Mavic 610 BB crank compatibility?
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Mavic 610 BB crank compatibility?
A question for experts on all things French: would older Stronglight cranks (ie 49d and 93 series) work well with the Mavic 610 threadless bottom bracket? I have seen many sources on BikeForums and elsewhere stating that both of these components have "almost" ISO bottom brackets. Does that mean that they'll fit? Seems like this would be good to know before camfering a bottom bracket to fit the Mavic 610.
#2
Le Crocodile
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Barbara Calif.
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 370 Post(s)
Liked 787 Times
in
311 Posts
Are you using the 610 because that's what you have, or are you using the 610 because you want to?
I will be installing a 610 this week (I'll take pics) but it is getting mated to Mavic SSC cranks.
I do not know if the axle taper is ISO or not, and if someone says so, they also have to provide the numbers/research that backs that up. I have no reason the think that the 610 isn't ISO.
Does your 610 have the molded nylon conical "washers", or are they missing?
I will be installing a 610 this week (I'll take pics) but it is getting mated to Mavic SSC cranks.
I do not know if the axle taper is ISO or not, and if someone says so, they also have to provide the numbers/research that backs that up. I have no reason the think that the 610 isn't ISO.
Does your 610 have the molded nylon conical "washers", or are they missing?
__________________
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 2,820
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1106 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,327 Times
in
783 Posts
I think no - below is a ~115mm 600rd and the Stronglight crank has bottomed out against the end of the cup - and it's not even tight on the square yet:
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,052
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 1,556 Times
in
1,021 Posts
Mavic's tech department says that their spindle is ISO. Is every Stronglight? Many are.
Likes For Kontact:
#6
Paramount Fan
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vermont
Posts: 293
Bikes: Paramounts, Raleigh Pros, Colnago, DeRosa, Gios, Masis, Pinarello, R. Sachs, Look, D. Moulton, Witcomb, Motobecane, Bianchis, Fat City, Frejus, Follis, Waterford, Litespeed, d'Autremont, others, mostly '70s-'80s
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked 239 Times
in
133 Posts
AFAIK, the ISO spec only defines the taper angle, length, and start dimensions, not the amount of offset. The arm might have a bore to match the spindle, but require a different offset. Trying a left crankarm might be a better determination of whether or not it is ISO. If the end of the spindle is about the same distance from the outside of the taper in the arm as one of the manufacturer's arms, and there is still a mm or so of taper left on the inside, it should be interchangeable. Then you can focus on whether or not you can find a BB with the right offset for the drive side to have the proper chainline.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,682
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1163 Post(s)
Liked 442 Times
in
315 Posts
I have a Mavic triple crank that takes a 119 mm square taper ISO axle. I thought I heard that the taper on JIS compared to ISO is the same angle but that in the case of the JIS, the taper continues out for like 3mm longer. So for example, if the spec calls for a 119mm ISO length, my belief is I could run a 122 JIS square taper (with an adjustable chain-line) and be able to dial in tight clearance of the granny ring to the chainstay…
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,052
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 1,556 Times
in
1,021 Posts
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,052
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 1,556 Times
in
1,021 Posts
I have a Mavic triple crank that takes a 119 mm square taper ISO axle. I thought I heard that the taper on JIS compared to ISO is the same angle but that in the case of the JIS, the taper continues out for like 3mm longer. So for example, if the spec calls for a 119mm ISO length, my belief is I could run a 122 JIS square taper (with an adjustable chain-line) and be able to dial in tight clearance of the granny ring to the chainstay…
#10
Newbie
Thread Starter
Thanks for the help, this seems to be a really fuzzy area. As background--I was considering getting a Mavic 610 BB for a bike with damaged threads in the BB area.
In regards to the questions above, it seems that Stronglight recommended a 113mm BB for the 49D, at least for track use. See here:
https://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?...geViewsIndex=1
So it seems 115 would have fit, if it were correct?
Again, very strange since Mavic claims the 610 is ISO, and according to Sheldon Brown (https://www.sheldonbrown.com/bbtaper.html) "older Stronglight" is also ISO. Of course Hilary Stone claims that older Stronglight is JIS (Hilary Stone Stronglight & TA Bottom Brackets English)!!!
In regards to the questions above, it seems that Stronglight recommended a 113mm BB for the 49D, at least for track use. See here:
https://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?...geViewsIndex=1
So it seems 115 would have fit, if it were correct?
Again, very strange since Mavic claims the 610 is ISO, and according to Sheldon Brown (https://www.sheldonbrown.com/bbtaper.html) "older Stronglight" is also ISO. Of course Hilary Stone claims that older Stronglight is JIS (Hilary Stone Stronglight & TA Bottom Brackets English)!!!
#11
Old fart
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 24,784
Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3587 Post(s)
Liked 3,400 Times
in
1,934 Posts
A question for experts on all things French: would older Stronglight cranks (ie 49d and 93 series) work well with the Mavic 610 threadless bottom bracket? I have seen many sources on BikeForums and elsewhere stating that both of these components have "almost" ISO bottom brackets. Does that mean that they'll fit? Seems like this would be good to know before camfering a bottom bracket to fit the Mavic 610.
#13
Le Crocodile
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Barbara Calif.
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 370 Post(s)
Liked 787 Times
in
311 Posts
What is the frame, and what is the damage? Typically there are options besides getting the 610, and then doing the BB chamfering- Getting the special Mavic tool runs around $250.00 (if you can find one) and making your own or having it done is even more expensive. Unless of course, you have easy access to the tool or already have a 45 degree shell mill and the lathe to make your own pilot.
The required chamfer on the BB is a pretty substantial cut, especially if you are using the nylon conical washers that are "supposed" to be installed (can be done without if required).
I will get pics taken tonight of the setup once I get home.
The required chamfer on the BB is a pretty substantial cut, especially if you are using the nylon conical washers that are "supposed" to be installed (can be done without if required).
I will get pics taken tonight of the setup once I get home.
__________________
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,682
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1163 Post(s)
Liked 442 Times
in
315 Posts
Can you give a link to the Mavic tech documents? I might still try it with a long-ish JIS spindle with an adjustable chainline to see if I can make it work.
#15
Newbie
Thread Starter
The bike is a 1974(ish) Gitane Country cyclocross frame. Many cool features including the Huret Honeycomb drop-outs, the brazed-on shoulder support for carrying the bike, full Reynolds 531 frame, and pretty rare. I actually haven't purchased it (yet?), but I'm trying to figure out just how much time and money I'd be in for if I were to buy it. I have a Stronglight 49D crankset "in stock" and several other French parts. The (semi) local bike shock has the camfering tool, and would charge $50 to do it. So it doesn't seem tooo crazy...
Interestingly, Stronglight gives somewhat confusing information about their BB standards in their own 2001 catalogue:
https://www.disraeligears.co.uk/site...1_page_16.html
Of course there's no information at all about the Stronglight JP1000, which seem to be the continuation of the Mavic 610.
Interestingly, Stronglight gives somewhat confusing information about their BB standards in their own 2001 catalogue:
https://www.disraeligears.co.uk/site...1_page_16.html
Of course there's no information at all about the Stronglight JP1000, which seem to be the continuation of the Mavic 610.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,052
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 1,556 Times
in
1,021 Posts
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,052
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 1,556 Times
in
1,021 Posts
He said that the Mavic 631 crank has an "A" fit to the C-Record era spindles, which seem to be identical to what was later labeled "ISO".
Likes For Kontact:
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,052
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 1,556 Times
in
1,021 Posts
The bike is a 1974(ish) Gitane Country cyclocross frame. Many cool features including the Huret Honeycomb drop-outs, the brazed-on shoulder support for carrying the bike, full Reynolds 531 frame, and pretty rare. I actually haven't purchased it (yet?), but I'm trying to figure out just how much time and money I'd be in for if I were to buy it. I have a Stronglight 49D crankset "in stock" and several other French parts. The (semi) local bike shock has the camfering tool, and would charge $50 to do it. So it doesn't seem tooo crazy...
Interestingly, Stronglight gives somewhat confusing information about their BB standards in their own 2001 catalogue:
https://www.disraeligears.co.uk/site...1_page_16.html
Of course there's no information at all about the Stronglight JP1000, which seem to be the continuation of the Mavic 610.
Interestingly, Stronglight gives somewhat confusing information about their BB standards in their own 2001 catalogue:
https://www.disraeligears.co.uk/site...1_page_16.html
Of course there's no information at all about the Stronglight JP1000, which seem to be the continuation of the Mavic 610.
Before you chamfer anything, just mount the crank on the loose Mavic BB.
#19
Le Crocodile
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Barbara Calif.
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 370 Post(s)
Liked 787 Times
in
311 Posts
Here is what a BB and the chamfer modification look like. This is a Vitus 979 frame, and whoever did the mod didn't go deep enough to run the conical washers, so I can deepen it, or just install without. Anyway, the Park tool (BBT-7) shown is the correct one for the BB locking rings.
It's obvious, but Mavic marks the non-drive side MOBILE, and the drive side FIXE.
__________________
#20
Newbie
Thread Starter
Here's why I wrote that: It seems that the BBs on the left side of the Stronglight catalog page can be either ISO or JIS, depending on size. However, no explicit information is provided about those on the right side of the page. Therefore, I was confused as to whether they are JIS or ISO, or some other third thing.
Anyway, I think your advice about mounting before camfering is absolutely the right way to go, especially as we've seen that 2 different cranks, with ostensibly the same specifications, can have very different fits.
Anyway, I think your advice about mounting before camfering is absolutely the right way to go, especially as we've seen that 2 different cranks, with ostensibly the same specifications, can have very different fits.