Hondo6

pastorbobnlnh , @rhm: out of curiosity, just how much leather would be required to recover an existing saddle? Would a 9" x 40" panel do it?

I ask, because I ran across a source for a a red panel of veg tanned, croc-embossed red leather, 1mm thick, in that size (9" x 40") for what appears to be a semi-reasonable price (~$40) - plus S/H, of course, so the total will be more. But if that won't work, I won't get anyone "spun up" by posting the info.

AdventureManCO 

Thomson post, too.

To everyone else: It's a fun game. I dare you to play along as well!

cudak888 

That's what's known as my "I don't want to crash via seatpost failure, so I have an excuse for this one expensive part" insurance.

-Kurt

AdventureManCO 

AdventureManCO 

I have zero excuses for any of my expensive parts. Ya got me one'upped for sure.

AdventureManCO 

Welp, heading to bed soon. No actual work done on the bike, not that any of you are surprised.

But, today was still a big day because I finally ordered what should be the last round of parts for it, including a few taps to get things fabricated. Apart from that, not telling what it was, since I'm giving nothing away - can't ruin the surprise (NO, I didn't get an upgraded frame, and if I did it still wouldn't have been as expensive as it was). It was expensive, at least relatively speaking, since it was several times the cost of the bike. Lol what a money dump this thing is. At least we're having fun. At least y'all are having fun. I'm the one that has to build this thing.


EDIT: I realized I never updated Mad Honk -




You know, now that I think about it, I am a little concerned about the BB spacing - with these cups, if the flanges are, let's say 2.5mm each, that is 5mm extra we are adding to the width, and I'm not sure how much the axle can overcome. We will know soon, as soon as we mount these in the frame and do a test run of our bottom bracket spindle.

smd4

After seeing the pictures, I was just going to say...

jdawginsc 

It's funny, I had asked MH just that a few conversations ago and wondered if you might have to get an Italian spindle...but it actually might come out okay. I am pretty sure that the entire reason for the ashtabula conversion cups was so standard bottom bracket units would work.

rhm

I'm doubtful, but it depends on the saddle you want to recover.

1mm thick is about right for upholstery, so might work for a (narrow) Unicanitor or similar saddle with a leather cover over a plastic shell. For something like that, you want at least an inch extra width so you have something to tuck underneath the edges and glue down with contact cement. Basically, you trace the saddle outline onto the leather, then add about an inch all the way around. You can skimp a little here and there, but you need enough extra to glue around underneath. But I'm not sure veg-tanned leather is right for that.

Veg-tanned leather is indeed what you want if you're covering a Brooks-style frame, but 1mm is way too thin (or, to be precise, way way way too thin). The stuff i use is between 5 and 7 mm thick.

Mad Honk 

I think I must have total recall sometimes. If I 'memeber correctly, I covered the size measurements for the assembly with a spindle in place way back in post number 649. It might be worth checking the specs from that posting. Smiles, MH

AdventureManCO 

Y'all are gonna have to help a brother out...does getting an 'Italian' spindle mean something different that what I currently have? Is it a tad longer? Mad Honk I took a look at post #649 but not sure how to make sense of it in relation to the Huffy's bottom bracket. Is that a different BB shell adapter? Was that post alluding to a concern that the O.M.A.S. wasn't going to work? Is that spindle (in the picture) that has a similar or different length than a standard Campy spindle? I'm confused about all this stuff.

I'll measure the BB shell width that the BB came out of, and compare that to the width of the Huffy's BB. I'll see if I can mock it up outside the frame and see where we are at. In a pinch, I probably have some Shimano BBs that are longer than the Campy one and fit a 73mm shell rather than a 68. But using Shimano on the Campy Huffy project? It's sacrilege! But the project is already sacriledge, so does that mean its 2x the offensiveness or a double negative that cancels out???

Mad Honk 

I used a Black Ops converter to make those measurements, but the outer dimensions are the same regardless of the converter used. The width of the Huffy bb shell just needs to be the same as the dimension I posted. If so you should not need a different spindle. If shorter you will be fine. If longer it may need a longer spindle. The biggest issue is whether the crank arms clear the chain stays. If not a longer spindle will be in order. I have them available, but you should install the crank first and see what it does. If Q-line is incorrect we may need to find a spindle that will correct that. Many issues that can come into play, but are not insurmountable. Smiles, MH

Now if you want I can make the same measurements with either a Tru-Vative adaptor or a 1978 BMX one I have on hand as well. Lemme know.

smd4

Absolutely! It’ll be riledge!

Hondo6

Short answer: yes, if you have an English/ISO shell spindle the equivalent Ital spindle will be longer. Ital BB shell is 70mm vice 68mm for typical English/ISO BB shell. Ital spindle generally will be around 2mm longer; typically, the extra distance is added in center section of spindle.

Careful. Shimano (and other Asian) spindles will be JIS taper; Campagnolo cranks will be ISO/Campy taper. This will affect chainline by about 2mm or so (and will also move NDS outboard the same amount). In some cases mixing tapers can result in a crank "bottoming out" on the spindle. The latter (crank bottoming out) is not a "good thing".

The Sheldon Brown and Rene Hearse websites have discussions regarding the effect of mixing tapers. Let me know if you can't find them, and I'll dig up and post the URLs.

AdventureManCO 

Okay y'all, help me make sense of this. Due to the fact that the BB adapter pushes out the OAL of the bottom bracket 'system' by about 4-5mm, it appears as though our spindle is too narrow, at least when it comes to where the bearings rest.

Here is what I'm seeing -


Here is where the BB came from. Shell measures 2.687



The Huffy's shell is narrower, but not by much - 2.630



Here is what 2.630 looks like on the BB and adapter.




Here is another shot of the overhang.

So basically, with the bearings tight against the BB cups, we've got about 3-4mm of distance to overcome. Almost like I need a 73mm axle.

It begs the question - do I ditch the Campy BB altogether and go custom? Eventually I'd like to move to a ti spindle and lighten 'er up a bit.

Reading up on ISO vs JIS. Probably would be smarter to stay ISO. Let me see if I can measure what OAL spindle I need. Definitely looking for something a little wider on the bearings, but we are not quite sure yet about the spacing and chainline.

I have been reading that some BBs had adjustable cups on both sides - seems like a good way to adjust chainline. Anyone have an experience with a BB like that, or any issues come to mind?

While I have no budget, there may be a silver lining. A friend gave me a bike (Gary Fisher) and it has a bunch of vintage 90s anodized Ringle gear in great shape. He is not attached to the bike at all, and I have no attachment to vintage MTB parts, and I'd be afraid to mess them up anyway, so I'm thinking if I can sell them on the 'bay, that will help fund all this ridiculous stuff with this bike.


Oh, one more random question - since JIS is technically slightly larger than ISO, is it at all possible to convert a JIS spindle to ISO via careful removal of material?

Mad Honk 

Until you put the thing together we won't know. If you do need a different spindle like a 70mm Campy, I have it here, but you need to show us the chain line clearance before we make a determination. It could even need a Campy 70mm spindle for a triple but it only can be determined after assembly. Smiles, MH

cudak888 

Face 5mm or so off the Huffy's BB, install adapter, done.

Avoid wasting time and money just to adapt non-Campagnolo travesties such as a non-matching bottom bracket spindle (the horror!) to this rolling piece of craftsmanship (also "the horror!").

-Kurt

sbarner 

The rifled Nuovo Record cups required the bearing races on the spindle to be moved inward slightly for clearance. Campy engineers thought that this would result in too much cantilever when the spindle was extended even farther for the triple, so that one was never available with the Nuovo Record cups. Ditto for the track BB where stiffness and strength were important and keeping out road grime was a non-issue. The skinny is that you could get a triple spindle, combine it with your rifled Nuovo Record cups, and gain a few mm of BB width. The chainline might be off compared to what it should be, but well within the ±1" tolerance for a Huffy. Heck, it might even improve things. A pre-1967 Record or later Gran Sport spindle might work as well, as they used thin cups, but they are probably harder to find than the triple spindle, which is expensive enough on its own when decent ones turn up. A triple Italian spindle is even rarer, but would add another 2mm between the spindle races. Athena and Chorus BBs also used thin cups, but the spindles were shorter as I recall.

AdventureManCO 

Ah!!! So I DO need a BB facing tool (+ $$$$$$ wide cutter) after all! I'm going to bask in the loveliness of knowing that I wasn't completely insane for wanting such a tool.


Nah, it's still crazy.


I like this idea, and it would remove EVEN MORE weight off of the Huffy frame, but where the heck am I going to find anything that will mill away 5mm of steel off that BB?

Here are the options:

1. Try to use existing spidle. Mad Honk hinted at this and thought it would be okay, just maybe create clearance issues with the crank arms. For sake of argument, let's say that clearances are okay. The main issue I'm seeing is that by effectively adding 5mm to the OAL of the shell (via the added width of the adapter cup lips), it means that the NDS Campy cup may get buried in the adapter to be able to snug up the bearings, and leave me nowhere for the lockring to attach, as now all the threads are hidden. Does Campy make a 'deeper' NDS cup w/ more threads? We can get around this issue, as cudak888 pointed out, by facing the BB...but to get the tool to do that, I'd need to make friends w/ both a real estate mogul AND oil tycoon.

2. Get a longer spindle. sbarner pointed out that these are available, but possibly rare, or less than ideal? Is 2mm enough to do it, when 4-5mm is the extra length we've got? For sure, it would help...but chainline...who knows what that is going to end up like! But, also, who cares? It's a Huffy! Ahh, that is the real beauty of this project

3. Ditch the Huffy Campy altogether and go with a BB that is going to be a direct fit w/out brain damage. I guess some brain damage is inevitable w/ sorting lengths to avoid chainline issues, etc, but not necessarily if I find a 73mm bb that has adjustable cups on both sides. I'm finding some good options for titanium spindles, and so why not just get some Phil Wood 6903s and call it a day.


Let me do this - the paint has dried enough that I can grab the frame, mill the miters on the internal tubes, and install the cups. I need to get that done anyway. That way, we can then play around w/ chainline, spindle lengths, etc. I can get lots of pictures and see where we are ending up. Once we have the final (correct) spindle length, and our clearances, we should be good to move forward w/ a solution. Let me take care of that today when I get home and I'll get some pictures up for y'all's discerning eyes!

The Huffy continues to balk, complain, and grumble. Campy is going to go on, but I think its going to happen kicking and screaming...

cudak888 

1. There's got to be someone in Colorado who's been smoking enough weed to be inspired to face an Ashtabula BB in the spirit of this middle finger to frame snobbery.

2. If that person does have a large enough cutter for it, I'll bet it'll be for a PF30 bottom bracket. (Remind me again the diameter of the Ashtabula BB - I've never found the need to bring out any measuring tools for one).

3. If so, you may have to come up with a shim between the cutting tool's centering attachment and the BB so the tool doesn't flop around from center while spinning. If you can control this motion and keep it centered while the cutter chews off a chunk of LeBland, you're home free.

-Kurt

Mad Honk 

I think the movie title "High Anxiety" might apply here. But Dr. Honk may have a bit of a solution for you...

Perhaps a different Bottom Bracket altogether, just which one to choose?

Or maybe just a spindle change? Like an English triple...

Or even an Italian triple... many choices and which one to use skinning this cat?
However, the only way to tell is by actually putting a couple of parts on the Huffy. Maybe we might even hit 1000 posts before any meaningful applications of parts and checking chain line and q factors with the crank arms. Do the arms actually exist? I'm wondering. Smiles, MH

Eric F 

That was my first thought, too, but the previous mention by Mad Honk about cranks clearing the chainstays is an important detail that needs to be verified first.

cudak888 

Any Mel Brooks reference this early in the morning is fine by me, even on an unlisted wall.

Very valid point, but that should be easy enough to calculate at this point, no? All we need is the distance the respective (pre or post CPSC) Nuovo crankarm rear edge sits from the outside of the bottom bracket cup approximately 180mm or so from the centerline. Transfer that measurement to the Huffy's BB, adding the width of the adapter to the calculation. If it's safely over the minimum distance, face away. Same for the LH too.

I wonder if there really will be any issue given how spindly the stays are on these frames + how close inboard the original chainring set sat to the BB.

-Kurt

RB1-luvr

a fourth option was left off that list: (snicker)

cudak888 

I love the smell of non-parallel bearing faces.

-Kurt