Talk:Bottom bracket

message: Suggest merging ISIS drive article into this, and writing sections on various BB designs (BMX 3pc splines, cottered, ST, Octalink etc.) rather than writing a separate stub for each.
-- Lordandmaker 13:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great! Cycling-related articles could use a fair bit of merging in general other places as well. --Christopherlin 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Older discussion

message: Perhaps someone can supply a more precise definition of "shell" and its relation with the rest of the frame.  Jim.henderson 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shell

message: "This design is perhaps the first to acknowledge the fact that the new outboard bearing designs do not require a press-on fit, as the old square taper and splined bottom brackets did.  Whereas the Shimano, FSA, and other designs require that the inner face of the cranksets press against the outboard bearings, a situation that introduces a significant amount of rolling resistance (and which thus creates a market for expensive ceramic bearings), Campy's Hirth joint is machined to restrict the compression of the bearings to a controlled tolerance.  Characteristically, Campgnolo's marketing department has chosen not to emphasize the fact that the Italian company has introduced the first integrated bottom bracket system to spin nearly as well as the non-integrated versions did."
#"is perhaps the first" not very encyclopedic.
#what Shimano, FSA and other designs require and how Campy's is machined needs a reference.
#Whether Campgnolo's marketing department has acted characteristically isn't really germane to an article on bottom brackets.
:-AndrewDressel (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about Campy vs Shimano, FSA, and others 

message: The information is good, but requires sorting as several sections are supplied in triplicate! Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is rather repetitive. 

message: In 2000, Lightning Cycle Dynamics Inc. introduced their unique two piece carbon crankset with outboard bearings, and carbon fiber semi-axles smoothly integrated with each carbon fiber crank arm.  The semi-axles attached in the middle of a standard BSA bottom bracket shell with a Hirth type joint and internal bolt.  In 2004 Lightning licensed their design to Specialized Bicycles, who incorporated the design into their FACT carbon crankset and frame which utilized a BB30 bottom bracket shell with pressed in bearings. 
In late 2006, Campagnolo introduced a heavier knockoff of the Lightning design with steel instead of carbon fiber semi-axles which they called called Ultra-TorqueTM.    Lightning still sells their integrated two piece Super Light crankset aftermarket, currently it is the lightest crankset available and being a more advanced design it is 160 grams lighter than the Campagnolo Record Ultra Torque crankset. 
:The provided link does not support much of this new material. All I can find is a one-page list of features and an installation procedure PDF dated 2003. There is nothing about the introduction in 2000, carbon fiber semi-axles (the spindle appears to be made of metal in the photo included in the PDF), licensing to Specialized, Campagnolo knocking off the design, that it is the lightest crankset available, or that its design is somehow more advanced than that of the Campagnolo Record Ultra Torque crankset. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning Cyclc Dynamics 

message: Call me a traditionalist, but I prefer the terms drive side/non drive side over right/left.  An anonymous edit changed all the "drive sides" to "right", I've reverted it.  While it's my strong preference for us to use "drive side" I don't know any rational reason to do it one way or the other other than tradition.  The anon's edit summery claims that the term "is a source of ridicule", this is not a valid reason, people ridicule many things, that's no reason to change it.  Additionally he/she said that the source (Sheldon) uses left and right.  More accurately "Fixed (right) cup" is used despite the fact that with cartage BBs neither cup is adjustable, and the threaded side of the cartridge is not always the right side.  --Keithonearth (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "drive side" is a generally better term to use because it is more accurate and overall less confusing as right/left requires an assumption about perspective whereas "drive side" is self evident. On there other hand the drive-side is not 100% standard to the right. And for those unfamiliar with this technical term, left/right may be easier to understand. One must not assume a knowledgable readership for a general encyclopedia. I think the best would be to mention "drive side or right side of the bike" once near the start of the article and then thereafter stick with the term "drive side."Rusl (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  drive-side/non-drive-side or right/left 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bottom bracket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015030043/http://bootiebike.com/Royal_Enfield_Revelation/Royal_Enfield_Revelation.htm to http://bootiebike.com/Royal_Enfield_Revelation/Royal_Enfield_Revelation.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.schlumpf.ch/md_engl.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What's up with that? 76.70.118.211 (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barely a mention of BMX...weird. 

message: Hello all,
I have made a few edits and added a section for history on the compatabililty issue that bottom brackets continue to face as standards are advanced and manufacturers try to keep up. This was intended to give history that links how standards were created like the ISIS Drive.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzcannon1 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section added "Compatability Issues" 

message: This is the most popular type on earth to this day, by a wide margin. Why the hell is there so little information on it? 2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:64A1:4BF9:7912:1E3F (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that there's much that needs to be added. The amount of coverage in an article is not a function of the popularity of a particular design.  Do you have pertinent info to add to the section?  If so feel free to add it with reliable sources. Meters (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Because that is just a type of bearing. It should be talked about, but the dimensions of the BB and the shell are the same, wherever you use a loose ball BB or a sealed catridge, ie: you have loose ball and sealed english threaded BBs, Loose and sealed italians, etc. Plus, it not by far the most common, not in all countries. Except for really cheap bikes, most come with a catridge (maybe in asia/developing countries loose ball is more common?? Any sources to cite manufacturing volumes?). Worth mentioning the difference anyway as it is part of the tech's history and evolution.181.74.203.16 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loose bearing BB