Minnesota Winters

On Dec 24, 12:12*pm, wrote:
Nice item. *As you can see, those were the "good old days" of bicycle
mechanics. *Fortunately Sheldon saved evidence of that.

Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I got a Bicycle Research Goldbar for free once because I identified a
Var Cotter Press as being one and knowing what it did. I wish I had
bought it instead of just the Park Dropout Alighment tools for $15.00.

Chris

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 08:11:11 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

Tom Keats wrote:

smack. Brinelled bearings. specifically unjoyous deployment of
a 4lb hammer when the car's own function can serve the purpose,
and not damage anything.

How come bottom bracket bearing do NOT have this problem when a
hammer is used to drive cotter pins in [1] and out on cranks?

[1] No, tightening is NOT done with the nut with attaching a
cottered crank.

When cotter pins have to be pounded in, there's something horribly
wrong. It usually happens from the bike shop who doesn't quite
have the exact match of what you require, and gives you what they
consider the next closest thing. It's an all too common
occurrence.

Anyway, bearings get ruined by being used dry of lubricant.

I'd like to hear more about that. Who rides with lubricant free BB
bearings?

A number of Pacific Northwesters who frequently ride through deep
puddles and torrential rainfalls, and don't maintain their bikes as
well as they should for the prevailing conditions.

Besides, no matter how you brace the spindle when pounding in
cotters, the shock reaches the ball or two under the spindle. In

You shouldn't have to pound them in. If you have to pound them in,
they don't fit. Maybe tap them in a little, sure -- but to ~pound~
them in?! Nay.

I see you don't work with these. They must be pressed in with
enormous force to give enough preload and insure no "lift-off" from
the small cotter face under hard torque. Those of us who lived
through the steel crank + cotters can recall how they failed with
excess torque if not installed forcefully enough.

I can recall dealing w/ missized/misshaped cotters because they were
all you could get. I also recall occasionally finding the proper
cotters to match the bore.

They must be driven in with a hammer or a special press.

Oh God, that's such a devastation. I just stick well-fitting cotters
in with my thumb.

I hope you didn't miss the posting showing the hammer and press for this
job, along with the special fitting for holding cotters in a vise to
file them to the appropriate flat.

you evidently missed those tools specifically addressing bearing damage:

"eliminates the need for a hammer and possible damage to the cotter pin
and bottom bracket cups"

of course, this could be meaningless advertising copy from a manufacturer
blowing smoke - the usual excuse of r.b.t info-phobes when confronted by
something that doesn't agree with their underinformed presumption.




Not only that, the also needed to be filed to the right wedge angle to
match the other crank in a one side replacement. The off-the-shelf
cotter not being ready to install. The flat taper was only an
indication of where the flat belonged because the threaded end was
offset to pass under the spindle flat.

You know what's going on here -- you're trying to force the
wrong-sized/wrong-shaped cotters to do the job of the right ones.

Again, you cannot be speaking from experience with these things, they
being out of use for about 30 years. What you say can be dispelled by
bicycle shop operators on this news group.

eh? it sounds /very/ much like he's speaking from experience.





Again, it is a retention nut, not one that can be used to install the
cotter, it having insufficient strength for that task.

If the cotter pin is the wrong size, of course trying to tighten it
will **** it up. Trying to get it out will be even worse.

Don't dig yourself into a deeper hole than you were earlier. You know
not of what you speak.

quoth the great and mighty jobst brandt that knows not of brinelling
damage.




In addition, I saw many cranks secured without more than a 1/2 lb
hammer held under the crank, yet no dents in the spindle resulted.

Well at least you didn't say that you did it yourself and as a 100+ lb
rider used them without failure.

Of course. The cotters were being smote with a hammer, not the
spindles. I don't think I've ever seen a dented spindle. I've seen
spindles with badly scoured cones, though. Because the bearings were
run dry of lube.

Where do you suppose the reaction force went if not through the
spindle to the bearing cups?

BB's can be done delicately. Or at least, the violence can be tightly
mitigated. As opposed to stuck handlebar stems.

I still have cottered crank spindles lying around that have no sign
of Brinelling although I have a few head sets where both top and
bottom ball bearings as well a roller bearing ones have fretting
dimples.

In these rainy Pacific Northwest climes, the lower headset bearing
gets the brunt of the weather, especially when unprotected by a front
fender. The cup serves to guide splashed-up water into the bearing,
washing the lube out.

And it's a sneaky effect, because as long as the upper headset
bearing is fine, everything can appear to be good.

I don't think you analyzed the head bearings correctly. If they were
being bathed in water, they would rust solid when parked. On
inspection, they are not full of water and did not rust. As I
explained, this is a fretting b=problem and that is why the upper head
bearing also shows home position dimples.

And yet they generally don't. Go figure.

Your "stone wall" technique of response is not advancing your
credibility and the rest makes clear that you have no experience with
cottered crank installation.

on the contrary, his experience of messing about with cottered garbage
sounds exactly like he /does/ have experience. it's the guy that doesn't
think bearings brinell that seems to be having the "no experience" and
"credibility" problem.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:45:59 -0800, Chalo wrote:

jim beam wrote:

Chalo wrote:

jim beam wrote:

Jobst Brandt wrote:

although I have a few head sets where both top and bottom ball
bearings as well a roller bearing ones have fretting dimples.

no jobst, you have brinelling dimples. Â*don't protect your ignorance
like it's a virtue.

How the hell would you brinell a _top_ race, or a roller bearing
headset?

er, by lateral loading perhaps? Â*by repeated impact perhaps?

If your headset is made out of cream cheese, sure. But here in the real
world where we use headsets with hardened steel races, there is no
impact that you can transfer through a tire, or tolerate at the
handgrips, that will brinell a headset-- unless you mean false
brinelling. If headset races were that soft, I would use them up at a
far higher rate than other riders (since I'm much heavier than other
riders). In fact I use headsets for many years before they wear out and
begin to index.

chalo, you're knee-jerking.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...6cb5dd3954652c




Headset indentation from false brinelling is gradual and progressive. If
it were true brinelling, it would appear suddenly after a single
transient overload.

and it can. i have experienced significant indexing after a crash. and
guess what, multiple smaller impacts can progressively indent a bearing
race too.

In article ,
A Muzi wrote:

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
writes:
Tom Keats wrote:

smack. Brinelled bearings. specifically unjoyous deployment of
a 4lb hammer when the car's own function can serve the purpose,
and not damage anything.
How come bottom bracket bearing do NOT have this problem when a
hammer is used to drive cotter pins in [1] and out on cranks?
[1] No, tightening is NOT done with the nut with attaching a
cottered crank.
When cotter pins have to be pounded in, there's something horribly
wrong. It usually happens from the bike shop who doesn't quite
have the exact match of what you require, and gives you what they
consider the next closest thing. It's an all too common
occurrence.
Anyway, bearings get ruined by being used dry of grease/lubricant.
I'd like to hear more about that. Who rides with lubricant free BB
bearings?
A number of Pacific Northwesters who frequently ride through deep
puddles and torrential rainfalls, and don't maintain their bikes as
well as they should for the prevailing conditions.
Besides, no matter how you brace the spindle when pounding in
cotters, the shock reaches the ball or two under the spindle. In
You shouldn't have to pound them in. If you have to pound them in,
they don't fit. Maybe tap them in a little, sure -- but to ~pound~
them in?! Nay.
I see you don't work with these. They must be pressed in with
enormous force to give enough preload and insure no "lift-off" from
the small cotter face under hard torque. Those of us who lived
through the steel crank + cotters can recall how they failed with
excess torque if not installed forcefully enough.

I can recall dealing w/ missized/misshaped cotters because
they were all you could get. I also recall occasionally
finding the proper cotters to match the bore.

They must be driven in with a hammer or a special press.

Oh God, that's such a devastation. I just stick well-fitting
cotters in with my thumb.

Not only
that, the also needed to be filed to the right wedge angle to match
the other crank in a one side replacement. The off-the-shelf cotter
not being ready to install. The flat taper was only an indication of
where the flat belonged because the threaded end was offset to pass
under the spindle flat.

You know what's going on here -- you're trying to force the
wrong-sized/wrong-shaped cotters to do the job of the
right ones.

Again, it is a retention nut, not one that
can be used to install the cotter, it having insufficient strength for
that task.

If the cotter pin is the wrong size, of course trying
to tighten it will fsck it up. Trying to get it out
will be even worse.

addition, I saw many cranks secured without more than a 1/2 lb
hammer held under the crank, yet no dents in the spindle resulted.
Of course. The cotters were being smote with a hammer, not the
spindles. I don't think I've ever seen a dented spindle. I've seen
spindles with badly scoured cones, though. Because the bearings
were run dry of lube.
Where do you suppose the reaction force went if not through the
spindle to the bearing cups?

BBs can be done delicatately. Or at least, the violence can
be tightly mitigated. As opposed to stuck handlebar stems.

I still have cottered crank spindles lying around that have no sign
of Brinelling although I have a few head sets where both top and
bottom ball bearings as well a roller bearing ones have fretting
dimples.
In these rainy Pacific Northwest climes, the lower headset bearing
gets the brunt of the weather, especially when unprotected by a
front fender. The cup serves to guide splashed-up water into the
bearing, washing the lube out.
And it's a sneaky effect, because as long as the upper headset
bearing is fine, everything can appear to be good.
I don't think you analyzed the head bearings correctly. If they were
being bathed in water, they would rust solid when parked. On

And yet they generally don't. Go figure.


cheers,
Tom


The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

A bit of grease on the contact between the primary and secondary lever?

I'm wondering where those water bottles have been.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
A Muzi wrote:

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
writes:
Tom Keats wrote:

smack. Brinelled bearings. specifically unjoyous deployment of
a 4lb hammer when the car's own function can serve the purpose,
and not damage anything.
How come bottom bracket bearing do NOT have this problem when a
hammer is used to drive cotter pins in [1] and out on cranks?
[1] No, tightening is NOT done with the nut with attaching a
cottered crank.
When cotter pins have to be pounded in, there's something horribly
wrong. It usually happens from the bike shop who doesn't quite
have the exact match of what you require, and gives you what they
consider the next closest thing. It's an all too common
occurrence.
Anyway, bearings get ruined by being used dry of grease/lubricant.
I'd like to hear more about that. Who rides with lubricant free BB
bearings?
A number of Pacific Northwesters who frequently ride through deep
puddles and torrential rainfalls, and don't maintain their bikes as
well as they should for the prevailing conditions.
Besides, no matter how you brace the spindle when pounding in
cotters, the shock reaches the ball or two under the spindle. In
You shouldn't have to pound them in. If you have to pound them in,
they don't fit. Maybe tap them in a little, sure -- but to ~pound~
them in?! Nay.
I see you don't work with these. They must be pressed in with
enormous force to give enough preload and insure no "lift-off" from
the small cotter face under hard torque. Those of us who lived
through the steel crank + cotters can recall how they failed with
excess torque if not installed forcefully enough.
I can recall dealing w/ missized/misshaped cotters because
they were all you could get. I also recall occasionally
finding the proper cotters to match the bore.

They must be driven in with a hammer or a special press.
Oh God, that's such a devastation. I just stick well-fitting
cotters in with my thumb.

Not only
that, the also needed to be filed to the right wedge angle to match
the other crank in a one side replacement. The off-the-shelf cotter
not being ready to install. The flat taper was only an indication of
where the flat belonged because the threaded end was offset to pass
under the spindle flat.
You know what's going on here -- you're trying to force the
wrong-sized/wrong-shaped cotters to do the job of the
right ones.

Again, it is a retention nut, not one that
can be used to install the cotter, it having insufficient strength for
that task.
If the cotter pin is the wrong size, of course trying
to tighten it will fsck it up. Trying to get it out
will be even worse.

addition, I saw many cranks secured without more than a 1/2 lb
hammer held under the crank, yet no dents in the spindle resulted.
Of course. The cotters were being smote with a hammer, not the
spindles. I don't think I've ever seen a dented spindle. I've seen
spindles with badly scoured cones, though. Because the bearings
were run dry of lube.
Where do you suppose the reaction force went if not through the
spindle to the bearing cups?
BBs can be done delicatately. Or at least, the violence can
be tightly mitigated. As opposed to stuck handlebar stems.

I still have cottered crank spindles lying around that have no sign
of Brinelling although I have a few head sets where both top and
bottom ball bearings as well a roller bearing ones have fretting
dimples.
In these rainy Pacific Northwest climes, the lower headset bearing
gets the brunt of the weather, especially when unprotected by a
front fender. The cup serves to guide splashed-up water into the
bearing, washing the lube out.
And it's a sneaky effect, because as long as the upper headset
bearing is fine, everything can appear to be good.
I don't think you analyzed the head bearings correctly. If they were
being bathed in water, they would rust solid when parked. On
And yet they generally don't. Go figure.


cheers,
Tom

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

A bit of grease on the contact between the primary and secondary lever?

I'm wondering where those water bottles have been.

Yes, grease on the cam of the long arm (near the blue frame's BB in photo)

I avoided the recent 'water bottle' thread but we use two castoff
bottles on each desk. Tall for pens, markers, scissors, small files,
etc, short for valve caps and a Campagnolo crank extractor.

The two bottle shown are antiques, made by Eugenio Rampinelli (REG) many
years ago.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:31:01 -0600, A Muzi
wrote:
[snip]

I avoided the recent 'water bottle' thread but we use two castoff
bottles on each desk. Tall for pens, markers, scissors, small files,
etc, short for valve caps and a Campagnolo crank extractor.

[snip]

Dear Andrew,

Typical water-bottles used to store valve caps:
http://www.freelandind.com/figalvtanks.htm

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article ,
A Muzi writes:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality Sugino
cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of riding when the
assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press the pins properly.

For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins
into straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a
few in my stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and
there's no widening in their middles. Straight taper pins;
straight taper holes. As it should be, as long as there's
a perfect fit with no slop.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by drawing
up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free and deform the
pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at all.

We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and
loose (or loosening) everywhere else.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service
the BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.

Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but
that goes with the territory. And there's an acquirable
"touch" for avoiding that. Well, it's mostly luck.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
(Tom Keats) writes:
In article ,
A Muzi writes:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality Sugino
cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of riding when the
assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press the pins properly.

For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins
into straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a
few in my stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and
there's no widening in their middles. Straight taper pins;
straight taper holes. As it should be, as long as there's
a perfect fit with no slop.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by drawing
up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free and deform the
pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at all.

We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and
loose (or loosening) everywhere else.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service
the BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.

Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but
that goes with the territory. And there's an acquirable
"touch" for avoiding that. Well, it's mostly luck.

It just occurred to me: most of my bikes have been Japanese
imports, or Japanese/Canadian collaberations (especially
Apollo and Sekine.) I'm a Vancouverian canadian, and we've
had our own localized bicycle trade. So maybe our bicycle
design experiences differ from that.

If cotter pins were to be barrel-chested, it seems to me
they should be made of a softer & more pliable metal than
hard steel, that would spread like butter under pressure,
the better to fill in the gaps, while still retaining
enough interface.

But to anyone else reading this: don't let your LBS
flog-off unto you the wrong cotter pins.


cheers again,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats wrote:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S
couplers:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality
Sugino cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of
riding when the assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press
the pins properly.

For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins into
straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.

You are conjuring up unreal circumstances. The Best cotters were from
"Acier Dupratnik" and were of high strength steel. Just the same,
they were designed to be filed or machined to identical flats and they
could be pushed through the bare crank with little effort. The press
fit comes when the spindle is in the crank and the cotter inserted to
arrest it in a rotationally fixed position that must be identical for
both cranks or sprinting would impractical.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a few in my
stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and there's no widening
in their middles. Straight taper pins; straight taper holes. As it
should be, as long as there's a perfect fit with no slop.

It would be unimaginable that Acier Dupratnik would go to all the
trouble of machining these cotters from high grade steel bar stock
that wasn't straight. The way you say that, I become ever more
certain that you have no experience with high quality racing bicycle
cotters, the mainstream when I began bicycling over longer distances.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by
drawing up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free
and deform the pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at
all.

We saw many of these from people like you who could not visualize how
great the forces are in this interface and that one crank puts the
major load on the narrow part of the cotter-flat while the other did
so on the widest part. You have your choice. My choice was to have
the retaining nut on the trailing face of the crank at the top of the
stroke.

We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and loose
(or loosening) everywhere else.

Well you can't do that anyway, because that would not leave cranks
180° apart as they should be.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service the
BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.

Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but that goes
with the territory. And there's an acquirable "touch" for avoiding
that. Well, it's mostly luck.

That's the classic demise of cotters. That is why one doesn't extract
them without a pair of new ones in the event of a squashed thread.

Jobst Brandt

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
A Muzi writes:

The manufacturers of steel pinned cranks seem to feel a heavy cast steel
press with 42:1 leverage driven forcefully ( an able man puts out about
80 pounds with both arms just below shoulder height) is a better
approach. That is a humongous amount of pressure.

Here are two clever designs, a VAR #7 crank press and a set of S+S couplers:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VAR07.JPG

When these cranks were still common, even new premium quality Sugino
cranks on Sugino spindles would fail in a day or two of riding when the
assembler neglected to remove, lubricate and press the pins properly.

For forcing barrel-chested or wrongly-sized cotter pins
into straight-tapered holes, I'm not surprised.

But cotter pins are not barrel-chested. I actually have a
few in my stock -- I've slid dial calipers down them, and
there's no widening in their middles. Straight taper pins;
straight taper holes. As it should be, as long as there's
a perfect fit with no slop.

Although one might get a small amount of pin/spindle contact by drawing
up the nut, the forces at that contact will work it free and deform the
pin's surface in short order if the pin moves at all.

We don't (didn't?) want a "small" amount of pin/spindle[/crank]
contact. We want (wanted?) ~full~, tight contact all along the
length of the pin. That calls for proper fitting, not cheap-assed
swage-fitting where the pin is fat in one localized spot, and
loose (or loosening) everywhere else.

And the only reason to "lubricate" cotter pins (w/ appropriate
grease) is to be able to easily pop them out in order to service
the BB. They don't fail from inadequate greasing.

Might bend the threaded section when driving them out, but
that goes with the territory. And there's an acquirable
"touch" for avoiding that. Well, it's mostly luck.

If I had a bike with cotter cranks that needed servicing, I would take
it to the shop with proper tools, such as Mr. Muzi's. A cotter pin that
does NOT require significant force to insert will NOT form a press fit,
which is what this interface requires to function as intended.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll