Hi Adam,
Sorry I can't help there but please excuse me for piggybacking your post:
I am wondering what changes TA have made for their chainrings on their latest offerings. Particularly with regard to spacers or offsets and ramps/pins if any. Are the chainrings still the same .... Or changed? Can anyone verify and/or provide pics?
much appreciated
ciao,
Ben Kamenjas Kensington, Australia
> 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
>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/
>>>
>>> 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...)
>>>
>>>
>>> http://picasaweb.google.ca/
>>>
>>> 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