BMX style ... you slide the crank onto the BB spindle and you pinch the spindle by tightening the bolt. Loosen the bolt, and the crank slides right off. On the other sied (drive side), the crank is attached to the BB spindle (unless I'm highly mistaken).

Dre'

notice too, the aluminum collar around the bb. this is where the bearings are, outboard of the bb. the traditional bb shell was never big enuf to actually do what they wanted with the hollow spindle design, as you still had to leave room for the bearings. they had to use tiny needle bearings, or less bigger ones, and/or make the spindle smaller than it should have been, thicker, and not lighter/stiffer as it was purported to be. this way they side step all that - tho how wide the thing ends up being i am not sure. the other way to do it would be c-dale's way, with a bigger bb shell. it has been rumoured for some time that the bigger shell is where things will go - and then old schoolers the world over can bit%$ and howl. maybe bunnyman will add something about it to his signature line. . . . . . . .

Once again it seems that ShimaNO is way off base with their new "enhancements". I first off don’t know of anyone who felt that their BB was stiffer (torsional stiffness) with the larger axle in the new BB from ShimaNO. I DO know people that say that it was stiffer (rotational = bearing friction) with the new BB from ShimaNO. Now, it seems that they have taken it to an all new level by widening the basic dimension of the BB and this altering the "Q" factor of the crankset.

I guess I don’t get it. Out of all the components on my bike in the years – I have never looked at the BB and thought to my self – "There has got to be a better way". My Campagnolo Record Cart. BB has been flawless…same design that has worked very well for the last few decades.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

To parallel your second paragraph, I'll ask the following question: "How stiff must one's frame be, for one to notice a difference in BB spindle stiffness?".

It's clear that if you isolate the crankset on some machine, you'll measure differences (a la Demerly). I'm very happy with the results of his experiment, nice stuff. But when everything's rigged correctly, on a frame of one's choice, can a difference be felt? I'd even settle for: "Can a difference be measured?" (put the whole bike on a rack and measure torsion as a sum of frame flex + BB flex).

Dre'

According to the press releases, the "Q" factor is the same as the previous model.

The only way from the picture that I can imagine that the "Q" factor does not change is if the BB shell was more narrow, or if the crank arm was to deviate back into the frame (and casue an nice pain to your ancles as you hit the crank arm). I would bet on a more narrow BB shell.

Then again they could take the material out of the crank arm to "thin" it out at the crank, I think that would offset any gains in the stiffness though.



Maybe ShimaNO should spend some more time working on a shift lever that can drop 9 cogs at a shot and go up more than three on a swing too...

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

They did thin the arm down to keep the Q the same, and no, this does not adversely effect the overall stiffness of the unit. Why would you think it would?

Boy, are you going to be dissapointed when Campy release their oversize hollow BB in a few years (I had a nice conversation with a Campy employee about their BB plans a few months ago...)

MH

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/