Stronglight Bottom Bracket fit
 

Okay, I have a Hetchins with a 68mm BB shell. I want to use a triple (Stronglight 49D with TA Cyclotourist chain ring set). I've got a Stronglight 125 spindle and Stronglight Competition cup set. Using 1/4" free bearings because I don't have caged with those cups. And the result is below the two pics of components

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...44e36b7ba2.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...84018cad73.jpg

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...fc6fa6df7c.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...5dccdfc110.jpg

So, is this merely a spacer needed on fixed cup side OR are those steel thicker than what was supposed to be used with that spindle - OR was a different spindle supposed to be used with a 68mm BB shell? All knowledge appreciated. No I haven't checked chain line yet to see whether a spacer is needed solely for that since with that overhang on the adjustable cup I thought I'd check cup thickness questions with you gurus first.

So the problem is that you have a fair amount of NDS cup sticking out? Otherwise, no play in the BB? If so, install the crank arms and see how much clearance you have from the chainstays.

+ 1.

I expect that the chainline will be more than ample, so not expecting this scenario to be problematic at all.

But, as nlerner says, test fit the cranks for clearance and for the front derailer's ability to retract far enough inward for robust downshifting (expecting all to be fine).

I've used alternate, off-branded bb's for Stronlight crankset installs in some cases, to narrow up the installed width on the drive-side, so I don't think that your drive-side spindle protrusion will fall short.

What's the width of the BB shell these days? It may have been faced a few times -- is it possible that it's a bit under 68 mm?

Nope - it's original 68mm. I measured after pulling the adjustablle cup and spindle to see whether the 1/4" bearings. somehow didn't fit properly... they do. I'll install again and put crank on, use a wheel off my Alan to check chain line.

Thanks for all your input.
And it is the original 68mm shell. I measured after pulling the adjustable cup and spindle to see whether the 1/4" bearings somehow didn't fit with that spindle cup combo, but they do. I'll install again and put cranks on, use a wheel off my Alan to check chain line. And I realize now that if a spacer was to be needed for chain line - that widens the effective shell width and shortens even more how little of the spindle sticks out of the NDS side for crank attachment.
I'll check fit for crank arms... just not used to see that much cup protrude beyond lock ring.

So, the spacing between the bearing races on the spindle aren't always necessarily the same, are they? I've only recently compared some Nuovo Record spindles and realized the difference between the English and Italian spacing. Is it possible you have a spindle that was meant to work with an Italian 70mm bottom bracket?

Yeah, that's a spindle for a 70mm shell. I'm trying to find a cottered Stronglight for 68mm myself and have been going through the same thing.
Phil

Yes, it appears like it would fit in a 70 mm shell - although that would bring the NDS crank arm in 2 mm closer to the chain stay at pedal length. But a 70 mm shell also wouldn't change my concern for clearance between NDS cup face and NDS crank arm when installed. As I belatedly noted, a 2mm wider shell (same as if I put a spacer behind the lock ring) wouldn't change the actual spacing between the outside faces of the cups and the inner faces of the crank arms. The spacing between the faces of the cups and the inner faces of crank arms is determined by the space between the face of the spindle race and the outer face of the cup riding on the bearings. That NDS side is just shorter than I expected when the cup is pressed against the bearings.

The only way the length of the extension beyond the cup face changes, with that specific spindle, is if I was using smaller bearings (but the races and cups are designed 1/4" bearings), OR if the thickness of the cup face is thinner. And I know some cups are thinner than others. I know that is the case between some manufacturers old steel cups and alloy cups. But if I recall correctly the alloy cups end up being thicker faces because they press steel races inside the allow cup. Whichever way it works, the width of the face can differ.

So, I will put a spacer behind the lock ring (for looks since that extended NDS cup just looks wrong to me lol) and check if NDS crank arm has proper clearance from cup face, crank arms at pedals have proper clearance from chain stays, and I get usable alignment on chain line.

Why is that a concern, exactly? I thought the issue was the fact that the NDS cup wasn't threaded in as much as usual, which the spindle being made for a 70mm bottom bracket would explain.

The space you'll have between the NDS crank arm and the cup looks perfectly normal to me but you haven't shown what it looks like with the crank arm on so that's only a hunch. In my experience after the crank arm is pressed on there's typically only 2-3mm between the cup and arm. Obviously a lot more space is required on the drive side but unless if you have super flared chain stays it shouldn't be an issue on the NDS.

I was only addressing the concept of a potential complication if this was a 70mm shell, and even then - just potential, because the angle of the seat stay emerging from shell would change as well. But my original question related to whether I was simply using this spindle with cups that were too thick. Thinner cups would give better extension beyond the face, and the thought came up because I'm used to seeing the following spacing on the NDS side...

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a2dffa0764.jpg
a bit more space from the face to the beginning of the taper. But yes, I have seen less as well...

Are we sure SL even made a longer spindle for Ital frames? I know I've asked this Q before but I don't remember the answer.

I know TA did not make an Ital spindle. They used the same spindle for 68 and 70, with the cups just being thinner for 68, thicker for 70. The thickness of the cup isn't very obvious to the eye, being only 1 mm different.

I vaguely recall SL did the same, though ya gotta ask yourself, how many Ital bikes have you seen with SL cranks? Nationalistic Ital builders would be loath to put a French crank on if they didn't have to. SL BBs in Ital must be rather rare.

I admit an Ital spindle, if they exist, would explain OP's situation, but I wonder if there could be something else going on.

In my recent searching for a 68mm Stronglight cottered spindle, I found a Stronglight catalog or service page online showing what spindles were offered in what sizes; English, French, and Italian were all listed with the specs. I can't seem to find it anymore, but it's buried somewhere in my browser history.
Phil

Actually - all of you kind folk who said "not to worry" I owe you a beverage! When I worked in the shop I was the same way - any customer's bike, I always "knew" my choices were right, things would work. Building up my own??? Is this Jubilee right for this dropout? Right stack on this headset?...
The cranks don't sit as deep as I was afraid they would, triple has clearance, NDS has lot-O-clearance, chain line is about dead center on a 6 speed freewheel on classic Campy hub. Thank you for considering my question and your kind responses.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...dfce5c433a.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...32691e8d05.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...80d3688837.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d1afaad5a6.jpg
"L" square along center chain ring ... to d=center of 6 speed freewheel (near enough)

My understanding is:
TA and Stronglight only made one axle - in terms of distance between the ball-races; they had Italian cups that were sized to make up the difference.
Campag made two axles twice - one pair (68 and 70) each for "thick" and "thin" cups; the thick ones having helical grooves in the exit holes.

I can't see what would be causing the overhang of the adjustable cup.
Check the ball sizes?
Check the zero on the caliper?

That’s my understanding as well.

From the 1980 Stronglight catalog on VeloPages (https://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?g2_itemId=108):

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e6358830d.jpeg

Stronglight used the same spindle regardless of shell width. Cup thickness was used to make up the difference.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...5154246ecd.jpg

Does that chainstay bridge look like it's not brazed? Is that a thing?

That's actually a shadow on the paint line. But yes, at each side of that bridge rather than a smooth transition from bridge to stay, it appears they let the weld sit deeper to allow for the paint outlining.

Maybe you were referring to this page? https://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?...geViewsIndex=1

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a4f9deecdb.jpg

Stronglight cottered BB's and T260 set
 

Since we have discussed Stronglight spindles and PhilFo has mentioned his cottered spindle issue. I have some Stronglight T-260 bottom brackets - the cottered roller bearing bottom bracket sets (photos below). Do any of you have any documentation for these so I have some idea what they fit?
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...522e89e5d8.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...77461cf2a5.jpg

You may be right but I think not, I think what you saw was the offering of cups for Italian, not Italian spindles. That's the consensus of the most learned graybeards here anyway. Finding they actually made longer spindles for Italian would be earth-shattering news. Please do look for that info source if possible.