Stevan, Cool, thanks. And thanks for posting this to the list too, to maybe draw a couple more responses (thus far ... you are it).
I am first off trying to confirm what bb I have, because it was sold to me as an old N.R., and that's what I want(ed). Albeit, it only cost 10 bucks, plus shipping, but still...
Second, I am indeed looking for a bb to use with a 151bcd crankset. This is looking ahead, by getting some of the things in place for my 65 Cinelli SC rebuild. Actually, I currently have only the drive crank, and accompanying hardware; I still lack the non-drive (151 era) crank. Do any of you know if the non-drive side crank changed in any functional way, from 151 to 144, and then from pre CPSC to post CPSC? Would any of these specific changes prohibit the use of an undated non-drive crank from a 144 set, with the bb and drive side crank from the 151 era? I have seen that the contours of the arms changed, but I'm inquiring about the usage. The Cinelli came to me with 80s Campy wheels, but I will be replacing them with the set of 1962 "No Record" wheels I have. It also came with 1980s Campy S.R. cranks, but is still using the correct Record front changer with the cable stop on the body. I have yet to pull the cranks, to determine if the bb is the original, or a replacement to match the 80s cranks. If it's the old one, and Campy, and not shot, then I'm set. If it's newer ...
Regardless of gaining the answers to these questions, which I definitely would like for future reference, Stevan's' suggestion to simply try them, sounds like a good one. I won't sweat this bb any longer, and I'll try out what I have, when the time comes. Thanks very much!
Best regards, Mark Agree Southfield MI
Original discussion reminder: Is a Campy bottom bracket with thin wall Italian cups, dark steel spindle marked 70-SS-120, exactly 113mm long with the flying wing logo, PROPER to be used with either late 151bcd, or early 144bcd Record cranks? If it's not actually proper, then what is? Also if it's not actually proper, can it still be used with varying degrees of success?
============================In a message dated 11/6/03 14:12:52 EST, Stevan Thomas (NortonMarg@aol.com) writes (>) in response to my further questions (*):
* Stevan, I'm confused. Please review my description, to make sure there
* isn't a mistake in your response, and then please un-confuse me.
*
>Hi Mark,
>It's difficult to completely un-confuse things without having known parts to
>inspect and compare, but I'll try.
* Wouldn't the Sport or GS bb's have the spindle length of 112mm pre-CPSC,
* and then move out to like 114.5 post-CPSC (with Record changing to 115)?
Are
* you saying above that you think it is, or is not, possibly a GS from Cat.
17
* or 18 time? Cat.17 came before the CPSC changes, and Cat.18 came after,
no?
>They can be a little late changing the graphics in catalogues, so it would
>seem likely that it's from the period of Catalogue 17. There may be someone
out
>there with greater knowledge of specifically when things were actually
>changed.
* This spindle is 113mm, so that is pre-CPSC Record length, no? If
*pre-rifled NR bb's have thin walled cups, then how was the spindle marked?
* How would those cups differ from GS cups of the time, and of later?
* Would that description be for the correct bb for a later 151bcd crank?
*
>113 is close enough, my one and only thin cup road axle is marked 68-SS-120
>with a world logo and is 112mm in length. My 68-P-120 is 109.2mm.
>The cups would only likely differ in the finish and possibly very subtle
>differences in the lettering. Practically speaking, they should be
functionally
>the same. Are you trying to use it with a 151 crankset?
>At some point, you just have to be empirical, install it, and see if it
works
>with your cranks. I actually prefer to have the chainline in a little from
>the ideal, it makes it easier to use the big ring with larger cogs. I used
to do
>this by using shorter bb axles with the cranks that needed slightly longer
>ones, commonly achieved by using Nadax, OMAS or other non Campy bbs. I broke
2
>Campy bb axles. They were both nice radial splits that failed slowly enough
I
>didn't have to worry about anything more than how to get where I was going.
I>'ve never had a failure with the other 2 mentioned.
>Stevan Thomas
>Alameda, CA
>BTW, if anyone has anything to add to the identification of any of these
>parts, please chime in!