Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2006/news/06-02

If this has been posted before I apologize, it's the first detail I've seen of the new Campy integrated cranks/BB. Looks interesting, though I don't really see much advantage compared to the Shimano/FSA/Truvativ/eveyone else design. They claim reduced Q-factor, but they have external bearings, so I don't see how that is an inherent advantage to the design; I guess they don't have a cumbersome clamp on the non-drive side crank (like the Shimano design). Anyway, glad to see them moving away from the square taper, finally! Might have to pick up a set for my Record bike when they come out....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Have a look at the left crank, much thinner than DA or FSA, thus more ankle clearance. As far as I know both Q-factor and Q-Clearance remain what they are now (shimano and FSA reduced the ankle clearance substantially when they went the outboard bearing way)
 

·
NeoRetroGrouch
Joined
·
6,493 Posts
Americano_a_Roma said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2006/news/06-02

If this has been posted before I apologize, it's the first detail I've seen of the new Campy integrated cranks/BB. Looks interesting, though I don't really see much advantage compared to the Shimano/FSA/Truvativ/eveyone else design. They claim reduced Q-factor, but they have external bearings, so I don't see how that is an inherent advantage to the design; I guess they don't have a cumbersome clamp on the non-drive side crank (like the Shimano design). Anyway, glad to see them moving away from the square taper, finally! Might have to pick up a set for my Record bike when they come out....
Can anybody see how it would be adjusted? Looks like the cups go in the BB shell like the current Shimano and then one half of the axle goes in from each side with a bolt holding them together. But the half-axles have to be tight and neither arm slides on the axle, so where is the adjustment? - TF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,358 Posts
It looks like the clamping torque will also be the bearing preload. Adjustment would be by shim. Like the FSA SLK cranks. With the splines in the center, it'll be impossible to visually verify that they have meshed enough. I think that Shimano's design is the best of the three since it seperates the spline clamping forces from the bearing preload. I'm not saying that because I have their cranks-- I'm running FSA SLKs.

If the FSA cranks lose ankle clearance it wasn't much. I have long feet and toe out so ankle clearnace is important to me. I have no issues with the SLKs in that regard. Coming loose, sure, but the ankle clearance is fine.

I wonder if Shimano has patented their design up the wazoo, so what's left to companies that don't want to license them is inferior?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,317 Posts
which groups?

Americano_a_Roma said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2006/news/06-02

If this has been posted before I apologize, it's the first detail I've seen of the new Campy integrated cranks/BB. Looks interesting, though I don't really see much advantage compared to the Shimano/FSA/Truvativ/eveyone else design. They claim reduced Q-factor, but they have external bearings, so I don't see how that is an inherent advantage to the design; I guess they don't have a cumbersome clamp on the non-drive side crank (like the Shimano design). Anyway, glad to see them moving away from the square taper, finally! Might have to pick up a set for my Record bike when they come out....
Which groups are getting the design? I am probably going to try to gut it out with my 3 horribly inferior square taper cranks but I assume that next round I'll be going that way
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,601 Posts
ericm979 said:
It looks like the clamping torque will also be the bearing preload. Adjustment would be by shim. Like the FSA SLK cranks. With the splines in the center, it'll be impossible to visually verify that they have meshed enough. I think that Shimano's design is the best of the three since it seperates the spline clamping forces from the bearing preload. I'm not saying that because I have their cranks-- I'm running FSA SLKs.

If the FSA cranks lose ankle clearance it wasn't much. I have long feet and toe out so ankle clearnace is important to me. I have no issues with the SLKs in that regard. Coming loose, sure, but the ankle clearance is fine.

I wonder if Shimano has patented their design up the wazoo, so what's left to companies that don't want to license them is inferior?
The preload is set by the compression of a wavy washer between the non-drive side bearing cup and the ball bearing.

Shimano doesn't have a patent on their system. It's not their original design. They waited for the patent from Bullseye to expire before using it.
 

·
Larry Lackapants
Joined
·
698 Posts
Yea like Kerry mentioned before, why is square taper that bad?
I don't see any disadvantages other than being an "old" design and "out" . And it may take some time before I manage to flex a square tapered BB axle ;)
 

·
NeoRetroGrouch
Joined
·
6,493 Posts
brblue said:
Yea like Kerry mentioned before, why is square taper that bad?
I don't see any disadvantages other than being an "old" design and "out" . And it may take some time before I manage to flex a square tapered BB axle ;)
It's not about flex. The crank arm will crack if tightened enough times (or over tightened). Is "enough" 10 or 10,000???? Probably depends a lot on the hand on the wrench. - TF
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top