Kinda stupid question

(It's Chris) said:

First they flair the head tube and tuck the headset bearings INSIDE.
Because, they say, it's moe aerodynamic.

This in mind, what's their explination for taking the already
aerodynamically placed BB bearing and moving them OUTSIDE?

Chris "don't mind me, I'm just rambling" Zacho

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:http://geocities.com/czcorner

siffens BB spindle, nversely allows spible lightening-airflow
distrued already by wheel front.

It's Chris said:

First they flair the head tube and tuck the headset bearings INSIDE.
Because, they say, it's moe aerodynamic.

This in mind, what's their explination for taking the already
aerodynamically placed BB bearing and moving them OUTSIDE?

it's not aerodynamics for the bb, it's the necessity accommodating a
large diameter hollow spindle. a large hollow spindle is lighter,
stiffer and more fatigue resistant - all worthy reasons to bother.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(It's Chris) said:

First they flair the head tube and tuck the headset bearings INSIDE.
Because, they say, it's moe aerodynamic.

Quoted message said:

This in mind, what's their explination for taking the already
aerodynamically placed BB bearing and moving them OUTSIDE?

The BB area is troublingly short of space. There are a few problems in
that small area that were chasing each other around, and a bigger BB
solves them all. To wit: square taper spindle was an imperfect way of
attaching the cranks; the spindle could stand to be larger, and the
bearings were compromised (due to getting too small) in in-bb designs
that used oversized spindles (ISIS).

But making the BB bigger would mean a new standard, so the simplest
solution was to move the bearings outside the BB.

But unbelieveably, your instinct on making the BB area narrower is not
entirely crazy. Jan and Lance are both known to have experimented with
"narrow" TT bikes, and Jan may have actually used his as his usual TT
ride. The narrowing was largely in the BB area (narrower Q-factor) which
apparently caused Lance some amount of discomfort, which is why he
abandoned the experiment.

The story is detailed in "Lance Armstrong's War," a thoroughly
entertaining book covering Armstrong in 2004. You can listen to an
interview with the author, Daniel Coyle, here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4724747

No connection to the book, I just read it and rank it as one of the
three best cycling books I've read so far (the other two are "The Escape
Artist" and "The Rider"😉.

--
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

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(It's Chris) said:

First they flair the head tube and tuck the headset bearings INSIDE.
Because, they say, it's moe aerodynamic.

Quoted message said:

This in mind, what's their explination for taking the already
aerodynamically placed BB bearing and moving them OUTSIDE?

The BB area is troublingly short of space. There are a few problems in
that small area that were chasing each other around, and a bigger BB
solves them all. To wit: square taper spindle was an imperfect way of
attaching the cranks; the spindle could stand to be larger, and the
bearings were compromised (due to getting too small) in in-bb designs
that used oversized spindles (ISIS).

But making the BB bigger would mean a new standard, so the simplest
solution was to move the bearings outside the BB.

We've changed headset sizes. I don't understand why it's taking so long
to change BB shell sizes?

Greg
--
http://ticketmastersucks.org

G.T. said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (It's Chris) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First they flair the head tube and tuck the headset bearings INSIDE.
Because, they say, it's moe aerodynamic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This in mind, what's their explination for taking the already
aerodynamically placed BB bearing and moving them OUTSIDE?

Quoted message said:

The BB area is troublingly short of space. There are a few problems in
that small area that were chasing each other around, and a bigger BB
solves them all. To wit: square taper spindle was an imperfect way of
attaching the cranks; the spindle could stand to be larger, and the
bearings were compromised (due to getting too small) in in-bb designs
that used oversized spindles (ISIS).

Quoted message said:

But making the BB bigger would mean a new standard, so the simplest
solution was to move the bearings outside the BB.

We've changed headset sizes. I don't understand why it's taking so long
to change BB shell sizes?

Greg
--http://ticketmastersucks.org

No reason to change headset sizes in the first place. Most motorcycles
are still 1 inch. Marketing drove 1 1/8inch along with threadless. NOW
propriatary headsets and forks..more marketing and attempts to limit
consumer choces when they want or need a new fork, for instance. I
just went thru an ordeal to 'fix' a toasted Coda crank. Hard to find
tools and bearings. Called C-dale..nope won't sell to anybody but a C-
dale dealer. Nice 'customer' service.

Trek just raised the anty, with their BB..ya want a Campag crank?
Gotta get their BBs..for their frame..great customer service. AND more
SKUs for the bike shop.

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(It's Chris) said:

First they flair the head tube and tuck the headset bearings INSIDE.
Because, they say, it's moe aerodynamic.
This in mind, what's their explination for taking the already
aerodynamically placed BB bearing and moving them OUTSIDE?

The BB area is troublingly short of space. There are a few problems in
that small area that were chasing each other around, and a bigger BB
solves them all. To wit: square taper spindle was an imperfect way of
attaching the cranks; the spindle could stand to be larger, and the
bearings were compromised (due to getting too small) in in-bb designs
that used oversized spindles (ISIS).

But making the BB bigger would mean a new standard, so the simplest
solution was to move the bearings outside the BB.

But unbelieveably, your instinct on making the BB area narrower is not
entirely crazy. Jan and Lance are both known to have experimented with
"narrow" TT bikes, and Jan may have actually used his as his usual TT
ride. The narrowing was largely in the BB area (narrower Q-factor) which
apparently caused Lance some amount of discomfort, which is why he
abandoned the experiment.

The story is detailed in "Lance Armstrong's War," a thoroughly
entertaining book covering Armstrong in 2004. You can listen to an
interview with the author, Daniel Coyle, here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4724747

No connection to the book, I just read it and rank it as one of the
three best cycling books I've read so far (the other two are "The Escape
Artist" and "The Rider"😉.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden]://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

no connection? bummer. I'll send the girls over.

jim beam said:

It's Chris said:

First they flair the head tube and tuck the headset bearings INSIDE.
Because, they say, it's moe aerodynamic.

Quoted message said:

This in mind, what's their explination for taking the already
aerodynamically placed BB bearing and moving them OUTSIDE?

it's not aerodynamics for the bb, it's the necessity accommodating a
large diameter hollow spindle. a large hollow spindle is lighter,
stiffer and more fatigue resistant - all worthy reasons to bother.

Both of my bike still have square taper BBs. I saw BBs change to
octalink, someotherlink, outboard, and then new madone. When I ride
with people with the new types of BBs, pretty much everyone, they
don't seem to get any faster because of the new BB design. Of course,
there may be some minor fluctuations in speed that I am unable to
perceive. However, we tend to pretty much ride equally as fast, start
at the same time and end at the same time. When the guy with the new
BB that used to ride next to me starts taking all the pulls, gets to
the top of the mountain faster, and finishes far ahead from me because
of the BB, I will switch.

Andres

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

It's Chris said:

First they flair the head tube and tuck the headset bearings INSIDE.
Because, they say, it's moe aerodynamic.
This in mind, what's their explination for taking the already
aerodynamically placed BB bearing and moving them OUTSIDE?

it's not aerodynamics for the bb, it's the necessity accommodating a
large diameter hollow spindle. a large hollow spindle is lighter,
stiffer and more fatigue resistant - all worthy reasons to bother.

Both of my bike still have square taper BBs. I saw BBs change to
octalink, someotherlink, outboard, and then new madone. When I ride
with people with the new types of BBs, pretty much everyone, they
don't seem to get any faster because of the new BB design. Of course,
there may be some minor fluctuations in speed that I am unable to
perceive. However, we tend to pretty much ride equally as fast, start
at the same time and end at the same time. When the guy with the new
BB that used to ride next to me starts taking all the pulls, gets to
the top of the mountain faster, and finishes far ahead from me because
of the BB, I will switch.

Andres

what do you weigh? my weight means i notice the difference in flexiness
between the two types big time. it doesn't make me faster per se, but i
prefer the way it feels. and lighter is better. and more fatigue
resistant is better.

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

It's Chris wrote:
> First they flair the head tube and tuck the headset bearings INSIDE.
> Because, they say, it's moe aerodynamic.
> This in mind, what's their explination for taking the already
> aerodynamically placed BB bearing and moving them OUTSIDE?
it's not aerodynamics for the bb, it's the necessity accommodating a
large diameter hollow spindle. a large hollow spindle is lighter,
stiffer and more fatigue resistant - all worthy reasons to bother.

Quoted message said:

Both of my bike still have square taper BBs. I saw BBs change to
octalink, someotherlink, outboard, and then new madone. When I ride
with people with the new types of BBs, pretty much everyone, they
don't seem to get any faster because of the new BB design. Of course,
there may be some minor fluctuations in speed that I am unable to
perceive. However, we tend to pretty much ride equally as fast, start
at the same time and end at the same time. When the guy with the new
BB that used to ride next to me starts taking all the pulls, gets to
the top of the mountain faster, and finishes far ahead from me because
of the BB, I will switch.

Quoted message said:

Andres

what do you weigh? my weight means i notice the difference in flexiness
between the two types big time. it doesn't make me faster per se, but i
prefer the way it feels. and lighter is better. and more fatigue
resistant is better.

right now about 200 pounds, and I am not proud. wish I could get down
to 180.

Quoted message said:

On Jun 30, 9:32 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what do you weigh? my weight means i notice the difference in flexiness
between the two types big time. it doesn't make me faster per se, but i
prefer the way it feels. and lighter is better. and more fatigue
resistant is better.

It's not at all clear that a hollow, larger aluminum spindle has more
fatigue resistance than a solid, smaller, steel one. Yes, it might be a
slightly lighter design, but the rest is uncertain at best. We've seen
too many pictures of racers (150-pound guys, mind you) with broken
cranks dangling from their feet.

Quoted message said:

right now about 200 pounds, and I am not proud. wish I could get down
to 180.

Me, too.

--

David L. Johnson

And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you killed
all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds, thousands would
rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't kill that fast.
-- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).

David L. Johnson said:

Quoted message said:

On Jun 30, 9:32 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what do you weigh? my weight means i notice the difference in flexiness
between the two types big time. it doesn't make me faster per se, but i
prefer the way it feels. and lighter is better. and more fatigue
resistant is better.

It's not at all clear that a hollow, larger aluminum spindle has more
fatigue resistance than a solid, smaller, steel one. Yes, it might be a
slightly lighter design, but the rest is uncertain at best. We've seen
too many pictures of racers (150-pound guys, mind you) with broken
cranks dangling from their feet.

aluminum spindle? you say that like you think it's a bad thing.
somewhat confusing since so many crank arms are and made of it. and
frames. and handlebars. and brakes. and seat posts. and planes too
come to that.

fyi, the spindles in shimano are steel. fsa are steel. campy are
steel. and all hollow spindle "dangling" cranks i've ever seen posted
here have been because the crank arm has come off due to a fastening
error, not because the spindle has broken.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

right now about 200 pounds, and I am not proud. wish I could get down
to 180.

Me, too.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

G.T. said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (It's Chris) wrote:

Quoted message said:

> First they flair the head tube and tuck the headset bearings INSIDE.
> Because, they say, it's moe aerodynamic.

Quoted message said:

> This in mind, what's their explination for taking the already
> aerodynamically placed BB bearing and moving them OUTSIDE?

Quoted message said:

The BB area is troublingly short of space. There are a few problems in
that small area that were chasing each other around, and a bigger BB
solves them all. To wit: square taper spindle was an imperfect way of
attaching the cranks; the spindle could stand to be larger, and the
bearings were compromised (due to getting too small) in in-bb designs
that used oversized spindles (ISIS).

Quoted message said:

But making the BB bigger would mean a new standard, so the simplest
solution was to move the bearings outside the BB.

We've changed headset sizes. I don't understand why it's taking so long
to change BB shell sizes?

Greg
--http://ticketmastersucks.org

No reason to change headset sizes in the first place. Most motorcycles
are still 1 inch. Marketing drove 1 1/8inch along with threadless. NOW
propriatary headsets and forks..more marketing and attempts to limit
consumer choces when they want or need a new fork, for instance. I
just went thru an ordeal to 'fix' a toasted Coda crank. Hard to find
tools and bearings. Called C-dale..nope won't sell to anybody but a C-
dale dealer. Nice 'customer' service.

Most motorcycles are also double-crown forks. And there's the rub.

Quoted message said:

Trek just raised the anty, with their BB..ya want a Campag crank?
Gotta get their BBs..for their frame..great customer service. AND more
SKUs for the bike shop.

--
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