Mixing
Minimum space between square taper crank and bottom bracket
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I upgraded to a new square taper crankset on a single-speed drivetrain and now the gap between my crank and the bottom bracket is bigger. That's because the cranks taper shape is different from the one I had before and I haven't changed the bottom bracket. This (along with a different shape of the crank) made the Q-factor bigger. I wanted to reduce it, so I ordered a new bottom bracket with a shorter spindle. I checked the measurement already and it's going to be all good with chainstay clearance. The question is:
How close can a square taper crank be to the bottom bracket? How small can the gap in the picture be?
crankset bottom-bracket single-speed
asked 2 hours ago
Alessandro Cosentino
7732819
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I upgraded to a new square taper crankset on a single-speed drivetrain and now the gap between my crank and the bottom bracket is bigger. That's because the cranks taper shape is different from the one I had before and I haven't changed the bottom bracket. This (along with a different shape of the crank) made the Q-factor bigger. I wanted to reduce it, so I ordered a new bottom bracket with a shorter spindle. I checked the measurement already and it's going to be all good with chainstay clearance. The question is:
How close can a square taper crank be to the bottom bracket? How small can the gap in the picture be?
crankset bottom-bracket single-speed
asked 2 hours ago
Alessandro Cosentino
7732819
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I upgraded to a new square taper crankset on a single-speed drivetrain and now the gap between my crank and the bottom bracket is bigger. That's because the cranks taper shape is different from the one I had before and I haven't changed the bottom bracket. This (along with a different shape of the crank) made the Q-factor bigger. I wanted to reduce it, so I ordered a new bottom bracket with a shorter spindle. I checked the measurement already and it's going to be all good with chainstay clearance. The question is:
How close can a square taper crank be to the bottom bracket? How small can the gap in the picture be?
crankset bottom-bracket single-speed
asked 2 hours ago
Alessandro Cosentino
7732819
I upgraded to a new square taper crankset on a single-speed drivetrain and now the gap between my crank and the bottom bracket is bigger. That's because the cranks taper shape is different from the one I had before and I haven't changed the bottom bracket. This (along with a different shape of the crank) made the Q-factor bigger. I wanted to reduce it, so I ordered a new bottom bracket with a shorter spindle. I checked the measurement already and it's going to be all good with chainstay clearance. The question is:
How close can a square taper crank be to the bottom bracket? How small can the gap in the picture be?
crankset bottom-bracket single-speed
crankset bottom-bracket single-speed
asked 2 hours ago
Alessandro Cosentino
7732819
asked 2 hours ago
Alessandro Cosentino
7732819
edited 1 hour ago
asked 2 hours ago
Alessandro Cosentino
7732819
asked 2 hours ago
Alessandro Cosentino
7732819
asked 2 hours ago
Alessandro Cosentino
7732819
7732819
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The cranks should not touch the frame or bottom bracket cup and some fraction of a millimeter is probably good for tolerance. For an example, with last generation square taper Chorus/Record the tolerance is roughly one millimeter on left side of BSA bottom bracket and on the right side the crank actually reaches into the cup. With Italian bottom bracket it is going to be even closer fit. Your crank shape doesn't allow this, so there should be a slight gap outside bottom bracket shell.
answered 1 hour ago
ojs
10.6k21937
In other words, can the gap I have now (~5mm) be reduced?
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
Yes, by roughly 4mm if the cranks do not touch chainstays.
– ojs
56 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You can reduce the gap between the crank and frame to essentially zero as long as the crank does not rub in the frame. However, that is not really how square taper cranksets are supposed to be run.
What's probably happened is you got a crankset that is designed for a shorter BB spindle. Of greater concern than the gap is that your drive side crank with the chainrings is pushed outboard and your chain-line has been messed up.
What you need to do is find the correct spindle length to give you the appropriate chain-line.
answered 1 hour ago
Argenti Apparatus
25.9k23068
What I wanted to hear :) That's on a single-speed bike and the chainline doesn't look very messed up. I am going to try reduce the spindle length from 115mm to 110mm and even futhre to 107mm.
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Fair enough. You are taking clearance between chainring and frame into account which is important. Just be aware than having your chainring misaligned from sprocket may be noisier, less efficient and will accelerate wear on the chain, `ring and sprocket.
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Nice looking welds on that frame BTW
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The cranks should not touch the frame or bottom bracket cup and some fraction of a millimeter is probably good for tolerance. For an example, with last generation square taper Chorus/Record the tolerance is roughly one millimeter on left side of BSA bottom bracket and on the right side the crank actually reaches into the cup. With Italian bottom bracket it is going to be even closer fit. Your crank shape doesn't allow this, so there should be a slight gap outside bottom bracket shell.
answered 1 hour ago
ojs
10.6k21937
In other words, can the gap I have now (~5mm) be reduced?
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
Yes, by roughly 4mm if the cranks do not touch chainstays.
– ojs
56 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The cranks should not touch the frame or bottom bracket cup and some fraction of a millimeter is probably good for tolerance. For an example, with last generation square taper Chorus/Record the tolerance is roughly one millimeter on left side of BSA bottom bracket and on the right side the crank actually reaches into the cup. With Italian bottom bracket it is going to be even closer fit. Your crank shape doesn't allow this, so there should be a slight gap outside bottom bracket shell.
answered 1 hour ago
ojs
10.6k21937
In other words, can the gap I have now (~5mm) be reduced?
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
Yes, by roughly 4mm if the cranks do not touch chainstays.
– ojs
56 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The cranks should not touch the frame or bottom bracket cup and some fraction of a millimeter is probably good for tolerance. For an example, with last generation square taper Chorus/Record the tolerance is roughly one millimeter on left side of BSA bottom bracket and on the right side the crank actually reaches into the cup. With Italian bottom bracket it is going to be even closer fit. Your crank shape doesn't allow this, so there should be a slight gap outside bottom bracket shell.
answered 1 hour ago
ojs
10.6k21937
The cranks should not touch the frame or bottom bracket cup and some fraction of a millimeter is probably good for tolerance. For an example, with last generation square taper Chorus/Record the tolerance is roughly one millimeter on left side of BSA bottom bracket and on the right side the crank actually reaches into the cup. With Italian bottom bracket it is going to be even closer fit. Your crank shape doesn't allow this, so there should be a slight gap outside bottom bracket shell.
answered 1 hour ago
ojs
10.6k21937
answered 1 hour ago
ojs
10.6k21937
answered 1 hour ago
ojs
10.6k21937
answered 1 hour ago
ojs
10.6k21937
10.6k21937
In other words, can the gap I have now (~5mm) be reduced?
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
Yes, by roughly 4mm if the cranks do not touch chainstays.
– ojs
56 mins ago
add a comment |Â
In other words, can the gap I have now (~5mm) be reduced?
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
Yes, by roughly 4mm if the cranks do not touch chainstays.
– ojs
56 mins ago
In other words, can the gap I have now (~5mm) be reduced?
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
In other words, can the gap I have now (~5mm) be reduced?
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
Yes, by roughly 4mm if the cranks do not touch chainstays.
– ojs
56 mins ago
Yes, by roughly 4mm if the cranks do not touch chainstays.
– ojs
56 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You can reduce the gap between the crank and frame to essentially zero as long as the crank does not rub in the frame. However, that is not really how square taper cranksets are supposed to be run.
What's probably happened is you got a crankset that is designed for a shorter BB spindle. Of greater concern than the gap is that your drive side crank with the chainrings is pushed outboard and your chain-line has been messed up.
What you need to do is find the correct spindle length to give you the appropriate chain-line.
answered 1 hour ago
Argenti Apparatus
25.9k23068
What I wanted to hear :) That's on a single-speed bike and the chainline doesn't look very messed up. I am going to try reduce the spindle length from 115mm to 110mm and even futhre to 107mm.
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Fair enough. You are taking clearance between chainring and frame into account which is important. Just be aware than having your chainring misaligned from sprocket may be noisier, less efficient and will accelerate wear on the chain, `ring and sprocket.
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Nice looking welds on that frame BTW
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You can reduce the gap between the crank and frame to essentially zero as long as the crank does not rub in the frame. However, that is not really how square taper cranksets are supposed to be run.
What's probably happened is you got a crankset that is designed for a shorter BB spindle. Of greater concern than the gap is that your drive side crank with the chainrings is pushed outboard and your chain-line has been messed up.
What you need to do is find the correct spindle length to give you the appropriate chain-line.
answered 1 hour ago
Argenti Apparatus
25.9k23068
What I wanted to hear :) That's on a single-speed bike and the chainline doesn't look very messed up. I am going to try reduce the spindle length from 115mm to 110mm and even futhre to 107mm.
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Fair enough. You are taking clearance between chainring and frame into account which is important. Just be aware than having your chainring misaligned from sprocket may be noisier, less efficient and will accelerate wear on the chain, `ring and sprocket.
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Nice looking welds on that frame BTW
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
You can reduce the gap between the crank and frame to essentially zero as long as the crank does not rub in the frame. However, that is not really how square taper cranksets are supposed to be run.
What's probably happened is you got a crankset that is designed for a shorter BB spindle. Of greater concern than the gap is that your drive side crank with the chainrings is pushed outboard and your chain-line has been messed up.
What you need to do is find the correct spindle length to give you the appropriate chain-line.
answered 1 hour ago
Argenti Apparatus
25.9k23068
You can reduce the gap between the crank and frame to essentially zero as long as the crank does not rub in the frame. However, that is not really how square taper cranksets are supposed to be run.
What's probably happened is you got a crankset that is designed for a shorter BB spindle. Of greater concern than the gap is that your drive side crank with the chainrings is pushed outboard and your chain-line has been messed up.
What you need to do is find the correct spindle length to give you the appropriate chain-line.
answered 1 hour ago
Argenti Apparatus
25.9k23068
answered 1 hour ago
Argenti Apparatus
25.9k23068
answered 1 hour ago
Argenti Apparatus
25.9k23068
answered 1 hour ago
Argenti Apparatus
25.9k23068
25.9k23068
What I wanted to hear :) That's on a single-speed bike and the chainline doesn't look very messed up. I am going to try reduce the spindle length from 115mm to 110mm and even futhre to 107mm.
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Fair enough. You are taking clearance between chainring and frame into account which is important. Just be aware than having your chainring misaligned from sprocket may be noisier, less efficient and will accelerate wear on the chain, `ring and sprocket.
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Nice looking welds on that frame BTW
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
What I wanted to hear :) That's on a single-speed bike and the chainline doesn't look very messed up. I am going to try reduce the spindle length from 115mm to 110mm and even futhre to 107mm.
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Fair enough. You are taking clearance between chainring and frame into account which is important. Just be aware than having your chainring misaligned from sprocket may be noisier, less efficient and will accelerate wear on the chain, `ring and sprocket.
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Nice looking welds on that frame BTW
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
What I wanted to hear :) That's on a single-speed bike and the chainline doesn't look very messed up. I am going to try reduce the spindle length from 115mm to 110mm and even futhre to 107mm.
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
What I wanted to hear :) That's on a single-speed bike and the chainline doesn't look very messed up. I am going to try reduce the spindle length from 115mm to 110mm and even futhre to 107mm.
– Alessandro Cosentino
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Fair enough. You are taking clearance between chainring and frame into account which is important. Just be aware than having your chainring misaligned from sprocket may be noisier, less efficient and will accelerate wear on the chain, `ring and sprocket.
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Fair enough. You are taking clearance between chainring and frame into account which is important. Just be aware than having your chainring misaligned from sprocket may be noisier, less efficient and will accelerate wear on the chain, `ring and sprocket.
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Nice looking welds on that frame BTW
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
@AlessandroCosentino Nice looking welds on that frame BTW
– Argenti Apparatus
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbicycles.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57220%2fminimum-space-between-square-taper-crank-and-bottom-bracket%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password