new BB for old Campagnolo SR

[olivers523@rogers.com]

My bike has a 68 mm English bottom bracket shell. The cranks are 1987
vintage Super Record, and the axle is 118.5 mm long. The stays are not
"worked" much if at all, so there is only about 1mm between the inner
chainring and the chainstay. I believe the chainline is correct so
keeping that gap at 1mm or maybe a touch more is desirable.

Short of paying the price for the correct NOS Campagnolo Record or
Super Record bracket assembly, how can I replace this worn bottom
bracket? The correct Phil Wood solution is attractive but also too
pricey just now. Can I make a current 115 mm Campagnolo Veloce square-
taper sealed unit fit with some suitable shimming with freewheel
spacers to the right? How will that unit react to having its shoulders
seated 70-71 mm apart?

Solutions need not originate in Italy, but durability is a
requirement. I know the Campagnolo taper is the same angle but
different length (thinner at the end?) than the Japanese standard
square taper was.

Thanks

Bliver

[jim beam]

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:ftGdnSnKJJX-fZvanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:FoidnX4Z2pOQj57anZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> Jambo wrote:
>>> Yes, they are. Your proven record of fraud and lies make this a
>>> certainty. Tell you what, why don't you come up with YOUR OWN pictures,
>>> beamboy? Put them in that little flickr website of yours...
>> er, because it's reinventing the wheel, and i don't have a macro lens that
>> good. moron.
>
> How lame, even for you... don't have a macro lens indeed..... HAHAHAHA!
>
>
>>> Never did, fraud. What I STATED is that you're riding on the back of
>>> these pictures that someone else took, and bleating the end of the world.
>> so that's not allowed? ****ing moron!
>
> So you admit it then, you lying fraud... finally, you're getting somewhere.
>
>>> Nah, you're the one bleating chicken little ****....
>> present an argument, moron. all you're doing right now is having a temper
>> tantrum.
>
> Argument: beamboy is a lying ignorant fraud, bleating chicken little stories
> that use other people's data taken out of context, and beefed up with his
> own made up data which can't be proven by anyone else (cause he hasn't got a
> macro lens)
>
> Proofs: pick any beamboy post.
>
>> easy. open a book. like you could do if you wanted to be sure that
>> modulus is /not/ "strength to weight".
>
> Great. So tell us the book you saw all these failures on, beamboy. But
> wait, they were from bike swaps, weren't they, the ones where all the
> vendors were selling cracked components....
>
>>> Saw a few pictures on the internet by someone else, and you bleat the
>>> world is ending... and you "back up" your bleat by making up the "I saw
>>> it at bike swap meets" story, which conveniently cannot be proven by
>>> anyone except yourself....
>> /you/ do the research, then post pics. moron.
>
> Nah, you're the one making up the chicken little story, you back it up.
> With REAL data, your own.
>
>>> Lying fraud tard.
>> mirror, mirror on the wall...
>
> Lying fraud tard.
>
>

and you're unstable. take your meds. moron.

[jim beam]

olivers523@rogers.com wrote:
> My bike has a 68 mm English bottom bracket shell. The cranks are 1987
> vintage Super Record, and the axle is 118.5 mm long. The stays are not
> "worked" much if at all, so there is only about 1mm between the inner
> chainring and the chainstay. I believe the chainline is correct so
> keeping that gap at 1mm or maybe a touch more is desirable.
>
> Short of paying the price for the correct NOS Campagnolo Record or
> Super Record bracket assembly, how can I replace this worn bottom
> bracket? The correct Phil Wood solution is attractive but also too
> pricey just now. Can I make a current 115 mm Campagnolo Veloce square-
> taper sealed unit fit with some suitable shimming with freewheel
> spacers to the right? How will that unit react to having its shoulders
> seated 70-71 mm apart?
>
> Solutions need not originate in Italy, but durability is a
> requirement. I know the Campagnolo taper is the same angle but
> different length (thinner at the end?) than the Japanese standard
> square taper was.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bliver
>

inspect that crank /very/ carefully for cracks! every used sr crank
i've ever seen has got cracking in it thus:

http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-3.250.jpg
http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-4.250.jpg
http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-5.250.jpg
http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-6.250.jpg
http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/Dscn2410_640.jpg

and the worst of the lot:
http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 30, 10:31 pm, olivers...@rogers.com wrote:
> My bike has a 68 mm English bottom bracket shell. The cranks are 1987
> vintage Super Record, and the axle is 118.5 mm long. The stays are not
> "worked" much if at all, so there is only about 1mm between the inner
> chainring and the chainstay. I believe the chainline is correct so
> keeping that gap at 1mm or maybe a touch more is desirable.
>
> Short of paying the price for the correct NOS Campagnolo Record or
> Super Record bracket assembly, how can I replace this worn bottom
> bracket? The correct Phil Wood solution is attractive but also too
> pricey just now. Can I make a current 115 mm Campagnolo Veloce square-
> taper sealed unit fit with some suitable shimming with freewheel
> spacers to the right? How will that unit react to having its shoulders
> seated 70-71 mm apart?

the Campagnolo 115 Veloce type BB may have the left arm hitting the
frame since it is more symmetrical than the old SR/NR type. Look
around, I am sure there are nice shape BBs that will work. Phil is the
best choice, and cheaper than NOS SR/NR/GranSport.
>
> Solutions need not originate in Italy, but durability is a
> requirement. I know the Campagnolo taper is the same angle but
> different length (thinner at the end?) than the Japanese standard
> square taper was.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bliver

[andresmuro@aol.com]

On Sep 30, 10:31 pm, olivers...@rogers.com wrote:
> My bike has a 68 mm English bottom bracket shell. The cranks are 1987
> vintage Super Record, and the axle is 118.5 mm long. The stays are not
> "worked" much if at all, so there is only about 1mm between the inner
> chainring and the chainstay. I believe the chainline is correct so
> keeping that gap at 1mm or maybe a touch more is desirable.
>
> Short of paying the price for the correct NOS Campagnolo Record or
> Super Record bracket assembly, how can I replace this worn bottom
> bracket? The correct Phil Wood solution is attractive but also too
> pricey just now. Can I make a current 115 mm Campagnolo Veloce square-
> taper sealed unit fit with some suitable shimming with freewheel
> spacers to the right? How will that unit react to having its shoulders
> seated 70-71 mm apart?
>
> Solutions need not originate in Italy, but durability is a
> requirement. I know the Campagnolo taper is the same angle but
> different length (thinner at the end?) than the Japanese standard
> square taper was.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bliver

Go to SJScycles.com. They are a brit shop with a bunch of stuff. They
may have a 118 or 122 mm modern bb that will fit campy. Also type
miche or ofmega bb in your browser and see what pops up.

Andres

[andresmuro@aol.com]

On Sep 30, 10:31 pm, olivers...@rogers.com wrote:
> My bike has a 68 mm English bottom bracket shell. The cranks are 1987
> vintage Super Record, and the axle is 118.5 mm long. The stays are not
> "worked" much if at all, so there is only about 1mm between the inner
> chainring and the chainstay. I believe the chainline is correct so
> keeping that gap at 1mm or maybe a touch more is desirable.
>
> Short of paying the price for the correct NOS Campagnolo Record or
> Super Record bracket assembly, how can I replace this worn bottom
> bracket? The correct Phil Wood solution is attractive but also too
> pricey just now. Can I make a current 115 mm Campagnolo Veloce square-
> taper sealed unit fit with some suitable shimming with freewheel
> spacers to the right? How will that unit react to having its shoulders
> seated 70-71 mm apart?
>
> Solutions need not originate in Italy, but durability is a
> requirement. I know the Campagnolo taper is the same angle but
> different length (thinner at the end?) than the Japanese standard
> square taper was.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bliver

Here are a couple that might work.

http://www.xxcycle.com/php/boutique/page.php?nom=PRODUITpp&key=3532&FROM=bestwebbuys

http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/BB408A01-Miche+Pista+Track+Bottom+Brackets.aspx?sc=bbbsearc h&x=y

[_]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:31:00 -0700, olivers523@rogers.com wrote:

> My bike has a 68 mm English bottom bracket shell. The cranks are 1987
> vintage Super Record, and the axle is 118.5 mm long. The stays are not
> "worked" much if at all, so there is only about 1mm between the inner
> chainring and the chainstay. I believe the chainline is correct so
> keeping that gap at 1mm or maybe a touch more is desirable.
>
> Short of paying the price for the correct NOS Campagnolo Record or
> Super Record bracket assembly, how can I replace this worn bottom
> bracket? The correct Phil Wood solution is attractive but also too
> pricey just now.

Look for a Sugino Mighty - I believ they had the same dimensions, and the
quality was good. On ebay they cost a lot less than NOS campy stuff -
there's no cachet, but so what.

[Donald Gillies]

olivers523@rogers.com writes:

>My bike has a 68 mm English bottom bracket shell. The cranks are 1987
>vintage Super Record, and the axle is 118.5 mm long.

I don't think they should be 118.5mm, i think they are supposed to be
114.5 mm long, unless it's a super record triple ?!??!

http://www.bicycleclassics.com/bottom.html

Anyway, -/Nuovo/Super Record cranks had a 3mm drive-side offset, so
add 3 mm to your axle width (117.5mm ?? or 121.5mm ??) and buy a
UN-73 from shimano (118 or 122, if offered), it should work pretty
well, and only adds maybe 60 grams to the weight of your bottom
bracket.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA, USA

[olivers523@rogers.com]

On Oct 1, 12:31 am, olivers...@rogers.com wrote:
> My bike has a 68 mm English bottom bracket shell. The cranks are 1987
> vintage Super Record, and the axle is 118.5 mm long. The stays are not
> "worked" much if at all, so there is only about 1mm between the inner
> chainring and the chainstay. I believe the chainline is correct so
> keeping that gap at 1mm or maybe a touch more is desirable.
>
> Short of paying the price for the correct NOS Campagnolo Record or
> Super Record bracket assembly, how can I replace this worn bottom
> bracket? The correct Phil Wood solution is attractive but also too
> pricey just now. Can I make a current 115 mm Campagnolo Veloce square-
> taper sealed unit fit with some suitable shimming with freewheel
> spacers to the right? How will that unit react to having its shoulders
> seated 70-71 mm apart?
>
> Solutions need not originate in Italy, but durability is a
> requirement. I know the Campagnolo taper is the same angle but
> different length (thinner at the end?) than the Japanese standard
> square taper was.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bliver

Everybody:

Thanks for the advice on the Miche and OFMEGA BB's - I will track down
a Miche. I looks like it offers Phil-like adjustability which I am
guessing I will need.

The present BB axle is really 118.5 mm. (actually an OFMEGA set which
may explain the premature death by Campy standards) probably because
the chainstays are not dimpled at all and the builder wanted chainring
clearance breathing room. The chain line may be a few mm outboard of
theoretically correct, but it works well for me with the current setup
and the lateral stiffness of the rear end is nice when climbing a hill
loaded. I asked for that and got it. Good builder.

1. My crankset is not cracked anywhere. I look at broken things for a
living and would never let that go. Keep that stuff on its own
thread, please.

2. On the Shimano suggestion: Thanks. I'll try an ISO taper first if
I can, but it may come to a Shimano work-around until at least one kid
graduates from university and I can justify the Phil Wood.

Bliver

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 30, 11:36 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> olivers...@rogers.com wrote:
> > My bike has a 68 mm English bottom bracket shell. The cranks are 1987
> > vintage Super Record, and the axle is 118.5 mm long. The stays are not
> > "worked" much if at all, so there is only about 1mm between the inner
> > chainring and the chainstay. I believe the chainline is correct so
> > keeping that gap at 1mm or maybe a touch more is desirable.
>
> > Short of paying the price for the correct NOS Campagnolo Record or
> > Super Record bracket assembly, how can I replace this worn bottom
> > bracket? The correct Phil Wood solution is attractive but also too
> > pricey just now. Can I make a current 115 mm Campagnolo Veloce square-
> > taper sealed unit fit with some suitable shimming with freewheel
> > spacers to the right? How will that unit react to having its shoulders
> > seated 70-71 mm apart?
>
> > Solutions need not originate in Italy, but durability is a
> > requirement. I know the Campagnolo taper is the same angle but
> > different length (thinner at the end?) than the Japanese standard
> > square taper was.
>
> > Thanks
>
> > Bliver
>
> inspect that crank /very/ carefully for cracks! every used sr crank
> i've ever seen has got cracking in it thus:
>
> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-3.250.jpghttp://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-4.250.jpghttp://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-5.250.jpghttp://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-6.250.jpghttp://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/Dscn2410_640.jpg
>
> and the worst of the lot:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

Last gen SR, made from about 1985 till end of production 1987 didn't
have the problerms of the easlier channeled crank arms. Last gen SR
was a smooth arm, laser etched and didn't crtack.

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:-uydnTGEtsftGp3anZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...

> inspect that crank /very/ carefully for cracks! every used sr crank i've
> ever seen has got cracking in it thus:
>
> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-3.250.jpg
> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-4.250.jpg
> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-5.250.jpg
> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-6.250.jpg
> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/Dscn2410_640.jpg
>
> and the worst of the lot:
> http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

Chicken little story. The only SR cranks you've seen are in the pictures
you mentioned above (which are someone else's pictures), and you bleat as if
the world is ending.

[jim beam]

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:-uydnTGEtsftGp3anZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>> inspect that crank /very/ carefully for cracks! every used sr crank i've
>> ever seen has got cracking in it thus:
>>
>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-3.250.jpg
>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-4.250.jpg
>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-5.250.jpg
>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-6.250.jpg
>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/Dscn2410_640.jpg
>>
>> and the worst of the lot:
>> http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm
>
> Chicken little story.

no, chicken little stories are bull****. unless you're saying that i
somehow doctored those images, then persuaded someone to host them, one
on an academic website no less, then you'll have to agree that they're
authentic.

> The only SR cranks you've seen are in the pictures
> you mentioned above

er, no. i sought those pictures out because of what i'd seen in real life.

> (which are someone else's pictures),

and i never claimed anything else.

> and you bleat as if
> the world is ending.

er, no. since you evidently have no experience in this matter, you need
to correct this by going to bike swaps. at them, you'll find all kinds
of things, including junk like used campy s.r. cranks cracked as shown.
of the 20-odd i've seen, 100% have had the same cracking evidence in
exactly the same location.

but you're not interested in the facts since you don't ask any
questions. and that's because you're a moron.

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:xvWdnUnN_NjWW5zanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:-uydnTGEtsftGp3anZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>> inspect that crank /very/ carefully for cracks! every used sr crank
>>> i've ever seen has got cracking in it thus:
>>>
>>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-3.250.jpg
>>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-4.250.jpg
>>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-5.250.jpg
>>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-6.250.jpg
>>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/Dscn2410_640.jpg
>>>
>>> and the worst of the lot:
>>> http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm
>>
>> Chicken little story.
>
> no, chicken little stories are bull****. unless you're saying that i
> somehow doctored those images, then persuaded someone to host them, one on
> an academic website no less, then you'll have to agree that they're
> authentic.

Eh, that's not clever enough. Those are someone else's photos, alright, but
you're just riding on their back in scaremongering. Those are the only
photos you've seen from someone else, and you bleat about the world ending.

>> The only SR cranks you've seen are in the pictures you mentioned above
>
> er, no. i sought those pictures out because of what i'd seen in real
> life.

Sure, beamboy, suuuurreeee....

>> (which are someone else's pictures),
>
> and i never claimed anything else.

Great.

>> and you bleat as if the world is ending.
>
> er, no. since you evidently have no experience in this matter, you need
> to correct this by going to bike swaps. at them, you'll find all kinds of
> things, including junk like used campy s.r. cranks cracked as shown. of
> the 20-odd i've seen, 100% have had the same cracking evidence in exactly
> the same location.

Suuurreee, beamboy, ssuurrreeee....

> but you're not interested in the facts since you don't ask any questions.
> and that's because you're a moron.

C'mon beamboy, where's the love? I got you to admit you're a fraud and a
liar, so you must be on your way to redemption, right?

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Oct 1, 11:38 pm, gill...@cs.ubc.ca (Donald Gillies) wrote:
> olivers...@rogers.com writes:
> >My bike has a 68 mm English bottom bracket shell. The cranks are 1987
> >vintage Super Record, and the axle is 118.5 mm long.
>
> I don't think they should be 118.5mm, i think they are supposed to be
> 114.5 mm long, unless it's a super record triple ?!??!
>
> http://www.bicycleclassics.com/bottom.html
>
> Anyway, -/Nuovo/Super Record cranks had a 3mm drive-side offset, so
> add 3 mm to your axle width (117.5mm ?? or 121.5mm ??) and buy a
> UN-73 from shimano (118 or 122, if offered), it should work pretty
> well, and only adds maybe 60 grams to the weight of your bottom
> bracket.
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA, USA

I don't recommend shimano JIS tapers for any Campagnolo crank BUT
shimano tapers are larger, the crank will press on less distance so if
anything, this gent needs a shorter shimano BB, not longer. For a SR/
NR crank, a 110mm shimano spindle is what I would recommend, if I were
recommending a shimano BB, which I'm not.

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Oct 2, 12:11 pm, olivers...@rogers.com wrote:

> 1. My crankset is not cracked anywhere. I look at broken things for a
> living and would never let that go. Keep that stuff on its own
> thread, please.

Hey, you asked for advice from others with more experience. Someone
took the time to not only warn you of an associated problem, but show
evidence via links.

How would anyone know of your occupation, knowledge, experience, etc?
Not to mention the auto mechanic who borrows the wife's car to get to
work...

How often have you done the good pre-flight on that crank, again?

At least one of my N.Record cranks cracked per the photos. I filed the
sharp "radius" into a smoother shape, per 1976 (or 7)* Bicycling!
article, "A Gitane for Van Impe", but it still cracked. Broke? No, but
the 12:00 spider arm did (in the middle of a sprint, of course)... and
I do know someone who broke one of the later, non-channeled "SR" crank
arms, about a third of the way along the length from the pedal eye, in
spite of not being thinned with that "vanity" channel. Newer cranks,
not only Campy, either, have been known to break, too, especially once
they get some hours on them.

* IOW, a problem well known for a long time.

> 2. On the Shimano suggestion: (snip)

Or you could look at (for instance) the Centaur cranks that Nashbar
(for instance) was blowing out recently. Cheap good crank, cheap BB's.
New (no nicks along the crank arm or gouging at the pedal eye yet),
new chain rings, new bolts, readily available (cheap) BB's.

I'm not a bike shop guy, not putting this stuff together on a regular
basis, but if the Centaur 111 BB isn't long enough, maybe one of the
other 115 Campy units would do the trick on your "non-standard" frame.
One cheap new tool req'd for install.

Justified to the Purchasing Committee as a personal safety issue,
indexed against personal repair costs? Not "scare-mongering", thank
you: Time/money/fooling around/still use old stuff v. other choices.
--D-y

[Donald Gillies]

> I don't recommend shimano JIS tapers for any Campagnolo crank BUT
> shimano tapers are larger, the crank will press on less distance so if
> anything, this gent needs a shorter shimano BB, not longer. For a SR/
> NR crank, a 110mm shimano spindle is what I would recommend, if I were
> recommending a shimano BB, which I'm not.

You have to add +3 because modern BB's are symmetric whereas vintage
campy BB's had +3 of drive-side offset. So you add the +3 for the
non-drive side offset to convert from an asymmetric(ancient) to a
symmetric(modern) size with the same drive-side offset.

But yes, if draw-down is a problem, maybe +2, or +1 at most.

olivers523@rogers.com writes:

>2. On the Shimano suggestion: Thanks. I'll try an ISO taper first if
>I can, but it may come to a Shimano work-around until at least one kid
>graduates from university and I can justify the Phil Wood.

I knew this was going to come up. I am running an ISO crank (SR
Royal) on JIS tapered BB (UN-72). Before, this that ISO crank was run
on another JIS BB (SR/Sugino). No problem either time. about 250
miles on that bike so far.

Yes, it did not draw down all the way (maybe 2/3rds), but then again,
in the best case it draws down 3/4ths or 5/6th, so we're talking about
1/12 or 1/6th of the possible taper width not being exploited, or
alternately, 12.5% or 25% more taper _could_ be used, but it hasn't
killed my crankset yet ...

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

[jim beam]

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:xvWdnUnN_NjWW5zanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:-uydnTGEtsftGp3anZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>
>>>> inspect that crank /very/ carefully for cracks! every used sr crank
>>>> i've ever seen has got cracking in it thus:
>>>>
>>>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-3.250.jpg
>>>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-4.250.jpg
>>>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-5.250.jpg
>>>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/crank-campy-70s-6.250.jpg
>>>> http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/Dscn2410_640.jpg
>>>>
>>>> and the worst of the lot:
>>>> http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm
>>> Chicken little story.
>> no, chicken little stories are bull****. unless you're saying that i
>> somehow doctored those images, then persuaded someone to host them, one on
>> an academic website no less, then you'll have to agree that they're
>> authentic.
>
> Eh, that's not clever enough. Those are someone else's photos, alright, but
> you're just riding on their back in scaremongering. Those are the only
> photos you've seen from someone else, and you bleat about the world ending.

eh? what's scaremongering??? those photos are not fiction. cracked
crap for sale at bike swaps are not fiction. what's next? "modulus is
strength to weight"?


>
>>> The only SR cranks you've seen are in the pictures you mentioned above
>> er, no. i sought those pictures out because of what i'd seen in real
>> life.
>
> Sure, beamboy, suuuurreeee....

moron.


>
>>> (which are someone else's pictures),
>> and i never claimed anything else.
>
> Great.

so why did you try to imply that i'd claimed ownership??? moron.


>
>>> and you bleat as if the world is ending.
>> er, no. since you evidently have no experience in this matter, you need
>> to correct this by going to bike swaps. at them, you'll find all kinds of
>> things, including junk like used campy s.r. cranks cracked as shown. of
>> the 20-odd i've seen, 100% have had the same cracking evidence in exactly
>> the same location.
>
> Suuurreee, beamboy, ssuurrreeee....

gather your own evidence then. moron.


>
>> but you're not interested in the facts since you don't ask any questions.
>> and that's because you're a moron.
>
> C'mon beamboy, where's the love? I got you to admit you're a fraud and a
> liar, so you must be on your way to redemption, right?

yeah, i'm a real fraud. that's why i check facts and publish evidence.
moron.

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:FoidnX4Z2pOQj57anZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Jambo wrote:
>>
>> Eh, that's not clever enough. Those are someone else's photos, alright,
>> but you're just riding on their back in scaremongering. Those are the
>> only photos you've seen from someone else, and you bleat about the world
>> ending.
>
> eh? what's scaremongering??? those photos are not fiction.

Never said they were.
> cracked crap for sale at bike swaps are not fiction.

Yes, they are. Your proven record of fraud and lies make this a certainty.
Tell you what, why don't you come up with YOUR OWN pictures, beamboy? Put
them in that little flickr website of yours...

> what's next? "modulus is strength to weight"?
>
>
>>
>>>> The only SR cranks you've seen are in the pictures you mentioned above
>>> er, no. i sought those pictures out because of what i'd seen in real
>>> life.
>>
>> Sure, beamboy, suuuurreeee....
>
> moron.

Suuurrrrreeee...

>>
>>>> (which are someone else's pictures),
>>> and i never claimed anything else.
>>
>> Great.
>
> so why did you try to imply that i'd claimed ownership??? moron.

Never did, fraud. What I STATED is that you're riding on the back of these
pictures that someone else took, and bleating the end of the world.

>> Suuurreee, beamboy, ssuurrreeee....
>
> gather your own evidence then. moron.

Nah, you're the one bleating chicken little ****....

>> C'mon beamboy, where's the love? I got you to admit you're a fraud and a
>> liar, so you must be on your way to redemption, right?
>
> yeah, i'm a real fraud. that's why i check facts and publish evidence.
> moron.

How did you "check facts"? Saw a few pictures on the internet by someone
else, and you bleat the world is ending... and you "back up" your bleat by
making up the "I saw it at bike swap meets" story, which conveniently cannot
be proven by anyone except yourself....

Lying fraud tard.

[jim beam]

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:FoidnX4Z2pOQj57anZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> Eh, that's not clever enough. Those are someone else's photos, alright,
>>> but you're just riding on their back in scaremongering. Those are the
>>> only photos you've seen from someone else, and you bleat about the world
>>> ending.
>> eh? what's scaremongering??? those photos are not fiction.
>
> Never said they were.
>> cracked crap for sale at bike swaps are not fiction.
>
> Yes, they are. Your proven record of fraud and lies make this a certainty.
> Tell you what, why don't you come up with YOUR OWN pictures, beamboy? Put
> them in that little flickr website of yours...

er, because it's reinventing the wheel, and i don't have a macro lens
that good. moron.


>
>> what's next? "modulus is strength to weight"?
>>
>>
>>>>> The only SR cranks you've seen are in the pictures you mentioned above
>>>> er, no. i sought those pictures out because of what i'd seen in real
>>>> life.
>>> Sure, beamboy, suuuurreeee....
>> moron.
>
> Suuurrrrreeee...
>
>>>>> (which are someone else's pictures),
>>>> and i never claimed anything else.
>>> Great.
>> so why did you try to imply that i'd claimed ownership??? moron.
>
> Never did, fraud. What I STATED is that you're riding on the back of these
> pictures that someone else took, and bleating the end of the world.

so that's not allowed? ****ing moron!


>
>>> Suuurreee, beamboy, ssuurrreeee....
>> gather your own evidence then. moron.
>
> Nah, you're the one bleating chicken little ****....

present an argument, moron. all you're doing right now is having a
temper tantrum.


>
>>> C'mon beamboy, where's the love? I got you to admit you're a fraud and a
>>> liar, so you must be on your way to redemption, right?
>> yeah, i'm a real fraud. that's why i check facts and publish evidence.
>> moron.
>
> How did you "check facts"?

easy. open a book. like you could do if you wanted to be sure that
modulus is /not/ "strength to weight".


> Saw a few pictures on the internet by someone
> else, and you bleat the world is ending... and you "back up" your bleat by
> making up the "I saw it at bike swap meets" story, which conveniently cannot
> be proven by anyone except yourself....

/you/ do the research, then post pics. moron.


>
> Lying fraud tard.
>
>

mirror, mirror on the wall...