One of the problems is the outboard terminous of the spindle, as alluded to, they crank will only fit so far, as the wedge will allow it to go, the point at which the mfg. cuts it off can make a difference, even Campagnolo spindles vary by a millimeter during a given era, its the taper placement in relationship to the bearing contact point that drives the crank placement. The taper and placement are hard to measure without some set ups to assist, in my tool box long stolen I had a device that helped, think of a hinge basically with a ground inside face set, I recall it was 6 inches long or so, it provided a long enough leg to measure the taper through trig, measuring the short section of taper a spindle has without a reference plane is mind numbing.

Dam...I just lost 20 minutes of typing due to B.S. keyboard fat finger error

Yes, the biggest problem I had was to set a consistent point along the taper to measure the end, and that would let me make a comparison with JIS. It was fiddly enough that I saw the need for a fixture to hold everything still.

What is the difference between ISO and old Campy shaping?

So here we go. Let me start off by saying that all of the above links, including but not limited to Velo-Orange, Phil Wood and Sheldon Brown/Harris Cyclery all have mis-information. Because they're all inked to one another they are all guilty of having this mis-information.

Here is the mis-information: ISO taper is longer than JIS taper. NO. Pre '94 Campagnolo cranks are JIS. NO. I'm not saying my inofrmation is 100% correct but what I'm saying is the information in the above links is mis-information. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again but I always man-up when I am wrong.

Phil Wood quote:
Sheldon Brown/Harris Cyclery quote:
An easy way to think of the JIS/ISO issue is to think of it as a fat/skinny issue verus a taper angle or taper length issue.

JIS = fat BB spindle w/ a larger crank opening. Think fat Japanese Sumo wrestler to associate JIS w/ being the fatter of the two.
ISO = skinny BB spingle w/ a smaller crank opening

Taper angle: Essentialy the same between JIS/ISO. If there is a difference it would take very expensive lab quality equiptment to measure it. Its my opinion within standard there probably enough tolerance differences that there's an overlap between the 2 and thats assuming there's a difference between them

Taper length: JIS spindles have a longer useable taper length than ISO spindles. This contradicts whats found in the above links which suggest ISO spindles are longer.

A good analogy is the childrens toy with the colored rings. Think of the green ring as being JIS/fat and the blue ring as being ISO/skinny. While the cones angle remains constant (taper angle) the green ring with its larger JIS/fat opening will always go on farther than the blue ring with its ISO/skinny opening and vice versa.



With all due respect to Phil Wood its my opinion that older Campagnolo cranks are of the ISO variety which counters what his website suggests in regards to pre-'94 cranksets and BB's. My mid 70's and 80's Record cranks simply do NOT slide onto the fatter JIS Shimano spindles I have. Sheldon Brown/Harris Cyclery does list the Campagnolo cranks as being ISO/skinny cranks. It is possible that older cranksets weren't built to any specification and its us, in our modern world, trying to fit them into a classification that never existed. Who knows.

I measured 8 different BB spindles, 3 JIS/fat and 5 ISO/skinny for 3 dimensions:

Spindle tip width
Spindle width inboard 11.85mm in from the tip (my measuring device is 11.85mm wide)
Useable spindle length: Simply how long the spindle taper is from the tip until the taper ends.

Spindle Tip Width JIS: Average 12.69 w/ 12.66 low and 12.72 high
Spindle Tip Width ISO: Average 12.60 w/ 12.55 low and 12.67 high

Spindle Width Inboard JIS: Average 13.56 w/ 13.53 low and a 13.61 high
Spindle Width Inboard ISO: Average 13.36 w/ 13.25 low and 13.40 high

Useable Spindle Length JIS: Average 16.92 w/ 15.73 low and 17.64 high
Useable Spindle Length ISO: Average 15.99 w/ 14.00 low and 19.10 high (with the excpetion of the 19.10 spindle all others were shorter than the JIS avg)

So there you have the not so low down on the JIS/ISO issue as measured in my lab (garage). The 8 spindles measured up were:

JIS/fat:
Shimano UN73
Shimano unknown cartridge
Shimano 600 EX

ISO/skinny:
Campagnolo Record mid-70s
Camagnolo early cartridge
Stronglight early 70's
Sugino 75 road
Suntour cartridge track

I dont think its enough to be discernable outside of a high end lab....if there is a difference.

muddy waters. one of my favorites, btw. I'm looking at an original 68-ss bottom bracket axle in 115 and a 200x (early) record cartridge bottom bracket. The taper length on the newer unit is 16.55mm, while the older unit has 14.64mm useable length (measured from the inboard end of the little bevel to the end of the taper ramp. I'm trying to figure out whether I can use a newer (2004 or so) crank on the older nuovo record axle. It looks like it'll work, but I can't be sure that it'll tighten down. Anyone ever try to go this way?

that post #29 has got some serious depth, thanks to you Jim for all the work...I'll be referring back to this frequently, I'll bet.
Just goes to prove (to me) that some of these "standards" allow for a pretty wide tolerance...and you often just have to test it with the good old "go/no-go" method.

Useable taper length is almost irrelevant as long as your staying within the same family ie: JIS/ISO. Whats available (useable length) and whats actually engaged are 2 different things. I dont see any reason why you couldnt mate up the newer crank which is ISO/skinny to the older spindle which is ISO/skinny. OK, maybe the spindle isnt techincaly ISO because it was never designated as such but its close enough to call it that!!



The only problem I see with the 'go/no go' method is that you have to look at more than frame clearance, you have to look at spindle engagement depth as well. An JIS spindle only engages about half way into an ISO crank. Thats not alot of contact patch/surface area!!!

Wild amount of research in this thread! Still, I'm sticking with apples to apples. Question is, how do I know what length bottom bracket to get? I've seen Nuovo Record units with 111, 1115, 114.5, etc. How do you tell which one will work with my frame?

Spindles are paired with cranks not frames.

OK, so do different year Nuovo Record cranks have different spindle lengths? Is there a code on the cranks or something? Also, what is the difference between Nuovo and Super Record cranks??

I'll have to defer to the Campy aficionados in regards to differences in spindle lengths amongst the cranks, but what I can tell you is that Nuovo and Super Record cranks have the same arms with the difference being the chainrings.

This should help (scroll down):

https://00eda5d.netsolhost.com/bottom.html

Depends to a large extent on BB width (threading), whether cranks are double or triple, and whether they're pre-CPSC or post-CPSC.

(And thanks, Jim, for the lab work.)

(And also, Jim is correct in that there's no difference between Nuovo record and super Record cranks for the most part. In fact, for the most part, there's no such thing: They're all "Record" cranks. Only the chainrings differ between gruppos.)

In Campagnolo tool kit terms, Passa, No Passa.

just to tidy things up a little - I tried a nuovo record bottom bracket, 115 length, in the test bike. The Record triple cranks were like, way, way out there. I had a 111 symmetric bottom bracket from the early 00s...I fitted that and everything works okeydokey. So - aluminum Record Triple, Serotta with an English bottom bracket shell, seat tube diameter is 35mm, front derailleur is a carbon Record QS from 2008 or so. Screws on the front derailleur are all of the way out, and I can consistently hit every gear. The current gearing of 26 front/25 rear allows me to use four rear cogs before the chain starts tapping on the bottom of the front derailleur.

This setup is contrary to most everything that I recently read on the web about this kind of setup.

Passa-no passa, indeed.

Interesting Luke. And I thought the longer BB's were made for the triples?

If I buy a Nuovo Record crankset, how am I going to find the right Nuovo Record BB?? I thought it would be written on the crank arms or something. I can't buy 2 or 3 vintage BB's and try them all !

Much of the info is in the link I provided. I would suggest at least checking that out and then if you have additional questions ask them here.

I hadn't click the link until now and recommend that anyone how hasn't clicked to go ahead and do so.

Picchio, thanks for providing and excellent resourse!!!

Andy I think what your trying to get at is how do you know if your particular cranks are pre or post CPSC/1977 cranks which in turn determines the BB you'll need. I'm not sure but there may be a subtle difference and my recollection is that it had more to do with clearing the lip on the CPSC front derailleut than anything else. If in fact it was all about clearing the CPSC FD I'd venture a guess and say you can use the either spindle.* * = speculation on my part.

No. Campy had a campy specific taper that was close to JIS until mid 1994 when they went ISO

Ignore the information in post #44.

Again, older Campy spindles are much, much closer to ISO than JIS. Although they may never have been given proper designation they are so close that they may as well be called ISO. Seriouslys jebs5, your more than welcome to role on by the 33647 and take a look for yourself.

AndyK: I checked both pre and post CPSC (1977) cranks with a 111mm spindle. Both clear the frame with plenty of room to spare. I think the need for a 114.5mm spindle is due to the wider CPSC front derailleur. If a FD narrower than the NR/SR w/ the raised lip were to be used I see no reason why a 111 wouldnt work.

I think that the post-cpsc cups are thicker (the rifled ones)...

Sorry if this is already posted.

https://www.bicycleclassics.com/bottom.html

OK, from the chart:

70-SS, Italian (115.5 mm, 1977-1987), Nuovo Record Strada, $199.00, BB-NR70SSI
70-SS-120, Italian (113 mm), Nuovo Record Strada, $219.00, BB-NR70SS120I

So, both are Italian NR. Which one would I need if I get an '82 NR or SR crankset?

The 70-SS one with the 115.5 spindle length.

Sorry to post in this thread, but a related issue; hope the OP doesn't mind.

In the early '90s, my wife bought an NOS NR crankset for me for my Raleigh RRA (73). I had been using all the NR parts from my original International (73 also) on this. I have not been able to get the crankset to work; it seems to go on fine, clearance is fine but the bolts keep loosening up, and it doesn't run quite true. I never rode it far (< 1/2 mile) when the bolts got loose (driveside mainly).

I just reinstalled the original and its nice and true, never had any bolt loosening problems, etc. The NOS crankset has a "4" in a circle after the Strada 170, so I am guessing maybe 1984? From bicycle classics chart, I would have a 68-SS 112mm spindle in the BB, but would need a 68-SS 114.5mm for this application (BSC thread)?

I assume that if I got the correct spindle, I could use it with my current cups/bearings if I wanted?

Also, I see CPSC mentioned (as in pre- or post-). What is this?