which torque wrench?

in message , Anthony
Jones ') wrote:

If people find square taper works for them, that's great -- but I'm
glad to see the back of them. Ideally I'd like to see larger diameter
BB shells rather than outboard bearings, but I'm sure that would elicit
even more moaning from the retro-grouches.

Au contraire, I too would like to see (much) bigger BB shells. An
epicyclic in the BB shell would put the weight of the transmission in
the right place (vs a rear hub epicyclic), and protect it from damage
(vs a derailleur system). The Schlumpf drives seem to be a step in the
right direction but there isn't enough room mounting them outboard -
they need to be moved into the shell, to be able to get a decent number
of ratios.

If course, a frame built with a shell which would accommodate a
multi-schlumpf could also be used with a conventional derailleur system
or a rear hub epicyclic.

But you don't need a larger diameter BB shell /unless/ you're sticking
gears in there. BB bearings do wear out in time, but so does anything.
They don't (if reasonable quality) wear out very quickly, and they are
not complex or expensive to replace. Outboard bearings are just the
current step in Shimano's on-going planned obsolescence programme. As
with splined bottom brackets and hollow bottom bracket axles there's no
particular technical benefit, but you'll have to buy all new again in
two years when Shimano introduce the Next Big Thing (probably a bigger
shell).

More mutually incompatible parts means LBSs have to hold more Shimano
stock and bikes become obsolete quicker forcing you to upgrade. The
benefit is all to Shimano, none to you. Standardisation benefits the
consumer, but if the consumer can be turned into a fad-obsessed fashion
junkie, he won't notice its loss.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from *religious*conviction." *********--*Pascal

Rob Morley wrote:
I snapped a crank bolt once (this was on initial installation too, not
messing around after the interface was mangled), so despite my weedy
arms I think I was getting them quite tight!

Sounds like a manufacturing fault to me.

Quite possibly.

If people find square taper works for them, that's great -- but I'm glad
to see the back of them. Ideally I'd like to see larger diameter BB
shells rather than outboard bearings, but I'm sure that would elicit
even more moaning from the retro-grouches.

I don't have a problem with new stuff as long as I can still get bits to
fit my old-but-serviceable stuff. But I still don't see why Mavic had
to discontinue the MA2/MA40 and I don't know why anyone would want more
than 21 gears. :-)

I completely agree with all of that...

Anthony

Simon Brooke wrote:
But you don't need a larger diameter BB shell /unless/ you're sticking
gears in there. BB bearings do wear out in time, but so does anything.
They don't (if reasonable quality) wear out very quickly, and they are
not complex or expensive to replace. Outboard bearings are just the
current step in Shimano's on-going planned obsolescence programme. As
with splined bottom brackets and hollow bottom bracket axles there's no
particular technical benefit, but you'll have to buy all new again in
two years when Shimano introduce the Next Big Thing (probably a bigger
shell).

A larger diameter BB shell would allow the use of an ISIS bottom bracket
with larger bearings. ISIS is an open standard, so hopefully it will be
around for a while, but since it requires a larger diameter spindle the
bearings have to be small to fit in the BB, hence rubbish bearing life
by most accounts.

As for my cranks becoming obsolete, you're right -- I'd much rather not
be at the mercy of Shimano's obsolescence plans. But I don't think it'll
happen within 2 years (other manufacturers are already making compatible
bearings), and even if it's only 5 years before I can no longer get
parts, it's still lasted better than any square taper cranks I've had.

More mutually incompatible parts means LBSs have to hold more Shimano
stock and bikes become obsolete quicker forcing you to upgrade. The
benefit is all to Shimano, none to you. Standardisation benefits the
consumer, but if the consumer can be turned into a fad-obsessed fashion
junkie, he won't notice its loss.

The last bike I built up from scratch has a steel frame, 36 spoke
hand-built wheels, cantilever brakes (rather than mini-Vs), etc. So it's
not as if I put on Hollowtech-2 cranks because I fall for all the latest
bike industry fads...

Anthony

in message , Anthony
Jones ') wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
But you don't need a larger diameter BB shell /unless/ you're sticking
gears in there. BB bearings do wear out in time, but so does anything.
They don't (if reasonable quality) wear out very quickly, and they are
not complex or expensive to replace. Outboard bearings are just the
current step in Shimano's on-going planned obsolescence programme. As
with splined bottom brackets and hollow bottom bracket axles there's
no particular technical benefit, but you'll have to buy all new again
in two years when Shimano introduce the Next Big Thing (probably a
bigger shell).

A larger diameter BB shell would allow the use of an ISIS bottom
bracket with larger bearings. ISIS is an open standard, so hopefully it
will be around for a while, but since it requires a larger diameter
spindle the bearings have to be small to fit in the BB, hence rubbish
bearing life by most accounts.

As for my cranks becoming obsolete, you're right -- I'd much rather not
be at the mercy of Shimano's obsolescence plans. But I don't think
it'll happen within 2 years (other manufacturers are already making
compatible bearings), and even if it's only 5 years before I can no
longer get parts, it's still lasted better than any square taper cranks
I've had.

H'mmm... I've three square taper systems still in use. One's 18 years and
about fifteen thousand miles old (cranks; the BB's been replaced at
least twice, probably more times, and the rings have all been replaced);
ones's fourteen years and about thirty thousand miles old (don't think
anything's been replaced yet, but the crankset is about due for
replacement); one's two years and about four thousand miles old (nothing
replaced yet, no problems).

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Generally Not Used
;; Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists

Simon Brooke wrote:
H'mmm... I've three square taper systems still in use. One's 18 years and
about fifteen thousand miles old (cranks; the BB's been replaced at
least twice, probably more times, and the rings have all been replaced);
ones's fourteen years and about thirty thousand miles old (don't think
anything's been replaced yet, but the crankset is about due for
replacement); one's two years and about four thousand miles old (nothing
replaced yet, no problems).

I'd *love* to know what I was doing wrong, but nobody has ever been able
to give me any suggestions other than:

1) get it tighter (I've always tightened them to *really* tight,
honest).
2) start with a new set of cranks because the interface is shafted
(done, several times).
3) grease/don't grease the tapers (tried both).

Anthony

in message , Anthony
Jones ') wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
H'mmm... I've three square taper systems still in use. One's 18 years
and about fifteen thousand miles old (cranks; the BB's been replaced
at least twice, probably more times, and the rings have all been
replaced); ones's fourteen years and about thirty thousand miles old
(don't think anything's been replaced yet, but the crankset is about
due for replacement); one's two years and about four thousand miles
old (nothing replaced yet, no problems).

I'd *love* to know what I was doing wrong, but nobody has ever been
able to give me any suggestions other than:

1) get it tighter (I've always tightened them to *really* tight,
honest).

Don't. Really tight is not needed. I have had cranks come loose - twice
in my life, I think - and this isn't good for them. But that's in what
must by now be getting on for quarter of a million miles. Good and snug
is all I ever do; I don't like to use force when doing things up,
because if you do, how will you undo them?

2) start with a new set of cranks because the interface is shafted
(done, several times).
3) grease/don't grease the tapers (tried both).

Grease. Definitely.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
[ Disclaimer:í¯¿is aíº*work*displacement*exercise.**Please*feel*free ]
[ to reply either on or off group.í¯¿Expectí¯¿lengthyí¯¿replies*until*the ]
[ deadline has passed.í¯¿Thank-you*for*your cooperation. ]

Simon Brooke wrote:

H'mmm... I've three square taper systems still in use. One's 18 years and
about fifteen thousand miles old (cranks; the BB's been replaced at
least twice, probably more times, and the rings have all been replaced);

Bah! The Ultegra crank that was on my good bike got changed to the
fixie at about 25k miles and the (original) BB was absolutely fine. No
ring changes and no worries..

The expensive stuff lasts (to a point) the cheaper stuff doesn't.

...d

In article
Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Anthony
Jones ') wrote:
snip
3) grease/don't grease the tapers (tried both).

Grease. Definitely.

You're kidding, aren't you?

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Anthony
Jones ') wrote:
snip
3) grease/don't grease the tapers (tried both).

Grease. Definitely.

You're kidding, aren't you?

Nope. Of course I imagine he's aware that this is a matter of some debate,
which to me implies that either way works.

cheers,
clive

In article
Clive George wrote:
"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Anthony
Jones ') wrote:
snip
3) grease/don't grease the tapers (tried both).

Grease. Definitely.

You're kidding, aren't you?

Nope. Of course I imagine he's aware that this is a matter of some debate,
which to me implies that either way works.

I've never seen any debate about it - who says the taper should be
greased?