MTB ISIS bottom bracket choices

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

Quoted message said:

Going through MTBR.com, there are few parts of a bike that
have been more problematic than the bottom bracket.
Numerous reports of short-life, abbreviated rides because
of ISIS bottom bracket failure infest MTBR, and

it

Quoted message said:

seems that unless you have a Phil Wood, your BB will find
an untimely

death

Quoted message said:

in minutes.

So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small?
Are there any that don't develop play in short periods
of time?

Phil Wood owners may just be pussyfooting the BB and thus,
it looks like

it

Quoted message said:

has a good track record, but it in fact may not be. Plus,
the ones that

buy

Quoted message said:

PW products usually aren't your typical mountain biking
type... i.e.

they're

Quoted message said:

[censored] expensive.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Why not keep this on alt.m-b, man?

In my experience, anything with a RaceFace name is
bombproof. Anything except the first-generation RF b.b.s,
that is...but that problem was fixed.

The TruVativ b.b.s get a lot of love, and everyone seems to
have good things to say about FSA - especially in terms of
performance vs. price - so I guess you can't go wrong.

Buy a Phil Wood for $100-300 (plus the special Phil tools)
and have it last you 10 years, or, in that time, buy three
RF b.bs. Think of it this way: what will be the next big crank-to-
spindle mounting methods that replaces ISIS? Are you going
to have ISIS cranks on that bikes for the life of the Phil
Wood? Are all cranks going to go the way of Shimano XTR one-
piece (I hope not)? Are you even going to have that bike in
2, 5, or 10 years?

So my reasoning is...unless you have one of those wicked [censored]-
off PW singlespeeds and need to keep it all Phil all the
time, get a cheap-by-comparison RaceFace bracket.

Chris (only hates Shimano b.b.s)

Quoted message said:

Why not keep this on alt.m-b, man?

So my reasoning is...unless you have one of those wicked
[censored]-off PW singlespeeds and need to keep it all Phil all
the time, get a cheap-by-comparison RaceFace bracket.

Odd... I thought I HAD posted it on amb...

I see your logic and it makes sense. However, MTBR posters
claim BB death on the order of tens of rides. Not good. It's
not even specific to certain makes, either.

My RaceFace SRX stock BB has a tiny bit of play, but not
enough to bother
me. I was contemplating what to replace it with.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

ZeeExSixAre said:

Going through MTBR.com, there are few parts of a bike that
have been more problematic than the bottom bracket.
Numerous reports of short-life, abbreviated rides because
of ISIS bottom bracket failure infest MTBR, and it seems
that unless you have a Phil Wood, your BB will find an
untimely death in minutes.

So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small? Are
there any that don't develop play in short periods of time?

I don't have an answer to your question as I use square
taper BBs on all my bikes but it seems to me that if you
are forced to reduce the size of the bearings in order to
squeeze a larger axle in the available space, bearing life
is going to be reduced. An older XTR BB I saw had a whole
bunch of roller bearings to (presumably) make up for the
much smaller diameter angular contact ball bearings they
were forced to use; whether this was effective in
extending bearing life I have no idea - do any of the ISIS
BBs do this?

Anyway, now you have me wondering what happened to the
'oversize' BB standard that was being put forth a year or so
ago? I hope it hasn't been rejected simply because it is an
improvement that might actually be needed!

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why not keep this on alt.m-b, man?

So my reasoning is...unless you have one of those wicked
[censored]-off PW singlespeeds and need to keep it all Phil
all the time, get a cheap-by-comparison RaceFace
bracket.

Odd... I thought I HAD posted it on amb...

Heh. I can see it now.

Quoted message said:

I see your logic and it makes sense. However, MTBR posters
claim BB death on the order of tens of rides. Not good.
It's not even specific to

certain

Quoted message said:

makes, either.

Remember, there are two kinds of people posting to MTBR:
those who need to [censored] about a catastrophic failure, and
goofballs looking for affirmation of the $$ they just
spent on some doodad. You (at least I) never see a review
like "worked as advertised/did what it's supposed to/no
big deal."

Quoted message said:

My RaceFace SRX stock BB has a tiny bit of play, but not
enough to bother
me. I was contemplating what to replace it with.

SRX is the lowest of the RFace brackets, so a little bit of
play isn't surprising, assuming you've put some miles on it.
My square-taper RF Taperlock probably has 1500-2000 miles on
it, and it's perfect (three seasons in the mud and,
disgustingly, on the road). There's nothing about it that
makes me fired up, though, which is what I was getting at
with the MTBR point: if I were to review this bracket, I
would say, "has been smooth since installed three seasons
ago, not really expensive, but a good value since I got a
discount buying the crank/bb at the same time. Needed
nothing from me, so I gave it nothing. I guess it could be
lighter with a Ti spindle, but if you think 25 grams is
going to make or break your mountian bike you're an idiot.
Bottom line: I always expect it to work, and so far it
always has."

Maybe I should post that.

Chris

Quoted message said:

Maybe I should post that.

That's true... bottom brackets are boring, and thus only
get reviews if something goes wrong. Tires usually get
better reviews overall... I wonder if it's the
affirmation effect...

Yep, post it!

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

The good news: replacement ISIS cartriges are available. Two
sizes 21.5 I.D. and 22mm I.D. both 31mm O.D. I have replaced
Truvative. American Classic, FSA. Most LBS that could
service press in cup square taper should tackle ISIS. Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
Chris B. <[email protected]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ZeeExSixAre said:

Going through MTBR.com, there are few parts of a bike that have been more
problematic than the bottom bracket. Numerous reports of short-life,
abbreviated rides because of ISIS bottom bracket failure infest MTBR, and

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

seems that unless you have a Phil Wood, your BB will find an untimely

death

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in minutes.

So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small? Are there any that
don't develop play in short periods of time?

I don't have an answer to your question as I use square taper BBs on
all my bikes but it seems to me that if you are forced to reduce the
size of the bearings in order to squeeze a larger axle in the
available space, bearing life is going to be reduced. An older XTR BB
I saw had a whole bunch of roller bearings to (presumably) make up for
the much smaller diameter angular contact ball bearings they were
forced to use; whether this was effective in extending bearing life I
have no idea - do any of the ISIS BBs do this?

Anyway, now you have me wondering what happened to the 'oversize' BB
standard that was being put forth a year or so ago? I hope it hasn't
been rejected simply because it is an improvement that might actually
be needed!

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chris B. [email protected] said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:59:27 -0400, "ZeeExSixAre"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small?
Are there any that don't develop play in short periods
of time?

I don't have an answer to your question as I use square
taper BBs on all my bikes but it seems to me that if you
are forced to reduce the size of the bearings in order to
squeeze a larger axle in the available space, bearing life
is going to be reduced. An older XTR BB I saw had a whole
bunch of roller bearings to (presumably) make up for the
much smaller diameter angular contact ball bearings they
were forced to use; whether this was effective in
extending bearing life I have no idea - do any of the ISIS
BBs do this?

Anyway, now you have me wondering what happened to the
'oversize' BB standard that was being put forth a year or
so ago? I hope it hasn't been rejected simply because it
is an improvement that might actually be needed!

It's probably still out there, but I think that the current
hot setup is to emulate the Bullseye/Hollowtech II
integrated crank setup with outboard bearings.

A review of the Bullseye:

bicycling.com0,3307,892,00.htmlOpen ↗
egory_id=361&a rticle_type_id=62&family_id=123

tinyurl.com2778hOpen ↗

Race Face now makes the X-Type BB/crankset, which is an
obvious knock-off of the Hollowtech II, which is a post-
patent knock-off of the Bullseye design.

Imitation is the sincerest form of improvement,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club