I'm afraid I can't directly answer the question relating to the TA Pro 5 Vi s cranks but the posts I've been reading, particularly these two by Fred an d Jan got me to thinking as a similar topic was recently discussed on anoth er forum and this might be pertinant. For a long time I was under the impre ssion that most all spindles used either JIS (most Japanese) or ISO (everyb ody else) taper. This recent discussion however seemed to reveal that Campa gnolo taper pre-1994, which would obviously include NR and SR among others, was not ISO but a proprietary Campagnolo dimension about half way between ISO and JIS. If that is in fact true it might explain some of the measureme nts recorded here. It is certainly not unreasonable to think that manufactu rers during that period would have used the Campagnolo spec rather than ISO .. Can anyone confirm or deny that the pre-1994 proprietary Campagnolo taper existed? I can provide measurements of a modern (2002) Campagnolo spindle for comparison but I don't have a NR or SR handy.
Regards,
Derrick Bourgeois Colorado Springs, CO, USA
------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:49:58 -0700 From: Fred Rednor <fred_rednor@yahoo.com> Subje ct: Re: [CR] BBs for TA Pro 5 Vis cranksarms: old vs. new, symm etrical or not, taper styles To: <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Messa ge-ID: <48556.22685.qm@web34201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/pl ain; charset="iso-8859-1"
A few months ago, I measured the end of th e tapers on 2 different vintage T A bottom bracket spindles. One was a model 344 and the other a model 314. In both cases, size was exactly mi dway between ISO and JIS.
That migh
t explain why the TA cranks
seem to work well with different styles of bott
om brackets.
Fred
Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)
> Last year
I spoke with Mi
ke Barry
> about the compatability of TA cranks with
> b
ottom br
ackets - he said that they work with? campy
> NR BB's fine. I s
till
> haven't set one up (TA) so I can't say from personal
> experienc
e - but I know
> Mike has had a lot of experience with them over the
year
s
> so I trust his
> advise. He never mentioned older vs ne
wer vintage
cranks.
> We all know that
> campy cranks changed di
mensions slighly ov
er the years.
> Hope this helps.
> One of the
se days, I'm going to set
up that TA double
> compact crank - I have
> really grown to like that
gearing on my regular modern
> ride
.. It works great
> in the endless up
and down roads of north Georgia
where you
> can pretty much
> count on
around 1000' of climbing/h
our around Atlanta with
> some steeper
> str
etches here and ther
e.
>
> Roman Stankus
> Atlanta, Georgia USA
>
> >
-----Original Message-----
> > From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bik
el
ist.org
>
> > [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org]
> On
Behalf Of
> > Adam Hammond
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009
12:56 PM
> > To: CR discussion list
> > Subject: [CR] BBs for T
A Pro 5 Vis cran
ksarms: old vs.
>
> > new,symmetrical or not, t
aper styles
> >
>
> I posted this to the BOB list this morning,
but
> thought CR
> > peo
ple might be even keener at spotting t
he
> differences or
> > similari
ties between the on- and off-to
pic TA cranks.
> >
> > Here is my quest
ion:
> >
> > I
have in my possession one of the newer TA Pro 5 vis
>
> > cranks
ets -- produced in 2007. I also have a TA Axix
> BB,
> >
which i
s from the same year. The BB is 116mm wide,
> which I
> > have
a
lways heard is the correct width for TA
> doubles.
> > This BB is c
om
pletely symmetric.
> >
> > I ran this setup on Fuji touring b
ike for a
few months
> last
> > year to test it out, and everyth
ing seemed in o
rder.
> There
> > wasn't much crankarm clearance
on either chainstay (
I
> was
> > using a 135mm rear end and fa
irly beefy chainstays),
> b
ut
> > things seemed more or less ce
ntred.
> >
> > I was testing it
for the still-forthcoming custom
> frame I
> > expect to arrive in a
few months. In the meantim
e I've
> become
> > interested in this quest
ion of symmetricaln
ess. For it
> seems
> > TA's older bottom brackets
for Pro 5 Vi
s doubles were
> not symmetrical.
> >
> > Piece of evide
nce
number one: this chart from Sheldon
> Brown's website:
> >
>
> h
ttp://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/images/ta-bb-axles.gif
> > =0
A> > This
suggests that the BB should be offset VERY
> slightly =0
A> > (1.5mm) towa
rd the drive side.
> >
> > And this photo of a
TA 344 axle (the very o
ne
> specified for
> > TA doubles in th
e above diagram) seems to show
an even
> more
> > significant d
riveside offset, though it is the same
> length as
> > my symme
trical Axix BB: 116mm. (It may be .5
> > lo
nger...)
> >
> >
http://picasaweb.google.ca/
>
site#5311728504161556194
> >
> > My question basically
is: did T
A change their cranks
> for the
> > newer production runs to
mak
e them work with
> symmetrical BBs
> > when they used to be design
ed for asymmetrical? If I
> were to
> > have mounted my TA cran
ks onto
the aforementioned Fuji
>
> > touring bike with one of t
he TA 344 axl
es, I would
> have had
> > one crankarm 8mm out fr
om the chainstay, an
d the other
>
> > smacking straight into it
..
> >
> > To throw a f
inal crankarm into the spokes: I have=0
A> heard
> > various rumours that
the new TA production is designed
> for
> > JIS spindles (and that th
e Axix BBs use JIS spindles
)
> --
> > would this explain all the confu
sion?
> >
>
> Confused,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > --- Stri
pMi
me Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> >?
??text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >???text/html
> > ---
>
> _______________________________________________
> > Classicrendezv
ous m
ailing list
> > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > http://w
ww.bikelist.
org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
> >
>
>
> _______________
________________________________
> Classicren
dezvous mailing list
> Cla
ssicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> http://w
ww.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/cl
assicrendezvous
>
------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 20:36:40 -0700 From: Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR] BBs for TA Pro 5 Vis cranksarms: old vs. new,
symmetrical or not, taper styles
To: "Roman Stankus" <rstankus@mindsp
ring.com>, 'Adam Hammond'
<anhammond@gmail.com>,
'CR discussion list'
<Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Mes
sage-ID: <a06230904c600793bd896@[192.168.1.33]>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 7:09 PM -0400 4/6/09, Roman
Stankus wrote:
>Last year I spoke with Mike Barry about the compatability
of TA cranks with
>bottom brackets - he said that they work with camp
y NR BB's fine. I still
>haven't set one up (TA) so I can't say from pers
onal experience - but I know
>Mike has had a lot of experience with them
over the years so I trust his
>advise.
Campagnolo NR BB spindles are 11
4 mm wide, so a tad narrower than the
old TAs. I have used a re-machined
Campagnolo NR spindle with
Stronglight 49D cranks in a Singer BB I made
.. Clearances are OK, but
if you had a 130 mm rear end (mine is 126 mm),
you might be cutting
it too close for comfort. (I also selected carefull
y among a stash of
cranks for those that mated as I wanted.)
The ideal
BB for a "modern" TA setup would be about 116-118 mm long,
and slightly
asymmetric. For my Grand Bois Urban Bike, I used a
symmetric 116 mm JIS
spindle in a not-yet-available cartridge BB, and
it mated very nicely w
ith the tapers of an old TA crank. I did put a
small (2-3 mm) fixed cup
spacer on the right side to move the BB just
a bit off-center. The lengt
h is perfect, and I believe the bike has
130 mm rear spacing. (I re-spac
ed a 135 mm Maxi-Car hub for it, but
don't remember the measurement.)
Surprisingly, the JIS spindle mated well, even though I believe that whe n new, TA used an ISO taper. The Campagnolo NR is ISO... So perhaps the TA cranks are in between? Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly 140 La keside Ave #C Seattle WA 98122 http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com