BB technologies.

jim beam said:

John Ampleforth said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Feb 4, 12:19 pm, "John Ampleforth" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Seeing as the january sales have presented me with the bargins i don't

need

Quoted message said:

> and that i've choosen to take the more you spend the more you save

attitude

Quoted message said:

> i'm looking in to a new bottom bracket and crankset.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Raceface turbine cranks, both square taper and ISIS are down to 50 quid
> (http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=52) .

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I've only ever used standard shimano square taper in the past so my
> practical knowledge of any splined system is nil, however i've read that
> ISIS bottom brackets , due to there oversized spindle taking up more

room,

Quoted message said:

> use smaller ball bearings which are prone to loosening, collapse and

being

Quoted message said:

> completely ground to dust. How much of a concern do you folks find this,

any

Quoted message said:

> experience?
I've heard nothing but [censored] from my mates about ISIS. They come
loose, bearings are utter [censored], and the longevity is extremely short
compared to a square taper cartridge.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd stick with square, or if stiffness is an issue, go for Octalink.

Quoted message said:

So octalink doesn't suffer the same problems?

no, bearings on the cartridge versions are pretty much indestructible.

Quoted message said:

the axel/spindle seems as
large as the ISIS and presumably the bearings are of similar size?

shimano use roller bearings.

Yes on the 7700, 1/2 of the bearings, bearing balls on the 6500, 5600..

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Quoted message said:

shimano use roller bearings.

Yes on the 7700, 1/2 of the bearings,

It's a needle bearing, even Shimano agrees 😉

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

M-gineering said:

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

So octalink doesn't suffer the same problems?

no, bearings on the cartridge versions are pretty much indestructible.

Your definition of indestructible must be totally different from mine.
They work, they fall apart gradually, but Shimano doesn't guarantee
bearings for nothing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the axel/spindle seems as
large as the ISIS and presumably the bearings are of similar size?

shimano use roller bearings.

HUH? Trying to rack my brains, but can't think of a single Shimano part
with a roller bearing. Ball bearings yes, and needlebearings too

then we have a difference in terminology - a "needle bearing" in this
case is a 2mm roller.

Quoted message said:

(even
in the DA octalink which you've certainly never seen if you mention
indestructible 😉)

that's why i said "cartridge" - the 7700 is not cartridge. it's
slightly less reliable because the seals aren't so hot and it's
susceptible to any misalignment in the bb shell. but i said that before.

Quoted message said:

I'd say pick one up at your LBS (they are sure to have a pile of rusted
out cartridges) and take one apart. You'll be able to see how Shimano
achieves Superior Stiffness with a stock sized 7/16" axle!

i have several - that's why i said look inside to see the machining.
regarding stiffness, do the math on the large diameter vs smaller
diameter solid spindles - the big tubes win handsomely.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Even tho this was to Andy, gotta mention, that ISIS or Octalink or
even the new 'standard' outboard will NOT significantly
change your power 'transfer'.

All of which ignores that "stiffness" is not a factor in power
transfer; rather hysterisis loss is.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
<snip for brevity>

Quoted message said:

Do they "want" it, or are they sold it? IMO, it's the latter; the
mags, etc., are filled with the various stuff about "new!",
"stiffer!", "better!" and other BS that implies that one's extant
square taper BB is woefully inadequate.

square taper undoubtedly does the job, but technically, the big pipe
stuff is more technically competent - you get stiffer for lighter. the
stiffness won't make you faster but it feels better. at the pro level,
the weight may help a little too. i'll also ask, has anyone ever seen a
fatigued octalink bb spindle?

Quoted message said:

Now, without question, Shimano
is in the process of walking away from the Octalink "standard".

with respect, language like "walking away" is repeating biased and
misinformed r.b.t theatrics. shimano proved the big pipe concept -
octalink worked and worked well. having done that, there's no reason
not to take it to the next level which is exactly what they're doing
with hollowtech II or whatever it's called.

Quoted message said:

I
wonder how those with perfectly usable Octalink cranks will feel when
they can no longer buy one of those wonderfully stiff Octalink BBs
(?).

i don't care. i don't buy cottered cranks any more either, so when my
octalink stuff wears out, and my stock supplies have disappeared, i'll
move on, just like i moved on to square tapered spindles.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:16:07 GMT, Dan Connelly

d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m said:

Quoted message said:

Dear Dan,

Where do you feel this difference?

If you're applying the same power in both cases, the "feel" at your
foot should be the same, since it's pushing just as hard in both
cases.

If more of the same power reaches the contact patch because of more
efficient power transmission, you'll go slightly faster. Are you
noticing a measurable speed difference and a distinctly higher cadence
in the same gear?

No -- I just spin the pedals backwards, freewheeling the cassette, and
it spins substantially further with my Ultegra BB than with the external
bottom brackets (alhough I haven't tried Campy, just Shimano, FSA, and
SRAM).

Of course, you would be correct if you suggested this may also be due to
the freehub body.

Dan

Dear Dan,

A quick and easy method of demonstrating the tiny amount of drag in a
typical bottom bracket is to pull the chain off the front sprocket,
level the pedals, and see how many dimes you can stack on a pedal
before it drops:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/ffb74cfbe0ef2f1f

An elderly Shimano cartridge will drop when a third dime is laid on a
pedal, suggesting that there's not likely to be a dime's worth of
difference between it and the finest bottom bracket available.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

jim beam said:

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

<snip for brevity>

Quoted message said:

Do they "want" it, or are they sold it? IMO, it's the latter; the
mags, etc., are filled with the various stuff about "new!",
"stiffer!", "better!" and other BS that implies that one's extant
square taper BB is woefully inadequate.

square taper undoubtedly does the job,

Bingo!!

And it will remain widely available after the "new standards" such as
Octalink and ISIS are merely a memory.

Quoted message said:

but technically, the big pipe
stuff is more technically competent - you get stiffer for lighter. the
stiffness won't make you faster but it feels better. at the pro level,
the weight may help a little too. i'll also ask, has anyone ever seen a
fatigued octalink bb spindle?

Some seem to feel that they fatigue in a different way than do square
taper spindles (per, among others, Jobst Brandt).

And, I wonder why Shimano came up with Octalink II ? Must have been to
solve all those non-existant problems, right? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, without question, Shimano
is in the process of walking away from the Octalink "standard".

with respect, language like "walking away" is repeating biased and
misinformed r.b.t theatrics.

With respect, that's nonsense. Walking away is exactly what they are
doing. What do you think the long term availability of Octalink BBs
will be?

Quoted message said:

shimano proved the big pipe concept -
octalink worked and worked well. having done that, there's no reason
not to take it to the next level which is exactly what they're doing
with hollowtech II or whatever it's called.

Quoted message said:

I
wonder how those with perfectly usable Octalink cranks will feel when
they can no longer buy one of those wonderfully stiff Octalink BBs
(?).

i don't care. i don't buy cottered cranks any more either, so when my
octalink stuff wears out, and my stock supplies have disappeared, i'll
move on,

Then I guess you're exactly the kind of consumer that's beloved by the
marketeers.

Quoted message said:

just like i moved on to square tapered spindles.

Ozark Bicycle said:

jim beam said:

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

<snip for brevity>

Quoted message said:

Do they "want" it, or are they sold it? IMO, it's the latter; the
mags, etc., are filled with the various stuff about "new!",
"stiffer!", "better!" and other BS that implies that one's extant
square taper BB is woefully inadequate.

square taper undoubtedly does the job,

Bingo!!

And it will remain widely available after the "new standards" such as
Octalink and ISIS are merely a memory.

maybe, at the low end. but we're speculating.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but technically, the big pipe
stuff is more technically competent - you get stiffer for lighter. the
stiffness won't make you faster but it feels better. at the pro level,
the weight may help a little too. i'll also ask, has anyone ever seen a
fatigued octalink bb spindle?

Some seem to feel that they fatigue in a different way than do square
taper spindles (per, among others, Jobst Brandt).

brandt doesn't allege fatigue, he alleges fretting. but that's a whole
different discussion.

Quoted message said:

And, I wonder why Shimano came up with Octalink II ? Must have been to
solve all those non-existant problems, right? ;-)

that's the logical disconnect. like i said before, once you prove the
big pipe concept, take it to the next level. there's no mystery or
conspiracy or evasion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, without question, Shimano
is in the process of walking away from the Octalink "standard".

with respect, language like "walking away" is repeating biased and
misinformed r.b.t theatrics.

With respect, that's nonsense. Walking away is exactly what they are
doing. What do you think the long term availability of Octalink BBs
will be?

did the industry "walk away" from cottered cranks, or did they take it
to the next level?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shimano proved the big pipe concept -
octalink worked and worked well. having done that, there's no reason
not to take it to the next level which is exactly what they're doing
with hollowtech II or whatever it's called.

Quoted message said:

I
wonder how those with perfectly usable Octalink cranks will feel when
they can no longer buy one of those wonderfully stiff Octalink BBs
(?).

i don't care. i don't buy cottered cranks any more either, so when my
octalink stuff wears out, and my stock supplies have disappeared, i'll
move on,

Then I guess you're exactly the kind of consumer that's beloved by the
marketeers.

how do you feel about a porsche carrera 4 vs. geo metro - given the
money, which would you rather have? they both do the same job.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just like i moved on to square tapered spindles.

jim beam said:

M-gineering said:

jim beam said:

>
> So octalink doesn't suffer the same problems?

no, bearings on the cartridge versions are pretty much indestructible.

Your definition of indestructible must be totally different from mine.
They work, they fall apart gradually, but Shimano doesn't guarantee
bearings for nothing.

Quoted message said:

> the axel/spindle seems as
> large as the ISIS and presumably the bearings are of similar size?

shimano use roller bearings.

HUH? Trying to rack my brains, but can't think of a single Shimano part
with a roller bearing. Ball bearings yes, and needlebearings too

then we have a difference in terminology - a "needle bearing" in this
case is a 2mm roller.

Quoted message said:

(even
in the DA octalink which you've certainly never seen if you mention
indestructible 😉)

that's why i said "cartridge" - the 7700 is not cartridge. it's
slightly less reliable because the seals aren't so hot and it's
susceptible to any misalignment in the bb shell. but i said that before.

But according to others here, the cartridge versions don't have the
roller/needle bearings to which you attribute the longevity of the
octalink bottom brackets.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd say pick one up at your LBS (they are sure to have a pile of rusted
out cartridges) and take one apart. You'll be able to see how Shimano
achieves Superior Stiffness with a stock sized 7/16" axle!

i have several - that's why i said look inside to see the machining.
regarding stiffness, do the math on the large diameter vs smaller
diameter solid spindles - the big tubes win handsomely.

M-gineering said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Quoted message said:

shimano use roller bearings.

Quoted message said:

Yes on the 7700, 1/2 of the bearings,

It's a needle bearing, even Shimano agrees 😉

JUST CUT A TOASTED ULTEGRA/6500 bb apart and it's 7-7/32 balls on each
side, round ones, not needle bearings

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

M-gineering said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

> shimano use roller bearings.
Yes on the 7700, 1/2 of the bearings,

It's a needle bearing, even Shimano agrees 😉

JUST CUT A TOASTED ULTEGRA/6500 bb apart and it's 7-7/32 balls on each
side, round ones, not needle bearings

Cutting sounds like hard work. Pull the seals and the plastic bearing
retainers. Move all bearings to the bottom and snap the axle upwards

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

M-gineering said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> shimano use roller bearings.
> Yes on the 7700, 1/2 of the bearings,
It's a needle bearing, even Shimano agrees 😉

Quoted message said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

JUST CUT A TOASTED ULTEGRA/6500 bb apart and it's 7-7/32 balls on each
side, round ones, not needle bearings

M-gineering said:

Cutting sounds like hard work. Pull the seals and the plastic bearing
retainers. Move all bearings to the bottom and snap the axle upwards

What fun is that? Much better with a disc grinder:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/FIRE.JPG

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

Dear Dan,

Where do you feel this difference?

If you're applying the same power in both cases, the "feel" at your
foot should be the same, since it's pushing just as hard in both
cases.

If more of the same power reaches the contact patch because of more
efficient power transmission, you'll go slightly faster. Are you
noticing a measurable speed difference and a distinctly higher cadence
in the same gear?

No -- I just spin the pedals backwards, freewheeling the cassette, and
it spins substantially further with my Ultegra BB than with the external
bottom brackets (alhough I haven't tried Campy, just Shimano, FSA, and
SRAM).

Of course, you would be correct if you suggested this may also be due to
the freehub body.

Dan

Ozark Bicycle said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do they "want" it, or are they sold it? IMO, it's the latter; the
mags, etc., are filled with the various stuff about "new!",
"stiffer!", "better!" and other BS that implies that one's extant
square taper BB is woefully inadequate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

square taper undoubtedly does the job,

Quoted message said:

Bingo!!

Quoted message said:

And it will remain widely available after the "new standards" such
as Octalink and ISIS are merely a memory.

I'm not so without doubt. The square taper is a high stress interface
with a high press fit. Failures that one can expect from such a joint
get reported here now ad then. In time the corners of the square bore
begin to crack, not to mention the cracks that develop at the pedal
bore.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But technically, the big pipe stuff is more technically competent -
you get stiffer for lighter. The stiffness won't make you faster
but it feels better. At the pro level, the weight may help a
little too. I'll also ask, has anyone ever seen a fatigued
Octalink BB spindle?

Quoted message said:

Some seem to feel that they fatigue in a different way than do
square taper spindles (per, among others, Jobst Brandt).

Quoted message said:

And, I wonder why Shimano came up with Octalink II ? Must have been
to solve all those non-existent problems, right? ;-)

I think I explained that a few times. Octalink fails for "goofy
footed riders", those who stand with right foot forward while
coasting. This causes reverse torque on the spindle and because the
Octalink is not a press fit, it rotates... back and forth with each
standing on the pedals (over rough ground, for instance).

The Octalink spines sheared off and the Shimano engineers did not
recognize that it was not for long enough spline teeth that it failed
but because it unscrewed and disengaged the spline to a point where it
WAS too weak and sheared off. Octalink II got longer spline
engagement that took a little longer to unscrew and shear off.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, without question, Shimano is in the process of walking away
from the Octalink "standard".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With respect, language like "walking away" is repeating biased and
misinformed r.b.t theatrics.

Quoted message said:

With respect, that's nonsense. Walking away is exactly what they
are doing. What do you think the long term availability of Octalink
BB's will be?

Shimano had to kill it because failures are guaranteed. It's like
Campagnolo dropping the Delta brake. It was a stylish but dangerous
dog!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shimano proved the big pipe concept - Octalink worked and worked
well. Having done that, there's no reason not to take it to the
next level which is exactly what they're doing with Hollowtech II
or whatever it's called.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder how those with perfectly usable Octalink cranks will feel
when they can no longer buy one of those wonderfully stiff
Octalink BB's (?).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't care. I don't buy cottered cranks any more either, so when
my Octalink stuff wears out, and my stock supplies have
disappeared, I'll move on, just like i moved on to square tapered
spindles.

Quoted message said:

Then I guess you're exactly the kind of consumer that's beloved by
the marketeers.

I get the feeling that not enough information is reaching the user and
bicycle shops should do a better job of disseminating it. Don't
expect manufacturers to beat their chest and say they made a mistake.
The flaws they stumble into are not covered by the press the way
automobile recalls are. They can change the design for next season
and claim it is for more efficient pedaling or whatnot.

Both Shimano and Campagnolo use new BB designs that are a response to
the failings of the square taper. This is not idle design work.
There are serious flaws that cause these design changes even though it
is not common knowledge what fails.

Jobst Brandt

Dan Connelly said:

Quoted message said:

Where do you feel this difference?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're applying the same power in both cases, the "feel" at your
foot should be the same, since it's pushing just as hard in both
cases.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If more of the same power reaches the contact patch because of more
efficient power transmission, you'll go slightly faster. Are you
noticing a measurable speed difference and a distinctly higher
cadence in the same gear?

Quoted message said:

No -- I just spin the pedals backward, freewheeling the cassette,
and it spins substantially further with my Ultegra BB than with the
external bottom brackets (although I haven't tried Campy, just
Shimano, FSA, and SRAM).

Now you are testing chain and freewheel lubrication and derailleur
idlers. If you want to test the BB, take the chain off and spin the
cranks. Of course this isn't valid either because a new , unridden BB
will have a fresh grease pack that gets redistributed with use.

Quoted message said:

Of course, you would be correct if you suggested this may also be
due to the freehub body.

So let's say it spins twice as long. So that's possibly twice what in
watts difference?

Jobst Brandt

John Ampleforth said:

Seeing as the january sales have presented me with the bargins i don't need
and that i've choosen to take the more you spend the more you save attitude
i'm looking in to a new bottom bracket and crankset.

Raceface turbine cranks, both square taper and ISIS are down to 50 quid
(http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=52) .

I've only ever used standard shimano square taper in the past so my
practical knowledge of any splined system is nil, however i've read that
ISIS bottom brackets , due to there oversized spindle taking up more room,
use smaller ball bearings which are prone to loosening, collapse and being
completely ground to dust. How much of a concern do you folks find this, any
experience?
The crank brother sale spiel boasts 2 rows of driveside ball bearings for
there splined bottom brackets; is this standard to all ISIS bottom bracket
and if not does it realistically make these a better choice than one without
(FSA perhaps)?
Lastly, is the ISIS system that much stiffer than all tapered BB's? This one
for example:

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=676

Thanks for your views.

No comment on which bottom bracket is best. But the Race Face Turbine
LP does come in the CD bolt circle diameter. Which is 94mm outer and
middle and 58mm inner. Standard bolt circle diameter would be 110mm
outer and middle and 74mm inner. With the 94/58 setup and square
taper bottom bracket you have the ability to make a micro compact
double crankset. Road bikes mainly of course. Run 46 or 48 or 50
outer ring and as low as a 30 tooth middle ring. Don't put on the
third inner ring. Unlike the 110mm compact setup which limits you to
33 or 34 on the middle ring. Square taper bottom bracket allows you
to find a short 103mm that will move the two arms into the right
chainline. Can't do that with Octalink or ISIS bottom brackets
because they don't make them shorter than about 108mm. I have a bike
with the Race Face Turbine LP crankset with 48 outer and 40 or 36 or
30 middle ring. No inner ring. Works great in the mountains with
48-30. Works great around town with 48-40. Will work great with
48-36 for hillier non local rides. Lots of options.

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Quoted message said:

> Do they "want" it, or are they sold it? IMO, it's the latter; the
> mags, etc., are filled with the various stuff about "new!",
> "stiffer!", "better!" and other BS that implies that one's extant
> square taper BB is woefully inadequate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

square taper undoubtedly does the job,

Quoted message said:

Bingo!!

Quoted message said:

And it will remain widely available after the "new standards" such
as Octalink and ISIS are merely a memory.

I'm not so without doubt. The square taper is a high stress interface
with a high press fit. Failures that one can expect from such a joint
get reported here now ad then. In time the corners of the square bore
begin to crack, not to mention the cracks that develop at the pedal
bore.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But technically, the big pipe stuff is more technically competent -
you get stiffer for lighter. The stiffness won't make you faster
but it feels better. At the pro level, the weight may help a
little too. I'll also ask, has anyone ever seen a fatigued
Octalink BB spindle?

Quoted message said:

Some seem to feel that they fatigue in a different way than do
square taper spindles (per, among others, Jobst Brandt).

Quoted message said:

And, I wonder why Shimano came up with Octalink II ? Must have been
to solve all those non-existent problems, right? ;-)

I think I explained that a few times. Octalink fails for "goofy
footed riders", those who stand with right foot forward while
coasting.

i do that and i've never had an octalink crank loosen. but i also make
sure i tighten the crank per manufacturer spec. go figure.

Quoted message said:

This causes reverse torque on the spindle and because the
Octalink is not a press fit, it rotates... back and forth with each
standing on the pedals (over rough ground, for instance).

The Octalink spines sheared off

eh? cite even one example! why isn't r.b.t deluged with such tales of
woe from actual users?

Quoted message said:

and the Shimano engineers did not
recognize that it was not for long enough spline teeth that it failed
but because it unscrewed and disengaged the spline to a point where it
WAS too weak and sheared off. Octalink II got longer spline
engagement that took a little longer to unscrew and shear off.

bolt loosening is different from spline shearing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Now, without question, Shimano is in the process of walking away
> from the Octalink "standard".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With respect, language like "walking away" is repeating biased and
misinformed r.b.t theatrics.

Quoted message said:

With respect, that's nonsense. Walking away is exactly what they
are doing. What do you think the long term availability of Octalink
BB's will be?

Shimano had to kill it because failures are guaranteed. It's like
Campagnolo dropping the Delta brake. It was a stylish but dangerous
dog!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shimano proved the big pipe concept - Octalink worked and worked
well. Having done that, there's no reason not to take it to the
next level which is exactly what they're doing with Hollowtech II
or whatever it's called.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I wonder how those with perfectly usable Octalink cranks will feel
> when they can no longer buy one of those wonderfully stiff
> Octalink BB's (?).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't care. I don't buy cottered cranks any more either, so when
my Octalink stuff wears out, and my stock supplies have
disappeared, I'll move on, just like i moved on to square tapered
spindles.

Quoted message said:

Then I guess you're exactly the kind of consumer that's beloved by
the marketeers.

I get the feeling that not enough information is reaching the user and
bicycle shops should do a better job of disseminating it. Don't
expect manufacturers to beat their chest and say they made a mistake.
The flaws they stumble into are not covered by the press the way
automobile recalls are. They can change the design for next season
and claim it is for more efficient pedaling or whatnot.

Both Shimano and Campagnolo use new BB designs that are a response to
the failings of the square taper. This is not idle design work.
There are serious flaws that cause these design changes even though it
is not common knowledge what fails.

Jobst Brandt

A Muzi said:

Andrew Muzi, who ran errands today on a pair of 1966 Record Pista arms
with dependable install-and-forget square tapers.

For me, it's more like "install and forget what happened in the few
hours before and after the faceplant I took when my square taper
snapped off".

Square taper spindles, carbon stems and handlebars, Ti pedal spindles,
1" aluminum steer tubes, 28 spoke wheels. They all have their place,
but my place ain't it.

A big diameter spindle really is better, inasmuch as a bearing failure
is better than a crankarm suddenly parting ways with the bike.
Dramatically improved stiffness is a welcome side benefit.

I machined an outboard BB in 1998 so that I could put a strong
American BB and a strong 22mm spindle in a British-threaded bike frame
that didn't have room for them. I'm glad to see that the industry has
finally followed my lead, but I think it would be easier if they just
used the damn American shell that represents a much better solution to
the problem anyway.

Chalo

Chalo

jim beam said:

i'm a ~205# and i love octalink - it's definitely stiffer. i noticed it
immediately i climbed my first hill on my first octalink crank set, and
i noticed it again recently when i built a cross frame with a square
taper. the cranks were awful. went back to octalink again - much stiffer.

To be fair, the really floppy square taper spindles didn't appear
until Sh*mano introduced cartridge BBs.

I'll never forget the first cartridge BB bike I ever assembled as a
young bike mechanic in 1992. I took the bike out for its test ride
and as soon as I stood up on it to pedal hard, I thought it was
broken. The pedals were diving for cover directly underneath the BB
shell with every pedal stroke. I babied the thing back to the shop,
and I have never considered owning a cartridge BB since then (and this
was years before I sacrificed my front teeth to a conventional square
taper spindle).

All square taper spindles are floppy compared to tubular spindles, but
square taper cartridge BBs are /really/ floppy.

Chalo

jim beam said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... Octalink fails for "goofy
footed riders", those who stand with right foot forward while
coasting.

Quoted message said:

i do that and i've never had an octalink crank loosen. but i also
make sure i tighten the crank per manufacturer spec. go figure.

FWIW, I have one mountain bike and two road bikes, all with lots (thousands)
of Octalink miles. I coast exclusively "goofy footed", as left foot forward
just feels unnatural to me. (I'm left handed; right footed.) Never had a
properly tightened crank loosen, even a little.

BTW, at the risk of sounding thick(er than usual), right foot forward and
left rearward puts pressure on the cranks in the "tightening directions". I
suppose I can see how that /could/ work to loosen the bolts, but it seems to
me that they'd have to be too loose (on la Trek) in the first place for any
real-world problem; and non-goofy footed coasters would also have issues
(different phenomenon; same result).

Bill "here we go" S.