Bottom bracket facing

the 'facing,' shaving a coupla thou off where maybe factory machining
left a screw ramp allows bearing surfaces parallel, spindles
perpendicular.
i assume a faced shell bearing race wear pattern shows less oiut of
roundness after 5-6000 miles.
if you go get the head tube done too.
Tom did my Monodog at thebicyclery.com
very racy, de riguer. why not?
experts say - necessary only when damaged (or of old age?) but the new
frame purveyors say- 'face our [censored]' - that's the horses' mouth
talkin. So with a new Monocog, not a Waterford, a thou or so slivered
off on one side.
don't bring it in covered with cow manure.

mike said:

I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
that done and install the unit anyway?, and why wouldn't the BB shell
already come faced from the frame manufacturer? I have an '04 lemond
zurich frame (half carbon half steel. The BB shell is steel)

An unfaced BB might make the cups not sit perfectly square, and might
lead to loosening of the cups as they settle in. If the bb is faced
there is no settling-in as the cups are seated nice and square.

It would be nice if more frames came pre-faced.

If getting it faced upsets your schedule or is otherwise a hassle,
skip it. Worst case (particularly with Hollowtech II I'd say) is it
may creak or something at some future date, but I don't think there is
any real risk of damage.

Joseph

mike said:

I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
that done and install the unit anyway?, and why wouldn't the BB shell
already come faced from the frame manufacturer? I have an '04 lemond
zurich frame (half carbon half steel. The BB shell is steel)

Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

mike said:

I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
that done and install the unit anyway?, and why wouldn't the BB shell
already come faced from the frame manufacturer? I have an '04 lemond
zurich frame (half carbon half steel. The BB shell is steel)

Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

Thanks for the info. Your comment begs the question that if few
mfgr's face the BB shell, then wouldn't all the new
treckcannondalegiant bikes have the same risk that have hollowtech II
units the mfgr put on?

mike said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

mike said:

I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
that done and install the unit anyway?, and why wouldn't the BB shell
already come faced from the frame manufacturer? I have an '04 lemond
zurich frame (half carbon half steel. The BB shell is steel)

Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

Thanks for the info. Your comment begs the question that if few
mfgr's face the BB shell, then wouldn't all the new
treckcannondalegiant bikes have the same risk that have hollowtech II
units the mfgr put on?

The certainly face the frames during the build up. It's the frames that
are sold as a frameset only that often (usually?) are not faced.

Joseph

Quoted message said:

mike said:

I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
that done and install the unit anyway?, and why wouldn't the BB shell
already come faced from the frame manufacturer? I have an '04 lemond
zurich frame (half carbon half steel. The BB shell is steel)

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com said:

Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

When it didn't matter much (low quality loose ball crank bearings on $99
'tenspeeds'😉, frame makers did a great job of facing BB shells.

Now that it's critical to new equipment, most can't be bothered...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

mike said:

I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
that done and install the unit anyway?, and why wouldn't the BB shell
already come faced from the frame manufacturer? I have an '04 lemond
zurich frame (half carbon half steel. The BB shell is steel)

Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

My friend had problems with her BB ball-bearings after she got her frame
back from paint. The bearings were fine before it went to paint. As it
turned out, the painter didn't do a very good job of masking the BB shell
faces, and the assembler didn't bother to remove the excessive paint. When
I checked it out by removing the locking ring, I recognized the problem.
Decided to remove the BB completely.

I ended up carefully using a razor blade to scrape off the excessive paint.
Then I used a 4"x 3/4" honing stone with some kerosene to smooth out the
surfaces.
I put the frame on a surface plate and ran a .0005" dial indicator on both
surface faces, the flatness was within .0006" and parallel within .001". I
reinstalled the BB, and she was off and riding.
-tom

Tom Nakashima said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

mike said:

I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
that done and install the unit anyway?, and why wouldn't the BB shell
already come faced from the frame manufacturer? I have an '04 lemond
zurich frame (half carbon half steel. The BB shell is steel)

Quoted message said:

Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

My friend had problems with her BB ball-bearings after she got her frame
back from paint. The bearings were fine before it went to paint. As it
turned out, the painter didn't do a very good job of masking the BB shell
faces, and the assembler didn't bother to remove the excessive paint. When
I checked it out by removing the locking ring, I recognized the problem.
Decided to remove the BB completely.

I ended up carefully using a razor blade to scrape off the excessive paint.
Then I used a 4"x 3/4" honing stone with some kerosene to smooth out the
surfaces.
I put the frame on a surface plate and ran a .0005" dial indicator on both
surface faces, the flatness was within .0006" and parallel within .001". I
reinstalled the BB, and she was off and riding.
-tom

So is what you did considered facing the BB shell or was it a good job
of sanding the shell?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mike <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
> cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
> shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
> that done and install the unit anyway?, and why wouldn't the BB shell
> already come faced from the frame manufacturer? I have an '04 lemond
> zurich frame (half carbon half steel. The BB shell is steel)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

Quoted message said:

Tom Nakashima said:

My friend had problems with her BB ball-bearings after she got her frame
back from paint. The bearings were fine before it went to paint. As it
turned out, the painter didn't do a very good job of masking the BB shell
faces, and the assembler didn't bother to remove the excessive paint. When
I checked it out by removing the locking ring, I recognized the problem.
Decided to remove the BB completely.
I ended up carefully using a razor blade to scrape off the excessive paint.
Then I used a 4"x 3/4" honing stone with some kerosene to smooth out the
surfaces.
I put the frame on a surface plate and ran a .0005" dial indicator on both
surface faces, the flatness was within .0006" and parallel within .001". I
reinstalled the BB, and she was off and riding.

mike said:

So is what you did considered facing the BB shell or was it a good job
of sanding the shell?

Face, sand, whatever. If the net result is the same, does it matter if
Tom used a Campagnolo facing set, some cheap copy, a Bridgeport vertical
mill or a DiamondDeb with 14 hours of meticulous hand labor on a surface
plate? It's done.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Nakashima said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Oct 24, 7:44 am, mike <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
> cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
> shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
> that done and install the unit anyway?, and why wouldn't the BB shell
> already come faced from the frame manufacturer? I have an '04 lemond
> zurich frame (half carbon half steel. The BB shell is steel)

Quoted message said:

Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

My friend had problems with her BB ball-bearings after she got her frame
back from paint. The bearings were fine before it went to paint. As it
turned out, the painter didn't do a very good job of masking the BB shell
faces, and the assembler didn't bother to remove the excessive paint.
When
I checked it out by removing the locking ring, I recognized the problem.
Decided to remove the BB completely.

I ended up carefully using a razor blade to scrape off the excessive
paint.
Then I used a 4"x 3/4" honing stone with some kerosene to smooth out the
surfaces.
I put the frame on a surface plate and ran a .0005" dial indicator on
both
surface faces, the flatness was within .0006" and parallel within .001".
I
reinstalled the BB, and she was off and riding.
-tom

So is what you did considered facing the BB shell or was it a good job
of sanding the shell?

I would call it more of a clean-up.
The BB shell was already faced and paint shouldn't change the dimension,
parallelism, or flatness if it is removed correctly. Thought I try to save
my friend some money since I have a surface plate, indicators and tools.
Just surprised the bike shop assembler didn't catch it.
-tom

mike said:

Tom Nakashima said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Oct 24, 7:44 am, mike <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
> cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
> shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
> that done and install the unit anyway?, and why wouldn't the BB shell
> already come faced from the frame manufacturer? I have an '04 lemond
> zurich frame (half carbon half steel. The BB shell is steel)
Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

My friend had problems with her BB ball-bearings after she got her frame
back from paint. The bearings were fine before it went to paint. As it
turned out, the painter didn't do a very good job of masking the BB shell
faces, and the assembler didn't bother to remove the excessive paint. When
I checked it out by removing the locking ring, I recognized the problem.
Decided to remove the BB completely.

I ended up carefully using a razor blade to scrape off the excessive paint.
Then I used a 4"x 3/4" honing stone with some kerosene to smooth out the
surfaces.
I put the frame on a surface plate and ran a .0005" dial indicator on both
surface faces, the flatness was within .0006" and parallel within .001". I
reinstalled the BB, and she was off and riding.
-tom

So is what you did considered facing the BB shell or was it a good job
of sanding the shell?

No, I think Tom just removed the paint from a faced BB shell on a
thorough and precise way.
Just craping the paint off would be sufficient ;-)

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

after watching the facing procedure, I add facing to the must do to go
faster longer list along with the usual 6 months, one year, lube
repack new bearings - subtracting the BB with a new cartridge - now i
add new cartridge 5 years or 10,000 miles?

itsnot a question of they all do it. the statement is you are better
than THEY are. like you have the time and $15?

that's funny about the 10 speed's. and true! my cheap asian import -
with round bottom full seat allen head CR bolts - is faced and by
$2.50/hour labor.

mike said:

I have read a few discussions about installing Hollowtech II BB's and
cranks. One of the things some folks have mentioned is getting the BB
shell faced. Couple of questions: What is the risk if I don't get
that done and install the unit anyway?,

Your BB bearings will die rapidly.

Quoted message said:

and why wouldn't the BB shell
already come faced from the frame manufacturer?

Because frame manufacturers don't do that stuff. Basically, their job ends
when they deliver the frame to the painter, and they don't do post-paint
stuff. It may not necessarily make sense, but that's the traditional
workload sharing.

BB facing/cutting and headset installation are done at the assembler, and
when there's going to be a cartridge BB, one or both of the cups might not
be faced. Cartridge BBs inherently position the axle and both bearing cups
parallel, so it can do without, but the HT II cups are not aligned to each
other, but to the face of th BB shell.

Jasper

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Oct 24, 7:44 am, mike <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

The bottom bracket in a LeMond non-carbon frame is threaded after welding is
completed, so there shouldn't be an issue with chasing the threads. Facing
the shell may not be a bad idea simply to remove paint. Nobody seems to care
about that anymore, and truthfully it doesn't seem to be a big deal with
cartridge bottom brackets. It certainly made a difference with the
traditional-style though.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Oct 24, 7:44 am, mike <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Risk is that the spindle will run in baearinmgs that are not parallel,
killing the bearing early on.
Few if any frame makers face the BB shell. Costs $. Your Lemond is not
faced. During welding, like your Lemond, not uncommon for the BB shell
to warp slightly necessitating a BB chase and face.

The bottom bracket in a LeMond non-carbon frame is threaded after welding is
completed, so there shouldn't be an issue with chasing the threads. Facing
the shell may not be a bad idea simply to remove paint. Nobody seems to care
about that anymore, and truthfully it doesn't seem to be a big deal with
cartridge bottom brackets. It certainly made a difference with the
traditional-style though.

Mor importantly, cartridge bearings are dead and these days we get
outboard bearings, which are *more* susceptible to cup unparallelness than
traditional cup/cone BBs were.

Jasper

Jasper Janssen said:

Quoted message said:

The bottom bracket in a LeMond non-carbon frame is threaded after welding is
completed, so there shouldn't be an issue with chasing the threads. Facing
the shell may not be a bad idea simply to remove paint. Nobody seems to care
about that anymore, and truthfully it doesn't seem to be a big deal with
cartridge bottom brackets. It certainly made a difference with the
traditional-style though.

I had this problem on a bike I had re-painted. The old cup&cone bottom
bracket would not go back where it belonged. Should have had it faced
and chased the threads. Instead, I got a cartridge bottom bracket.
Problem solved.....

Quoted message said:

Mor importantly, cartridge bearings are dead and these days we get
outboard bearings, which are *more* susceptible to cup unparallelness than
traditional cup/cone BBs were.

I don't really think so. The shaft of these bottom brackets is not that
critical a fit in these bearings.

--

David L. Johnson

I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our
educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely,
if not entirely, the use of textbooks
-- Thomas Edison, 1922

Quoted message said:

I don't really think so. The shaft of these bottom brackets is not that
critical a fit in these bearings. -D.Johnson

I dunno Dave. there's a lot of force placed on a small surface made
light and cheap with an eye to durability saisfying the consumer.
like you can visualize push down one side, wear in a race, spindle
rises(!) other side...
rpt other side
cups, that is designed race areas are out of alignment
races widen
surfaces go elliptical even before wear "sets in"
CHAOS!

Edison? color TV-FM-automatic transmissions-Jules Vern-were invented
during Edison's lifetime.
that is true, just guessing, don't flog me.
Edison wasn't about to babble publically about digital microwave
satellite death rays....
he was second in line.

David L. Johnson said:

Jasper Janssen said:

Mor importantly, cartridge bearings are dead and these days we get
outboard bearings, which are *more* susceptible to cup unparallelness than
traditional cup/cone BBs were.

I don't really think so. The shaft of these bottom brackets is not that
critical a fit in these bearings.

Under load, I'd bet that the inner race and the axle are perfectly
aligned, because otherwise all the load would be going through a single
contact point between race and axle rather than along the entire width of
the race.

But feel free to try it.

Jasper

Jasper Janssen said:

David L. Johnson said:

Jasper Janssen said:

Mor importantly, cartridge bearings are dead and these days we get
outboard bearings, which are *more* susceptible to cup unparallelness than
traditional cup/cone BBs were.

I don't really think so. The shaft of these bottom brackets is not that
critical a fit in these bearings.

Under load, I'd bet that the inner race and the axle are perfectly
aligned, because otherwise all the load would be going through a single
contact point between race and axle rather than along the entire width of
the race.

I based my comment on the fact that the fit between the bearing and the
crankshaft is not very tight. My new FSA crank bearings could be slid
off of the shaft easily.

--

David L. Johnson

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on
no account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams