Which BB for 9spd Campy Racing T crank

[donevwil]

I picked up a 9spd Racing T crankset for my wife. Numerous threads touch on the subject of the appropriate BB for this crank, no consensus, but 115.5mm symmetric is the majority. The crank came with a 116mm (actual) Campy symmetric (actually +1.5mm to ND) BB so I installed it straight up (it's one of those adjustable chainline BBs).

DS crank arm is ~7-8mm farther away from the frame than ND, what gives? What is available in a 3-4mm asymmetric ISO BB? Aren't Chorus or Record asym BBs longer on the DS? Ended up installing it offset 4mm to the ND side, but that can't be the intended solution.

Frame previously ran numerous double setups without any asymmetry issues, so the frame is fine.

[speedevil]

Following this thread as I'm planning on a Racing T crankset on a Masi frame. The gist I picked up was that the 115mm BBs were for larger-tubed frames and the 111mm BBs were for the smaller-tubed classic steel frames.

I won't be installing the crankset for a little while as the frame is out for paint touchup now. But I haven't ordered a BB yet and I'd obviously like to get the right one the first time.

[Ralph]

My experience is.....111 ISO symmetric (there are 111 non symmetric for Chorus and Record triples) for 28.6 and 32 MM seat tubes. 115.5 for larger. That pushes the crankset out, so the FD can get to the small ring. I don't think the 115.5 is symmetric.

The black Centaur 111 is symmetric and sells cheap for less than $50, and is a great BB.

[speedevil]

@Ralph, my frame is a 70mm shell that until now had a Campy double up front. Symmetrical BB for that crankset.

Should I be looking for an asymmetrical BB for mine, or is the 111 symmetrical the right one?

Probably the best question would be - what is the proper inner chainring to chainstay clearance? The rear cluster is 10 speed if that matters.

[donevwil]

My issue is not with the width of the spindle, but its symmetry. I initially installed it with a symmetric 111mm, but couldn't offset it enough to move the ND arm sufficiently outboard.

Does (did) Campy expect people to run these cranks with an asymmetric Q factor? Are not all Racing T cranks the same? Is there some elusive BB out there that is offset ~4mm to the ND side?

[Ralph]

The original 8 speed Racing T's used the 111 symmetric BB, but the non drive crank arm was same as the doubles, so the drive side crank arm stuck out a little. With 9 speed, and all future Centaur based triples....they put a "dog leg" in the non drive side arm, and that gave equal "Q" (for want of a better way to say it) on both sides.

The Chorus and Record triples used the same non drive arm as the doubles....so Campy used a non symmetrical 111 for those (plus 3 on non drive side in a Phil Wood BB) to give equal Q on both sides.

I've had them all.

[donevwil]

The original 8 speed Racing T's used the 111 symmetric BB, but the non drive crank arm was same as the doubles, so the drive side crank arm stuck out a little. With 9 speed, and all future Centaur based triples....they put a "dog leg" in the non drive side arm, and that gave equal "Q" (for want of a better way to say it) on both sides.

The Chorus and Record triples used the same non drive arm as the doubles....so Campy used a non symmetrical 111 for those (plus 3 on non drive side in a Phil Wood BB) to give equal Q on both sides.

I've had them all.

Makes perfect sense and jibes with what I read online and other threads here, so why would my 9spd Racing T be +8mm to the drive side with a sym BB? Sounds like I need to find that +3mm PW BB.

[Ralph]

Maybe you have an 8 speed. Apparently the dog leg in the non drive triple arm is worth 3 MM.

[donevwil]

Maybe you have an 8 speed.

Says "9 speed" (I think) on the crank arms.

[Ralph]

Both of them?

[donevwil]

Both of them?

I'll have to check, memory might be playing tricks on me.

Looks like a 115 +5 is the standard PW offering, did Campy offer anything offset to the ND in the 115 range?

[Ralph]

The PW 110.5 is their 111. And while I did not see the 110.5 plus 3 listed anymore, I bet it is still available.

I'm not a fan of the 115.5. It puts the feet apart more. I'm pretty sure it's not symmetrical, so riding that one leg will stick out more, having the effect of making that leg seem shorter.

My wife probably wouldn't notice, because she can't explain anything about what a bike is doing, but yours might. Could offset most of that with cleat position, or a pedal spacer on Non drive side.

if you hold up a Campy triple with the dog leg non drive side arm, and compare it with a double, you can see the difference.

However.....I still don't understand why yours isn't symmetrical both sides. You shouldn't need a non symmetrical BB. I've got two 10 speed Centaur based Triples (one is a COMP Triple NOS in box), and they have the dog leg on the non drive side arm. Maybe the change occurred sometime during the 9 speed run.

[speedevil]

Does the BB shell width have a part to play in the spindle width? Granted there isn't a lot of difference between 68 and 70mm, but it isn't zero either.

[Ralph]

Would assume they made an Italian BB in 111.

[Mark McM]

Numerous threads touch on the subject of the appropriate BB for this crank, no consensus, but 115.5mm symmetric is the majority.

Why go for discussion groups, when you can go straight for the source? The 2000 Campagnolo catalog (http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/118862-2/2000+Campagnolo+Catalog.pdf) says that the (9spd) Racing T crank used a 110mm spindle for frames with 28.6mm seat tubes, and 115.5mm for frames with 32mm or 35mm seat tubes. (Note, the 111mm and 115.5mm BBs from this era used symmetric spindles).

[Mark McM]

Does the BB shell width have a part to play in the spindle width? Granted there isn't a lot of difference between 68 and 70mm, but it isn't zero either.

No, a triple crank sits well outboard of the BB shell, so an extra millimeter or two in the BB width doesn't make a difference. However, the seat tube diameter does make a difference. With a fatter seat tube, the derailleur cage can't swing inward as far. Therefore a longer spindle is needed to move the chainring outward so the derailleur can reach it. (See the Campagnolo BB length specs in my previous post.)

[donevwil]

Why go for discussion groups, when you can go straight for the source? The 2000 Campagnolo catalog (http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/118862-2/2000+Campagnolo+Catalog.pdf) says that the (9spd) Racing T crank used a 110mm spindle for frames with 28.6mm seat tubes, and 115.5mm for frames with 32mm or 35mm seat tubes. (Note, the 111mm and 115.5mm BBs from this era used symmetric spindles).

Have you read any of this thread, or just the title? I'd expect more from you.

As already mentioned I've tried both 111mm (actually 110.5 PW) and 115.5mm symmetric bottom brackets. An asymmetric offset to the ND side is what I need, hence my question "which bottom bracket" as my crankset doesn't appear to adhere to any of the Campagnolo "standards".

My guess is I have some left over 8 spd asymmetric carryover into 9 spd Ralph was referring to.

[Mark McM]

Have you read any of this thread? As already mentioned I've tried both 111mm (actually 110.5 PW) and 115.5mm symmetric bottom brackets. An asymmetric offset to the ND side is what I need, hence my question "which bottom bracket" as my crankset doesn't appear to adhere to any of the Campagnolo "standards".

My guess is I have some left over 8 spd asymmetric carryover into 9 spd Ralph was referring to.

I spoke to soon - the 115.5 is actually asymmetric.

But to answer your question: Yes, Campagnolo has relied on asymmetric crank offsets for many of their cranksets. In decades past, they used straight arm cranks and asymmetric BBs (such as during the Nuovo Record era). As you've seen, for more recent triples they've used different offsets built into the arms. If you want symmetric crank offsets, you may have to install an asymmetric BB in a reversed orientation. This is easy with loose ball BBs, and Italian threaded cartridge BBs can also be installed reversed. Unfortunately, not so easy with ISO threaded cartridge BBs.

[Ralph]

Most people have been able to use the 111 BB with a 32 MM seat tube. But I understand all may not be able to, so if I were Campy, would also say to be safe use a 115.5 with a 32 MM seat tube.

I always thought the 115.5 was asymmetric. Mark just confirmed that.

You could make up 2-3 MM pretty easy with pedal spacer and maybe a mm or so of cleat movement. My Look Keo's have long pedal spindles so you can do that.

[donevwil]

Most people have been able to use the 111 BB with a 32 MM seat tube. But I understand all may not be able to, so if I were Campy, would also say to be safe use a 115.5 with a 32 MM seat tube.

I always thought the 115.5 was asymmetric. Mark just confirmed that.

You could make up 2-3 MM pretty easy with pedal spacer and maybe a mm or so of cleat movement. My Look keo's have long odal spindles so you can do that.

The 115.5 that came with the crank is ~1.5mm asymmetric to the ND side. Installing the BB offset an additional ~3.5mm to the ND balanced the arms, but obviously looks like an afterthought. Plus the frame' s chainstays are not designed to support a triple so small chainring to chainstay clearance is uncomfortably low. I'm guessing the chainline is too far inboard as well.

I simply expected someone to chime it that in 19XX Campy made a one or two year BB that was 116-118mm wide and had a 5mm offset to the ND side. Unfortunately it's most likely intended to have an asymmetric Q-factor.

I may try Mark's cup and cone solution.

[Ralph]

There was a Campagnolo Athena (in the 90's) 111 ISO symmetric cartridge BB with cups with no shoulder on the drive side, that you can move around a few MM. Like a PW. I've got one in a frame now with a C10 Centaur triple. I see one on E bay once in a while. Nothing wider I know about. And I have a good memory.

[donevwil]

There was a Campagnolo Athena (in the 90's) 111 ISO symmetric cartridge BB with cups with no shoulder on the drive side, that you can move around a few MM. Like a PW. I've got one in a frame now with a C10 Centaur triple. I see one on E bay once in a while. Nothing wider I know about. And I have a good memory.

I've got two of those (111mm) and two 115.5mm of the same design, that's what's on there now so I could get the additional 3.5mm. Didn't work with the 111, too narrow to achieve symmetric arms.

[Ralph]

https://www.tokenproducts.com/bottom-brackets/threaded/iso-square-taper-185

I've thought about using one of these. They have a design that doesn't "bind" up if BB shells not perfect parallel. But sizes look to be the same as you are familiar with. Price is good though.

Believe they make for Origin 8, and a few others. Good product, good company. Don't believe BB has double bearings on drive side like cartridge Campy Centaur, Chorus 102, or Record 102, etc , but is like the old Athena. And they hold up.

[zmudshark]

I have an Italian 115.5 ACH BB NIB from 2006 anyone needs one.

[Hindmost]

If one was considering a Phil Wood bottom bracket can't the spindle be pressed side to side in the bearings to get the desired a symmetry?

[oldpotatoe]

If one was considering a Phil Wood bottom bracket can't the spindle be pressed side to side in the bearings to get the desired a symmetry?

It can with a wee bit of tapping on the spindle with the bearing supported in a vice-type 'holder'..PLUS cups can be adjusted left-right, of course.

Phil will solve the gents issues..
I simply expected someone to chime it that in 19XX Campy made a one or two year BB that was 116-118mm wide and had a 5mm offset to the ND side.

No sir..111/115.5 and the 111 Record and Chorus not symmetric BBs..

For the OP(donevwil)..I have a 115mm, asymmetric Athena cup and ball, ITL threads..if you want to try that 'backwards'...long end on left hand side.

[paredown]

Most people have been able to use the 111 BB with a 32 MM seat tube. But I understand all may not be able to, so if I were Campy, would also say to be safe use a 115.5 with a 32 MM seat tube.

I always thought the 115.5 was asymmetric. Mark just confirmed that.

You could make up 2-3 MM pretty easy with pedal spacer and maybe a mm or so of cleat movement. My Look Keo's have long pedal spindles so you can do that.

Ralph thanks for that tidbit--I have reflexively used the 115.5 with Centaur triples (using the new black BB, which as you say is a good unit)--but I'm thinking I should try the 111mm with the bike I'm building up now, that green Nobilette from the classifieds.

[donevwil]

For the OP(donevwil)..I have a 115mm, asymmetric Athena cup and ball, ITL threads..if you want to try that 'backwards'...long end on left hand side.

I actually have one as well, unfortunately the frame in need has the vastly inferior British threading. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are no cups that allow one to run a 70 spindle in a 68 shell, correct?

[Mark McM]

I actually have one as well, unfortunately the frame in need has the vastly inferior British threading. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are no cups that allow one to run a 70 spindle in a 68 shell, correct?

Well, their kind of is, but not really. When a frame with ISO (British) threads has very damaged threads, one way to recover the frame is to ream out the threads, and then cut new Italian threads into the shell. This can work because Italian threads (36mm) are larger than ISO threads (1.37" = 34.8mm). And obviously, the shell walls must be thick enough to take the larger thread diameter.

However, I don't think I'd recommend this for a frame that has perfectly good BB threads.