I need a couple of Shimano JIS taper BB's for some old Deore bikes I'm putting together. Does look way too expensive or am I paying for collectibility? https://cgi.ebay.com/New-Old-Stock-Sh...QQcmdZViewItem
The 122mm size is getting as hard to find as BP 28.6 MTB front derailleurs. Thanks

Tim

Uh, ya, I wouldn't pay $45 for a cup-and-cone BB Try here: https://sheldonbrown.com/harris/botto...s.html#shimano
They say you can buy a 122 mm Shimano square taper for $25. The UN-52 is a little heavier than the UN-72, but works well.

i think cup and cone bbs out last and out perform newer bbs, and i think that price is good, really, if you figure that an american classic unit is 70 bucks. its also gunna be lighter than a new unit, and sexier. go for it.

Not in my experience. I've had and seen numerous UN72/73 bottom brackets in service for well over 30,000 miles and still be in good condition when they were replaced as part of a crank upgrade. Shimano sealed cartridge bottom brackets are one of bicycling's real bargains for both cost and durability.

How can something nobody ever sees be sexy?

Me too and I'm a retro grouch. Sometimes even I have to admit that some of the newer ideas really are better. However, I don't like to do that for at least a decade or until I can judge their longivity. Cartridge bottom brackets definitely make the grade.

cup and cone bbs can be serviced, rather than thrown out. i hate the current disposable bike culture. as to how can something no one sees be sexy, i answer, only the right people will see it, and know its sexyness. i've had numerous people comment on my action tec bb, and my white industries bb, so its not like they are invisible.

Not only can they be serviced but they HAVE to be serviced. Even at that they don't last as long as the current cartridge bb's. They are more disposable in their own way than the new ones.

You have either very observant or very strange friends.

Exactly, cartridge BBs may be disposable in the sense that they can't be overhauled... but they last such a long time! When I first saw them, I thought they were "wasteful" in that sense, but then realized that because they lsat so long they're really a very good idea.

It's like the people who want a flashy red Chris King headset. How often do you ever look at a headset when there's not something wrong with it? If you want your bike to look flashy, get yourself a nice roll of pink bar tape for $7.

i guess my point, briefly, is this:

if we apply the sealed bearing philosophy to everything, we would ride bikes with internally geared hubs, which clearly outlast cassettes and derailluers, i myself riding a sturmey from 50 years ago, we would have internal jackdrives instead of chains, we would have electronic shifting so shift cogs couldnt wear down, and cables couldnt stretch. to an extreme my point is: where do we stop, when do we say too much convenience is too much? i dont ever want to see a day when dual suspension roadbikes are more prevalent than traditional bikes, but already we see that day approaching, as 10 years ago dual suspension was in the minority on mtn bikes and now its standard. i say, stop now, stop ten years ago, stop 25 years, everything works fine.

Internally geared drivetrains have significantly reduced efficiency, increased weight, and increased cost. Derailer gearing is cheap, light, and works very well when well-maintained. So that's a trade-off.

With cup-and-cone BBs vs cartridge BBs, there's no tradeoff. Cartridge BBs are cheap to make, long-lasting, and can be made insanely lightweight if you're into that sort of thing. They're simply a superior technology

Also, I highly doubt we'll be seeing dual-suspension road bikes any time, not even for city or touring use. The cost and weight increase is fairly severe. On the other hand, I expect we'll see more suspension seatposts on road bikes.

Lastly, how would electronic shifting prevent cogs from wearing down?

Significantly reduced efficiency?. Maybe if you cleaned your derailleur chain everyday, it would hold some truth, but significantly is a rather significant word.

Also, how expensive is a Sturmey AW?

You have some points, but don't blow them out of proportion.

Read the book "Bicycling Science" (really great book by the way!!!) for some hard data on chain drive efficiency with various setups. Long story short, a dirt-drive derailer-geared system with a clean chain is about 98-99% efficient with a cog of 15T or larger. An internally-geared system is around 5-20% less efficient in non-direct drive, depending on its construction. And chain cleanliness is fairly irrelevant, since it will affect derailer- or internally-geared bikes nearly equally, given that they both use a chain going from a chainring to a cog.

Internally geared hubs are quite expensive: today's equivalent of the 3-speed Sturmey-Archer would probably be the 7-speed Shimano Nexus hub, which I couldn't find for < $150. By contrast, I can get a pair of Shimano LX or Shimano 105 derailers, rear hub, and a 9-speed cassette for about $100 from Nashbar. The LX setup will have a slightly wider and more finely spaced gear range, and is quite a bit lighter. The difference *may* be due to economies of scale in large part, but I'm not sure...

One of the things I like about cartridge bottom brackets is that the cartridge and the adjustable locking cup are hidden, leading to an extremely clean look at the bottom bracket. This cleans up the look of any bike. Fixed cups are a pain to remove without fear of scratching the paint on your baby. I guess you could purchase one of those expensive Stein fixed cup tools that locks the tool on to prevent that. The adustable cup and lockring side attracts dirt and the tools required aren't standard from brand to brand. Usually I can rebuild most brands decently, but I must add my name to the "cartridge bottom brackets are great with no negatives" list.

+1

Yet another point in favor of cartridge BBs: the BB shell does not ever need to be faced precisely. This reduces manufacturing/assembly cost. Facing was often necessary on high-end frames with cup-and-cone BBs because the threads must be aligned very precisely in order for the bearing to operate smoothly. With cartridge BBs, misalignment of the threads does not affect the alignment of the bearing (to within reason!).

Those theories of internal hubs having a lower efficency may have their mathimatical points, but I highly doubt whether the effecency difference, in practice, will ever be noticed by the rider.

And you don't seem to realize that although the initial cost of an internal hub setup may exceed that of a derailer setup, history has shown that there are internally-geared hubs out there (most notably, of course, the Sturmey AW) that have currently logged enough miles - without major parts replacement - to easily wear out 10 to 15+ sets of $hitmano's current Hyperbribe drivetrains.

As for weight, since internal hubs have not been applied to race use since the mid '50s (except for the fantastic Rohloff piece), lighter ones have not been developed, but that is NOT to say that a lightweight, internally-geared hub cannot be developed.

I do have quite a few AW spare parts on hand - perhaps I'll try my hand at adding a little "drillium" to the innards of one to see how light I can get it. That, plus an alloy SA hub shell will probably weigh less then a current drivetrain group for a road machine.

-Kurt

you doubt dual suspension is in the near future for road bikes? have you been blind to trek and specialized and thier move towards elastomers and other vibration isolating "technology"? i guarentee that if you could make a dual suspension road bike within a pound of current bikes, they would be on the market in a flash. electronic shifting doesnt use a traditional shifter, therefore the gears or cogs in the shifter cant wear out. also, no one makes a sealed bearing bb as light as a cup and cone, and i would contend it cant be done. as to increased cost and weight, yeah its true, now. my whole argument was based on a hypothical future, not current situations. i was taking the sealed bearing philosphy to its possible zenith.

Um... 10% is a fairly large difference in efficiency. When my chain gets dirty, and then I clean it, I find the difference in pedaling power on my commute to be noticeable. Not large, but noticeable. And I don't let my chain go more than a month or so without cleaning, less if the weather's bad.

Why the crude mockery of Shimano? I agree that some of their stuff is overpriced, and some of their ideas are bad... but they have been responsible for many innovations: ramped cogs (e.g. hyperglide) are probably the best improvement in derailer gearing since the slant-parallelogram rear derailer. Ramped cogs make a far greater difference than indexing as far as ease of shifting, in my opinion.

Certainly internally-geared hubs can last a long time, much longer than cassettes which typically last 1000-5000 miles, and derailers which might last 10000-20000 miles if you take good care. I don't dispute that. Internal gearing has undeniable advantages. I'm talking about a tradeoff here, that's why I mentioned its DISadvantages.

Well, it's true that internal gearing has not been the subject of as much optimization as derailer gearing recently. It's not just a matter of weight, but efficiency as well I would add. I'd be interested in how much improvement in weight could be made without sacrificing the long life!

Take the weight of a Rohloff hub + one cog + single crank, and compare it to the weight of an XTR freehub, XTR derailers, XTR cassette, and XTR triple crankset. I'm pretty sure that XTR still comes out ahead. Plus, the XTR setup will cost you about $800 (mostly the crank), while Rohloff will be around $1000. If you're willing to "settle" for XT--which is more durable I believe, though a bit heavier--you'll can pay maybe $400-500.

Of course, if you're considering Rohloff for your MTB, you're likely to be an elite racer, and neither cost nor longevity will be a significant issue, so I'd guess that it's close to a tie between XTR and Rohloff. In terms of road bikes, or cross-country MTB bikes at a lower price point, I don't see anything that really competes with derailer gearing. Not to say that it won't change with more innovation and higher-volume internal-geared hub production, just that I don't see it today...

using this line of reasoning, internal headsets make bikes look cleaner, and so do internal hubs, disc wheels, and jack drives. i like to look at well made stuff. the only reason it should hide is if its plastic and ugly and has those horrible splines for that worthless shimano bb tool.

I've seen the move to vibration isolation and elastomers, yes. I don't see dual suspension as the logical conclusion of that effort, however. What I envision is increasing refinement of the more "passive" solutions currently in use.

Electronic shifting has been tried in the form of the mavic mechtronic drivetrain. I believe it created more problems than it solved, in that form at least. Radio interference, dead batteries, and finicky motors in the derailers from what I've heard! I agree that worn-out indexing in Shimano STI shifters is definitely a problem, but the solution is to make easily rebuildable shifters. Every single Campy brifter is easily rebuildable (for a cost of about $30 I believe), and the new SRAM Force and Rival groups are rebuildable too. I think this is mainly a case of "planned obsolescence" by Shimano, rather than any real problem with brifters.

There are currently cartridge BBs weighing around 110 g for some of the new external BB designs. They have fancy-dancy ceramic bearings and hollow titanium spindles and they're outrageously expensive ... not something I can afford or am interested in, but weight weenies sure seem to be excited about 'em Maybe a cup-and-cone BB employing similar high-zoot materials would be even lighter, but frankly no one's making them.

There are a number of cases where the bike industry seems to have settled on solutions that are less-than-perfect in terms of weight. Shimano came up with a 10 mm pitch chain about a decade ago, I'm told, but it never caught on despite the fact that it would've saved a bit of weight without significant effect on longevity of components. The movement from cup-and-cone bearings to cartridges reduces the cost of manufacturing a lot of parts and increases longevity of bearings, even though it ultimately increases weight a bit.

I dunno why I even care so much to argue about this stuff ... my commuter is a hunk of 1980s steel with threaded headset and square taper BB, and my aluminum road bike has a 1998 Shimano 105 drivetrain and steel fork, so it's no lightweight either.

Sure, internal headsets make bikes look cleaner, but they suck for a ton of other reasons. Count me not in favor of them I don't tink masi was calling appearance the most important reason for cartridge BBs, merely a side benefit. I think that quill stems are much prettier than threadless stems, but I recognize the many advantages of threadless stems, so I think they're an improvement overall!!!

What's wrong with the splined BB tool? It's practically standardized among non-external bottom brackets, which is the part that *I* like best as a frugal hobbyist, because I don't have to buy a bunch of different tools. With cup-and-cone, I have a Park notched wrench that works with the adjustable cups on *most* Japanese stuff, but not on French or Italian BBs... and then there are some Japanese or English BBs which require something else like a pin spanner.

Everyone has their own aesthetic when it comes to what looks classic or cool on a bike. I'm into a lot of old school technology, in fact, I have ridden nothing more than 6 rear cogs on my bikes up until this year. I've never had anything but downtube shifters and only recently over the last couple years have I migrated to index shifting.
The thing is, as a fan of road bikes and all the iterations of new frames, materials, and evolutionary changes to components, I am encouraged rather than discouraged overall.
And yes, ridelugs, gasp my reasoning about a clean bottom bracket extends out to internal headsets, disc wheels or hidden drivetrains...absolutely! I think retro is good, but modern - when executed well shows more promise. The alternative is retrogrouch cynicism, and that ain't pretty.

god, i think we need all the cynicism we can muster, and then some. how else are we going to stop being railroaded by what designers think is good, or looks good, or whatever. the same logic i am applying here goes for cars too, and clothes, and guitars, and houses. how can a honda civic ever look better than a austin healy? it cant! chrome and real leather and spoked wheels are all what make a austin a great car, and they are also what make a bike a great bike. how can riding a bike that looks like honda's junior engineers designed it in a bout of sake induced madness, ever be more pleasureable than a bike that was designed for function and beauty, and perhaps even handcrafted by someone who cared what every detail looked like. this isnt even a retro question, its a simple question of aesthetics.
bikes crafted by artisans, or even designed by them, should always win, but they dont. they rarely do.
why are we so entrenched in supposed advances and advantages that we ignore why cycling is so great? its fundamentally a beautiful thing to do, bikes look nice, people on bikes look nice, bikes let us do nice things, and shouldnt be at odds with the environment because of it. they should blend with it, enhance it, like a good garden enhances a house.

I have heard that internal headsets are hard to adjust. My bikes all have quill stems and threaded headsets but mainly I like the look of the newer headsets. I'd like to have at least one aheadset bike with an unthreaded fork for no other reason than to get some first hand experience with it.
The Shimano splined bottom bracket tool works great on my square taper Shimano cartridge unit as well as my splined 7703 Dura Ace octalink unit. I have encountered some non-standardization on some cartridge bb's that I worked on though, such as the inexpensive ones that use a black nylon adjustable splined cup. I worked on couple of these and the splines were a slightly different dimension.
Also, I have found that there is a trick to precisely installing cartridge bb's with the splined tool. I use a 3/8" drive mechanics T-bar with a 32mm socket on my Shimano TL-UN52. The bike needs to be out of the stand or else VERY securely mounted in it. Probably better to reach over the top tube with your body and keep steady pressure on the T-bar (or breaker bar) as you loosen the cartridge unit.

I hear what you're saying Ridelug and agree with a portion of it. Crazy thing is, some ot the examples you provide to illustrate some kind of doomsday, futuristic bland scenario are actually big design winners. If you mean that Shimano's engineering is a lot like Honda, I would have to agree. I'm a big fan of Honda vehicles on a lot of levels. Shimano's (or Honda's) designs are not for everybody but even if you don't like them, there is a lot to respect. I tried to migrate to Campagnolo components years ago but I always found Shimano parts to be a better fit for me. I spoke with someone at Speedgoat cycles recently about some Sora STI shift/brake levers I was considering and the guy suggested that I call Shimano's customer service directly to inquire about compatibility. The customer service guy wasn't the most enthusiastic dude on the planet but he did share with me which parts work with which. The guy at Speedgoat said that Shimano deserves more credit for backing their products and implied that Campagnolo is the company that's hard to deal with. This is contrary to a lot of what you read where people get real passionate about the rebuild-ability of the Campy parts.

::yawn::

Yeah, you youngsters and your newfangled "friction shifters" and "cup-and-cone bottom brackets". Why, back in the day, we only had one gear and that's all we needed, and it was on one big ol' wheel. Why bother with a bottom bracket. Wassat? Can't get up on that thing? Tough cookies -- go back to ridin' school, lad, and learn how to do it right. You want some fancy paintin' scheme? Sure, any color you like, long as you like black. Or something like that. These days it's all just one big conspiracy to get us to buy new junk that doesn't last and costs too much, bla bla bla.

</retro-Retro Grouch>