does anyone notice any discernable difference between the two? what are the advantages of HT2?

i'm at the stage now where i need to replace both the Octalink BB and the HT2 BB. the HT2 has been there for a little over 1 year, the Octalink for about 4.

Why don't Shimano make decent (>LX) Octalnk cranks any longer? do other manufacturers produce them or a is it Shimano specific?

Considering hollowtech 2 deore can be bought for just shy of fifty smackers in a few places why not just have a go.
Worst that can happen is you don't like it, sell, and buy octalink again.

What you may love is the fact it all fits really easily and comes apart with very little effort for maintenance/frame change.

HT2 so much lighter and also stronger. less parts to go wrong.

id assume they were also cheaper to make aswell in the end as every company now favours the HT2 style bb / raceface x-type / truvativ GPX etc etc

I'm now running both mountainbikes octalink and don't notice any difference, in fact I'm sure the XT octalinks I've just fitted (£35 new off Ebay, score!) felt better than the Truvativ GXPs I removed.

Buy a proper Park crank remover and a proper 8mm allen key and the maintainence is easy.

It stinks that Shimano felt they had to make such a good system almost obsolete but thats progress…

(It also stinks that the various ISIS manufacturers can't imitate the sturdiness of Shimano Octalink BBs, whats the difference?)

Bearing size is the difference between octalink/isis bottom brackets.
Thats why an octalink bottom bracket was more resilient.

Octolink or even square taper all the way. I am on my 5th year with my current Octolink Bb and still runs as smooth as butter. The HT2 that I had was f'ed after two months. I have a square taper BB that has seen almost 6 years use for commuting and road duties and is till going strong. HT2 is a fashion driven fad, I would choose durability over weight any day so its Octalink all the way.

Yep Octalink and Square taper still win on bearing life, avoid ISIS like the plague HT2, I have 3 sets, I’ve had to change BB’s or Bearings on all of them within 18months, that would hve been a sackable offence for square taper/Octalink BBs… so one step forwards 2 back in that respect really…

angryratio – Member

Considering hollowtech 2 deore can be bought for just shy of fifty smackers in a few places why not just have a go.
Worst that can happen is you don't like it, sell, and buy octalink again.

i've already got an SLX HT2 on one bike. Octalink the other….

just struggling to see any major benefits – other than looks and having the new must-have – of HT2 over Octalink.

Octalink seems to last far longer IME. I don't think there is a significant weight saving with HT11 either and its a poor engineering solution

I gave up on octalink after destroying 6 bottom brackets in as many months.

HTII has been much more resilient for me.

I used to wear out XTR Octalink BBs quicker than I do HT2 ones.

HT2 is lighter, stiffer, easier to maintain and cheaper. Why would Shimano keep doing Octalink!?

The thing is, Octalink suffers from exactly the same problem that square taper has – namely that torque in the crankbolt is crucial. I rounded off a NDS Octalink crank, just as I have done with 2 square taper cranks.
Which makes me think maybe I should shift from ST to external BB…

I hate HT2. I'm sick of people saying their BB bearings lasted 6 months as if that's a good thing. Maybe people don't remember, but BBs used to last years without any maintenance or faffing, now the bearings seize in no time at all.

njee20 – Internal BBs need no maintenance.

Taking them apart to change them was a lot more hassle, as was installation, being what I meant.

I've never kept a bike long enough to wear out an HT2 BB, had them last 2 years without problems, I used to kill XTR Octalink ones in 6-9 months.

HT2 BB bearings do seem to be a bit hit and miss. I've killed one in 2 months and had its replacement last > a year and counting

Bearing life aside I like HT2. Feels stiffer than anything I've ridden before and some nice light setups out there. And even the bearing life is less of a problem than with ISIS/Octalink etc as you can replace the bearings separately, not the whole axle (hmm, ok that may be possible on some separate axle BBs aswell now I think about it)

I also have one bike with ISIS, first BB (FSA Platinum iirc) lasted about 10 months and just replaced with a CB cobalt that has 5 year warranty on it so I'll be holding them to that if it only manages 10 months.

Dunno much about octalink, the standard seemed to pass me by…

running Sq taper on the work bike, only just developing play after 5+ years daily use. HTII lasting perhaps a year of occasional use. They are nowhere as durable as Sq taper or Octalink. BUT the bearings can be replaced for peanuts (less than £5), whereas the cartridge type BBs are fit and bin when they start to fail. Plus they are hard to get hold of in decent quality, unless you pay silly money for Phil Woods etc

I'll personally take the (IME non-existent/at best very slight) longevity penalty for the substantial weight loss with HT2!

Octalink suffers from exactly the same problem that square taper has – namely that torque in the crankbolt is crucial.

How is inability to install properly a technical problem? Would you suggest car wheel bearings are a problem because you can't install them yourself?

FWIW Octalink BBs only seemed to last me 6 months when I used that off-road (though years on a road bike – long enough to expose the design flaw of the lask of a proper elastic press fit on the splines). I actually get far longer out of the ISIS I've currently got, and can change bearings on that rather than the whole thing – though it's rather more involved than changing HT2 bearings. I acknowledge that theory says ISIS should be worse due to the smaller ball size (due to using cartridge bearings rather than traditional cup/cone Shimano use) – it's not like there's any special sealing on there. Of course I'd never had to change the ST I had on before Octalink.