|
I've never had a Campy, so it must be different from the Specialized and other similar cartridge BB. This whole process has made my head hurt... and I skipped a lot.
The ones I've used had lockrings. Spanner and a pin wrench and in 5 minutes the chainline is set and the BB is nice and snug. Used grease on the threads but no lock tite. I'd probably be inclined to see if suitable lockrings existed. John |
Originally Posted by 70sSanO
(Post 20233360)
I've never had a Campy, so it must be different from the Specialized and other similar cartridge BB. This whole process has made my head hurt... and I skipped a lot.
The ones I've used had lockrings. Spanner and a pin wrench and in 5 minutes the chainline is set and the BB is nice and snug. Used grease on the threads but no lock tite. I'd probably be inclined to see if suitable lockrings existed. John |
Originally Posted by Kontact
(Post 20233589)
Nothing sticks out to put a lockring on. It is the same system as Phil Wood has used forever, and it allows for simple adjustment of chainline that would be incredibly difficult with other systems, and it doesn't require facing the BB cups. There's nothing wrong with it.
I've seen the Phil Wood ones, but never really looked into how they are installed. Thanks! John |
Originally Posted by robertorolfo
(Post 20233302)
Sorry, I should have been a little more detailed (also just notices the "anti-sleaze" typo, which obviously should have been seize).
https://shopcdn.textalk.se/shop/ws95...pic-f4f488.jpg |
against each other, thru the cartridge bearing outer edges and the sleeve joining them.
|
Originally Posted by 70sSanO
(Post 20233360)
I've never had a Campy, so it must be different from the Specialized and other similar cartridge BB. This whole process has made my head hurt... and I skipped a lot.
Anyway, as Kontact pointed out (below), it's actually a rather nice system. Allows for some added adjustability, and I really like the flush fit that doesn't require any facing. Unfortunately my bike was brought used, so the cup faces already have half their paint chipped off, but I would have been super happy with this option on a new bike at the time.
Originally Posted by Kontact
Nothing sticks out to put a lockring on. It is the same system as Phil Wood has used forever, and it allows for simple adjustment of chainline that would be incredibly difficult with other systems, and it doesn't require facing the BB cups. There's nothing wrong with it.
|
you have the width of the BB shell minus the width of the BB assembly..
|
Originally Posted by robertorolfo
(Post 20234629)
How much adjustment can one really expect from these types of BB's? I'm not sure if it's just my frame, but with the smaller chainring already quite close to the stay, my NDS pedal is only a couple of millimeters at most away from the opposite stay. I'll provide some pics when I get a chance, but I'm not seeing anything more than a 5mm right to left tolerance for adjustment (at least in my case). Does that seem about normal?
|
Originally Posted by robertorolfo
(Post 20234629)
It's really not complicated at all. I just made the initial mistake of using anti-seize on the threads, and then enjoyed diving into some super specific details about the process (maybe because I'm weird and like stuff like that).
Anyway, as Kontact pointed out (below), it's actually a rather nice system. Allows for some added adjustability, and I really like the flush fit that doesn't require any facing. Unfortunately my bike was brought used, so the cup faces already have half their paint chipped off, but I would have been super happy with this option on a new bike at the time. How much adjustment can one really expect from these types of BB's? I'm not sure if it's just my frame, but with the smaller chainring already quite close to the stay, my NDS pedal is only a couple of millimeters at most away from the opposite stay. I'll provide some pics when I get a chance, but I'm not seeing anything more than a 5mm right to left tolerance for adjustment (at least in my case). Does that seem about normal? |
5 Attachment(s)
Picture time!
So despite being satisfied with all of my installation and torquing work, I wasn't completely happy with the clearance of the left crank arm, so I too everything apart and shifted the BB over toward the NDS a little bit, because I didn't have much clearance between the small chainring and the stay either. All in all, I'd say I shifted it between 1mm and 2mm, and I'm happy with the result as it seems to be about as good a compromise as possible in terms of clearance on both sides. What do you guys think? I tried to give multiple angles, as I know it is hard to tell from pics. (Yes, my left crank is vintage/used and has some very strange corrosion marks on it). |
Lots of people really like minimizing Q, the distance between the pedals.
|
Originally Posted by fietsbob
(Post 20239134)
Lots of people really like minimizing Q, the distance between the pedals.
Strangely (or unfortunately), the left crank is about 4-5mm closer to the seat tube than the drive side crank. Doesn't seem like there is much I can do about that. |
Originally Posted by fietsbob
(Post 20239134)
Lots of people really like minimizing Q, the distance between the pedals.
Originally Posted by robertorolfo
(Post 20239307)
That wasn't my goal. It's a 111m bottom bracket, and I'm 99.9% sure that is what the bike calls for.
Strangely (or unfortunately), the left crank is about 4-5mm closer to the seat tube than the drive side crank. Doesn't seem like there is much I can do about that. |
Originally Posted by robertorolfo
(Post 20239307)
Strangely (or unfortunately), the left crank is about 4-5mm closer to the seat tube than the drive side crank. Doesn't seem like there is much I can do about that.
|
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson
(Post 20239460)
That's typical with asymmetrical spindles. The drive side sits further out to provide clearance for the chainrings.
The OP's frame doesn't sound symmetric because the cranks can be centered on the stays or the seat tube, but not both. |
Originally Posted by Kontact
(Post 20239417)
You might want to check frame alignment. Pull a string taught from left dropout, ever the head tube and back to the right drop out. See if the seat tube is centered between the strings.
Thing is, I'm not sure how frame alignment would affect the distance from the cranks to the seat tube, since they are mounted in line (vertically) with the seat tube? Am I missing something?
Originally Posted by JohnDTompson
That's typical with asymmetrical spindles. The drive side sits further out to provide clearance for the chainrings.
|
Originally Posted by robertorolfo
(Post 20239730)
We must be reading my mind, because I did exactly that last night. I did find a very small discrepancy, with about 2 (maybe 3)millimeters more space between the string and seat tube on the drive side. Not to happy about that either, but figure I can deal with it for now (unless you or anyone thinks that is too much. I have no experience with this).
Thing is, I'm not sure how frame alignment would affect the distance from the cranks to the seat tube, since they are mounted in line (vertically) with the seat tube? Am I missing something? You know, I never even considered the possibility that it was asymmetric, but after looking around a little I think that might be a strong possibility. I found this link, which is for entirely different (and older) BB's, but makes me think the general practice continued on: Campagnolo bottom bracket info Asymmetric spindles are usually for use with asymmetric cranks - the left crank arm's head is inset with more ankle clearance than the right arm's. It is not something that makes the pedals asymmetric because the two arms angle out to the pedal differently. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:09 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.