Cycling Forums   View New Forum Topics
Today's Forum Topics

Set as homepage

Go Back   Cycling Forums > Tech Corner > Cycling Equipment > rec.bicycles.tech
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to CyclingForums.com

You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread.

By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds.


MTB ISIS bottom bracket choices

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-04.-2004, 08:59 AM   #1
ZeeExSixAre
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default MTB ISIS bottom bracket choices

Going through MTBR.com, there are few parts of a bike that have been more
problematic than the bottom bracket. Numerous reports of short-life,
abbreviated rides because of ISIS bottom bracket failure infest MTBR, and it
seems that unless you have a Phil Wood, your BB will find an untimely death
in minutes.

So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small? Are there any that
don't develop play in short periods of time?

Phil Wood owners may just be pussyfooting the BB and thus, it looks like it
has a good track record, but it in fact may not be. Plus, the ones that buy
PW products usually aren't your typical mountain biking type... i.e. they're
fookin expensive.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training



  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04.-2004, 10:02 AM   #2
Chris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: MTB ISIS bottom bracket choices


"ZeeExSixAre" <phil_lee@hotmail.computer> wrote in message
news:2Xkec.450$Lg.164@fe07.usenetserver.com...
> Going through MTBR.com, there are few parts of a bike that have been more
> problematic than the bottom bracket. Numerous reports of short-life,
> abbreviated rides because of ISIS bottom bracket failure infest MTBR, and

it
> seems that unless you have a Phil Wood, your BB will find an untimely

death
> in minutes.
>
> So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small? Are there any that
> don't develop play in short periods of time?
>
> Phil Wood owners may just be pussyfooting the BB and thus, it looks like

it
> has a good track record, but it in fact may not be. Plus, the ones that

buy
> PW products usually aren't your typical mountain biking type... i.e.

they're
> fookin expensive.
>
> --
> Phil, Squid-in-Training


Why not keep this on alt.m-b, man?

In my experience, anything with a RaceFace name is bombproof. Anything
except the first-generation RF b.b.s, that is...but that problem was fixed.

The TruVativ b.b.s get a lot of love, and everyone seems to have good things
to say about FSA - especially in terms of performance vs. price - so I guess
you can't go wrong.

Buy a Phil Wood for $100-300 (plus the special Phil tools) and have it last
you 10 years, or, in that time, buy three RF b.bs. Think of it this way:
what will be the next big crank-to-spindle mounting methods that replaces
ISIS? Are you going to have ISIS cranks on that bikes for the life of the
Phil Wood? Are all cranks going to go the way of Shimano XTR one-piece (I
hope not)? Are you even going to have that bike in 2, 5, or 10 years?

So my reasoning is...unless you have one of those wicked piss-off PW
singlespeeds and need to keep it all Phil all the time, get a
cheap-by-comparison RaceFace bracket.

Chris
(only hates Shimano b.b.s)


  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04.-2004, 12:19 PM   #3
ZeeExSixAre
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: MTB ISIS bottom bracket choices

> Why not keep this on alt.m-b, man?
>
> So my reasoning is...unless you have one of those wicked piss-off PW
> singlespeeds and need to keep it all Phil all the time, get a
> cheap-by-comparison RaceFace bracket.


Odd... I thought I HAD posted it on amb...

I see your logic and it makes sense. However, MTBR posters claim BB death
on the order of tens of rides. Not good. It's not even specific to certain
makes, either.

My RaceFace SRX stock BB has a tiny bit of play, but not enough to bother
me. I was contemplating what to replace it with.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training



  Reply With Quote
Old 12-04.-2004, 02:25 PM   #4
Chris B.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: MTB ISIS bottom bracket choices

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:59:27 -0400, "ZeeExSixAre"
<phil_lee@hotmail.computer> wrote:

>Going through MTBR.com, there are few parts of a bike that have been more
>problematic than the bottom bracket. Numerous reports of short-life,
>abbreviated rides because of ISIS bottom bracket failure infest MTBR, and it
>seems that unless you have a Phil Wood, your BB will find an untimely death
>in minutes.
>
>So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small? Are there any that
>don't develop play in short periods of time?


I don't have an answer to your question as I use square taper BBs on
all my bikes but it seems to me that if you are forced to reduce the
size of the bearings in order to squeeze a larger axle in the
available space, bearing life is going to be reduced. An older XTR BB
I saw had a whole bunch of roller bearings to (presumably) make up for
the much smaller diameter angular contact ball bearings they were
forced to use; whether this was effective in extending bearing life I
have no idea - do any of the ISIS BBs do this?

Anyway, now you have me wondering what happened to the 'oversize' BB
standard that was being put forth a year or so ago? I hope it hasn't
been rejected simply because it is an improvement that might actually
be needed!
  Reply With Quote
Old 13-04.-2004, 01:25 AM   #5
Ryan Cousineau
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: MTB ISIS bottom bracket choices

In article <o99k70hsij2iskiua7p2a502dv21uvsstq@4ax.com>,
Chris B. <bikerider@-no-spam-thanks-rogers.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:59:27 -0400, "ZeeExSixAre"
> <phil_lee@hotmail.computer> wrote:


> >So what's the verdict? Are ISIS bearings too small? Are there any that
> >don't develop play in short periods of time?

>
> I don't have an answer to your question as I use square taper BBs on
> all my bikes but it seems to me that if you are forced to reduce the
> size of the bearings in order to squeeze a larger axle in the
> available space, bearing life is going to be reduced. An older XTR BB
> I saw had a whole bunch of roller bearings to (presumably) make up for
> the much smaller diameter angular contact ball bearings they were
> forced to use; whether this was effective in extending bearing life I
> have no idea - do any of the ISIS BBs do this?
>
> Anyway, now you have me wondering what happened to the 'oversize' BB
> standard that was being put forth a year or so ago? I hope it hasn't
> been rejected simply because it is an improvement that might actually
> be needed!


It's probably still out there, but I think that the current hot setup is
to emulate the Bullseye/Hollowtech II integrated crank setup with
outboard bearings.

A review of the Bullseye:

http://www.bicycling.com/gear/revie...tegory_id=361&a
rticle_type_id=62&family_id=123

http://tinyurl.com/2778h

Race Face now makes the X-Type BB/crankset, which is an obvious
knock-off of the Hollowtech II, which is a post-patent knock-off of the
Bullseye design.

Imitation is the sincerest form of improvement,
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
  Reply With Quote



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 11:57 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001 - 2006 cyclingforums.com