Square taper BB's
#26
Full Member
Just say "no" to square taper. It's junk technology that eats crank arms, and possibly injures the rider.
If the crank arm becomes loose, which happens when the fixing bolt gets loose or falls out, the crank arm is ruined.
If the fixing bolt is over tightened, which happens a lot, the crank arm "walks" up the taper. The crank arm develops a crack from being overstressed, then it breaks off without warning—usually when the rider is standing on the pedals—sending the rider to the ground.
Just. Say. No.
If the crank arm becomes loose, which happens when the fixing bolt gets loose or falls out, the crank arm is ruined.
If the fixing bolt is over tightened, which happens a lot, the crank arm "walks" up the taper. The crank arm develops a crack from being overstressed, then it breaks off without warning—usually when the rider is standing on the pedals—sending the rider to the ground.
Just. Say. No.
#27
Mostly harmless ™
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,422
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked 213 Times
in
127 Posts
Please note that I stated "if the fixing bolt is over tightened". I stand by my statement. Even a crank arm assembled with the specified fixing bolt torque will walk up the taper, as evidenced by the looseness of the fixing bolt after some use. The bolt becomes loose because the arm has moved up the taper during use. If the cyclist is lucky, that will not be enough to initiate a fatigue crack.
As you state, re-tightening the fixing bolt will continue the crank arm's journey up the taper, increasing the possibility of a fracture.
And believe it or not, I do "have a clue". Would you like to compare CVs?
Two words: proprietary & patents.
As you state, re-tightening the fixing bolt will continue the crank arm's journey up the taper, increasing the possibility of a fracture.
And believe it or not, I do "have a clue". Would you like to compare CVs?
Two words: proprietary & patents.
If a square taper crank is properly installed (lubed, then torqued with appropriate force), it will stay put and bolt will not come loose.
Lubing the interface before the installation (axle and the bolt) and using a proper torque guarantees that the crank will move all the way up it can go (without getting damaged) and will from then on keep supporting the tightening bolt with a proper preload to prevent it from loosening... while the tightening bolt prevents the crank from sliding off. You could consider it a sort of "mechanical knot". Using the force created by the elastic deformation of the crank, axle and bolt, ass well as the spindle "angle" (narrowing down towards the ends and widening towards the mid part) to make it all work.
I am yet to have a properly installed square tapper crank come loose - unless the crank, axle, or both have already been damaged by improper installation and coming loose once already during riding.
The problem with square taper cranks is the failure mode. They crack at the place that is covered with the crank. While they are not practical for regular inspection.
In those terms, newest Shimano MTB XTR M9100 cranks and BBs offer both the proper bearing preload adjustment (unlike Hollowtech) and, at least in theory, no such risky, sudden failure mode. As long as one doesn't ride with worn bearings that keep binding, the axle should be fine (though modern "superlight" craze does tend to make those axle-tube walls as thin as possible, so I'm not sure of practical durability of the sold items, time will tell).
I would go as far as to say that most cycling stuff from this century does not benefit neither a casual rider, nor a high-mileage rider. It is made to make more money. Perhaps useful for racing as well. But when it comes to robustness, durability and even safety - older stuff is often just as good, if not better. With BBs perhaps being an exception - if they ever really get it right.
Likes For Bike Gremlin:
#28
Senior Member
But hard as hell to install and remove without a special tool.
__________________
Il faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace
1980 3Rensho-- 1975 Raleigh Sprite 3spd
1990s Raleigh M20 MTB--2007 Windsor Hour (track)
1988 Ducati 750 F1
Il faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace
1980 3Rensho-- 1975 Raleigh Sprite 3spd
1990s Raleigh M20 MTB--2007 Windsor Hour (track)
1988 Ducati 750 F1
Last edited by San Rensho; 08-15-19 at 02:08 PM. Reason: grammar
#29
Full Member
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 2,919
Bikes: Paramount, Faggin, Ochsner, Ciocc, Basso
Mentioned: 114 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1273 Post(s)
Liked 1,806 Times
in
1,094 Posts
Looky here now ksryder,
As an ancient mechanic and one who still has all the stuff to work on them they aren't that bad. The difference is that the weak part is not the aluminium arm but the cotter which was soft steel. And was that way by design so the arm could be removed by drilling if necessary. The hardest part of the cotter system was being sure the cotters were of exactly the same taper. I spent a bunch of hours filing those down to match back in the early 70's. Same goes for the improper installation as over-tightening the aluminium arms, they could be damaged. With the correct installation they worked quite nicely. When mechanics hammered them in, instead of pressing them with a C-clamp is when they failed. Smiles, MH
As an ancient mechanic and one who still has all the stuff to work on them they aren't that bad. The difference is that the weak part is not the aluminium arm but the cotter which was soft steel. And was that way by design so the arm could be removed by drilling if necessary. The hardest part of the cotter system was being sure the cotters were of exactly the same taper. I spent a bunch of hours filing those down to match back in the early 70's. Same goes for the improper installation as over-tightening the aluminium arms, they could be damaged. With the correct installation they worked quite nicely. When mechanics hammered them in, instead of pressing them with a C-clamp is when they failed. Smiles, MH
Likes For Mad Honk:
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,549
Bikes: yes
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1281 Post(s)
Liked 643 Times
in
329 Posts
Looky here now ksryder,
As an ancient mechanic and one who still has all the stuff to work on them they aren't that bad. The difference is that the weak part is not the aluminium arm but the cotter which was soft steel. And was that way by design so the arm could be removed by drilling if necessary. The hardest part of the cotter system was being sure the cotters were of exactly the same taper. I spent a bunch of hours filing those down to match back in the early 70's. Same goes for the improper installation as over-tightening the aluminium arms, they could be damaged. With the correct installation they worked quite nicely. When mechanics hammered them in, instead of pressing them with a C-clamp is when they failed. Smiles, MH
As an ancient mechanic and one who still has all the stuff to work on them they aren't that bad. The difference is that the weak part is not the aluminium arm but the cotter which was soft steel. And was that way by design so the arm could be removed by drilling if necessary. The hardest part of the cotter system was being sure the cotters were of exactly the same taper. I spent a bunch of hours filing those down to match back in the early 70's. Same goes for the improper installation as over-tightening the aluminium arms, they could be damaged. With the correct installation they worked quite nicely. When mechanics hammered them in, instead of pressing them with a C-clamp is when they failed. Smiles, MH
(I hope you realize this is all in fun.)
#34
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,897
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26212 Post(s)
Liked 10,179 Times
in
7,062 Posts
...if you look at what the pro peleton was riding way back when square taper was first coming into vogue, you'll quickly discover that cottered cranks hung on for quite a while. People did not trust them and felt that cottered cranks were more durable, and were willing to accept the small weight penalty Not making this up (even though I still have a number of bikes with cottered cranks. )
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 2,919
Bikes: Paramount, Faggin, Ochsner, Ciocc, Basso
Mentioned: 114 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1273 Post(s)
Liked 1,806 Times
in
1,094 Posts
Once again ksryder,
I haven't assumed anything. I just said I was an ancient mechanic who has those tools and has worked on those my self. I didn't question your creds, or even your street cred! (Smiles) Now if you would like for me to start speculating about yer skills just lemme know. As for all of this being in jest I get it! And am not trying to flame anyone or discredit them. I just said they work quite when well done correctly. Smiles, MH
I haven't assumed anything. I just said I was an ancient mechanic who has those tools and has worked on those my self. I didn't question your creds, or even your street cred! (Smiles) Now if you would like for me to start speculating about yer skills just lemme know. As for all of this being in jest I get it! And am not trying to flame anyone or discredit them. I just said they work quite when well done correctly. Smiles, MH
#36
Sr Member on Sr bikes
In all my years of cycling, maintaining numerous bikes at a time, I have never had a problem with square taper BBs. My (now college-aged) son's friends will bring their bikes (mostly MTBs) to me for various maintenance. A kid in the neighborhood brought his over last week. He said "The pedal is loose." Turns out that one of the teeth, or splines, on the splined crank (non-drive side) had broken off completely. A couple others were half broken. As a result...the crank won't secure at exactly 180° from the drive-side crank. I never had that issue with square tapers. The bike is only a couple of years old. So like 'dsbrantjr' alluded to...what good is it?
Dan
Dan
Likes For _ForceD_:
#37
SE Wis
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,490
Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400, 2013 Novara Randonee, 1990 Trek 970
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2716 Post(s)
Liked 3,332 Times
in
2,024 Posts
I have bikes with cottered cranks, square taper, HTII.
None of them are a problem.
None of them are a problem.
#38
Senior member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 8,102
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 935 Post(s)
Liked 641 Times
in
363 Posts
Square taper is what many of us are making do with until something better comes along. Still waiting for that to happen.
Or to paraphrase a famous person from history, it's the absolute worst system ever, except for all the rest.
Or to paraphrase a famous person from history, it's the absolute worst system ever, except for all the rest.
#39
Full Member
Of the 10 or so bikes purchased in my household in the past 35 years, 8 have been square taper with no problems, 1 Ashtabula again with no problems. The last one, an external BB was a mess that ended up with the spindle/spider interface breaking apart. Nothing wrong with square taper IMO. Robust, proven design. Newer designs are all for the benefit of the manufacturer, not the consumer.
#40
Senior Member
I can't agree with your statements here. Based on my knowledge of theory and the practical experience:
If a square taper crank is properly installed (lubed, then torqued with appropriate force), it will stay put and bolt will not come loose.
Lubing the interface before the installation (axle and the bolt) and using a proper torque guarantees that the crank will move all the way up it can go (without getting damaged) and will from then on keep supporting the tightening bolt with a proper preload to prevent it from loosening... while the tightening bolt prevents the crank from sliding off. You could consider it a sort of "mechanical knot". Using the force created by the elastic deformation of the crank, axle and bolt, ass well as the spindle "angle" (narrowing down towards the ends and widening towards the mid part) to make it all work.
I am yet to have a properly installed square tapper crank come loose - unless the crank, axle, or both have already been damaged by improper installation and coming loose once already during riding.
The problem with square taper cranks is the failure mode. They crack at the place that is covered with the crank. While they are not practical for regular inspection.
In those terms, newest Shimano MTB XTR M9100 cranks and BBs offer both the proper bearing preload adjustment (unlike Hollowtech) and, at least in theory, no such risky, sudden failure mode. As long as one doesn't ride with worn bearings that keep binding, the axle should be fine (though modern "superlight" craze does tend to make those axle-tube walls as thin as possible, so I'm not sure of practical durability of the sold items, time will tell).
I would go as far as to say that most cycling stuff from this century does not benefit neither a casual rider, nor a high-mileage rider. It is made to make more money. Perhaps useful for racing as well. But when it comes to robustness, durability and even safety - older stuff is often just as good, if not better. With BBs perhaps being an exception - if they ever really get it right.
If a square taper crank is properly installed (lubed, then torqued with appropriate force), it will stay put and bolt will not come loose.
Lubing the interface before the installation (axle and the bolt) and using a proper torque guarantees that the crank will move all the way up it can go (without getting damaged) and will from then on keep supporting the tightening bolt with a proper preload to prevent it from loosening... while the tightening bolt prevents the crank from sliding off. You could consider it a sort of "mechanical knot". Using the force created by the elastic deformation of the crank, axle and bolt, ass well as the spindle "angle" (narrowing down towards the ends and widening towards the mid part) to make it all work.
I am yet to have a properly installed square tapper crank come loose - unless the crank, axle, or both have already been damaged by improper installation and coming loose once already during riding.
The problem with square taper cranks is the failure mode. They crack at the place that is covered with the crank. While they are not practical for regular inspection.
In those terms, newest Shimano MTB XTR M9100 cranks and BBs offer both the proper bearing preload adjustment (unlike Hollowtech) and, at least in theory, no such risky, sudden failure mode. As long as one doesn't ride with worn bearings that keep binding, the axle should be fine (though modern "superlight" craze does tend to make those axle-tube walls as thin as possible, so I'm not sure of practical durability of the sold items, time will tell).
I would go as far as to say that most cycling stuff from this century does not benefit neither a casual rider, nor a high-mileage rider. It is made to make more money. Perhaps useful for racing as well. But when it comes to robustness, durability and even safety - older stuff is often just as good, if not better. With BBs perhaps being an exception - if they ever really get it right.
therefore the manufacturer who published the torque to use on the bolt advised against using lube on the bolt or the tapered interface for that reason.
i care not which manufacturer advised against using lube and when did so. i'm too lazy to find out what the situation is today.
the bottom brackets i bought for new were already greasy when i took them out of the plastic they were in.
the friction coefficient on the bolt can be even lower than 0.1 if you use the best wax lubricant you could find.
the friction of high grade steels that the bolt and bottom bracket should be made of is about 0.15.
using wax lubricant can have those unpredictable consequences as either too high preload or too low. i mentioned wax lubricant just to give the picture of what would work too well for this cranks/BB interface. it's more useful as a lubricant for bicycle chains and for spokes/nipples threads. there are many kinds of waxes as to their chain length and melting point. there is straight paraffin and there's also the less biodegradeable kind which are described by these terms: branched, isoparaffins and microcrystalline wax.
"In Soviet terminology, “ceresin” denotes any relatively high-melting microcrystalline wax, here, specifically, petroleum-derived microcrystalline wax"
back to the cranks/BB discussion: some recommend using a light oil just to ensure there will be no corrosion/galling of the threads in time. that's because a light oil film will not have the bolt in too high preload as the people are used to a certain torque when assembling the cranks. and a thicker grease can take more time to flow so in that case you need to torque it again a bit later or in stages if the grease is not so easily squashed/moved.
the most important thing to do is use a torque wrench or use a certain amount of weight for a certain amount of length if no torque wrench is available.
if i were to assemble some tapered cranks right now i'd use some concoction with high temperature melting microcrystalline wax to which i'd add some lanolin and talcum powder... and do my calculation as to the equivalent torque for the same preload. then i'd go a bit over that and then unscrew the bolt a bit and have a final measurement for the tightening torque. it's the same stuff i use for chains now.
i'd use grease only if having polyurea as a thickener because it does not incorporate water in it but protects better against corrosion by preventing the water from getting in. calcium greases tend to emulsify water so that corrosion would become an issue in time.
take care not to leave the bike vulnerable to the morning dew because with each cycle of raising and lowering of temperature the bottom bracket will breath and condensate water inside it. i't a good way to minimize it by slapping some grease over the seals.
#41
Senior Member
I realize this may be a hypothetical or even rhetorical question, but here goes:
If square taper bottom brackets are so heavy, flexible, and crude compared to modern hollow axle systems, why does square taper still seem to dominate the track and single speed worlds? I would have thought track and single speed riders would most want the claimed improvements, especially in stiffness, but uptake seems minimal to zero compared to road and MTB riders.
If square taper bottom brackets are so heavy, flexible, and crude compared to modern hollow axle systems, why does square taper still seem to dominate the track and single speed worlds? I would have thought track and single speed riders would most want the claimed improvements, especially in stiffness, but uptake seems minimal to zero compared to road and MTB riders.
1. low q factor
2. cheap
the second one is meant to mean that the differences in performance are really small and the small added weight is not too much of an issue for most folks.
low q factor with BB other than this tapered standard is only achievable by press fit etc. not cheap.
#42
Junior Member
I use campy square taper on all my bikes to great success. I prefer the q-factor, and reliability compared to the failures in through axle bearings my friends suffer from. I use campy record 102mm bb's on my road, mtb, touring bikes, and gravel bikes. Perhaps, every once and a while, a bearing might go out (After about 5-10k). This is very rare compared to the bearing failures my friends with the latest incarnation of through axles experience. In my 49 years of riding, I have never experienced (or heard of) a catastrophic square taper failure of any sort in either the cranks or spindle. I did snap a hollow single piece bmx crank when I was a kid. Tonight is the first time I have heard of such square taper failures. I have experienced bent square taper axles from jumping off large drop offs back in the late 1980's using cheap long spindles.
Never a crank or spindle failure.
I have also worked in a number of bike shops in my life. I never saw a failure come through any of those shops either.
Also a teenager, I even have REEMED out the square taper portion of cranks to cinch them in tighter on the spindles (not recommended). Never a failure there either- granted, some could never be tightened enough and would work loose because of my "engineering", but never a failure.
G@# help us all.
R
Never a crank or spindle failure.
I have also worked in a number of bike shops in my life. I never saw a failure come through any of those shops either.
Also a teenager, I even have REEMED out the square taper portion of cranks to cinch them in tighter on the spindles (not recommended). Never a failure there either- granted, some could never be tightened enough and would work loose because of my "engineering", but never a failure.
G@# help us all.
R
Last edited by dualresponse; 09-06-19 at 06:29 PM.
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,026
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked 1,232 Times
in
711 Posts
Just say "no" to square taper. It's junk technology that eats crank arms, and possibly injures the rider.
If the crank arm becomes loose, which happens when the fixing bolt gets loose or falls out, the crank arm is ruined.
If the fixing bolt is over tightened, which happens a lot, the crank arm "walks" up the taper. The crank arm develops a crack from being overstressed, then it breaks off without warning—usually when the rider is standing on the pedals—sending the rider to the ground.
Just. Say. No.
If the crank arm becomes loose, which happens when the fixing bolt gets loose or falls out, the crank arm is ruined.
If the fixing bolt is over tightened, which happens a lot, the crank arm "walks" up the taper. The crank arm develops a crack from being overstressed, then it breaks off without warning—usually when the rider is standing on the pedals—sending the rider to the ground.
Just. Say. No.
No seriously...
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,026
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked 1,232 Times
in
711 Posts
The crank arm "walks up" the taper with every installation, even if it was torqued properly. This is a form of long-term wear for square-taper cranks. But, it typically takes a very large number of installations for a failure to occur, either from a bottom-out of the taper or a fatigue crack.
Excessive torque will move the starting point for that installation cycle slightly farther up the taper, which means that the crank will suffer more of that permanent wear than it should have. In today's cartridge-BB world of very infrequent re-installations, this almost never becomes a problem in the first place.
To cause a problematic amount of added walk-up on a single installation from overtorque, you'd have to go really nuts. Like "bust out a huge cheater bar for no reason" nuts. The kind of behavior that will wreck any kind of crank interface.
(What is a big problem for taper interface wear is when someone misinterprets the walk-up as loosening of the fixing bolt, and repeatedly re-tightens the bolt after every few rides. Each time this is done, it restarts the walk-up cycle and puts a re-installation worth of wear on the interface.)
Excessive torque will move the starting point for that installation cycle slightly farther up the taper, which means that the crank will suffer more of that permanent wear than it should have. In today's cartridge-BB world of very infrequent re-installations, this almost never becomes a problem in the first place.
To cause a problematic amount of added walk-up on a single installation from overtorque, you'd have to go really nuts. Like "bust out a huge cheater bar for no reason" nuts. The kind of behavior that will wreck any kind of crank interface.
(What is a big problem for taper interface wear is when someone misinterprets the walk-up as loosening of the fixing bolt, and repeatedly re-tightens the bolt after every few rides. Each time this is done, it restarts the walk-up cycle and puts a re-installation worth of wear on the interface.)
#46
aged to perfection
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: PacNW
Posts: 1,754
Bikes: Dinucci Allez 2.0, Richard Sachs, Alex Singer, Serotta, Masi GC, Raleigh Pro Mk.1, Hetchins, etc
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 811 Post(s)
Liked 1,211 Times
in
639 Posts
I see all this hate for square taper cranks and wonder why. I think the square taper design does take some mechanical finesse to disassemble / reassemble if you're not familiar with how they work.
the current issue Shimano / Campy outboard bearing cranks with the large diameter axle and easy disassembly with simple tools has a lot to be said for it, but as somebody has posted above the bearings are poorly sealed and can require frequent replacement if used in adverse conditions, since they are "out in the weather" so to speak.
I find the Stronglight cranks (49D, 57, 93, 99) and the TA cyclotouriste cranks to be fragile and requiring some care, however the current Campy and Shimano square taper cranks are very reliable and should last a lifetime with reasonable care. I am also a huge fan of Phil bottom brackets. Again, all of these require specialized tools to install and maintain.
Kind of like leather saddles and other old school accoutrements in this modern age, it's something of an acquired taste, but can be used and enjoyed if you believe the journey is the reward !
Mark Petry
Bainbridge Island, WA USA
the current issue Shimano / Campy outboard bearing cranks with the large diameter axle and easy disassembly with simple tools has a lot to be said for it, but as somebody has posted above the bearings are poorly sealed and can require frequent replacement if used in adverse conditions, since they are "out in the weather" so to speak.
I find the Stronglight cranks (49D, 57, 93, 99) and the TA cyclotouriste cranks to be fragile and requiring some care, however the current Campy and Shimano square taper cranks are very reliable and should last a lifetime with reasonable care. I am also a huge fan of Phil bottom brackets. Again, all of these require specialized tools to install and maintain.
Kind of like leather saddles and other old school accoutrements in this modern age, it's something of an acquired taste, but can be used and enjoyed if you believe the journey is the reward !
Mark Petry
Bainbridge Island, WA USA
Last edited by mpetry912; 09-08-19 at 09:24 AM.
#47
Senior Member
My post was basically saying that square taper is fine, and you're unlikely to run into issues unless you do something silly with it
...Most of my bikes have square-taper crank interfaces.
#48
Senior Member
i hate riding with too high (taper has only 140mm) q factor for light bikes with the seat - and narrow bars - mounted for high cadence.
it's not only aerodynamics but also the biomechanics. some people could have larger butts and therefore tolerate more q factor and also need wider seats. that would go along with lower cadence.
you might need a bit more width in q factor to better maneuver when offroad at the cost of pedals more closer to hitting the ground.
taper is of not much benefit other than being cheap/available as the 150mm q factor for the external BB with CX/road cranks can be too low for frame (heel) clearance and riders don't feel the need to go as low as possible q factor when offroad.
for road bikes the lowest q factor is only available with square taper or with the very expensive alternatives to the external bottom bracket.
square taper is just fine for regular road use. just a bit heavier than external BB but cheap and easy to work with.
when offroad the main advantage of the external bottom bracket (like hollowtech II) is the weight being reduced and/or the durability when doing stuff like high drops etc - octalink or isis cranks being not lighter than taper but somehow more durable as an interface. most of the usual cranks have 175-180 (they are so because most want them being wide enough) which is too high for my liking. i would install an external bottom bracket and road/cx cranks because i am used to ride high cadences and hate doing so with 175-180mm if the frame can take less.
have in mind that installing external BB cranks can get you problems with an older frame that has not proper facing - not built in order to have that. it's not easy to face the surfaces of the frame for the external BB to press on uniformly.
so, there, elaborated on the initial reply... cheap, easier to work with... and lower q factor compared to what most people think is always better - which is the external BB.
it's not only aerodynamics but also the biomechanics. some people could have larger butts and therefore tolerate more q factor and also need wider seats. that would go along with lower cadence.
you might need a bit more width in q factor to better maneuver when offroad at the cost of pedals more closer to hitting the ground.
taper is of not much benefit other than being cheap/available as the 150mm q factor for the external BB with CX/road cranks can be too low for frame (heel) clearance and riders don't feel the need to go as low as possible q factor when offroad.
for road bikes the lowest q factor is only available with square taper or with the very expensive alternatives to the external bottom bracket.
square taper is just fine for regular road use. just a bit heavier than external BB but cheap and easy to work with.
when offroad the main advantage of the external bottom bracket (like hollowtech II) is the weight being reduced and/or the durability when doing stuff like high drops etc - octalink or isis cranks being not lighter than taper but somehow more durable as an interface. most of the usual cranks have 175-180 (they are so because most want them being wide enough) which is too high for my liking. i would install an external bottom bracket and road/cx cranks because i am used to ride high cadences and hate doing so with 175-180mm if the frame can take less.
have in mind that installing external BB cranks can get you problems with an older frame that has not proper facing - not built in order to have that. it's not easy to face the surfaces of the frame for the external BB to press on uniformly.
so, there, elaborated on the initial reply... cheap, easier to work with... and lower q factor compared to what most people think is always better - which is the external BB.
#49
Senior Member
I use campy square taper on all my bikes to great success. I prefer the q-factor, and reliability compared to the failures in through axle bearings my friends suffer from. I use campy record 102mm bb's on my road, mtb, touring bikes, and gravel bikes. Perhaps, every once and a while, a bearing might go out (After about 5-10k). This is very rare compared to the bearing failures my friends with the latest incarnation of through axles experience. In my 49 years of riding, I have never experienced (or heard of) a catastrophic square taper failure of any sort in either the cranks or spindle. I did snap a hollow single piece bmx crank when I was a kid. Tonight is the first time I have heard of such square taper failures. I have experienced bent square taper axles from jumping off large drop offs back in the late 1980's using cheap long spindles.
Never a crank or spindle failure.
I have also worked in a number of bike shops in my life. I never saw a failure come through any of those shops either.
Also a teenager, I even have REEMED out the square taper portion of cranks to cinch them in tighter on the spindles (not recommended). Never a failure there either- granted, some could never be tightened enough and would work loose because of my "engineering", but never a failure.
G@# help us all.
R
Never a crank or spindle failure.
I have also worked in a number of bike shops in my life. I never saw a failure come through any of those shops either.
Also a teenager, I even have REEMED out the square taper portion of cranks to cinch them in tighter on the spindles (not recommended). Never a failure there either- granted, some could never be tightened enough and would work loose because of my "engineering", but never a failure.
G@# help us all.
R
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jasonyates
Singlespeed & Fixed Gear
31
05-22-13 02:32 AM
cal_gundert05
Singlespeed & Fixed Gear
8
12-11-10 12:30 AM