Funny, I always tested both ways and almost always one way fit slightly deeper the other shallower, I always double checked to see that the crank arm was properly alined with the slot on the spindle. Some times the crank arm was cocked if the cotter was installed one side as compared to the other. though I never paid attention if it was leading or trailing.
Craig Griffith
San Luis Obispo, ca.
USA
> John Betmanis noted:
\r?\n>
\r?\n> I see in those pictures that the heads of the cotters lead when the
\r?\n> cranks rotate forward. On most bikes with cottered cranks I've seen
\r?\n> (from a quick survey around the house), the nutted end of the cotter
\r?\n> leads. Is there a right and wrong way to install cotter pins and why?
\r?\n> Why would this Paramount be opposite to what I've seen?
\r?\n>
\r?\n> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Feeling frustrated about this question myself, several years ago I
\r?\n> broadened my universe of inquiry and looked at a whole bunch of Rebour
\r?\n> show pictures. I didn't do heavy-duty statistics, but there were enough
\r?\n> of each style that I came to conclude that it doesn't really matter - as
\r?\n> long as the cotters are fitted well to the cranks.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Now, this will be met with shouts of derision from the audience, which I
\r?\n> suspect has neatly, but unevenly, divided itself into three groups:
\r?\n> ---> Who cares about cotters? Real bikes are cotterless with tapered
\r?\n> square ends on the spindles (what Williams splines?).
\r?\n> --> nuts lag always.
\r?\n> --> nuts lead always.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> In politics, both of the latter may be true. :-)
\r?\n>
\r?\n> harvey sachs
\r?\n> mcLean Va