Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    20

    Crankset: Square-Taper vs Octalink

    ok guys, i have to change my old crankset whit a new one, but i have only one of two options, a Square-Taper Crankset with the same chainring size like my old one or an Octalike Crnakset but has a smaller chainring size than my old one..they both have the same price..

  2. #2
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,788
    The octalink is most likely stiffer than square taper, bringing more sense or feel of power transfer and traction.

    Generally smaller rings for sit and spin, bigger rings for stand and mash. The common 22, 32, 44 triple rings cover both styles of riding well.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,188
    If you are changing only the crankset, then you will need to replace with whatever you have now. If you do the bottom bracket as well then you have the choice.

    Square taper has more likelihood to be flexi (if you can manage to identify the flex amongst all the other flexing parts on the bike and your own fitness levels - many can't)

    Octalink has smaller bottom bracket bearings so there will be more likelihood of replacing the BB due to wear/grit getting in.

    Size of chainrings will only matter if you already spend significant time in your very largest gear and think you are pedaling too fast.
    Rimmer - "There's an old human saying - if you talk garbage, expect pain"

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    40
    I can't weigh in on their relative flexibility, but I find that the Octalink needs a LOT more attention (read: re-torqueing) than the square tapered ones. Failure to do so has results in both BB and Crank damage.

    Caveats:
    - my experience with Octalink is limited to road components (105 and
    - I am a Clyde, and I love cranking up steep grades

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    40
    First bullet above should have noted "105 and Ultegra" components...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    95
    I replaced my Octalink with a sqaure taper after replacing the Octalink 3 times in a year. This was on my 42 lb Santa Bruz Bullit that was used on lift access runs in Colorado. I have been very happy with my FSA BB on my roadbike that is an Octalink style.

  7. #7
    Hi.
    Reputation: jtmartino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Octalink is more expensive than square taper with not much benefit. There also seem to be many more used square taper BBs and cranksets than octalink on craigslist and ebay.

    If it were up to me, I'd stick with square taper.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    103
    sorry..for emerging the old thread this thread has been burried for long time though.

    I don't know if it's only my suggestion or what.

    but I think octalink is better than the square tapper.

    I used to use the UN26 square tapper and after I upgraded it to Alivio octa, I can feel that I can go faster and get a light cadence with octa rather than before with square tapper.

    that is my opinion.

  9. #9
    I Tried Them ALL... Moderator
    Reputation: Zachariah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,944
    Get Shimano SLX, with the Hollowtech II bottom bracket. Octalink is not much an improvement...where Hollowtech is nearly light-years ahead. Money well spent....
    "The mind will quit....well before the body does"

  10. #10
    psycho cyclo addict
    Reputation: edubfromktown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,813
    Octalink was more flexy than square taper for me. Shimano M952 cranks & Octalink BB were hitting the non drive side chainstay (at the peak of my right foot power stroke). Shimano BB-UN-73 with White Industries import Sugino ST cranks (off an old homegrown Schwinn) do not flex at all. You can still get this BB from Jenson- doesn't get much better than that one (other than Phil Wood or the older/discontinued BB-UN-72).

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sickmak90's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    396
    I've had both and I'm not impressed with the octalink. I have to retorque it a lot, but it works I guess.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    344
    Square taper gets a hard time because it's "old". It's perfectly fine for most people. It seems to me that quality of BB makes a difference, but I've used a VP square taper (not high-end) in two different bikes and it was great. I put an octalink on my wife's bike and that feels fine as well. I have a Shimano external BB on my main bike which feels a bit stiffer, which I prefer, but I wouldn't be depressed if I had to use square or octalink.

    It seems to me the differences in properly functioning and decent quality BBs is not significant enough for most people to really make a difference in their performance.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,668
    I don't really notice much difference between square taper and any of the other systems since my bike frames are all on the flexy side. What I did notice was strength, back when I was younger and rode like a maniac I'd bend a square taper BB every so often from doing big drops to flat or landing a jump wrong. I never managed to bend an Octalink or ISIS BB, and I suspect I'll never bend the newer ones.

  14. #14
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    404
    I would go with the Sq.Tpr because of the cheap costs when your BB fails, and they are pretty much bomb proof, Never go with ISIS because its POS, I managed to kill an ISIS BB with less than 50 kilometers on it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •