Bicycle Mechanics - Is there a square taper shimano compatible 10 speed crank?

The idea is to use a Phil Wood BB within a Shimano 10 speed system. The crank was on ISIS system and I want to change the Crank system to use Phil Woods. Are there any cranks 39/53 standard that would work on a Shimano system? I would not mind searching on Ebay to find any used ones but I just do not want to change the whole derailleur and gear system. All I need is a few possible good granks that would be Shimano compatible and work with Phil Wood BB.
Thanks

How about these:

http://www.davincitandems.com/comp.html#cranks

I have them on Phil Wood BBs. They will also anodize them black (or I guess other colors too).

Do not know of one, but I would try to make one from DA8 cranks and 10S chainrings to go with my Ti Phil Wood 103BB

As long as you currently have a 53or 52/39 double, you have no worries, just get a double that works with the bottom bracket you want. Any 53 or 52/39 double crank would work fine with your ten speed Shimano system. You can't mix shifters and deraillers but any 53/39 double crank will work with your shimano front derailler and your rear derailler and 10-speed cassette. It might get a tad more complicated if you are coming from a triple or a compact double but not much.

Here's a killer deal I saw earlier today on a Centaur Carbon 52/39 (http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=24556&estore_ID=1858)

What I would do is just get a cheap campagnolo chorus or veloce that now a days are a real steal if you want them in squared tapper. Second option, get an old set of shimano 105s or dura ace squared tapper and then change the chain rings for modern ones that are a little bit narrow than the old ones. Done.

http://www.xxcycle.com/mygal-double,,en.php

This is the only new one I can think of.

There is no compatibility with the crank. The issue is with chainrings.
For example, I'm running an old Shimano 600 crank on my Centurion Ironman, but with recent Truvativ chainrings.

http://www.unc.edu/~cupery/pics/bikes/Centurion_Ironman_Expert/small/4-MG_5588--600_crank.jpg (http://www.unc.edu/~cupery/pics/bikes/Centurion_Ironman_Expert/small/4-MG_5588--600_crank.html)

That said, I believe the interior width of 10-speed chains is 3/32" - the same as 6, 7, 8, and 9-speed stuff. Meaning that the 10-speed chains will fit fine on chainrings from earlier eras.
The only problem might come from the chainrings being spaced further apart, and the 10-speed chain is narrower (outside width) and in some cases could get stuck between them.

There is no compatibility with the crank. The issue is with chainrings.
For example, I'm running an old Shimano 600 crank on my Centurion Ironman, but with recent Truvativ chainrings.


That said, I believe the interior width of 10-speed chains is 3/32" - the same as 6, 7, 8, and 9-speed stuff. Meaning that the 10-speed chains will fit fine on chainrings from earlier eras.
The only problem might come from the chainrings being spaced further apart, and the 10-speed chain is narrower (outside width) and in some cases could get stuck between them.

Chainring tooth width was discussed recently. I'm not sure if it was ever 3/32 (.094) inch. A couple of us measured old chainrings up to 15 years old and found none that were much over .080 inch. Most 10 speed models are around .078 inch or 2mm in thickness. The new 11 speed rings are .1mm or .004 inch thinner.

If you do find 3/32" teeth, they will NOT fit a new 10 speed chain.

Most chainrings made for Shimano 9/10 or Campy 10 speed are about .4mm closer together than those made earlier. The 11 speed rings were moved another .6mm closer. The rings are always moved closer by changing the thickness of the mounting area on the ring, not changing the crank, so newer matched pairs of rings will generally have the correct spacing when installed on older cranks.

Like this one? make me an offer ;)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v115/Socjake/Bike/th_IMG_0678.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v115/Socjake/Bike/?action=view&current=IMG_0678.jpg)

Chainring tooth width was discussed recently. I'm not sure if it was ever 3/32 (.094) inch. A couple of us measured old chainrings up to 15 years old and found none that were much over .080 inch. Most 10 speed models are around .078 inch or 2mm in thickness. The new 11 speed rings are .1mm or .004 inch thinner.

If you do find 3/32" teeth, they will NOT fit a new 10 speed chain.

Most chainrings made for Shimano 9/10 or Campy 10 speed are about .4mm closer together than those made earlier. The 11 speed rings were moved another .6mm closer. The rings are always moved closer by changing the thickness of the mounting area on the ring, not changing the crank, so newer matched pairs of rings will generally have the correct spacing when installed on older cranks.
Dave, thanks for posting these specs.

To clarify, I said that 3/32" was the inner width of the chain, not the width of the chainring teeth.

My point was that the inner width of the chain hasn't changed from 7/8/9 speeds to 10-speed, and thus the 10-speed chain will fit on older chainrings. (I don't know about 11 speed, but it sounds like that may still work).

The spacing of the chainrings is the issue; thanks for the measurements on that.
For the record, I and many others have used cranks with chainrings designed for 8-speed, with 9-speed chains and have had no problem. I haven't used 8-speed era chainrings with 10-speed chains (which have a narrower outer width than 9-speed chains) so can't comment on that.

Like this one? make me an offer ;)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v115/Socjake/Bike/th_IMG_0678.jpg
It's worth noting here that there are two different square-taper standards. Shimano (and nearly all others) use the JIS square-taper standard, while Campagnolo (and Stronglight, and the "75" crank from Sugino) use the ISO standard. Campy's standard is slightly narrower (although the angle of the taper is the same) than Shimano's.

You can get Phil Wood bottom brackets in both ISO and JIS tapers, but make sure you get the right one depending on the crank you buy.

The only problem might come from the chainrings being spaced further apart, and the 10-speed chain is narrower (outside width) and in some cases could get stuck between them.

This is an issue in my experience.

Thanks for presenting your Chorus. I am actually helping a friend myself. Unfortunately he has an allergy to Campy :(. Anything he uses has to be Shimano or compatible. The Phil Wood is in the picture because he tried my old Classic Rudge that I installed Phils on. Yes, a Rudge from the 60s with Phils and 2006 record cranks!
I would like to thank everyone for all the replies by the way. We got a really good set of answers and options.

how about using sugino cranks?

and shimano 10sp chainrings if they really want them.

Admittedly, I am not that familiar with Sugino. What would be a good model (real good if you want) that you would suggest. I just found out that his cranks are top end FSA actually (some $300 material according what I was told). So if you have any model in mind I will greatly appreciate it.

If his cranks are top-end FSA, why don't you just keep the chainrings from his cranks, and buy some square-taper road crankarms? for example, there's an early-90's Shimano 600 crankset (without chainrings) on eBay right now:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300294224100

I don't have a model in mind because there are lots of good cranks out there in 130mm bolt-center with a Shimano-compatible JIS interface. I've probably got a bunch organized in my own attic, even.

Check out the Sugino Alpina. It's exactly what you seek. Also, for higher end stuff look at TA.

Here's a killer deal I saw earlier today on a Centaur Carbon 52/39 (http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=24556&estore_ID=1858)

Right after Christmas, 2008 Nashbar had 20% off on Centaur CF Compact cranks. I snagged one for $99.00 How is it that Campy went from super expensive to the new deal in bike parts? 2008 Centaur CF rear ders are also under $100.00 online.

I'm a bit late to this discussion but to follow up on DaveSSS's data, I just measured the thickness of a bunch of chainring teeth that I happen to have available. The results were:

Campy Chorus 10-speed - 0.078"
Shimano Ultegra 9-speed - 0.079"
Shimano 105 8-speed - 0.078"
SR 6/7 speed from the 1980's - 0.079"
Sun Tour Cyclone 7-speed also from the '80's - 0.080"

So it seems the thickness of chainring teeth themselves has not changed for decades, only the spacing to accomodate thinner chains.

the inner ring on shimano 10sp cranks are offset closer to the outer ring.
presumably to avoid having the chain get stuck between the chainrings.

the inner ring on shimano 10sp cranks are offset closer to the outer ring.
presumably to avoid having the chain get stuck between the chainrings.
Shimano 9-speed cranks have the same off-set inner chainring for the same reason.

the previous generation 9sp 105/ultegra/DA or the current generation of 9sp tiagra/sora?

I know the tiagra "9"sp chainrings are the exact same as 105 10sp chainrings.
I don't recall 5500 and 6500 having any offset...

I just checked that model but it looks more like octalink or ISIS. It certainly is not square taper.