It's times like this that I sure do miss Suntour. Then there would be a good old, knockdown and drag out, pricing war. Shimano is sneaky and underhanded. Though much less so than was the case in the early 1980's. For instance:

I just bought an Ultegra triple crankset. Came with instructions and a cap that fits onto the left crank arm. The instruction specified I'd need a tool made by Shimano to properly install this plastic-nut! It was a weird, and no doubt proprietary, shape. Did I cave in and order this tool to install this plastic do-dad? Nope. I foraged through my tools and decided a pin-spanner would work very nicely. Ha! Ha! Yours truly - 1. Shimano - 0.

I have absolutely no doubt that we'll see Hollowtech II winding it's way into every bottom-bracket on the face of the road and trails. Octalink will continue to be phased out. I have mixed feelings about this - the Hollowtech II bottom-bracket is very nice indeed. But their halting production of the best of the Octalink is a dirty, underhanded trick - typical. Octalink works just fine for most users. Causing scarcity of replacements is good business - for the company. Steer us all into buying their latest innovation.

Next they'll have invisible bottom-brackets. The entire mechanism consisting of electromagnetic fields holding everything together. It will be cheap to buy initially - but only Shimano electromagnetic batteries can be used to power it. Those will cost a weeks pay. And cause cancer in laboratory mice.

Yeah, I agree. Again, it's kind of like Microsoft... you push out Vista and force users to upgrade for the latest games by not porting DirectX 10 (latest gaming engine, proprietary to Microsoft) to Windows XP... therefore leaving XP's best gaming engine with DirectX 9... Dirty. But... reality.

I will surely keep on trucking with my Octalink. I find it very smooth and I really like how I can just crank all of my weight (210lbs) to the pedals as hard as I can and the bike just smoothly launches forward. Good stuff! I just like being aware of what replacement parts are available and what avenues I can take to get certain things done. Which is why I asked so much about other BB/Crank sets. Which, btw, not sure if it was answered but I assume ANY standard BB regardless of Square Taper/Octalink/ISIS/external bearing should fit into pretty much any Mt Bike lower hub where the BB is housed? Like I said before, just not sure if certain measurements are required here to get certain parts.

What is the Hollowtech II considered? Splined cartridge? External?

Hollowtech II is defined as an "Outboard BB" as the sealed mechanism the rotates is located outside the BB-shell. In other words - outside of the actual frame of the bicycle.

Is that something that works with any standard mountain bike frame? Or is a certain sized hub required to put something like that into play?

Would something that is "outboard" (even though you say sealed) be more exposed to sand and whatnot to speed up wear and tear?

Not if it's a well-designed mechanism - and it is. The Hollowtech II works on any BB-shell. Well - 68mm & 73mm. As the bearing-mechanism is attached outside the frame, one doesn't need to measure the axle-length required so it will fit inside properly. The crankset for these are 2-piece. This consists of the chainrings and crank-arm for the drive-side being attached together to a long axle. This fits through the BB-shell and it then attached to the separate left-side crank-arm. Hence: Two-Piece. The internal portion of the Hollowtech II bottom-bracket is just an empty plastic tube through which goes the axle which is attached to the chainrings and right crank-arm. Then is attached to the left side crank-arm.

Get it? I suggest you Google-up some pictures off the web.

Yeah, I get it. I was just curious as to how applicable it would be for my bike (or any bike) in particular. Like I said, I just wasn't sure with size measurings how it lined up and whether or not my idea for a future crank/bb upgrade to be Hollowtech II was impossible or not.

Any obvious way to tell which size my bike may have between 68 and 73mm? Are they the two standard Hollowtech II sizes?

Yep - English and Italian.

God knows what the French did!

It's as simple to take a ruler to the width of your bottom bracket shell...Hollowtech II cranks adjust to the shell size via a different spacing stack (one 2.5mm spacer on drive side for 73mm, on 2.5 and 2x2.5 for 68mm shells). In cartridge style bbs as found for square tapers, ISIS and octalink, you buy a bottom bracket intended for that shell width; spindle length is another variable dependent on cranks used with. The spindle length is fixed on external types.

PS I'm speaking of the mountain cranks above, they setup the road cranks a bit differently in that they're intended for road bikes, i.e. 68mm shells with English threading or 70mm Italian threading and use different width bearings and no spacers.

The only spacer included was with the crankset - a thin metal one for installing between the left crank-arm and the BB itself. No spacers were included, nor mentioned, with the Hollowtech II BB.

R - since Shimano and other make their BBs (and other items) at different quality/feature levels, longevity difference between a square-taper and Octalink BB will likely depend more on the quality level of the BB than on whether it's an ST or OL BB. There should be OL BB's available for you to buy for a number of years yet. Shimano still makes them -- they are now migrating them down to their mid & lower level lines (for example Acera: see https://techdocs.shimano.com/techdocs/blevel.jsp?JSESSIONID=JTspZG1JBXZvN15nHPHsMh5GQQcX0HQDTdJrpLhzhmKvTL2QRw1m!-1991578515&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302051137&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181679&bmUID=1234 087081904 ).
If you're really worried about a shortage, buy an extra ES-5x series BB for $30-40 and save it until you need it.

Since people decided to "improve" square taper (ST) , all the solutions have been hacked. The BB shell diameter was designed around a ST solid spindle with sufficient room for properly sized ball bearings.
Octalink and ISIS improve upon the ST by using a hollow pipe spindle which is lighter and stiffer BUT there is less room within the BB shell for bearings so these are reduced in size. They may last a year or 2 if you are lucky but they do wear out more quickly.
Hollowtech II and other external BB designs solve the issue of lack of space for bearings by removing them from inside the BB shell and tacking them onto the outside. This is at the same time as they are moving headset bearings from external cups to the inside of the frame!!!
The issue with external BB designs is that the bearings are not directly supported by the BB shell but by a metal cup sticking out the side. Why? because the shell is too small.
The real solution to all these design hacks is to make the BB shell in a wider diameter to enclose the bearings AND use a hollow spindle. Cannondale do this with their BB30 design. The advantages for modern bikes are numerous, the disadvantages are none. The only issue is what size, which standard. Until Shimano commit to a standard, the bike frame builders will not budge.
Some people may say that a special size BB will cause the frame to become obscelete one the standard is abandoned. The is already the case with current bike frames. Once the particular internal or integrated headset of your bike become unavailable (in 10-15 years), your frame is scrap metal. You may as well have a better bit of scrap metal for its riding lifespan.

But I thought that was the difference between Octalink and Hollowtech II... Hollowtech II used a hollow pipe which made for smaller bearings which made for a short lifespan whereas the Octalink was solid, heavier, but lasted longer. That's what I've been told. I've read it in numerous instances that weight (solid pipe) was the Octalink's drawback.

And I'm not really worried about it because of the extra 40 bones I spent for the 2 year "fix anything but tires" thing I got. I'm just speaking in the sense of BEYOND the 2 years so I'm aware what all is out there. And as somebody said, for all I know Hollowtech II may be obsolete by then.

That's kind of a shocker and also a disappointment that frames could become obsolete simply by their lower hub width. I figured there'd be 1 or 2 set standards for sizing and that's just what would always be used. I can understand mountain bike frames changing their materials and the frame geometry, but I can't understand why the hubs (front hub by the fork, lower hub by BB, etc) would have any reason to be changed.

*shrug*

EDIT - Is this like the crank that was spoken about earlier being for 150ish? I found it on Amazon for 190. Of course I'm sure amazon has a markup on it but I just wanted to link you guys to make sure it's what you guys were speaking about. https://www.amazon.com/Shimano-FC-M58...4113592&sr=1-1

What does LX mean? It took me a little bit to pick up on OL = Octalink, ST = Square Taper... what's LX?

I have a problem lumping Octalink and ISIS together in terms of durablilty. The early ISIS bb's were indeed pitiful, leaving a lot of customers frustrated and angry about their ISIS cranksets. Octalink never had those problems, the stuff is rock solid and has been since the day Shimano put it on the market. I recall seeing BF member Hillrider report here saying he's got 19,000 miles on an Octalink road bb. I've had similar results with Octalink mtb bb's, as have several of my riding partners. The ISIS manufacturers eventually got their act together, at least to the point that better reports of their durability came along. I've got a Nashbar ISIS crank/bb I put on an old touring bike four or five years ago that now has over 10,000 miles on it with absolutely no problems. The bottom bracket cost me $22.95 from Nashbar.

The reality is that this stuff is a fading standard what with the newer "standards" coming out, and in most ways Octalink has nothing on square taper cartridge bb's, but in my opinion Octalink in particular gets a bad rap sometimes. Especially when it's lumped in with ISIS in regard to durability.

To the OP, I still say stop fretting over all this and go ride your bike. You're overthinking it.

Careful there. Hollowtech II is not Octalink. The Octalink bottom bracket was sold to use on Hollowtech cranks in a more conventional crank arm/bottom bracket system that is similar to but not the same as ISIS. Hollowtech is Shimano's way of making a crank arm that is hollow and lighter than conventionally forge cranks. Confusing, ain't it?

Hollowtech I Octalink bb spindles weren't solid as far as I know, maybe so on the lower end models, IDK. The Hollowtech II spindle is larger as the bearings are outside the bb shell (don't call it a hub, it's called the bottom bracket shell).

LX cranks were available for as low as $100 at some points, but I did a quick check just now and lowest I found was 135 https://www.bikesonline.com/index.php...-22-32-44-w-BB. LX is just one of the group names Shimano uses for mountain bike stuff, but has recently been phased out in lieu of the new SLX group. While LX might be an acronym, I've never heard what it is for.

Pardon me - but I didn't infer it was Octalink or similar to same. I thought I answered the poster's question in emphasizing the stark difference between the Hollowtech II and Octalink design. But you are correct: Hollowtech II certainly is not Octalink!

The question has been hovering: Why was Hollowtech II designed? Was it to address the inadequacies of ISIS and Octalink? Was it to soak customers out of more money? Or was it truly an unprompted stroke of "genius?" Anywho - it's here and, IMHO, and it's a better system than the Octalink/ISIS.

However Hollowtech and Hollowtech II are both constructed the same way. The arms are formed so that a large portion of the crank arm is hollow. The type of bottom bracket depends on whether the crank is a three piece crank (Octalink) or 2 piece crank (Hollowtech II). I was pointing out Hollowtech can come in both varieties of crankset. It would have been less confusing if Shimano would have renamed the line when they went to the new system

Absolutely. Nice for the arms to be similar, BUT...

I've been reading more about this BB30 stuff. Sounds pretty interesting, but in some ways impractical. Maybe if the price goes down significantly it'd make more sense, but hey, what do I know?

Just a question though... I googled BB30 cranks w/ bb just to see what kind of price they were. I found like... 3 of them. When I googled frames that use bb30, I couldn't find a darn thing.

I can't imagine that bb30 offers something absolutely great and world changing over octalink or square taper BB's. But I guess considering it's an "open source" standard, it kind of makes it nice for all manufacturers to use and, essentially, profit from. I'm a big open source guy with software - Ubuntu and OpenOffice all the way! So I kind of understand that viewpoint. BUT... given the fact it WOULDN'T be open source, I'm kind of like.. meh? It's an upgrade?

Anyway, what frames out there support bb30? I'm kinda curious to see some ideas here while I'm cooped up inside unable to ride due to antarctica weather.

Speaking of money and costs, Jensen has this BB for $30 even. I bought one. And they had the Hollowtech II Ultegra triple on sale. I bought the only one - $160. I would have mentioned such earlier, but it was the last one in any length (170mm - just right). But the bottom-bracket seems to be their regular price.

You're either going to have to get a replacement bottom bracket now or you might not be able to get one later, at least not quickly or easily.

The Octalink bottom bracket is the old-style, inboard type meaning that it resides inside of the bottom bracket shell. As such, it is less exposed to water and other contaminants than the newer, outboard type of bottom brackets/bearings. Thus, if you make sure not to spray it with water or degreaser, it may last quite a while.

Worst case scenario isn't that bad. Your bb wears out. You can't get a new one. Just use a new-style Hollowtech II Shimano crankset or don't use a Shimano crankset, use something else. You'll keep riding either way.

I must be the odd man out here but I find Octalink to be a useless design. I for one am looking forward to the next in a series of early bb failures on my MTB so I can replace the entire crank and bb with an outboard bearing design. The design is superior putting larger bearings closer to the torque generating legs. My Octalink lasts two seasons on average and I only ride 1000 miles or so on that bike. I'm careful while cleaning etc. IMHO, the design was a good Idea for lightening the bb but did not come off as planned. The larger, hollow shaft made the bearings smaller in the same sized shell. This lightened the design and shortened the life. I have square tapered bbs in other bikes both on and off road with 8 - 10 times the miles that still hold up well. Bigger bearings - last longer. The new outboard bearing design accomplish the best of both worlds. Large - hollow shaft lightens the bb assembly and having the bearings outside the bb shell enables larger bearings. Complain all you want about the evil corporations forcing us to upgrade but there are technological reasons among the obviously objectionable built in obsolescence to do so.

Wow. Really? Out of all the reading I've done, this is a first to suggest Square Taper has lasted longer than Octalink. Even in my own experience with Square Taper, something just didn't feel right when mine failed. In comparison to how long it took the Square Taper to fail versus what the overwelming majority of Octalink riders have said, I'm definitely happier to have an Octalink this time around instead of a Square Taper.

But anyway, yeah... if all else fails, I'll go with a Hollowtech crankset. Like I said, I just wanted to know what kind of prices I was looking at and I'm glad to know I have a price range in the back of my head for the crank/bb set of a new style if need be. I just hope by then BB30 doesn't... somehow... take off hardcore leaving hollowtech II and octalink in the dust with only ebay still supplying used spare parts!

Hollowtech II is an external cup bottom bracket with the spindle built into the drive side crank arms.

[QUOTE=Roasted;8330204]Wow. Really? Out of all the reading I've done, this is a first to suggest Square Taper has lasted longer than Octalink....QUOTE]
Then you have never heard of Phil Wood.
This is the epitome of durability with many examples used by long-distance tourists hauling loaded bikes, unsupported, over any terrain and by tandem teams.