Viewing 13 posts - 41 through 53 (of 53 total)
  • Tell me about External BB Cranksets then? Are they Shi’ite?
  • zaskar
    Free Member

    sq225917-nice tip!

    nickc
    Full Member

    I think early EXBB were pretty badly sealed, newer ones are better, certainly mine have survived a pretty shitty Chilterns’ winter without seizing. But essentially I think for really extended longevity, you’re right to stick to Sqr taper

    njee20
    Free Member

    HTP404, there’s a 50g weight saving, from XT M750 – M770 which, IME also brings better bearing life. I know a lot of people find the opposite, but I trashed Octalink b/bs much more quickly. Seems to be related to weight too, heavy riders seem to fair worse, I’m only 69kg, which seems to help.

    At the end of the day, it’s not going away, if you don’t wanna buy it, don’t. I’ve now got a BB30 chainset, and the bearing life is dire. But I’ve got a big pile of warranty ones to keep me going for a while!

    shoefiti
    Free Member

    Other people’s criteria may differ though.(road)Sprinter friends of mine could snap Sqr taper axles, and I seen a few break on heavy landings.

    Tom Boonen was using sqr taper cranks up until recently – can’t recall him snapping any – maybe your freinds should give quick step a call!

    However i’ve seen sqr taper axles break on landings on mtb bikes (only un72 thou)

    I think each style BB had it’s own advantages and disadvantages.

    I quite discount the stiffnes thing for normal XC riding, as you are mostly spinning – and i dare say most decent track cyclists could put down at least 30% more power than most guys on this wesite and efficiency is paramount sucsess in track, and as flexability would reduce effeciency they would be the first to bin them.

    Octalink – i always found them very good – it removed the problems of sqr taper (damaging cranks on landings) with very good durability – but slightly less than sqr taper due to smaller bearings.

    ISIS – Filth.

    External – good idea dogged by poor execution – especially by race face and FSA (my external road FSA BB disintegrated compleatly on a ride the other day) Shimano seem to have the best seals although i’ve yet to try hope etc.

    My conclusion is that sqr taper offers good cheap long life option for those not doing anything to hucky. Octalink similar but can handle more abuse by the rider. And external good for heavy folk and those that jump off stuff – just don’t be a knob and jet wash your bike!

    kiwijohn
    Full Member

    The other advantage of external BB’s is that the bearings are cheap & easy to replace.
    Certainly cheaper than a new BB

    HTTP404
    Free Member

    The other advantage of external BB’s is that the bearings are cheap & easy to replace.

    That depends how often you replace them 🙂

    0range5
    Full Member

    ISIS – Filth

    There are some good uns as well as the bad – FSA seem to last me fine, and SKF are awesome quality.

    HTII have been rubbish in my experience – one lasted 3 rides!

    simonfbarnes
    Free Member

    Certainly cheaper than a new BB

    cheaper than £5.50 ?

    and as flexability would reduce effeciency they would be the first to bin them

    evidence please. Even if the cranks DID flex, this would not absorb energy in elastic bending, so it’s not obvious that it would affect efficiency

    stuartanicholson
    Free Member

    cheaper than £5.50 ?

    Where sells BBs for that price?

    HTTP404
    Free Member

    Where sells BBs for that price?

    Secondhand.

    simonfbarnes
    Free Member

    Where sells BBs for that price?

    UN26 from Parker International

    stuartanicholson
    Free Member

    7.15 plus 3.95 postage. You could easily get a decent set of bearings for a tenner 😀

    simonfbarnes
    Free Member

    7.15 plus 3.95 postage.

    I can’t find them on that site any longer, but there was no postage charge.

Viewing 13 posts - 41 through 53 (of 53 total)

The topic ‘Tell me about External BB Cranksets then? Are they Shi’ite?’ is closed to new replies.