Talk:Bottom bracket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cycling (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Older discussion[edit]

Suggest merging ISIS drive article into this, and writing sections on various BB designs (BMX 3pc splines, cottered, ST, Octalink etc.) rather than writing a separate stub for each. -- Lordandmaker 13:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! Cycling-related articles could use a fair bit of merging in general other places as well. --Christopherlin 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Shell[edit]

Perhaps someone can supply a more precise definition of "shell" and its relation with the rest of the frame. Jim.henderson 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments about Campy vs Shimano, FSA, and others[edit]

"This design is perhaps the first to acknowledge the fact that the new outboard bearing designs do not require a press-on fit, as the old square taper and splined bottom brackets did. Whereas the Shimano, FSA, and other designs require that the inner face of the cranksets press against the outboard bearings, a situation that introduces a significant amount of rolling resistance (and which thus creates a market for expensive ceramic bearings), Campy's Hirth joint is machined to restrict the compression of the bearings to a controlled tolerance. Characteristically, Campgnolo's marketing department has chosen not to emphasize the fact that the Italian company has introduced the first integrated bottom bracket system to spin nearly as well as the non-integrated versions did."

  1. "is perhaps the first" not very encyclopedic.
  2. what Shimano, FSA and other designs require and how Campy's is machined needs a reference.
  3. Whether Campgnolo's marketing department has acted characteristically isn't really germane to an article on bottom brackets.
-AndrewDressel (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is rather repetitive.[edit]

The information is good, but requires sorting as several sections are supplied in triplicate! Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Spindle vs. Axle[edit]

I think the phrase "There is some confusion..." was better than "There is some disagreement...". The word "disagreement" in this context implies that the experts disagree about which is the correct term, whereas the terms axle and spindle are well defined - it is only 'lay-people' who misunderstand the correct terminology. I think the word "confusion" better expresses this. "misunderstanding" would be an alternative. (For openness I should point out that I changed the word to "confusion" from "controversy" previously.) 90.155.82.2 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of this controversy stems from the fact that neither term is accurate. Both "axle" and "spindle" are specific applications of the more general "shaft", and neither of those applications match the use for bicycles. So why not stick with the more general "shaft", and when clarification is necessary use the more specific "crank shaft"? -11:13, 30 January 2015‎ Kraftcheck (talk | contribs)‎
Unfortunately, Wikipedia explains what is, not what we wish to be. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andrew. If you are saying that the term "crank shaft" or plain "shaft" is just not used for BB spindles then I have to agree. I also agree that it's important to not choose terms out of the desire to promote their use, but rather stick to ones with preexisting usage. It's worth pointing out that John Barnett uses the term "spindle" in his tome on bicycle repair. (Barnett's Manual: Analysis and Procedures for Bicycle Mechanics, 5th edition, 2003, 9-1.) --Keithonearth (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Lightning Cyclc Dynamics[edit]

In 2000, Lightning Cycle Dynamics Inc. introduced their unique two piece carbon crankset with outboard bearings, and carbon fiber semi-axles smoothly integrated with each carbon fiber crank arm. The semi-axles attached in the middle of a standard BSA bottom bracket shell with a Hirth type joint and internal bolt. In 2004 Lightning licensed their design to Specialized Bicycles, who incorporated the design into their FACT carbon crankset and frame which utilized a BB30 bottom bracket shell with pressed in bearings.

In late 2006, Campagnolo introduced a heavier knockoff of the Lightning design with steel instead of carbon fiber semi-axles which they called called Ultra-TorqueTM. Lightning still sells their integrated two piece Super Light crankset aftermarket, currently it is the lightest crankset available and being a more advanced design it is 160 grams lighter than the Campagnolo Record Ultra Torque crankset. [1]

The provided link does not support much of this new material. All I can find is a one-page list of features and an installation procedure PDF dated 2003. There is nothing about the introduction in 2000, carbon fiber semi-axles (the spindle appears to be made of metal in the photo included in the PDF), licensing to Specialized, Campagnolo knocking off the design, that it is the lightest crankset available, or that its design is somehow more advanced than that of the Campagnolo Record Ultra Torque crankset. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

drive-side/non-drive-side or right/left[edit]

Call me a traditionalist, but I prefer the terms drive side/non drive side over right/left. An anonymous edit changed all the "drive sides" to "right", I've reverted it. While it's my strong preference for us to use "drive side" I don't know any rational reason to do it one way or the other other than tradition. The anon's edit summery claims that the term "is a source of ridicule", this is not a valid reason, people ridicule many things, that's no reason to change it. Additionally he/she said that the source (Sheldon) uses left and right. More accurately "Fixed (right) cup" is used despite the fact that with cartage BBs neither cup is adjustable, and the threaded side of the cartridge is not always the right side. --Keithonearth (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "drive side" is a generally better term to use because it is more accurate and overall less confusing as right/left requires an assumption about perspective whereas "drive side" is self evident. On there other hand the drive-side is not 100% standard to the right. And for those unfamiliar with this technical term, left/right may be easier to understand. One must not assume a knowledgable readership for a general encyclopedia. I think the best would be to mention "drive side or right side of the bike" once near the start of the article and then thereafter stick with the term "drive side."Rusl (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

New Section for Integrated BB Shells[edit]

Most of the BB30/BB90 stuff should probably be elaborated upon and get its own section under types of bottom brackets. In addition, info about the new BB386 standard should be added.