Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Bicycle Mechanics
Reload this Page >

Square taper crank and bottom bracket: fitting to a frame

Notices
Bicycle Mechanics Broken bottom bracket? Tacoed wheel? If you're having problems with your bicycle, or just need help fixing a flat, drop in here for the latest on bicycle mechanics & bicycle maintenance.

Square taper crank and bottom bracket: fitting to a frame

Old 12-05-19, 01:33 PM
  #1  
Cyclist0108
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Square taper crank and bottom bracket: fitting to a frame

I've got a White Industries square taper crank (46/30T) and their square taper bottom bracket. I want to put it on my new frame.

When I did this, the inner (30T) ring itself clears the chain stays, but the bolts that hold the inner ring on the rest of the crankset touch the frame on rotation (and I don't even have it tightened down all the way yet).

So I guess I have 3 choices:

1. Get a smaller chainring (the WI crank allows you to do this; I can go down to 26T which may be enough to get it out of the way, but maybe not).
2. Get a wider bottom bracket spindle.
3. Stick a $150 GRX crank on the thing (which is what I did on my other bike, which is why I had to buy a new frame for this crank, so that would be a demoralizing albeit expedient solution).

Option #2 seems like the most reasonable, but this is where my understanding of square taper bottom brackets is lacking. If I get one with a wider spindle, does that mean that the distance between the drive-side cup and the crank arm will be increased, or does it mean it would require a frame with a wider bottom bracket shell, and would be irrelevant to solving my problem?

Option #1 would allow me to keep my current chain-line, BB, and would have the merit of giving me an excuse to have a lower gear on my touring bike.

Last edited by Cyclist0108; 12-05-19 at 01:41 PM.
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 12-05-19, 01:46 PM
  #2  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,932

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26250 Post(s)
Liked 10,231 Times in 7,100 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
I've got a White Industries square taper crank (46/30T) and their square taper bottom bracket. I want to put it on my new frame.

When I did this, the inner (30T) ring itself clears the chain stays, but the bolts that hold the inner ring on the rest of the crankset touch the frame on rotation (and I don't even have it tightened down all the way yet).

So I guess I have 3 choices:

1. Get a smaller chainring (the WI crank allows you to do this; I can go down to 26T which may be enough to get it out of the way, but maybe not).
2. Get a wider bottom bracket spindle.
3. Stick a $150 GRX crank on the thing (which is what I did on my other bike, which is why I had to buy a new frame for this crank, so that would be a demoralizing albeit expedient solution).

Option #2 seems like the most reasonable, but this is where my understanding of square taper bottom brackets is lacking. If I get one with a wider spindle, does that mean that the distance between the drive-side cup and the crank arm will be increased, or does it mean it would require a frame with a wider bottom bracket shell, and would be irrelevant to solving my problem?

Option #1 would allow me to keep my current chain-line, BB, and would have the merit of giving me an excuse to have a lower gear on my touring bike.
...this problem (depending on how far you need to move the chainrings outboard to prevent the interference), can usually be solved by the addition of a spacer or two under the lip of the drives side cup. There's usually plenty of room on the non drive side that you can lose before interference over there becomes a problem. But if you can provide photos, there might be another answer. Usually the bolts for chainrings are recessed into the ring for just this reason. I'm not familiar with your crank setup.

The longer spindles are always contained within a standard BB shell width bearing unit, IME. (i.e. either 68 or 70 for a road bike)
3alarmer is offline  
Likes For 3alarmer:
Old 12-05-19, 01:49 PM
  #3  
caloso
Senior Member
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865

Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times in 1,417 Posts
Square taper BBs come in a variety of spindle lengths for just this purpose.
caloso is offline  
Likes For caloso:
Old 12-05-19, 02:21 PM
  #4  
sch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mountain Brook. AL
Posts: 4,002
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 136 Times in 104 Posts
Looks like White comes in 3 lengths, but pricey at $120+, if you could exchange......
Depends on how long your present BB is. Of course Shimano sq taper would be
80% cheaper. I had a White BB on my recumbent and it lasted ~30k miles. Bearings
seemed ok but there was a bit of slop in the axle-bearing area so I put a Shimano in.
sch is offline  
Likes For sch:
Old 12-05-19, 02:41 PM
  #5  
ThermionicScott 
working on my sandal tan
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,625

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)

Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3868 Post(s)
Liked 2,560 Times in 1,574 Posts
Is there any chance that the inner chainring is flipped around, and the chainring nuts are not able to sit in a counterbore?

I'm not super familiar with these cranks, but usually inner chainrings are counterbored so that the chainring nuts can sit flush, or close to it...
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 12-05-19, 02:43 PM
  #6  
Wilfred Laurier
Señor Member
 
Wilfred Laurier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,065
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 648 Post(s)
Liked 291 Times in 215 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
...this problem (depending on how far you need to move the chainrings outboard to prevent the interference), can usually be solved by the addition of a spacer or two under the lip of the drives side cup.
I have seen this suggestion in the past, but I disagree with it. Pushing the BB to one side will result in the pedal spacing being asymmetric and will effect the rider's balance on the bike - ie. one foot closer to the centre of the bike than the other. I suppose with clipless pedals you could adjust your cleats to compensate but this seems like a kludge.
Wilfred Laurier is offline  
Likes For Wilfred Laurier:
Old 12-05-19, 02:53 PM
  #7  
tomtomtom123
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,064
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 122 Times in 90 Posts
Smaller diameter chainring won't help you if the bolt heads are touching the frame, because it's the lateral width that is the problem, not the radial diameter, unless your description of the problem is wrong. A photo would help.

As someone mentioned, check that the chainring isn't flipped the wrong way. The countersink on the bolt holes on one side will reduce the head height.

If that isn't the problem, then only a spacer under the drive side cup or a longer bb will solve this proproblem. Shimano un55 is $11. However some lengths are not symmetric, usually longer on the left side, I assume to allow you to shim the drive side to adjust the chainline. Otherwise maybe Shimano cranks are designed to be symmetric when using the asymmetrical spindle
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=105385

Last edited by tomtomtom123; 12-05-19 at 02:57 PM.
tomtomtom123 is offline  
Old 12-05-19, 03:02 PM
  #8  
caloso
Senior Member
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865

Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times in 1,417 Posts
You don't need a shim. You don't need to flip your chainring. You need a wider spindle. JIS spindle BB's are cheap and plentiful and come in many different widths. You could spend the bucks for the fancy White Industry one or you could get a cheap and reliable Shimano one.
caloso is offline  
Likes For caloso:
Old 12-05-19, 03:16 PM
  #9  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by Wilfred Laurier
I have seen this suggestion in the past, but I disagree with it. Pushing the BB to one side will result in the pedal spacing being asymmetric and will effect the rider's balance on the bike - ie. one foot closer to the centre of the bike than the other. I suppose with clipless pedals you could adjust your cleats to compensate but this seems like a kludge.
Asymmetric spacing isn't actually very consequential for pedaling. Even very large differences have very little effect on the angle of the rider on the saddle, or on leg extension (think about the trigonometry of the situation!).

Back when adjustable bottom brackets (both square taper and cottered) were standard, it was common for bikes to come stock with asymmetric spindles as a means of minimizing q-factor. The offsets were often huge: my '79 Fuji America is about 1cm wider on the drive side than on the non-drive side, and some bikes were even more asymmetric than that. You almost never hear this brought up as a peculiar aspect of riding vintage bikes, because people mostly didn't notice the "imbalance."

Recently I was having some trouble with the chain on my gravel bike rubbing the tire in the lowest gear (small-big). I could have moved to a longer spindle, but the q-factor was already annoyingly high. So I instead switched from a 118mm spindle to a shorter 115mm spindle, and added a 4mm spacer on the drive side:



This added 2.5mm to the drive side, while removing 5.5mm from the non-drive side, and making the spindle effectively .8cm longer on the DS than the NDS. Pedaling feels basically the same as ever.
HTupolev is online now  
Old 12-05-19, 04:40 PM
  #10  
Cyclist0108
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Thanks, everyone, for all the suggestions. It sounds like a different BB spindle is the easiest fix. I just wasn't sure that it would increase the chainline (which I guess is what I would need).

Here is a photo of the chainrings from their website. It doesn't show very clearly what is going on around back, but if you look closely, you can see the protrusion. Also, because of the unique mounting mechanism, the bolts will be moved inward with a smaller inner chainring.



My bike (loosened the crank bolt so it is no longer scraping the frame):



Last edited by Cyclist0108; 12-05-19 at 04:49 PM.
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 12-05-19, 05:42 PM
  #11  
ThermionicScott 
working on my sandal tan
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,625

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)

Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3868 Post(s)
Liked 2,560 Times in 1,574 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
My bike (loosened the crank bolt so it is no longer scraping the frame):

That photo sure makes it look like the splay of the chainstays is the problem. I agree that a longer BB is probably the best answer.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 12-05-19, 07:26 PM
  #12  
tyrion
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077

Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times in 972 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
A couple whacks with a hammer on the chainstay (right where it's circled) and you're good.
tyrion is offline  
Old 12-05-19, 08:52 PM
  #13  
Cyclist0108
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion
A couple whacks with a hammer on the chainstay (right where it's circled) and you're good.
They took that approach with the fork:

https://www.bikeforums.net/touring/1...-purchase.html
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 12-05-19, 09:01 PM
  #14  
tomtomtom123
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,064
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 122 Times in 90 Posts
You might want to measure the chainline so that you can calculate what happens when you use a different length spindle. Also if you care about symmetry, you should measure the distance from the center of the frame to the outside surfaces of each arm. So you will know what happens when you change to an asymmetric Shimano spindle.

Edit- I looked in their website but they don't show the inner chainring. Is it using a standard 8 or 10mm bolt hole in a flat chainring with 12mm diameter bolt head? If so, then you might be able to use cheap $10 74mm bcd chainrings in various teeth numbers, assuming that your current inner chainring has a much bigger bcd. But if it uses some special bolt hole size or flange shape, then a standard 74mm bcd chainring might not be compatible

Last edited by tomtomtom123; 12-05-19 at 09:27 PM.
tomtomtom123 is offline  
Old 12-06-19, 12:38 AM
  #15  
Miele Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,655

Bikes: iele Latina, Miele Suprema, Miele Uno LS, Miele Miele Beta, MMTB, Bianchi Model Unknown, Fiori Venezia, Fiori Napoli, VeloSport Adamas AX

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1324 Post(s)
Liked 927 Times in 640 Posts
IIRC, you said up thread that the crank isn't fully tightened onto the spindle. Is that correct? If so you would be best off in my opinion getting a slightly longer spindle. Or, if there is a frame builder near you they might be able to crimp the chainstay for you without damaging the entire chainstay or much of the paint.

Just be sure that whomever does the work does not do it by whacking the chainstay with a hammer. I was on a long ride in Toronto Canada when i noticed my crank was almost touching the chainstay. I stopped in at a bike shop and asked them it they could move the crank a bit to the right so that the chainring wouldn't be so close t o the chainstay. As I was just passing through Toronto I asked them if they could do it that day. They said sure. I figured they'd put a spacer between the fixed cup and the frame. Nope, they hammered t he chainstay. This is the result.



Cheers
Miele Man is offline  
Old 12-06-19, 12:41 AM
  #16  
Miele Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,655

Bikes: iele Latina, Miele Suprema, Miele Uno LS, Miele Miele Beta, MMTB, Bianchi Model Unknown, Fiori Venezia, Fiori Napoli, VeloSport Adamas AX

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1324 Post(s)
Liked 927 Times in 640 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
They took that approach with the fork:

https://www.bikeforums.net/touring/1...-purchase.html
I wouldn't care if that crimp was designed in or not there's no way I'd accept a fork with that sharp fold in it. Actually I find it hard to believe that any reputable company would build a fork with such a sharp crease in it.

Cheers
Miele Man is offline  
Old 12-06-19, 10:25 AM
  #17  
Cyclist0108
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
The crimp is really disturbing. It actually looks worse than it is in the photo, but what a crap design. (I was going to buy a Spork 2.0 for my other bike so I could put on front panniers, but this frame was cheaper than that fork, so I decided to go for this instead.)

Since I had a 2.5mm spacer lying around, I put that on*. The good news is it solves the crank bolt issue. The bad news is that there is not enough of the thread exposed on the adjustable (non-drive-side) cup to put the lockring on. The spindle is 113 mm, so at least I know how much to size up now if I get a new square taper BB, but my growing hatred of square taper (which is why I took this off my custom bike and put on a GRX crankset) is making me think twice.

From https://sheldonbrown.com/bbsize.html

Looking at this, I think I need 3K?




* Regarding the shim: My right heal clips my chainstay on my other bike, so shimming the BB on the drive side might actually help, all else being equal.

Last edited by Cyclist0108; 12-06-19 at 10:49 AM. Reason: added footnote
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 12-06-19, 10:58 AM
  #18  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,932

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26250 Post(s)
Liked 10,231 Times in 7,100 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott

Since I had a 2.5mm spacer lying around, I put that on*. The good news is it solves the crank bolt issue. The bad news is that there is not enough of the thread exposed on the adjustable (non-drive-side) cup to put the lockring on.



...the White Industries bottom bracket requires a lock ring ? I've never seen a sealed unit BB that needs a lockring on the non drive side. I guess maybe I don't know what we're talking about any more. The whole deal with using a spacer under the drive side lip on a sealed unit is pretty much based on the idea that the non drive side cup that holds the sealed unit in place just threads on into the BB until the tapered lip butts up against the cartridge and holds the thing in place.
3alarmer is offline  
Old 12-06-19, 11:30 AM
  #19  
tomtomtom123
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,064
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 122 Times in 90 Posts
It seems to use replaceable deep groove cartridge bearings. I've never used something like this but the photo shows a locking ring on the nds cup, probably to adjust preload. If there isn't enough thread after adding a spacer, maybe he can't get the locking ring on.



You might want to measure the chainline now to see where it's at, and the distance of the crank to the center of frame to check the symmetry.

Is the chainring a standard shape? Does is have standard bolt holes? What is the BCD of the current ring? If it is large, then you might be able to replace it with a 74mm bcd ring to bring the bolts in closer to the spindle. Then you might not need the spacer.

Or ask white industries. I'm sure they get these questions frequently

Last edited by tomtomtom123; 12-06-19 at 11:41 AM.
tomtomtom123 is offline  
Likes For tomtomtom123:
Old 12-06-19, 11:35 AM
  #20  
Cyclist0108
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
...the White Industries bottom bracket requires a lock ring ? I've never seen a sealed unit BB that needs a lockring on the non drive side. I guess maybe I don't know what we're talking about any more. The whole deal with using a spacer under the drive side lip on a sealed unit is pretty much based on the idea that the non drive side cup that holds the sealed unit in place just threads on into the BB until the tapered lip butts up against the cartridge and holds the thing in place.
Unfortunately, @tomtomtom123 is right. But I was thinking that the cheapest/easiest way to fix that problem is to put a 2.5mm thick washer in between the fixed cup and the pressed-in bearing.

BTW, I took this thing off of my other bike because I got sick of the NDS spontaneously tightening itself up. The lock-ring doesn't work very well. (Maybe I should chuck my $130 boutique BB and its new ceramic bearings into the trash and get the $13 Shimano special.)
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 12-06-19, 11:45 AM
  #21  
tomtomtom123
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,064
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 122 Times in 90 Posts
The Shimano bb is completely fixed to the drive side cup so that the nds cup is floating and doesn't need a locking ring.

There is a video if you are curious how the balls are retained

https://youtu.be/lar7mIMmTRE

Last edited by tomtomtom123; 12-06-19 at 11:55 AM.
tomtomtom123 is offline  
Likes For tomtomtom123:
Old 12-06-19, 11:56 AM
  #22  
stardognine
Partially Sane.
 
stardognine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Sunny Sacramento.
Posts: 3,562

Bikes: Soma Saga, pre-disc

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 972 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 643 Times in 468 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott

BTW, I took this thing off of my other bike because I got sick of the NDS spontaneously tightening itself up. The lock-ring doesn't work very well. (Maybe I should chuck my $130 boutique BB and its new ceramic bearings into the trash and get the $13 Shimano special.)
Man, that sucks. I used to think that was a good company, but this sure makes ya stop & think. 🤔😉

In case you try re-using that BB on a bike it fits, maybe try the stronger of the Loctites, for that fussy lock-ring. 🙂
stardognine is offline  
Likes For stardognine:
Old 12-06-19, 12:06 PM
  #23  
ThermionicScott 
working on my sandal tan
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,625

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)

Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3868 Post(s)
Liked 2,560 Times in 1,574 Posts
If a regular Shimano cartridge BB could be used, the 115mm UN55 would be the next logical choice. It would give approximately 1mm extra on each side.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Likes For ThermionicScott:
Old 12-06-19, 12:10 PM
  #24  
Cyclist0108
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Originally Posted by ThermionicScott
If a regular Shimano cartridge BB could be used, the 115mm UN55 would be the next logical choice. It would give approximately 1mm extra on each side.
I don't think it would be enough, which is why I was thinking 118. I think I will try my washer experiment first, assuming I can find a washer. It would possess the additional merit of covering the rubber bearing seal, which is exposed (you can see it in the photo @tomtomtom123 posted). The more I type, the more I think I should just ditch this thing and get a second GRX crankset and rid myself of the square taper nightmare once and for all.

Last edited by Cyclist0108; 12-06-19 at 08:09 PM. Reason: :s/118/117.5/g
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 12-06-19, 12:12 PM
  #25  
Cyclist0108
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Originally Posted by stardognine
Man, that sucks. I used to think that was a good company, but this sure makes ya stop & think. 🤔😉

In case you try re-using that BB on a bike it fits, maybe try the stronger of the Loctites, for that fussy lock-ring. 🙂
They finally introduced a 30mm spindle version that you can use with 21st century BB components. (I still had to get the square taper because there wasn't enough room in the BB shell on my other bike, thanks to some Di2 wiring -- not an issue on this one.) But I have to tell you, the $150 Shimano GRX and $14 external ultegra BB I replaced this with on my other bike is an improvement over this thing.
Cyclist0108 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.