scheelt het nu echt veel in stijfheid?Is het merkbaar?
Ik rij xc .
octalink/taperlock
Moderator:Beheerders
Re:octalink/taperlock
Het schijnt te schelen, ik merk het niet (ook xc)
Re:octalink/taperlock
Maakt niet veel uit, vooral als je een shimano octalink en een oerdegelijke 4kante RF Taperlock tegenover elkaar zet. Misschien dat het bij zwaardere mensen wel scheelt, maar ik voel er niet veel van. Wat wél is dat er snel speling op de Octalink / ISIS assen zit.
Wel is het zo dat Octalink beter is als ISIS.
Waarom?
Even een qoute-je zoeken:
(C) Divve @ mtb.nl
Might be of interest....by Clary on MTBr
"ISIS vs. Octalink"
1-In ISIS, the taper is defeated with the crank stop. The ISIS group tried to get too fancy here by trying to fix the chainline. Tapers are used to auto correct wear (aluminium is much softer than steel, so both do not wear evenly), temperature changes (steel spindle {11.3 ppm/° C} has half the thermal expansion of the aluminium crank {23.2 ppm/° C}), deviation from manufacturing tolerance and to provide a tighter fit than without taper. With the crank stop, if there is any hint of wear, temperature changes and deviation from manufacturing tolerance, mating fails.
In Octalink, the taper maintains a tight fit since wear, temperature changes and deviation from manufacturing tolerance are controlled by the taper.
2-In ISIS, the 3mm sweep out is defeated by the crank stop when wear, temperature changes and deviation from manufacturing tolerance is present.
3-In ISIS, with it"s straight spindle, the spindle diameter at the bearings is much larger than with Octalink, so the space left in conventional BB shells limits bearing size and seal quality.
In Octalink XTR BB-M952, the spindle is in two parts, tapered smaller where the bearings and seals fit. The two parts spindle parts are later joined together in the middle. This provides a larger space for larger diameter bearings and better seals.
4-In ISIS, with manufacturing the spindle and crank, the parabolic broaching exactness required for the crank to fit the spindle requires more manufacturing prowess, therefore more cost.
In Octalink, the taper cut and the splines in the crank and on the spindle are linear and easy to manufacture.
5-In ISIS, the spline area is increased, but the taper area is reduced over Octalink, so no purported advantage there by ISIS for increased spline area, but a disadvantage when wear, temperature changes, deviation from manufacturing tolerance are present.
Bottom brackets are purchased as a whole with a spindle and cups with bearings. If ISIS is not reliable because of interface fitting problems and bearing reliability issues, only the ISIS group is responsible for their design failures. In what discipline do you design one part of a whole (spindle crank interface) and totally ignore the other half (spindle, bearing cup, BB shell interface)? Imagine building the greatest Hubble Space Telescope, but having no medium to put it in space. The Hubble Space Telescope had to be designed within the capabilities of the delivery systems. It is a whole that cannot be sectioned off with the other part ignored.
ISIS is the result of design without testing.
Wel is het zo dat Octalink beter is als ISIS.
Waarom?
Even een qoute-je zoeken:
(C) Divve @ mtb.nl
Might be of interest....by Clary on MTBr
"ISIS vs. Octalink"
1-In ISIS, the taper is defeated with the crank stop. The ISIS group tried to get too fancy here by trying to fix the chainline. Tapers are used to auto correct wear (aluminium is much softer than steel, so both do not wear evenly), temperature changes (steel spindle {11.3 ppm/° C} has half the thermal expansion of the aluminium crank {23.2 ppm/° C}), deviation from manufacturing tolerance and to provide a tighter fit than without taper. With the crank stop, if there is any hint of wear, temperature changes and deviation from manufacturing tolerance, mating fails.
In Octalink, the taper maintains a tight fit since wear, temperature changes and deviation from manufacturing tolerance are controlled by the taper.
2-In ISIS, the 3mm sweep out is defeated by the crank stop when wear, temperature changes and deviation from manufacturing tolerance is present.
3-In ISIS, with it"s straight spindle, the spindle diameter at the bearings is much larger than with Octalink, so the space left in conventional BB shells limits bearing size and seal quality.
In Octalink XTR BB-M952, the spindle is in two parts, tapered smaller where the bearings and seals fit. The two parts spindle parts are later joined together in the middle. This provides a larger space for larger diameter bearings and better seals.
4-In ISIS, with manufacturing the spindle and crank, the parabolic broaching exactness required for the crank to fit the spindle requires more manufacturing prowess, therefore more cost.
In Octalink, the taper cut and the splines in the crank and on the spindle are linear and easy to manufacture.
5-In ISIS, the spline area is increased, but the taper area is reduced over Octalink, so no purported advantage there by ISIS for increased spline area, but a disadvantage when wear, temperature changes, deviation from manufacturing tolerance are present.
Bottom brackets are purchased as a whole with a spindle and cups with bearings. If ISIS is not reliable because of interface fitting problems and bearing reliability issues, only the ISIS group is responsible for their design failures. In what discipline do you design one part of a whole (spindle crank interface) and totally ignore the other half (spindle, bearing cup, BB shell interface)? Imagine building the greatest Hubble Space Telescope, but having no medium to put it in space. The Hubble Space Telescope had to be designed within the capabilities of the delivery systems. It is a whole that cannot be sectioned off with the other part ignored.
ISIS is the result of design without testing.