Mechanics and Fixing Any Questions Answered

You are reading a single comment by @Kimmo and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

gbj_tester in reply to @Kimmo

there are no decent pedals, because the interface lacks a 45° chamfer

Well, there's that, but it's not going to change.

•

Kimmo in reply to @gbj_tester

Speaking of Jobst in the present tense; he was still alive thirteen years ago...

It could conceivably change - the lock-in could be sidestepped if there was a tool to cut the chamfer in existing cranks, split collets provided with cranks which incorporate the new chamfer for the fitment of old pedals, and available to folks who've had their old cranks modified, and concave-tapered washers provided with pedals incorporating the new chamfer in case they need to be fitted to older or unmodified cranks.

Bigger changes have happened, but this one is admittedly on the edge of possibility for a few reasons...

•

ffm in reply to @Kimmo

Why the need for a chamfer i.e. can someone explain this

"Jobst Brandt will be pleased to explain to you why the interface is so fundamentally flawed that no tightening torque can really be called adequate, since the pedals will loosen at any torque short of the failure stress of the thread."

About

Avatar for Kimmo @Kimmo started