Re: [CR] Bottom Bracket Cups & Threads - Why do they stay tight or loosen?

(Example: Framebuilding)

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:16:57 +0200
From: "M-gineering" <info@m-gineering.nl>
Cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <916999.14422.qm@web82206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4AB3350F.9030805@nonlintec.com> <7543b4a40909180316i2c15ea46h4f52c8cee8e47b65@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7543b4a40909180316i2c15ea46h4f52c8cee8e47b65@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Bottom Bracket Cups & Threads - Why do they stay tight or loosen?


Ken Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Steve Maas <bikestuff@nonlintec.com> wrote:
>
>> Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
>>
>>
>> .....I've long said that the technically correct ISO BB standard would
>> have been Swiss, since it was metric, and had the correct LH thread o
>> on the fixed cup. But of course that decision was made based on market
>> share, not technical logic. At least the English thread anointed ISO
>> did happen to have the "correct" LH fixed cup as well.
>>
>> It's important to remember that the purpose of standards is to normalize
>> what most people are doing already, not to determine what's best and try to
>> force everyone to do it. That almost never works. On rare occasions when
>> it's been attempted, people just ignore the standard and adhere to some kind
>> of de facto standard, which is established by everyone immitating some
>> common practice.
>>
>> French dimensions are a good example of an attempt to create a standard
>> apart from common practice. We all know how well that went!
>>
>> As for BBs--is the ISO standard based on British dimensions the only one?
>> I'm away from home and my books, so I can't check. There's no reason why
>> there can't be multiple standards for some type of item.
>>
>> Steve Maas
>> Göteborg, Sweden
>>
>>
>> I can attest first hand to this logic of standardization. I'm writing an
> ISO standard in another field, and the primary purpose is to promote global
> trade by establishing a common language for design and description of
> products in the relevant domain. There is a great tension between the
> standard writing team and some of the reviewers. Many reviewers think that
> the purpose of the standard is to show what is the limit of concievable
> technology, the best engineering solution, or what their sponsors think is
> best.
>
> Back to BB engineering: If a reversed thread was
> absolutely necessary in all potential cases, we would have to see hub
> locknuts using both a righty-tighty and a lefty-tighty design. However,
> they don't.

which is why it's more often the rh cone which you find has loosened. -- mvg

Marten Gerritsen
Kiel Windeweer
Netherlands