Nick, as I mentioned in my question, I too only have experience with cranks that take spacers between the arm and the cup. It makes more sense that way, but this bb definitely seems to require spacers next to the shell. That's how it was assembled when it arrived. I just cant figure out why it's asymmetrical. Ive now learned that, even with a 73mm shell, it would still require a single 2.5mm spacer on the drive side, UNLESS there was a bb-mounted deraileur or bash gauard plate. But you'd think the crank arms would be shaped to compensate for that.
As set up in my photo, I have a 50mm chainline. Sheldon says a road double should be 47mm, so that's another reason not to add more spacers on that side. You probably had the best idea though. I guess I'll take a dremel to the non-drive-side arm or spidel end, so it can slide inward a few more millimeters and at least be symmetrical. It'll still be wider than necessary, but I'm not Q- factor sensitive, fortunately. I guess this is really intended as a mtb crank, even though it doesn't say that on soma's or interloc's website? On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 9:41:32 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote: > I mostly take the number of spacers they recommend and arrange them in > whjatever fashion creates the best chainline for the bike. > > Will > > On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:26:56 AM UTC-5 aeroperf wrote: > >> I’m going to stick with the spacers going as shown in the exploded view - >> spacers going between the cup and the BB shell. >> You’re absolutely right on the prep work. Both bikes were chased, but >> the Soma was not faced… probably why it gets by with the spacer stack >> slightly smaller. >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/61d94656-f599-4bc9-b259-1d7298857905n%40googlegroups.com.
