Press fit external bb Phil Wood bearings for Klein
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times
in
312 Posts
Press fit external bb Phil Wood bearings for Klein
I’m moving forward with building up this pre-Trek Klein Quantum road bike build. I want to run modern Shimano Cranks so the factory bearings with square taper bottom bracket were removed (by me).
Phil Wood makes pressfit bearings for Klein so I bought a set. They were about $160. I was getting ready to just use a bottom bracket (or headset) bearing press with the appropriate size press bushings so that I don’t damage the bearings. I have a Wheels Manufacturing deluxe bottom bracket bearing press that has these all purpose stepped bushings but these look like none of them will work.
So I called the service department at Phil Wood and talked to Leroy just now. I told him that I got no instruction sheet with the pressfit bearings. I told him that I assumed that they were “plug and play” for the Klein road 75.5mm proprietary bottom bracket shell. He immediately said that the bb shell will need to be faced down to 68mm, that 4mm will have to be faced from each side by a bike shop that knows what they are doing.
He apologized for the sales department not explaining this important detail to me.
He he said that if I run modern Shimano mountain cranks then I could face the bb down to 73mm- much less material to remove. I told him that for road use, I need a big chainring of at least 50 teeth.
I’m sort of bummed that my project has this (latest) setback. I believe that Leroy knows what he is talking about but I worry that shaving 8 mm of aluminum off my frame is going to mess it up in a way that will make for no turning back.
He said that if I just pressed the cups in as-is into the 76mm bb shell, that when I tighten the crank arms down I will damage the bearings. I told him that I thought the geometry of these external press fit cups was thinner than a comparable Shimano external bottom bracket bearing to account for the wider bb shell. He maintained that for road, that shell needs to come down to 68mm.
This bums me out to the point where I might just reinstall my Klein square taper bb and install a Dura Ace 7410 square taper crank with some 52x38 chainrings and run that setup instead.
If any of the vintage Klein folks have done this bb bearing conversion and can speak to the need to face the bottom bracket - I would really appreciate you sharing your experiences about the process....
Regards, from Bill.
Last edited by masi61; 01-11-19 at 03:55 PM.
#2
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,170
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1554 Post(s)
Liked 1,273 Times
in
845 Posts
It sounds like the "Phil Wood pressfit bearings" are actually bearings contained in external cups.
It's pretty obvious that external bottom bracket bearings need a certain amount of width to support a durable-enough width of bearing.
The Shimano crankset gives 86mm of spindle length to accommodate that total width of bb shell and cups. That's equal to 68mm of shell plus only 9mm of bearing/cup on each end, and the 9mm isn't something that you can take away from.
How about finding direct-fit bearings with a 24mm ID to press-fit into your bb shell?
I'm not sure if the 76mm (instead of the intended 86mm) outside width of installed-flush bearings would properly support the spindle. But what about if possibly-wider bearings could be installed which overhang the bb shell by at least some of the 5mm deficit on each side? It's a matter then of perhaps finding the "right" bearing for the job, and the ideal bearing would be one which had a widened outer race that allowed for the bearing to be somewhat offset from the bearing's seating area in the bb shell.
As far as re-installing the Klein bb with a 7410 crankset, sounds like an ideal solution as long as you have or can source the appropriate 103mm JIS spindle.
It's pretty obvious that external bottom bracket bearings need a certain amount of width to support a durable-enough width of bearing.
The Shimano crankset gives 86mm of spindle length to accommodate that total width of bb shell and cups. That's equal to 68mm of shell plus only 9mm of bearing/cup on each end, and the 9mm isn't something that you can take away from.
How about finding direct-fit bearings with a 24mm ID to press-fit into your bb shell?
I'm not sure if the 76mm (instead of the intended 86mm) outside width of installed-flush bearings would properly support the spindle. But what about if possibly-wider bearings could be installed which overhang the bb shell by at least some of the 5mm deficit on each side? It's a matter then of perhaps finding the "right" bearing for the job, and the ideal bearing would be one which had a widened outer race that allowed for the bearing to be somewhat offset from the bearing's seating area in the bb shell.
As far as re-installing the Klein bb with a 7410 crankset, sounds like an ideal solution as long as you have or can source the appropriate 103mm JIS spindle.
Last edited by dddd; 01-11-19 at 03:57 PM.
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times
in
312 Posts
It sounds like the "Phil Wood pressfit bearings" are actually bearings contained in external cups.
It's pretty obvious that external bottom bracket bearings need a certain amount of width to support a durable-enough width of bearing.
The Shimano crankset gives 86mm of spindle length to accommodate that total width of bb shell and cups. That's equal to 68mm of shell plus only 9mm of bearing/cup on each end, and the 9mm isn't something that you can take away from.
How about finding direct-fit bearings with a 24mm ID to press-fit into your bb shell?
I'm not sure if the 76mm (instead of the intended 86mm) outside width of installed-flush bearings would properly support the spindle. But what about if possibly-wider bearings could be installed which overhang the bb shell by at least some of the 5mm deficit on each side? It's a matter then of perhaps finding the "right" bearing for the job, and the ideal bearing would be one which had a widened outer race that allowed for the bearing to be somewhat offset from the bearing's seating area in the bb shell.
As far as re-installing the Klein bb with a 7410 crankset, sounds like an ideal solution as long as you have or can source the appropriate 103mm JIS spindle.
It's pretty obvious that external bottom bracket bearings need a certain amount of width to support a durable-enough width of bearing.
The Shimano crankset gives 86mm of spindle length to accommodate that total width of bb shell and cups. That's equal to 68mm of shell plus only 9mm of bearing/cup on each end, and the 9mm isn't something that you can take away from.
How about finding direct-fit bearings with a 24mm ID to press-fit into your bb shell?
I'm not sure if the 76mm (instead of the intended 86mm) outside width of installed-flush bearings would properly support the spindle. But what about if possibly-wider bearings could be installed which overhang the bb shell by at least some of the 5mm deficit on each side? It's a matter then of perhaps finding the "right" bearing for the job, and the ideal bearing would be one which had a widened outer race that allowed for the bearing to be somewhat offset from the bearing's seating area in the bb shell.
As far as re-installing the Klein bb with a 7410 crankset, sounds like an ideal solution as long as you have or can source the appropriate 103mm JIS spindle.
If the numbers point point to the shell being faced 4mm off each side like he said, I’m just curious to what extent is the facing going to get close to the aluminum tube welds?
#4
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,170
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1554 Post(s)
Liked 1,273 Times
in
845 Posts
The whole idea of external bearings is to allow bigger-OD bearings to be used, and to place the bearings in a wider stance to reduce loading.
So the bearings can't be part way in the shell if there is a cup, since the cup has a thickness to it between the bb shell and the bearing.
That's why I suggested the possibility of finding a bearing that mounts without a cup, so that it can be part way in the shell. This would make the most of the available space if you don't want to face down the shell.
On my Klein, there is more than 4mm that can be removed without touching the weld, so there seems no harm in cutting it down if the Phil bb is a good one and if the job is done with proper care.
So the bearings can't be part way in the shell if there is a cup, since the cup has a thickness to it between the bb shell and the bearing.
That's why I suggested the possibility of finding a bearing that mounts without a cup, so that it can be part way in the shell. This would make the most of the available space if you don't want to face down the shell.
On my Klein, there is more than 4mm that can be removed without touching the weld, so there seems no harm in cutting it down if the Phil bb is a good one and if the job is done with proper care.
#5
Full Member
I have a coupla pre-Trek Kleins which I run with JIS-square taper bottom bracket spindles and cranks and Phil Wood press-in bearings PW003 ID 17mm OD 35mm W 10mm
But I guess that's not what you're looking to do.
But I guess that's not what you're looking to do.
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times
in
312 Posts
Is the BB spindle you’re using specifically for Klein?
And did you press in the PW003 bearings yourself?
#7
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,170
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1554 Post(s)
Liked 1,273 Times
in
845 Posts
If you can find bearings that are 24mm ID x 35mm OD and 10mm wide,they could be pressed in to a depth of 5mm, and the width outside of the bearings would then be 86mm as needed to install the Shimano Hollowtech crank without spacers.
You could also press in the bearings to a slightly greater 7mm depth and use a 2mm spacer on each side to again replicate the 86mm width. You could make a spacer of any thickness to be used only during the press-fitting process to control the depth of the bearings in the frame.
The bearings by themselves are inexpensive, so this is what I would probably do if I could find the 24mm x 35mm bearing I needed.
So as I said before, it's a matter of finding the right bearing for the job, search effort required most likely outside of the bicycle industry.
You could also press in the bearings to a slightly greater 7mm depth and use a 2mm spacer on each side to again replicate the 86mm width. You could make a spacer of any thickness to be used only during the press-fitting process to control the depth of the bearings in the frame.
The bearings by themselves are inexpensive, so this is what I would probably do if I could find the 24mm x 35mm bearing I needed.
So as I said before, it's a matter of finding the right bearing for the job, search effort required most likely outside of the bicycle industry.
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times
in
312 Posts
Well I just measured the width of the Phil Wood bottom bracket cups and they are 8.7mm wide per side.
I just checked my other road bike with a Dura Ace 7800 crank with 68mm English bottom bracket and Dura Ace 9000 bottom bracket. The 9000 bottom bracket cups protrude 11.8mm per side. So 11.8mm + 11.8mm + 68mm = 91.6mm width.
Comparing that that to the Klein it is 8.7mm +8.7mm + 75.5mm = 92.9mm width.
Or... 1.3mm wider for the Klein. That’s just under 0.7mm wider per side. Hardly the 4mm per side that would need to be professionally faced off with Campagnolo bottom bracket facing Tools. I think I’m going to take what Leroy said with a grain of salt and press these cups in with some grease and try out my Shimano crank. I suspect that the left splined side will have some leeway with the plastic pre-load set screw that you tighten the preload on.
I don’t have a specialty tool for removing press fit cups. If I test fit this as outlined above and find that it isn’t right, what procedure would be used to knock the bottom bracket cups back out again?
I just checked my other road bike with a Dura Ace 7800 crank with 68mm English bottom bracket and Dura Ace 9000 bottom bracket. The 9000 bottom bracket cups protrude 11.8mm per side. So 11.8mm + 11.8mm + 68mm = 91.6mm width.
Comparing that that to the Klein it is 8.7mm +8.7mm + 75.5mm = 92.9mm width.
Or... 1.3mm wider for the Klein. That’s just under 0.7mm wider per side. Hardly the 4mm per side that would need to be professionally faced off with Campagnolo bottom bracket facing Tools. I think I’m going to take what Leroy said with a grain of salt and press these cups in with some grease and try out my Shimano crank. I suspect that the left splined side will have some leeway with the plastic pre-load set screw that you tighten the preload on.
I don’t have a specialty tool for removing press fit cups. If I test fit this as outlined above and find that it isn’t right, what procedure would be used to knock the bottom bracket cups back out again?
#11
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,170
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1554 Post(s)
Liked 1,273 Times
in
845 Posts
Well I just measured the width of the Phil Wood bottom bracket cups and they are 8.7mm wide per side.
I just checked my other road bike with a Dura Ace 7800 crank with 68mm English bottom bracket and Dura Ace 9000 bottom bracket. The 9000 bottom bracket cups protrude 11.8mm per side. So 11.8mm + 11.8mm + 68mm = 91.6mm width.
Comparing that that to the Klein it is 8.7mm +8.7mm + 75.5mm = 92.9mm width.
Or... 1.3mm wider for the Klein. That’s just under 0.7mm wider per side. Hardly the 4mm per side that would need to be professionally faced off with Campagnolo bottom bracket facing Tools. I think I’m going to take what Leroy said with a grain of salt and press these cups in with some grease and try out my Shimano crank. I suspect that the left splined side will have some leeway with the plastic pre-load set screw that you tighten the preload on.
I don’t have a specialty tool for removing press fit cups. If I test fit this as outlined above and find that it isn’t right, what procedure would be used to knock the bottom bracket cups back out again?
I just checked my other road bike with a Dura Ace 7800 crank with 68mm English bottom bracket and Dura Ace 9000 bottom bracket. The 9000 bottom bracket cups protrude 11.8mm per side. So 11.8mm + 11.8mm + 68mm = 91.6mm width.
Comparing that that to the Klein it is 8.7mm +8.7mm + 75.5mm = 92.9mm width.
Or... 1.3mm wider for the Klein. That’s just under 0.7mm wider per side. Hardly the 4mm per side that would need to be professionally faced off with Campagnolo bottom bracket facing Tools. I think I’m going to take what Leroy said with a grain of salt and press these cups in with some grease and try out my Shimano crank. I suspect that the left splined side will have some leeway with the plastic pre-load set screw that you tighten the preload on.
I don’t have a specialty tool for removing press fit cups. If I test fit this as outlined above and find that it isn’t right, what procedure would be used to knock the bottom bracket cups back out again?
The Shimano Hollowtech spline interface is "secured" with a plastic/metal pin retainer that is supposed to fit into the 3mm hole in the splined part of the spindle, to assure that there is sufficient spline engagement before tightening the pinch bolts on the left crankarm.
The outer pinch bolt should be removed so that the retainer can be swung out of the way, and the preload plug then hand-tightened. Then the retainer swings down into place about the inner pinch bolt, with the pin then fitting (or not fitting) into the 3mm hole in the spindle. If the pin lands in the hole, then the outer pinch bolt can be inserted and both bolts torqued repeatedly until they are both tight (tightening one initially tends to loosen the other).
Now, if the pin doesn't fall into the hole, an assessment needs to take place to see how far out of "acceptable" engagement that the splined parts are fitting together.
You would be completely on your own if you decided to either remove the retainer clip or to possibly enlarge the 3mm hole slightly to one side so as to allow the retainer pin to fall into the hole as intended. There is no published data as to how the reliability and safety are affected by using other than the intended amount of splined overlap, and 1.3mm does not sound like much.
Removing the cups is done with a tubular pipe tool with one end splayed in four sections like a headset cup tool, only larger. You could make your own out of metal conduit or could use a drift punch (crude but likely effective).
I would try to take measurements to see how much space can exist between the crankarms WITH the retainer clip pin in the hole in the spindle, then compare to the combined width of the bb shell and the two cups. If it's as close as your numbers suggest, this may work out fine, though the chainline is going to be even further out than it already is in the modern 11s world. So is your frame spacing 130mm already? Longer chainstays (than racing length) would be of help here for reducing chainline angle while using the big chainring, something to consider if you predominantly use the large chainring.
Note that there are also a couple of spacers that typically come installed on Hollowtech cranksets, one looks like a seal and has considerable thickness, perhaps it can be removed (from the inside face of the driveside crankarm)?
The non-driveside arm has a little ring that also acts like a very thin spacer, so see of removing either of these spacers still allows clearance against the face of the bearing on each side.
#12
Full Member
The answer to the second question is "No, I had a shop do it. They had the Klein tool" The shop that did this in Denver is Wheat Ridge Cyclery.
Last edited by randallr; 01-21-19 at 08:14 PM. Reason: add info
#13
Junior Member
apologies for bringing back from the grave a year old thread!
masi61 , did you ever go through with this experiment? after acquiring a 93 quantum ii frameset, i was initially hoping to go through a similar project until i hit the same roadblock discussed here. i think i've honestly reread this thread about 20-odd times.
i recently called phil wood and they gave me the same information provided to you. before calling, i was really hoping they might have had a different answer than what you heard a year ago. just like you, i was told to face down my 76mm bb shell to 73mm and install a compatible crankset, most likely a mtb crank.
your logic on cup specs and bb specs make complete sense. did you proceed with the installation and how did it go?
masi61 , did you ever go through with this experiment? after acquiring a 93 quantum ii frameset, i was initially hoping to go through a similar project until i hit the same roadblock discussed here. i think i've honestly reread this thread about 20-odd times.
i recently called phil wood and they gave me the same information provided to you. before calling, i was really hoping they might have had a different answer than what you heard a year ago. just like you, i was told to face down my 76mm bb shell to 73mm and install a compatible crankset, most likely a mtb crank.
your logic on cup specs and bb specs make complete sense. did you proceed with the installation and how did it go?
#15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times
in
312 Posts
apologies for bringing back from the grave a year old thread!
masi61 , did you ever go through with this experiment? after acquiring a 93 quantum ii frameset, i was initially hoping to go through a similar project until i hit the same roadblock discussed here. i think i've honestly reread this thread about 20-odd times.
i recently called phil wood and they gave me the same information provided to you. before calling, i was really hoping they might have had a different answer than what you heard a year ago. just like you, i was told to face down my 76mm bb shell to 73mm and install a compatible crankset, most likely a mtb crank.
your logic on cup specs and bb specs make complete sense. did you proceed with the installation and how did it go?
masi61 , did you ever go through with this experiment? after acquiring a 93 quantum ii frameset, i was initially hoping to go through a similar project until i hit the same roadblock discussed here. i think i've honestly reread this thread about 20-odd times.
i recently called phil wood and they gave me the same information provided to you. before calling, i was really hoping they might have had a different answer than what you heard a year ago. just like you, i was told to face down my 76mm bb shell to 73mm and install a compatible crankset, most likely a mtb crank.
your logic on cup specs and bb specs make complete sense. did you proceed with the installation and how did it go?
Hopefully your interest will help me push it through. I honestly don’t quite understand the insistence by the person @ Phil Wood that the 76mm bb shell neeeds to be faced to 73mm.
I do have yet another stalled Klein project - a Performance frameset that I purchased that needs to be finished. I bought this charcoal grey with orange decal Performance at a good price with the Phil bottom bracket already installed. So when I’m done I’ll have two Phil Wood external Shimano 24 mm spec external bottom bracket bikes.
Let me go go take a few measurements with my metric dial caliper and I will post some photos and updates very soon. I over diversified myself so to speak in the bike world taking on a multitude of pre-retirement type of bike mechanic projects. I always used to be quite methodical and when I hit a mechanical road block I would resolve the issue with help of my LBS. In this era of bike forums, I must have become more stubborn in my insistence to complete my own projects. Stay tuned...
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Posts: 650
Bikes: '8? Ciocc Mockba 80, '82 Ron Cooper, '84 Allez, '86 Tommasini Racing, '86? Klein Quantum, '87 Ciocc Designer 84, '95 Trek 5500, '98 Litespeed Classic, '98 S-Works Mtb
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked 307 Times
in
121 Posts
I too have great interest in this thread. 'Acquired a Quantum in the past year with the 75.5mm wide bottom bracket. 126mm rear dropouts. Purple paint is near perfect and turns heads. This bike currently has it's original Klein press fit BB and a Chorus crankset with 52-42 chainrings. Refitting to a compact crank without breaking the bank would move this bike from a "wall hanger" to a rider. Indeed, I will "stay tuned.....
Dean
Dean
__________________
Roll Me Up and Smoke Me When I Die
Roll Me Up and Smoke Me When I Die
#17
Junior Member
i actually went ahead with the project. i shaved down the bb shell with a majority of material coming off of the drive side. you are correct that you do not need to reduce the bb shell down to 68mm, unless you want to do more chainline fine tuning. but you do need to face down the bb shell. my shell is now 71.4mm in width comprising of ~3mm off the DS and ~1mm off the NDS.
originally, i didn't think i would need to perform this procedure since the outer cups measure 9mm each and my original ultegra outer cups measure 11.8. through a few more days of research, i found that the crank spindle with ultegra cups in a 68mm bb shell has an install length of ~91.5mm. i also found that the minimum install length of the spindle is 89mm. i couldn't find any literature that stated a min/max spindle length, so i went in with the assumption that 89-91mm were the tolerance limits. this is how i came to the conclusion that i wouldn't need to reduce the shell to 68mm, but i would need to take it down to minimum 73.5mm (73.5 + 9x2 = 91.5).
on closer inspection of the bb shell, i saw that there was a larger protrusion on the DS vs NDS. making some ghetto spacers with cardboard, i estimated out my work to see what chainring clearance would look like. the spacers were fit over the spindle before being placed in the shell for estimating. unfortunately i did not take photos of any of this, but i gained enough confidence that i would be okay.
i used a facing tool to take off the material, and i would say that you need to be incredibly careful that the tool remains true as it can easily gain misalignment with taking off so much material. this happened to me on the DS. you're working the tool so long (as it's not specifically made to take off this much material), but i caught things early and fixed alignment.
once i reduced down to 73.5mm (~2mm off DS), i used my ghetto spacers to check my work. things looked fine and assuming everything was good to go, i pressed in the phil wood bb cups and installed the crankset. after installation, i found i needed to still take more material off. on the ultegra 8000 crankset there's a small plastic key that fits into a hole in the spindle as a safety lock. this lock was not setting into the hole, which was telling me that the bb shell was still too long.
after tapping out the cups, i reevaluated and decided to further reduce shell width by about 1.5mm DS and .5mm NDS.
the crankset is now installed, though i have not had time to further check the chainline as i'm waiting on a few parts that won't be coming in for a month. i did a dirty check and things look fine. if i'm not happy with chainline, i may further reduce by .25mm to .5mm on each to be able to set a bb spacer.
also to note, you will be cutting into the serial number for this procedure. be sure to write down and save your serial number, if this is important to you.
images
ghetto spacers that are about 8mm thick
plastic lock piece on crankset
hole that plastic lock piece locks into
reduced bb shell
crankset installed into shell
originally, i didn't think i would need to perform this procedure since the outer cups measure 9mm each and my original ultegra outer cups measure 11.8. through a few more days of research, i found that the crank spindle with ultegra cups in a 68mm bb shell has an install length of ~91.5mm. i also found that the minimum install length of the spindle is 89mm. i couldn't find any literature that stated a min/max spindle length, so i went in with the assumption that 89-91mm were the tolerance limits. this is how i came to the conclusion that i wouldn't need to reduce the shell to 68mm, but i would need to take it down to minimum 73.5mm (73.5 + 9x2 = 91.5).
on closer inspection of the bb shell, i saw that there was a larger protrusion on the DS vs NDS. making some ghetto spacers with cardboard, i estimated out my work to see what chainring clearance would look like. the spacers were fit over the spindle before being placed in the shell for estimating. unfortunately i did not take photos of any of this, but i gained enough confidence that i would be okay.
i used a facing tool to take off the material, and i would say that you need to be incredibly careful that the tool remains true as it can easily gain misalignment with taking off so much material. this happened to me on the DS. you're working the tool so long (as it's not specifically made to take off this much material), but i caught things early and fixed alignment.
once i reduced down to 73.5mm (~2mm off DS), i used my ghetto spacers to check my work. things looked fine and assuming everything was good to go, i pressed in the phil wood bb cups and installed the crankset. after installation, i found i needed to still take more material off. on the ultegra 8000 crankset there's a small plastic key that fits into a hole in the spindle as a safety lock. this lock was not setting into the hole, which was telling me that the bb shell was still too long.
after tapping out the cups, i reevaluated and decided to further reduce shell width by about 1.5mm DS and .5mm NDS.
the crankset is now installed, though i have not had time to further check the chainline as i'm waiting on a few parts that won't be coming in for a month. i did a dirty check and things look fine. if i'm not happy with chainline, i may further reduce by .25mm to .5mm on each to be able to set a bb spacer.
also to note, you will be cutting into the serial number for this procedure. be sure to write down and save your serial number, if this is important to you.
images
ghetto spacers that are about 8mm thick
plastic lock piece on crankset
hole that plastic lock piece locks into
reduced bb shell
crankset installed into shell
Last edited by awesemblauge; 07-22-20 at 10:19 AM.
Likes For awesemblauge:
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times
in
312 Posts
Thanks for doing the necessary work awesemblauge !
The Klein Performance that I bought that has the Phil external bearing cups isn’t going to work until I face the shell.
Kind of dim but if you can blow up the image, the dial caliper reads 90mm+4.0mm = 94.0mm. I just slid a Dura Ace 7800 double road crankset in there to check and I don’t get anywhere near enough splines on the non-drive side to locate the plastic locating pin.
This shows the width across the BB shell using the inner flange of the already pressed in Phil external BB cups: 70+5.5mm= 75.5mm width. Maybe this is why the former owner of this frame sold it to me, because he realized that just pressing in the BB cups didn’t match the spec.
The Klein Performance that I bought that has the Phil external bearing cups isn’t going to work until I face the shell.
Kind of dim but if you can blow up the image, the dial caliper reads 90mm+4.0mm = 94.0mm. I just slid a Dura Ace 7800 double road crankset in there to check and I don’t get anywhere near enough splines on the non-drive side to locate the plastic locating pin.
This shows the width across the BB shell using the inner flange of the already pressed in Phil external BB cups: 70+5.5mm= 75.5mm width. Maybe this is why the former owner of this frame sold it to me, because he realized that just pressing in the BB cups didn’t match the spec.
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times
in
312 Posts
Hey, awesemblauge : Did you have your LBS do the facing work?
Or or did you do it yourself? Just curious: Also: what is the brand of the BB facing tool you are using? Could you post a picture?
Here is my Quantum frame with a Wheels Manufacturing BB press in place about to press the drive side Phil bearing in to place. I have had this phase of the install paused for the reasons posted in this thread so far: The 75.5mm width is too wide for the (thinner than Shimano) Phil Wood external BB cups!
I could finish this bike quite easily if I could just reconcile this BB (over)width conundrum.
Or or did you do it yourself? Just curious: Also: what is the brand of the BB facing tool you are using? Could you post a picture?
Here is my Quantum frame with a Wheels Manufacturing BB press in place about to press the drive side Phil bearing in to place. I have had this phase of the install paused for the reasons posted in this thread so far: The 75.5mm width is too wide for the (thinner than Shimano) Phil Wood external BB cups!
I could finish this bike quite easily if I could just reconcile this BB (over)width conundrum.
Last edited by masi61; 07-28-20 at 12:00 PM.
#20
Junior Member
yeah, but the bonus on that is that now you know you just need to face down the shell to make it work and you got a $150 bottom bracket for free, haha
Likes For awesemblauge:
#21
Junior Member
i originally hit up my local lbs about the project and the mechanic gave me a load of bull****, so i decided to do it myself after the reminder of why i learned how to wrench my own bikes. the tool i used was a borrowed park tools bfs-1.
i'm sure the park tool works similar to what you are using, and i also found that the shell was larger (in addition to not having threads) than the thread guid blocks on the tool. i wrapped the guides in a couple/few layers of painters tape and then tapped them into the ends of the frame. definitely a hack, but it worked. you don't need the guides locked in, but rather tight to ensure an even cut. i don't have the tool anymore, otherwise i would take pictures for you.
this was my first time using that tool and my only other guidance would be to go slow and don't tighten down too much. it'll take a long time to get through the material because the tool is really only meant for shaving off micro millimeters of material. it's like you're using a straight razor to whittle down a 2x4--it's gonna take a while and if you try to go too hard you'll ruin the blade. i didn't use the right type of cutting oil, but i would def recommend some sort of cutting oil.
i'm sure the park tool works similar to what you are using, and i also found that the shell was larger (in addition to not having threads) than the thread guid blocks on the tool. i wrapped the guides in a couple/few layers of painters tape and then tapped them into the ends of the frame. definitely a hack, but it worked. you don't need the guides locked in, but rather tight to ensure an even cut. i don't have the tool anymore, otherwise i would take pictures for you.
this was my first time using that tool and my only other guidance would be to go slow and don't tighten down too much. it'll take a long time to get through the material because the tool is really only meant for shaving off micro millimeters of material. it's like you're using a straight razor to whittle down a 2x4--it's gonna take a while and if you try to go too hard you'll ruin the blade. i didn't use the right type of cutting oil, but i would def recommend some sort of cutting oil.
Likes For awesemblauge:
#22
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times
in
312 Posts
Thanks awesemblauge - This work is going to get done eventually. I will re-read your post about the dimensions needed for Shimano Hollowtech external bottom bracket cranks.
One thought that occurred to me is concerning Shimano mountain cranks. If these are designed for a 73mm bottom bracket is there any chance that one of these might work on the 75.5mm Klein bottom bracket shell without modification?
And to Leroy @ Phil Wood: if you happen along onto this thread - you were right! The Klein BB shell really does need to be faced. Sorry for doubting you.
One thought that occurred to me is concerning Shimano mountain cranks. If these are designed for a 73mm bottom bracket is there any chance that one of these might work on the 75.5mm Klein bottom bracket shell without modification?
And to Leroy @ Phil Wood: if you happen along onto this thread - you were right! The Klein BB shell really does need to be faced. Sorry for doubting you.
#23
Junior Member
yeah, i think you'll have an easier time with a mtb crankset. through my own research, i've heard that road triple cranksets may also have longer spindle lengths due to accounting for the third chainring, but this is all conjecture as i don't have a triple crank on hand to check.
just like i did on my ultegra crankset, i would try to get a good idea on what the tolerances are for spindle length. as we've come to realize with the phil wood bb, we get an extra bit of play due to the 9mm outboard cups. at least vs. ultegra/dura ace.
unfortunately, one bit of info you will want that you may not have is the outboard cup length of the mtb crankset you are wanting to use. i'm 80% confident that shimano xtr/xt/etc all have the same bearing size and, subsequently, cup sizes as their road offerings, but it's still a risk without having them on-hand to measure.
you could also extrapolate that spindle tolerance is 2mm (from what i have). that, plus making an assumption that xtr/xt bottom brackets also have 11.8mm outboard cups means (like ultegra/dura ace) 5.6mm of reduced length.
philw bb
a lot of assumptions, but it may be okay to go ahead without performing any bb reduction.
just like i did on my ultegra crankset, i would try to get a good idea on what the tolerances are for spindle length. as we've come to realize with the phil wood bb, we get an extra bit of play due to the 9mm outboard cups. at least vs. ultegra/dura ace.
unfortunately, one bit of info you will want that you may not have is the outboard cup length of the mtb crankset you are wanting to use. i'm 80% confident that shimano xtr/xt/etc all have the same bearing size and, subsequently, cup sizes as their road offerings, but it's still a risk without having them on-hand to measure.
you could also extrapolate that spindle tolerance is 2mm (from what i have). that, plus making an assumption that xtr/xt bottom brackets also have 11.8mm outboard cups means (like ultegra/dura ace) 5.6mm of reduced length.
philw bb
- 75.5 + (9*2) = 93.5mm
- 73 + (11.8*2) = 96.6mm
- this could be at the end of the tolerance (like my ultegra setup) and then a 2mm tolerance means 94.5-96.5mm install length for the spindle.
- so you could potentially have 1-2mm of play that needs to be set and fixed by a bb spacer
a lot of assumptions, but it may be okay to go ahead without performing any bb reduction.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Upper Left, USA
Posts: 1,953
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked 444 Times
in
298 Posts
Wow. Props to all of you for wrangling this obscura. Looks like you are closing in on (and providing to many web users) lots more clarity around this setup. Nicely done!
#25
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times
in
312 Posts
yeah, i think you'll have an easier time with a mtb crankset. through my own research, i've heard that road triple cranksets may also have longer spindle lengths due to accounting for the third chainring, but this is all conjecture as i don't have a triple crank on hand to check.
just like i did on my ultegra crankset, i would try to get a good idea on what the tolerances are for spindle length. as we've come to realize with the phil wood bb, we get an extra bit of play due to the 9mm outboard cups. at least vs. ultegra/dura ace.
unfortunately, one bit of info you will want that you may not have is the outboard cup length of the mtb crankset you are wanting to use. i'm 80% confident that shimano xtr/xt/etc all have the same bearing size and, subsequently, cup sizes as their road offerings, but it's still a risk without having them on-hand to measure.
you could also extrapolate that spindle tolerance is 2mm (from what i have). that, plus making an assumption that xtr/xt bottom brackets also have 11.8mm outboard cups means (like ultegra/dura ace) 5.6mm of reduced length.
philw bb
a lot of assumptions, but it may be okay to go ahead without performing any bb reduction.
just like i did on my ultegra crankset, i would try to get a good idea on what the tolerances are for spindle length. as we've come to realize with the phil wood bb, we get an extra bit of play due to the 9mm outboard cups. at least vs. ultegra/dura ace.
unfortunately, one bit of info you will want that you may not have is the outboard cup length of the mtb crankset you are wanting to use. i'm 80% confident that shimano xtr/xt/etc all have the same bearing size and, subsequently, cup sizes as their road offerings, but it's still a risk without having them on-hand to measure.
you could also extrapolate that spindle tolerance is 2mm (from what i have). that, plus making an assumption that xtr/xt bottom brackets also have 11.8mm outboard cups means (like ultegra/dura ace) 5.6mm of reduced length.
philw bb
- 75.5 + (9*2) = 93.5mm
- 73 + (11.8*2) = 96.6mm
- this could be at the end of the tolerance (like my ultegra setup) and then a 2mm tolerance means 94.5-96.5mm install length for the spindle.
- so you could potentially have 1-2mm of play that needs to be set and fixed by a bb spacer
a lot of assumptions, but it may be okay to go ahead without performing any bb reduction.