# What was wrong with Square Taper?



## skygodmatt

Are the cranksets now really better than Campagnolo Record square taper?

I had a 2006 Record 10 speed alloy crank w/ a record square taper bb. 
It weighed about 750 grams total. The crank was light. More weight of the crankset was in the bottom bracket so rotational crank weight was low. 

The bearings were smoother than today's cartridge type bearing which handle little angular load. Plus, they looked very clean. 

Even Tom Boonan won the Paris Roubaix on one- even though the new hot carbon hollow axle cranks were out on the market. 

So my question is: Are the new cranks really better? Stiffer? Maybe. Does it really matter?


----------



## brewster

This is a perfect case of marketing driving technical "innovation" and providing a solution in search of a problem. So, I'd say no.


----------



## cs1

brewster said:


> This is a perfect case of marketing driving technical "innovation" and providing a solution in search of a problem. So, I'd say no.


I'd say you're correct. Did you ever hear so many complaints about tools or washers on a square taper crank? I think not.


----------



## PlatyPius

cs1 said:


> I'd say you're correct. Did you ever hear so many complaints about tools or washers on a square taper crank? I think not.


In one way, they're better. Well, if the industry could finally settle with one standard, that is... For any crankset/frame combination that uses a threaded bottom bracket, there are only 2 models required; Italian or British. Of course, BB30 came into being, requiring yet another crank model and a couple new bottom brackets, then there's the BB86 thing and now "BBright".

With square-taper, there was 68x103, 68x107, 68x110, 68x113, 68x115, 68x117.5, etc, etc. (Campy, of course, used fewer)

Personally, I liked square-taper just fine. I do notice less BB flex with my outboard BB cranks, but I also notice a much shorter bearing life.

Plus, square-taper Campy cranks were sexy. The new carbon cranks do nothing for me.


----------



## orange_julius

skygodmatt said:


> Are the cranksets now really better than Campagnolo Record square taper?
> 
> I had a 2006 Record 10 speed alloy crank w/ a record square taper bb.
> It weighed about 750 grams total. The crank was light. More weight of the crankset was in the bottom bracket so rotational crank weight was low.
> 
> The bearings were smoother than today's cartridge type bearing which handle little angular load. Plus, they looked very clean.
> 
> Even Tom Boonan won the Paris Roubaix on one- even though the new hot carbon hollow axle cranks were out on the market.
> 
> So my question is: Are the new cranks really better? Stiffer? Maybe. Does it really matter?


Boonen had to use the older system because he needed an extra-long set of crankarms and they didn't have it available for UT at that time (or maybe ever). 

The new cranks are significantly stiffer, and are easier to install in my opinion. Plus, it requires fewer tools. So yes, to me these do matter.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM

I killed 1 campy square taper bottom bracket in the time I've had my bike (4 years). I'll be interested to see how long my SRAM BB30 setup lasts.


----------



## bigbill

I've had zero durability problems with UT cranksets. It's a good design as long as the frame is properly prepped and the BB shell is the correct width (talking fractions of a mm). I rode square taper campy for years with no problems as well. I still have 4-5 bottom brackets in my tool boxes. UT was marketing to counter Shimano and FSA's external bearing design. The other poster was right about why some riders chose square taper in the beginning, no 180mm cranks in carbon initially, plus riders were wary of carbon cranks while riding on cobbles because of the crash factor. I think they're beyond that now plus carbon cranks are available in 177.5 and 180 now.


----------



## natedg200202

From the manufacturer's point of view, they are better because campy needed to innovate to keep up with the changes of other companies. 

From my perspective, they are better because they look cooler than the old square taper. 

Functionally, the differences for most people are purely theoretical (stiffer, weight, etc.).


----------



## jmoryl

The OP has it right. I have a Chorus square taper on one bike and Record square taper on the other. Both on original BBs, they look a lot nicer than any carbon crank (IMO). I'll keep running them until it becomes impractical.


----------



## The Weasel

The problem with square taper is that it wasn't generating enough $$ in crank sales.:idea:


----------



## RussellS

skygodmatt said:


> Are the cranksets now really better than Campagnolo Record square taper?
> 
> I had a 2006 Record 10 speed alloy crank w/ a record square taper bb.
> 
> The bearings were smoother than today's cartridge type bearing


Campagnolo has been using cartridge bearing bottom brackets since the mid 1990s at least. Your 2006 square taper bottom bracket was cartridge. Loose ball bearings have not been used for 20 years or more. Current outboard bearings are much larger than the cartridges that fit inside the bottom bracket shell. So they should last much better. But they may be sealed less well so they may not last as well.

All but one of my cranksets is square taper. I don't think I'm at a disadvantage. Main complaint is Campagnolo uses ISO and Shimano uses JIS. So interchanging bottom brackets is not good.


----------



## PlatyPius

RussellS said:


> Campagnolo has been using cartridge bearing bottom brackets since the mid 1990s at least. Your 2006 square taper bottom bracket was cartridge. Loose ball bearings have not been used for 20 years or more. *Current outboard bearings are much larger than the cartridges that fit inside the bottom bracket shell. So they should last much better.* But they may be sealed less well so they may not last as well.
> 
> All but one of my cranksets is square taper. I don't think I'm at a disadvantage. Main complaint is Campagnolo uses ISO and Shimano uses JIS. So interchanging bottom brackets is not good.


False. The overall diameter is larger, but the balls themselves are smaller. They are, indeed, not sealed as well as sqr. taper BBs (as far as Shimano, TruVativ, FSA, etc) and seem to fail much more frequently.

Since this is a thread about Campy, though, I should mention that Campy seems to have done it right; or at least better. I haven't seen the same failure rate with Campy crank bearings as I have with FSA/TruVativ.


----------



## ultimobici

orange_julius said:


> Boonen had to use the older system because he needed an extra-long set of crankarms and they didn't have it available for UT at that time (or maybe ever).
> 
> The new cranks are significantly stiffer, and are easier to install in my opinion. Plus, it requires fewer tools. So yes, to me these do matter.


Record UT requires a tool to fit the cups * a tool to tighten the cranks on. To remove the system one needs a tool to release the cranks. Record ST requires a tool to fit the BB, a tool to tighten the cranks and the same tool to remove the cranks. Both also need the same cutting & facing, with UT being the more fickle system if it is not done properly.
So ST uses no more tools than UT and is less hassle to fit to boot.


----------



## bigbill

PlatyPius said:


> Since this is a thread about Campy, though, I should mention that Campy seems to have done it right; or at least better. I haven't seen the same failure rate with Campy crank bearings as I have with FSA/TruVativ.


Data to back this up. When I had my Pegoretti Fina (I still have the BLE), it was built up with 2003 vintage Record 10. At some point after a long day locked in a hot car, I decided that I wanted a carbon crankset and liked the look of the FSA and since I was already showing poor judgement, I got a compact. I took the frame to the LBS to get the BB re-faced to remove some corrosion and to make sure the cups would seat correctly. It felt pretty good, I wasn't a fan of the compact but I was good with the stiffness. The bearings lasted 4 months. I replaced them and the next set lasted six months. 

I then decided to try UT so I bought a Centaur alloy. The 2007 version had great chainrings, Record looking chainrings. I put about 10K miles on that crankset on two continents in all kinds of weather and when I finally pulled it off to upgrade to Record 11, the bearings on the Centaur felt as smooth as the Record. Campy definately did it right.


----------



## campagnoloneutron

Nothing was "wrong" with square taper... same as nothing was wrong with friction shifting and toe clips and straps. Each was excellent... in their time. ...and I say that thoughtfully as I used these for many years.

Things change and improve, time to move along and enjoy the newer improvements to the equipment like UT.


----------



## Juanmoretime

Square taper was okay. I found I had many more creaks on the bike and the source was the cranks when I used square taper. While it worked, I'm very satisfied with the new systems too.


----------



## flatlander_48

skygodmatt said:


> Are the cranksets now really better than Campagnolo Record square taper?
> 
> I had a 2006 Record 10 speed alloy crank w/ a record square taper bb.
> It weighed about 750 grams total. The crank was light. More weight of the crankset was in the bottom bracket so rotational crank weight was low.
> 
> The bearings were smoother than today's cartridge type bearing which handle little angular load. Plus, they looked very clean.
> 
> *Even Tom Boonan won the Paris Roubaix on one- even though the new hot carbon hollow axle cranks were out on the market. *
> 
> So my question is: Are the new cranks really better? Stiffer? Maybe. Does it really matter?


Not a good comparison as the teams really fall back to very conservative hardware for the Roubaix...


----------



## Golfguy

Installing/removing the UT cranksets are much easier than the old square taper in my opinion and I agree that they don't seem to have as many creaks and squeaks as the square taper.


----------



## bikerjulio

I got 4 bikes with square taper, and no issues with squeaking at all. In poor riding conditions they seem to last longer too.


----------



## foggypeake

Three bikes, all with Campy square taper BBs. The newest is from 2003; the oldest is from 1994 and all of them are still smooth. 

Of course, if you saw me, you would say it was from the lack of use.....


----------



## RussellS

7 out of 8 bikes are square taper cranksets. Newest carbon bike has the integrated hollow axle outboard bearing system. 3 are Campagnolo cranks. Never replaced any of those bottom brackets. 1 is a Race Face crank on a Campagnolo bottom bracket. Had a Shimano bottom bracket on that crank but wanted to slide the crank in closer with the ISO taper instead of JIS taper. 3 are Shimano cranks with various lengths of bottom brackets to fit the bike.


----------



## flatlander_48

Well, inherently there's nothing wrong with flathead V-8's and 3 by the knee either, but...


----------



## pigpen

I love my ST.
I do have UT on one bike and 7800 on another.
All work fine.
My favorite is ST. Looks sexy to me.


----------



## BeeCharmer

I would regularly have to replace my Record or Chorus ST bb every 6000 miles, more than once a year. The drive side bearing would disintegrate. I'm a big guy and put 1600w in a sprint, so maybe that's part of it, but it got old. My UT bb is still going strong at 24,000 miles. It's also easier to pull apart, one tool, to check bearing and lube. I'm pleased.


----------



## RussellS

flatlander_48 said:


> Well, inherently there's nothing wrong with flathead V-8's and 3 by the knee either, but...


Do you mean "Three on the tree"? 3 by the knee? Thats weird. I drove a 1970 F-100 with that shifter. I think it was Reverse on the front top, First front bottom, Second back top, Third back bottom. LONG way from First to Second.


----------



## Kai Winters

My Record square taper is 12 years old and smooth as silk.
I do remover the crank arms periodically, clean the tapers and crank innards then regrease with just the slightest bit of Park grease and re-attach. No squeaks...unless they get wet then I remove and clean again.

It can be a major hassle looking through the "bin o'axles" trying to find the correct length for a customer...of course the one he/she needs is the only one I don't have...aargh...


----------



## flatlander_48

RussellS said:


> Do you mean "Three on the tree"? 3 by the knee? Thats weird. I drove a 1970 F-100 with that shifter. I think it was Reverse on the front top, First front bottom, Second back top, Third back bottom. LONG way from First to Second.


No, those who didn't have, or couldn't afford, 4 speeds got floor shift kits for 3 speeds...


----------



## David Loving

My single speed (centaur 42 crank), steel road bike (alloy chorus) and carbon road bike (carbon chorus) are all square taper 10 speed and I am going to ride them until they disintegrate - and phil wood rebuilds BBs cheap, too. Every now and then I think - Athena 11 for the steel bike, but then I wake up.


----------



## ultraman6970

Been using campagnolo since like 30 years ago, sincerelly u can tell there is a difference in the pedaling using UT. UT was easier to mount, in 10 minutes you have the cups and the cranks already installed. ST will last for a few more years,

ST is simple too but is a PITA if you need to take cranks aout and put new ones you know, extractor and stuff (i do mechanics since 30 years ago also), with UT just take the bolt out, take the pin out and pull, put the new ones in, put the pin back in, bolt and done. It can be done with 1 allen tool and one small screwdriver or even a spoke. Not heavy duty tools after all making the swap faster in my opinion, well not even think again in chainlines and stuff. Do not even dare to put a centaur ST crankset in a 102 bb because there u have to start thinking on getting a new BB...

Loke ST but UT made it better in my opinion, never a problem with UT, not even with italian threading BB. I bet some can remember what happens if the cups are not tight well enough using lose balls bbs. UT doesnt have the issue at all.

As for carbon cranks, like them are really good...

cya.


----------



## tooold

Square taper seems to allow for more adjustment for some frames particularly when used with a Phil Wood type BB. So, now the question,where do I find a square taper ,compact new or used Chorus or Record crankset for my Giordana which requires this type arrangement. I have attempted the UT route but get collision with frame and hope to make it easy.


----------



## David Loving

eBay has 'em all over the place. I think Lickton has some.


----------



## tooold

Thank you for the response but square taper compacts seem to be very few on ebay. Licton is close so I will give them a call but I will be happy for any other suggestions.


----------

