Thanks for reply. I apologise for asking nitty questions but, I haven't the parts on hand for actual inspection. I imagine archeologists have much the same problems. I understand the following (correct me if wrong): The dating year 1973 - 1984 on both crank arms will be a directly associated year numeral (1973 = 1973; or 73 = 73) and not some type of code alpha/numeric requiring translation. Aside from problems of parts interference, there are no technical/performance advantages for mixing old & new nor of converting entirely; that is, it really doesn't matter. It will be obvious if older, shorter spindle is used with later, "small bump" spider: that is, either the spider or inner chain rng will contanct the chain stay.
GPVB1@cs.com wrote:The RH 1958-1977 arms have a larger "bump" on the back where the spindle enters the spider. The later arms have a much smaller "bump." That's the easiest way to tell them apart.
The change was made to accomodate the "lip" on the front derailleur cage that was added at the insistence of our fine Consumer Product Safety Comission (CPSC). They forced Campagnolo to change several "protrusions" in mid-1977. This was done because the American Bike part manufacturers were jealous of Campy's success, and lobbied our fine Government into hassling Campy and costing them much money for no good reason IMHO.
The arms were dated for year from 1973-1984 also, so that can help.
Mixing old and new parts can change the chainline by the aforementioned 1.5 mm. The left end of the spindle grew 1mm also in mid-1977 ( 112 + 1 + 1.5 = 114.5).
That's not a big difference, but can in certain cases be a problem. Depends on other stuff.....
Cheers,
Greg
In a message dated 12/2/02 6:11:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, teaat4p@yahoo.com writes:
Thanks.
How does one identify crank arms, early (1967-early 1977) vs. late (mid-1977-1986)?
Also, perhaps esoteric, perhaps not: Is there any drive train or Q-factor alignment advantage to using the early arm-late spindle combination to position arms and chain ring outboard the 1.5mm? (That is, for normal riders, not to accomodate any special anatomical condition.)
GPVB1@cs.com wrote:
Hello Richard:
112mm, Nuovo Record was the original BB on this bike.
This was the same from 1967-1977, then changed in length to 114.5 from 1977-1986 (end of Production of Nuovo &Super Record).
Make sure, though, that you match up spindle and crank arms - the arms also changed in mid-1977. You can put an early arm on a late spindle, (moves it outboard 1.5mm), but a late arm on an early spindle may possibly put the inner 'ring too close to the chainstay.
Cheers,
Greg
In a message dated 12/2/02 3:05:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.org writes:
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:37:56 -0800 (PST) From: r cielec <teaat4p@yahoo.com> To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Subject: [CR]Raleigh International bb spindle
Re: Raleigh International circa 1969 - 1971; NR crank, double
What is proper bottom bracket spindle length?
Richard
Chicago, Illinois
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now