Deus vs Turbine + Wood

Axe said:

Just for the answer. It takes 10 seconds to take it apart and change crankset (I use different ones for different riding) with perfect fit every time and no wear. Perfect alignment everytime from the first time. Adjustable chainline and spacing. They are stiffer - by far - very noticable for 200lb me. You did not have problems? Well - I did not have problems with my old 40lb cruiser, not a single one. Should I ride and race it?

I use BB and cranks from different manufacturers with great success. Your sarcasm is absolutely out of place. For Deus, you can use Shimano BB, just fine. BB is twice cheaper then Phil Wood BB. ISIS was not a very good standard from the technical point of view - but still better then square taper.

Integration, done right, works just fine. Do you object to 20 and 24mm front hubs as well? Should we use drum brake hubs like you do? Sorry - nostalgia has many uses, but a good source for technical advice it ain't.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.. Let's see here. Crankset removal: Square taper: grab appropriate Park crank puller, pull crank. Splined: Same thing. Verdict: Tie.

Adjustable chainline and spacing? This is a feature of the BB design, not the spindle. Phil BBs have adjustable chainline and are square taper, Shimano's don't and are splined. Verdict: Tie.

Stiffer by far? Wrong. Simply wrong, and I defy anyone to pick, blind, which of any of several crank / BB interfaces is "stiffer". This is ignoring the question of whether or not stiffness is an importnat criterion for judging your BB. Here's a hint: It isn't. I am aware of no experiments which prove that flex in any part of a bicycle, except tires, dissipates measurable pedalling energy. And I've looked. All the marketing in the world won't change the laws of physics. Verdict: Tie, due to lack of important differences.

Of course integration works fine, that's why it exists. But so does non-integration, and allows for greater choice for the consumer. Take it for truth, Shimano didn't come out with Octalink because there were significant problems with the old standard. There weren't, and aren't. You can find well-executed and poorly-executed examples of each. Shimano was tired of companies not spec'ing their cranksets on otherwise all-Shimano bikes, so they came out with Octalink. Now, a new product that destroys inter-operability with existing parts is a tough sell, so how de we do it? Aha... 12.0193% stiffer than last year's model!! Which was already stiff enough, since they weren't bending at appreciable rates, but everybody knows that "stiffer is better", since we'ev been seeling that line for 20 years. Then set the licensing fees for the "new" idea so high that none of your competitors can afford them.

Voila, Shimano's share of the high-end crankset market zooms to levels not seen since the early 1990s. In response to this, the other crank makers came out with a slightly different version of the same idea, and gave it away for free. Thus was born ISIS, and endless debates about whcih of two almost identical systems is "better". In response to which, Shimano lowered the prices for licensing of the Octalink design, and third-party crank makers could go that route if they wanted to. I fail to see how riders benefit from any of this.

Drum brake hubs? Yep, I've got them on two bikes. One is my tandem. The Arai drum brake is still the ONLY safe choice for a continously-on "drag" brake for a tandem. Continuous braking on a 400+ pound bike will warp any disc rotor made, and will also heat up and expand the fluid in a hydraulic disc brake, instantly locking the rear wheel. This is bad. The other drum-brake hub is on my singlespeed. It just to happens that drum brakes use the same thread as freewheels, so with a quick re-space and re-dish of my spare set of tandem wheels, I got a sweet, high-flange 40-spoke wheelset for free.

Sorry, but it's not Luddism or retro-fetishism. That which works, still works. Most of the "improvements" in components have come about because of the need to generate sales in a flat market. In other words, "How do we sell new stuff to the same people, who already have stuff that works great?" The right question should be, "How do we bring new people into this activity, so that we can have new customers for our stuff?", but that's harder than preaching to the choir, so almost nobody bothers.

--Shannon

tube_ee said:

Hmmm.. Let's see here. Crankset removal: Square taper: grab appropriate Park crank puller, pull crank. Splined: Same thing. Verdict: Tie.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Do installation and removal several times. Pay attention to installation, not removal. Try swapping two crank sets - I swap 2x9 and 3x9 ocassionally. Square taper is not anywhere close to the convinience of splined, and especially outboard BB interface. You are flat out wrong. Not that I care - but please, spare other people.

tube_ee said:

Adjustable chainline and spacing? This is a feature of the BB design, not the spindle. Phil BBs have adjustable chainline and are square taper, Shimano's don't and are splined. Verdict: Tie.

Click to expand...

Phil BB adjustability is nowhere near the convinience of the Deus. I know - I did use it. Wrong again.

tube_ee said:

Stiffer by far? Wrong. Simply wrong, and I defy anyone to pick, blind, which of any of several crank / BB interfaces is "stiffer". This is ignoring the question of whether or not stiffness is an importnat criterion for judging your BB. Here's a hint: It isn't. I am aware of no experiments which prove that flex in any part of a bicycle, except tires, dissipates measurable pedalling energy. And I've looked. All the marketing in the world won't change the laws of physics. Verdict: Tie, due to lack of important differences.

Click to expand...

You are either a 90lb weakling, or just do not know what you are talking about. I can easily tell a typical difference, on a variety of bikes.

It is not about energy dissipation. It is about ride quality.

tube_ee said:

Sorry, but it's not Luddism or retro-fetishism. That which works, still works. Most of the "improvements" in components have come about because of the need to generate sales in a flat market.

Click to expand...

It does work - but not nearly as good. As I said, my old bikes still work, but are not nearly as good. I do not care about "bringing new people". I care about personal convinience and satisfaction. Same for the original poster. He has two choices - for the same price. Your suggestion about "generating sales" is preposterous. What does not work - does not stay, plenty of examples of that. Splined crank interface is here to stay, that why ISIS happened, and outboard BB happened. They are convinient, reliable, as cheap, or potentially cheaper, and work just fine.
I suggest the original poster gets the better choice, no matter if the old style still works or not.