Re: [CR] BBs for TA Pro 5 Vis cranksarms: old vs. new, symmetrical or not, taper styles

(Example: Framebuilders:Mario Confente)

In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:53:59 -0400
From: "Adam Hammond" <>
To: CR discussion list <>
Subject: Re: [CR] BBs for TA Pro 5 Vis cranksarms: old vs. new, symmetrical or not, taper styles

To further continue my conversation with myself: I can't actually confirm that Axix BBs are ISO tapered. Some evidence supports it (Peter White's site suggests they'll work with Campagnolo cranks) but some doesn't. The Carmina apparently uses JIS tapers, and some sites list the Axix BBs as JIS tapered.

But the new production Pro 5 Vis crankarms are ISO tapered!

Adam Hammond Toronto, ON, Canada

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Adam Hammond <> wrote:
> Apologies for missing the proper signoff (a danger of cross-posting!)
> Also: a listmember has informed me that the new TA Pro 5 Vis arms and Axix
> BBs are indeed ISO tapered. He heard this directly from TA.
> Adam Hammond
> Toronto, ON, Canada
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Adam Hammond <> wrote:
>> I posted this to the BOB list this morning, but thought CR people might be
>> even keener at spotting the differences or similarities between the on- and
>> off-topic TA cranks.
>> Here is my question:
>> I have in my possession one of the newer TA Pro 5 vis cranksets --
>> produced in 2007. I also have a TA Axix BB, which is from the same year. The
>> BB is 116mm wide, which I have always heard is the correct width for TA
>> doubles. This BB is completely symmetric.
>> I ran this setup on Fuji touring bike for a few months last year to test
>> it out, and everything seemed in order. There wasn't much crankarm clearance
>> on either chainstay (I was using a 135mm rear end and fairly beefy
>> chainstays), but things seemed more or less centred.
>> I was testing it for the still-forthcoming custom frame I expect to arrive
>> in a few months. In the meantime I've become interested in this question of
>> symmetricalness. For it seems TA's older bottom brackets for Pro 5 Vis
>> doubles were not symmetrical.
>> Piece of evidence number one: this chart from Sheldon Brown's website:
>> This suggests that the BB should be offset VERY slightly (1.5mm) toward
>> the drive side.
>> And this photo of a TA 344 axle (the very one specified for TA doubles in
>> the above diagram) seems to show an even more significant driveside offset,
>> though it is the same length as my symmetrical Axix BB: 116mm. (It may be .5
>> longer...)
>> My question basically is: did TA change their cranks for the newer
>> production runs to make them work with symmetrical BBs when they used to be
>> designed for asymmetrical? If I were to have mounted my TA cranks onto the
>> aforementioned Fuji touring bike with one of the TA 344 axles, I would have
>> had one crankarm 8mm out from the chainstay, and the other smacking straight
>> into it.
>> To throw a final crankarm into the spokes: I have heard various rumours
>> that the new TA production is designed for JIS spindles (and that the Axix
>> BBs use JIS spindles) -- would this explain all the confusion?


>> Confused,


>> Adam