New Campagnolo crank design...

Basjan said:

Everyone has probably seen Campy´s new BB/crank design "with a twist" on
cyclingnews.com?

http://tinyurl.com/zg22w

"Campagnolo's adherence to the square taper was starting to look a bit
odd."

Yep, it was lacking in the hype and BS department, where the lamenoids
from "Cycling News" spend all their time.

And just think, now you can pay more for less. Good old American
marketing hype. Screw up one of the best standards in bicycling just so
you can save about one ounce.

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Campagnolo's adherence to the square taper was starting to look a bit
odd."

Quoted message said:

Yep, it was lacking in the hype and BS department, where the lamenoids
from "Cycling News" spend all their time.

I take it you are not a fan of industrial engineering progress when coupled
with sly marketers!

While I agree that much of the new BB-crank design is marketing, simple
engineering common sense also dictates that the increased inter-bearing-cup
spacing and single attachment should be useful. This is akin to some posters
stating that the Italian BB threading is as good as the English counterpart
on a properly prepped frame and installed BB. And this while simple
engineering principles (which I missed in a long ago post!) again make it
clear that an Italian BB is physically prone to "unthreading"/loosening.

Basjan

Basjan said:

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Campagnolo's adherence to the square taper was starting to look a bit
odd."

Quoted message said:

Yep, it was lacking in the hype and BS department, where the lamenoids
from "Cycling News" spend all their time.

I take it you are not a fan of industrial engineering progress

IMO, "a solution in search of a problem" is *not* progress.

Quoted message said:

when coupled with sly marketers!

While I agree that much of the new BB-crank design is marketing, simple
engineering common sense also dictates that the increased inter-bearing-cup
spacing and single attachment should be useful.

There *may* be some technical improvement, but was there a need to
"improve" a design with very few manifest problems?

Octalink, ISIS, "External Bearing" designs, etc., are all, IMO.
marketing driven, not engineering driven.

Quoted message said:

This is akin to some posters
stating that the Italian BB threading is as good as the English counterpart
on a properly prepped frame and installed BB. And this while simple
engineering principles (which I missed in a long ago post!) again make it
clear that an Italian BB is physically prone to "unthreading"/loosening.

One could say the same thing regarding a French BB. And, while the
fixed cup threading is not optimal, I regularly ride a French BB (made
by Tange) and it has yet to "loosen".

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom said:

And just think, now you can pay more for less. Good old American
marketing hype. Screw up one of the best standards in bicycling just so
you can save about one ounce.

Weight saving isn't really the goal. It's not breaking the cranks
regularly.

Not a problem for light riders, most of the time, but the design's
marginality is testified to by all those who give it any trouble: the
heavy, the off-roaders.

And for that matter, there were two square-taper standards, and their
compatibility was mediocre at best.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ozark Bicycle said:

Basjan said:

Everyone has probably seen Campy´s new BB/crank design "with a twist"on
cyclingnews.com?

http://tinyurl.com/zg22w

"Campagnolo's adherence to the square taper was starting to look a bit
odd."

Yep, it was lacking in the hype and BS department, where the lamenoids
from "Cycling News" spend all their time.

every campy crank i ever had eventually sat off kilter. the chainring
would waver by several millimeters, so chainrub was an inevitability.

i would check the trueness of the chainrings and the spider, and they
would be fine. i could only conclude that the square hole was wearing
unevenly. i don't know if there was some fault in my installation
method, but i found it very disappointing.

i don't know if this problem is common, but i don't see how anyone
would tolerate it on a quality bike.

"Tom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And just think, now you can pay more for less. Good old American
marketing hype. Screw up one of the best standards in bicycling just so
you can save about one ounce.

Look at the upside. Campagnolo switching away from square taper means that
there will be some old inventory to blow out. We are already seeing this
with aluminum Campy cranksets, which are currently going for less than $50
new on Ebay. Take this as an opportunity to stock up with cheap cranksets
and BBs to tide you over for a few years until the next "new and improved"
thing. I always try and stay one generation of gear behind the
early-adopter types, and then buy their castoffs cheap.

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom said:

And just think, now you can pay more for less. Good old American
marketing hype. Screw up one of the best standards in bicycling just so
you can save about one ounce.

Weight saving isn't really the goal. It's not breaking the cranks
regularly.

Not a problem for light riders, most of the time, but the design's
marginality is testified to by all those who give it any trouble: the
heavy, the off-roaders.

Balderdash...heavy riders do not break square taper cranks with any
regularlity. Chalo is an anomoly and no maker of anything would build
with him in mind. Off roaders, perhaps...no offroad in Campag's lineup,

Quoted message said:

And for that matter, there were two square-taper standards, and their
compatibility was mediocre at best.

Balderdash times two. shimano created the JIS standard after Ca,pag had
the ISO for decades...this egg was first. Large does not a standard
make.

Bottom line, the outboard bearing thing is marketing driven, period. No
answer to any question regarding strength or function. If the likes of
Mario and Tom and Stewie can sprint on square taper cranks, you can...

Quoted message said:

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Basjan said:

Everyone has probably seen Campy´s new BB/crank design "with a twist" on
cyclingnews.com?

http://tinyurl.com/zg22w

"Campagnolo's adherence to the square taper was starting to look a bit
odd."

Yep, it was lacking in the hype and BS department, where the lamenoids
from "Cycling News" spend all their time.

every campy crank i ever had eventually sat off kilter. the chainring
would waver by several millimeters, so chainrub was an inevitability.

i would check the trueness of the chainrings and the spider, and they
would be fine. i could only conclude that the square hole was wearing
unevenly. i don't know if there was some fault in my installation
method, but i found it very disappointing.

The square hole in the crank 'wearing unevenly'...poopycock...this hole
doesn't 'wear' at all.

Quoted message said:

i don't know if this problem is common, but i don't see how anyone
would tolerate it on a quality bike.

Your experience is not something I have seen while messing with road
cranks and BBs for over 2 decades,,,,let me guess, you also greased
square taper BB sopindles...

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Basjan said:

Everyone has probably seen Campy´s new BB/crank design "with a twist" on
cyclingnews.com?

http://tinyurl.com/zg22w

"Campagnolo's adherence to the square taper was starting to look a bit
odd."

Yep, it was lacking in the hype and BS department, where the lamenoids
from "Cycling News" spend all their time.

every campy crank i ever had eventually sat off kilter. the chainring
would waver by several millimeters, so chainrub was an inevitability.

IME, this sounds rather odd. And did it happen to you *only* with Campy
cranks, or with all square taper BB/crankarms?

Quoted message said:

i would check the trueness of the chainrings and the spider, and they
would be fine. i could only conclude that the square hole was wearing
unevenly. i don't know if there was some fault in my installation
method, but i found it very disappointing.

i don't know if this problem is common, but i don't see how anyone
would tolerate it on a quality bike.

I don't think the problem is common. Unique might be a better term.

We have to remember that guys like Amit and Chalo are absurdities in
this world. They can wear non-moving surfaces or break cranks or bottom
brackets that the world's strongest riders use for years without
problems.

Basjan said:

I take it you are not a fan of industrial engineering progress when coupled
with sly marketers!

Indeed I am. But in this case is it really progress?

Quoted message said:

While I agree that much of the new BB-crank design is marketing, simple
engineering common sense also dictates that the increased
inter-bearing-cup spacing and single attachment should be useful. This
is akin to some posters stating that the Italian BB threading is as good
as the English counterpart on a properly prepped frame and installed BB.
And this while simple engineering principles (which I missed in a long
ago post!) again make it clear that an Italian BB is physically prone to
"unthreading"/loosening.

I predict, based on simple engineering principles, that the current crop
of outboard bearing BBs will cause a rash of thread problems in BB shells
in coming years.

Matt O.

Tom said:

We have to remember that guys like Amit and Chalo are absurdities in
this world. They can wear non-moving surfaces or break cranks or bottom
brackets that the world's strongest riders use for years without
problems.

The "world's strongest riders" in this sport are jockey-sized, which is
to say not very strong. An ant can carry fifty times its own weight,
but it won't be breaking any cranks. And where did you get the idea
that those folks use their equipment for years?

Cyclists who weigh 2x the average pro rider are not absurdities; they
are relatively common. Several of the regulars in this group are in
that general category; I personally am close to 3x the weight of some
pro riders.

I don't know what Amit's size is, but I know that Jobst weighs in the
low 200s and breaks crankarms. I snapped my first square-taper spindle
when I weighed only 230 lbs. I snapped the next one when I weighed
about 260. Now that I weigh at least 100 lbs. more than that, I won't
even test ride a square taper crank.

Chalo Colina

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bottom line, the outboard bearing thing is marketing driven, period. No
answer to any question regarding strength or function. If the likes of
Mario and Tom and Stewie can sprint on square taper cranks, you can...

_ Well, I won't argue that, but for the shade tree bike mechanic
the new cranks do have ome distinct advantage, you can work on
them without a crank puller. I can't really think of any
plausible reason why you'd need to remove your cranks on the
side of the road, but now it's possible with a standard
multitool (or even just the appropriate hex wrench).

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBRGoNQ2TWTAjn5N/lAQHJ6gQAl2ajBYFsF2FpiITmR79zjyXkWSrqucBs
wZGvVIoJTgZYlrXkS6AaJ3y8Qz+DtSM88stbRACAP7rNFbsCikMy88ht8r2Ham0i
g6Z8QuM1JJmKZFUlOoAjVR9oa04tw3HBjancvtHSIRK3ckCiGh+vtvqfZgv58Sv3
WcfjZnpg/nQ=
=Y+kU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Weight saving isn't really the goal. It's not breaking the cranks
regularly.

Balderdash...heavy riders do not break square taper cranks with any
regularlity. Chalo is an anomoly and no maker of anything would build
with him in mind.

Remember, Peter, when I broke those spindles I weighed in the
low-to-mid 200s. That's not anomalous. The second time, when I got
hurt, it cost Shimano some real money. I'm _sure_ I'm not the only
hurt rider they had to pay off, and that the liability risk was a
factor in their switch to Octalink and then to outboard bearings.

Quoted message said:

Bottom line, the outboard bearing thing is marketing driven, period. No
answer to any question regarding strength or function.

Now _that_ is balderdash. Outboard bearings were in the first BB I
machined for myself for the exact same reason that they appeared years
later in the offerings from Shimano, FSA, etc. They allow a bigger,
stronger (but not necessarily heavier) spindle to reside in an
undersized threaded BB shell, and they support the spindle much closer
to the arm to minimize flex. The rider is safer and the front
derailleur works better, regardless of what you think about the
resulting change in feel (which some people obviously like).

One-piece and cottered cranks worked well for most people, most of the
time, so doesn't that make square-taper cranks an "answer to a
not-asked question" by your reckoning?

Chalo Colina

Tom said:

We have to remember that guys like Amit and Chalo are absurdities in
this world. They can wear non-moving surfaces or break cranks or bottom
brackets that the world's strongest riders use for years without
problems.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part4/section-35.html

"fretting is the micro-motion of tightly fitting parts
that superficially appear immobile with respect to each other.
Classically, transmission shafts and gears or axles with a press fit
show evidence of motion on disassembly by the presence of rouge, rouge
being iron oxide particles that are generated in such interfaces by
micro-motions far smaller than conventional measuring equipment can
resolve.

On bicycles such an interface occurs between the square taper on the
pedal crank and its spindle, where rouge is evident on the face of the
steel spindle regardless of whether it was assembled with grease or
not."

http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/000.html

the 8th page pictures a crank failure i observed (dura ace octalink),
but plenty of other brands have failed as well. i weigh under 190 lbs.

Chalo said:

Tom said:

We have to remember that guys like Amit and Chalo are absurdities in
this world. They can wear non-moving surfaces or break cranks or bottom
brackets that the world's strongest riders use for years without
problems.

The "world's strongest riders" in this sport are jockey-sized, which is
to say not very strong. An ant can carry fifty times its own weight,
but it won't be breaking any cranks. And where did you get the idea
that those folks use their equipment for years?

Cyclists who weigh 2x the average pro rider are not absurdities; they
are relatively common. Several of the regulars in this group are in
that general category; I personally am close to 3x the weight of some
pro riders.

I don't know what Amit's size is, but I know that Jobst weighs in the
low 200s and breaks crankarms. I snapped my first square-taper spindle
when I weighed only 230 lbs. I snapped the next one when I weighed
about 260. Now that I weigh at least 100 lbs. more than that, I won't
even test ride a square taper crank.

Chalo Colina

Dear Chalo,

I seem to recall that Jobst has mentioned weighing 180 lbs,
but that may have been back when he was young and beautiful,
not in his current mature and handsome phase.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Booker C. Bense said:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Bottom line, the outboard bearing thing is marketing driven, period.
No answer to any question regarding strength or function. If the
likes of Mario and Tom and Stewie can sprint on square taper cranks,
you can...

_ Well, I won't argue that, but for the shade tree bike mechanic
the new cranks do have ome distinct advantage, you can work on
them without a crank puller. I can't really think of any
plausible reason why you'd need to remove your cranks on the
side of the road, but now it's possible with a standard
multitool (or even just the appropriate hex wrench).

True. Sometimes the cranks even spontaneously come apart during a race.
Dura-Ace ones, more specifically. Someone can probably reference the
picture I'm talking about...

--
Phil

Chalo said:

Tom said:

We have to remember that guys like Amit and Chalo are absurdities in
this world. They can wear non-moving surfaces or break cranks or
bottom brackets that the world's strongest riders use for years
without problems.

The "world's strongest riders" in this sport are jockey-sized, which
is to say not very strong. An ant can carry fifty times its own
weight, but it won't be breaking any cranks. And where did you get
the idea that those folks use their equipment for years?

Cyclists who weigh 2x the average pro rider are not absurdities; they
are relatively common. Several of the regulars in this group are in
that general category; I personally am close to 3x the weight of some
pro riders.

I don't know what Amit's size is, but I know that Jobst weighs in the
low 200s and breaks crankarms. I snapped my first square-taper
spindle when I weighed only 230 lbs. I snapped the next one when I
weighed about 260. Now that I weigh at least 100 lbs. more than
that, I won't even test ride a square taper crank.

IIRC, Jobst's breaks were at the pedal eye, something unchanged in the
2-piece crankset arms.

I'm assuming your fractures were at the spider?

--
Phil