Ultra torque vs. square taper

aka Tom Baskin said:

Am contemplating a build for a custom frame. UT has been around now
since '06. What is the collective experience as to whether this
solves a problem that exists with square taper, and represents a
legitimate improvement?

You might as well ask what the true religion is. 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

On Jan 12, 2:33 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

aka Tom Baskin said:

Am contemplating a build for a custom frame. UT has been around now
since '06. What is the collective experience as to whether this
solves a problem that exists with square taper, and represents a
legitimate improvement?

You might as well ask what the true religion is. 😉

JIS JIS JIS!!

/ululates and brandishes Kalashnikov

landotter said:

On Jan 12, 2:33 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

aka Tom Baskin said:

Am contemplating a build for a custom frame. UT has been around now
since '06. What is the collective experience as to whether this
solves a problem that exists with square taper, and represents a
legitimate improvement?

You might as well ask what the true religion is. 😉

JIS JIS JIS!!

/ululates and brandishes Kalashnikov

Greased or un-greased at installation?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Quoted message said:

Am contemplating a build for a custom frame. UT has been around now
since '06. What is the collective experience as to whether this
solves a problem that exists with square taper

witch problems?

Quoted message said:

and represents a legitimate improvement?

It way ligther. but bearring sealing is rubbish compared to campy's
closed box tapper square design.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen :-) <http://blog.reippuert.dk>

Merlin Works CR-3/2.5 & Campagnolo Chorus 2007.

On Jan 12, 3:55 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

landotter said:

On Jan 12, 2:33 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] aka Tom Baskin wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Am contemplating a build for a custom frame.  UT has been around now
> since '06.  What is the collective experience as to whether this
> solves a problem that exists with square taper, and represents a
> legitimate improvement?
You might as well ask what the true religion is. 😉

Quoted message said:

JIS JIS JIS!!

Quoted message said:

/ululates and brandishes Kalashnikov

Greased or un-greased at installation?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Com'on guys!
Square has worked for a long time... UT has worked for a shorter
time... I wouldn't loose too much sleep deciding between the
two........... (If they are installed right :-O !!!)

Tom Sherman said:

You might as well ask what the true religion is. 😉

Christianity. Just ask Huckabee.

(oh,oh, diversion!)

On Jan 12, 4:16 pm, Morten Reippuert Knudsen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Am contemplating a build for a custom frame.  UT has been around now
since '06.  What is the collective experience as to whether this
solves a problem that exists with square taper

witch problems?

Can't be the very low failure rate of steel square taper
spindles....wait! It must be the marketing problem of selling proven-
but-boring technology in the face of !!!new!new!new!!! from Shimano.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and represents a legitimate improvement?

It way ligther. but bearring sealing is rubbish compared to campy's
closed box tapper square design.

Picky, picky! ;-)

Square taper versus UT?

I doubt UT, in its currant incarnation, will be around for that long.
The Cannondale standard might take over, or some other standard that
allows the bearing races to be inside the frame. It is easy to
imagine how outboard bearings will be labled as a stop gap solution
'solved' by the larger diameter bottom bracket. Also, getting the
bearings inside the frame will allow for a lower Q-factor (whether
this is a good idea or not doesn't matter--this is another marketing
angle.)

Do deal with a similar decision I went with, gasp, ISIS. Had a square
taper crank been an option I might very well have chosen that
instead. I decided that in four years there will be new standard.
Between my box full of octalink and SKF ISIS bottom brackets I hope to
skip at least the outboard bearing crank experiement. I bet square
taper campy BB will be around for a long time, and in ten years will
be at least as easy to get as UT because UT will be abandoned.

Quoted message said:

Com'on guys!
Square has worked for a long time...

If by "worked" you mean "broken", then you would be describing my own
experiences with square taper spindles. The fact that lightweight
riders who don't ride many miles get by with them is not an indication
of their virtue; it's how they hold up when put to a real challenge.
(It turns out they have a glass jaw.)

Little children get by just fine with plastic pedals and headsets that
have no bearings, but that does not make them the equal of metal
pedals and headsets with mechanical bearings.

Chalo

Chalo said:

The fact that lightweight
riders who don't ride many miles get by with them is not an indication
of their virtue; it's how they hold up when put to a real challenge.

You mean, average riders who put average to high mileage don't have
any problem with them....

The square taper went out of style because many riders who maintained
their own bicycles did not understand that torque for a proper press
fit needed to be about 26.5ft-lb, and therefore, often under-tightened
them using the 6" long Campagnolo peanut butter wrench (bikies made
peanut butter sandwiches using the handle). That means 53lb force on
a six inch lever, more than most people believe is required.

Subsequently, cranks were damaged by backlash in the taper and loss of
the retaining bolt, because the lock nut (aka dust cover) was not used
being unnecessary rotating mass. Once operated loose a crank is
ruined and no amount of bolt tension can fix that.

In response, someone unclear on the subject of press fits came out
with advice to not use grease on the taper because greased, it could
not transmit pedaling torque. A press fit can only be accurately
specified with all parts lubricated, bolt, washer, and spindle because
contact pressure is what transmits torque, not friction. However,
friction of a dry press fit will cause metal shear and friction
welding if the parts are truly clean.

When the square taper was still king, we read about failed cranks
often. The square taper in the hands of a skilled mechanic is
foolproof and durable but the market is not made of such bicyclists.

--
Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

The square taper went out of style because many riders who maintained
their own bicycles did not understand that torque for a proper press
fit needed to be about 26.5ft-lb, and therefore, often under-tightened
them using the 6" long Campagnolo peanut butter wrench (bikies made
peanut butter sandwiches using the handle). That means 53lb force on
a six inch lever, more than most people believe is required.

Subsequently, cranks were damaged by backlash in the taper and loss of
the retaining bolt, because the lock nut (aka dust cover) was not used
being unnecessary rotating mass. Once operated loose a crank is
ruined and no amount of bolt tension can fix that.

In response, someone unclear on the subject of press fits came out
with advice to not use grease on the taper because greased, it could
not transmit pedaling torque. A press fit can only be accurately
specified with all parts lubricated, bolt, washer, and spindle because
contact pressure is what transmits torque, not friction. However,
friction of a dry press fit will cause metal shear and friction
welding if the parts are truly clean.

When the square taper was still king, we read about failed cranks
often. The square taper in the hands of a skilled mechanic is
foolproof

foolproof? like this kind of foolproof?

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/bbViscountAx2.JPG
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-001.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-002.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-003.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-004.jpg

proof of a fool more like.

Quoted message said:

and durable but the market is not made of such bicyclists.

see above.

Quoted message said:

Am contemplating a build for a custom frame. UT has been around now
since '06. What is the collective experience as to whether this
solves a problem that exists with square taper, and represents a
legitimate improvement?

cT = 0.86

for the remainder, bb choice will not influence your frame construction
in the slightest - just go ahead and order, then choose whatever crank
you want.

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

When the square taper was still king, we read about failed cranks
often. The square taper in the hands of a skilled mechanic is
foolproof

foolproof? like this kind of foolproof?

I'm curious - what makes that second one (http://pardo.net/bike/pic/
fail-001/spindle-fail-001.jpg) a square-taper related failure? It's
the middle of the BB axle.

Is there some edge-related stress propagation or something?

Brian Huntley said:

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

When the square taper was still king, we read about failed cranks
often. The square taper in the hands of a skilled mechanic is
foolproof

foolproof? like this kind of foolproof?

I'm curious - what makes that second one (http://pardo.net/bike/pic/
fail-001/spindle-fail-001.jpg) a square-taper related failure? It's
the middle of the BB axle.

Is there some edge-related stress propagation or something?

smaller diameter means more surface stress and therefore greater fatigue
susceptibility. big pipe spindles are stiffer, lighter, and
correspondingly less susceptible to these kinds of failures.

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

The square taper went out of style because many riders who maintained
their own bicycles did not understand that torque for a proper press
fit needed to be about 26.5ft-lb, and therefore, often under-tightened
them using the 6" long Campagnolo peanut butter wrench (bikies made
peanut butter sandwiches using the handle).  That means 53lb force on
a six inch lever, more than most people believe is required.

Quoted message said:

Subsequently, cranks were damaged by backlash in the taper and loss of
the retaining bolt, because the lock nut (aka dust cover) was not used
being unnecessary rotating mass.  Once operated loose a crank is
ruined and no amount of bolt tension can fix that.

Quoted message said:

In response, someone unclear on the subject of press fits came out
with advice to not use grease on the taper because greased, it could
not transmit pedaling torque.  A press fit can only be accurately
specified with all parts lubricated, bolt, washer, and spindle because
contact pressure is what transmits torque, not friction.  However,
friction of a dry press fit will cause metal shear and friction
welding if the parts are truly clean.

Quoted message said:

When the square taper was still king, we read about failed cranks
often.  The square taper in the hands of a skilled mechanic is
foolproof

foolproof?  like this kind of foolproof?

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/bbViscountAx2.JPG

Not a good example, as the Viscount spindle differed from 'standard'
square taper design and was notoroious for it's failure rate.

Quoted message said:

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-001.jpg

Not really a failure of the square taper interface, is it?

Quoted message said:

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-002.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-003.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-004.jpg

And, let's remember that square taper had, and still has, a huge
installed base. I wonder what the failure rate is v. Octalink and/or
ISIS.

Ozark Bicycle said:

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

The square taper went out of style because many riders who maintained
their own bicycles did not understand that torque for a proper press
fit needed to be about 26.5ft-lb, and therefore, often under-tightened
them using the 6" long Campagnolo peanut butter wrench (bikies made
peanut butter sandwiches using the handle). That means 53lb force on
a six inch lever, more than most people believe is required.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subsequently, cranks were damaged by backlash in the taper and loss of
the retaining bolt, because the lock nut (aka dust cover) was not used
being unnecessary rotating mass. Once operated loose a crank is
ruined and no amount of bolt tension can fix that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In response, someone unclear on the subject of press fits came out
with advice to not use grease on the taper because greased, it could
not transmit pedaling torque. A press fit can only be accurately
specified with all parts lubricated, bolt, washer, and spindle because
contact pressure is what transmits torque, not friction. However,
friction of a dry press fit will cause metal shear and friction
welding if the parts are truly clean.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When the square taper was still king, we read about failed cranks
often. The square taper in the hands of a skilled mechanic is
foolproof

Quoted message said:

foolproof? like this kind of foolproof?

Quoted message said:

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/bbViscountAx2.JPG

Not a good example, as the Viscount spindle differed from 'standard'
square taper design and was notoroious for it's failure rate.

Mine was replaced with a sturdy Campy one when I bought it, looked
like ti? Who knows. problem with the original Viscount spindles was
the circlip groove, AFAIK.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-001.jpg

Not really a failure of the square taper interface, is it?

Quoted message said:

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-002.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-003.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-004.jpg

And, let's remember that square taper had, and still has, a huge
installed base. I wonder what the failure rate is v. Octalink and/or
ISIS.

One can google image search and find failures of anything. That said,
I'm a square taper fan because for most riders it's trouble free when
torqued down well, and you're not trying to use a stupid light hollow
spindle. Outboard splined BBs may be worth a shot with heavier or
harder riders. Spindle failure certainly is more dire than crummy
bearings.

Morten Reippuert Knudsen said:

Quoted message said:

Am contemplating a build for a custom frame. UT has been around now
since '06. What is the collective experience as to whether this
solves a problem that exists with square taper

witch problems?

We haven't had problems with them around here in a long time.

--

David L. Johnson

Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of business.

Ozark Bicycle said:

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

The square taper went out of style because many riders who maintained
their own bicycles did not understand that torque for a proper press
fit needed to be about 26.5ft-lb, and therefore, often under-tightened
them using the 6" long Campagnolo peanut butter wrench (bikies made
peanut butter sandwiches using the handle). �That means 53lb force on
a six inch lever, more than most people believe is required.
Subsequently, cranks were damaged by backlash in the taper and loss of
the retaining bolt, because the lock nut (aka dust cover) was not used
being unnecessary rotating mass. �Once operated loose a crank is
ruined and no amount of bolt tension can fix that.
In response, someone unclear on the subject of press fits came out
with advice to not use grease on the taper because greased, it could
not transmit pedaling torque. �A press fit can only be accurately
specified with all parts lubricated, bolt, washer, and spindle because
contact pressure is what transmits torque, not friction. �However,
friction of a dry press fit will cause metal shear and friction
welding if the parts are truly clean.
When the square taper was still king, we read about failed cranks
often. �The square taper in the hands of a skilled mechanic is
foolproof

foolproof? �like this kind of foolproof?

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/bbViscountAx2.JPG

Not a good example, as the Viscount spindle differed from 'standard'
square taper design and was notoroious for it's failure rate.

Quoted message said:

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-001.jpg

Not really a failure of the square taper interface, is it?

Quoted message said:

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-002.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-003.jpg
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/spindle-fail-004.jpg

And, let's remember that square taper had, and still has, a huge
installed base. I wonder what the failure rate is v. Octalink and/or
ISIS.

two things:

1. don't get bamboozled by jobstian [censored] about the benefits of
"square taper" when it's married to a fundamentally inferior [small
diameter] spindle.

2. square taper is itself an unreliable interface - in that it is highly
intolerant of typical "bike shop" fitting variance.

on that last point, jobst's torque spec of "about 26.5ft-lb" is
ridiculous. any idea how much it costs to get three digit torque
resolution? [hint: more then the value of the bike.]