What's wrong with the square spindle?

[Marburg]

There, I've said it.

What's wrong with square spindles? I mean, I've used ISIS cranks (MTB) and thought they were nice, and also had the usual bearing life problems. And I've used Octalink cranks and they came loose once and zipp -- no more stay tight. And I've thought about outboard bearings and hated not having some choice in BB length.

So, in the end, convince me all of my cranky needs can't be met by sending a $100 check to Phil Wood....

[sspielman]

Square spindles...or actually tapered square spindles have done a great job in securing cranks...and have done so for the approximately 60 years since Stronglight invented the design. The only problem is when the cranks are removed and re-installed repeatedly or overtightened. In that case, the crank hole becomes worn....and a precise and tight fit is necessary for adequate strength in the attachment. the real problems with the square spindle started when manufacturers started to make hollow aluminum cranks and carbon cranks. Many of these designs were left with inadequate strength arround the attachment area for a square spindle. The solution was to provide more contact area....ad all of the alternatives accomplish this via splines...whether ISIS, Octalink or others....Sometimes they oversize the interface as well....and sometimes this decreases the space available for bearings. This is one reason that ISIS BB's have a reputation for fast wear (along with the fact that most of them utilise inferior Far Eastern bearings....the same problem is FAR less pronounced with the Stronglight ISIS BB's)....The most recent solution to this problem is to oversize the bearings and move them outboard of the BB...A whole series of design changes necessitated by the use of materials that are really not up to the task! It is just like when politicians enact something that screws you .....and then make the "generous" offer to help you solve "your " problem....

[Argos]

Nothing. Some people like innovation, and like the design, etc of out board bearings, etc.... as well l as the other systems...

We could have another meaningless debate on the forum about what is necessary, with Luddites v. Spenders squareing off (no pun intended), but honestly, they are all great systems.

It would be difficult for anyone here to argue you will notice the design advantages of one v. another.

I like the Outboard Bearings, cause I can pop the cranks off quick, clean them and pop them on again. Can you do this with Taper. Sure. Also if you had compact on one bike it's a litte faster to pop off a crank and throw it into another frame, though you'd still have top adjust the F. Derailleur. Just what I like.

Phil makes a great Taper BB. Enjoy.

I do think that there is some sort of shift coming though, not sure when, but with Specialized, Cannondale, and Pinarrello all doing OS BB shells and Campy most likely looking into a redesign if for no other reason then to keep a competitive marketing edge in the Bottom Bracket Arms Race, we may see a new industry standard for BB shells in the next 2-3 years. Maybe sooner, at shows, maybe not..

Either way, enjoy what you got. Campy cranks are SEX.

[Kirk Pacenti]

Nothing wrong with it at all. See the stem thread for more questions along these lines....

[gdw]

Square bottom brackets are old school. The bike industry needs to sell product to survive and old reliable square taper cranksets and bottom brackets which last for years and years hurt their bottom line. The constant changing of design -Octilink, ISIS, outboard bearings- generates more revenue even though the new designs aren't as reliable as the old proven square tapers. The hype that that the new designs are stronger and stiffer might be true but the average cyclist really can't feel the difference.

[Bradford]

If installed correctly, nothing is wrong with them. However, they are easier to over tighten than splined, and if you over tighten them, much more likely to strip the crank when trying to remove it.

If you do a lot of work on your bike and feel confident in your skills, they are fine. Especially if you use your torque wrench regularly. If you have a tendency to over tighten things, I'd stick with splined.

[Climb01742]

What's wrong with square spindles?

all the hip spindles will laugh 'cause it's square, daddyo?

[dbrk]

The primary thing "wrong" with square spindles is that they don't give companies with "innovations" something to market that would persuade you to "upgrade" and "vastly improve your performance" at about five times the cost of leaving well enough alone.

I should no longer impose upon any conversation that involves the latest-greatest technologies in cycling. My views have become so jaded as to become prating and importunate, as if complaining about it would make it all just go away.

You need a new crank or a new-fangled crank (and matching bb, of course) about as much as you need a stiffer stem.

dbrk

[coylifut]

I should no longer impose upon any conversation that involves the latest-greatest technologies in cycling.

dbrk

please do, it's one of my favorite conversations

[Ray]

I should no longer impose upon any conversation that involves the latest-greatest technologies in cycling. My views have become so jaded as to become prating and importunate, as if complaining about it would make it all just go away.
I second Coy's nomination and raise him one. The apologies themselves (for intruding upon the tech-fest) are some of the most interesting and entertaining writing found anywhere in the neighborhood. Even if we've heard it all before, you constantly find new ways to say it - prating and importunate INDEED! Not to mention the substance of what you have to say after you apologize for saying it!

Me, I like square taper and splined and will probably like the outboard bearing stuff when I get around to buying it. I buy what seems to be the right combination of cheapest and best when I'm ready to buy something. Which means I'm not one of the early adopters, but eventually try just about everything. And I rarely seem to dislike any of it, whether it's a real improvement or not.

-Ray

[Marburg]

Sigh. I suppose I knew that to begin with (geez, I'm an iBOB, I know all about complaining about the latest technology).

I just needed a little affirming pat on the back before, ahem, investing in yesterday's technologies....

[cpg]

I'm quite sure the splined spindle "innovation" was driven by bike manufacturers looking for ease of assembly. Innovation is in quotes because like so many things in the bike biz, the splined spindle was done a long time ago. But anyway, manufacturers love the spline design because it makes it easier to put the cranks on with impact wrenches and not need to worry about chainline tolerances. That's a big deal for big manufacturers. This is what demand Shimano was responding to. The marketing of it put a different spin on it and it worked. Customers didn't see it for what it was. I'm not deamonizing marketing here. The same thing came about with sealed cartridge bb's. The driving force behind that was again ease of assembly with impact wrenches. Never mind the fact that the old ball and cone bb's were lighter and had way less rolling resistance. I use sealed bb's and like the utility factor of them but isn't it ironic that customers don't question the fact that virtually every bb is a sealed cartridge unit.

Curt

[Argos]

Similar to the lower cost assembly advantage of the A-Headset heaset/stem combos.

[e-RICHIE]

The primary thing "wrong" with square spindles is that they don't give companies with "innovations" something to market that would persuade you to "upgrade" and "vastly improve your performance" at about five times the cost of leaving well enough alone.

I should no longer impose upon any conversation that involves the latest-greatest technologies in cycling. My views have become so jaded as to become prating and importunate, as if complaining about it would make it all just go away.

You need a new crank or a new-fangled crank (and matching bb, of course) about as much as you need a stiffer stem.

dbrk


i missed this one so i'm bumping it and adding
major-league attaboys to dbrk-issimo's post.

[Kirk Pacenti]

Similar to the lower cost assembly advantage of the A-Headset heaset/stem combos.

yes, again, if ya'll haven't checked out the stem thread, you should. There is a similar theme going on there. I say Revolt!

[gdw]

No need to revolt if you never surrendered in the first place.

[sg8357]

Sigh. I suppose I knew that to begin with (geez, I'm an iBOB, I know all about complaining about the latest technology).

I just needed a little affirming pat on the back before, ahem, investing in yesterday's technologies....

Cottered hollow steel Duprats, now that is yesterdays technology, lighter,
smoother loose bearing BB, cheap to rebuild.
Me, I am waiting for Campy to introduce carbon Ashtabula cranks,
to get rid of that spline backlash in the external bearing cranks.

Scott G.

[Bradford]

manufacturers love the spline design because it makes it easier to put the cranks on with impact wrenches and not need to worry about chainline tolerances. That's a big deal for big manufacturers. This is what demand Shimano was responding to. The marketing of it put a different spin on it and it worked. Customers didn't see it for what it was. I'm not deamonizing marketing here. The same thing came about with sealed cartridge bb's. The driving force behind that was again ease of assembly with impact wrenches. Never mind the fact that the old ball and cone bb's were lighter and had way less rolling resistance. I use sealed bb's and like the utility factor of them but isn't it ironic that customers don't question the fact that virtually every bb is a sealed cartridge unit.

Curt

Huh?

Why is it bad that manufacturers can lower their production costs? Do you know what consumers get out of that? Less expensive bikes. Manufacturing and assembly innovations that lower costs are good for the consumer because it lowers the cost of the final product. I have 4 close friends who have taken up cycling over the past 4 years who would not have done so if bikes were more expensive. Please explain to me how this is bad.

I also think your point about consumers not seeing this for what it is way off. You use sealed BBs, as do I, and both for the same reason. It sounds to me that you think you are smarter than the average consumer: you both buy the same product, but you do it because you are smart and they do it because they don't understand. I understand that you have been part of this industry for many years and understand much more than most of us do, but please help me understand how the point you are making isn't arrogant?

I use splined cranks and sealed bottom brackets because, for my use, they offer more utility, and utility drives my purchasing decisions (for splines, after 15 years of taking off cranks, I find them easier to uninstall; for BBs, I don't have enough spare time to rebuilt them). My friends don't know that they are using these components, but they sure do understand the result of them, an affordable bike. To me, this is the very epitome of innovation.

I understand that some of you like things the way the have always been. I even see the appeal of that. I also understand that for those of you who have invested the time and effort to learn wrenching skills, and for those of you who get joy out of working on your bikes, these things don’t increase your utility. And, further more, I understand that for many of the people on this board, many of whom own multiple bikes, saving money isn’t that important and assembly line bikes are not interesting. But come on, even if you fall into this category, isn’t it a bit pretentious, or perhaps elitist, to declare that these innovations have no value?

Design for manufacture techniques lower total cost and designing out maintenance decreases cost of ownership (both in actual dollars and in time invested). This, in every sense of the concept, is innovation.

[Climb01742]

i believe bradford put the ball back on the other side of the net. ;) next volley anyone? :beer:

[cpg]

Where did I say it was bad? What I was attempting to do was call a spade a spade. Things like the splined spindle are marketed to the masses but for reasons other than their existance. Same for the sealed bb's. Nothing wrong with lowering production costs. Just don't wrap it in blanket of innovation/hi-tech when it's really for lowering costs.

As far as your friends taking up cycling, that's great but cheap bikes have always existed. As a matter of fact, I don't see how lowered production costs have done anything to lower retail prices. The use of cheap labor notwithstanding. But that's a whole other thread. Do you think your friends would have stayed out of cycling if their bikes had ball and cone bb's? I doubt it. Sure, sealed bb's require less maintance. Where did I complain about that? But is that why they've become the norm? No, it's for the reasons I stated earlier. Is this a bad thing? No. But there's no denying the ball and cone bb's were lighter and had way less rolling resistance. In this world of splitting hairs to improve performance, why is this ignored? It's not a secret. There's also no denying the ball and cone bb's are more expensive to produce, slower to assemble and require maintanence.

Sorry if you see this post and the prior one as arrogant. That certainly is not my intention. What I was pointing out was why some designs exist like the splined spindle and the sealed cartridge bb's. Just because I pointed out these exist for different reasons than what is marketed should not be seen as arrogance. Take the spline spindle, consumers like the fact it's easier to remove the crank. No denying that but that isn't why the design came about. It's because it made assemble faster and cheaper for large manufacturers. But was it marketed as such? No it was marketed as hi-tech. If saying that sounds arrogant, I humbly apologize.

Curt

[derek]

edit4d

[jerk]

square taper cranks allow one the use bigger bearings. sealed or unsealed this makes for a better setup- aluminum is cheap and light and it drove the ride towards 1 1/8th steerer tubes just as surely as it's driving the ride towards spline bbs. the outboard bearing thing is an answer to all the problems posed by trying to use a big spindle in a bb shell that stayed the same size. the "industry" likes aluminum. aluminum needs to be bigger than steel to get the same strength and weight and all that good stuff. with carbon it almost doesn't matter so naturally it'll follow the oversize trend pioneered by the bike manufacturers' trying to save a buck.

here's where pinarello has it right imho bro. keep the spindle steel and square and small and use some mammoth bearings and a nice big fat bb shell so you can use the diamters of tubes and shells the newer alloys demand. the jerk likes aluminum bikes and parts; "the industry" likes them more because they are cheap.

(as for why pinarello do the m.o.s.t. thing with the carbon frames the jerk has no idea.)

jerk

[e-RICHIE]

i believe bradford put the ball back on the other side of the net. ;) next volley anyone? :beer:


we have been through this before...
all of the innovation we have here now is a result of
the bicycle industry embracing the mountainbike during
the late 70s/early 80s. during that time, convention left
the building. whether it's the amount of gears, the shape
of a frame, material, joining technology - all of it now
is a stepchild of the mtb era, and when i say most of
it, i also mean road bicycles. the single-most innovative
thing to come out of all that was the virtual end of
'handwork'; all things now are more efficiently produced
using robotics, cad/cam, and "all that shet". at the end
of the day, all bicycles cost exponetially less than they
would have, and are exponentially better than they
would otherwise have been. more folks on better bikes
for less money. as martha might say...

sure - i hate cnc-ed stems and i think cf forks have
a sell-by date, but i'm not the consumer here, you all
are. that's all that matters atmo imho semper fi yo. :beer:

oh - and by the way, have a nice evening.

[Climb01742]

it's cool to see intelligent, passionate, civil debate. to both side of the net, well done. ;)

[e-RICHIE]

it's cool to see intelligent, passionate, civil debate. to both side of the net, well done. ;)


thank you, james-issimo atmo cheers. :beer:

[Catulle]

that's all that matters atmo imho semper fi yo. :beer:

New badge...???

[e-RICHIE]

that's all that matters atmo imho semper fi yo. :beer:

New badge...???



needs more cowbell

[manet]

that's all that matters atmo imho semper fi yo. :beer:

New badge...???

worm medication?!

[Catulle]

needs more cowbell
My Photoshop expired. :beer:

[Grant McLean]

(as for why pinarello do the m.o.s.t. thing with the carbon frames the jerk has no idea.)

jerk

Even though they are labelled MOST, the carbon Pins still have threaded shells, not
the oversize ones of the F.P. dogma.

-g

[Catulle]

needs more cowbell
More cowbell...

[e-RICHIE]

More cowbell...

i'm saluting.

[SPOKE]

that i started my "cycling life" with the campy nuovo/super record components. i used to spend a bit of extra time "preping" the hubs and BB's by cleaning the old grease out of them then repacking with fine polishing compound and spinning them really fast for a few minutes using an electric drill. this would put a very high polish on the races and really allow the things to spin sooooooo smooth and long you'd think they had tiny motors making them spin. not to mention the fact that with minimal maintainence the stuff lasts almost forever!
now don't think that i don't like/appreciate innovitaion, i truely do. my bike collection is filled with the new stuff and a sprinkling of the old stuff. but when it comes to some hubs and BB's i think we've gone backwards a bit on the need or desire to reduce power robbing friction. most of the new sealed BB's have far more drag than the old loose ball design of the campy stuff (other brands too). heck, even many of th hubs suffer from this same problem.
i realize that the frictional loss with some of the top shelf product in the marketplace is extremely tiny but it sure is rewarding to me when i put a part on my bike that truely makes me feel like it will really help make the bike (ok, me) faster. the newer outboard bearing stuff may be stiffer but it sure doesn't spin very well in the unloaded free state. for the money we spend on this stuff i expect better.

[jbay]

yes, again, if ya'll haven't checked out the stem thread, you should. There is a similar theme going on there. I say Revolt!

If I had a penny for every time someone has asked about removing a stuck (quill) stem from their bike, I would be doing okay. I have two friends who would be happy to not have had threaded steerer tubes crack (the result of a combination of factors, but none of which would happen with a threadless setup, although I admit I'm thinking of steel steerers here, versus carpet fibre). Luckily, they can both laugh about it at this stage.

While threadless stems are not "new" either (par for the course in the bicycle industry), with such predecessors as the British head-clip system and the threadless stems used by the currently in-vogue Herse and Singer, there is no doubt in my mind that threadless stems are a huge improvement in every technical way over quill stems. And as noted in the stem thread, threadless stems don't have to be ugly.

So, if by revolt, you mean to resist anything "new" on principle, I disagree. There are still technical improvements that can be made to the bicycle and I think it would be foolish to turn a blind eye to them.

If, however, you might mean (in the case of stems) to revolt against industrial chic and create a demand for elegant, non-stupid light stems, I'm with you.

Similarly, if I weighed a lot more than I do, I think I would be very interested in an oversize spindle in a bottom bracket. However, I too am happy to rebel against the marketing buzz that touts "stiffer, faster, lighter" etc.

-- John

[e-RICHIE]

I there is no doubt in my mind that threadless stems are a huge improvement in every technical way over quill stems. And as noted in the stem thread, threadless stems don't have to be ugly.
amen john-issimo
If, however, you might mean (in the case of stems) to revolt against industrial chic and create a demand for elegant, non-stupid light stems, I'm with you.
just say "NO" to cnc-ed AL stems atmo cheers. :beer:

[jerk]

amen john-issimo

just say "NO" to cnc-ed AL stems atmo cheers. :beer:


yeah what he said about what the other guy said imho.

good night.
jerk

[Grant McLean]

that i started my "cycling life" with the campy nuovo/super record components. i used to spend a bit of extra time "preping" the hubs and BB's by cleaning the old grease out of them then repacking with fine polishing compound and spinning them really fast for a few minutes using an electric drill. this would put a very high polish on the races and really allow the things to spin sooooooo smooth and long you'd think they had tiny motors making them spin. not to mention the fact that with minimal maintainence the stuff lasts almost forever!
now don't think that i don't like/appreciate innovitaion, i truely do. my bike collection is filled with the new stuff and a sprinkling of the old stuff. but when it comes to some hubs and BB's i think we've gone backwards a bit on the need or desire to reduce power robbing friction. most of the new sealed BB's have far more drag than the old loose ball design of the campy stuff (other brands too). heck, even many of th hubs suffer from this same problem.
i realize that the frictional loss with some of the top shelf product in the marketplace is extremely tiny but it sure is rewarding to me when i put a part on my bike that truely makes me feel like it will really help make the bike (ok, me) faster. the newer outboard bearing stuff may be stiffer but it sure doesn't spin very well in the unloaded free state. for the money we spend on this stuff i expect better.

buy some of these:

http://www.zipp.com/tech/zseries.shtml

-g

[The Spider]

I'm a fence sitter on the BB topic...I love my Shimano DA cranks....and am VERY excited to hear that Phil is doing replacement bearings for them. I've also sent my cheque for a Phil BB for the Peg (italian thread) for my alloy Campy cranks, nice square taper.

but since Grant started it:

What's everyones opinion on Ceramic bearings...campy now offer the upgrade on all wheelsets, FSA apparently fitted every CSC bike with them and offer them....big $ and has no 'aesthetic' value....so....what's the deal!

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=BUY_PRODUCT_STANDARD&PRODUCT.ID=1965&CATEGORY.ID=224&MODE=

[SPOKE]

saving up to make a pruchase like the Zips. just don't have the cash right now. :crap:

buy some of these:

http://www.zipp.com/tech/zseries.shtml

-g

[zap]

I'm a fence sitter on the BB topic...I love my Shimano DA cranks....and am VERY excited to hear that Phil is doing replacement bearings for them. I've also sent my cheque for a Phil BB for the Peg (italian thread) for my alloy Campy cranks, nice square taper.

but since Grant started it:

What's everyones opinion on Ceramic bearings...campy now offer the upgrade on all wheelsets, FSA apparently fitted every CSC bike with them and offer them....big $ and has no 'aesthetic' value....so....what's the deal!

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=BUY_PRODUCT_STANDARD&PRODUCT.ID=1965&CATEGORY.ID=224&MODE=


Ceramic bearings.

I have a hybrid (I think all ceramic bearings in bike parts are hybrid) set sitting in my basement. Used it for 50 odd miles on a set of Magic Motorcycle cranks in a last ditch effort to get the thing to stay quite. Didn't work so the "not so" Magic kit went away.

These bearings will fit Shimano and FRM external bearing kit. I'm still working on my '06 project bike, but these bearings might be used shortly in this new crankset I got. No, it's not the kit from S......

I think some of the upcharge prices I've seen for ceramic bearings is laughable. Much cheaper to source your own bearings and install them. I paid $110 for two hybrid sealed bearings. Full ceramic bearings are pretty expensive but again, I'm not sure if Zipp uses the full ceramic stuff or not.

Do they work? I suspect they will work as well as any good bearings. Balls should last a long time. But from what I understand, they are designed for high speed/high temp applications. Cycling is not so fast nor all that hot.

[Marburg]

I have a hybrid (I think all ceramic bearings in bike parts are hybrid) set sitting in my basement. ...


Well now I'm curious. What parts are ceramic in a 'hybrid' set (balls but not races?) versus a 'fully ceramic set.


But from what I understand, they are designed for high speed/high temp applications. Cycling is not so fast nor all that hot.

Yes, but it is an application where customers (or athletes) will spend money for single-digits of percentage improvements in weight/drag/bling, etc.

Which reminds me (as i derail my own topic), seeing as how drag is rapidly overtaking weight as the thing that I absolutely positively have to minimize or else OMG I'm going to lose, why doesn't someone start selling unsealed bearing kits for popular wheels? Just sell 'em by the 20 pack with a free bearing press in every bag...

[zap]

Marburg, you are correct. Hybrid's have ceramic balls but ss races.

From what I recall seeing in a few engineering articles a few years ago, full ceramic bearings only surpass "regular" ss bearings in efficiency at very high rpm's. Think turbine engines.

But if Campy say's they see an improvement at 25 mph when switching too ceramic balls, ...........................

You bring up a good point about popping seals. Easy to do and for a 40K dry TT, clean out the grease and replace with oil. Old school. Cheap too.

[nobrakes]

Here in the rainy NorthWest, I've been working for years on a secret "water cooled" sealed bearing project, but results haven't been encouraging. In the experiments, the "water-cooling" effect happens automatically, just from getting caught in any rainstorm, which lately, is everyday. From my research, even the most "sealed" of the sealed bearings end up water-cooled, then rust-grindy, especially the Hidden headset bearings. I'm half tempted to pry off the seals, and leave them off for easier re-greasing. Anyway, I'm resigned to doing much more bearing maintainance than before the invention of hidden headsets. My wife's Basso has really crappy headset bearings that need replacing (1-1/8"), any suggestions? I've used Cane-Creek replacements, but felt kind of cheated as I paid a pretty premium price for a Chinese-made bearing that looks like a pretty off-the-shelf bearing that's available for much cheaper in bearing supply website? Don't need ceramic hybrids, although they wouldn't rust like steel. Sorry for deviating from the thread, but it seamed a reasonable deviation.