Max, I can't imagine why you'd have a problem but, obviously, someone with more experience should chime in. I'm going to "try" to use this same bb without the spacers, and get a different crank. I'm not sure I can find one with the right spindle length, right spindle diameter, and 10 speed compatible rings in suitable sizes, but I know for a fact that the cups install just fine without any spacers at all. (in this case, they each have an aluminum sleeve that telescopes over each other, but same thing as an accordian plastic sleeve in function.)
On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 6:28:47 PM UTC-7 Max S wrote: > A different, but related question: > > I mistakenly bought the MTN version of a Shimano bottom bracket (external > cups) for a recent 105 crank. Comparing to the old (road) BB, it looked to > me like the only difference was the internal plastic sleeve length. I > swapped in the old sleeve between the new cups, and that seemed to go in > fine. Maybe last couple of millimeters were a little tighter than the right > hand cup, but went in. > > Did I do something that will come back to bite me?.. > > - Max > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 3:35:05 PM UTC-5 Garth wrote: > >> Keith, road bike double crank chainline spec is always 43.5mm. Are you >> measuring between the rings ? >> >> You may hate me for saying so but it sounds like this crank would be >> better suited for another frame with at least 135mm spacing. With the big >> ring that far out on a 130mm spaced road frame, your available cogs(without >> a lot of friction) diminishes by at least one, likely two. >> >> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 2:57:58 PM UTC-5 iamkeith wrote: >> >>> Nick, as I mentioned in my question, I too only have experience with >>> cranks that take spacers between the arm and the cup. It makes more sense >>> that way, but this bb definitely seems to require spacers next to the >>> shell. That's how it was assembled when it arrived. I just cant figure >>> out why it's asymmetrical. Ive now learned that, even with a 73mm shell, >>> it would still require a single 2.5mm spacer on the drive side, UNLESS >>> there was a bb-mounted deraileur or bash gauard plate. But you'd think the >>> crank arms would be shaped to compensate for that. >>> >>> As set up in my photo, I have a 50mm chainline. Sheldon says a road >>> double should be 47mm, so that's another reason not to add more spacers on >>> that side. >>> >>> You probably had the best idea though. I guess I'll take a dremel to >>> the non-drive-side arm or spidel end, so it can slide inward a few more >>> millimeters and at least be symmetrical. >>> >>> It'll still be wider than necessary, but I'm not Q- factor sensitive, >>> fortunately. I guess this is really intended as a mtb crank, even though >>> it doesn't say that on soma's or interloc's website? >>> >>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:41:32 AM UTC-7 wboe...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> I mostly take the number of spacers they recommend and arrange them in >>>> whjatever fashion creates the best chainline for the bike. >>>> >>>> Will >>>> >>>> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:26:56 AM UTC-5 aeroperf wrote: >>>> >>>>> I’m going to stick with the spacers going as shown in the exploded >>>>> view - spacers going between the cup and the BB shell. >>>>> You’re absolutely right on the prep work. Both bikes were chased, but >>>>> the Soma was not faced… probably why it gets by with the spacer stack >>>>> slightly smaller. >>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/52a71012-77b1-44f2-97de-bfff26d2d31en%40googlegroups.com.
