I have a buddy who is getting either an FSA crank, or a Record crank…what again is the benifit of ISIS? (I know there is none, and that it is not as good as square taper…but humor me).
I have heard that ISIS doesn’t have the same tendency to ‘creak’. But I think I got that info from the ST forum, so go figure…
Creak? What creak? My Record cranks dont creak, neither did any of my square taper Shimano from years back.
Square taper seems fine for the track lads- including Obree and Boardman.
FSA cranks are great, but there aren’t many options in ISIS bottom bracket that have the sheer durability of a Record bb. I’m running a Truvativ crank with an FSA ISIS bb on my tri bike, and I’m expecting it to slowly loosen. I wouldn’t harbor the same reservations with a 9spd Ultegra, a new Dura Ace or ANYTHING Campy.
'Sides, Record is a work of useable art that, even though it’s carbon, can still easily grace the most techno-snobbish of bikes.
For the purely industrial look, I’d opt for a Zero Grav crankset. (That wouldn’t match my road bike’s classic aesthetics, but I could envision one on my tri bike.)
how 'bout the fsa srm? (it is megaExo)
g
Don’t bother with the ISIS - get MegaEXO and don’t look back.
Creak? What creak? My Record cranks dont creak, neither did any of my square taper Shimano from years back.
ah, you set me up. Like I said, I “heard” that they had a creak problem. I never said I felt that way.
FWIW, I have both. On bikes with compact cranks I have the FSA with ISIS. On the Record bikes, Record square taper. Both are nice. I have never, over 40 years of cycling, had an issue with square taper.
Get the Campy Record crank, then a FSA w/ MegaExo, then ISIS - my order for buying anyway.
Well the benefit of ISIS is that it is an open industry standard, unbound by patent rights and such, so anyone is free to use it. Unlike square taper.
It gives you a stiffer crank. Always a good thing 
Unlike square taper?. What stops anyone from using square taper? There are more manufacturers using square taper than any other style.
Styrrell
Square taper is (was) a standard - everything had it untill ShimaNO decided they had a solution to the problem no one had.
Just a guess, so I am not sure, but does the ShimaNO Octalink BB design help with the self extracting bolt design? Perhaps the square taper requires higher tourque values, which would limit the abillity of the self-extracting bolt to not screw up the washer threads?
Not really defending the design, just trying to understand it.
Mark
Dude, 'twas a joke. Sorry, forgot to put the smiley at the end to make it REALLY obvious.
I switched to Octalink a few years ago from Campy square taper, only because the campy BB and chainset did not quite clear the chainstay. The Octalink gave me a couple of extra millimetres, without having to muck around with washers between the BB and and frame.
Octalink is no better, no worse, just different. I get 2-3 years out of an Ultegra BB, same as a set of Campy BB bearings. Most ISIS BB’s have replaceable bearings, so there is no difference.
And I could never figure out if you were supposed to grease the tapers or not (show me a definitive source on THAT one.)
This thread is really funny…
I had a conversation with one of the product design staff members at Campy several years ago. To paraphrase; “Yes, we know square taper is outdated. Yes we think oversize spindles are better, and the way to go. We won’t make a larger OD BB until the bearing longevity issue for them is solved, and that will probably require a larger ID bottom bracket shell. We have designs in the works.”
Phil Woods staff supplied, nearly word for word, the same answer.
The square taper bb is living on borrowed time.
Do some searching online, and check out pictures of the Italian Bike shows. You will notice that very few bike manufacturers are showing bikes with complete Campy groups - they all sub out the crankset. These shows are the engine that drive road bike design, and when companies like Pinarello and Colnago are swapping out the crankset on their show bikes, Campy takes notice.
They’re working on it, and frankly, they need to hurry up…
(All Campy on my bikes. Except cranks. And brakes. And wheels. And front Derailleur…)
.
Yes we think oversize spindles are better, and the way to go. We won’t make a larger OD BB until the bearing longevity issue for them is solved, and that will probably require a larger ID bottom bracket shell. We have designs in the works."
“better” better that what? Why? I am missing something…who here has actually felt their BB spindle flex and not have had the frame flex…or your shoe, pedal axel…
Excellent point, Chip.
Well Litespeed saw the light and went back to standard headsets (thanks Herbert), so can one person show me anything wrong with a Phil Wood BB that last 10- 20 years and a Campy crank set that goes on it.
My shop guys tell me horror stories about the external bearings that Shimano has been putting out, Like contamination problems in the first six months needing replacement. Why would you ever take bearings out of a protective shell and put them in the wetest and dirtyest area of the bike?
I really think there is a planned obsolecense in the Shimano bag of tricks. They sure went thru the Octalink logic pretty fast. In the short time they were out I was only able to buy a track crank and Dura Ace Octalink BB that lasted about 18 months before replacement. My Old fashioned free ball Shimano Dura Ace and Campy track BBs are ten years old and as smooth as I got them. Nice progress Shimano.
It’s not an excellent point, it’s just obstinancy. The difference in BB/crank stiffness with the new crank/bb designs is measureable and well documented. It does make a difference. It’s not really arguable. The increment of improvement may be small, but it exists, and is empirically provable.
This is exactly the same argument as gets spewed about on ST regarding aero benefits of frames, wheels, well everything…
“I’m too slow to notice…” “If you aren’t a pro, ride faster than 25mph, blah blah blah…”
As K Willet is fond of saying, “faster is faster.”
Feel free to make an aesthetic value argument on these topics; on the BB topic, argue the longevity of the bearings. Don’t pretend that you can make any kind of performance argument though, because you can’t, at least in any logical, quantifiable way.
.