Pedal fell off AGAIN!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

PapaZita

Guru
Location
St. Albans
Would it be helpful to check the width, across the faces of the installed bearings, without the cranks installed? This should be the same for any BB that’s ready to accept a HT2 road chainset (such as the GRX mentioned). I’ve just measured three bikes, and got 92mm each time. Give or take a tiny bit - I didn’t want to dismantle everything, and the drive side is a bit tricky to get at.

if the OP measures much more than 92mm, it would suggest that something in the BB area is too wide, meaning that the crank spindle seems too short.

Alternatively, if the OP measures about 92mm then it suggests that it’s something to do with the insertion of the spindle on the drive side, or the fit of the left crank onto the splines.
 

Ming the Merciless

There is no mercy
Location
Inside my skull
I do wonder if hollowtech road HT2 cranksets have a different length spindle to mtn based ht2 cranksets. I’ve only ever had mtn bike ht2 cranksets so don’t know the answer.
 

si_c

Guru
Location
Wirral
I do wonder if hollowtech road HT2 cranksets have a different length spindle to mtn based ht2 cranksets. I’ve only ever had mtn bike ht2 cranksets so don’t know the answer.
They do, hence the need for spacers when using a MTB crankset on a road BB shell. You can't use road cranks on a MTB BB shell as it's too wide.
 

Cycleops

Legendary Member
Location
Accra, Ghana
Sorry but spindle length is the same, it's the BB that changes, 68 for road and 73 for MTN, hence the spacers. I can swap the sets between my mountain and road bikes.
 
OP
OP
Willam

Willam

Über Member
Good point. The preload thread should be on the crankshaft not in the crank arm. Now I look again it looks like that threaded collar shouldn’t be there.
The pic is of the shaft in the arm.
I’m also beginning to think this is counterfeit. Little known shop never used before. Amazing reviews, well they would be if selling at well below market prices. All the markers are there, plus the item is not performing as it should.
Probikekit was the shop so genuine parts I’m sure.
Ha, reviews aren’t worth anything. I’d be especially suspicious of amazing reviews about crank arms. Who the hell leaves those?

Can you show a picture of inside that crank arm with it sitting above a bit of plain cardboard or paper?
Yes sure when it falls off again lol
I love people that leave reviews on daft stuff, really helpful. Tho I was meaning reviews on the shop.
I think it is. 1 is the inside view of the spindle/ crankshaft, 2 is the inside of the crank arm. Maybe more of the splines in 2 should be covered so the top cap engages into more thread in 1?

View attachment 625189

maybe it is a fake, the OP's use of the word Shamino may not have been a typo :laugh:
A combination of tiredness, stress but mainly me being stupid.
No you don't, the cap only needs to be finger tight, enough to eliminate play. Also, tightening the bolts more isn't the answer - if the crank is assembled correctly, the crank cannot fall off, even if the bolt is loose. If your crank falls off either you have incompatible parts, or you assembled them incorrectly.
Not sure I agree with that, since I tightened the bolds up it’s stayed in place, people seem to think a plastic disc and a 1g plastic pin is going to keep a crank in place with a fully grown man pushing down on it, they are never going to do that, they are not designed for that reason either, when my crank fell of the preload disc was still in place in the crank arm.
May I possibly suggest the OP goes to a proper bike shop if the crank falls off again.
That 100%…or maybe I’m buy a simpler crank and try again.
Bring back cotter pins!:evil:
Over my head.
Shimano documents specify 1Nm as the maximum torque for the cap, just about finger tight should be good enough. From the image above it is clear that the shaft is a long way out, and the safety tab will not have engaged in the shaft.
Was my thought too and still is, even tho the pedal is staying put atm
Maybe there could be a little more thread showing from the spindle. This is mine with the crank pulled fully on.
Yep, doesn’t look right.
on the to buy list.
The OP could try tapping the drive side of the chainset with one of those to make sure that the spindle is all the way in.
Have with a hammer and towel.
Yes, what's clear is that the spindle is not reaching as far as it should. Perhaps the best bet would be to get an LBS to work out why and fix it.
If it falls off again I think it’s off to the lbs
OK, got it - I had assumed the arm was off the crank. Yes, that is nowhere near seated fully.
Does seem either incorrectly fitted or a bad design
Would it be helpful to check the width, across the faces of the installed bearings, without the cranks installed? This should be the same for any BB that’s ready to accept a HT2 road chainset (such as the GRX mentioned). I’ve just measured three bikes, and got 92mm each time. Give or take a tiny bit - I didn’t want to dismantle everything, and the drive side is a bit tricky to get at.

if the OP measures much more than 92mm, it would suggest that something in the BB area is too wide, meaning that the crank spindle seems too short.

Alternatively, if the OP measures about 92mm then it suggests that it’s something to do with the insertion of the spindle on the drive side, or the fit of the left crank onto the splines.
Will do, fitting gears tomorrow will check then.
I do wonder if hollowtech road HT2 cranksets have a different length spindle to mtn based ht2 cranksets. I’ve only ever had mtn bike ht2 cranksets so don’t know the answer.
They do.
They do, hence the need for spacers when using a MTB crankset on a road BB shell. You can't use road cranks on a MTB BB shell as it's too wide.
Agree.
Sorry but spindle length is the same, it's the BB that changes, 68 for road and 73 for MTN, hence the spacers. I can swap the sets between my mountain and road bikes.
Everything I have seen say otherwise, bb slightly different size and threads and the roads cranks are shorter.
 
Last edited:

faster

Über Member
Sorry but spindle length is the same, it's the BB that changes, 68 for road and 73 for MTN, hence the spacers. I can swap the sets between my mountain and road bikes.

I think the spindle length does change.

That's why you need spacers when using an MTB crankset with a 68mm shell but don't need spacers when using a road crankset on the same shell.

I don't think a road crankset can be fitted to a 73mm shell. The spindle would be too short.
 

C R

Guru
Location
Worcester
I think the spindle length does change.

That's why you need spacers when using an MTB crankset with a 68mm shell but don't need spacers when using a road crankset on the same shell.

I don't think a road crankset can be fitted to a 73mm shell. The spindle would be too short.
That was my understanding too. Will have a look through shimano's compatibility docs to confirm.
 

Cycleops

Legendary Member
Location
Accra, Ghana
I don't think a road crankset can be fitted to a 73mm shell. The spindle would be too short.
I can swap the crank sets between my road and mountain bikes no probs.
 

C R

Guru
Location
Worcester
I can swap the crank sets between my road and mountain bikes no probs.
I couldn't find a compatibility chart for cranksets, need to dig deeper. Is it the case that the BB cups are designed such that the overall dimension once the cups are in place is the same, regardless of shell width? In which case, why would there be spacers at all? I just wish shimano published dimensioned drawings or space models.
 
OP
OP
Willam

Willam

Über Member
I couldn't find a compatibility chart for cranksets, need to dig deeper. Is it the case that the BB cups are designed such that the overall dimension once the cups are in place is the same, regardless of shell width? In which case, why would there be spacers at all? I just wish shimano published dimensioned drawings or space models.
The spacers are because the spindles on the crankset are different lengths and the BB are different widths too.

This might help.

https://wheelsmfg.com/bb-overall-widths
 
Top Bottom