Freewheel/bb Help

[bikerider]

Story so far:

ON my 231 monty, i'm using tensile optimum cranks with an eno.

I didn't have a bash on there as I was waiting the 18t tensile UCI one to be in stock.

Anyway, it arrived saturday, and I managed to fit it ok, however, when I bolted the crank back on, the tabs rubbed on the bb before I had it fully tightened.

Suffice to say, I unbolted the crank and removed the bash, re-fitted my eno, and all was fine.

Seems strange as there IS clearance between the eno and bb (about 2mm max) when I don't use a bash, but as soon as I do, it must just throw it out a fraction.

Anyway, I obviously need a longer bb, but my problem is I want to use as short an axle as possible i.e. keep my existing chainline, and it's stronger; so I've narrowed it down to the following:

monty 124 axle

or

Try-All 122.5 axle

What do people recommend I do? Any other suggestions?

What are the above products like?

Oh and the current bb is a 118 and I'm using an Echo fixed rear hub with 6 speed cassette

thanks

[bikerider]

anyone?

[Guest]

See how big the bash ring is in terms of pushing the freewheel towards the BB, you'll want to measure from the inside(bb side) to where it touches the bb side of your drive side crank arm.

What length of BB are you running now?

I'd say go for the monty to be sure, if you could get a dimension for what I said above I might be ale to help you further....

[bikerider]

BB length at the moment is 118mm.

Measured the bash at about 5mm, but this shouldn't affect it that much as the cranks have a splined area that should allow for this. I've tried to explain with a pic below:

[Guest]

so even without a bash those splines are shown?

When fitted does the bash sit flush with the inside (BB side) of the splines or does it intrude into where the freewheel is shown there? the bash is 5 mm, how big are the splines? and does the bash have a slot cut into it to allow it to sit further out on the cranks?

The pic look like you don't even have removal tabs on the freewheel, but then it isn't very clear really.

To be honest i'd just go with the 124mm BB, 0.75 mm on either end is not going to make an axel weaker noticabally....

[RobinJI]

Am I right in thinking your current BB is a Truvative?

Well whatever it is, it's using a 73mm shell, with a 2.5mm spacer on either side (normally alloy on the drive side and a rubber O-ring on the non-drive side).

I cant imagine that the bash is going to move the freewheel over anymore than this. So you should be able to fix the problem by just fitting a 118 with a dedicated 68mm shell, this way because the BB would not stick out the extra 2.5mm caused by the spacer it would give you 2.5mm more clearance (probably enough), but the same chain line and a just as strong axle.

The only BBs that fit that description that I can find at the moment are the FSA platinum and platinum pro.

[bikerider]

Am I right in thinking your current BB is a Truvative?

Well whatever it is, it's using a 73mm shell, with a 2.5mm spacer on either side (normally alloy on the drive side and a rubber O-ring on the non-drive side).

I cant imagine that the bash is going to move the freewheel over anymore than this. So you should be able to fix the problem by just fitting a 118 with a dedicated 68mm shell, this way because the BB would not stick out the extra 2.5mm caused by the spacer it would give you 2.5mm more clearance (probably enough), but the same chain line and a just as strong axle.

The only BBs that fit that description that I can find at the moment are the FSA platinum and platinum pro.

Thanks dude, didn't even think of that!

Just measured it up and guess what, you're right!

Will probably do that, or though it has just occured to me that my cranks/pedals are also kind of close to the frame at the moment, so wider axle might rectify?.....

thanks again

[Ra964]

try-all 122.5 is just ok:)