# Lightest crank arms square taper/aluminum/104-64 bcd?



## palmix (Jan 31, 2004)

Hi ...since I don't believe in another BB system but traditional Square Taper [for ever!!] ...and don't believe in another material but aluminum (at least for off-road use) I'm currently using a Deore M510 square taper arms (450 gr.). These are medium range stuff and I'd prefer something more exclusive... but I REALLY DON'T KNOW ANY LIGHTER with the above specs... (also, must be 4 bolts standard 104-64mm bcd)

the question is: DO YOU KNOW *any lighter*?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## dualsport650 (Nov 4, 2004)

Yo

Check out the listings area of the "Weight Weenies" site...
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings.php


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

palmix said:


> Hi ...since I don't believe in another BB system but traditional Square Taper [for ever!!]


Never thought that is a question of belief... My external bearings cranks look quite real, stiff and beyond a reasonable doubt of actually existing to me...


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

I'm riding a 1998 Raleigh M400 bike that weighs around 24lbs and am running a square taper crank. The only thing stock on the bike is the frame and yes I still have some retro stuff. Tech is great but in the end it's all about the skill of the rider.

My other Bike(s) are a 2005 Raleigh Team Inferno and a 2001 GT I Drive but I still ride the M400 frame over 50% of the time.

I guess the guy was asking for help...not a lesson in engineering.



Mr. Scary said:


> I don't believe the statements that I have just read, nothing like ignoring basic engineering principles (such as surface contact with a splined system).
> Hope you are still on a 15 yr. old steel 30 lb. hardtail as well. Technology is passing you by, but you are so retro chic... I am assuming you typed this on your Commodore 64.


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

something like this maybe?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Middleburn...ryZ56193QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem



palmix said:


> Hi ...since I don't believe in another BB system but traditional Square Taper [for ever!!] ...and don't believe in another material but aluminum (at least for off-road use) I'm currently using a Deore M510 square taper arms (450 gr.). These are medium range stuff and I'd prefer something more exclusive... but I REALLY DON'T KNOW ANY LIGHTER with the above specs... (also, must be 4 bolts standard 104-64mm bcd)
> 
> the question is: DO YOU KNOW *any lighter*?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


----------



## dompedro3 (Jan 26, 2004)

palmix said:


> Hi ...since I don't believe in another BB system but traditional Square Taper [for ever!!] ...and don't believe in another material but aluminum (at least for off-road use) I'm currently using a Deore M510 square taper arms (450 gr.). These are medium range stuff and I'd prefer something more exclusive... but I REALLY DON'T KNOW ANY LIGHTER with the above specs... (also, must be 4 bolts standard 104-64mm bcd)
> 
> the question is: DO YOU KNOW *any lighter*?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


maybe not lighter, but defintely a step up:
http://www.middleburn.co.uk/rs8.htm 
434g with 5-arm spider, 454g with 4 arm spider (estimated wt, from website, weight weenies says they come in around 480, heavier, but def. more bling)

for even more bling, try tune bigfoot, fastfoot, but be prepared to pay... and to make all the naysayers drool, pair these puppies with a phil wood ti bb, some light chainrings and bolts and you can have a crankset (with bb) under 800g.
http://www.poshbikes.com/cat.php?cranks

if your not totally dedicated to 4 bolt chainrings, according to weightweenies, the older raceface next lp square tapers were between 400 and 425g pretty light and much less (if you can find 'em) money


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> I don't believe the statements that I have just read, nothing like ignoring basic engineering principles (such as surface contact with a splined system).
> Hope you are still on a 15 yr. old steel 30 lb. hardtail as well. Technology is passing you by, but you are so retro chic... I am assuming you typed this on your Commodore 64.


What basic engineering principles is he ignoring? What is this splined system surface contact?


----------



## palmix (Jan 31, 2004)

thanks for the replies!! ...but... Middelburn are simply heavier, and Tune have only five arms spider (and a bit ugly for me...)

*Seguiremos buscando*!


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

I have no idea what he speaks when he says splined system surface contact. He should see my road bike. barends and a traditional BB with sugino crank and elliptoid rings! I guess I need to throw those parts away!



Boj said:


> What basic engineering principles is he ignoring? What is this splined system surface contact?


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

did you see that ebay link? That setup is pretty light. Are you sure those deore arms are that light? I have the advantage of certified calibrated balances to weigh things at work.



palmix said:


> thanks for the replies!! ...but... Middelburn are simply heavier, and Tune have only five arms spider (and a bit ugly for me...)
> 
> *Seguiremos buscando*!


----------



## palmix (Jan 31, 2004)

Rutnick said:


> did you see that ebay link? That setup is pretty light. Are you sure those deore arms are that light? I have the advantage of certified calibrated balances to weigh things at work.


yes, Deore cranks weigh 450 grs. They comes with heavy rings (middle and small in steel) but I use T.A. 36 t. and FSA 22. (2x9 drive train) and it is a very light combo...

Middelburn, according to this page:

http://www.middleburn.co.uk/crankweights.htm

weighs 474 grm. (sq. tp./RS8/4arm)


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*I guess "ignoring basic engineering principles" works for Campy!!*

and what, 85% of the Pro Tour Field? Sure you ride what your sponsors give ya...
But you don't think Campagnolo is up today's engineering principles? 

I sure the Top Sprinters of today (Petacchi) and yesteryear (Cipollini) miss those "basic engineering principles."

Yes splined and outboard bb in tests and real world are stiffer, but SqTaper is a proven and reilable ignoring engineering when it comes to BB.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Extralite Fishbones, from my recollection, are relatively inexpensive, lightweight and 4-arm.


----------



## palmix (Jan 31, 2004)

Boj said:


> Extralite Fishbones, from my recollection, are relatively inexpensive, lightweight and 4-arm.


Yes...!! about the same weigh than Deore (454 gr/1 lb.)

They were sold at http://www.shockbike.com/ (Italy) but now are out of stock . It is posible to buy them anywhere?


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

why are set on that BCD/aluminum cranks?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Correct on campy...*

No, but it supports fine enough for pros. That is what I was gettting too.

mario can do it with both old and new technology  so can palmix...

It may not be that Bill gates was wrong, but he keep making the market keep up with him to keep his sales going....


----------



## Mattias_Hellöre (Oct 2, 2005)

I have yellow RooX XC cranks, I weighed them at 437,5g with 5 arm spider, but I polished them today and I managed remove a other 3-5 grams.
So 433-437 grams.

Not too bad.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

DIRT BOY said:


> No, but it supports fine enough for pros. That is what I was gettting too.
> 
> mario can do it with both old and new technology  so can palmix...
> 
> It may not be that Bill gates was wrong, but he keep making the market keep up with him to keep his sales going....


This is quite offtopic for the thread, but personally, I think the biggest advantage of integrated systems is usability. Never, ever again will I bother with pulling and reinstalling square tapers. 85% of the tour have mechanics to do that for them - and they do not hack their bike off things...


----------



## Motivated (Jan 13, 2004)

*the answer is NO*

Next LP arms are about 410g and Turbine arms are 425g (neither available in 4-arm as far as I know) so 450g for your Deore is quite good. Assuming 150g for the BB and 150g for rings plus 20g for bolts, etc you are at 770g total which is better than XTR and very difficult to beat. I think you should buy lighter shoes instead.



palmix said:


> Hi ...since I don't believe in another BB system but traditional Square Taper [for ever!!] ...and don't believe in another material but aluminum (at least for off-road use) I'm currently using a Deore M510 square taper arms (450 gr.). These are medium range stuff and I'd prefer something more exclusive... but I REALLY DON'T KNOW ANY LIGHTER with the above specs... (also, must be 4 bolts standard 104-64mm bcd)
> 
> the question is: DO YOU KNOW *any lighter*?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


----------



## palmix (Jan 31, 2004)

maybe this model is lighter (*M750*)










*someone knows where to get it (new)?*


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> The poster indicated that he would not accept anything but square taper as an interface format, which is somewhat shortsighted (hence the reference to a Comodore 64-maybe you remember those? Bill Gates said back in 1981 that 64K ought to be enough memory for everybody-boy was he wrong). I never said it (square taper) would not support the applicable loads, just that it does not do it as well as a splined system. Newsflash-Campy is working on a new bb interface, how much says it is not a reiteration of the square taper?
> 
> BTW, Cipo had one of his best years (2002) on a Shimano drivetrain, FWIW.


Splined systems are the product of marketing, not engineering departments. If it was about a superior engineering solution, there'd be no splined systems around as engineers wouldn't reinvent the wheel in the first place, let alone make it more expensive and less reliable.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Boj said:


> Splined systems are the product of marketing, not engineering departments. If it was about a superior engineering solution, there'd be no splined systems around as engineers wouldn't reinvent the wheel in the first place, let alone make it more expensive and less reliable.


Absolute bollocks. Integrated outboard systems are easier to install and maintain, they cost the same or cheaper to make and they perform noticably better.

Indeed, left alone engineers would not do anything, unless somebody reminds them what customers actually need. For example, an easy and foolproof way to install cranks and cheaper production methods. Some marketing and product development folks actually do earn their salary.


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

whatever. If they are cheaper to make then they should cost the same, not MORE. I don't need the new setup and I don't mind removing crank arms the "old" method.



Axe said:


> Absolute bollocks. Integrated outboard systems are easier to install and maintain, they cost the same or cheaper to make and they perform noticably better.
> 
> Indeed, left alone engineers would not do anything, unless somebody reminds them what customers actually need. For example, an easy and foolproof way to install cranks and cheaper production methods. Some marketing and product development folks actually do earn their salary.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Rutnick said:


> whatever. If they are cheaper to make then they should cost the same, not MORE. I don't need the new setup and I don't mind removing crank arms the "old" method.


Fine, that is why a lot of manufacturers still do the square taper - to serve remaining demand from the conservative users, and for running some bottom of the line stuff using an already amortized tooling.

Outboard bearings and integrated spindle are some of the most elegant technical solutions of recent years (unlike ISIS, new BB geometry attempts etc.) That is not your old biopace, so it was kinda odd to me that you dissed it..


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

I'm still using biopace rings on another road bike thank you very much (1990 Trek 1200 with 105 group and downtube shifters). I am also using some sugino elliptoids on another road bike. I also remember the biopace on mountain bikes. My "dated" equipement is as follows on my road bike:

Lotus Frame
Coda bars
Scott stem
treaded fork 
Sugino elliptoid cranks with a 108 square taper BB (was 110 and changed it to 108).
Araya Rims
shimano 600 rear hub
Ultegra 11-26 rear cassette
Shimano 105 rear derailleur
Suntour alpha 5000 front derailleur
Dia Compe alpha 5000 brakes and brake levers
Dura ace 9 speed barends.
Specialized gel saddle
whatever seatpost that came on it
1st generation look pedals
SRAM 9 speed chain
Heck, I was friction shifting a 9 speed with a suntour alpha 5000 rear derailleur until 3 months ago. Just ask the guy on the madone I dropped at the 45 mile mark how well it worked.

That bike weighs in around 20lbs and I see no need to do anything more to it. I may have to get new rings for the crank in the near future but at 20+ years old I guess it might be time.

My 1998 Raliegh M400 STILL uses the same square taper LX cranks I put on it back in 1999. The bike has morphed and morphed and morphed over the years but I much prefer the 108mm 47.5mm chainline that I currently have. I prefer it narrow. I've replaced a couple of rings over the years but the best upgrade I ever did on the bike was the 2005 Manitou Black Super Air. It might not be the most expensive or best fork out there but I enjoy it and for $220..I think I got it for a great price. I actually tried the 2003 XT octalink cranks on it briefly but even at 113mm the chainline on the bike was almost 53mm.

My 2005 Diamondback Apex frame has the original STX-RC cranks off the 98 raleigh and I have no complaints (heck it has the original STX-RC group and for a rails to trails bike who cares?). The 2001 GT I drive now has the 03 XT cranks and I am dealing with it. I haven't decided what I am going to put on the 2005 Raleigh Inferno frame yet. I'm taking delivery of it on Friday. After that, I'll decide what to build the 05 Talus team frame. I may just put square taper BB on both of them just because I can. And BTW, who said I'm buying "low end"? There are still plenty of excellent square taper BB available along with cranks. You'll probably wonder why I also am using a Brooks saddle.

I say let the guy run a square taper and if he wanted a speech on why the new stuff was better...he would have asked. I don't consider myself conservative and neither should he. I don't consider myself a conservative rider. I've put down what feels like thousands of dollars on equipment this year. The Inferno might not be the most expensive frame out there but it is far from a conservative purchase in my book.

BTW, I know my profile says the Raleigh has the 03 XT cranks but I had just bought them when I joined. They are on the GT now.

I'll edit it later.

*gasp* I'm still running 8 speed rear on that bike!

Actually, so will the inferno.



Axe said:


> Fine, that is why a lot of manufacturers still do the square taper - to serve remaining demand from the conservative users, and for running some bottom of the line stuff using an already amortized tooling.
> 
> Outboard bearings and integrated spindle are some of the most elegant technical solutions of recent years (unlike ISIS, new BB geometry attempts etc.) That is not your old biopace, so it was kinda odd to me that you dissed it..


----------



## Kam (Jan 12, 2004)

look for race face stuff. i have a set of next lp carbon cranks that i just love. light, stiff and yes....square taper. 

the turbines are pretty light too. 

IMHO, isis was a flop right at the start (bearings are way too small). the external bearing stuff (though light and stiff) is only good for road if you ask me. on a cross or mtb, forget it. they just aren't sealed that well if at all. 

if you want performance and reliability, square taper is the answer, IMHO.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Rutnick said:


> Just ask the guy on the madone I dropped at the 45 mile mark how well it worked.


Now if you dropped me riding a Kettler trike (not that far fetched nowdays  ), what would that have to do with merits of some technology?



Rutnick said:


> And BTW, who said I'm buying "low end"? There are still plenty of excellent square taper BB available along with cranks. You'll probably wonder why I also am using a Brooks saddle.


Indeed, who said that?



Rutnick said:


> I say let the guy run a square taper and if he wanted a speech on why the new stuff was better...he would have asked.


If he did not want to hear smartass comments, he should not have posted on MTBR. Or, at least avoid making smartass comments himself while asking a pretty darn simple question.



Rutnick said:


> *gasp* I'm still running 8 speed rear on that bike!


I have a 7sp steel road bike in my garage right now and I ride it often. What does it have to do with integrated cranksets being or not being a superior technical solution?


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

not even close but he probably thinks the same way as axe. Campy still makes square taper and as long as Phil Wood makes square taper BB then I would definately say there are companies making high end products.

I believe you missed the point. People get caught up in the "best and the baddest" and forget about what's really important.



Mr. Scary said:


> Let me the guess, the guy on the Madone? Lance Armstrong? You rock!


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

well, because he really didn't want to hear about anything OTHER than square taper did he?

some people just don't get sucked into the biggest and baddest and frankly don't care.

campy still uses square taper on their 06 line. Phil Wood still makes square taper BB. Rivendell only sells bikes with square taper. 

get over it. You say the new stuff is a superior tech solution? I say that it still has pluses and minus vs square. There is a big minus for me which makes me stay with square.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Rutnick said:


> People get caught up in the "best and the baddest" and forget about what's really important.


It is quite fascinating how you can come up to a logical conjunction that selecting a cheap, well engineered and usable alternative to an established, and quite frankly obsolete, technology somehow equates to forgetting what is really important. Smells like some sort of insecurity.

"I do not belief..". When you want to hear about square tapers - just ask about square tapers.

What is important is my daughter learning to ride a bike. Personally I do not give a flying f.ck to the possible satisfaction of dropping a guy on a modern expensive bike on my clunker. I just really do not.


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

sounds like are the one with the insecurity issue in the matter. The new stuff is cheaper? Not in my book. XT and XTR components seem much more expensive over the previous generation and frankly XT and XTR are overpriced to begin with.

Next time you might want to UNDERSTAND that I don't like the chainline of the new stuff. I PREFER narrower chainlines. Qfactor or whatever else it is called.

I really don't give a flying f*ck about your post nor really do I at this point understand it. The guy wanted a square taper solution and you come in doing your rambo tactics. You afraid your daughter is going to round a square taper? I haven't in over 30 years of riding but then again I check the torque on the bolts before every ride whether it is square or the one octalink I have.

You seem to think you are magically going to make everyone bow down and change because you think it is time. That's shimano and microsoft's way of doing business. Some of us just don't fall for it.

The point of dropping the guy on the Madone is that ultimately it is the rider (square taper or not).

I also wear wool bike clothing in the winter and even some in the summer. Want to tell me about the new miracle fabrics?



Axe said:


> It is quite fascinating how you can come up to a logical conjunction that selecting a cheap, well engineered and usable alternative to an established, and quite frankly obsolete, technology somehow equates to forgetting what is really important. Smells like some sort of insecurity.
> 
> "I do not belief..". When you want to hear about square tapers - just ask about square tapers.
> 
> What is important is my daughter learning to ride a bike. Personally I do not give a flying f.ck to the possible satisfaction of dropping a guy on a modern expensive bike on my clunker. I just really do not.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Rutnick said:


> I really don't give a flying f*ck about your post nor really do I at this point understand it. The guy wanted a square taper solution and you come in doing your rambo tactics.


Rambo tactics? Are you insane? What are you talking about? Go, read what I wrote - it was a polite amusement at some strong worded statements made by the original poster.



Rutnick said:


> You seem to think you are magically going to make everyone bow down and change because you think it is time. That's shimano and microsoft's way of doing business. Some of us just don't fall for it.


Yep. We will shoot down all the black helicopters if they dare to come to us with all that crazy "new technology" conspiracies.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Spot on, Rutnik!! It is because of insecurity that someone can reject the latest and greatest that this thread is rolling on. And I'm not even conservative, I love a good tech gimmic. The key word being *good*. ISIS and now outboard stuff are only marketing sucesses. Technically, they are both dismal attempts not to admit that square taper is the best.

Supposedly in order to gain stiffness (ha!), first we had splined interface and an oversized shaft (marketing $$). That resulted in bearing size being reduced to accomodate the shaft and with that ISIS bottom brackets failing in no time. You'd think this should have been enough to realise failure, but to go around this problem, designers moved the bearings outside(!) of the shell and made the crank/BB two piece (again more marketing $$).

So now we have extra wide Q-factor cranks, whose superiority is that, well they're not square taper, I guess.


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

They just don't get it do they? And that thing about wearing out crank arms faster? How often do you take your square taper off? My Sugino cranks are 23 years old! Also, I have seen the precious octalink cranks fail as well. They also don't realize the wider q-factor of the new setups and why us "old guys" like the square taper and the narrower q of the old bikes. I'm running a 68x108 on my mountain bike. I am also running a 68x108 on the road bike. Campy has some 68x102 stuff. Shimano's octalink is like 68x113, 118 and I believe even a 121. When I tried an octatlink, I could only find a 68x118 and my chainline was 57mm! Even with a 68x113 it was still around 52mm. The 68x108 was around 47.

Campy is still square taper and even though I hear they may be changing designs soon I would venture to guess that they will still have some square taper stuff.



Boj said:


> Spot on, Rutnik!! It is because of insecurity that someone can reject the latest and greatest that this thread is rolling on. And I'm not even conservative, I love a good tech gimmic. The key word being *good*. ISIS and now outboard stuff are only marketing sucesses. Technically, they are both dismal attempts not to admit that square taper is the best.
> 
> Supposedly in order to gain stiffness (ha!), first we had splined interface and an oversized shaft (marketing $$). That resulted in bearing size being reduced to accomodate the shaft and with that ISIS bottom brackets failing in no time. You'd think this should have been enough to realise failure, but to go around this problem, designers moved the bearings outside(!) of the shell and made the crank/BB two piece (again more marketing $$).
> 
> So now we have extra wide Q-factor cranks, whose superiority is that, well they're not square taper, I guess.


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

and that matters how? Monzas were crap from the start unless you put a cool paintjob on them, got some wide rear tires, put a spoiler on the bad and put a 350 in it.



Mr. Scary said:


> [QUOTE-Rutnick]And I still drive a 1978 Chevy Monza, when the roof rusted I wrapped some saran wrap over the hole and made a sunroof...


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Rutnick said:


> They just don't get it do they? And that thing about wearing out crank arms faster? How often do you take your square taper off? My Sugino cranks are 23 years old! Also, I have seen the precious octalink cranks fail as well. They also don't realize the wider q-factor of the new setups and why us "old guys" like the square taper and the narrower q of the old bikes.


You are making an awful lot of completely baseless assumptions.

But that's OK. Black helicopters will pick out holdouts like you and Boj soon enough.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> I personally could care less what you use, but everything is not marketing, and technology is updated for a reason.


What is the reason for the update of the bottom bracket 'technology'? That's the key to the whole thing as, you see, there isn't one.

I ride with V-brakes because discs are just too expensive, methinks. But discs have some clear and undisputed advantages to V-brakes so they are an actual improvement (albeit expensive) over V-brakes. What is this improvement I get with an outboard bearing or Octalink bottom bracket? Yes, the stiffness, of course. This premise of improved stiffness is arguably non-existent, irrelevant and, indisputably, elusive (which is what makes it the perfect marketing gimmick, by the way).

First off, the shaft of your bottom bracket transfers power from your left leg only. Power from the right leg goes through the crank, ring and onto chain, etc. and not through the bottom bracket. So straight up, any arguable improvement in my ride from this bottom bracket is halved.

Second, the stiffness of your ride is a function of *all* the parts which make it up. So stiffness of the drivetrain (the left-hand side) starts with the pedal, BB spindle, crank spider, chainring, chain, cassette, hub, wheel and the tire. Improvement in stiffness of any one of these results in an insignificant improvement of the overall system stiffness. So you may have say 10% stiffer bottom bracket spindle, but get less than 1% improvement overall.

Additionally, this kind of system (series - with springs transfering force from one to another) means that it is as stiff as it's flexiest link. And the bottom bracket spindle is very stiff, so there's going to be less improvement trying to stiffen the bottom bracket than other parts like wheel, crank, etc. All up, whatever stiffness improvement you get from Octalink (and I haven't even got to that yet), by the time it trickles down throgh the drivetrain, it's insignificant.

Third, loss of power through stiffness, in principle is sound. But I have never seen anything but theoretical proof of this, and by all accounts, in practice it is not significant. Out of roughly 250-300 watts of leg power, only 2-3 are lost going from from legs to ground all up. Most of this would be through heat created through friction of parts rubbing, but even if all of it went to stiffness, you can see how insignificant the overal potential for improvement is.

As a final agrument consider that, with all of these points, it needs to be shown that Octalink and the company beat the square taper, in stiffness, well and truly; which they don't.

The real reasons for the new systems is to break down the bottom bracket and crank compatibility and force you to buy the bottom bracket and cranks from the same manufacturer ($$). Shimano have done that with Octalink and now everyone else has with the two piece crank/BB.

As a final testament to the technical stupidity of this all, consider that on most two piece crank/BBs, the spindle is joined to the right hand crank, the crank which does not transfer power through the spindle. So any possible stiffness benefit of the integration is lost.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Boj said:


> That's the key to the whole thing as, you see, there isn't one.


I do not see that at all. That is purely your opinion, just as mine is mine.



Boj said:


> the spindle is joined to the right hand crank, the crank which does not transfer power through the spindle. So any possible stiffness benefit of the integration is lost.


Bollocks. The main improvement to stiffness is the diameter of the spindle and wider distance between bearings. Not the attachment point.

And the biggest improvement for me is usability - trivial to install, easy to service, very noticably stiff (I am heavy) and costs the same. I am talking about the integrated systems, not ISIS/Octalink, which I could not care about and kept riding square.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Axe said:


> I do not see that at all. That is purely your opinion, just as mine is mine.
> 
> Bollocks. The main improvement to stiffness is the diameter of the spindle and wider distance between bearings. Not the attachment point.
> 
> And the biggest improvement for me is usability - trivial to install, easy to service, very noticably stiff (I am heavy) and costs the same. I am talking about the integrated systems, not ISIS/Octalink, which I could not care about and kept riding square.


I've already addressed the diameter of the spindle. The bearing distance is, of course, 'bollocks' because all the points in the previous post can be argued against this stiffness too. That, and we all know the bearings were designed outboard with the purpose to accomodate larger balls (ISIS dramas), not to change the distance between them. 

And I don't burn you for riding what you do, whatever the reason you ride it. I just don't appreciate the original poster blasted in his own thread as ignorant for wanting square taper.


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

The Rivendell frame will be for the across the US ride but you wouldn't understand such journeys. I'll be stopping at a Rivendell dealer in Michigan in about 2 weeks to get my measurements for a custom frame.

Maybe you need to ride more and talk trash less. There is always the put up or shut up aspect of things.



Mr. Scary said:


> Spindle length is not the only determinant in q, SHimano's arm offset is different (less) than the designs with a 102mm spindle. I'd say you really don't understand, must be the toe clips. Ride your Rivendell and be happy!


----------



## Rutnick (Nov 24, 2005)

and I guess that helo will be full with everyone else that rides campy or any other manufacturer of square taper. I rode my ancient technology square taper today. 37 degrees and raining on the Raleigh HT and things were great. I just realized that the other two riders also were using square taper! OMG! One was riding a GT STS and the other was riding a Trek with CF tubes that is at least 10 years old.

I took delivery of my Raleigh Inferno yesterday and get measured for my custom Rivendell in two weeks for my across the US ride. I'll use a square taper on that trip just to tick you off. Now if it just didn't take 18 months to get the frame.

I guess I better go get the I drive ready to ride in the am. That is what it is about isn't it?



Axe said:


> You are making an awful lot of completely baseless assumptions.
> 
> But that's OK. Black helicopters will pick out holdouts like you and Boj soon enough.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> Do you realize that the square taper has a 4 degree taper, Octalink had 1 degree, and Octalink 2 has almost no taper?


Do you realize you're an idiot? Square Taper is a 2 degree taper. Right from the start you're making up stuff to justify the rest of your rant.



> What does that mean Boj? That each time the crank arm is removed on a square taper the aluminum hole on the crankarm becomes bigger. Eventually over time this weakens


False. That only way it'd get bigger is if each time you installed it with a greater amount of torque than reccommended by the manufacturer's assembly instructions. And only an idiot like you would do that. Real bike mechanics have the good sense to use things like a torque wrench if they don't intuitively know how much force is needed.



> BTW, surface area contact is increased in a splined system. Don't compare ISIS to Shimano, they are not the same. ISIS reduced the size of the bearings (and also featured a hard stop that isolated the arm from being pressed on), Octalink maintained bearing integrity while increasing the size of the pipe spindle.


It'd help if you understood the difference in the bearings. ISIS users focused all their efforts on simply running replaceable off-the-shelf cartridge bearing units, which due to the spindle diameter resulted in smaller size ball bearings inside the cartridges. Shimano went a different route employing both ball bearings and roller bearings. The two bearing systems combined is why the shimano BBs lasted longer.



> I'm not saying square taper does not work, but you clearly are off on some uneducated assessment (it's all marketing, marketing drives everything).


Speaking of uneducated idiots...you're the mtbr poster child for them.



> Do you think that Toyota pushing hybrids (at a loss BTW, they lose money on every hybrid) isn't worthwhile because the internal combustion engine works? SO they should abandon this technology and we'll all just hope that we never run out of oil?


The reason for pushing hybrids in north america is because it was the simplest route to meeting emission mandates in many US states, especially california. It had nothing to do with dwindling supplies of fossil fuels, given how so much fuel is required to actually build all the parts that make up hybrids. Diesel or biofuel engines would have been more practical to meet both emission and mileage targets except for two flaws.

The big one is the USA doesn't have the same low-sulphur diesel fuel that europe and asia has long mandated or a sufficient distribution network for biofuels. And since the oil companies have more lobbyists to pretect them from having to rush to improve their distribution networks without new laws requiring long lead times, it was faster for legislators to put the problem on the shoulders of the automakers. But come 2007, low-sulphur diesel will finally be mandated in the USA. But that's 7 years after the first hybrids became available.

The second reason is that the usa is a big country and the wide open spaces aren't well suited to the super-compacts that do so well in other markets, where inter-city drives aren't multihour affair. Cars with 3 and 4 cylinder engines similar in displacement to motorcycle engines, that carry at from 2 to 4 adults and a few grocery bags and that's it. There's been flirtations with some such cars (Geo Metro for example) but nothing as serious as japan and europe takes them.



> Or hydrogen fuel cells? That is really dangerous. Remember the Zeppelin?
> Onviously this is an extreme example, but try thinking before you put your drivel into print.


LOL....god you're an idiot. Hydrogen fuel cells do not operate that way. As to the zeppelins and in particular, the hindenburg, human error is ultimately what led to that disaster. The zeppelin was under orders to get into the airfield on a set timetable, and didn't spend the time it should have dispating the built up static charge on its surface from previously passing thru a storm in the last few hours before arrival. When the ground ropes were dropped to the landing crews, the airship became grounded and a static discharge thru the skin of the airframe and its framework occurred. This caused an arc to jump, and it ignited the aluminized skin of the airship. The doping (waterproofing) agent on the skin contained an aluminium powder that could be ignited easily if a sufficient temperature is reached, such as would be reached thru an electrical arc discharge. The doping agent formula in question is not unlike what NASA uses in the solid rocket fuel of the space shuttle boosters. Its just THAT volatile under the right conditions. That's why when the fire broke out, it ate away the SKIN of the airship quickly, and in all the footage shot, its burning with white hot flame. Hydrogen doesn't burn white hot, hydrogen burns near invisibly, had the airship used helium, the result would have been the same. The skin would have burned, weakening the aircraft's skeleton and also melting and bursting the gas bags containing the helium. Also hydrogen being lighter than air, burns UPWARDS, not downwards as many flames appeared to be doing... which was actually the skin burning off and dropping towards the ground.


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

DeeEight said:


> Do you realize you're an idiot? Square Taper is a 2 degree taper. Right from the start you're making up stuff to justify the rest of your rant.
> 
> False. That only way it'd get bigger is if each time you installed it with a greater amount of torque than reccommended by the manufacturer's assembly instructions. And only an idiot like you would do that. Real bike mechanics have the good sense to use things like a torque wrench if they don't intuitively know how much force is needed.
> 
> ...


We've just witnessed the reincarnation of Cliff Claven, I haven't read so much bs in awhile! Thanks for the humor, moron!


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Boj said:


> And I don't burn you for riding what you do, whatever the reason you ride it. I just don't appreciate the original poster blasted in his own thread as ignorant for wanting square taper.


Blasted? I did not blast anybody - it is right up there: post #3. I expressed an amusement about his choice of words. I later disagreed with your statement that a new system is entirely marketing gimmick. That may have been blasting, but I think - well deserved. 

You are right about the reason to go outboard, but I was referring to the effect that supporting the spindle wider does indeed improve stiffness - larger effect then that from where you actually attach the spingle - on drive side or not..


----------



## chruby99 (Dec 11, 2004)

*FSA Ti*

One of my favorite setups was on my old Chameleon. A FSA Ti Ultimax Square taper with a set of Icon Cranks (99-00 Trek mid-high end brand). You could probably go lighter with a set of RF LP's but them Icon's are easy to come by second hand for $10-$20 And the FSA BB had aluminum cups,replaceable bearings and a Ti Square taper Super Light. I never had any problems durability wise I weight @200 and you know how rigid Chameleons are and big of drops they can take. Miss that bike.


----------

