| |
Main
Date: 09 May 2007 16:02:25
From: Donald Gillies
Subject: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Shimano is not known for providing spare parts support.
Octalink V1/V2 was clearly an 8-year experiment for Shimano.
How much longer before Shimano stops offering Octalink V2 cartridges
?? Will they give up completley once the patents expire?
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
|
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2007 16:08:56
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:18:15 +0000, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <kMSdncuFYqFNVtjbnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 May 2007 01:34:07 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
>>
>> > Gary Young writes:
>
>> I doubt anyone would continue to make the cranks, but don't you think some
>> company would be interested in selling bottom brackets to the existing
>> base of Octolink owners? By analogy, there are few freewheel hubs still
>> sold (at least in the American and European market), yet there are
>> companies still making freewheels.
>
> A dollar says there were more bikes sold in America with freewheel hubs
> than freehubs last year.
>
> And for another dollar, this year,
>
I don't see that at bike shops or in the catalogs. Do department store
bikes still use freewheels?
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2007 14:43:11
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
>>>> Gary Young writes:
>>> I doubt anyone would continue to make the cranks, but don't you think some
>>> company would be interested in selling bottom brackets to the existing
>>> base of Octolink owners? By analogy, there are few freewheel hubs still
>>> sold (at least in the American and European market), yet there are
>>> companies still making freewheels.
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> A dollar says there were more bikes sold in America with freewheel hubs
>> than freehubs last year.
>> And for another dollar, this year,
Gary Young wrote:
> I don't see that at bike shops or in the catalogs. Do department store
> bikes still use freewheels?
Most bikes under about $300~$400, bike shop or Bubba's Discount Sports.
That's the high volume end of the market.
Unless you looked closely you wouldn't notice. Modern freewheel hubs are
'large center' design and freewheel cogs look just like cassette cogs to
the casual observer.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2007 03:57:01
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
In article <9NudnZDxhth1sdvbnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@giganews.com >,
Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:18:15 +0000, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> > In article <kMSdncuFYqFNVtjbnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 01:34:07 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
> >>
> >> > Gary Young writes:
> >
> >> I doubt anyone would continue to make the cranks, but don't you think some
> >> company would be interested in selling bottom brackets to the existing
> >> base of Octolink owners? By analogy, there are few freewheel hubs still
> >> sold (at least in the American and European market), yet there are
> >> companies still making freewheels.
> >
> > A dollar says there were more bikes sold in America with freewheel hubs
> > than freehubs last year.
> >
> > And for another dollar, this year,
> >
>
> I don't see that at bike shops or in the catalogs. Do department store
> bikes still use freewheels?
Last I checked. It's possible the 8-speed bikes are using freehubs, but
those are still pretty odd ducks in the department-store market. 7-speed
freewheels rule the roost right now.
Between Carl and I, we do a pretty active survey of really cheap
department store bicycles.
You can still see the worst bikes of ten or fifteen years ago on the
roads, usually under DUI riders: nasty stamped-steel single-pivot
long-reach brakes grabbing chromed steel rims, and naff drivetrains to
match.
Today, it may still be possible to find these features on the very
cheapest bikes (the Roadmaster Mt. Fury may have these misfeatures). But
the majority of bikes I see offered for sale in department stores
feature aluminum rims and V-brakes.
This is a big step up in terms of making these bikes suitable for use by
humans with a sense of self-preservation.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2007 15:30:29
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:08:56 -0500, Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com >
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 May 2007 20:18:15 +0000, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
>> In article <kMSdncuFYqFNVtjbnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 May 2007 01:34:07 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
>>>
>>> > Gary Young writes:
>>
>>> I doubt anyone would continue to make the cranks, but don't you think some
>>> company would be interested in selling bottom brackets to the existing
>>> base of Octolink owners? By analogy, there are few freewheel hubs still
>>> sold (at least in the American and European market), yet there are
>>> companies still making freewheels.
>>
>> A dollar says there were more bikes sold in America with freewheel hubs
>> than freehubs last year.
>>
>> And for another dollar, this year,
>>
>
>I don't see that at bike shops or in the catalogs. Do department store
>bikes still use freewheels?
Dear Gary,
There's an enormous bicycling world largely ignored by many RBT
posters, where most bicycles are sold and where debates about fit and
physicis are unknown.
It's not just freewheels.
WalMart sells far more bikes than the local bike shops.
But WalMart doesn't sell 700c tires, Presta-valve inner tubes,
clipless pedals, chain wax, brifters, 10-speed chain, cassettes with
slightly different gear ratios, replacement chain rings, or bicycles
with butted spokes.
Or at least WalMart didn't offer such things the last time I browsed
its aisles.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 21:35:05
From: Diablo Scott
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
> Dear Gary,
>
> There's an enormous bicycling world largely ignored by many RBT
> posters, where most bicycles are sold and where debates about fit and
> physicis are unknown.
>
> It's not just freewheels.
>
> WalMart sells far more bikes than the local bike shops.
>
> But WalMart doesn't sell 700c tires, Presta-valve inner tubes,
> clipless pedals, chain wax, brifters, 10-speed chain, cassettes with
> slightly different gear ratios, replacement chain rings, or bicycles
> with butted spokes.
>
> Or at least WalMart didn't offer such things the last time I browsed
> its aisles.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Dear Carl and Ryan:
I'd be interested in your estimate of bike sales by crank attachment
styles (I assume we're only considering bikes sold as new in retail or
internet stores to USA buyers):
Cottered vs
Square taper vs
Splined vs
External vs
Other
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 May 2007 00:28:32
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:35:05 -0700, Diablo Scott
<diabloscottN0SPAM@terra.es > wrote:
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> Dear Gary,
>>
>> There's an enormous bicycling world largely ignored by many RBT
>> posters, where most bicycles are sold and where debates about fit and
>> physicis are unknown.
>>
>> It's not just freewheels.
>>
>> WalMart sells far more bikes than the local bike shops.
>>
>> But WalMart doesn't sell 700c tires, Presta-valve inner tubes,
>> clipless pedals, chain wax, brifters, 10-speed chain, cassettes with
>> slightly different gear ratios, replacement chain rings, or bicycles
>> with butted spokes.
>>
>> Or at least WalMart didn't offer such things the last time I browsed
>> its aisles.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Dear Carl and Ryan:
>
>I'd be interested in your estimate of bike sales by crank attachment
>styles (I assume we're only considering bikes sold as new in retail or
>internet stores to USA buyers):
>
>Cottered vs
>Square taper vs
>Splined vs
>External vs
>Other
Dear Diablo,
I'd guess that WalMart outsells all the others put together, so I'd
guess Ashtabula first and the others nowhere.
We RBT posters tend to forget that cheap kids' bikes outsell what we
consider "inexpensive" adult bikes by a huge number.
I suspect that internet stores are a drop in the bucket in terms of
numbers, compared to WalMart.
The original surprise in this thread about freewheels outnumbering
freehubs sounded a little like a stick-shift enthusiast being startled
to learn that automatic transmissions outsell manuals in the U.S.
There! If I'm deluded, that should bring convincing statistics
swarming out of the woodwork to open my eyes.
:)
On a ridiculously unrelated note, bullsnakes have outnumbered garter
snakes by a 2-to-1 margin in the past 24 hours at Fogel Statistics.
This fearsome picture of an obliging serpent shows how RBT views sales
of adult bicycles from local bike stores and internet:
http://i10.tinypic.com/6barkoh.jpg
(Be sure to view full size. It's rare to get a monster that size to
pose so obligingly.)
Here's a more realistic view of same garter snake, taken a minute
earlier and showing the size of the snake (and non-WalMart bike sales)
in perspective:
http://i4.tinypic.com/4z9doa0.jpg
Next, an equally obliging bullsnake about the same size, posing next
to the seated photographer's outstretched foot for scale:
http://i6.tinypic.com/5y13okk.jpg
And here the bullsnakes double their lead over garter snakes in
sightings within the last 24 hours, much like WalMart selling more
bikes in a day or two than everyone else in a month:
http://i6.tinypic.com/4ztygba.jpg
Speaking of perspective, my father just emailed a picture taken
through a screen door of a rather chubby cat on his patio, a rear view
that shows the overweight beast's ears in silhouette:
http://i4.tinypic.com/5zekfo7.jpg
Here's a better view of the chubby cat, facing the camera and putting
things in better perspective, much like coming face to face with the
number of bicycles that little ol' WalMart sells:
http://i2.tinypic.com/6gb52f5.jpg
That's 5 gallons of bird-seed on the patio, next to some allegedly
chubby-cat-proof containers.
(The first picture is being used as a screen-saver. I'll never live
down my mistaken comment that the cat had gotten rather fat.)
Here's chubby cat's young cousin visiting the fenced tennis courts
near my house and trying to talk his way out of a ticket:
http://i2.tinypic.com/52bw7di.jpg
Both chubby cats escaped and are probably doing this now:
http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/34354/p/f/bear_bicycle.jpg
Bet you thought I couldn't drag this back to bikes.
:)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 May 2007 05:42:12
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
In article <46469280$0$30529$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com >,
Diablo Scott <diabloscottN0SPAM@terra.es > wrote:
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > Dear Gary,
> >
> > There's an enormous bicycling world largely ignored by many RBT
> > posters, where most bicycles are sold and where debates about fit and
> > physicis are unknown.
> >
> > It's not just freewheels.
> >
> > WalMart sells far more bikes than the local bike shops.
> Dear Carl and Ryan:
>
> I'd be interested in your estimate of bike sales by crank attachment
> styles (I assume we're only considering bikes sold as new in retail or
> internet stores to USA buyers):
>
> Cottered vs
> Square taper vs
> Splined vs
> External vs
> Other
My rough guess? 50% square taper, 40% Ashtabula, 10% everything else, at
best. Unless you count tricycles and unicycles, I'd guess that cotters
have maybe 1% of the market, especially since cheapo bikes on this
continent have long been Astabula bikes.
Things may change a bit now that Campy has gone Ultra-Torque, and my
numbers could be rather far off the mark.
Here's a comprehensive, five-year-old press release covering the state
of the US cycling market at that time:
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/bicycleretailer/reports_analysis/article_d
isplay.jsp?vnu_content_id=1517335
http://tinyurl.com/ynwk6a
Short points:
19.6 M bikes sold in 2001
$2.2 bn in sales
$1 bn (est) in accessory sales
another possible $1 bn in unreported bike-stuff sales (custom frames,
car racks, clothes...).
19.6 million bikes sold in the US in 2001.
Interesting fact: while specialty retailers (ie, LBSen) account for an
(unspecified) minority of the bike numbers, they're responsible for just
under half the dollar value of bike sales. And probably a healthy chunk
of the accessory and et cetera stuff.
This may explain why there's a lot of websites out there trying to
direct-sell decent bicycles.
Oh wait...
April 2006 detailed report on the bike industry numbers:
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/bicycleretailer/images/pdf/statistics.pdf
Needs more digestion. I'll be right back.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2007 09:14:40
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On Sat, 12 May 2007 01:34:07 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
> Gary Young writes:
>
>>>> The bad experiment IMO is the internal headset. But for the
>>>> recent spate of headset standards, frames have actually gotten
>>>> more standard (no French/Swiss/Italian/English thread issues,
>>>> standard derailleur hangers, etc.) and easier to work on. However,
>>>> there may be a point when integrated/internal headsets are no
>>>> longer supported, which will be an issue for people who actually
>>>> keep their bikes for any length of time.
>
>>> In that case, the remedy will come in the form of a simple sleeve
>>> adapter-- but there is no such easy fix for Octalink when the BB's
>>> go out of production.
>
>> What prevents other manufacturers from making Octalink BB's? Patent
>> protection? If so, they should be able to serve the market once the
>> patent expires.
>
> Knowing that the crank attachment fails should dissuade imitators from
> using this design. Besides, the tooling required to make both the
> spindle spline and the blind hole crank spline is another reason to
> not do this. These manufacturing problems would have been enough for
> me not to think of making such an assembly... assuming it worked.
>
> Jobst Brandt
I doubt anyone would continue to make the cranks, but don't you think some
company would be interested in selling bottom brackets to the existing
base of Octolink owners? By analogy, there are few freewheel hubs still
sold (at least in the American and European market), yet there are
companies still making freewheels.
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2007 20:18:15
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
In article <kMSdncuFYqFNVtjbnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@giganews.com >,
Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 01:34:07 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
>
> > Gary Young writes:
> I doubt anyone would continue to make the cranks, but don't you think some
> company would be interested in selling bottom brackets to the existing
> base of Octolink owners? By analogy, there are few freewheel hubs still
> sold (at least in the American and European market), yet there are
> companies still making freewheels.
A dollar says there were more bikes sold in America with freewheel hubs
than freehubs last year.
And for another dollar, this year,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | |
Date: 13 May 2007 14:19:10
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
-snip-
> Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I doubt anyone would continue to make the cranks, but don't you think some
>> company would be interested in selling bottom brackets to the existing
>> base of Octolink owners? By analogy, there are few freewheel hubs still
>> sold (at least in the American and European market), yet there are
>> companies still making freewheels.
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> A dollar says there were more bikes sold in America with freewheel hubs
> than freehubs last year.
> And for another dollar, this year,
Ryan's absolutely right, and many more square taper new bikes sold in
USA for 2006/7 than all other systems combined.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 May 2007 00:39:23
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
In article <134ep5u7t87175@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> -snip-
> > Gary Young <garyyoung3@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I doubt anyone would continue to make the cranks, but don't you think some
> >> company would be interested in selling bottom brackets to the existing
> >> base of Octolink owners? By analogy, there are few freewheel hubs still
> >> sold (at least in the American and European market), yet there are
> >> companies still making freewheels.
>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > A dollar says there were more bikes sold in America with freewheel hubs
> > than freehubs last year.
> > And for another dollar, this year,
>
> Ryan's absolutely right, and many more square taper new bikes sold in
> USA for 2006/7 than all other systems combined.
When I went and confirmed that fact, that wasn't what surprised me. What
surprised me was that on a dollar-value basis, specialty shops (which is
everything from Supergo to Yellow Jersey) have about the same share of
the bike market as department stores.
Which is what happens when your average bike retail price is $1000, and
Wal-Mart's is less than $100...
It may even be a more disparate breakdown than that, as bicycle
accessories are less well accounted for than actual bikes.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | |
Date: 13 May 2007 02:46:15
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Ryan Cousineau writes:
>> I doubt anyone would continue to make the cranks, but don't you
>> think some company would be interested in selling bottom brackets
>> to the existing base of Octalink owners? By analogy, there are few
>> freewheel hubs still sold (at least in the American and European
>> market), yet there are companies still making freewheels.
> A dollar says there were more bikes sold in America with freewheel
> hubs than freehubs last year.
> And for another dollar, this year,
Well that isn't a good parallel because none of these FW's are a
mechanical derivative of the ones they replace, other than the
sprockets that fit, even if they are sold in aggregate large numbers.
What was proposed is that someone manufacture Octalink BB assemblies,
or even cranks alone (the most commonly failing item).
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 May 2007 07:29:40
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> What was proposed is that someone manufacture Octalink BB assemblies,
> or even cranks alone (the most commonly failing item).
??
I hope you were trying to imply that the cranks are outlasting quite a
few BB assemblies
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2007 05:12:34
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On May 10, 12:48 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <M...@ChainReaction.com >
wrote:
> > 103mm square axle for Dura Ace cranksets? Not supplied by Shimano anymore,
> > so about 15 years?
>
> I'm scratching my head on that one. Which version DuraAce crankset was that?
7410. 7400 was 113/5mm BB. I don't think 7410 was ever matched to a 7s
gruppo, only 8s.
> Are we talking 7-speed? If so, that falls into another black hole- the
> 7-speed (I think) cassettes that had a threaded first cog. But I believe
> we're talking pre-1990. In any event, you could still order a Phil BB for
> it, and possibly one of the 107s would work if the extra spacing were on the
> left side, but not so sure about that.
>
> It's certainly an unusual scenario, and not one I'm going to lose too much
> sleep over. Just as I'm not blaming Campy that I can't get a bottom bracket
> anymore for my Nuovo Record crankset (although admittedly that goes back
> quite a bit further back in time!).
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "M-gineering" <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl> wrote in message
>
> news:f1u93h$f30$1@localhost.localdomain...
>
> > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> Shimano is not known for providing spare parts support.
>
> >> Why does this come up so often? Where is the evidence to support it?
>
> >> Shimano may in fact not have all manner of choices to support older
> >> component groups, but rarely have they put people in a bind with no
> >> choices at all. For example, you can still get a wide selection of
> >> gearing options in 7 & 8-speed cassettes, although you're not going to
> >> get a Dura-Ace option any more; you might have to settle for Ultegra or
> >> '105 etc.
>
> >> Shimano will sometimes even create new parts for older groups to solve
> >> problems, such as a more-reliable version of 8-speed STI lever.
>
> >> There will always be exceptions if you look hard enough, but that's not
> >> the norm. In all likelihood, you'll be able to get Octalink cartridge BBs
> >> for some time to come. Maybe you'll have to settle for LX instead of XT
> >> quality, but it's unlikely you'll be orphaned.
>
> > 103mm square axle for Dura Ace cranksets? Not supplied by Shimano anymore,
> > so about 15 years?
> > --
> > ---
> > Marten Gerritsen
>
> > INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
> >www.m-gineering.nl
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 17:32:16
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
On May 11, 7:59 pm, Steve Gravrock <use...@sdg.users.panix.com > wrote:
> On 2007-05-11, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > Chalo, Jobst, numerous riders over 175 pounds, and an awful lot of
> > mountain bikers would like to have a word with you regarding the
> > suitability of the square-taper spindle as a crank interface.
>
> > That it works most of the time is a testament to how few roadies weigh
> > that much,
>
> I fit that profile, and I have square taper cranks. What problems should
> I be expecting?
well, if you're not taking a stab at humor here
you'll need a good sense of it further on down the road
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 16:55:08
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
On May 11, 3:50 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
>
> Simply put, Octalink suffered from no longer being !!!NEW!!!. Shimano
> wanted to introduce a new proprietary design and would have done so
> even if Octalink was as reliable as the sunrise.
I think that if Octalink continued selling like hotcakes, then Shimano
would have stuck with it-- without regard to whether it was reliable
or unreliable. See SIS (reliable), STI (unreliable), Hyperglide
(reliable), Cassette Freehubs (reliable), Parallel Push (unreliable),
etc. Octalink's shortcoming from Shimano's perspective was not
technical-- it was simply that it failed to overwhelm the competition
(ISIS and square taper).
The fact that other manufacturers like FSA and Campagnolo have fielded
credible competitors to Shimano's Bullseye hack bodes ill for the new
standard's longevity. I predict that before another decade has
passed, Shimano will promote a proprietary BB shell standard to match
their next big idea. They may be too late to trump their competition,
but they will try to come up with another blockbuster whose definitive
elements they can own.
Other manufacturers can assure that Shimano will never own the BB and
crank market by throwing their support and technical prowess behind a
free and open standard that offers the spindle and bearing clearance
all big-spindle cranks need-- the American/OPC shell.
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 16:42:07
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
damn. if shimano forces me to upgrade again, next month's ZF rebuild
goes into serious jepordy
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 18:37:04
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:11:46 -0700, Chalo wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>> The bad experiment IMO is the internal headset. But for the recent
>> spate of headset standards, frames have actually gotten more standard
>> (no French/Swiss/Italian/English thread issues, standard derailleur
>> hangers, etc.) and easier to work on. However, there may be a point
>> when integrated/internal headsets are no longer supported, which will
>> be an issue for people who actually keep their bikes for any length of
>> time.
>
> In that case, the remedy will come in the form of a simple sleeve
> adapter-- but there is no such easy fix for Octalink when the BBs go
> out of production.
>
> Chalo
What prevents other manufacturers from making Octolink bb's? Patent
protection? If so, they should be able to serve the market once the patent
expires.
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2007 01:34:07
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Gary Young writes:
>>> The bad experiment IMO is the internal headset. But for the
>>> recent spate of headset standards, frames have actually gotten
>>> more standard (no French/Swiss/Italian/English thread issues,
>>> standard derailleur hangers, etc.) and easier to work on. However,
>>> there may be a point when integrated/internal headsets are no
>>> longer supported, which will be an issue for people who actually
>>> keep their bikes for any length of time.
>> In that case, the remedy will come in the form of a simple sleeve
>> adapter-- but there is no such easy fix for Octalink when the BB's
>> go out of production.
> What prevents other manufacturers from making Octalink BB's? Patent
> protection? If so, they should be able to serve the market once the
> patent expires.
Knowing that the crank attachment fails should dissuade imitators from
using this design. Besides, the tooling required to make both the
spindle spline and the blind hole crank spline is another reason to
not do this. These manufacturing problems would have been enough for
me not to think of making such an assembly... assuming it worked.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2007 00:44:53
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Gary Young writes:
>>> The bad experiment IMO is the internal headset. But for the
>>> recent spate of headset standards, frames have actually gotten
>>> more standard (no French/Swiss/Italian/English thread issues,
>>> standard derailleur hangers, etc.) and easier to work on. However,
>>> there may be a point when integrated/internal headsets are no
>>> longer supported, which will be an issue for people who actually
>>> keep their bikes for any length of time.
>> In that case, the remedy will come in the form of a simple sleeve
>> adapter-- but there is no such easy fix for Octalink when the BB's
>> go out of production.
> What prevents other manufacturers from making Octalink BB's? Patent
> protection? If so, they should be able to serve the market once the
> patent expires.
Knowing that the pedal attachment fails should dissuade imitators from
using this design. Besides, the tooling required to make both the
spindle spline and the blind hole crank spline is another reason to
not do this. These manufacturing problems would have been enough for
me not to think of making such an assembly... assuming it worked.
Jobst Brandt
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 14:48:55
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
On May 11, 4:41 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle writes:
> >>> Mountain bike racing exposes bicycles to stresses never seen by the
> >>> average commuting bike. I doubt Octalink would be a problem for the
> >>> average commuter (assuming the BB was otherwise adequate design-
> >>> wise). My one Octalink BB equipped commuter is fine -- although I
> >>> broke the Ultegra crank arm. Keep in mind that square-tapered BB's
> >>> were claimed to be defective and a poor design (at least by JB), and
> >>> they are on zillions of commuter bikes.
> >> I think you, like Shimano, do not understand the failure mode of
> >> Octalink. It is not force and rough terrain, but merely standing on
> >> the pedals in a horizontal crank position, right foot forward. Those
> >> of us who rode cottered cranks experienced that effect long ago,
> >> although I'm sure few people recognized the symptom.
> > IMO, the fact that Octalink had a failure mode has little to do with
> > the Shimano decision to 'move on' to another design.
> > Simply put, Octalink suffered from no longer being !!!NEW!!!. Shimano
> > wanted to introduce a new proprietary design and would have done so
> > even if Octalink was as reliable as the sunrise.
>
> If I understand correctly, you are in the bicycle business and see
> customer failures, some of which are sent to the distributor for
> replacement. When this number gets uncomfortably high and the word
> gets around that these things fail, something gets done about it. V2
> was the first step and dropping the concept was the second.
>
> Your comment attempts to demonize Shimano
"(My) attempts to demonize Shimano"?? Geez, Jobst, you're the one
saying they produced a failure prone design and didn't have the
engineering competence to either recognize the cause of the failures
or solve the problem.
I'm saying the sales department said it was time for something new to
sell.
I'll leave it to others to decide who is doing the demonizing.
>, while instead, I am sure
> the are not conniving enough to work that way. This is a competitive
> business mainly between Shimano and Campagnolo and it isn't trivial.
>
And that's why they need something new to sell.
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 14:23:38
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
On May 11, 4:05 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com > wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178916636.105011.278900@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 3:38 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >> Jay Beattie writes:
> >> > Mountain bike racing exposes bicycles to stresses never seen by the
> >> > average commuting bike. I doubt Octalink would be a problem for the
> >> > average commuter (assuming the BB was otherwise adequate design-
> >> > wise). My one Octalink BB equipped commuter is fine -- although I
> >> > broke the Ultegra crank arm. Keep in mind that square-tapered BB's
> >> > were claimed to be defective and a poor design (at least by JB), and
> >> > they are on zillions of commuter bikes.
>
> >> I think you, like Shimano, do not understand the failure mode of
> >> Octalink. It is not force and rough terrain, but merely standing on
> >> the pedals in a horizontal crank position, right foot forward. Those
> >> of us who rode cottered cranks experienced that effect long ago,
> >> although I'm sure few people recognized the symptom.
>
> > IMO, the fact that Octalink had a failure mode has little to do with
> > the Shimano decision to 'move on' to another design.
>
> > Simply put, Octalink suffered from no longer being !!!NEW!!!. Shimano
> > wanted to introduce a new proprietary design and would have done so
> > even if Octalink was as reliable as the sunrise.
>
> They would have eventually moved on but I don't think it would have been as
> quick without the poor reliability.
>
Why not? What would they have to lose, other than the cost of tooling,
by introducing a new proprietary design? The upside is a new design to
wax elequent about, new buzz on the sales floor, a certain number of
sales that wouldn't otherwise occur from the 'gotta-be-on-the-cutting-
edge' set and the perception that Shimano is, once again, the design
and performance leader. Seems like a win-win situation to me.
The reality is that Octalink was sent to the dustbin for the same
reason Campy abandoned square taper BBs: sales and marketing.
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 23:09:25
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
In article <1178918618.216796.123140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On May 11, 4:05 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1178916636.105011.278900@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 11, 3:38 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > >> Jay Beattie writes:
> > >> > Mountain bike racing exposes bicycles to stresses never seen by the
> > >> > average commuting bike. I doubt Octalink would be a problem for the
> > >> > average commuter (assuming the BB was otherwise adequate design-
> > >> > wise). My one Octalink BB equipped commuter is fine -- although I
> > >> > broke the Ultegra crank arm. Keep in mind that square-tapered BB's
> > >> > were claimed to be defective and a poor design (at least by JB), and
> > >> > they are on zillions of commuter bikes.
> >
> > >> I think you, like Shimano, do not understand the failure mode of
> > >> Octalink. It is not force and rough terrain, but merely standing on
> > >> the pedals in a horizontal crank position, right foot forward. Those
> > >> of us who rode cottered cranks experienced that effect long ago,
> > >> although I'm sure few people recognized the symptom.
> >
> > > IMO, the fact that Octalink had a failure mode has little to do with
> > > the Shimano decision to 'move on' to another design.
> >
> > > Simply put, Octalink suffered from no longer being !!!NEW!!!. Shimano
> > > wanted to introduce a new proprietary design and would have done so
> > > even if Octalink was as reliable as the sunrise.
> >
> > They would have eventually moved on but I don't think it would have been as
> > quick without the poor reliability.
> >
>
> Why not? What would they have to lose, other than the cost of tooling,
> by introducing a new proprietary design? The upside is a new design to
> wax elequent about, new buzz on the sales floor, a certain number of
> sales that wouldn't otherwise occur from the 'gotta-be-on-the-cutting-
> edge' set and the perception that Shimano is, once again, the design
> and performance leader. Seems like a win-win situation to me.
Their customers. Indeed, if everybody hadn't completely lost faith in
ISIS (including its designers!) I think Shimano would already be out
more of its BB/crank business than it is right now.
As it is, this is probably the drivetrain part least likely to be
Shimano on current road bikes, at least from what I see at the local
races and recent bike catalogs.
I'm pretty sure Shimano would prefer not to be on its third new spindle
design in the last decade. That said, I think everyone on this thread
can appreciate the unintentional humor of Shimano's official history of
Octalink:
http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/cycle/seh/nl/en/technical_ser
vice/faq_s/general_faq_s/what_is_octalink_.html
http://tinyurl.com/3al5xl
> The reality is that Octalink was sent to the dustbin for the same
> reason Campy abandoned square taper BBs: sales and marketing.
Chalo, Jobst, numerous riders over 175 pounds, and an awful lot of
mountain bikers would like to have a word with you regarding the
suitability of the square-taper spindle as a crank interface.
That it works most of the time is a testament to how few roadies weigh
that much,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2007 23:59:20
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
On 2007-05-11, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> Chalo, Jobst, numerous riders over 175 pounds, and an awful lot of
> mountain bikers would like to have a word with you regarding the
> suitability of the square-taper spindle as a crank interface.
>
> That it works most of the time is a testament to how few roadies weigh
> that much,
I fit that profile, and I have square taper cranks. What problems should
I be expecting?
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 00:42:10
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
In article <slrnf4a0qo.159.usenet@panix3.panix.com >,
Steve Gravrock <usenet@sdg.users.panix.com > wrote:
> On 2007-05-11, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > Chalo, Jobst, numerous riders over 175 pounds, and an awful lot of
> > mountain bikers would like to have a word with you regarding the
> > suitability of the square-taper spindle as a crank interface.
> >
> > That it works most of the time is a testament to how few roadies weigh
> > that much,
>
> I fit that profile, and I have square taper cranks. What problems should
> I be expecting?
Well, here's Jobst's description of the odd sorts wear you get with a
tapered spindle:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/installing-cranks.html
Left unchecked, you'd eventually be concerned about crank failure at the
spindle attachment.
Chalo claims that square tapers are essentially unrideable for him, as
he can exceed their design limits with ease. He is very happy riding
3-piece cranks designed for BMX bikes, with the arms rendered in hollow
steel.
This design is pretty much what Shimano reinvented for the Hollowtech II.
Now, I would by no means claim that every rider over a certain weight
will experience this. There is surely a continuum based on rider weight,
riding style, and such. Even if rider X has ten times the crank failure
risk of a normal rider, that's not a lot of failed cranks.
But a failed crank is a big deal, one of those insta-crash parts along
with forks, stems, bars and pedals.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 May 2007 22:11:38
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
In article <rcousine-55F80F.17420911052007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <slrnf4a0qo.159.usenet@panix3.panix.com>,
> Steve Gravrock <usenet@sdg.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2007-05-11, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Chalo, Jobst, numerous riders over 175 pounds, and an awful lot
> > > of mountain bikers would like to have a word with you regarding
> > > the suitability of the square-taper spindle as a crank interface.
> > >
> > > That it works most of the time is a testament to how few roadies
> > > weigh that much,
> >
> > I fit that profile, and I have square taper cranks. What problems
> > should I be expecting?
>
> Well, here's Jobst's description of the odd sorts wear you get with a
> tapered spindle:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/installing-cranks.html
>
> Left unchecked, you'd eventually be concerned about crank failure at
> the spindle attachment.
>
> Chalo claims that square tapers are essentially unrideable for him,
> as he can exceed their design limits with ease. He is very happy
> riding 3-piece cranks designed for BMX bikes, with the arms rendered
> in hollow steel.
>
> This design is pretty much what Shimano reinvented for the Hollowtech
> II.
>
> Now, I would by no means claim that every rider over a certain weight
> will experience this. There is surely a continuum based on rider
> weight, riding style, and such. Even if rider X has ten times the
> crank failure risk of a normal rider, that's not a lot of failed
> cranks.
In 40 years of riding bikes, 30+ of them at 200+ pounds I've never had a
crank break (yet). I've had one BB spindle break, which was a Viscount
sealed bearing BB which snapped at the circlip groove. But I've seen
many broken square taper spindles in person and in photos. I don't
recall ever seeing a crank broken at the square taper in person although
there are photos on the 'net.
Come to think of it, I have seen far more broken spindles than broken
cranks. Why is that? Just a problem of sampling or do spindles fail
more often? I'm guessing repeated bending forces and torque, especially
on the left hand side, based on previous discussions. But I'd expect
aluminum to break more often than steel.
> But a failed crank is a big deal, one of those insta-crash parts
> along with forks, stems, bars and pedals.
Sure enough is. My broken BB spindle dumped me right onto the pavement.
Fortunately I was going about 1 mph at the time, taking off from a stop
sign. If there had been traffic, I'd likely have gotten run over.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 04:27:36
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
In article <timmcn-5792B3.22113811052007@news.iphouse.com >,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <rcousine-55F80F.17420911052007@news.telus.net>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > In article <slrnf4a0qo.159.usenet@panix3.panix.com>,
> > Steve Gravrock <usenet@sdg.users.panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2007-05-11, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chalo, Jobst, numerous riders over 175 pounds, and an awful lot
> > > > of mountain bikers would like to have a word with you regarding
> > > > the suitability of the square-taper spindle as a crank interface.
> > > I fit that profile, and I have square taper cranks. What problems
> > > should I be expecting?
> In 40 years of riding bikes, 30+ of them at 200+ pounds I've never had a
> crank break (yet). I've had one BB spindle break, which was a Viscount
> sealed bearing BB which snapped at the circlip groove. But I've seen
> many broken square taper spindles in person and in photos. I don't
> recall ever seeing a crank broken at the square taper in person although
> there are photos on the 'net.
>
> Come to think of it, I have seen far more broken spindles than broken
> cranks. Why is that? Just a problem of sampling or do spindles fail
> more often? I'm guessing repeated bending forces and torque, especially
> on the left hand side, based on previous discussions. But I'd expect
> aluminum to break more often than steel.
It's both the material and the dimensions. At a guess, I'd say that
because the key parts of a crank can be far larger than the spindle, the
stress can be dealt with properly. A crank is not really
size-constrained except for its thickness (it can't hit the frame or
your shoe), so it can be big enough at the interface not to break much.
Indeed, most of the spindle redesigns focused on making the spindle
bigger as much as changing the crank attachment. But that had the
side-effect, in the ISIS design, of forcing the bearings to be smaller.
Too small in many applications.
There were two solutions: the surviving ISIS BBs use tricks like having
four cartridge bearings in there, or hoping for the best. But the newest
designs have all found more room for the bearings by putting them
outside the BB shell.
I think Jobst has expressed some reservations as to how well the BB
threads will stand up to their new loads, but I'm not engineer enough to
judge that.
There have been several attempts to move towards a new oversize BB
standard, but nothing seems to be taking off right now. I'm with Chalo
in thinking that if anything was to be adopted, we could do worse than
using the unthreaded BMX BB shell standard.
But alas, half the BMX bikes are moving to "Euro" (ISO-sized and
threaded, I think), and now there's something I have no clue about
called a "Spanish" BB spec. Chalo?
My BMX has the old-school small seatpost spec,
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 18:25:13
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
On 11 May 2007 14:23:38 -0700, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> 'gotta-be-on-the-cutting-edge' set
Why are you so ashamed of yourself?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 14:11:22
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On May 11, 1:38 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Jay Beattie writes:
> > Mountain bike racing exposes bicycles to stresses never seen by the
> > average commuting bike. I doubt Octalink would be a problem for the
> > average commuter (assuming the BB was otherwise adequate design-
> > wise). My one Octalink BB equipped commuter is fine -- although I
> > broke the Ultegra crank arm. Keep in mind that square-tapered BB's
> > were claimed to be defective and a poor design (at least by JB), and
> > they are on zillions of commuter bikes.
>
> I think you, like Shimano, do not understand the failure mode of
> Octalink. It is not force and rough terrain, but merely standing on
> the pedals in a horizontal crank position, right foot forward. Those
> of us who rode cottered cranks experienced that effect long ago,
> although I'm sure few people recognized the symptom.
Standing on the pedals flying down hill is very much a mountain bike
thing. I am no physicist, but I would imagine that the Octalink BB
axles on mountain bikes were seeing much higher loads from riders
posting down rocky trails that from commuters riding to work while
firmly planted on their plush saddles. The number of commuters I see
trackstanding (besides myself -- and regarless of footedness) is very,
very small. So, as I said, I doubt that Octalink was a problem for
the average commuter -- except as Chalo notes, there may be no
replacements in a few years.
>
> > I think the more problematic parts are hubs and headsets, which are
> > usually cheap on mid-priced bikes (because more money is spent on
> > higher visibility parts). Those can fail even with routine
> > commuting if they are misadjusted or misaligned or mis-designed,
> > which many are. BB's can fail too, but not usually because of axle
> > design but rather because of cheap bearings and seals.
>
> You're drifting. What has this to do with Octalink splines stripping?
Nothing, but then again the original thread was not about Octalink
splines stripping but was about the limited availability of Octalink
and, in general, Shimano's failure to support its groups. And since
when has absolute fidelity to the topic been a requirement for
responding to a post on this NG? Like never? -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 13:50:36
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
On May 11, 3:38 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Jay Beattie writes:
> > Mountain bike racing exposes bicycles to stresses never seen by the
> > average commuting bike. I doubt Octalink would be a problem for the
> > average commuter (assuming the BB was otherwise adequate design-
> > wise). My one Octalink BB equipped commuter is fine -- although I
> > broke the Ultegra crank arm. Keep in mind that square-tapered BB's
> > were claimed to be defective and a poor design (at least by JB), and
> > they are on zillions of commuter bikes.
>
> I think you, like Shimano, do not understand the failure mode of
> Octalink. It is not force and rough terrain, but merely standing on
> the pedals in a horizontal crank position, right foot forward. Those
> of us who rode cottered cranks experienced that effect long ago,
> although I'm sure few people recognized the symptom.
IMO, the fact that Octalink had a failure mode has little to do with
the Shimano decision to 'move on' to another design.
Simply put, Octalink suffered from no longer being !!!NEW!!!. Shimano
wanted to introduce a new proprietary design and would have done so
even if Octalink was as reliable as the sunrise.
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 21:41:08
From:
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
Ozark Bicycle writes:
>>> Mountain bike racing exposes bicycles to stresses never seen by the
>>> average commuting bike. I doubt Octalink would be a problem for the
>>> average commuter (assuming the BB was otherwise adequate design-
>>> wise). My one Octalink BB equipped commuter is fine -- although I
>>> broke the Ultegra crank arm. Keep in mind that square-tapered BB's
>>> were claimed to be defective and a poor design (at least by JB), and
>>> they are on zillions of commuter bikes.
>> I think you, like Shimano, do not understand the failure mode of
>> Octalink. It is not force and rough terrain, but merely standing on
>> the pedals in a horizontal crank position, right foot forward. Those
>> of us who rode cottered cranks experienced that effect long ago,
>> although I'm sure few people recognized the symptom.
> IMO, the fact that Octalink had a failure mode has little to do with
> the Shimano decision to 'move on' to another design.
> Simply put, Octalink suffered from no longer being !!!NEW!!!. Shimano
> wanted to introduce a new proprietary design and would have done so
> even if Octalink was as reliable as the sunrise.
If I understand correctly, you are in the bicycle business and see
customer failures, some of which are sent to the distributor for
replacement. When this number gets uncomfortably high and the word
gets around that these things fail, something gets done about it. V2
was the first step and dropping the concept was the second.
Your comment attempts to demonize Shimano, while instead, I am sure
the are not conniving enough to work that way. This is a competitive
business mainly between Shimano and Campagnolo and it isn't trivial.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 14:05:48
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: *WHY* is Octalink headed for the dustbin?
|
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1178916636.105011.278900@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 11, 3:38 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Jay Beattie writes:
>> > Mountain bike racing exposes bicycles to stresses never seen by the
>> > average commuting bike. I doubt Octalink would be a problem for the
>> > average commuter (assuming the BB was otherwise adequate design-
>> > wise). My one Octalink BB equipped commuter is fine -- although I
>> > broke the Ultegra crank arm. Keep in mind that square-tapered BB's
>> > were claimed to be defective and a poor design (at least by JB), and
>> > they are on zillions of commuter bikes.
>>
>> I think you, like Shimano, do not understand the failure mode of
>> Octalink. It is not force and rough terrain, but merely standing on
>> the pedals in a horizontal crank position, right foot forward. Those
>> of us who rode cottered cranks experienced that effect long ago,
>> although I'm sure few people recognized the symptom.
>
> IMO, the fact that Octalink had a failure mode has little to do with
> the Shimano decision to 'move on' to another design.
>
> Simply put, Octalink suffered from no longer being !!!NEW!!!. Shimano
> wanted to introduce a new proprietary design and would have done so
> even if Octalink was as reliable as the sunrise.
>
They would have eventually moved on but I don't think it would have been as
quick without the poor reliability.
Greg
--
Ticketbastard tax tracker:
http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 13:11:46
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> The bad experiment IMO is the internal headset. But for the recent
> spate of headset standards, frames have actually gotten more standard
> (no French/Swiss/Italian/English thread issues, standard derailleur
> hangers, etc.) and easier to work on. However, there may be a point
> when integrated/internal headsets are no longer supported, which will
> be an issue for people who actually keep their bikes for any length of
> time.
In that case, the remedy will come in the form of a simple sleeve
adapter-- but there is no such easy fix for Octalink when the BBs go
out of production.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 22:53:08
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Chalo wrote:
> In that case, the remedy will come in the form of a simple sleeve
> adapter-- but there is no such easy fix for Octalink when the BBs go
> out of production.
Why not, you could machine an adapter to convert octalink to square taper ;)
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 10:49:19
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On May 11, 10:38 am, Werehatrack <raul...@earthWEEDSlink.net > wrote:
> On 10 May 2007 22:12:37 GMT, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org may have
> said:
>
> >This has nothing to do with patents or other planning. When the user
> >base dwindles to an acceptably low level (units shipped) they get out
> >of the product and hope everyone forgets how it failed.
<big snips >
> Too true, and it demonstrates the existence of a corporate culture
> that has a fairly complete lack of regard for consumer durability.
> They don't consider the possibility that any substantial part of the
> market has a memory, and/or that buyers might become leery of
> proprietary nonstandard-interface kit *in general* as a result of
> getting burned by such bell-and-whistle-ism in the past. To Shimano,
> every bicycle purchaser is essentially a new, fresh face to be used
> once and thrown away, not a resource to be exploited gently so that it
> remains available to them when they need it again.
> If midrange bikes were suddenly being bought and ridden on a daily
> basis by very large numbers of people, nonstandard and failure-prone
> running gear would swiftly become anathema to the buyers as word
> spread of both the failure modes and the cost and delay involved in
> getting appropriate replacement parts.
>
> Octalink wouldn't have lasted six months if one twentieth of the US
> population commuted by bike; in fact, I suspect there would have been
> a special investigation and recall after the failures started to
> mount. But in racing, "things break" is a pseudo-truism that has
> excused all manner of bad engineering over the years.
Mountain bike racing exposes bicycles to stresses never seen by the
average commuting bike. I doubt Octalink would be a problem for the
average commuter (assuming the BB was otherwise adequate design-
wise). My one Octalink BB equipped commuter is fine -- although I
broke the Ultegra crank arm. Keep in mind that square-tapered BBs were
claimed to be defective and a poor design (at least by JB), and they
are on zillions of commuter bikes.
I think the more problematic parts are hubs and headsets, which are
usually cheap on mid-priced bikes (because more money is spent on
higher visibility parts). Those can fail even with routine commuting
if they are misadjusted or misaligned or mis-designed, which many
are. BBs can fail too, but not usually because of axle design but
rather because of cheap bearings and seals.
The bad experiment IMO is the internal headset. But for the recent
spate of headset standards, frames have actually gotten more standard
(no French/Swiss/Italian/English thread issues, standard derailleur
hangers, etc.) and easier to work on. However, there may be a point
when integrated/internal headsets are no longer supported, which will
be an issue for people who actually keep their bikes for any length of
time. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 20:38:38
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Jay Beattie writes:
> Mountain bike racing exposes bicycles to stresses never seen by the
> average commuting bike. I doubt Octalink would be a problem for the
> average commuter (assuming the BB was otherwise adequate design-
> wise). My one Octalink BB equipped commuter is fine -- although I
> broke the Ultegra crank arm. Keep in mind that square-tapered BB's
> were claimed to be defective and a poor design (at least by JB), and
> they are on zillions of commuter bikes.
I think you, like Shimano, do not understand the failure mode of
Octalink. It is not force and rough terrain, but merely standing on
the pedals in a horizontal crank position, right foot forward. Those
of us who rode cottered cranks experienced that effect long ago,
although I'm sure few people recognized the symptom.
> I think the more problematic parts are hubs and headsets, which are
> usually cheap on mid-priced bikes (because more money is spent on
> higher visibility parts). Those can fail even with routine
> commuting if they are misadjusted or misaligned or mis-designed,
> which many are. BB's can fail too, but not usually because of axle
> design but rather because of cheap bearings and seals.
You're drifting. What has this to do with Octalink splines stripping?
> The bad experiment IMO is the internal headset. But for the recent
> spate of headset standards, frames have actually gotten more
> standard (no French/Swiss/Italian/English thread issues, standard
> derailleur hangers, etc.) and easier to work on. However, there may
> be a point when integrated/internal headsets are no longer
> supported, which will be an issue for people who actually keep their
> bikes for any length of time.
The drift is increasing!
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2007 23:02:03
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Dans le message de news:4644d44e$0$14119$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > a
réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Jay Beattie writes:
>
>> Mountain bike racing exposes bicycles to stresses never seen by the
>> average commuting bike. I doubt Octalink would be a problem for the
>> average commuter (assuming the BB was otherwise adequate design-
>> wise). My one Octalink BB equipped commuter is fine -- although I
>> broke the Ultegra crank arm. Keep in mind that square-tapered BB's
>> were claimed to be defective and a poor design (at least by JB), and
>> they are on zillions of commuter bikes.
>
> I think you, like Shimano, do not understand the failure mode of
> Octalink. It is not force and rough terrain, but merely standing on
> the pedals in a horizontal crank position, right foot forward. Those
> of us who rode cottered cranks experienced that effect long ago,
> although I'm sure few people recognized the symptom.
>
>> I think the more problematic parts are hubs and headsets, which are
>> usually cheap on mid-priced bikes (because more money is spent on
>> higher visibility parts). Those can fail even with routine
>> commuting if they are misadjusted or misaligned or mis-designed,
>> which many are. BB's can fail too, but not usually because of axle
>> design but rather because of cheap bearings and seals.
>
> You're drifting. What has this to do with Octalink splines stripping?
>
>> The bad experiment IMO is the internal headset. But for the recent
>> spate of headset standards, frames have actually gotten more
>> standard (no French/Swiss/Italian/English thread issues, standard
>> derailleur hangers, etc.) and easier to work on. However, there may
>> be a point when integrated/internal headsets are no longer
>> supported, which will be an issue for people who actually keep their
>> bikes for any length of time.
>
> The drift is increasing!
>
> Jobst Brandt
You can't possibly be like this - or am I wrong ? The thread seems to be
one parallel to another about Shimano and the abandonment of small parts
support over the years (or not, depending on your viewpoint).
So, this "drift" is the natural extension of a conversation. Or did you
think it being May, it's time for final exams ? Loosen up. You have
nothing new to say, anyway.
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 07:28:34
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On May 11, 1:00 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> AX pedals were an innovation?
>
> Pshaw!
>
> Shimano merely copied Ramsey's $5 Swinging Pedal of 1898...
_The Data Book_, or _100 Years of Bicycle Component and Accessory
Design_ is a great browse for anyone interested in bike design or bike
history. Tons of beautiful Daniel Rebour (sp?) pen-and-ink drawings,
plus other artwork, showing every conceivable detail of hundreds of
historic bike inventions.
Great inspiration.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 07:22:05
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On May 10, 6:12 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> As explained, Octalink V1 and V2 were
> a misunderstanding of the failure mode.
>
> Rotational elastic backlash is not part of their experience so they
> were unaware that goofy-footed riders would unscrew the retaining bolt
> allowing the crank to shear off the end of spline still in engagement
> as it backed out. Standing goofy-footed is the only time the crank
> spindle transmits reverse torque, something that ekes back and forth
> with each recurrence. Shimano thought the splines were too weak so
> they made them deeper in V2 never understanding the V1 failure mode
> that remains regardless of spline engagement depth.
Wouldn't a company as big as Shimano have beta testers, besides a few
racers? Even computer software companies, as bad as they are, have
beta testers to subject their product to the whims of the untrained.
If I were an unwilling member of Shimano's Consumer Test Team (i.e.
their customers for new gizmos), I'd expect to be paid for my
trouble. Especially if the gizmo failed.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 20:25:32
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Frank Krygowski writes:
>> As explained, Octalink V1 and V2 were a misunderstanding of the
>> failure mode.
>> Rotational elastic backlash is not part of their experience so they
>> were unaware that goofy-footed riders would unscrew the retaining
>> bolt allowing the crank to shear off the end of spline still in
>> engagement as it backed out. Standing goofy-footed is the only
>> time the crank spindle transmits reverse torque, something that
>> ekes back and forth with each recurrence. Shimano thought the
>> splines were too weak so they made them deeper in V2, never
>> understanding the V1 failure mode that remains regardless of spline
>> engagement depth.
> Wouldn't a company as big as Shimano have beta testers, besides a
> few racers? Even computer software companies, as bad as they are,
> have beta testers to subject their product to the whims of the
> untrained.
This is the bicycle industry, not Google! As you see, they did not
understand the Octalink mechanism of failure as their V2 demonstrates.
Similarly wheel building machine companies could not recognize that
they got a bad name from their loosely spoked wheels even though I
have been badgering them to make a simple modification that would
allow full tension required to keep wheels in true. After badgering
them for years on this, last year Holland Mechanics invited me to
their stand to go over the method once more.
The same goes for BB design and pedal attachment among other faux pas.
> If I were an unwilling member of Shimano's Consumer Test Team (i.e.
> their customers for new gizmos), I'd expect to be paid for my
> trouble. Especially if the gizmo failed.
They don't have such a team, or at least not one that puts the product
to valid tests. Better yet would be to hire engineers with an
understanding of machine applications as well as experience with
failures.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 11:43:06
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On 11 May 2007 07:22:05 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com may have said:
>Wouldn't a company as big as Shimano have beta testers, besides a few
>racers? Even computer software companies, as bad as they are, have
>beta testers to subject their product to the whims of the untrained.
Think of Shimano today as the Microsoft (ca. 1995) of cycling, and
Octalink's problems and history become easily understood.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2007 05:44:40
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On May 10, 6:55 am, M-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>
>
> > ?? Ya think somebody bought a shimano or other 130mm BCD crank for
> > their otherwise Campagnolo gruppo because of 135mm?? When there are a
> > bunch of Campag and other CRs out there in 135mm??
>
> > Doubt it myself. 135 CRs are not exactly hard to find, never have
> > been. If your LBS or favorite MO place doesn't have them, they are
> > being lazy. Same with a lot of things, like 36h rims and hubs.
>
> nothing to do with being lazy, everything to do with not accepting
> another stupid standard with no benefit to the consumer. I would happily
> have substituted octalink stuff with a square taper Campy crankset but
> for the oddball chainrings. Nor do I see a point in fitting 'Escape'
> gruppo's when I can order the original from Shimano ;)
>
> --
> ---
> Marten Gerritsen
>
> INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNLwww.m-gineering.nl
If you think Record or Chorus 'escape' is something unique when
compared to 2006 stuff, you need to do some research.
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 23:06:31
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> If you think Record or Chorus 'escape' is something unique when
> compared to 2006 stuff, you need to do some research.
>
probably, as my literature limits Escape to xenon, mirage, veloce & centaur
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 18:36:39
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Jobst Brandt wrote:
>
> ChaloColina writes:
> >
> > The experience will not be wasted if you (and others) remember it
> > the next time you make a major bike or component purchase. Shimano
> > will continue to hand out such lessons-- see the latest "Coasting"
> > group-- until consumers take heed and stop buying into their planned
> > obsolescence.
>
> This reeks of conspiracy theory. These folks do not see any advantage
> in a product that will soon be found wanting. They do the best they
> can and when competition and mechanical failures start catching up
> with their design, the try something else.
...
> This has nothing to do with patents or other planning. When the user
> base dwindles to an acceptably low level (units shipped) they get out
> of the product and hope everyone forgets how it failed.
I don't suggest that the plan to leave customers out in the cold, but
I do suggest that they plan to constantly introduce proprietary
standards *because they are proprietary*, and for no other reason. If
you can review the market history of Shimano and conclude otherwise, I
suggest that you just aren't looking very hard.
Introducing, and then abandoning, proprietary standards inevitably
leads to consumers being cheated of product support. Right now the
story is unfolding with Octalink, but it could just as well be about
Positron, or 10mm pitch chain and sprockets, or 2mm brake cables.
Auto-D, Coasting, and the peculiar axle-mounted Saint derailleur (to
name a few) are on the slate for the same treatment in the future.
>From the consumer standpoint, I don't think it really matters whether
they are planning to screw you, or instead they just adopt a marketing
approach that consistently screws you as a side effect. The correct
strategy for dealing with it is the same: don't buy Shimano's crap.
I understand that you just finally decided to update your rear wheels
to cassette after, what, 300,000 miles? You were able to do that
distance because for all that time you could get decent cones and
other small parts for your hubs. If instead you had bought Shimano
hubs those many years ago, the wheels you are just now retiring would
be a dim and distant memory, long since cast aside for lack of quality
replacement parts.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2007 04:07:17
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
In article <1178847399.496414.171300@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
> Jobst Brandt wrote:
> >
> > ChaloColina writes:
> > >
> > > The experience will not be wasted if you (and others) remember it
> > > the next time you make a major bike or component purchase. Shimano
> > > will continue to hand out such lessons-- see the latest "Coasting"
> > > group-- until consumers take heed and stop buying into their planned
> > > obsolescence.
> >
> > This reeks of conspiracy theory. These folks do not see any advantage
> > in a product that will soon be found wanting. They do the best they
> > can and when competition and mechanical failures start catching up
> > with their design, the try something else.
> ...
> > This has nothing to do with patents or other planning. When the user
> > base dwindles to an acceptably low level (units shipped) they get out
> > of the product and hope everyone forgets how it failed.
>
> I don't suggest that the plan to leave customers out in the cold, but
> I do suggest that they plan to constantly introduce proprietary
> standards *because they are proprietary*, and for no other reason. If
> you can review the market history of Shimano and conclude otherwise, I
> suggest that you just aren't looking very hard.
>
> Introducing, and then abandoning, proprietary standards inevitably
> leads to consumers being cheated of product support. Right now the
> story is unfolding with Octalink, but it could just as well be about
> Positron, or 10mm pitch chain and sprockets, or 2mm brake cables.
> Auto-D, Coasting, and the peculiar axle-mounted Saint derailleur (to
> name a few) are on the slate for the same treatment in the future.
I posted here a little while ago about how and why I think Shimano
innovates. It ends up that a lot of their big ideas go over badly and
end up in remainder bins fast (AX pedal eyes, we hardly new ye...).
But that's overshadowed by their big ideas which have ended up more or
less owning the marketplace. And frequently it's not so much that
Shimano comes up with the idea, as that they get it right (SIS versus
Positron versus a few other proto-indexing systems, STI brifters, and
others).
Given this, Shimano is pretty focused on throwing a lot of new ideas at
the marketplace. I mean, for example, we can all say Coasting is good,
Coasting is bad, but what it comes down to is whether any bike buyers
actually want it.
Right now, nobody knows. Well, maybe the manufacturers are now seeing
early sales numbers and order requests come in.
It is also worth noting the difference between the degrees of orphanage
from part to part. AX cranks aren't maximally orphaned, because a simple
adapter turns them into standard cranks (AX pedals, very orphaned...).
10 mm pitch chain is so abandoned that the entire drivetrain is
essentially a non-maintainable curiosity (eBay those fresh chains early
and often, kids). But something like Octalink (which is NOT orphaned at
this point...) is at worst about the replacement of either the crank or
the BB when the other fails, and knowing Shimano, the BBs will be
available for some time after the last Octalink crank exits the catalog
(which has NOT happened yet).
Octalink is an interesting study, too: it was a response to a
widely-acknowledged problem, which you know as well as anyone. It was a
bad solution, like the cupholders in a VW New Beetle (sorry, I shouldn't
start...). So they tried to fix it with v2. Which also didn't work.
At this point, one may question the quality of the engineers quite
fairly. And you've pointed out there's a strong smell of not wanting to
pay money to Bullseye et al for their patents (let's not contemplate the
continuing situation where Shimano does not make threadless headsets,
which seems to be of a similar nature).
But they tried again. And it looks like Hollowtech II is in with a
chance.
Meanwhile, the rest of the cycling world tried to solve the same
problem. They came up with ISIS, which had grave bearing issues. The
remaining ISIS makers all claim to have worked around those problems
(some by putting in four bearings, others by, well, claiming their
bearings are really good...), but most just went and developed their own
external-bearing designs.
Of course, the irony is that this panoply of wacky BBs came about
because, as you and I agree, component makers were unwilling to just
come out and declare the current BB shell standards obsolete (except
maybe BMX, which could be our new BB to end all BBs), though that would
effectively orphan...virtually every road bike ever made!
> >From the consumer standpoint, I don't think it really matters whether
> they are planning to screw you, or instead they just adopt a marketing
> approach that consistently screws you as a side effect. The correct
> strategy for dealing with it is the same: don't buy Shimano's crap.
One of the reasons Shimano gets a lot of crap for this is because they
have had the temerity to survive their bad ideas. Nobody will sell you
an Accushift I cassette, shifter, or derailer. Parts for your
Browning-licensed Suntour drivetrain may be found from the same number
of suppliers. Small parts for Mektronic and Zap shifters are hard to
come by.
The number of component companies that were born, had one bad idea, and
died is enough to fill an Interbike show.
There's some merit to the idea that sensible, conservative parts junkies
(er...) will wait a few years to discover what works and what doesn't.
Full disclosure: I ride an Octalink-equipped bike, my racer. I do so
because I got a Dura Ace crank and most of an Ultegra (9-speed)
drivetrain (including BB) for $100, and thus am sanguine about the
matter of replacing either the crank, BB, or both.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2007 08:10:37
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> the BBs will be
> available for some time after the last Octalink crank exits the catalog
> (which has NOT happened yet).
Only octalink2's now (ie the long cast crank spline)
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
|
| | | |
Date: 10 May 2007 23:00:30
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On Fri, 11 May 2007 04:07:17 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca >
wrote:
[snip]
>I posted here a little while ago about how and why I think Shimano
>innovates. It ends up that a lot of their big ideas go over badly and
>end up in remainder bins fast (AX pedal eyes, we hardly new ye...).
[snip]
Dear Ryan,
AX pedals were an innovation?
Pshaw!
Shimano merely copied Ramsey's $5 Swinging Pedal of 1898:
"Ramsey’s Swinging Pedal is one of the decided novelties for 1898,
designed primarily to add to the ease of controlling a bicycle through
its driving mechanism, to render it less difficult than formerly to
catch a slipped pedal, and to allow the freest ankle motion. In
action, it transmits automatically, in conformity with the arc of the
circle described by the pedals, the applied power of the rider, thus
maintaining the full leverage of the crank over an increased arc of
that circle, converting the straight push into an improved and
automatic ankle motion. It is claimed to entirely obviate the 'dead
center,' thus avoiding the hammer blow and back lash of the chain,
developing more propelling power than can be obtained by the best
ankle motion with the ordinary pedals. The pick-up of a Ramsey pedal
is instantaneous, and momentum is gained at once; the pedal is always
right side up, and consequently the toe-clip is always ready for the
foot. With so little depth of pedal beneath the foot, the rider is
enabled to sit nearer the ground without decreasing the distance
between the ground and the pedal. Manufactured by the Ramsey Swinging
Pedal Company, Philadelphia, Pa."
Price, $5.00.
See the illustration on bottom right of page 104 and read the rest of
Interbike 1898 for more exciting innovations . . .
New gears tested to run well even when smeared with sand:
"The Victor straight-line sprocket, illustrated and described in
Outing for January, has since been proven in practical service, as
well as in the laboratory, to possess a very high efficiency, the
tests at Cornell University in February showing a propelling
efficiency of 98.1 per cent. of the power applied to the pedals. The
diagram of these tests showed that the Victor gear, when smeared with
wet sand, ran practically as evenly as a perfectly clean chain of the
ordinary type. This gear is perhaps the most notable departure in the
driving mechanism of the new models, aside from the chainless
patterns."
Cork belts in tires, forerunner of Kevlar belts!
"This tire has a crescent-shaped strip of solid cork between the inner
tube and the outside tube, all of which are vulcanized together in the
process of making the tire. The vulnerable tread is narrowed by means
of the crescent-shaped strip of cork and is fortified internally by
the cork. Thus the trick is done, not theoretically, but practically
and actually. Every conceivable test of non-puncturability on the road
has been applied to 'the Corker' tire, and they have come through not
only successfully, but triumphantly."
Bailey's Won't-Slip Tire fights dreaded road suction with its tread
pattern!
"As the rubber teeth form a cushion to the tire, it passes easily over
uneven surfaces, while the method of construction gives an air space
between the road surface and the tire, destroying any possible suction
between them."
Wooden-armor tires!
"The puncture-proof quality of the Dreadnought tire, the product of
the Dreadnought Tire Co., of New York, is due to an articulated tread
band of wood lying between the inner and outer surfaces, with rubber
and fabric on either this effect be produced nor will the tire drag or
creep. The protector prevents cutting on the rim, and, while not proof
against sharp knives or other wilful injury, is proved by abundant
tests to afford a practically safe guarantee against nails, thorns,
glass, and the common objects of punctures."
Puncture-proof tire manufacturers admit a certain sluggishness!
"'Vim Cactus' is designed to be practically puncture-proof, though at
a frankly acknowledged slight loss of speed and elasticity."
Tire pumps that produce a staggering 35 psi for only 65 cents!
"The Vimair pump lists at 65 cents, and is especially designed for
the easy inflation of Vim tires. To inflate a tire to 35 pounds riding
pressure, requires a pressure on the handle of the Vimair pump of less
than 20 pounds, while the common floorpump requires several times that
pressure. At 35 pounds riding pressure the resistance to inflation is,
of course, 35 pounds to each square inch of area on the plugger, yet
this area in the Vimair pump is but 518/1000 of one square inch."
[Who can doubt a pump with such precise statistics?]
Plus other hot new tires, improved bells, better seats, superb lights,
and other innovations!
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_32/outXXXII01/outXXXII01ze.pdf
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 19:38:30
From: John Dacey
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
" In causa facili cuivis licet esse diserto". - Ovid
On Thu, 10 May 2007 23:00:30 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>Thus the trick is done, not theoretically, but practically
>and actually. Every conceivable test of non-puncturability on the road
>has been applied to 'the Corker' tire, and they have come through not
>only successfully, but triumphantly."
Could this be from where the expression "it's a corker!" springs?
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
Phone: 305-273-4440
http://www.businesscycles.com
-------------------------------
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 21:52:24
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On Sat, 12 May 2007 19:38:30 -0400, John Dacey
<jdacey@businesscycles.com > wrote:
>" In causa facili cuivis licet esse diserto". - Ovid
>
>On Thu, 10 May 2007 23:00:30 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>Thus the trick is done, not theoretically, but practically
>>and actually. Every conceivable test of non-puncturability on the road
>>has been applied to 'the Corker' tire, and they have come through not
>>only successfully, but triumphantly."
>
>Could this be from where the expression "it's a corker!" springs?
>-------------------------------
>John Dacey
>Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
>Since 1983
>Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
>Phone: 305-273-4440
>http://www.businesscycles.com
>-------------------------------
Dear John,
Alas, a nice idea, but unlikely for several reasons.
First, the Corker Tire was so little known that it wouldn't have been
used in slang. Since it vanished, it wasn't apparently that wonderful
a tire, despite "Outing" magazine's breathless endorsement.
Second, both the Random House and Oxford dictionaries of slang offer
simpler explanations for the phrase.
Third, the phrase "it's a corker" first appeared in 1891, seven years
before the desciption in "Outing" magazine.
"a corker": an excellent person or thing; something that closes a
discussion, from the notion of putting a cork in it.
--Oxford Dictionary of Slang
Discussion of same sort of thing from Random House:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/270.html
The end of the discussion pushes "corker" back to 1882-1889.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 11:05:36
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> The 130mm BCD was pretty well established for 'road' cranks
> when Campy made the switch from their old, ca. 1968, 144mm BCD. But
> instead of adopting an emerging standard, they 'invented' a new, 135mm
> BCD. To what end?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_syndrome
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 09:49:34
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On May 10, 7:55 am, M-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>
>
> > ?? Ya think somebody bought a shimano or other 130mm BCD crank for
> > their otherwise Campagnolo gruppo because of 135mm?? When there are a
> > bunch of Campag and other CRs out there in 135mm??
>
> > Doubt it myself. 135 CRs are not exactly hard to find, never have
> > been. If your LBS or favorite MO place doesn't have them, they are
> > being lazy. Same with a lot of things, like 36h rims and hubs.
>
> nothing to do with being lazy, everything to do with not accepting
> another stupid standard with no benefit to the consumer.
Exactly! The 130mm BCD was pretty well established for 'road' cranks
when Campy made the switch from their old, ca. 1968, 144mm BCD. But
instead of adopting an emerging standard, they 'invented' a new, 135mm
BCD. To what end?
>I would happily
> have substituted octalink stuff with a square taper Campy crankset but
> for the oddball chainrings. Nor do I see a point in fitting 'Escape'
> gruppo's when I can order the original from Shimano ;)
>
> --
> ---
> Marten Gerritsen
>
> INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNLwww.m-gineering.nl
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 05:16:14
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On May 10, 5:31 am, M-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl > wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > I quite agree, but I wonder how many buyers (as a percentage) made a
> > concious decision to buy an Octalink BB (other than as a replacement)
> > v. the multitude that were more or less 'force fed' Octalink on a new
> > bike purchase.
>
> And I wonder how many sales Campagnolo missed for insisting on their own
> 135mm BCD chainrings
>
> --
> ---
> Marten Gerritsen
>
> INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNLwww.m-gineering.nl
?? Ya think somebody bought a shimano or other 130mm BCD crank for
their otherwise Campagnolo gruppo because of 135mm?? When there are a
bunch of Campag and other CRs out there in 135mm??
Doubt it myself. 135 CRs are not exactly hard to find, never have
been. If your LBS or favorite MO place doesn't have them, they are
being lazy. Same with a lot of things, like 36h rims and hubs.
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 14:55:07
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> ?? Ya think somebody bought a shimano or other 130mm BCD crank for
> their otherwise Campagnolo gruppo because of 135mm?? When there are a
> bunch of Campag and other CRs out there in 135mm??
>
> Doubt it myself. 135 CRs are not exactly hard to find, never have
> been. If your LBS or favorite MO place doesn't have them, they are
> being lazy. Same with a lot of things, like 36h rims and hubs.
>
nothing to do with being lazy, everything to do with not accepting
another stupid standard with no benefit to the consumer. I would happily
have substituted octalink stuff with a square taper Campy crankset but
for the oddball chainrings. Nor do I see a point in fitting 'Escape'
gruppo's when I can order the original from Shimano ;)
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 04:46:09
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On May 10, 6:31 am, M-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl > wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > I quite agree, but I wonder how many buyers (as a percentage) made a
> > concious decision to buy an Octalink BB (other than as a replacement)
> > v. the multitude that were more or less 'force fed' Octalink on a new
> > bike purchase.
>
> And I wonder how many sales Campagnolo missed for insisting on their own
> 135mm BCD chainrings
>
Quite a large number, IMO. Personally, I would *never* buy a Campy
crank for this very reason.
|
| |
Date: 10 May 2007 04:27:48
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On May 9, 6:22 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Donald Gillies wrote:
>
> > Shimano is not known for providing spare parts support.
>
> > Octalink V1/V2 was clearly an 8-year experiment for Shimano.
>
> > How much longer before Shimano stops offering Octalink V2 cartridges
> > ?? Will they give up completley once the patents expire?
>
> Ha ha!
>
> The experience will not be wasted if you (and others) remember it the
> next time you make a major bike or component purchase. Shimano will
> continue to hand out such lessons-- see the latest "Coasting" group--
> until consumers take heed and stop buying into their planned
> obsolescence.
>
I quite agree, but I wonder how many buyers (as a percentage) made a
concious decision to buy an Octalink BB (other than as a replacement)
v. the multitude that were more or less 'force fed' Octalink on a new
bike purchase.
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 13:31:59
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> I quite agree, but I wonder how many buyers (as a percentage) made a
> concious decision to buy an Octalink BB (other than as a replacement)
> v. the multitude that were more or less 'force fed' Octalink on a new
> bike purchase.
>
And I wonder how many sales Campagnolo missed for insisting on their own
135mm BCD chainrings
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
|
| | | |
Date: 10 May 2007 10:38:18
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> I quite agree, but I wonder how many buyers (as a percentage) made a
>> concious decision to buy an Octalink BB (other than as a replacement)
>> v. the multitude that were more or less 'force fed' Octalink on a new
>> bike purchase.
M-gineering wrote:
> And I wonder how many sales Campagnolo missed for insisting on their own
> 135mm BCD chainrings
Hmmm. How often do you change gearing on your bikes? I've reformatted
rarely.
If I planned to switch rings often I'd get a Campagnolo 110mm crank.
110mm has the broadest support of any.
[my latest crank change was to dump a TA 3-pin profesionnel 46t and
mount that same ring on a Magistroni steel crank]
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 May 2007 19:08:42
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
A Muzi wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> I quite agree, but I wonder how many buyers (as a percentage) made a
>>> concious decision to buy an Octalink BB (other than as a replacement)
>>> v. the multitude that were more or less 'force fed' Octalink on a new
>>> bike purchase.
>
> M-gineering wrote:
>> And I wonder how many sales Campagnolo missed for insisting on their
>> own 135mm BCD chainrings
>
> Hmmm. How often do you change gearing on your bikes? I've reformatted
> rarely.
If I sell something I want to support it, and I can do without another
bunch of rings taking up space and money.
Substituting rings (42 for 39's , smaller rings for youth categories, is
common.
> If I planned to switch rings often I'd get a Campagnolo 110mm crank.
> 110mm has the broadest support of any.
But Campa has managed to screw that one up as well!
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2007 23:40:20
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
> Shimano is not known for providing spare parts support.
Why does this come up so often? Where is the evidence to support it?
Shimano may in fact not have all manner of choices to support older
component groups, but rarely have they put people in a bind with no choices
at all. For example, you can still get a wide selection of gearing options
in 7 & 8-speed cassettes, although you're not going to get a Dura-Ace option
any more; you might have to settle for Ultegra or '105 etc.
Shimano will sometimes even create new parts for older groups to solve
problems, such as a more-reliable version of 8-speed STI lever.
There will always be exceptions if you look hard enough, but that's not the
norm. In all likelihood, you'll be able to get Octalink cartridge BBs for
some time to come. Maybe you'll have to settle for LX instead of XT quality,
but it's unlikely you'll be orphaned.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Donald Gillies" <gillies@cs.ubc.ca > wrote in message
news:f1tju1$dfg$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca...
> Shimano is not known for providing spare parts support.
>
> Octalink V1/V2 was clearly an 8-year experiment for Shimano.
>
> How much longer before Shimano stops offering Octalink V2 cartridges
> ?? Will they give up completley once the patents expire?
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 07:04:12
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Shimano is not known for providing spare parts support.
>
>
> Why does this come up so often? Where is the evidence to support it?
>
> Shimano may in fact not have all manner of choices to support older
> component groups, but rarely have they put people in a bind with no choices
> at all. For example, you can still get a wide selection of gearing options
> in 7 & 8-speed cassettes, although you're not going to get a Dura-Ace option
> any more; you might have to settle for Ultegra or '105 etc.
>
> Shimano will sometimes even create new parts for older groups to solve
> problems, such as a more-reliable version of 8-speed STI lever.
>
> There will always be exceptions if you look hard enough, but that's not the
> norm. In all likelihood, you'll be able to get Octalink cartridge BBs for
> some time to come. Maybe you'll have to settle for LX instead of XT quality,
> but it's unlikely you'll be orphaned.
>
103mm square axle for Dura Ace cranksets? Not supplied by Shimano
anymore, so about 15 years?
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
|
| | | |
Date: 10 May 2007 11:48:44
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
> 103mm square axle for Dura Ace cranksets? Not supplied by Shimano anymore,
> so about 15 years?
I'm scratching my head on that one. Which version DuraAce crankset was that?
Are we talking 7-speed? If so, that falls into another black hole- the
7-speed (I think) cassettes that had a threaded first cog. But I believe
we're talking pre-1990. In any event, you could still order a Phil BB for
it, and possibly one of the 107s would work if the extra spacing were on the
left side, but not so sure about that.
It's certainly an unusual scenario, and not one I'm going to lose too much
sleep over. Just as I'm not blaming Campy that I can't get a bottom bracket
anymore for my Nuovo Record crankset (although admittedly that goes back
quite a bit further back in time!).
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"M-gineering" <ikmotgeenspam@m-gineering.nl > wrote in message
news:f1u93h$f30$1@localhost.localdomain...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Shimano is not known for providing spare parts support.
>>
>>
>> Why does this come up so often? Where is the evidence to support it?
>>
>> Shimano may in fact not have all manner of choices to support older
>> component groups, but rarely have they put people in a bind with no
>> choices at all. For example, you can still get a wide selection of
>> gearing options in 7 & 8-speed cassettes, although you're not going to
>> get a Dura-Ace option any more; you might have to settle for Ultegra or
>> '105 etc.
>>
>> Shimano will sometimes even create new parts for older groups to solve
>> problems, such as a more-reliable version of 8-speed STI lever.
>>
>> There will always be exceptions if you look hard enough, but that's not
>> the norm. In all likelihood, you'll be able to get Octalink cartridge BBs
>> for some time to come. Maybe you'll have to settle for LX instead of XT
>> quality, but it's unlikely you'll be orphaned.
>>
>
> 103mm square axle for Dura Ace cranksets? Not supplied by Shimano anymore,
> so about 15 years?
> --
> ---
> Marten Gerritsen
>
> INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
> www.m-gineering.nl
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 May 2007 18:36:31
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:48:44 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
>> 103mm square axle for Dura Ace cranksets? Not supplied by Shimano anymore,
>> so about 15 years?
>
>I'm scratching my head on that one. Which version DuraAce crankset was that?
"8-speed" I think. Nice product, shame about the BB availablity. One
of Shimano's errors.
Very low res shot here on the red bike
http://www.jt10000.com/team/tgal/orc00m6.htm
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 May 2007 21:01:06
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> 103mm square axle for Dura Ace cranksets? Not supplied by Shimano anymore,
>> so about 15 years?
>
> I'm scratching my head on that one. Which version DuraAce crankset was that?
7400, 8 speed
> Are we talking 7-speed? If so, that falls into another black hole- the
> 7-speed (I think) cassettes that had a threaded first cog.
You can file HG's to replace splined UG's,
But I believe
> we're talking pre-1990. In any event, you could still order a Phil BB for
> it,
$140 ex tax, shipping, customs...... You could buy a bike for that! I'm
glad there are some easier options ;)
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
|
| | |
Date: 09 May 2007 21:00:16
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On Wed, 09 May 2007 23:40:20 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
>> Shimano is not known for providing spare parts support.
>
>
>Why does this come up so often? Where is the evidence to support it?
The evidence is people repeating it over and over again, regardless of
reality.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2007 16:22:41
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Donald Gillies wrote:
>
> Shimano is not known for providing spare parts support.
>
> Octalink V1/V2 was clearly an 8-year experiment for Shimano.
>
> How much longer before Shimano stops offering Octalink V2 cartridges
> ?? Will they give up completley once the patents expire?
Ha ha!
The experience will not be wasted if you (and others) remember it the
next time you make a major bike or component purchase. Shimano will
continue to hand out such lessons-- see the latest "Coasting" group--
until consumers take heed and stop buying into their planned
obsolescence.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 10 May 2007 22:12:37
From:
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
Chalo Colina writes:
>> Shimano is not known for providing spare parts support.
>> Octalink V1/V2 was clearly an 8-year experiment for Shimano.
>> How much longer before Shimano stops offering Octalink V2
>> cartridges? Will they give up completely once the patents expire?
> Ha ha!
> The experience will not be wasted if you (and others) remember it
> the next time you make a major bike or component purchase. Shimano
> will continue to hand out such lessons-- see the latest "Coasting"
> group-- until consumers take heed and stop buying into their planned
> obsolescence.
This reeks of conspiracy theory. These folks do not see any advantage
in a product that will soon be found wanting. They do the best they
can and when competition and mechanical failures start catching up
with their design, the try something else. I suspect they have
several designs competing to be the front runner so there is something
in the wings when plan-A fails. As explained, Octalink V1 and V2 were
a misunderstanding of the failure mode.
Rotational elastic backlash is not part of their experience so they
were unaware that goofy-footed riders would unscrew the retaining bolt
allowing the crank to shear off the end of spline still in engagement
as it backed out. Standing goofy-footed is the only time the crank
spindle transmits reverse torque, something that ekes back and forth
with each recurrence. Shimano thought the splines were too weak so
they made them deeper in V2 never understanding the V1 failure mode
that remains regardless of spline engagement depth.
This has nothing to do with patents or other planning. When the user
base dwindles to an acceptably low level (units shipped) they get out
of the product and hope everyone forgets how it failed.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2007 11:38:55
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: How long before Octalink V2 is orphaned?
|
On 10 May 2007 22:12:37 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org may have
said:
>This has nothing to do with patents or other planning. When the user
>base dwindles to an acceptably low level (units shipped) they get out
>of the product and hope everyone forgets how it failed.
Too true, and it demonstrates the existence of a corporate culture
that has a fairly complete lack of regard for consumer durability.
They don't consider the possibility that any substantial part of the
market has a memory, and/or that buyers might become leery of
proprietary nonstandard-interface kit *in general* as a result of
getting burned by such bell-and-whistle-ism in the past. To Shimano,
every bicycle purchaser is essentially a new, fresh face to be used
once and thrown away, not a resource to be exploited gently so that it
remains available to them when they need it again.
Unfortunately, their substantial dominance of the marketplace has let
them get away with having such a corporate culture for far too long,
and the bicycle market is (at present) still too small at the upper
levels to bring commodity-attitude engineering imperatives to the
performance-level industry, as has taken place with personal
computers.
Fifteen years ago, nearly every "name brand" PC was made with quirky
"our stuff is intentionally nonstandard" misfeatures which were
(according to several people I knew at Compaq back then) designed to
channel the consumer into buying everything they needed, preinstalled,
from a single source at the time of major unit purchase[1]. They
didn't want to have to deal with people who would be fiddling with
their system, upgrading and improving it a bit at a time, since that
was likely to increase the cost of tech support, and they didn't want
to leave the door open to people avoiding another system purchase via
the simple expedient of upgrading the old one down the road if that
could be foreclosed by a few configuration tweaks. Unfortunately for
them, consumers quickly caught on to this, and even major
corporate-account buyers started demanding that the products *not* use
configurations and interfaces that precluded the use of
alternate-source service replacement parts. (This only applies to
desktop PCs, of course; there is essentially no such thing as a
"generic" notebook or laptop, for reasons obvious to those who design
and build them.)
If midrange bikes were suddenly being bought and ridden on a daily
basis by very large numbers of people, nonstandard and failure-prone
running gear would swiftly become anathema to the buyers as word
spread of both the failure modes and the cost and delay involved in
getting appropriate replacement parts.
Octalink wouldn't have lasted six months if one twentieth of the US
population commuted by bike; in fact, I suspect there would have been
a special investigation and recall after the failures started to
mount. But in racing, "things break" is a pseudo-truism that has
excused all manner of bad engineering over the years.
----
[1] This was not the only reason for proprietary-design misfeatures.
There was also a perception that their units *must* be made different
from the competitors in an uncopyable manner as a way to avoid being
labelled as "just another computer". Introducing factually pointless
patentable design changes became a managerially-directed primary goal
in the design process as a result. When the more generically-oriented
competitors began gaining ground on the proprietary-design adherents
due to their greater field servicability, the urge to make things
nonstandard became muted...but it never completely died out.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
|
|
