# bullseye cranks.



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

there is one in my LBS... pristine condition. are they being sold again?
btw ... i found it to be on the heavy side of things.
also i read somewhere about trouble w/ the BB bearings.
what's the whole deal?


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

They aren't being manufactured again at least as of talking to them six months ago. Could have been a NOS piece that Bullseye they had hanging around. The bearings often had some play, which didn't make everyone love them.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

they were actually light for their time. I think some later square taper cranks were able to match the weight by using flimsy arms and a ti bb. 

The Bullseyes did have a little play (like thier hubs) but were very stiff. Or at least they felt that way.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

Someone, I don't remember who, makes adapter so that you can use the cranks with modern Shimano external-BBs.

FOUND IT.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Their bearings sucked. They had way too much clearance for the application. I have a set in the basement that have at most a few hundred miles on them and you can take and rock the outer race nearly a mm back and forth - and they were nearly that loose new.

But the were really light for their time like FB said and available in crazy long lengths.


----------



## hairstream (Apr 20, 2008)

OK. I consider myself somewhat of a info source for Bullseye crank info... I have been running them since 1989 in one form or another and am currently running them on 2 of my Yeti bikes.

Yes, they are heavy. How heavy... Well, if you have to ask...

Yes there are adapters that will work with Shimano and others (can you say Chris King?) outboard bearings. I am currently running a set of Generation 3 with the Desperado shims on my ARC AS and I can say that this setup removes all play inherent with the older Bullseye bearing setup. I am also aware that Gil_m over at Retrobike makes shims. Although, I have not used them I do know that they are a bit cheaper in price. If you are going to run these cranks, do yourself a favor and have a local machine shop fab you up some bushings to replace the multiple washers that are used on either side for spindle adjustment. Ditch the rubber o-ring seals.

I am using Bullseye threaded bearings on my 89 FRO build with Generation 1 cranks that came off a 89 Manitou prototype bike (see Picture Friday thread for pics). Yes, there is play with the original bearings and they are not going to last you a lifetime, but that is the price you pay if you want to play the "period specific" game with this particular component. If you are thinking of using Gen 2 with original bearings I suggest an old IRD alloy "spindle bolt" which does wonders keeping the play to a minimum. Good luck finding one of these much loved and coveted pieces of history.

Gen 2 + spiders are available from Bullseye, to my understanding in both single and triple 110. Generation 1 spiders are currently available in 2 styles, however they are "bmx" single ring 110. If you are resourceful you can do what I did and modify them to work with triples. Although Bullseye may not be actively producing product, they are leaking out a few "bmx" sets through that old love/hate outlet called eBay. It is my understanding that Bullseye is making a major push to bring back production of their products, including cranks. The much maligned customer service experienced in the past seems to have been solved. At least in my case. I give them 3 stars.

If you are interested, do yourself a favor and drop them a line. You may be surprised at the new attitude of this much loved vintage company.

All things equal, Bullseye cranks are much like any cantankerous period part... think IRD switchbacks. If the time is taken to ensure proper set-up they work and are a nice piece of history to have hanging off your vintage ride.

There, I've said my piece.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

The IRD Bullseye Keeper worked wonders in keeping the cranks from working loose(r). I ran one on my Avalanche back in 89 when I first started using Bullseye cranks. Such a fantastic idea that Bullseye eventually incorporated the concept into the cranks to begin with. And yeah, like Hairstream wrote, good luck finding one these days.


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

*Bullseye Rings*


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

hairstream said:


> Yes, they are heavy. How heavy... Well, if you have to ask...


Heavy compared to a handlebar or something, but not when you compare them to say another set of cranks.


----------



## hairstream (Apr 20, 2008)

DoubleCentury said:


> View attachment 417751


...next CNC project. Just lovely.

If we're not snowed in tomorrow.... I'm scrounging up all my loose 175 cranks to take down to the shop and have a weigh off - Bullseye Gen1 vs. Gen 3 vs. M730 vs. Compact Revolution vs. Kooka vs. White vs. XC MD vs. RSR. My only problem is I will have to bring a BB and the Bullseye bearings + the washers, too. I guess.

My idea of Winter fun.

No wagering, please. 

Edit: Yeah, I was being a bit fasecious about the weight. Thanks for bird doggin' me and keeping it real FB.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

hairstream said:


> ...next CNC project. Just lovely.
> 
> If we're not snowed in tomorrow.... I'm scrounging up all my loose 175 cranks to take down to the shop and have a weigh off - Bullseye Gen1 vs. Gen 3 vs. M730 vs. Compact Revolution vs. Kooka vs. White vs. XC MD vs. RSR. My only problem is I will have to bring a BB and the Bullseye bearings + the washers, too. I guess.
> 
> ...


haha. sorry man. musta missed the sarcasm.


----------



## badbushido (Jan 4, 2006)

Thats not heavy










Ad 100g for the BB on this one









Rimed out the inner rings of a 22mm Dia BMX BB. Works fine and is looking better than a hollow tech.










You must be smoking tons of **** to do such a **** work (Desperado).









BTW it passed Swiss Customs in the hemp tea box which had a strong distinctively smell. 









They ride very well!


----------



## hairstream (Apr 20, 2008)

As usual, a great post Bad.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

I've always loved their stuff and used to use it on my trials bikes in specific. I've run the cranks and hubs on various other bikes both on and off-road. I go my first set of pulleys around '82 and had them 10 years later. The play inherent in the BB bearings never bothered me because the general tolerances of all parts back in the day were pretty loose. in '98 I posted a WTB ad in the classifieds section here at MTBR for the cranks and ended up buying 5 sets, average price $15. Alas, I have nothing Bullseye left beyond my tee-shirt which is approaching college age.


----------



## ameybrook (Sep 9, 2006)

DoubleCentury said:


> View attachment 417751


I love this bike. One of my top fives ever posted on VRC.


----------



## ameybrook (Sep 9, 2006)

hairstream said:


> If we're not snowed in tomorrow.... I'm scrounging up all my loose 175 cranks to take down to the shop and have a weigh off
> 
> My idea of Winter fun.


Nothing like finishing that weekend day feeling like you truly accomplished something


----------



## idoru (Jan 14, 2004)

Hi Guys,
I thought I could here my ears burning, I had some spacers machined up so I could run a set on my new 29"er and listed them on ebay when I sold off my old Bullseye bearings to pay for the machining.

I have about 10 sets available now and yes I am based in the UK, however this isn't a problem I am happy to post them over the pond as long as you happy to pay me using Paypal

I will post some pictures later, but they work a treat and can be used with MTB BB as well, not just the Dura-ace one

I charge 22 GBP per set including Airmail, if you would prefer "signed for" Airmail, it would be an additional 4.50 GBP

PM me or email direct ~ [email protected]


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

ameybrook said:


> I love this bike. One of my top fives ever posted on VRC.


It will be getting a makeover; photos soon.


----------



## richieb (Oct 21, 2004)

Badbushido said "Rimed out the inner rings of a 22mm Dia BMX BB. Works fine and is looking better than a hollow tech."

So, let me get this straight...you reamed out the inner diameter of a 22mm bearing up to the 22.2mm of the spindle? Was this done at a machine shop? I've been trying to find a bearing that has a 22.2mm ID, but they don;t seem to exist...

I'd really like some more details on how you did this...


----------



## hairstream (Apr 20, 2008)

ameybrook said:


> Nothing like finishing that weekend day feeling like you truly accomplished something


Hey, I'll be the first to admit it. My life kinda sucks.


----------



## Howley (Nov 23, 2005)

*Would this work?*



hairstream said:


> ... Yes, there is play with the original bearings and they are not going to last you a lifetime, ... If you are thinking of using Gen 2 with original bearings I suggest an old IRD alloy "spindle bolt" which does wonders keeping the play to a minimum. Good luck finding one of these much loved and coveted pieces of history....


When I ran mine I always thought something like this would help with the side to side play in the original bearings-and the spindle arm interface allowed a bit of creep so the arm moved away from the BB a bit.










PricePoint lista 2 kinds-
http://www.pricepoint.com/detail/11459-205_AZOHL2-3-Parts-72-Stems/Azonic-Headlock-System.htm


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Yeah, that's sort of what the IRD Bullseye keeper looked like. Later Bullseye cranks incorporated a threaded hole on the left end of the spindle. You would then bolt on a cap that would draw everything together and keep the left crank arm from creeping loose.


----------



## hairstream (Apr 20, 2008)

Here are some pictures of the various iterations of Bullseye cranks...

http://bmxmuseum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=18524


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Heavy compared to a handlebar or something, but not when you compare them to say another set of cranks.


really?

i guess i compared those cranks w/ my lightweight brains.

what's a smart guy like you doing in a place like this?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

DoubleCentury said:


> View attachment 417751


man... that's soooo SWEET.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

colker1 said:


> really?
> 
> i guess i compared those cranks w/ my lightweight brains.
> 
> what's a smart guy like you doing in a place like this?


serious Flavio, you have to compare apples to apples. compare a set of Bullseye cranks with a set of M730 cranks and obviously the bullseyes are a lot heavier. Now campare the Bullseye with an M730 crankset AND bottom bracket and the weight is a lot closer. Remember, the Bullseye crankset incorporates the BB as well.

Compared to something modern though I guess the Bullseyes are a lot heavier.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

Bullseye really lost a lot of traction when ti spindled BBs and sub-400g. cranks were popular in the early-90s. Of course how many of those lightweight crank/BB combos are still around? Now that cranks are back up to reasonable weights I think they could make a comeback. Also if they targeted the single-speed community that could move things in a good direction.


----------



## C Miller (Aug 28, 2008)

*Mountain Goat Deluxe with Bullseye setup*

Here's a pic of my 88 Deluxe with the Bullseye crank and BB setup.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

C Miller said:


> Here's a pic of my 88 Deluxe with the Bullseye crank and BB setup.


Hope you still have the original fork.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

IF52 said:


> serious Flavio, you have to compare apples to apples. compare a set of Bullseye cranks with a set of M730 cranks and obviously the bullseyes are a lot heavier. Now campare the Bullseye with an M730 crankset AND bottom bracket and the weight is a lot closer. Remember, the Bullseye crankset incorporates the BB as well.
> 
> Compared to something modern though I guess the Bullseyes are a lot heavier.


Seems like there is a lot of confusion here.

I guess I need to take a picture of an M730 setup (with BB) on a scale next to a Bullseye setup. The Bullseye is a fair amount lighter last I checked. Much stiffer too.

Compare Bullseye to say a modern XTR setup and the XTR is lighter. Shimano stole Bullseye's concept though. Stronger, stiffer _and_ lighter is a beautiful thing.

BTW, Colker, I was responding to this:

_Originally Posted by *hairstream*

"Yes, they are heavy"_.

...maybe you missed that...?


----------



## C Miller (Aug 28, 2008)

*yep still have it*

Original fork's nestled in right next to the original 6 spd XT thumbshifters, derailleurs, bars, etc.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Seems like there is a lot of confusion here.
> 
> I guess I need to take a picture of an M730 setup (with BB) on a scale next to a Bullseye setup. The Bullseye is a fair amount lighter last I checked. Much stiffer too.
> 
> Compare Bullseye to say a modern XTR setup and the XTR is lighter. Shimano stole Bullseye's concept though. Stronger, stiffer _and_ lighter is a beautiful thing.


Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make.

The weight savings was the reason I went to Bullseye cranks on my (extremely heavy) 88 GT Avalanche. The Bikepro site lists the weight a little over 800 grams for a 172mm Bullseye crank/BB/bolts, I am assuming with no rings. They list M900s with rings but no bolts or BB at 741 grams. A UN91 BB is listed at 239 grams.


----------



## hairstream (Apr 20, 2008)

I was kidding. There is probably not that much difference. Add a ti spindle to the eqation, and...


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

hairstream said:


> I was kidding.


yes, that was established.

facepalm


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

IF52 said:


> Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make.
> 
> The weight savings was the reason I went to Bullseye cranks on my (extremely heavy) 88 GT Avalanche. The Bikepro site lists the weight a little over 800 grams for a 172mm Bullseye crank/BB/bolts, I am assuming with no rings. They list M900s with rings but no bolts or BB at 741 grams. A UN91 BB is listed at 239 grams.


yeah. I don't know about M900 though. I've only compared them to stuff from the 80s.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Yeah, so did I back then, I just couldn't find a weight listed for a M730 crankset and BB and don't feel like pulling my set off my Monster. I switched over to Bullseyes in 89 and recall, though my memory is usually cloudy on these things, that there was a pretty good weight savings compare to XT stuff and especially compared to the boat anchor GT cranks that the early Avalanche came with. 

Being pretty tall, the fact that I could get 184mm cranks was attractive too.

Even compared with M900 though, the weights are about the same with rings I would guess and I think we all agree on how stiff Bullseye cranks are. Point being Bullseyes are lighter than they look.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Fillet-brazed said:


> yes, that was established.
> 
> facepalm


HA!


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Seems like there is a lot of confusion here.
> 
> I guess I need to take a picture of an M730 setup (with BB) on a scale next to a Bullseye setup. The Bullseye is a fair amount lighter last I checked. Much stiffer too.
> 
> ...


need to talk to the owner of that crankset.. pristine, NOS. how the hell one comes up w/ such thing? in Rio de Janeiro?!
i want that crank.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

IF52 said:


> Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make.
> 
> The weight savings was the reason I went to Bullseye cranks on my (extremely heavy) 88 GT Avalanche. The Bikepro site lists the weight a little over 800 grams for a 172mm Bullseye crank/BB/bolts, I am assuming with no rings. They list M900s with rings but no bolts or BB at 741 grams. A UN91 BB is listed at 239 grams.


i had a gt karakoram. 89 or 90. i don't know how GT managed to build such a heavy bike. it was HEAVY...


----------



## hairstream (Apr 20, 2008)

no, really. I was only kidding you guys.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

after all the squawking here I threw a set of Bullseyes and M730s on the scale. Only 42 grams of difference between the two in favor of the Bullseyes. Less difference than I recalled. 

Once the ti bb's came out the standard cranks would have been a couple ounces lighter, but with a sacrifice in strength and stiffness for sure. (I have broken a ti spindle so be careful if you're using one).


----------



## pint (Oct 6, 2008)

I've always loved Bullseye cranks. Never owned a set, but ridden a few bikes with them. I think the time is come. I need to find/build a nice rig with a set of Bullseye's in 2009!


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> after all the squawking here I threw a set of Bullseyes and M730s on the scale. Only 42 grams of difference between the two in favor of the Bullseyes. Less difference than I recalled.
> 
> Once the ti bb's came out the standard cranks would have been a couple ounces lighter, but with a sacrifice in strength and stiffness for sure. (I have broken a ti spindle so be careful if you're using one).


Huh, I thought it was more than that too.

Re. the ti spindle comment, I originally built up the IF with Bullseye cranks, then switched over to a Race Face turbine and TNT BB because of the weight savings, however slight. Rode the bike like that for a while and then sold the Race Face and TNT bits and switched back to the Bullseyes. The dude I sold the Ti BB to snapped it in a matter of weeks. Yikes.


----------

