is a division about assembly with
> and without grease. Cranks have been split from excessive press fit
> but how these came about seems to still mystifies the manufacturers,
> having never themselves been able to reproduce such failures...
> although to cause it is simple. As a rule they don't read wreck.bike
> and seem not to know how.
The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface of
the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the crank
in areas unrelated to the discussion.
The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional BB
as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These also
last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor in regards
to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only lasted me 2k in mileage.
I had a shimano BB that didn't last too longer either, but I forgot that
only until just now.
I am probably going to head for the external BB in my new bike. I have
several strong inclinations for frame right now.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
William O'Hara wrote:
> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote in news:45203fd8$0$34502
> $742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
> > The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball bearings
> > and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not only do the
> > spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most bicycle
> > mechanics. For this reason there is a division about assembly with
> > and without grease. Cranks have been split from excessive press fit
> > but how these came about seems to still mystifies the manufacturers,
> > having never themselves been able to reproduce such failures...
> > although to cause it is simple. As a rule they don't read wreck.bike
> > and seem not to know how.
>
> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface of
> the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the crank
> in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>
> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional BB
> as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These also
> last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor in regards
> to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only lasted me 2k in mileage.
> I had a shimano BB that didn't last too longer either, but I forgot that
> only until just now.
I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer $5 or
less.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball
>>> bearings and cups and has been burdened with them ever since. Not
>>> only do the spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to most
>>> bicycle mechanics. For this reason there is a division about
>>> assembly with and without grease. Cranks have been split from
>>> excessive press fit but how these came about seems to still
>>> mystifies the manufacturers, having never themselves been able to
>>> reproduce such failures... although to cause it is simple. As a
>>> rule they don't read wreck.bike and seem not to know how.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-001.html
>>> picture 011 or the seventh picture. This was achieved by
>>> repeatedly tightening the spindle bolt after use. It did not
>>> require grease. A spindle bolt will break before damaging force
>>> can occur on the crank.
>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface
>> of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the
>> crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
[the seventh picture]
Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the cranks
a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If that's the
level of power you are concerned about you should quit bicycling.
> I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
> were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer $5
> or less.
So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
Jobst Brandt
William O'Hara
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the interface
>>> of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the metal in the
>>> crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>
> [the seventh picture]
>
> Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
A whole bunch were cracks of the crank arm away from the joint area.
I don't know how the stress on crank arm is relevant at all. We are
thinking of stress of the crank arm on the joint, anyways
>>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
>
> If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the cranks
> a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If that's the
> level of power you are concerned about you should quit bicycling.
> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
Since they must being getting much more friction than the traditional
design. Why wouldn't friction reduce reliability?
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Bill,
Old-fashioned bottom brackets and cranks last an amazingly long time
if installed correctly.
The friction and wear are already so low that reducing them further
amounts to sandpapering the hood ornament on a Mercedes in hopes of
reducing wind drag.
You can indeed make a large relative improvement in bearing drag, but
the absolute reduction is so small that you'll have trouble measuring
it, contrary to the more heated marketing nonsense.
Worrying about the drag and wear on your crank is roughly akin to
worrying about the weight of your chain. By paying ten times as much
for a titanium chain with holes drilled in it, you can reduce the
chain's weight 10% or 25% or some such figure from a cheap chain.
But you're saving only about 50 to 100 grams on a bicycle and rider
that are in the neighborhood of 100,000 grams. A sneeze during your
ride could easily have as much effect.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> > I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
> > were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer $5
> > or less.
>
> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
I did not disassemble either BB, but they were extremely rough feeling
and one had enough internal friction that I could not rotate the
spindle by hand. I assume that the bearings failed, but can only
speculate as to whether it was the races, balls, or both.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>>> The square taper inherited the cottered crank spindle, ball
>>>>> bearings and cups and has been burdened with them ever since.
>>>>> Not only do the spindles spall, the square taper is a mystery to
>>>>> most bicycle mechanics. For this reason there is a division
>>>>> about assembly with and without grease. Cranks have been split
>>>>> from excessive press fit but how these came about seems to still
>>>>> mystifies the manufacturers, having never themselves been able
>>>>> to reproduce such failures... although to cause it is simple.
>>>>> As a rule they don't read wreck.bike and seem not to know how.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/FAIL-001.html
>>>>> picture 011 or the seventh picture. This was achieved by
>>>>> repeatedly tightening the spindle bolt after use. It did not
>>>>> require grease. A spindle bolt will break before damaging force
>>>>> can occur on the crank.
>>>> The link had several items were there were breaks at the
>>>> interface of the crankset and the BB. Most were failures of the
>>>> metal in the crank in areas unrelated to the discussion.
>> [the seventh picture]
>> Explain what is "unrelated to the discussion" in that picture?
> A whole bunch were cracks of the crank arm away from the joint area.
> I don't know how the stress on crank arm is relevant at all. We are
> thinking of stress of the crank arm on the joint, anyways
[the seventh picture]
Did you look at that picture and if so, what is "unrelated"? Your
statement above is "unrelated to the discussion" if anything.
>>>> The #'s being touted by some suggest that drag in the traditional
>>>> BB as you describe is vastly LESS than the ISIS drive BB. These
>>>> also last much longer than ISIS. My personal opinion is very poor
>>>> in regards to the durability of the FSA ISIS bb since it only
>>>> lasted me 2k in mileage. I had a Shimano BB that didn't last too
>>>> longer either, but I forgot that only until just now.
>> If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the
>> cranks a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If
>> that's the level of power you are concerned about you should quit
>> bicycling.
>>> I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but those
>>> were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle manufacturer
>>> $5 or less.
>> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
> Since they must being getting much more friction than the
> traditional design. Why wouldn't friction reduce reliability?
Who said they are getting more friction? That's BS. They use the
same bearing balls and steel races and until they spall, they have the
same friction as the most expensive ones.
Stop repeating myth and lore!
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but
>>> those were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle
>>> manufacturer $5 or less.
>> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
> I did not disassemble either BB, but they were extremely rough
> feeling and one had enough internal friction that I could not rotate
> the spindle by hand. I assume that the bearings failed, but can only
> speculate as to whether it was the races, balls, or both.
So you threw the bicycle away, as is, and bought a new one. Is that
it? How can you write this stuff after having been around wreck.bike
so long, and not wince when you post such stuff. If you make claims
of mechanical failures, at least explain what failed. I can cause
such a failure if I tighten bearing clearance enough, but I wouldn't
claim the product was faulty here in these pages.
Jobst Brandt
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Of course not...Campanolo, shimano, TA, to name three...many more I am
sure.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Campy Xenon is still a square, probably some low end (OEM) Shimano
> > also. Other than that, I think it's limited to NOS and EBay.
>
> For 2007 I think the Campagnolo triple cranksets are square taper.
> Only the 135mm bcd and 112/110mm bcd, adn 110mm bcd cranks are the new
> torque coupler thing in the middle of the bottom bracket shell. If a
> triple frightens you, its easy to just not mount an inner ring and use
> a double length bottom bracket. You would have to check if the forged
> inner ring lugs clear the chainstay on the shorter bottom bracket.
Still 111 for the triple...115.5 for oversized seatubes...115.5 was
never for chainstay clearance but FD inward travel.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Lsts not forget PhilWood as well...as somebody mentioned, square taper
will still be around when some are searching in vain for ISIS or
Octalink...
jim beam
2. crank bearings are not all the same - shimano use rollers for instance.
3. bearing "friction" in an indicator of incorrect adjustment. what
/will/ induce premature failure.
4. bearing life /is/ a function of quality.
Matt O'Toole
> Shimano built the Octalink that has had a backlash flaw since its
> beginning. Shimano didn't understand that and came out with a second
> version with deeper splines that had the same failing as the first.
Yup.
> The current state of the art is the overhung bearing and no pressed on
> cranks. Shimano using the pinch bolt design on a spline at the left
> crank, and Campagnolo meshing a hollow spindle with a saw toothed spline
> in the center. Both of these solve the torque and force problem,
> although the Shimano method is simpler and less expensive.
That may be so, but I'm sure there's enough margin built into all this
stuff that the manufacturing process doesn't matter, especially if it
results in a more appealing product. To me, the Campy design looks nicer
and seems like it would be easier and more foolproof to use.
> What they don't do is address the BB thread forces that have required a
> left hand thread or extreme torque to not unscrew. The left hand thread
> is proof that the threads move or the thread direction would make no
> difference. The bearing cups are supplied with Loctite type thread
> retention, which does not work with such high loads. This is the
> current weak spot and we will have to wait and see how they work.
As I thought would happen, I do hear of these outboard bearing cups
loosening.
I don't see any problem with a new BB shell standard, a larger shell to
take larger inboard cups to fit the newer bearings and cranks. The new
phat look would probably appeal to the bike industry marketroids too.
Matt O.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Shimano built the Octalink that has had a backlash flaw since its
>> beginning. Shimano didn't understand that and came out with a
>> second version with deeper splines that had the same failing as the
>> first.
> Yup.
>> The current state of the art is the overhung bearing and no pressed
>> on cranks. Shimano using the pinch bolt design on a spline at the
>> left crank, and Campagnolo meshing a hollow spindle with a saw
>> toothed spline in the center. Both of these solve the torque and
>> force problem, although the Shimano method is simpler and less
>> expensive.
> That may be so, but I'm sure there's enough margin built into all
> this stuff that the manufacturing process doesn't matter, especially
> if it results in a more appealing product. To me, the Campy design
> looks nicer and seems like it would be easier and more foolproof to
> use.
The Campagnolo system locates the lateral position of the left cup
with a two pin spring clip and a wave washer to give cartridge bearing
preload. This looks too flimsy to me and insufficient solid preload
when the bearing is loaded. It feels OK when turned by hand but that
isn't what it does when pedal loads occur. At that point the bearing
shifts to its central position and rides in the bottom of the ball
groove. This means that there is constant motion of the races.
>> What they don't do is address the BB thread forces that have
>> required a left hand thread or extreme torque to not unscrew. The
>> left hand thread is proof that the threads move or the thread
>> direction would make no difference. The bearing cups are supplied
>> with Loctite type thread retention, which does not work with such
>> high loads. This is the current weak spot and we will have to wait
>> and see how they work.
> As I thought would happen, I do hear of these outboard bearing cups
> loosening.
> I don't see any problem with a new BB shell standard, a larger shell
> to take larger inboard cups to fit the newer bearings and cranks.
> The new phat look would probably appeal to the bike industry
> marketroids too.
That doesn't solve the fretting problem, the one that requires a left
hand thread in the right hand cup. That problem needs a solution.
Mine finally ate away all the threads in the BB shell after more than
150,000 miles, leaving a nearly smooth bore. It was repaired with
skilled machining and silver brazing a new steel thread sleeve. This
was to be expected, knowing that the right cup always moves or we
wouldn't have left hand threads.
It's like the pedal attachment that neither Shimano nor Campagnolo
seems ready to address.
Jobst Brandt
Joshua Putnam
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org says...
Since they're cheap Shimano BBs, I assume he removed them and replaced
them without dissasembling them. I'd also assume there's no convenient
way to adjust the bearing clearances on them. Cheap Shimano BBs are
cartridge units that aren't designed to be maintained, adjusted, or
taken apart. You just pull them out and stick in a new one.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
Joshua Putnam
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org says...
> That doesn't solve the fretting problem, the one that requires a left
> hand thread in the right hand cup. That problem needs a solution.
> Mine finally ate away all the threads in the BB shell after more than
> 150,000 miles, leaving a nearly smooth bore. It was repaired with
> skilled machining and silver brazing a new steel thread sleeve. This
> was to be expected, knowing that the right cup always moves or we
> wouldn't have left hand threads.
>
> It's like the pedal attachment that neither Shimano nor Campagnolo
> seems ready to address.
I suspect they both feel the issues have been adequately addressed for
their target markets.
With all due respect, you're an outlier -- what vanishingly small
percentage of bikes ever hit 150,000 miles? Or even 50,000 miles?
Most manufacturers don't even feel the need to design for riding in the
rain.
Matt O'Toole
> The Campagnolo system locates the lateral position of the left cup
> with a two pin spring clip and a wave washer to give cartridge bearing
> preload. This looks too flimsy to me and insufficient solid preload
> when the bearing is loaded. It feels OK when turned by hand but that
> isn't what it does when pedal loads occur. At that point the bearing
> shifts to its central position and rides in the bottom of the ball
> groove. This means that there is constant motion of the races.
I had no idea. Doesn't seem good.
>>> What they don't do is address the BB thread forces that have
>>> required a left hand thread or extreme torque to not unscrew. The
>>> left hand thread is proof that the threads move or the thread
>>> direction would make no difference. The bearing cups are supplied
>>> with Loctite type thread retention, which does not work with such
>>> high loads. This is the current weak spot and we will have to wait
>>> and see how they work.
>> As I thought would happen, I do hear of these outboard bearing cups
>> loosening.
>> I don't see any problem with a new BB shell standard, a larger shell
>> to take larger inboard cups to fit the newer bearings and cranks.
>> The new phat look would probably appeal to the bike industry
>> marketroids too.
>
> That doesn't solve the fretting problem, the one that requires a left
> hand thread in the right hand cup. That problem needs a solution.
A larger bore might not loosen or erode as quickly, but you're right, it
doesn't solve the problem.
Mavic had those BB's that fit into a chamfered shell. They were an off
the shelf solution to stripped BB shells, but I don't think
they're available anymore.
Pressed-in BB bearings are no solution because of the service issues.
With my own bike I have to remove the BB every 6 months, apply fresh
anti-seize, and retorque to stop the clicks and creaks. Eventually the
threads will erode, but I'll deal with that later.
> Mine finally ate away all the threads in the BB shell after more than
> 150,000 miles, leaving a nearly smooth bore. It was repaired with
> skilled machining and silver brazing a new steel thread sleeve. This
> was to be expected, knowing that the right cup always moves or we
> wouldn't have left hand threads.
I wonder what it cost for you to have this done, including repainting.
At that point I'd probably just replace my frame, but if yours is special
then repair is worth the trouble and expense.
> It's like the pedal attachment that neither Shimano nor Campagnolo seems
> ready to address.
Yup.
But keep in mind that few of their customers put 150k miles on their
equipment. As the saying goes, they probably "don' get much callfer
that." These days, fashion drives most avid riders to replace their gear
frequently anyway.
Matt O.
Llatikcuf
> > That doesn't solve the fretting problem, the one that requires a left
> > hand thread in the right hand cup.....snip.....
Joshua Putnam wrote:
> With all due respect, you're an outlier -- what vanishingly small
> percentage of bikes ever hit 150,000 miles? Or even 50,000 miles?
Hit it right on the nose, Jobst does seem to be more than three
standard deviations to the right...
-Nate
frkr...@gmail.com
Um... to the left, surely? ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> With my own bike I have to remove the BB every 6 months, apply fresh
> anti-seize, and retorque to stop the clicks and creaks. Eventually
> the threads will erode, but I'll deal with that later.
>> Mine finally ate away all the threads in the BB shell after more
>> than 150,000 miles, leaving a nearly smooth bore. It was repaired
>> with skilled machining and silver brazing a new steel thread
>> sleeve. This was to be expected, knowing that the right cup always
>> moves or we wouldn't have left hand threads.
> I wonder what it cost for you to have this done, including repainting.
Let's just say it was expensive and was done by my old riding buddy
who built the frame. His specialty is difficult machining and welding
jobs that he does for those who can't get it done elsewhere. Not only
that, but he did it on a Friday (when it broke) and I went on a long
ride Sunday with the repaired bicycle.
> At that point I'd probably just replace my frame, but if yours is
> special then repair is worth the trouble and expense.
>> It's like the pedal attachment that neither Shimano nor Campagnolo
>> seems ready to address.
> Yup.
> But keep in mind that few of their customers put 150k miles on their
> equipment. As the saying goes, they probably "don' get much callfer
> that." These days, fashion drives most avid riders to replace their
> gear frequently anyway.
I broke a crank at least once per year for many years, as have guys I
ride with. This year in the Alps my friend discovered a half cracked
pedal eye on one crank as we left Lienz (A) toward the Großglockner.
By rinding seated the entire climb, he was able to not have the crack
advance.
This was important in two ways. We were able to get to Zell am See in
one piece and I had verification that these failures arise from
standing while climbing hills, something of which I was fairly certain
already, because I climb standing, my back doesn't want to do that
sitting.
> Matt O.
Jobst Brandt
William O'Hara
4ax.com:
I'm talking about ISIS and exbb in comparison to those. The old
fashioned have much LESS drag and LAST. Which is seemly unlikely
ISIS drive.
William O'Hara
>> traditional design. Why wouldn't friction reduce reliability?
>
> Who said they are getting more friction? That's BS. They use the
> same bearing balls and steel races and until they spall, they have the
> same friction as the most expensive ones.
>
> Stop repeating myth and lore!
I don't think that I'm repeating myth and lore. It seems
as If I make a point and you strive to make some point to
prove elsewise on a merely contrarian basis. A bunch of
those pictures were about the crankarms and not the BBs. Let's
be realistic. If a break occurs away from the bb at the pedal
joint, then how likely is the resultant from a failure to properly
carry the load at the BB due to a bad interface? I think very low.
BB's are different.
William O'Hara
> and one had enough internal friction that I could not rotate the
> spindle by hand. I assume that the bearings failed, but can only
> speculate as to whether it was the races, balls, or both.
>
My BB would go clunk and clunk. It was resistant to hand
spinning. It was not completely seized as some others have
reported. My main concern was the bearings and this apparent
problem versus Jobst's concern over poor BB/crank interface.
William O'Hara
> it? How can you write this stuff after having been around wreck.bike
> so long, and not wince when you post such stuff. If you make claims
Are you referring to my bike? The frame is now bent! It
and a brand new ISIS BB are sitting in the garage, as we speak.
The old BB is in the trash.
carl...@comcast.net
<whoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Bill,
I don't know of any testing for crank drag.
Frankly, I'm under the impression that reducing bottom bracket drag is
about like hoping that trimming our toenails will help us climb
faster. Off-hand, I'd expect different crank aerodynamics to have a
larger effect than differences between reasonably well-adjust
bearings.
But I could be wrong, and I'd love to see some data.
Do you have any figures about how many watts of drag you're talking
about when you say "much LESS drag"?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
KERRY MONTGOMERY
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pb96i2pelj5qfve4h...@4ax.com...
When my toenails are too long my shoes press against 'em when I climb, so
I'm slower.
Kerry
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Kerry,
Either longer shoes or Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome will let you claw
your way back to your former glory.
Or I suppose you could just trim them.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
>
> >>> I have had Shimano BB's fail at approximately 2000 miles, but
> >>> those were low end, LP series that likely cost the bicycle
> >>> manufacturer $5 or less.
>
> >> So what is failing in these short lived BB's?
>
> > I did not disassemble either BB, but they were extremely rough
> > feeling and one had enough internal friction that I could not rotate
> > the spindle by hand. I assume that the bearings failed, but can only
> > speculate as to whether it was the races, balls, or both.
>
> So you threw the bicycle away, as is, and bought a new one.
Nope, the bikes are in the other room of my apartment, with Shimano
UN-52 bottom brackets installed.
> Is that
> it? How can you write this stuff after having been around wreck.bike
> so long, and not wince when you post such stuff. If you make claims
> of mechanical failures, at least explain what failed. I can cause
> such a failure if I tighten bearing clearance enough, but I wouldn't
> claim the product was faulty here in these pages.
The bottom brackets in questions (Shimano LP-27) [1] are the sealed
cartridge type that are not meant to be opened, adjusted, or
maintained, but are to be used until they start to fail and then
replaced. To quote from the Park Tool website, "Three piece bottom
bracket- Cartridge type: Bikes made the last few years tend to come
with a "cartridge" bottom bracket. For the most part, these are
unserviceable, and the entire unit is simply removed and replaced when
they wear out. They can not be greased or adjusted before that time.
Some brands use common industrial bearings, just like ones found in
cars, pumps, electrical motors, etc. Generally, the bearings are
intended to be used until they wear out. With most brands, the entire
unit including the spindle is replaced. " [2].
I expect that bicycle quality replacement bearings would cost more than
a new cartridge BB of similar quality.
I supposed I could cut the BB shell open with my Dremel tool to check
the bearings, but that should probably wait until daytime when the
noise would not wake up my neighbors. Both units have a distinct
"ratcheting" feel, rather the smooth resistance of a properly
functioning bearing.
[1] I still have the offending units, and I just confirmed that they
resist normal efforts at disassembly.
[2] <http://www.parktool.com/repair/readhowto.asp?id=93>.
William O'Hara
4ax.com:
FSA is pushing testing data. See Cyclingnews.com.
This isn't about making a 20mph bike ride into a 30
mph bike ride. This is just about having a BB that
lasts.
carl...@comcast.net
<whoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Bill,
I take it that your answer is no, you haven't got any figures for how
many watts of drag you're talking when you said "much LESS drag" in
one kind of crank versus another.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
EXACTLY!
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
We could design a BB for the combination of Jobst's mileage [1] and
Chalo's mass.
[1] Kilometerage when he takes his Alpine cycling vacation?
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm TOP POSTED:
> Lsts not forget PhilWood as well...as somebody mentioned, square taper
> will still be around when some are searching in vain for ISIS or
> Octalink...
Will square taper outlive Ashtabula?
William O'Hara
> many watts of drag you're talking when you said "much LESS drag" in
> one kind of crank versus another.
Why don't you read the article, which I had already mentioned once
before and GAVE THE LINK. There is a big problem with a bunch of
readers on this newsgroup. They interject with aim of being rude
and do not read every post. How many times should I repost the link?
I should not even have to post a link. You should be able to find
it in two seconds on your own accord.
Bill
carl...@comcast.net
<whoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I take it that your answer is no, you haven't got any figures for how
>> many watts of drag you're talking when you said "much LESS drag" in
>> one kind of crank versus another.
>
>Why don't you read the article, which I had already mentioned once
>before and GAVE THE LINK. There is a big problem with a bunch of
>readers on this newsgroup. They interject with aim of being rude
>and do not read every post. How many times should I repost the link?
>I should not even have to post a link. You should be able to find
>it in two seconds on your own accord.
>
>Bill
Dear Bill,
If you can post a link to an article showing watts of drag on
different cranks, I'll be happy to read it. That's why I asked.
But posting a link to a magazine and a vague description is scarcely
the same thing.
If you feel that it should take me only two seconds to find a vaguely
described article, how long would it have taken you to post the link
instead of writing silly posts about how everyone should read every
post?
Particlarly if, like the post that I replied to, no link was included.
Please take two seconds to share the information that you have with
the rest of us. Otherwise, I take it that you don't have a link to
data about drag tests on bicycle cranks.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
William O'Hara
> different cranks, I'll be happy to read it. That's why I asked.
You could have pulled it out in top ten google search simple
by putting friction, bottom, and bracket.
Matt O'Toole
> I broke a crank at least once per year for many years, as have guys I
> ride with. This year in the Alps my friend discovered a half cracked
> pedal eye on one crank as we left Lienz (A) toward the Großglockner. By
> rinding seated the entire climb, he was able to not have the crack
> advance.
>
> This was important in two ways. We were able to get to Zell am See in
> one piece and I had verification that these failures arise from standing
> while climbing hills, something of which I was fairly certain already,
> because I climb standing, my back doesn't want to do that sitting.
Have you broken any since using your chamfered collet? Have you gotten
anyone else to use it?
Matt O.
carl...@comcast.net
<whoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If you can post a link to an article showing watts of drag on
>> different cranks, I'll be happy to read it. That's why I asked.
>
>You could have pulled it out in top ten google search simple
>by putting friction, bottom, and bracket.
Dear Bill,
Sorry, but that's weasel-worded marketing hype. If you'd been reading
the newsgroup, you would have known that it's been discredited
repeatedly.
Here's the nonsense in question:
"Independent lab measurements by Bike Testing, Inc. have pegged that
figure [for bottom bracket drag] at as much as nearly 4% of total
power output."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=2006/reviews/FSA_MegaExo
Technically, the statement can be called true, since the weasel phrase
"as much as nearly 4%" includes losses down to 0% and rpm up to
20,000--which is when power losses of almost 4% due to bearing drag do
indeed occur.
But at bicycling rpm of only around 100 rpm, crank bearing drag is
ignored.
It's easy to see why. Flip a derailleur bike upside down and note that
you can easily push the pedals around backward with one finger.
You're fighting the spring-loaded freewheel pawl mechanism, the tiny
and inefficient jockey pulleys, the chain losses, the crank bearings,
the pedal bearings, and the minuscule wind drag of the crank
windmilling around
But you can still turn the crank with the tip of your little finger.
Now slip the chain off and level the crank.
It should start turning under the weight of a ball-point pen.
If that's 4% of your power, then you're putting less than the weight
of 25 ball-point pens onto the pedal.
Of course, Jobst pointed this out to you more briefly a few posts ago:
"If you think the drag is high, take the chain off and give the cranks
a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If that's the
level of power you are concerned about you should quit bicycling."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/3239a6792232be60
That thing there is called a link. It's often used on RBT to point to
what we're talking about, which saves lots of time and foolishness.
Refusing to give it is considered a strong sign of a weak argument.
But cheer up--this will all be forgotten by next week.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
One of my friends had his new cranks modified after having a pedal eye
failure and of course, we've never seen another on his bicycle,
considering that he weighs less than 150lbs while I haven't had one
since I did that and I don't have the date when I installed that.
Let me add that I don't check my cranks for cracks anymore and took a
2000+ mile tour in the Alps this summer and have no cracks.
Jobst Brandt
William O'Hara
> a spin and notice how long they take to come to a stop. If that's the
> level of power you are concerned about you should quit bicycling."
You can easily pull up prior articles. You hound me for
details. There is nothing wrong with the article nor has
it been repeatedly discredited. You just want to make a sport
out of being a jackass. I'm not talking about power, which
is Jobst's thoughts about my concern.
I think that you should ride with an ISIS BB or Octalink and see how
soon it fails. It is a sealed cartidge, which poor Jobst did not
seem to realize.
There are differences in the bbs. The splines are different
in length, thickness, The installation of the balls are
different. The design stinks. There is so much more friction
in the BB and this causes failure. People are pointing this out
on the newsgroup. There are stories written up about crank/bb
interface failing, which is jobst's complaint. Yet, there are
people starting to complain about SEIZED bbs.
Where the heck do you think a seized BB comes from?
Trust me, I won't forgot next week.
jim beam
so because i have no elephant sitting in my living room watching my tv
and drinking my beer, does that mean elephants are afraid of bicycles?
i have a bicycle in my living room you see, so it's safe for me to draw
that conclusion, right?
fact is jobst, both metallurgy and design have improved substantially
since the days of your failures. both eliminate the need to undertake
crank surgery. while your modification has merit, it doesn't allow you
to claim fatigue elimination without acknowledging the other
improvements. what you should really do is undertake this mod on a
failure-prone n.o.s. campy super record crank and then keep proper
mileage records. then we'll see if it really works.
Hank Wirtz
news:1159794665.2...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Lsts not forget PhilWood as well...as somebody mentioned, square taper
> will still be around when some are searching in vain for ISIS or
> Octalink...
>
Phil Wood rocks as well for still supporting threadings other than English
and Italian. I'm running an '06 Centaur crank with a 110.5mm ISO Phil on my
1975 French-threaded Peugeot.
They also do Swiss for those old Motobecanes, and Raleigh threading, too.