Cycling UK Forum

NickJP wrote: ↑15 Apr 2024, 9:52pm

raymondchristopher wrote: ↑15 Apr 2024, 8:26pmI thought Middleburn might be an option but it was such a bad experience.

What was the problem with Middleburn? They (BETD these days) make a 94/58 spider for the Middleburn RO2 external bearing crank, and . I've had one of those cranks in use for a long time with no problems, though I'm using it in a frame with a press-fit 386EVO bottom bracket rather than on a frame with a BSA threaded BB.

I believe the Q on the cranks is 153mm. Stronglight and TA make chainrings for that BCD, and there's plenty of NOS chainrings in that BCD available on fleabay and such.

That was my plan. I even bought the chainrings. Short answer is that I was unhappy with the condition of the cranks and how that was handled. When I returned them for replacement, there was a clear misinterpretation of what I’d said I was unhappy with and they cancelled the sale. I’m still quite confused by the whole thing.

When I was travelling from Inverness to Glasgow a couple of years ago you could only book a maximum of two bikes regardless of how many were travelling. I had to book a separate ticket for the third member of our party to get around it. It may be a software quirk and so you could try ordering separate tickets? It may be helpful to ask for advice from staff at the train station in Glasgow.

Hello
Did you find any solutions to this question?

I would like a 165mm 48/36/24 triple and the only thing I can find is the spa sugino, which is fine more or less but it would be nice to know if there are alternatives. A 104/64 triple would also work but the chainline and the Q factor is generally wider than you would like. The Shimano trekking cranks are all too long/have 50mm chainline/have a wide Q factor. A hollowtech option would be nice. I thought Middleburn might be an option but it was such a bad experience.

Thank you.

fastpedaller wrote:If you 'assemble' it off the bike, does it result in the correct width?

That's a good question, and I haven't done that. I won't be able to check until I'm in the workshop on Wednesday.

Thank you for your comments.

rogerzilla
LH cup goes in with no trouble, without the other part installed. Don't think this can be the issue.

Brucey
Taps have been run through it. I wasn't too concerned with the facing as I didn't think it would affect the alignment, though I've reached the point that I'm running out of possible reasons and so it's something to try.
The Tifosi BB unit is closer in design to the Campag unit yes, with both cups being removeable. The removeable LH cup doesn't have a flange and the BB is installed using the same tool as the Shimano unit. Why Shimano should discontinue the UN55 is beyond me, though it's obviously cost-cutting nonsense. I meant that the Tifosi BB behaved like a Shimano unit in that it was simple to install, and caused no problems!
I'm using a brand new BB, fresh out of the box. I've removed the cups to check the bearings and they're free moving/ feel fresh and new, though I do know what you mean by bearings feeling okay but not when installed. The LH cup is particularly tight fitting on the LH bearing, moreso than the RH cup on the two RH bearings. I have gone through a similar list of possible reasons, and feel it perhaps has something to do with the central sleeve squashing up against the LH cup. It's curious that it's fine with the LH cup tightened to just snug, but not once it's tightened further. Bloody Campagnolo. I'll faff around with it for a bit more and see how I get on.

peetee wrote:Does the frame have a plastic gear guide under the bracket that is riveted or screwed on? This may be protruding too far inside and preventing the bracket from going in square.

No. Nothing interfering at all.

Issues with installing a Square Taper Campagnolo Centaur 111mm Bottom Bracket (BSA, 68mm)

Hello
I'm having the same problem! I found this thread via a Google search. It appears to be an old thread but it's nice to see that I'm not the only one having trouble installing this bottom bracket. I'm going to assume that it's better to add to this thread, rather than start another?

I'm exasperated/ confused by the whole thing. I've had the same thing suggested, that there's a slight mis-alignment of the threads in the BB shell, however the threads were chased/ aligned before installing. I haven't had the BB shell faced because it measures closer to 67mm than 68mm, though that might be what I need to do. It's an old steel Dave Yates audax frame that I picked up a few years ago. The axle/ bearings feel horrible when the left hand cup is even slightly tightened up, let alone to the crazy 70Nm stipulated. If I tighten it so that it's just snug, the axle and bearings are lovely and smooth, but that would lead to all sorts of wrong when the cups inevitably shake loose, leading to the wearing down of the threads of the BB shell. I'm not going to be checking it's screwed up every five minutes and I'm not particularly keen on the idea of using threadlocker, which I've seen suggested elsewhere. I did think for a second to add a spacer to the drive side cup but of course that would only move the BB over to the right, given the design. I need to use a BB with an ISO taper. I haven't tried installing a Shimano BB just to see how that is, but will try it in the morning. I did use a Tifosi BB last time, which is effectively the same design as the Shimano BB. I suppose I could use a shorter Shimano BB to compensate for the taper difference but that's not ideal. The Tifosi BB didn't last very long and so that's why I'm keen to try something higher end, though it's somewhat moot if the Campag leads to damaging the frame. Has anyone reached a resolution? Hopefully the OP will see my comment. Throw it in the bin? I did find that SKF make an ISO square taper bb, though I don't know who the UK distributor is/ if it's even available in the UK; it has a similar design to the older style Campag bb with flanges on both cups. I'll try a careful facing of the BB shell and see if that makes a difference.

Thank you.