[Megaclocker]

I am searching to complete my crank setup, I need a 73mm x 113mm Square taper BB. Compatible with 68mm shell too would be nice.

Any idea ? I've found the Specialities TA AXIS TI. Which is arround 155gr (Not sure if they are campy only)

Any other alternative ?

 

[JmZ]

Name your price and durability.

Last ones I knew of...
Action Tec (at Cambria)
Phil Wood
Token??? (I don't know if they are ISO or JIS though)
Might also look at taking a 68 and modifying it. Then might even be able to look at SINZ or the like for Euro Ti BMX BB's.
Or take a look on E-Bay for the older Race Face Taperloc Ti's.

Good luck,

JmZ

 

[luffy]

or you could mill your shell down to 68mm like the GF team used to do....

 

[Megaclocker]

Name your price and durability.

Last ones I knew of...
Action Tec (at Cambria)
Phil Wood
Token??? (I don't know if they are ISO or JIS though)
Might also look at taking a 68 and modifying it. Then might even be able to look at SINZ or the like for Euro Ti BMX BB's.
Or take a look on E-Bay for the older Race Face Taperloc Ti's.

Good luck,

JmZ

How do you modify a BB ? Use a spacer ?

It's for a vertex carbon (I assume it's 73mm, if rocky uphill could confirm it would be appreciated.) Durability is not a problem usually, I would like cartdrige to be removeable.

White industries looks quite nice @ 162gr.

Where does everybody get scandium axle square taper (weightweenie articles)

 

[Cheers!]

Phil Wood

 

[Megaclocker]

Phil Wood

Can the bearing be removed

EDIT

Nevermind, the bearing simply slide out off it. Can you remove the middle shiny protector written phil on it. (to save weight) or does the bearing sit in it.

EDIT2

No you can't. Phil wood are kind of expensive and heavy compared to Specialities TA and WhiteIndus.

 

[JmZ]

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=469851

It boils down to put a spacer inside, or shave off the shell lip.

I've tried it with Interloc BB's. Not Ti - but what i was looking for. YMMV with other brands. Shimanos did not work with this.

JmZ

 

[eq4ever]

If you want to go very light Soul Kozak has a square BB you might be interested in... He doesn't have them listed on the website anymore but he still has a few in the storage.

This is mine, it's 138g for 68x113:

 

[nino]

113?

are you sure you need 113mm?

That's rather wide and makes for a large q-factor. Usually you should be fine with 107mm.
I personally used even a short 103mm with triple rings up front on my Scott Scale which also has 73mm BB shell. Now with my 2x9 setup 103 is a must.

 

[Flystagg]

That would depend on the cranks, if the crankset is desinged for 113 with a triple, the 103 would be perfect for 2X9, but probably not a good idea if the cranks were designed for a 120+mm bb, then 113 is good.

 

[nino]

That would depend on the cranks, if the crankset is desinged for 113 with a triple, the 103 would be perfect for 2X9, but probably not a good idea if the cranks were designed for a 120+mm bb, then 113 is good.

Only very old school cranks use such wide BBs (120mm). That's why i suggested he might try a shorter spindle. All that counts is that the chainrings clear the chainstays. there's absolutely no need to have a wide BB when shorter ones fit as well. Long axles not only add weight but make for a large q-factor and on square BBs the longer the axle the more flex. Especially long Ti-axles suffer in this aspect. Remember - square BBs are already flexiest when compared with other BBs (ISIS, Octalink and actual integrated designs). This flex will make for additional load on the bearings which results in shorter life...

I am a BIG fan of square taper BBs but make sure to use the shortest possible spindle !

 

[rasmusj]

I have the TA Axis on my Race Face Next cranks, it comes in both ISO and JIS afaik. Has been running great so far, weight is as advertised, has removable bearings.

 

[BruceBrown]

are you sure you need 113mm?

That's rather wide and makes for a large q-factor. Usually you should be fine with 107mm.
I personally used even a short 103mm with triple rings up front on my Scott Scale which also has 73mm BB shell. Now with my 2x9 setup 103 is a must.

Now this is where I get a bit confused.

Let's say I wanted to convert a square taper Race Face Next LP standard BCD (110/74) crankset from a triple to a 2 x 9 using the granny holes for the small ring and the middle for the large ring on a frame that takes a 68x113mm bb. Case in point being trying out the 2 x 9 Q rings on a Race Face 110/74 Next LP set.

Wouldn't I want to "push" the rings out on the drive side a bit for a much better chainline (like Middleburn Duo for instance) where the granny of a 2x9 sits a bit further out than on a triple and the large ring of a 2x9 sits a bit in from a triple? I thought one would use spindle length to accomplish this - especially to be able to utilize all the gears (twist shift a must to trim the front derailleur). I've got an old Taperlock 68/73 x 110 sitting around with adjustable chainline that I thought would be great for a Race Face Next conversion.

Are you saying that to go 2 x 9 I would need to go shorter on the spindle length? I could see that if one was running the 2x9 on the middle and large ring slots of a triple crank as you would need to pull the rings in closer to the frame for better chainline, but if using the inner two ring slots - don't I want to push them out away from the bb shell a bit? Q-factor aside, I want a set up that shifts and utilizes all the gears.

Just curious and confused...

BB

 

[nino]

correct...

Now this is where I get a bit confused.

Let's say I wanted to convert a square taper Race Face Next LP standard BCD (110/74) crankset from a triple to a 2 x 9 using the granny holes for the small ring and the middle for the large ring on a frame that takes a 68x113mm bb. Case in point being trying out the 2 x 9 Q rings on a Race Face 110/74 Next LP set.

Wouldn't I want to "push" the rings out on the drive side a bit for a much better chainline (like Middleburn Duo for instance) where the granny of a 2x9 sits a bit further out than on a triple and the large ring of a 2x9 sits a bit in from a triple? I thought one would use spindle length to accomplish this - especially to be able to utilize all the gears (twist shift a must to trim the front derailleur). I've got an old Taperlock 68/73 x 110 sitting around with adjustable chainline that I thought would be great for a Race Face Next conversion.

Are you saying that to go 2 x 9 I would need to go shorter on the spindle length? I could see that if one was running the 2x9 on the middle and large ring slots of a triple crank as you would need to pull the rings in closer to the frame for better chainline, but if using the inner two ring slots - don't I want to push them out away from the bb shell a bit? Q-factor aside, I want a set up that shifts and utilizes all the gears.

Just curious and confused...

BB

you are right. if you use the inner positions you need a slightly wider axle to get the chainrings in proper position.
if you use the outer 2 positions which i still do on my Scale (using 29/42 chainrings) you have to use a shorter axle.

on my Scale i usedd 103 even with tripls. BUT the Powerarms have the rings more outwards than other cranks so this is why i did that without hurting the chainline.

on a more regular setup it would look like the following:
Triple----> 107mm
2x9 (using the outer 2 positions): 103mm
2x9 (using the inner 2 positions): 110mm

 

[superlightracer]

I have the TA Axis on my Race Face Next cranks, it comes in both ISO and JIS afaik. Has been running great so far, weight is as advertised, has removable bearings.

Exact same setup here. RF Next LP + TA specialities ti axix pro. Raced it for a full summer, stiff as can be.

 

[Flystagg]

yup 103mm spindle on my rf turbines with 29 42 tooth, q-factor was around 153mm, and I could use any gear combo.

 

[Megaclocker]

yup 103mm spindle on my rf turbines with 29 42 tooth, q-factor was around 153mm, and I could use any gear combo.

I am using some NEXT LP (surprisingly heavy @ 426gr) with 29t x 42t (94mm bcd).

I imagined that 113mm would be a tight fit. It's awesome the ear that I can run a 103mm. 73mm x 103 will be harder to find

What is the Q factor of a XTR ?
What kind of chainline do i get with a 103mm (45mm chainline ?)