![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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 |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"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) |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
> 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 |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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! |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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 |
|