which torque wrench?

in message , Anthony
Jones ') wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
Oh, God, cotter pins. How I /loathed/ cotter pins. The square taper
crank has to have been one of the best innovations ever. It seems to
me I've been using them for about thirty years, and, while cotter pins
*always* gave me problems, square tapers have been very, very
reliable. I've never split a crank; I've very, very rarely had a bolt
(or, in earlier times, nut) come loose accidentally; and, as I've
said, I've had a grand total of two cranks come off (both
non-drive-side) in those thirty years. As far as I'm concerned, square
taper is something that Just Works[tm].

Maybe if they had usenet 30 years ago lots of people could have told
you that they'd had no problems with cotter-pins.

Oh, lots of people managed just fine with cotter pins. I didn't!

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

Q: Whats a webmaster?
A: Like a spider, but nowhere near as intelligent.

Simon Brooke 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);

This is a mountain bike. Mountain bikes live in a world of granite
dust, sand, mud and other nasties. The original rings were Biopace
(version 2); I'm one of those odd people who liked Biopace very much.

Would a late 1980's Shimano 105, 170mm long, 130mm PCD, 5-arm, square taper,
with 52/42 Biopace rings be of interest ?
Modest wear, but I believe servicable. Either just the rings, or the
complete with cranks.



- Nigel (clearing out the spares drawer...).




--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

In article
Pete Biggs wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:
In article
Pete Biggs wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:

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

Jobst Brandt -
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/i...ng-cranks.html

I've had no problems whatsoever since doing this, although to be
fair the few before (a long time ago) might not have been anything
to do with lack of grease.

I've never had a problem with my own cranks loosening in over 25 years
of using square-taper cotterless cranks. After ten years in the bike
trade I'm only aware of one loosening problem with a crank I fitted -
that had grease on the taper.

Which proves nothing, of course.

I cleaned it up and refitted it - it didn't come loose again :-)

I've not seen any evidence of crank
bolts routinely working loose when properly tightened. I've never
split a crank. And I don't use dustcaps on my bikes, because they
only trap water. I wonder why JB has had such a different experience.

Maybe he rides his bikes in an unusual way??? Monster gears up mountains,
for a start.

I assumed he was talking from wider experience than just his own bikes -
maybe that was incorrect.

Anyway, I think the grease question is a red herring. I'm not suggesting
that it is necessary, personally. The important thing is to make sure the
cranks are properly tight -- then they won't come loose whether grease was
used or not.

That's not my experience, although a single incident obviously isn't
statistically significant.

In article
Tony Raven wrote:
Rob Morley wrote on 31/08/2006 17:24 +0100:

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

Its a debate in places like rbt of a ferocity that is on a par with
Campag v Shimano


I'll probably leave them to get on with it :-)

in message , Nigel Cliffe
') wrote:

Simon Brooke 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);

This is a mountain bike. Mountain bikes live in a world of granite
dust, sand, mud and other nasties. The original rings were Biopace
(version 2); I'm one of those odd people who liked Biopace very much.

Would a late 1980's Shimano 105, 170mm long, 130mm PCD, 5-arm, square
taper, with 52/42 Biopace rings be of interest ?
Modest wear, but I believe servicable. Either just the rings, or the
complete with cranks.

It would. How much do you want?

Reply by email if you like - my address is valid.

Cheers

Simon

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

;; Good grief, I can remember when England won the Ashes.

Simon Brooke wrote:

I've had a grand total of two cranks
come off (both non-drive-side) in those
thirty years. As far as I'm concerned,
square taper is something that Just
Works[tm].

Likewise. One was cottered (the cotter pin fell out when the wretched Andy
Pegg decided to relieve the tedium of an unremarkable BHPC AGM by taking the
bike for a spin round Eastway's BMX track), and the other was an XT
Hollowtech...

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
I am Wan, for I am pursued by the Army of Plums.

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Nigel Cliffe
') wrote:

Would a late 1980's Shimano 105, 170mm long, 130mm PCD, 5-arm, square
taper, with 52/42 Biopace rings be of interest ?
Modest wear, but I believe servicable. Either just the rings, or the
complete with cranks.

It would. How much do you want?

Reply by email if you like - my address is valid.


Gone to email.


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Simon Brooke wrote:
The loading on your cranks, if you land even modest jumps ungracefully
(and if like most mountain bikers you habitually do so with the cranks
horizontal) is going to be pretty high. I suggest what you need is
practice landing jumps gracefully.

Well, that's one solution. The other -- since nothing else consistently
gives me problems -- is to just switch interface. Much as I'd love to be
more skillful and able to land everything gracefully, I think I'd rather
stick to just having fun and not worrying about my equipment.

Anthony

Quoting Pete Biggs :
Simon Brooke wrote:
Anthony Jones ') wrote:
1) get it tighter (I've always tightened them to *really* tight,
honest).
Don't.
Do!

Depends on how long the implement is. When I was tightening them with 8
inches of leverage, as tight as possible worked just fine. When I got 2
feet of leverage, that wasn't necessarily true...

.... eventually I stopped fretting and bought a torque wrench.
--
David Damerell Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Wednesday, August.

In article
David Damerell wrote:
Quoting Pete Biggs :
Simon Brooke wrote:
Anthony Jones ') wrote:
1) get it tighter (I've always tightened them to *really* tight,
honest).
Don't.
Do!

Depends on how long the implement is. When I was tightening them with 8
inches of leverage, as tight as possible worked just fine. When I got 2
feet of leverage, that wasn't necessarily true...

... eventually I stopped fretting and bought a torque wrench.

I wonder if the reported tendency for left hand cranks to loosen is
influenced by the fact that the right hand crank can be tightened
against the transmission, but on the left you can only hold on to the
crank.