Is this bottom bracket ISO or JIS?
 

Is this ISO or JIS or something else?
I have a old campagnolo super record crankset which I read only goes with ISO.
This is on a peugeot bike and I don´t know if its the original thing.
And i wonder what the thread in the frame might be?
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=318988

/Rob

Put the record arm on it. If it beds in near the bottom, then it's an ISO bb, if the taper beds in about half way into the arm, it'd be JIS.

about 2/3 of the way down- http://sheldonbrown.com/bbtaper.html

BBs are the same in JIS and ISO, so I assume you're speaking of the spindle taper then Ithadan's answer is right.

I'm not so sure I get your meaning, but assuming you want the crank arm to bed near the bottom, the likelhood is the Campy SR arm will be Campy taper (a little smaller than JIS), which means it should bed near the bottom with the JIS; right?

To the OP; what year is the Peugeot; it should give us an idea on the BB thread.

That bb doesn't look like anything JIS to me.

I'd bet that the bb is of the slightly-narrower ISO taper.

When checking for the fit of a crank on a bb spindle, you'll want the spindle end to almost, but not quite reach the end of the crank's square bore after the bolt has been fully torqued.
A JIS spindle in an ISO crankarm will not go in as far, making the spindle's length effectively 2 or 3mm longer on each end.
On the other hand, an ISO spindle may allow the bolt to bottom on the end of the spindle before a JIS crankarm is pressed on hard enough.

Well, wrong. Click the link you quoted.

2 degree taper is common to both , the width of the ends the start/stop of the taper is the difference.

The only things I know about the frame is that its black with red,yellow,orange stickers and a sticker with the letters HLE.

Someone told me campagnolo super record should only be used with ISO spindle standard. I dont know if that is correct . Just want it to work and be safe

A lot of us have successfully fitted a Campagnolo crankset to a JIS bottom bracket spindle.
The crank mounts up straight and seems to stay tight.
I've even seen Campag crankarms mounted to JIS bottom brackets on brand new bikes from smaller companies.

The trick is to balance out the differences in the effective lengths of the spindles.

So, for example, the taper difference will make a JIS spindle seem 2-3mm longer on each end.
And, any differences in the offset of the bottom brackets will also have to be accounted for, since a Super-Record bottom bracket is offset a millimeter or two to the right side, while JIS bottom brackets shorter than 119mm usually position the spindle symmetrically.

So, in the end, a 113mm JIS bottom bracket might mimic the Super Record bottom bracket very closely.
Alternately, and this is what I'd try, a 110mm JIS Shimano cartridge bb, test-fitted first (then adding a cup spacer to move the whole shebang to the right, but only if necessary).

I've done the same thing with Stronglight cranks, using a 115mm JIS cartirdge bb to replace the slightly-offset original 118 ISO bb.
The stronglight taper is the smallest ISO taper I've measured, and I've measured a lot of them, so I've even gotten a 113mm JIS bb to work fine (good chainline and decent chainring clearance) on my PX10 with 126mm rear dropout spacing.
The Peugeot was actually Swiss-threaded, but I worked/forced the English-threaded Shimano bb into the bb shell and it works fine now.

Using a caliper can actually allow one to predict (mathematically) how well of a fit that a prospective bb will offer, compared to an existing bb.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7115/7...a5b71450_z.jpg

Okay you didn't get the memo. here's an explanation from Phil Wood & Co. (emphasis added by me)http://www.philwood.com/support/faqs.php.

IOW, the term Campy Taper is ambiguous as it was once used to describe the pre-1994 propitiatory square taper that Campagnolo used, which has a little smaller than JIS, but closer to JIS than ISO, but was then used as an alternate to ISO when Campy switched to ISO in 1994.

A lot of folks are unaware that Campy only switched to ISO in 1994, prior to that Campagnolo used their own propitiatory taper that is closer the JIS than ISO; therefore all vintage SR cranks are the Campy propitiatory taper which play better with JIS than ISO. Also, during the early to middle 80's Peugeot switched from French threading with an ISO ST spindle to BCS with English threading and JIS ST BB to match the Sugino/Shimano cranks they used on the middle to low end bikes. Peugeot also used Campy BB/Cranks but I don't know when they switched to English threading, but your Peugeot BB is not Campy so this info doesn't matter to your case.

Firstly, just for reference, JIS spindles measure a very consistent 12.90mm (measured 3mm from the end), including Dura-Ace.

I measure Campag's newer cartridge bb's as all having a very consistent taper width of about 12.70mm (measured exactly 3mm from the end).

I have earlier Campag spindles from the 70's and 80's, lots of them, however these vary quite a bit.

Most of these Nuovo-era spindles measure 12.70mm, just like the later ones.
About a third of them are in the 12.74-12.79mm range, however.

Older Campag-compatible Sugino Mighty spindles are 12.71mm.

Older Campag-compatible Specialized(!) spindles are 12.73 to 12.76mm (odd since they were likely made by Sugino, but could have been made to spec).

Stronglight Spindles from the 1970's might have been "ISO", but are the smallest, in the 12.64-12.67mm range.

A Suntour 112mm "BB-91" spindle from 1991 (dated HC) measures only 12.65mm (another Sugino-made part).

Again, all these measures are relative to a consistent JIS dimension of 12.90mm.

Lastly, I have one (1) Campag spindle (pretty old I'd say) that measures 12.9mm, but this is an anomaly I won't consider.
And one (1) Dura-Ace spindle 7400 here (again, too odd to count) actually measures about 12.99mm.
I have to consider that these lone two oddball-sized spindles might have become distorted, possibly from over-tightening, wherein the bolt's threads have perhaps forced the flats apart(?).

I've measured many different kinds of Dura-Ace spindles, and all appear to be JIS. A couple of the pre-7400 examples measured just a few thou on the small side of 12.90, but which would affect spindle insertion by well less than 1mm.

By my specific experimental measurements, each 0.1mm difference in tapered spindle width affects the insertion in the crankarm by 1.4mm.
I measured insertion depth into a locked caliper at two different settings, thus using a .5mm width difference to observe a roughly 7mm difference in insertion. (Thus, a ratio of width/insertion of 1:14)

Using mathematics, the cotangent (Y/X) of 4 degrees is 14.3, validating my previous measurements on a spindle with opposing 2-degree tapers.

It is sometimes the case that a well-used crankarm may have an expanded square taper bore.
Thus, older Campag cranks sometimes will take particularly well to JIS taper dimensions.

In the end, the simplest and easiest way to tell is to install the crank and see if it bottoms out the taper and if chainline is proper for your use.

I'm sure that all this means something, but when Phil Woods & Co, say that Campy used a propitiatory square taper close to JIS until 1994 (and subsequently offer JIS spindles for pre-1994 cranks), I believe them. Phil Woods & Co is known to make some of the finest BB in the world, so I doubt they have been wrong all these years about Campy spindles..

You can word it any way you like, but the numbers are the numbers.

I mentioned that both Phil and Sutherlands published data that was somewhat inconsistent with what I've measured and re-measured over 20 years time, but you are free to interpret what I wrote, or what Phil or Sutherlands wrote, any way you like.
Ask yourself this though: Are Sutherland's data and Phil's data completely consistent with one another? If not, which will you rely on?

What I suggest is to get yourself a cheap digital caliper, verify it's accuracy using a GR25 ball bearing, and then measure a few spindles as I have done.
I will then consider your data fairly in the context of what I've seen and what I know.

A "proprietary taper"? What's that mean when simple measurements show the dimensions are highly variable? Can you really conclude that the proprietary taper means anything without specifying what it is?
So which pre-1994 Campag spindle tapers are you referring to? The ones that measure identically to their 1990's cartridge bb's, or the minority of them that indeed do measure squarely in between their ISO '90's models and anybody else's JIS bb?

It's not that Phil or Sutherlands are necessarily "wrong" about their size groupings of bb spindle types, it's just that both of these sources do greatly generalize about the sizing for whatever reasons. I have no idea, but it might have to do with when they compiled their data and from what sources they relied on. I kind of doubt this info has been studied by either of them in a very long time.

I'm disinclined to think it's always better if we just accept what we're told, keep our eyes and mouths shut and let the "experts" decide how things always are supposed to work. Are we talking religion, or bicycle parts?

Here is an earlier Post that dealt with this issue and expressed much of what we have been talking about http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...nt-from-Modern. My point is Phil Woods has to be right because they manufacture the BB spindles that they sell for different applications using this criteria. If they were wrong, none of their spindles would fit. . If you read through the link I posted you will see that most of the posters that used a caliper could not find much of a difference but those that actually tried putting different spindles in cranks found the differences Phil Woods and Sutherland described; my guess is the differences are more than just taking a measurement at 3mm, but I don't know off hand what they are.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with anything that's written in your thumbnail, but notice that the writer didn't measure anything, so can't make any quantitative statement about the differences in their posted "size sequence by manufacturer".

The measurements I've taken address the quantitative differences, and I have yet to see another measurement method as sure and as convenient as the method I developed and illustated. I would suggest that it become the de-rigeur standard for both home and professional bike shops.

Additionally, I quantified the effect of the measured differences that i listed, to make the data most useful.

I have no doubt that Sutherlands and Phil had their specific reasons for presenting their data the way they did.

In Phil's case, likely it is a business decision to keep things as simple as possible, but there is also some generalization about the supposed change in taper size that I cannot find any evidence for. It appears that at one time a Nuovo-era spindle was perhaps measured but was one of the minority of older Campag spindles that measure a bit larger than most others. This seems to have been over-generalized to the "change" to ISO which actually appears to be nothing more than a change to improved quality control, with no change to the actual size that prevailed all along.
Those last 10 or 15 years of Campag square-taper bb's had tapers as accurate and fantastically consistent as JIS had been all along, but were still the exact same size as the large majority of NR-era Campag spindles.
With JIS always 12.9mm, Campag was finally a completely consistent 12.7mm, thus meeting ISO standards.

In Sutherland's case, I again find that measured evidence is in some disagreement with their sizing explanations. I suspect that they accumulated data from sources of varying accuracy and likely made assumptions and simplifications/generalizations in presenting this data.
Notice though that there is a total lack of first-hand measurement data (and method definition) from either source that we would then be able to verify.
But I have to comment/ask that with Phil's bb's, since the chainline is conveniently fully adjustable, perhaps their data is still more than precise enough for it's intended purpose?

There's no substitute for first-hand measurements, other than first-hand test-fits, and so having an assortment of cartridge bb's (and a few thin cup spacers) handy can at times be just as practical as all the data and mathematics in the world.

Hi and thank you all for interesting reading.
I took it apart because it needed to be cleaned. A lot of dirt in there.
There are two stamps on the spindle one that says 121 on one side and the other side TTS.
A thought occurred to me now that I have dismantled the whole thing. I have another spindle from a super record bottom bracket with italian threading.
Is it possible to switch spindle. If I can use my super record spindle with the bearings and cups from the stuff that was on the peugeot bike?
I mean a super record spindle with super record cranks would eliminate the "problem" with the standards?

Yes, but there are another batch of standards having to do with spindle-to-cup matching, so it's almost funny.

Best I can say is test it to see how everything fits, but this is not an endorsement.

If you read between the lines in what everyone is saying here, I think maybe you'll
find that you are consistently getting the same advice. There may not be a problem
with what you want to do at all, but there is not real way to tell for sure without
putting together the parts you want to use dry on your bike and checking for :

1. whether your crank arm pulls tight onto your spindle without bottoming out.

2. whether your new setup has a good chainline on your bicycle with the rear wheel
and freewheel cog cluster installed in the frame.

That's how most of us do it, I think. It's how I do it, anyway.

I installed my crank arms yesterday and it did not bottoming out.
I´m confused about how much I should tighten it. It felt like I pulled it pretty hard,
should the spindle go through the crank arm to a certain limit? I do not have a torque wrench...

The spindle should not extend all the way through the arm:

http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/crank-arm-seat.jpg
Source: Sutherland's 4th Edition

Re: torque -- as tight as you can comfortably get the bolt using a 6" wrench ought to be fine.

http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/peanutbutter.jpg