gitaneusa.com Forum Index » Vintage Gitane » Phil Wood BB size for '71 TdF & Stronglight 93    View previous topic :: View next topic  Phil Wood BB size for '71 TdF & Stronglight 93   Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:49 pm LeicaLad Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 142 Location: Northern Virginia Dear all, Sometime later in the spring I will get out to my aging mum's house where I have two bikes in storage, one being my first Gitane, purchased as I got out of high school, a 1971 TdF. This beloved bike has been round the world and has all the battle scars to show for it. About the only original parts still on it are the Stronglight 93 and it's bottom bracket. Anyway, it is certainly waaay overdue for a major overhaul. The Stronglight stays, but I'll need new rings. I suspect the bottom bracket ought to be retired, out of respect, if not due to just being worn out. It was showing wear last time it was pulled – well over a decade ago. SO, my question: If I go with a Phil Wood cartridge BB, what size would I need in terms of spindle length to match with a 1971 Gitane Tour de France and a Stronglight 93 crankset? I figure more than a few of you may have already done this, so I thank you in advance for sharing your knowledge. Happy New Year! Owen Vienna, VA Stronglight BB Spindle Length   Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:23 pm verktyg Joined: 14 Jan 2007 Posts: 2814 Location: SF Bay Area The "standard" Stronglight bottom bracket spindle length for model 49. 93. 105 and similar crank arms on French bikes was 118mm non symmetrical. The right side stuck out about 5mm longer. I've seen 120mm and 121mm spindles plus we also used TA bottom bracket spindles which were 116.5mm long. These were bike parts so ALL specs are nominal! Phil Wood seems to keep changing their dimensions and if you call them, they won't make any suggestions or recommendations. Phil BRS19R Stainless Steel Bottom Bracket 68/73mm - JIS 119mm R+5 non symmetrical offset seems to be the correct BB. Phil BRS16R Stainless Steel Bottom Bracket 68/73mm - JIS 116mm R+5 non symmetrical offset will probably work too. http://philwood.com/store/page30.html In addition, you'll need a set of French thread cups. Phil BMRFI French - Stainless Steel http://philwood.com/store/page36.html Plus the installation tool (it's best to use 2 tools, one on each side). Phil BMRTC0 Portable Installation Tool ("Consumer" tool) http://philwood.com/store/page35.html So you are up to $196 USD. These BBs will usually outlast the bike. Another option is the Grand Cru Bottom Bracket Cartridge http://tinyurl.com/2fktwgd They available in 118mm length from Velo Orange and others for under $50. They use the same installation tool as Shimano BBs and you only need one of them. These are new so there is no track record but they are made in Japan and look very well made. _________________ Chas. SF Bay Area, CA USA ============== 1984 Criterium 1969 TdF 1971 TdF 1974 TdF 1984 TdF x 2 Bikes 1970 SC 1971 SC 1972 SC 1984 SC 1984 Team Pro 1985 Professional 1990s Team Replica   Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:40 pm LeicaLad Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 142 Location: Northern Virginia Thanks, Chas. I wonder why you would recommend the JIS spindle instead of the ISO. Isn't the ISO spindle essentially the older square (or Campagnolo) type? And wouldn't that mean a shorter spindle (than the JIS) would work? Owen Re: Stronglight BB Spindle Length   Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:51 pm logarto Joined: 18 Feb 2008 Posts: 56 [quote="verktyg"] So you are up to $196 USD. These BBs will usually outlast the bike. [quote] The man knows his Phil, (although I always made do with one cup tool myself.) I actually wore one out last year that I had purchased quite well used in 1985. It failed within weeks of Phil Wood's passing too and had originally been mounted with a TA Cyclotouriste crank way back when you couldn't get any other road triple. (I suspect that the former owner was running it as a double though?) It was the narrowest Phil BB of that vintage-I had used it with a first generation C-Record (sold,) Sugino 75 (too pretty to keep riding,) and then the Sachs New Success, (broke that one,) and finally the Sugino cranks again. I'm not sure if I'm more proud today of breaking the Sachs crank versus finally wearing out a Phil BB? Hey, I guess they can be rebuilt right? It developed a bunch of play towards the end and made it another 300 miles or so after I tightened it down, both cartridges came right out of the centersleeve and they are clearly toast. Conservatively I got 60,000 miles in the high mountains out of it. But if I ever did expedition touring again, I would still prefer loose quarter inch ball bearings.   Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:47 pm LeicaLad Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 142 Location: Northern Virginia And what size was this bottom bracket?   Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:58 pm verktyg Joined: 14 Jan 2007 Posts: 2814 Location: SF Bay Area LeicaLad wrote: I wonder why you would recommend the JIS spindle instead of the ISO. Isn't the ISO spindle essentially the older square (or Campagnolo) type? And wouldn't that mean a shorter spindle (than the JIS) would work? Owen Here's why: the ISO spindles that Phil Wood makes today are symmetrical, that is they extend an equal amount on both sides of the cartridge. This is because many cranks manufactured after the mid 80s have a "low profile" design. Older style cranks usually require an asymmetrical spindle that extends out further on the drive side. Phil Wood JIS spindles are made that way. As far as JIS vs. ISO goes here's a what Chris Kulczycki of Velo ORANGE has this to say about tapers: "It's usually possible to fit an ISO crank on a JIS BB. The only caveat is that the crank will be 3-4mm wider than if an ISO BB was used, so pick a slightly narrower spindle and tighten the crank bolts securely. I don't recommend using a JIS crank on an ISO spindle because the crank may bottom out, thus permanently ruining the taper. If, however, you are careful, it will work with some combinations. One of the problems with this whole idea is that manufacturers sometimes take a casual attitude toward following one standard or the other. I have seen TA cranks, for example, that appear to be ISO and an identical crank that's JIS, or perhaps something in between." As I keep saying, these are bicycles not Swiss watch movements! Except for a few new design developments plus newer materials, bicycle technology harkens back to the late 1800s when ham fisted hammer mechanics were de rigueur. On new crankarms the taper can make a difference between JIS and ISO but once the cranks have been installed and used, all bets are off. That's also assuming that the crankarms and spindle were made to tolerance! That's not always the case even with Campy components. The easiest way to tell if a crank is going to fit on a spindle is to "eyeball" it! Slide the crank arm onto the spindle. There should be at least a 3mm gap from the end of spindle to the bolt shoulder in the crank arm. If it's much less or more there could be problems when the crank arm is torqued down. The next is to put in the fixed cup, shove the spindle and slide the crankarm on to see if there's enough clearance between the chainrings and the chainstay. I ran ISO taper TA cranks on a JIS taper Shimano BB cartridge for 15 years on my MTB without a problem. Afterwards I mounted the TA cranks onto a TA BB spindle on another bike and they worked without a hitch. BTW, One of the advantages of a Phil Wood BB is that you can adjust it side to side by up to 5mm. Don't believe everything you think! Where's my hammer! _________________ Chas. SF Bay Area, CA USA ============== 1984 Criterium 1969 TdF 1971 TdF 1974 TdF 1984 TdF x 2 Bikes 1970 SC 1971 SC 1972 SC 1984 SC 1984 Team Pro 1985 Professional 1990s Team Replica Re: Stronglight BB Spindle Length   Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:27 pm verktyg Joined: 14 Jan 2007 Posts: 2814 Location: SF Bay Area logarto wrote: verktyg wrote: So you are up to $196 USD. These BBs will usually outlast the bike. I actually wore one out last year that I had purchased quite well used in 1985. I'm not sure if I'm more proud today of breaking the Sachs crank versus finally wearing out a Phil BB? Hey, I guess they can be rebuilt right? Conservatively I got 60,000 miles in the high mountains out of it. But if I ever did expedition touring again, I would still prefer loose quarter inch ball bearings. WOW! 60k, "We're not worthy! We're not worthy!" I'm still using the first Phil Wood BB that I bought back in 1975 and it didn't cost that much less than todays models. It's been in about 4-5 different bikes. I picked up 1 or 2 used Phil BBs that had been hammered hard on Marin County MTBs. They had toasted bearings but they were free. I think Phil charged me $35 each to install new bearings and that may have included return freight! _________________ Chas. SF Bay Area, CA USA ============== 1984 Criterium 1969 TdF 1971 TdF 1974 TdF 1984 TdF x 2 Bikes 1970 SC 1971 SC 1972 SC 1984 SC 1984 Team Pro 1985 Professional 1990s Team Replica   Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:41 pm logarto Joined: 18 Feb 2008 Posts: 56 LeicaLad wrote: And what size was this bottom bracket? What they used to call a "Phil Number 1" back in the day. About 110mm and within a millimeter of being symmetrical. Something not all that useful in general before 1986. That's why I think the original owner must have been running the TA Cyclotouriste as a double. As if the modern taper situation isn't confusing enough, back then Phil's approach was "one taper fits all." He did that about as well as he made a durable product too. It was just a little smaller and longer than classic Campy tapers and thus about perfect for Superbe/Sugino. The C-Record and Sugino 75 cranks both wanted it mounted dead center, the Sachs New Success seemed to work better when I had the cup all the way up inside the BB shell on the non-drive side. I even put a lock ring on the drive side. Elsewhere I'm running 7400 era Dura Ace crank made into a triple with a Tuff-Neck middle ring on a 118mm Phil that I got on eBay in the late 1990s, I never checked to see if the taper was different from the ancient one but those crankarms had been "broken in" with Campy spindles rather than with the ever so slightly fatter BB 7400 tapers? It's a problem if a conventional BB is close to bottoming out the first time you tighten everything down, but not as much with a Phil because it will not be coming off of there all that often, IMO. I've gotten to the point where I like the crankarms about 10mm or more closer together than what Shimano sells these days, I have a modern external bearing Ultegra Triple kicking around here that I think really belongs on a late 1980s $300 mountain bike in that respect. Not much I can do about that except sell it since the spindle is part of the drive side crankarm. I can barely tolerate the "road triple" 113 size of the Truvative ISIS setup which is itself about a half centimeter closer together than Shimano. Octalink and Isis are about as modern as I get but they both seem to have an inordinate amount of seal drag compared to a Phil or the old (and alas totally disposable) SunTour cartridge BB units. There's also a stunt that I haven't tried yet where you can use French Threaded Phil Cups with a Shimano UN-7X cartridge BB but only the top Shimano series where both threaded parts can be removed. Have you ever tried this one Chas? I forgot to mention that   Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:54 pm logarto Joined: 18 Feb 2008 Posts: 56 my exposure to Phil extends to the pressed in BB on my Klein Pinnacle, which I also purchased well used. It's holding up fine for now but I've heard of people trying to get these replaced just in the last few years.   Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:36 am LeicaLad Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 142 Location: Northern Virginia Cost is, of course, a consideration. I've got the French rings, so the cost can be kept w/in reasonable. For some reason I have a wealth of options for triple cranks, but not for a double to support the Stronglight 93 on my TdF. I'm still thinking Phil. Our very own Kinst Von Sterga has found that 118mm Phil BBs with the ISO taper has served best for him. (For those who haven’t seen it, look at the stunning restoration of the ’72 Super Corsa he did for his wife! In the Gallery.). He says that he’s used a 118mm in several bikes, preferring to stick to the ISO taper. The problem is that Phil currently makes a 115mm in ISO taper, but then jumps to 120mm. For Chas: Phil DOES still offer the ISO in both an offset OR symmetrical versions. Problem is only to choose the right size. I’m guessing that, if stuck with current options, 115mm with the offset in an ISO taper is the best choice for a standard Stronglight 93 or Campy NR/SR crankset… Yes? Or is it 113mm with an offset in JIS taper? Hmmm. Phil Wood BB size for '71 TdF & Stronglight 93     gitaneusa.com Forum Index » Vintage Gitane You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours   Page 1 of 1   All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First  Select a forum Gitane USA----------------Vintage GitaneGitane RacingModern GitanePro Racing - Classics/Giro/Tour....Owner Gallery   Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group Designed for Trushkin.net | Themes Database.