Bicycle Mechanics - Cartridge BB's suck.

They really do. I think they are like comparing a bic biro to a fountain pen. The bic doesn't last long, and you throw it away pretty soon. The fountain pen, you have to look after, but it works so much better, and should last forever.

The square taper BB cartridges last maybe a year and a half, then they don't work quite perfectly, and 6 months on, they make noises, get play, and generally become a nuisance and have to be thrown away. The Octalink ones are the same, except that they last even less well, due to the smaller bb's.

However, a good quality cup and cone BB lasts forever- you just have to repack it with fresh BB's once a year. You can check the adjustment, and keep it perfect all the time. I've got a new one with which the cups screw in with a Shimano splined BB tool, and it has an excellent rubber seal to keep grit from getting in along the spindle. Must be just as well sealed as the sealed cartridge kind, as long as you use one of the little concertina thingies in it.

I think for anyone putting a lot of miles in on a bike, who is capable of at least basic bike maintenance, a traditional BB assembly can offer much better performance, as well as saving a lot of money in the long run.

^ I think because that's how the threaded BB design was originally intended. The ball bearings are therefore larger and the left and right bearing races would be spaced-out further away from each other compared to what's inside the cartridge types. The old way should be lighter too because the extra casing of the cartridge body is like placing another BB shell inside the BB shell.

The ultimate of course is the modern external bearing types, but they don't make those for square taper cranksets. The effective spacing between the left and right bearing races are the widest possible distance which not only makes them laterally strong, but should make the ball bearings last longer (and lighter too). The draw back is if the BB shell isn't perfectly faced on both sides, the resulting slight misalignment would produce uneven race wear...

.

Hmmm I don't know what you are doing to wear out cartridge bottom brackets in that short time (isis or Octalink I would understand). I have lx and xt grade bottom brackets that I have used for 10 plus years sometime moving from one frame to another as I wear out everything else, still smooth as buttah.

I agree completely with the OP.

My experience doesn't match yours at all. I and my riding friends/relatives have gotten 30,000 miles and more on Shimano UN-XX series square taper bottom brackets and they still ran quietly and with no play. I currently have 19,000 miles on an Ultegra Octalink bb and it's also spins in like-new condition. Finally, I have 9000 miles on a Campy Chorus square taper cartridge and it's also still like new.

Cup-and-cone bb's can indeed be like fountain pens. Some are cheap and not very durable, even with good maintenance. Others are crazy expensive and last a long time but require frequent care.

Shimano and Campy cartridge bb's are like a high quality ball point. They last a long time before being replaced and need no attention in the meantime.

I have been using both ball and cup and sealed cartridge BBs and haven't had any problems with
either if properly installed and maintained. On my campy Record cartridge BB I have over 14K miles and still going strong. On my old Ball and Cup Campy BB on my 1969 Cinelli It was finally replaced with a Phil Wood BB with well over 100K miles (unknown because of no odometer) but at 65 I am down to 4K miles per year at 65...so. The only BB I have trashed was a Ball and Cup Siguno on my original Specialized Stumpjumper sport after a very wet season of off roading in Oregon and not enough maintenance (My fault). BBs should last quite a while if you keep the water out. I always make sure there is a drain hole in my BB to let any water out when riding in the rain. There are some maintenance tips on adding lubricant to sealed bearings so if you ride in wet conditions a little of Phil Woods Tenacious Oil goes a long way.

While I like cup and cone BB that I have on my Schwinn Paramount, I am surprised at how quickly you are burning through cartridge BBs. I have an ISIS on one bike that I have been running for 4 yrs and an octalink on another that is 3 yrs old; both work just fine after many thousands of miles.

None of my cup and cone BB's are less than 35 years old.

I prefer outboard bearing bottom brackets myself and I've used all different types. They are basically no maintenance and strong with very little lateral flex. I recently installed a cartridge style bottom bracket for a friends bike that came with a plastic lock nut. After a couple months of riding that plastic piece of ChiComm crap broke and the bottom bracket worked its way loose. I replaced it with a metal lock nut. Now that really is junk.

I recently installed a cartridge style bottom bracket for a friends bike that came with a plastic lock nut. After a couple months of riding that plastic piece of ChiComm crap broke and the bottom bracket worked its way loose. I replaced it with a metal lock nut. Now that really is junk.

I had a similar experience with plastic nondrive cup on a shimano cartridge BB. When trying to remove a BB from a friend's bike, the BB tool sheared right through the cup. I gather the plastic cups are supposed to be less prone to creaks than the metal ones, but I replaced it with a metal one. I will say, the broken cup notwithstanding, the BB had many thousands of miles on it and the bearings were still smooth.

I've given up fountain pens entirely, a Pilot gives me 98% of the wonderful feel of a fountain pen, but without any of the hassle. One time to many I was caught violently shaking and licking my pen trying to write down some scrap of information.

Same thing with cartridge bottom brackets, yes I can spend the time to use a cup and cone, but it's just not worth it to me. I'd prefer to spend that hour a year doing something more fun, like riding.

It's funny, the ads that are on the side of my screen right now are for Lanier fountain pens. I'm about as likely to use one of those these days as a cup and cone bottom bracket. Ain't gonna happen unless I happen to finish the rebuild of my '72 Raleigh International which has a Nuovo Record bb as part of its part group. I do understand fine, vintage parts being desirable on some bikes, including bb's, but for bikes you're going to ride a lot, cartridge bb's are the way to go. Anyone who says Shimano cartridge bb's aren't durable hasn't used them.

Wow. It amazes me that someone would have such a strong opinion about a bottom bracket. As a wrench, the only c&c bottom brackets I see are on super low level bikes. Most customers are eager to switch out to a cartridge system. For my own bikes, I prefer whichever kind holds my crankarms and spins(namely either one).

Basil, it's time you try a Phil Wood. You'll never go back to the cheaper ones. bk

I have many years on my Shimano square taper cartridge BB. My Oclilink on the MTB is another story. 1.5 to 2 seasons max is my experience. The next time it dies, I'm going to a new crank with outboard bearings.

Basil, it's time you try a Phil Wood. You'll never go back to the cheaper ones. bk

You get better bearings for only 10X the price. You'll also need adapter rings and the special tool. How can anybody pass up a deal like that? :rolleyes:

It's a all matter of what you want. The cheap stuff that will 'do' for the average cyclist, or the best. I kinda got forced into it when I changed to Da Vinci cranks, and needed side to side adjustability to get the chain line right. Right away I could tell the difference; strength and precision. I doubt I'll ever run anything else. If quality is what you want, you have to step up. bk

Campagnolo Nuovo Record and Stronglight Competition have served me well for 35 years.

My Oclilink on the MTB is another story. 1.5 to 2 seasons max is my experience.

It's always interesting to read about the different experiences people have with stuff, relative to my own experience. I've found Shimano Octalink mtb bb's to be so durable that I wonder how Shimano did it. Despite the smaller bearings, and the accompanying assumption that they would therefore be less durable, I just can't believe how well these things have held up for me and some of my riding buddies over the years. Maybe we've just been lucky, I don't know. Now the early ISIS bb's, that's a different story-

It all depends I suspect on the quality of the BB initially and, for the C&C ones the maintenance given. I just bought a bike with a fried C&C BB, a TA one. The spindle was badly pitted, apparently due to the idiot prior owner cyclocrossing it w/o a protective sleeve or adequate maintenance. Lots of grit in the grease when disassembled. French thread so I am pretty well forced to go with a Phil Wood replacement, particularly as also changing cranks on the bike. The original TA cups seem to be ok but replacement TA spindles are getting scarce and the prices are rising.

On another bike I needed to change the chainline due to a rear wheel change. I removed a Sugino C&C BB and have replaced it with a Shimano square taper one, installed with a metal cup rather than the plastic one. Holding onto the Sugino in case I decide to change back.

Almost any design of QUALITY BB should work satisfactorily for a long time if propperly installed and given the type of maintenance recommended. Like in almost any area though the quality can vary widely from good to rotten. Cheap no name bottom brackets of any design are of questionable quality and may have a short life.

Wow. It amazes me that someone would have such a strong opinion about a bottom bracket. As a wrench, the only c&c bottom brackets I see are on super low level bikes. Most customers are eager to switch out to a cartridge system. For my own bikes, I prefer whichever kind holds my crankarms and spins(namely either one).

Yeah, I'm old enough to remember fountain pens too. There are reasons why ball points have cornered the market. They've pretty much killed the market for pocket protectors too.

I've got a C&C BB for £15 that is 5 yrs old, and good as new. I've spent £15 on a cartridge BB and had to spend the same again the following year. With a BB that you can maintain yourself, you can keep it excellent for just a few pence and a bit of time doing a job that I at least find very satisfying and strangely therapeutic. Same goes for hubs. I'm not adequately monied to go spending silly money on a boutique BB, when el cheapo C&C job does the same thing just as well.

However, I do agree that the outboard BB's are excellent. And you can at least pry the seals off and add grease, which keeps them going much longer. I use one on my race bike. But for all other applications, I'll stick to the old fashioned design. So much better. And a pleasure to use, just like a fountain pen.

I think some designs can be superior to others, but even within the same make and model, it can be hit and miss.
I've had a Phil Wood installed on a fixed-gear develop clicking within a year. I had a relatively cheap Tange unit original to cheaper Ibex bike, ridden through a couple winters stay strong and smooth.
Recently, I had a Sugino cartridge unit get rough after only six months on a fixed gear ridden in Tucson.
So I'm going to try out an Tange-made IRD unit and see if I get lucky.

However, I do agree that the outboard BB's are excellent. And you can at least pry the seals off and add grease, which keeps them going much longer.

Actually no. Most outboard bearings use a hard plastic spacer that covers the bearing seal and fits the bearing to the spindle. Looks like a top hat. You cannot remove it with a screwdriver because it will break. It must be removed with a specific shaped tool(Phil and some other companies make kits) and reinstalled with a different tool.

The simple cup/bearing/spindle axles were nice because they could be seviced. They sucked because they had to be serviced.

With few exceptions to certain brands, cartridge BBs survive many years with zero service and loads of abuse. In my fleet there is a UN91 in use since 1994 and a Phil that is more than twenty years old.
The only "cartridge" BBs I have had any trouble with are the look-alikes. They look like a cartridge but are cheap adjustable bearing sets that install like a cartridge bearing BB. The bearing assemble is installed from one side with a retaining cup on the other side. If you remove the cover from the end of the "cartridge" side you can see a set of adjusting nut/cone. These low ends BBs do not like abuse.

However, I do agree that the outboard BB's are excellent...

The "other" significant design advantage of outboard BBs is the fact that, without the bearings getting in the way inside the BB frame shell, it allowed the designers to use larger-diameter hollow-axles! The combination of compact bearings that are further apart from each other, a massive hollow axle, and a broader crankarm interface - all adds up to make this version so much stronger with minimal weight penalty. I think in some instances they are lighter than some older counterparts.

.

I have a Phil Wood bottom bracket cartridge that has been in continuous service since (about) 1978. It is still perfect.

The "other" significant design advantage of outboard BBs is the fact that, without the bearings getting in the way inside the BB frame shell, it allowed the designers to use larger-diameter hollow-axles! The combination of compact bearings that are further apart from each other, a massive hollow axle, and a broader crankarm interface - all adds up to make this version so much stronger with minimal weight penalty. I think in some instances they are lighter than some older counterparts.
.

If Cannondale gets it way, there will be a new BB shell standard (BB30) and outboard systems, common for just afew years, will go away as the larger shell allows the bearings to press fit inside the shell, no more cups of any kind. It will be interesting to see if and how fast the industry goes this route. http://www.bb30standard.com/

Look already one upped it with a 50mm BB on their time trial bike. If the industry has any sense at all it will notice that the strongest, stiffest cranksets and bottom brackets available are already in wide use (in a discipline known as BMX) and use a 51.3mm diameter, press fit bottom bracket shell (also known as Ashtabula)

use it and lose it vs. adjustable and reliable. its like an old car that you have to wrench on a little but can drive 40 miles with a blown water pump, or a new car when a circuit blows and the whole thing just shuts off. lol. Anyways it takes 10 minutes to adjust a cup and cone bb and 20 minutes to replace a cartridge bb.

use it and lose it vs. adjustable and reliable. its like an old car that you have to wrench on a little but can drive 40 miles with a blown water pump, or a new car when a circuit blows and the whole thing just shuts off. lol. Anyways it takes 10 minutes to adjust a cup and cone bb and 20 minutes to replace a cartridge bb.

Not even ten. Half that at most if you have the right tools.

Just this afternoon I pulled a Shimano UN51 from a bike that has been in continous service since 1992. The bike has just about every part on it replaced from being worn out and used up, and now the frame is in need of a little grinding to remove rust and then a paint job (maybe powder coat).
Guess what, the bottom bracket is so smooth that it is going into a 1988 Cannondale MTB that I'm refurbishing. I call that a pretty good service record.
Shimano cartridge BBs are like the energizer bunny...still going.

Not even ten. Half that at most if you have the right tools.

well lets look at it as far as number of things you have to turn to adjust.

cup and cone. 2. locknut, cup.

cartridge bb. 4
2 crank bolts (then you need the puller), driveside cup, leftside cup.

twice the work lol.

I just installed a Hollowtech outboard BB on my Trek FX 7.5. Aside from reading the directions, it took me about 5 minutes. I had the correct tools - but substituted a pin-spanner for a silly Shimano tool they specified for installing a plastic cap. Typical Shimano-trick.

Thus far the Hollowtech's 'outboard' design makes more sense than the previous design-scheme. Only lightweight components need to turn, not the entire metal core. Much smoother, too. But don't get me wrong. I love my Campy Record BB that's been on my vintage road-bike since 1982 - overhauled yearly with TLC. Still in the same condition it was in '82.

well lets look at it as far as number of things you have to turn to adjust.

cup and cone. 2. locknut, cup.

cartridge bb. 4
2 crank bolts (then you need the puller), driveside cup, leftside cup.

twice the work lol.


You assume proper adjustment in one step. It often takes several incremental steps to properly(properly means you adjust it correctly not just make sure it is not wobbly) adjust a BB.
Then you have to consider the many times there is not enough clearance to put a tool on the cup and you have to pull the left crank arm.
Then add the times it will not adjust and you need to tear it down and have a look to see what the problem is.
Then add the annual(or every couple of thousand mile) rebuild and you are into way more time spent tinkering with your adjustable BB then just installing a cartridge unit and replacing it in ten or fifteen years(or five years if you buy a cheap one)


One does not suck.
The other is not great.
They both work well and you can not tell the difference when you are using one or the other.