SethB

Funny you say that. Just got off the phone with one, no dice. But yeah thank you. Definitely gave me the idea to look around! Its just such a unique measurement, nobody keeps it in stock.

WizardOfBoz

The 19BSW07 is a metric bearing. Dimensions here:
https://bearingsize.info/catalogue-o...obj152914.html
They appear to be used in automotive steering mechanisms. Frustrating knowing that a good manufacture of high quality bearings makes the thing, but one can't find it! As I said, I googled 32mm x 19mm x 7mm bearing and Amazon claimed to have something like it (see URL above).

Possible, but 6804 bearings are pretty widely available. Given the extra play in the 19mm spindle vs 20mm bore, I think you could end up damaging the frame, and front derailleur if things "went South". I think its less likely that things will go South with a functioning bearing even if the bore is oversize. I'd make the effort to at least get functioning 6804. Also, if you LIKE the FSA crank it would probably be nice to keep it.

If you are really handy, get the 6804 bearing and buy some 0.5mm stainless shim. Trim the shim with shears and use it between the spindle and the bearing. You can buy a 12" section for less that 4 bucks here:
https://www.mcmaster.com/2300a15

This might be your most cost-effective approach. A pair of standard, widely available 6804 2RS, with shims to eliminate the play.




Good luck.

DOS

This is what I thought too but then checked the MR129 marking on OP’s bearing and came across this...https://www.airevelobearings.com/pro...steel-bearing/ and another similar listing

This is the only case I have encountered where a 4 digit bearing code is being used on two different size bearings, and it seems to be in the specific context of FSA. More evidence of FSA practices to ensure captive audience. Who thought it a good idea to apply 6804 to a bearing that has a 19mm internal diameter, I do not know. It seems totally inconsistent with industry practice.

WizardOfBoz

DOS, it sounds like you know what you're talking about wrt industry practices. But good heavens, this gets worse! The MR129 variant that FSA specified/designed/used has a TAPERED inner diameter. What fresh hell is this? Talk about inconsistent with industry practice.

But at least there appears to be a source for the correct bearing that you found. Bravo.

One thing this episode brings out is the market's gullibility in accepting any odd design as being "the new, best design", and not thinking at all of standardization. We (as consumers) should be very skeptical of what the bike makers and parts makers are trying to foist off on us. I may start riding my 1978 Schwinn Superior more, and my CF Trek Domane less. (The Domane's fatal non-standardization is its seatpost. That is its seat sleeve. The frame has a post sticking up, and the thing that holds the seat fits over it like, well, a condom. And I'm not sure that you can buy replacement seat sleeves).

This is what some yahoo in marketing came up with: note the taper.

WizardOfBoz

And one more view, from air velo bearings Europe. Clearly, so non-standard that you can't use any other bearing. My idea to use a 6804 with a shim might be unworkable. Not sure, because we don't know the bore of the larger ID. But clearly, there's a shoulder on the spindle.

Interesting that the FSA crank had such a poor reputation for reliability and efficiency, before even considering this supremely anti-customer design. Further, these bearings go for about 7-8 Euro. Less than ten bucks, anyway. Who the heck decided to make a ten dollar part non-standard, hard to make and source, and incredibly hard to find? What jerks they are at FSA.

DOS

I am with you on nonstandardization. I avoid it whenever possible. I am happy with my 27.2mm seatposts and chose against Chris King hubs in favor of White Industries primarily because the latter uses easy to get standard bearings (although I have to say the CK Hub design is kinda cool).

WizardOfBoz

DOS, its pretty clear you go into these decisions more informed than most buyers. Clearly a lot of bicycles are sold with cool "features" that in truth have marginal, if any performance advantages and end up being disadvantages in maintenance or reliability. And most consumers don't have a clue until they have to find a part that's not available. As I pointed out above, I'm really concerned about replacing that seatpost eventually. So this got me, and I consider myself reasonably sophisticated (but dated) regarding bike stuff.

CK stuff is aesthetically pleasing. Very much akin to the Campy Nuovo Record stuff in the 70s. The latter had notably better finish and anodizing and had the Italian eye for style. And most Campy stuff (and, as I understand it, CK stuff) were at the top of the performance curve. But even Campy sacrificed performance for novelty (can we all repeat, in unison, "Delta brakes"?). And tradition and being enamored of the simple beauty of their straight parallogram Nuovo record kept them from introducing the slanted parallelogram RD, ceding that advantage to Sun Tour.

The point is that, while novel design and improvement is sometimes and advance, most of the time its a marketing ploy. And most consumers are ill-equipped to judge between truly useful innovation and, well, the opposite type of innovation.

Going back the this design, you have 1) A non-standard part needed in manufacturing (higher cost, fewer sources), 2) A non-symmetrical part requiring orientation during installation, 3) in aftermarket/replacement, you've forced the consumer to search for a replacement that's scarce and hard to find and non-standard, 4) You (FSA) don't offer the replacement bearings in anyplace that I can see, and 5) the part IS available elsewhere and is not a high-cost part (so you can't rake in the dough for charging, for example, 50 dollars for a 4 dollar bearing as the market offers these things at 8 bucks).
I just see no win here, for anyone. Almost like the designers went out of their way to be stupid. As an engineer, this really bugs me. As you can probably tell!

SethB

Replying to all you guys - I wonder what that "taper/notch" is designed for? Plus, now since it has that, I wonder what the other side is (can't check bike is at LBS. Patiently*anxiously* waiting for them to call saying "Hey we had the bearing. You are good to go ) But I doubt they will.

But if that notch/taper is for non-drive, what is the drive side? Could I just use the same bearing and flip it? I did find the bearing online from Aliexpress, seems to be the quickest delivery. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3273...5560351fyD76Nk

If LBS can't do anything, this is my plan -
Order above from aliexpress - Refit old bearing - Load a lot of grease onto spindle where old bearing sits (prevent as much damage to spindle as possible) - Use bike until new bearing gets here - Keep cleaning/regreasing spindle weekly

But, lets hope LBS does something awesome.

I completely agree with all you guys about designers making non-standard things for their products. I see it everywhere. I like to fix my own stuff, all the way from replacing the motherboard on my tablet PC to the transmission on my Saab. Nothing stops me, except non standard BS from designers

Also, if you google 6804/19 you can find sites that call it a "non standard" 6804 bearing. Ha.

andrewclaus

You mentioned at first that you banged the bearing out with a bolt. Presumably that means you worked side-to-side. I recently heard that one can ruin the frame doing that. The new bearing may not press tightly into the shell.

I had a similar issue with a 19 mm FSA bearing. I made a "rocket tool" out of a piece of 1/2" EMT (conveniently 18 mm OD) and that worked fine. Luckily I heard/felt the bearing in the early stages of problems, cleaned and greased it, and it's working okay so far. I pressed it back in with threaded rod and an assortment of sockets and washers.

dsaul

This appears to be the bottom bracket that you need for that frame and crankset.
https://www.fsaproshop.com/FSA_PRODU...acket-Parts_90

DOS

You can bang out bearings with a punch without too much worry of damaging the shell. But in OPs case, he has a BB whee the bearings are in cups which are then pressed into the frame shell. Those cups aren’t designed to have bearing banged in and out of them, they are designed to be replaced as a unit, so they could be damaged when replacing the bearings.

WizardOfBoz

So the issue is that FSA markets a fabricated BB that includes the cartridge bearings we are talking about. The OP pulled the bearings but it would have probably been easier to pull the BB assembly.
The frame is marked BB-ALM92 Φ19
This indicates a PF92 BB, and corresponds to an FSA part number. See here for FSA part numbers.
The BB assembly is available on Amazon here, for less than 28 bucks. I'd just buy the BB assembly, but we've been talking about replacing non-standard cartridge bearings..

To the OP, as I say, I'd just buy the FSA BB-ALM92 Φ19 assembly. But, you asked about the nonstandard aspects of the cartridges. First, it is marked as a 6804 and should have a 20mm bore, but it has a 19mm bore. Second, and you specifically asked about this, there is a nonstandard aspect of the inner race where there is a shoulder cut into one side. Ostensibly this was added to avoid a shoulder or a contact point. This is why one of the variants offered as a replacement just has a taper, and not a shoulder cut into it. A taper is easier to turn on a lathe. As my diatribes above point out, the skeptic's view is that the shoulder/taper was also used to make field replacement with standard parts difficult.

If you want to persevere and just replace the cartridge, I suspect you'll have to buy that special bearing that's 19mm, with a shoulder or taper. Some sources are listed above. You could try a standard 6804 bearing with a shim and it ***might*** work, but every time you pulled the crank you'd have to re-fit the shim. After you get the bearings, press them into the BB92 cups. First point: make sure that the shoulder goes on the correct side! Second point: Make sure that you don't put axial force through the bearings. That is, one does not press the outer race of a bearing into a bearing seat by pressing on the inner race. The ideal setup would be an arbor press and a large socket whose OD matches the bearing OD. This presses just the race in, with no force transmitted through the balls and inner race.

I learned something about nonstandard bearings in this thread. But the conclusion I drew was read the details. It was interesting to find that the BB-ALM92 Φ19 is an actual FSA part number!
I feel especially idiotic as this what dsaul stated would be the best approach oh so many posts ago. But its all good: I learned something about BBs and bearings.

SethB

Here's what I ordered: https://www.ebay.com/itm/FSA-MegaExo...QAAOSwktRdpb7x

Should be here Tuesday. Fastest option available. Was wanting to go cheap and order just bearings, but that will take forever. So LBS took old one out, might replace and extract the old one for practice.

Thanks all. Looks like a washer and bolt should do the trick to get it in. I can press on the cup itself, since it stays out of the frame a little. A washer oversized should suffice.

WizardOfBoz

The washer idea will probably work, but the best approach would involve not putting any force on the inner race. Good luck. Nice that you don't have to replace your crank.

SethB

So the washer was so big it was larger than the cups, no pressure was put on the bearings. I got it back in and all is good. No issues at all. Also, mineral spirits are incredible when it comes to cleaning things ha. Everything is all nice and clean with fresh grease/chain lube!!

Thanks everyone for the help!

EDIT: I forgot to mention, the new cups were plastic, so I stopped cranking on the bolt once I saw the edges go against the frame.. I am wondering why they went with plastic when the old ones were metal?

WizardOfBoz

Excellent!

A couple of things I learned: FSA supplies the entire BB, so the non-standard bearings are not as much of an issue to the consumer. Still, I wonder why they chose 19mm when 20mm gives you a standard bearing, a bigger, stiffer crank spindle, and less complex manufacturing. Ah well.

A point about min spirits. I agree that they work well on grease and oil. They're pretty benign, but probably best to use rubber gloves when you use them.

Last, I suspect that the driving force for plastic vs metal is cost. On the plus side, you have the metal washer, right? And it's really, really clean now! So you could continue to use that.

SethB

I always wear rubber gloves when dealing with grease/dirt. I hate dirty hands, especially under the finger nails. But yeah, its pretty strong stuff. I do love it now haha. I also filtered it to be able to reuse it again.

FSA Should have gone with the standard bearing, I 100% agree. I guess too much damage can come from popping out the bearings from the cups, especially now that it is plastic. So, its just annoying for costs haha. I also learned that neglect has its price I couldn't even shift when I started riding again that's how bad it was. But in a basement, I made the false assumption of thinking it would be okay cause its not getting wet - oops. Moisture in air Seth duh ha.

But thanks all for the incredible help! Now to figure out why I jump cogs when the back lands from a jump, or I go over extremely bumpy terrain (ie roots)