# Isis crank cutting tools?



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Hi I want to know if there is special tools to buy for making the ISIS splines in cranks. I used to make 30-40cm male splines as a machinist a few years ago but we milled those, and these are much smaller, we used to press cut the females with I guess standardized tooling, 1 at a time and rotate. Or indexed in a CNC.

ISIS implies that its standardized in some way. So tools are standardized ISO spline profile tools?

I'm thinking of having someone make a pair of steel cranks for me or maybe I'll do it myself, but somehow that inner spline needs to get its shape. It looks kinda basic though. I can probably make to tools myself with nothing more than a file and a blowtorch.

Does anyone know where reamers for ISIS can be found *or some white paper where the standard is described in detail with measurements and angles clearly showing.*


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

It was a standard but they seem to have abandoned the ISIS drive website. I did find a link to the original spec pdf at this Hungarian website, but the file extension of PDF isn't appended so you have to change the file name from *isis-drive-szavany* to *isis-drive-szavany.pdf* to open it once it is downloaded.

http://www.ebike.hu/download/016b02d6df2bb9a1.pdf

It isn't that terrific an interface and the BB's are not that durable, so you might want to skip forward to one of the newer interfaces using external BB bearings.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> It isn't that terrific an interface and the BB's are not that durable, so you might want to skip forward to one of the newer interfaces using external BB bearings.


^ This. Good riddance to ISIS.

If you're completely sold on steel cranks (though I don't know why), they are already available.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Good pdf Rocky! Its all there. 

I really don't like these new 2 piece outboard things, they just seem unrealiable. And after a bit of reading I really want somewthing else than outboard. I don't really know what to make of the square taper. Square taper seems to fall off and wear out, I want stuff that lasts 100 years.

Bad mechanic:
I'm not sold at all on steel cranks but having searched for a good sleek shaped crank for several hours now I found out there is only crap to buy, well more or less. Like the lowest quality. So I got this good idea that I can make them myself. And if I take the time to make something myself which I only do if I absolutely have to, then I won't settle for less than the best, I would be making it for myself.

Steel seems to be a good idea here since there are at least a few hundred qualities you could harden to 2000MPa yeild while maintaining sufficient toughness where 6061 tops out at 300 and 7075 at 500ish, and steel is more than twice as stiff, and only weighs 3 times more. I could easily make a crank just as stiff, just as light, but 5000 times as durable and long lasting (it won't be welded). The first and last crank I would ever need.

Its even economic. And splines don't wear out usually, if made properly.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

car bone said:


> Bad mechanic:
> I'm not sold at all on steel cranks but having searched for a good sleek shaped crank for several hours now I found out there is only crap to buy, well more or less. Like the lowest quality. So I got this good idea that I can make them myself. And if I take the time to make something myself which I only do if I absolutely have to, then I won't settle for less than the best, I would be making it for myself.
> 
> Steel seems to be a good idea here since there are at least a few hundred qualities you could harden to 2000MPa yeild while maintaining sufficient toughness where 6061 tops out at 300 and 7075 at 500ish, and steel is more than twice as stiff, and only weighs 3 times more. I could easily make a crank just as stiff, just as light, but 5000 times as durable and long lasting (it won't be welded). The first and last crank I would ever need.
> ...


You're kind of trying to reinvent the wheel here, and just make a lot of work for yourself. There are plenty of bombproof crankset out there which you simply won't break. On the cheaper side, the Shimano SLX is durable, has a great crank retension system, and is still relatively light. Provided you face you bottom bracket shell and upgrade the bearing (the Shimano bearings are cheap, and Enduros will last forever), you'll have a crankset/BB you won't break, is light, and still pretty cheap and easy.

Yes, you can make steel strong and light, but it ends up having very thin walls, which isn't something you want in a crank which will invariably hit rocks and logs.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

There's nothing unreliable about outboards and the stiffness/weight factor is noticeable right out of the box. ISIS didn't last long in the scheme of things as a standard, for a reason. Putting the bearings back inside the shell is a major step backwards in overall crank performance and the small size of ISIS bearings vs. square taper only worsens that situation. The bearings in square taper (i.e. inside the shell) style are more easily serviced technically, but it takes 10 minutes to push new bearings into an outboard BB 
You'd be better off saving your machining skills to build a BB press for outboard bearings and upgrading to the first *proper* crank standard (IME of course  ) that has ever existed in mtb applications, the outboard bearing. If you wanna do this just for a project and some fun, well have your fun! I've broken and seen broken literally dozens of square taper axles and been through the headache of crap ISIS bearings. My various outboard cranks will likely last eternity and really the bearings are easy to service for someone like you who obviously has some mechanical skill.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

You can always buy Profile Racing steel BMX cranks with a splined spindle interface and then put a chainring spider on it for compact rings. 

Many of the new 2 piece cranks with external BB are super stiff and reliable. The Shimano SLX cranks are fairly bombproof. And the Race Face Atlas freeride cranks are also solid.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Maybe its a stupid idea. I don't know.

One thing I have noticed is that on my bike which has a combination of outboard bearings and splines on both sides (Truvativ Blaze) its impossible to adjust chainline, well you can move spacers from one side to the other but then the pedals get assymetric.

I had a quite high end Shimano hollowtech crankset and while it was nice and light and such I thought it was kinda crappy to be honest. The mating surface of the bearings and the axle was plastic IIRC. The bearing cups on my Truvativ Blaze seems to be about twice as wide and beefy, it was a year ago I had the Shimano gear so I can't be really sure.

The bike I installed the Shimano on when I sold it also had this problem that the chainline was not centered on the cassette and also it wouldn't really spin very good with no load, but it worked well when pedaling. Also this Shimano system requires everything to be very square at the mating surfaces and threads be cut with high precision. On the Gary fisher I installed it on this was not done perfect from the factory.

It looks like both Square taper and ISIS are more resistant to this since both bearings are in the same tube, or? I might be misunderstanding this but it certainly looks that way.

I also wonder what the difference is between all these? They all look the same. They don't cost the same though.
shimano bottom bracket | Buy Now at ChainReactionCycles.com

I don't think I will ever break a couple of cranks so thats not one of my concerns. The fastening mechanism seemed good on the ones I installed. The preloading however made me scratch my head, I thought it was a joke, and the plastic didn't really help inspiring confidence.

All in all I got the impression that "yeah this is nice stuff but this will not last long at all" just by handling the parts and installing them. Is it just me?

What is the size of the bearings inside the Shimano cups? Are all models the same size? Standard metric size? I wonder if its possible to put in some Timken or SKF high quality bearings in those outboard thingies. Bike specific bearings seems like a ripoff to me.

Lately I have noticed in quite a few fields that while new stuff is stiffer, lighter and overall better, or faster or whatever, its also more disposable. Sure things can be cheap so you can buy new when it wears out but isn't it better to just make stuff that don't need replacing?

I guess all things break sooner or later, but I personally would like to install once and never touch it again. At least not within 3 years, preferably 10 years. Many years ago bottom brackets seems to last longer, I have never broken one or even seen a broken one. :shocked:


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

With that being said I might try out a cheap shimano roadie crank. If I can fit better bearings in there.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

car bone said:


> What is the size of the bearings inside the Shimano cups? Are all models the same size? Standard metric size? I wonder if its possible to put in some Timken or SKF high quality bearings in those outboard thingies. Bike specific bearings seems like a ripoff to me.


Mine say mr2347, don't know of that's a normal size but you can order upgraded bearings (steel and ceramic) from enduro, they also do away with the plastic cap! All models of Shimano use the same size bearing.

All BB mating surfaces should be faced with a proper tool before installation. This will remedy 99% of misalignment issues and drastically improve bearing life. This is standard practice nowadays...


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

car bone said:


> I had a quite high end Shimano hollowtech crankset and while it was nice and light and such I thought it was kinda crappy to be honest. The mating surface of the bearings and the axle was plastic IIRC. The bearing cups on my Truvativ Blaze seems to be about twice as wide and beefy, it was a year ago I had the Shimano gear so I can't be really sure.


The plastic actually works fine, and it helps prevent creaking from unmaintained cranksets. It's only a shim and dust shield. The bearing size in an outboard bottom bracket are fine (provided they're quality bearings), especially since they support the crankset more effectively.



car bone said:


> Also this Shimano system requires everything to be very square at the mating surfaces and threads be cut with high precision. On the Gary fisher I installed it on this was not done perfect from the factory.


The faces need to be precise, but not the threads. It's the faces which are locating the cups and bearings. That's why you have bottom bracket shell facing tools.



car bone said:


> It looks like both Square taper and ISIS are more resistant to this since both bearings are in the same tube, or? I might be misunderstanding this but it certainly looks that way.


Yes, cartridge bottom brackets are naturally aligned since the bearings are housed in the same body. However, this is not an issue on an external bottom bracket provided the bottom bracket shell is faced prior to installation.



car bone said:


> I also wonder what the difference is between all these? They all look the same. They don't cost the same though.
> shimano bottom bracket | Buy Now at ChainReactionCycles.com


They're different bottom bracket for different types of crankset and frames.



car bone said:


> I don't think I will ever break a couple of cranks so thats not one of my concerns. The fastening mechanism seemed good on the ones I installed. The preloading however made me scratch my head, I thought it was a joke, and the plastic didn't really help inspiring confidence.


Once the left crankarm is tightened, the preload adjuster does absolutely nothing. You can remove it if you want. It's only job is to preload the bearings prior to tightening the arm. As such, plastic is more than strong enough, very light, and cheap.



car bone said:


> All in all I got the impression that "yeah this is nice stuff but this will not last long at all" just by handling the parts and installing them. Is it just me?


It's just you.



car bone said:


> What is the size of the bearings inside the Shimano cups? Are all models the same size? Standard metric size? I wonder if its possible to put in some Timken or SKF high quality bearings in those outboard thingies. Bike specific bearings seems like a ripoff to me.


They're 6805 bearings. If you want the same size, then go with the Phil Wood replacements. They're pricey, but they're rated for submerged use, so you know the seals are top notch. IMO, a better alternative is the Enduro bearing replacements from REAL WORLD CYCLING AFTERMARKET COMPONENTS, BEARINGS, & SEALS. They're less than $20 for a pair, using bigger bearings (which eliminated the plastic shim) and use double seals. They'll last forever.



car bone said:


> Lately I have noticed in quite a few fields that while new stuff is stiffer, lighter and overall better, or faster or whatever, its also more disposable. Sure things can be cheap so you can buy new when it wears out but isn't it better to just make stuff that don't need replacing?


This isn't one of those cases. In fact, the external bottom brackets are more serviceable than the older cartridge bottom brackets used to be.



car bone said:


> I guess all things break sooner or later, but I personally would like to install once and never touch it again. At least not within 3 years, preferably 10 years. Many years ago bottom brackets seems to last longer, I have never broken one or even seen a broken one. :shocked:


Face your shell, upgrade the bearings, install with teflon tape and anti-seize, and you won't need to touch is again for 3 years.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Thanks for responding rainbow unicorn and bad mechanic.

Servicable yes that I understand since they reside outside the BB shell, but durable? As in grease once never touch again love you long time durable?

I know very well you can make bearings that are very durable without any type of "external/extra" sealing except those on the vey bearings. I know beacuse we used to crash out CNC at least once a month and then it was tear down time, and those bearings were subjected to an unhealthy mixture of cutting fluid and whatever crap that got though the filters, and those bearings were not supposed to come in contact with the cutting fluid at all, but it worked just fine, but those were really expensive bearings. Only question is, does the reputable makers like SKF (we only used SKF) and Timken make these sizes? If its even millimeters SKF then makes it, I'm sure of it. 

About square taper..

Is square taper more durable and long lasting than outboard? My gut sez yes. I don't want to service at all after initial packing, well to an extent. I'm planning on getting either SKF or one of the other really good brands if I get square taper or ISIS, but ISIS seems dead right now. My brother used to work at SKF making their high end fully ceramic bearings so I know they don't **** around. And they have a good reputation. 

Also this recent outboard shenanigans is Shimanos endevour, they also started octalink, and octalink spawned ISIS and both of those are pretty much exctinct now. And there is nothing that indicates that outboard will be around in even 3 months, I mean whats next? "Airtech 2" magnetic unobtanium bearings? Octalink and ISIS disappeared quite fast. Whats stopping this current breed of outboard not going the way of the dino just as those 2 above? Gotta keep inventing.. keep cash flowing.


I mean I can make all of these components myself, everything, better than they ever have but I mean its counter productive economically. I just don't want to be stranded with a blown system that I can't find parts for anymore rendering all of it unusable. 

Square taper has been around for as long as I have lived, and I can still get new parts for it, thats gotta count for something right. Even if its technically worse its future proof, ort at least it has proven itself not to not disappear even though we have had several "standards" that have come and gone after it.

I want to buy future proof ****. AND the longest lasting **** there is to begin with.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

car bone said:


> Servicable yes that I understand since they reside outside the BB shell, but durable? As in grease once never touch again love you long time durable?


When done correctly they're very durable.



car bone said:


> I know very well you can make bearings that are very durable without any type of "external/extra" sealing except those on the vey bearings. I know beacuse we used to crash out CNC at least once a month and then it was tear down time, and those bearings were subjected to an unhealthy mixture of cutting fluid and whatever crap that got though the filters, and those bearings were not supposed to come in contact with the cutting fluid at all, but it worked just fine, but those were really expensive bearings. Only question is, does the reputable makers like SKF (we only used SKF) and Timken make these sizes? If its even millimeters SKF then makes it, I'm sure of it.


With mountain bikes you need well sealed bearings for them to last. I don't care how high the quality is, if it's not sealed well it's not going to last.



car bone said:


> Is square taper more durable and long lasting than outboard? My gut sez yes. I don't want to service at all after initial packing, well to an extent. I'm planning on getting either SKF or one of the other really good brands if I get square taper or ISIS, but ISIS seems dead right now. My brother used to work at SKF making their high end fully ceramic bearings so I know they don't **** around. And they have a good reputation.


Not really. When installed/uprgaded correctly, an outboard bottom bracket is every bit as durable as a square tape bottom bracket. The crankarms on a Shimano outboard crankset are much more durable than square taper since the arm pinches onto the axle, and you simply don't round out arms anymore like you did with square taper.



car bone said:


> Also this recent outboard shenanigans is Shimanos endevour, they also started octalink, and octalink spawned ISIS and both of those are pretty much exctinct now. And there is nothing that indicates that outboard will be around in even 3 months, I mean whats next? "Airtech 2" magnetic unobtanium bearings? Octalink and ISIS disappeared quite fast. Whats stopping this current breed of outboard not going the way of the dino just as those 2 above? Gotta keep inventing.. keep cash flowing.


Octalink was a good system, and absolutely a step up from square taper. You can still find Octalink if you look for it. ISIS was rubbish from the beginning since they made the axle too big, which forced them to use small bearings. The bearings always gave out.

Outboard has been around for a decade, and isn't going anywhere. The beauty of it is the cranksets themselves are adaptable to so many different bottom brackets.

This isn't blind obsolescence here. It's good progress being made. If you want to be a retro grouch, go right ahead, but you'll be missing out on a good thing.



car bone said:


> Square taper has been around for as long as I have lived, and I can still get new parts for it, thats gotta count for something right. Even if its technically worse its future proof, ort at least it has proven itself not to not disappear even though we have had several "standards" that have come and gone after it.


Yup, it's been around forever, and it still has a niche market. But there's a good reason almost everyone is running outboard now. It's much stronger and stiffer than square taper, and it's still serviceable.



car bone said:


> I want to buy future proof ****. AND the longest lasting **** there is to begin with.


You're seriously over thinking this. Just buy a used XT Hollowtech II crankset, spend $20 upgrading the bearings, and forget about it. If it turns out that all of us here have been lying to you, then you still haven't lost much.


----------



## Slash5 (Nov 27, 2011)

A little bit of info on Hollowtech bearings:
Hollowtech II Bottom Brackets - Pvdwiki


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Outboard bearings do kind of suck.. but unless you're running a rigid single speed, the rest of the bike is going to need more upkeep anyway. 10 minutes to service the bearings isnt really that unreasonable.

While a dead reliable flawless crank would be cool.. I know im going to be servicing the entire rest of the bike through-out the year anyway.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

One Pivot said:


> Outboard bearings do kind of suck.. but unless you're running a rigid single speed, the rest of the bike is going to need more upkeep anyway. 10 minutes to service the bearings isnt really that unreasonable.
> 
> While a dead reliable flawless crank would be cool.. I know im going to be servicing the entire rest of the bike through-out the year anyway.


They only suck if you use the stock bearings and don't face you bottom bracket shell. Or, if you don't want to go through the hassle of swapping bearings, you can just buy a Phil Wood:
Phil Wood & Co.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Thats what I mean, they kinda suck  

I still use them, and will continue to use them. The bearings are very cheap and extremely easy to keep up with. They're hassle free enough that its not much of a consideration. Mines a bit crunchy, Ill probably toss a ~25 dollar xt in there one of these days.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Hi guys I have additional questions. I keep reading about bb30, bb92 and well newer standards than the regular shimano outboard mtb thingie. From what I've read these are even bigger diameter BB shells and bigger diameter axles. Whats the difference between bb30 and bb92? Is this better? Do people have problems with durability on these systems? 

Also as some people have said, the problem with the ISIS was that the bearings were too small, why not make a monster isis instead then? I mean we are already moving to bigger shells.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

With BB30 the cup is machined into the frame. With BB92 the cup is pressed into the frame. They're both the same width from the outside edges. All those standards you're reading about still use the same crankset. It's adaptability is one of the nice things about the external crankset.

There aren't any durability issues with those bottom bracket standards provided high quality bearings are used, exactly the same as with external bottom brackets. Just think of those standards as external bottom brackets where the cup is part of the frame.

Why go backwards and try and rework to rework ISIS? There wasn't anything great about it, so why spend the effort trying to modernize it? The current methods of securing crank arms is superior to ISIS.

I don't really understand why you're so caught up with ISIS.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

It seems to work well. None of that cranks coming loose that square taper has and its inside the bb shell. Seemed like a good idea to me. it turns out my cranks are ISIS (with outboard bearings) and I have removed those several times and it just works, what more could I ask for? And you can adjust chainline easily with ST and ISIS. For 1x9/10 rigs and such. With outboard you are pretty much stuck with whatever they want you to, unless you machine the spline down and respine it (not very likely).


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

car bone said:


> It seems to work well. None of that cranks coming loose that square taper has and its inside the bb shell. Seemed like a good idea to me. it turns out my cranks are ISIS (with outboard bearings) and I have removed those several times and it just works, what more could I ask for?


If you couldn't ask for more, then why start this thread? 

The major drawback of ISIS was always the small bearings. But if you're going to increase the shell size to address that, why not design the whole system to work better? Simply from a mechanical standpoint, the Shimano crank arm retention system works better than ISIS. You're reducing the number of interfaces from two to one, you're pinching the arm onto the axle instead of trying to hold it on with a big bolt, and you're able to discretely set bearing preload.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

bad mechanic said:


> If you couldn't ask for more, then why start this thread?
> 
> The major drawback of ISIS was always the small bearings. But if you're going to increase the shell size to address that, why not design the whole system to work better? Simply from a mechanical standpoint, the Shimano crank arm retention system works better than ISIS. You're reducing the number of interfaces from two to one, you're pinching the arm onto the axle instead of trying to hold it on with a big bolt, and you're able to discretely set bearing preload.


The crankset I have is not in any way adjustable for chainline if you want to keep symmetic pedals, and its ugly and heavy. So I started this thread to find out a more suitable system for my next bike, something adjustable and long lasting. And with a large choice of cranks. It turned out this doesn't exist really.

I mean all these outboard gear seems kinda good, I'm just a bit sceptical. Everybody says good, but my brain says inappropriate. And square taper seems inappropriate that too (because they tend to fall off). Seem like I'm trading one flaw for the other. Maybe ISIS is crap too, but I haven't read about many peoples cranks coming off. And chainline is adjustable, or selctable I should say.

What types of bearings are used in bb30/bb92/Shimano Hollowtech2? Is it 
1








2








3








4









Personally I don't like no1 for stuff thats going to get preloaded, because it just destroys the bearing prematurely. Thats what they have the other kinds for.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

car bone said:


> I mean all these outboard gear seems kinda good, I'm just a bit sceptical. Everybody says good, but my brain says inappropriate.


How is it inappropriate?

Provided you're using compatible components, the frame isn't bent or poorly designed, and you're not running single speed, an adjustable chainline isn't required.



car bone said:


> What types of bearings are used in bb30/bb92/Shimano Hollowtech2? Is it
> 1
> 
> 
> ...


They use radial cartridge ball bearings, so number 1 in your list. They're perfectly fine for this application, and you're not applying any significant preload to the bearings. All you're doing is bringing the crankarms into contact with the bearing to ensure there's no play. Anyone tightening it beyond that is doing it incorrectly.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Well this is just from my point of view. But.. external bearings pushing cranks out so far you can't get the chain in the middle of the cassette on the middle ring, making the big sprocket totally unusable and the next biggest one borderline at best. I run a 1x9 and I find the 50mm chainline extremely unsuitable and inappropriate. So much that I'm giving my bike to my father, locking the RD out of the big sprocket. I find the whole 50mm chainline design flawed from the very bottom. Its semi-retarded. I would need a wider rear hub that moves the cassette out 5 or so mm for it to make sense at all.

No matter how you put it the bearings are now outside of the frame, also in the dirtiest possible position. All things being equal..

Plastic. Don't like plastic

Preloading. Seems sketchy at best.

And if I can opt out of all of those by just going SKF ISIS, well thats sounds good to me, if there were any nice ISIS cranks available that is..

I guess I can't have it all.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

The 50mm chainline is only 2.5mm further out than your ISIS crankset's. Considering no one else seems to have issues with it, you may want to take a closer look at your setup and figure out why it's not working for you. 

Preloading is a well accepted part of using bearings :skep:. The fact you think it's "sketchy" makes me wonder what your actual experience really is.

But then, I've argued with you for too long as is.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

I mean that with cup/cone it makes sense, regular non angular bearings not so much to be honest.
Its sketchy to preload a deep grove bearing IMO, what can I say, there are better solutions for this, like cup and cone. Which was invented like 40-50 years ago or even 100 years ago.

I know why my setup is not working as good as I'd like. I mean its still working, but that does not really mean its working to my standards and expectations, which is higher. Actually its the 1995 standard of how derraileurs worked which I happened to like. 

The old standard for chainline was like 5 mm inboard of todays, pretty much what the roadies use today on triples. Isn't it enough that only I have problems with it? I mean the parts are going on my bike.

Are we aguing? I thought we were discussing thing. I liked your input. I'm just not competely sold on the benefits of modern outboard thats all. I will probaly end up buying both. n+1...


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

*sigh* You're not putting any appreciable axial load on the bearings; certainly not anything close to what the bearings' limits. All you're doing is taking the play out. But now, I'm just repeating myself again.

A road triple doesn't have the same chainline as a mountain triple. Here, educate yourself: All About Bicycle Chainline

Yes, you have a problem with your bike. What I'm saying is look for it in the right place.

Sorry, but I'm not looking for a discussion - I'm simply giving information.


----------

