What are the advantages of outboard bearings? I seem to recall reading that they have more friction than an ISIS system, are heavier, and in some cases are hard to adjust for preload. Yet all the manufacturers are moving this direction. :confused: Not trying to be a wiseguy, or start a flame war, just honestly confused.

I'm planning a new bike build with Campy, and considering 3 options:
1. New Campy with outboard bearings
2. Aftermarket with outboard bearings, e.g. Truvativ Roleur
3. Aftermarket with ISIS, e.g. Stronglight Pulsion

One issue with the Campy cranks is limited avilability of different chainring sizes and astronomical prices (chainrings around 100 USD)

What are the advantages of outboard bearings?

It gives the manufacturers another way to seperate you from your hard earned money.:)

With outboard bearings there's finally room for both a large diameter thin walled BB axle and decent sized bearings. So technically they're superior. But individual implementations may not be so good. For example the FSA MegaExo BB I have has more seal drag than most cartridge BBs, and the left crank arm kept coming loose due to a manufacturing error. So I took it off the bike and put on an ISIS crank, even though I know the ISIS bearings are really small. The ISIS crank (a sale FSA carbon pro) and BB is lighter and the BB spins more smoothly. It's not as stiff but that's not an issue for me.

Outboard bearing BB's may have more friction due to the seals but it's really a non-issue. Campy has gone to their Ultra Torque crank/BB system for everything but Xenon. If you use a new (2007) Campy crank you have to stick with their whole system. I believe the highest level you can now get a new (2007) square taper BB from Campy is Veloce. Remember, if you go with an older Campy crank it's square taper and make sure you get a Campy compatible BB. Their taper is different from other square taper spindles.

I don't consider myself a luddite but when it comes to BB interfaces I prefer a square taper. It's a part that was never broke and didn't need "fixing".

The new Campy design is better than any other outboard design currently on the market. There is no bearing preload adjustment. As long as the BB shell width is in the correct range, you should have no problem. Chainrings last a long time and you can always buy another brand if you want. If you're talking about compact cranks, then offbrand rings won't fit a Record or Chorus crank, without modification (but it can be done). Standard 110mm rings will fit the lower level cranks, from what I've read.

I'm still using FSA carbon cranks with ISIS BBs because I use a triple, Campy doesn't offer the 53/39/28 rings I want and the FSA carbon cranks are dirt cheap on E-bay. The ISIS bearings are plenty stout for a 135 lb rider.

Just my opinion, nothing scientific. I installed a Centaur UT crankset on my Pegoretti about three weeks ago. Previously it had an FSA megaexo SLK crankset. IMO, the campy design is far superior to the FSA/Shimano design. The bolt design allows a narrow q-factor since the crankarms can be thin. Centaur is alloy and it feels as stiff as any crankset that I have ever ridden. It feels smoother than the FSA as well.

My commuter has a standard square taper bottom bracket with a mid 90's dura ace crankset. The bottom bracket is a stainless steel Phil Wood, which IMO represents the zenith of square taper bottom brackets. No issues with it either. It is quiet, smooth, and hassle free. I did trash the bearings last year riding in a monsoon (literally), but for $35 PW will overhaul it and replace the bearings.

If I was going to use a square taper bottom bracket with campy, I would definately go with a Phil Wood bottom bracket over the Campy model. They make a nice 102mm in either stainless or titanium.

As the industry shifted from steel to alu and carbon, ppl realized the optimal (as in, the best combination of weight/strength/stiffness) interface diameters are no longer the old standards. So stem, fork, seatpost, bar, headtube, all went oversize over the years, culminating in Cannondale's monstrous head tube on the SystemSix, for example.

The BB is the last holdout. The outboard bearings is a half ass fix but not the final fix.

The final fix should be a bigger BB shell that will accomodate the DA/07Campy sized BBs WITH INSIDE BEARINGS. This will not only be stiffner but also stronger and allows for a smaller q-factor. I believe Scott has a frame design like that and so do some smaller brands that market in Europe.

The new Campy design is better than any other outboard design currently on the market. There is no bearing preload adjustment. As long as the BB shell width is in the correct range, you should have no problem. Chainrings last a long time and you can always buy another brand if you want. If you're talking about compact cranks, then offbrand rings won't fit a Record or Chorus crank, without modification (but it can be done). Standard 110mm rings will fit the lower level cranks, from what I've read.

I'm still using FSA carbon cranks with ISIS BBs because I use a triple, Campy doesn't offer the 53/39/28 rings I want and the FSA carbon cranks are dirt cheap on E-bay. The ISIS bearings are plenty stout for a 135 lb rider.

The new Campy Ultratorque is extremely easy to install, if that matters to you. Do need to buy yet another Campy tool, though.

The new Campy Ultratorque is extremely easy to install, if that matters to you. Do need to buy yet another Campy tool, though.

The cups install with the same tool as shimaNo and FSA. The bolt uses a 10mm allen. I used a t-handle to install and later checked the torque with a 3/8" drive 10mm allen socket from Sears. I used a 3" extension that I already had in my toolbox. And yes, I calculated the torque with the extension.

The cups install with the same tool as shimaNo and FSA. The bolt uses a 10mm allen. I used a t-handle to install and later checked the torque with a 3/8" drive 10mm allen socket from Sears. I used a 3" extension that I already had in my toolbox. And yes, I calculated the torque with the extension.

Dang, I already had the Shimano tool. Had no idea they were the same. Oh, well, the Campy tool at least looks good on the peg board.

I just used my long t-handle and cranked down on it.

The new Campy design is better than any other outboard design currently on the market. There is no bearing preload adjustment. As long as the BB shell width is in the correct range, you should have no problem.

I respect your opinion C40, based on years of reading your insightful posts, but I have to disagree with you on this one. The new Campy bottom bracket design is an oddball adoption focused on not copying Shimano, who came to market with their design first. The Shimano spindle is one piece and firmly fixed to the crank spider on the drive side lending rigidity. The left side crank arm is only preloaded enough to remove lateral play and then tightened down on the splined bottom bracket with two pinch bolts. Completely bullet proof. The Campy spindle is split into two pieces, which to my way to thinking, is not ideal – metal to metal fretting comes to mind. I'm not saying it's a bad design per say, I'm just saying that I don't understand how anyone can call this superior.

I respect your opinion C40, based on years of reading your insightful posts, but I have to disagree with you on this one. The new Campy bottom bracket design is an oddball adoption focused on not copying Shimano, who came to market with their design first. The Shimano spindle is one piece and firmly fixed to the crank spider on the drive side lending rigidity. The left side crank arm is only preloaded enough to remove lateral play and then tightened down on the splined bottom bracket with two pinch bolts. Completely bullet proof. The Campy spindle is split into two pieces, which to my way to thinking, is not ideal – metal to metal fretting comes to mind. I'm not saying it's a bad design per say, I'm just saying that I don't understand how anyone can call this superior.

Campy uses a Hirth Joint to connect the two sides of the spindle. This same joint is used in high torque engines since it is relatively wear free due to a precise meshing of the teeth and highly reliable. This design moves the hardware away from the crankarms and allows a flatter design and therefore a good Q factor. I like that asthetics of the no hardware look. But that is just personal taste.

The new Campy Ultratorque is extremely easy to install, if that matters to you. Do need to buy yet another Campy tool, though.

Ran into a problem as a result of the very small Q factor on Chorus UT crank - I have 7/8" round chainstays on my Dean El Diente, spaced reasonably wide on the bbshell (big frame - 60cm). The chainring bolts sit slightly proud of the rings on the inboard side and just scrape the driveside chainstay. Tried 0.6mm and 1.0mm spacers under the RH bb shell, but even a spacer this fine pulls the LH crank too far into its shell so that it binds and the cranks don't spin freely. Another poster had a similar clearance problem on a steel frame, tried a 2.5mm spacer and couldn't get the Hirth coupling to mate. The only way I'll get them to fit and run cleanly is to shave a couple of mm off the LH end of the BB shell, which I am not prepared to do.
I'm bummed because they're such pretty cranks, and early user reports say they're the mutt's nuts. Mine'll be on ebay in due course, and I'm on the hunt for something with wider spacing.

The new Campy design is better than any other outboard design currently on the market. There is no bearing preload adjustment. As long as the BB shell width is in the correct range, you should have no problem. Chainrings last a long time and you can always buy another brand if you want. If you're talking about compact cranks, then offbrand rings won't fit a Record or Chorus crank, without modification (but it can be done). Standard 110mm rings will fit the lower level cranks, from what I've read.

I'm still using FSA carbon cranks with ISIS BBs because I use a triple, Campy doesn't offer the 53/39/28 rings I want and the FSA carbon cranks are dirt cheap on E-bay. The ISIS bearings are plenty stout for a 135 lb rider.

Actually the Campy bearing is preloaded via a wave washer that also removes play from the crank. The big issue here is over time the wave washer will flatten an losse tension allowing play in the cranks. While the design is good it could be better.

I like my cranks and the do have an outboard bearing and are not preloaded. While they do cost abunch the THM Claviculas are not known to eat bearings and have a very large diameter very smotth bearing that is upgradable to a ceramice bearing.

+1 for the Shimano's Hollowtech II BB/cranks.

I have not had a chance to play with Campy's UT cranks yet (will soon be putting two bikes together with it) but I have been riding with SRAM Force's for a little while now and I can conclude early at this point that I like Shimano's design much better. Shimano's two pinch bolt fastening on the left crank are rock solid and as reliablle as it gets. As for drag, they all have drag depending on the tollerances of the components and the frame so it does not seem to matter to me whether it is a preloaded or not.

I respect your opinion C40, based on years of reading your insightful posts, but I have to disagree with you on this one. The new Campy bottom bracket design is an oddball adoption focused on not copying Shimano, who came to market with their design first. The Shimano spindle is one piece and firmly fixed to the crank spider on the drive side lending rigidity. The left side crank arm is only preloaded enough to remove lateral play and then tightened down on the splined bottom bracket with two pinch bolts. Completely bullet proof. The Campy spindle is split into two pieces, which to my way to thinking, is not ideal – metal to metal fretting comes to mind. I'm not saying it's a bad design per say, I'm just saying that I don't understand how anyone can call this superior.

+1 for the Shimano's Hollowtech II BB/cranks.

I have not had a chance to play with Campy's UT cranks yet (will soon be putting two bikes together with it) but I have been riding with SRAM Force's for a little while now and I can conclude early at this point that I like Shimano's design much better. Shimano's two pinch bolt fastening on the left crank are rock solid and as reliablle as it gets. As for drag, they all have drag depending on the tollerances of the components and the frame so it does not seem to matter to me whether it is a preloaded or not.


Im interested, is your prefrerance for Shimano based on the install only or on actual function? I currently have Shimano which I agree is a rock solid design and super easy to install and remove.

The new Campy bottom bracket design is an oddball adoption focused on not copying Shimano, who came to market with their design first

BTW, Shimnao did NOT come to market first with this desing. I IIRC the guys name was Roger and the cranks were BullsEye MTB cranks that FIRST used the desgin in the early to mid 80's. Shimnao did not wnat to pay any type of royalties so they waited the the patnent on the desgin expired in 2004(?) then realsed the new design. They jusy used someone else's work. The first generation XTR bearing SUCKED. Shimnao did fix it ASAP but it's still not the best desgin. It is nice when you wnat to remove your cranks quickly to clean them.

The Shimnao Octalink system to be was fine and stiff. There was no need for the EB. ISIS falied because they companies were idiots. Shimano has the same size bearings and thier desgin lasts!!

Now the Quad Bearign ISIS BB are durable, and smoother than the Shimnao/FSA EB, bvut they are heavy.

The final fix should be a bigger BB shell that will accomodate the DA/07Campy sized BBs WITH INSIDE BEARINGS. This will not only be stiffner but also stronger and allows for a smaller q-factor. I believe Scott has a frame design like that and so do some smaller brands that market in Europe.

SCOTT is coming out with this desgin for 2008 I think. The former builder for Fondriest has a new line called LUNS which does have a BB shell that includes Shimano/FSA bearing already pressed into the BB.

http://sales.light-bikes.com/luna/defaut.asp

http://sales.light-bikes.com/luna/images/luna2.jpg

If you don't mind ISIS, look into TOKEN BB. They seem to do VERY well on Road bikes. if you don't care about weight, then get a FS Quad Bearing ISIS BB thast will last forever or SKF ISIS BB as they have some of the best bearings on the market.

http://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=30&action=details&sku=CR3531
http://aebike.com/images/library/catalogs/soc/prodl/CR3510.jpg

Otherwise I would go go Campy UT next then maybe FSA or Stronlight's Intergrated cranks. The Truvative BB strink, but I hear the SRAM version is much improved.

If you want that full Campy look, then go Campy. If you wnat a lighter set up, then go ISIS with a Token BB.

Im interested, is your prefrerance for Shimano based on the install only or on actual function? I currently have Shimano which I agree is a rock solid design and super easy to install and remove.

I was referring to the design and functionality in general of these systems. As for the ease of installation and removal, it is not important to me, as nothing is too hard for us gearheads, right?

Campy uses a Hirth Joint to connect the two sides of the spindle. This same joint is used in high torque engines since it is relatively wear free due to a precise meshing of the teeth and highly reliable. This design moves the hardware away from the crankarms and allows a flatter design and therefore a good Q factor. I like that asthetics of the no hardware look. But that is just personal taste.

Q factor is the distance between the pedals, not the width to the bottom bracket spindle/crank arm attachment. The Shimano cranks are spaced as close together as most frames can tollerate - just as I assume the Campy stuff is. I agree with you about the asthetics - the left side Shimano crank arm looks kind of beefy clamped on there. At least it's functional.

Regarding a split spindle vs. a one piece design, I'll take one piece all thing created equal. Under loading the crank spindle will bow slightly causing fretting in the two piece joint. And my guess is that the split spindle design will require more frequent maintaince to keep the two pieces lubricated and mating snuggly. Campy makes good stuff so chances are that the design will hold up. Time will tell...