FSA Bottom Bracket - are they all different - help please!

[slomo]

Several days later.....
Many hours consulting previous posts on numerous forums and contacting FSA directly reveal that:
1 - A common theme is the 'mystery' of FSA BB/Crank compatibility.
2 - FSA continue the mysterious theme with numerous, contradictory 'compatibility charts' - none of which inspire confidence.
3 - It is generally considered (and i concur) that the copper? coloured BB's are a prime example of a manufacturer not consulting consumers with regard to what constitutes 'tasteful'. In fact, it has been suggested that if FSA had bothered to ask which colour NOT to manufacture a BB in - natural selection/wisdom of the masses (call it what you will) would have rendered 'that' colour (i can't even bring myself to try and describe it) as the one to avoid.
Anyway.....the net result of all this scratching about is that the chart shown (whilst offering no guarantees) is about as close as FSA can get to producing something at least reasonably close to the truth.....in as much as there are several BB options for SLK cranks (but only SPECIFIC SLK cranks).
What a gurgling bloody mess - that's all i can say.

 

[novocaine]

if I get change I'll pull the crank tonight/tomorrow and see if there is anything internal. but from a look at your chart 200-1875 matches what I have the best.

I get it's a pain the arse all of this, but I will say the FSA BB is considerable better than the shimano one, if only because you can replace the bearings without replacing the cups.

 

[slomo]

Replacing the bearings without replacing the cups sounds excellent - thanks for the tip.
I just don't think it should be so difficult.
Let's say i replaced the SLK cranks with GXP 15? years ago (having got fed up with this whole FSA thing).
Since then, i've used Truvativ, Sram and Bontrager GXP cranks - all with GXP BB's - all without ever having to even think about BB/Crank compatibility.
GXP seems to come in for a lot of stick, but i've found it faultless.
Yes, you have to pay close attention to torque settings, but it's simple to understand, there are no creepy colours involved and spares (new and used) are readily available at a reasonable cost.
If it were not for the fact that i'm certain i will need the triple for a few months and am reluctant to buy new cranks for one 'adventure' i would throw the wretched FSA things in the bin.
I don't feel it would even be 'fair' to sell them - in case some poor unsuspecting soul bought them without realising what they were letting themselves in for.
As a side note - i feel that we (cyclists, collectively) are too quick to shrug our shoulders and accept (and believe) what the manufacturers tell us.
If nobody says anything, nothing will change - so i've had a moan at FSA.
It might or might not make a difference, but i feel better for it at least.
Anyway.....onwards in the quest for a bottom bracket!

 

[jonnyboy666]

if you have a 24mm both ends of the axle, then you should be able to use a normal 68mm shell shimano road BB, i have seen this done a lot but not all FSA chainsets can do this, but they are quite a bit cheaper than the original FSA unit, bearing in mind i assume you will be refitting the other cranks after this event. if however the axle is 24/22mm which i think some FSA cranks were then you need a specific BB for that from FSA, i should point out though that even if you use a shimano bb if the FSA chainset has a spring washer you should still use that as the unlike shimano cranks with a preload cap the FSA cranks i think do up to a fixed point and the spring washer provides the bearing pressure.

i would point out from experience that the FSA bb's do not seem to last as well as the shimano ones so if you can fit shimano i would.

 

[synchronicity]

Is this one with black cups?

https://www.tradeinn.com/bikeinn/en/fsa-bb-6200-bsa-megaexo-24-mm-bottom-bracket/138387880/p
Don't get the 4000 one for omega cranksets as that does have a different spindle diameter.

 

[synchronicity]

I don't think FSA is all that bad.
They have some very reasonably priced carbon cranksets.

 

[nicklej]

I have a similar issue with an older SLK carbon MTB crank. All info on the net was related to the BB30 version of the same named crank and not the 24mm version. The spindle didn't fit well into a shimano BB because there were two rasied bearing interface sections which we 24.1mm and that 0.1mm made a difference. I did use the Shimano BB for a while but had to play around with a few wave washers to get the right preload.

 

[slomo]

Many thanks for these replies.
Thanks Synchronicity - that's a good find - that BB will work with my cranks.
One of the points i made to FSA - and demonstrated very well here by Jonnyboy666 and Nicklej.....
Is that the fact that a lot of people are prepared to use someone else's (Shimano in this instance) components and accept small intolerances - because they are better quality, better priced and look better - well.....that should tell you something.
I don't have an issue with FSA as such - i have an issue with spending 2 weeks trying to find out which BB i need.
As i mentioned previously, they will keep doing this if nobody says anything.
Anyway.....

 

[synchronicity]

Well, perhaps next time don't be afraid to ask the forum instead of researching it for two weeks on your own?
Bikes are getting pretty complicated these days.

I'm finding that even simple things like buying replacement chainrings is not that easy anymore! So many different standards.
Other manufacturers are just as bad as FSA.

Look at shimano, in the 90s everything was 5-arm spiders.
Then it went compact spiders.
That changed to 4 arm spiders.
Later asymmetrical spiders.
Now it is "direct mount" spiders (with their own 8 different standards)
etc, etc.

 

[slomo]

Very good point - very well made Synchronicity.
And we shrug our shoulders, say nothing, smile and hand our money over uncomplainingly
C'est La Vie