wtf chain ring bolts

[Catrike Ryder]

The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.

Does anyone know what's going on?

I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

News to me; 5-arm 110mm chainring bolts are a universal
commodity AFAIK.

With a magnifier, see if they are just broached poorly or
maybe if they are Torx. If you succumbed to the bad idea of
an aluminum chainring bolt that's very possible.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

News to me; 5-arm 110mm chainring bolts are a universal
commodity AFAIK.
With a magnifier, see if they are just broached poorly or
maybe if they are Torx. If you succumbed to the bad idea of
an aluminum chainring bolt that's very possible.

Nope, not aluminum and not torx. A closer look shows they they are
very uneven, not even hex slots. The set included 12mm and 8.5mm bolts
and they take a 5MM allen. The inside wall further up on the 16mm is
smooth and round, so I think what happened is that the 5mm hex never
got done. At any rate, they're in the trash. New ones are coming from
a USA based bike shop, not Ebay.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[zen cycle]

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

News to me; 5-arm 110mm chainring bolts are a universal commodity AFAIK.
With a magnifier, see if they are just broached poorly or maybe if they
are Torx.  If you succumbed to the bad idea of an aluminum chainring
bolt that's very possible.

I have a set that are torx, and it's a known "problem"

https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/6drndl/shimano_chainring_bolts_t30_torx_why/?rdt=44490

If the bolts have crud built up and the light isn't really good, they
can look like Allen,

Just make sure whether they're Imperial or Metric :)

[Roger Merriman]

Post by zen cycle

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

News to me; 5-arm 110mm chainring bolts are a universal commodity AFAIK.
With a magnifier, see if they are just broached poorly or maybe if they
are Torx.  If you succumbed to the bad idea of an aluminum chainring
bolt that's very possible.

I have a set that are torx, and it's a known "problem"
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/6drndl/shimano_chainring_bolts_t30_torx_why/?rdt=44490
If the bolts have crud built up and the light isn't really good, they
can look like Allen,
Just make sure whether they're Imperial or Metric :)

Talking of standards, my dad had loads of fun, at Halfords which is car and
bike chain stores, getting some new tyres for the New Hudson bike which is
old much abused bike and has 26inch tyres but not the “normal” ones which
resulted in lots of head scratching by Halfords, I think there are 3
separate similar sized but different sizes with out checking the bible aka
Sheldon Browns site!

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by zen cycle

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

News to me; 5-arm 110mm chainring bolts are a universal commodity AFAIK.
With a magnifier, see if they are just broached poorly or maybe if they
are Torx.  If you succumbed to the bad idea of an aluminum chainring
bolt that's very possible.

I have a set that are torx, and it's a known "problem"
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/6drndl/shimano_chainring_bolts_t30_torx_why/?rdt=44490
If the bolts have crud built up and the light isn't really good, they
can look like Allen,
Just make sure whether they're Imperial or Metric :)

Talking of standards, my dad had loads of fun, at Halfords which is car and
bike chain stores, getting some new tyres for the New Hudson bike which is
old much abused bike and has 26inch tyres but not the “normal” ones which
resulted in lots of head scratching by Halfords, I think there are 3
separate similar sized but different sizes with out checking the bible aka
Sheldon Browns site!
Roger Merriman

Right. Historically, tire diameters are described by
(roughly) outside diameter like a carriage wheel of the late
1800s.

Trouble is, the rim-tire fit is described by the tire inside
diameter which also equals the rim bead seat diameter. More,
every country and many large manufacturers set their own
standard.

We currently see large numbers of 26 decimal (559mm) and
650B (584mm) rather than the once-ubiquitous British
lightweight (590mm) or its American variants 597mm and 26
lightweight decimal (610mm). Good luck finding tires for
German 590 which are ever so slightly smaller than British
590, or Swedish 558mm or 562mm. There are (were) others.

All of those are called (and tires marked) "twenty six inch".

As an aside, tubulars, the oldest standard which size has
not changed since the 1890s, are variously labeled "700C"
(they are not; the 700 type C was developed later to
exchange wheels with the same brake height as a tubular) or
"27 inch" (they are not; 27 inch systems are larger) or "28
inch" (again, 28s are all much larger) even down to today by
various tubular makers in some weird vestigial rite. The
net effect is confusion to riders and is not at all helpful.

[b***@www.zefox.net]

Post by AMuzi
As an aside, tubulars, the oldest standard which size has
not changed since the 1890s, are variously labeled "700C"
(they are not; the 700 type C was developed later to
exchange wheels with the same brake height as a tubular) or
"27 inch" (they are not; 27 inch systems are larger) or "28
inch" (again, 28s are all much larger) even down to today by
various tubular makers in some weird vestigial rite. The
net effect is confusion to riders and is not at all helpful.

As a matter of curiosity, what is that standard size called,
and how is it measured?

Thanks for writing,

bob prohaska

[AMuzi]

Post by b***@www.zefox.net

Post by AMuzi
As an aside, tubulars, the oldest standard which size has
not changed since the 1890s, are variously labeled "700C"
(they are not; the 700 type C was developed later to
exchange wheels with the same brake height as a tubular) or
"27 inch" (they are not; 27 inch systems are larger) or "28
inch" (again, 28s are all much larger) even down to today by
various tubular makers in some weird vestigial rite. The
net effect is confusion to riders and is not at all helpful.

As a matter of curiosity, what is that standard size called,
and how is it measured?
Thanks for writing,
bob prohaska

"tubulars".*

They predate numerical designations but originally were
called 28 inch as they were a lot fatter then. Actual rim
diameter is 630mm.

And now, we return to fat tubulars for 'gravel' and cyclo
cross. The ever popular 23mm tubulars are about 26-1/2
inches edge to edge. Newer fat tubulars are about 27-1/2
inches on that rim.


*there are/were 26" tubulars for TT and track, 24" for
children's bikes and 22", 20" for wheelchairs. All are and
were specialties/oddities with no significant volume.

https://howirollsports.com/shop/panaracer-rapide-20-inch/

[zen cycle]

Post by AMuzi

Post by b***@www.zefox.net

Post by AMuzi
As an aside, tubulars, the oldest standard which size has
not changed since the 1890s, are variously labeled "700C"
(they are not; the 700 type C was developed later to
exchange wheels with the same brake height as a tubular) or
"27 inch" (they are not; 27 inch systems are larger) or "28
inch" (again, 28s are all much larger) even down to today by
various tubular makers in some weird vestigial rite.  The
net effect is confusion to riders and is not at all helpful.

As a matter of curiosity, what is that standard size called,
and how is it measured?
Thanks for writing,
bob prohaska

"tubulars".*
They predate numerical designations but originally were called 28 inch
as they were a lot fatter then. Actual rim diameter is 630mm.
And now, we return to fat tubulars for 'gravel' and cyclo cross. The
ever popular 23mm tubulars are about 26-1/2 inches edge to edge. Newer
fat tubulars are about 27-1/2 inches on that rim.
*there are/were 26" tubulars for TT and track, 24" for children's bikes
and 22", 20" for wheelchairs. All are and were specialties/oddities with
no significant volume.
https://howirollsports.com/shop/panaracer-rapide-20-inch/

One of my best friends (still) has an old Takara "funny bike" from the
1980's with a 24" front wheel, he had tubulars on it. Even then, a 24"
tubular was special order.

[AMuzi]

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by b***@www.zefox.net

Post by AMuzi
As an aside, tubulars, the oldest standard which size has
not changed since the 1890s, are variously labeled "700C"
(they are not; the 700 type C was developed later to
exchange wheels with the same brake height as a tubular) or
"27 inch" (they are not; 27 inch systems are larger) or "28
inch" (again, 28s are all much larger) even down to
today by
various tubular makers in some weird vestigial rite.  The
net effect is confusion to riders and is not at all
helpful.

As a matter of curiosity, what is that standard size called,
and how is it measured?
Thanks for writing,
bob prohaska

"tubulars".*
They predate numerical designations but originally were
called 28 inch as they were a lot fatter then. Actual rim
diameter is 630mm.
And now, we return to fat tubulars for 'gravel' and cyclo
cross. The ever popular 23mm tubulars are about 26-1/2
inches edge to edge. Newer fat tubulars are about 27-1/2
inches on that rim.
*there are/were 26" tubulars for TT and track, 24" for
children's bikes and 22", 20" for wheelchairs. All are and
were specialties/oddities with no significant volume.
https://howirollsports.com/shop/panaracer-rapide-20-inch/

One of my best friends (still) has an old Takara "funny
bike" from the 1980's with a 24" front wheel, he had
tubulars on it. Even then, a 24" tubular was special order.

Right. That had its popular moment both in professional
level machines:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/xrr.html

and in 'econo' versions:

https://www.yellowjersey.org/axr.html

[Zen Cycle]

Post by AMuzi

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by b***@www.zefox.net

Post by AMuzi
As an aside, tubulars, the oldest standard which size has
not changed since the 1890s, are variously labeled "700C"
(they are not; the 700 type C was developed later to
exchange wheels with the same brake height as a tubular) or
"27 inch" (they are not; 27 inch systems are larger) or "28
inch" (again, 28s are all much larger) even down to today by
various tubular makers in some weird vestigial rite.  The
net effect is confusion to riders and is not at all helpful.

As a matter of curiosity, what is that standard size called,
and how is it measured?
Thanks for writing,
bob prohaska

"tubulars".*
They predate numerical designations but originally were called 28
inch as they were a lot fatter then. Actual rim diameter is 630mm.
And now, we return to fat tubulars for 'gravel' and cyclo cross. The
ever popular 23mm tubulars are about 26-1/2 inches edge to edge.
Newer fat tubulars are about 27-1/2 inches on that rim.
*there are/were 26" tubulars for TT and track, 24" for children's
bikes and 22", 20" for wheelchairs. All are and were specialties/
oddities with no significant volume.
https://howirollsports.com/shop/panaracer-rapide-20-inch/

One of my best friends (still) has an old Takara "funny bike" from the
1980's with a 24" front wheel, he had tubulars on it. Even then, a 24"
tubular was special order.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/xrr.html
https://www.yellowjersey.org/axr.html

I love the curved top tube design. I almost picked up a really old
Pinarello funny bike a few years ago with a similar design, but the
seller wouldn't budge on the price ($900, a bit much for something that
would see little more use than wall art).

I need to correct myself though, It isn't a Takara funny bike my friend
has, it's a Nashbar. Websearch shows it as a Nashbar Aero Sprint Pursuit
possibly made Shogun. My friend thinks it was made by Takara, though
anytime anyone asked him who made the frame he would reply "Takara....I
think".

Here it is as I raced it in ~1992:

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10203555191496775&set=a.10203555191376772

Yes, the bar set-up is ridiculously bad - no one really knew what they
were doing back then with aero bars.

Would you have any other insight as to the actual frame builder?


Add xx to reply

[b***@www.zefox.net]

Post by AMuzi
"tubulars".*
They predate numerical designations but originally were
called 28 inch as they were a lot fatter then. Actual rim
diameter is 630mm.

So the tire was named by major diameter x width and the wheel
by major tire diameter minus twice the minor diameter? That's
sensible. Provided the cross section is always circular. Is it?

Thanks for writing!

bob prohaska

[AMuzi]

Post by b***@www.zefox.net

Post by AMuzi
"tubulars".*
They predate numerical designations but originally were
called 28 inch as they were a lot fatter then. Actual rim
diameter is 630mm.

So the tire was named by major diameter x width and the wheel
by major tire diameter minus twice the minor diameter? That's
sensible. Provided the cross section is always circular. Is it?
Thanks for writing!
bob prohaska

Yes, modern ISO system bicycle tires describe (rough,
nominal) diameter and (rough. nominal) width.

Take a tape measure to your "29x50" or "26x1.95" to see why
I wrote those are rough and nominal dimensions.

Originally calling tubulars "28" sorta made some sense, but
as popular tire widths became smaller the actual diameter
dropped as well.

I have ridden a much cleaner example of this extremely well
made and nice handling Pope Columbia shaft drive fixie. Note
standard racing tubulars of the era:

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/rare-antique-pope-columbia-drive-shaft-bicycle

Compare current tubulars:
Loading Image...

Tubular tires from both bikes fit each other's rims.

The confusion all comes from an initial practice of
describing tires by outer diameter, just like carriage
wheels. As tire width fashion changed for each rim format,
the nomenclature was stuck in a fictitious 'diameter'.

Modern systems for autos are more logical (not by much; they
have their own foibles) by describing rim size rather than
tire outer diameter. A 13" auto wheel has a rim 13" diameter
at the bead set and (in my case) a tire 23 inches in
diameter. We have a useful ISO bicycle system (useful
because it works) but note a "29" rim and a "700" rim (same
ISO of 622mm) are neither 700mm nor 29 inches. 622mm is
about 24-1/2 inches.

[AMuzi]

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the
chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I
didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex
deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find
a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard
and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like
they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

News to me; 5-arm 110mm chainring bolts are a universal
commodity AFAIK.
With a magnifier, see if they are just broached poorly or
maybe if they are Torx.  If you succumbed to the bad idea
of an aluminum chainring bolt that's very possible.

I have a set that are torx, and it's a known "problem"
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/6drndl/
shimano_chainring_bolts_t30_torx_why/?rdt=44490
If the bolts have crud built up and the light isn't really
good, they can look like Allen,
Just make sure whether they're Imperial or Metric :)

Imperial are a distinct rarity here in USA ( I went all over
hell to find a WW allen for my custom Hetchins long ago).

More common are SAE, which outnumber, in fasteners and
tools, metric to some great degree.

That said, chainring bolts are a minuscule subset of
fasteners and, as a standard consumer product, not-metric
are virtually unknown (or at least I have never seen one.
Not one.)

It did actually turn out to be defective broaching which
makes more sense than any other variant.

[Zen Cycle]

Post by zen cycle

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

News to me; 5-arm 110mm chainring bolts are a universal commodity AFAIK.
With a magnifier, see if they are just broached poorly or maybe if
they are Torx.  If you succumbed to the bad idea of an aluminum
chainring bolt that's very possible.

I have a set that are torx, and it's a known "problem"
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/6drndl/
shimano_chainring_bolts_t30_torx_why/?rdt=44490
If the bolts have crud built up and the light isn't really good, they
can look like Allen,
Just make sure whether they're Imperial or Metric :)

Imperial are a distinct rarity here in USA ( I went all over hell to
find a WW allen for my custom Hetchins long ago).
More common are SAE, which outnumber, in fasteners and tools, metric to
some great degree.
That said, chainring bolts are a minuscule subset of fasteners and, as a
standard consumer product, not-metric are virtually unknown (or at least
I have never seen one. Not one.)
It did actually turn out to be defective broaching which makes more
sense than any other variant.

um....It was a joke about metric vs imperial torx, Andrew

[AMuzi]

Post by Zen Cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the
chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I
didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex
deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not
find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard
and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like
they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

News to me; 5-arm 110mm chainring bolts are a universal
commodity AFAIK.
With a magnifier, see if they are just broached poorly
or maybe if they are Torx.  If you succumbed to the bad
idea of an aluminum chainring bolt that's very possible.

I have a set that are torx, and it's a known "problem"
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/6drndl/
shimano_chainring_bolts_t30_torx_why/?rdt=44490
If the bolts have crud built up and the light isn't
really good, they can look like Allen,
Just make sure whether they're Imperial or Metric :)

Imperial are a distinct rarity here in USA ( I went all
over hell to find a WW allen for my custom Hetchins long
ago).
More common are SAE, which outnumber, in fasteners and
tools, metric to some great degree.
That said, chainring bolts are a minuscule subset of
fasteners and, as a standard consumer product, not-metric
are virtually unknown (or at least I have never seen one.
Not one.)
It did actually turn out to be defective broaching which
makes more sense than any other variant.

um....It was a joke about metric vs imperial torx, Andrew

Sorry, that went over my head. D'oh.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Zen Cycle
um....It was a joke about metric vs imperial torx, Andrew

Sorry, that went over my head. D'oh.

I got it. Based on a Tommy discussion!

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the
chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I
didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex
deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find
a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard
and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like
they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

News to me; 5-arm 110mm chainring bolts are a universal
commodity AFAIK.
With a magnifier, see if they are just broached poorly or
maybe if they are Torx.  If you succumbed to the bad idea
of an aluminum chainring bolt that's very possible.

I have a set that are torx, and it's a known "problem"
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/6drndl/
shimano_chainring_bolts_t30_torx_why/?rdt=44490
If the bolts have crud built up and the light isn't really
good, they can look like Allen,
Just make sure whether they're Imperial or Metric :)

Imperial are a distinct rarity here in USA ( I went all over
hell to find a WW allen for my custom Hetchins long ago).
More common are SAE, which outnumber, in fasteners and
tools, metric to some great degree.
That said, chainring bolts are a minuscule subset of
fasteners and, as a standard consumer product, not-metric
are virtually unknown (or at least I have never seen one.
Not one.)
It did actually turn out to be defective broaching which
makes more sense than any other variant.

MY problem is that I don't deal with chain ring bolts often enough to
have imediately recognised the problem. I actually thought that the
bolts had little (around 1/8") hex slots way down deep inside. I
didn't know enough to look deeper until I checked out the smaller
bolts that came in the package.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[cyclintom]

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.

Modern crank bolts can be made out of aluminum and instead of allen bolt may be Torx. Usually you can use the camera option on your smart phone to see close enough to identify this.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.

Modern crank bolts can be made out of aluminum and instead of allen bolt may be Torx. Usually you can use the camera option on your smart phone to see close enough to identify this.

Aluminum crank bolts are for weight weenies, and I did try a torx
driver on them. The bolts were mismanufactured. I tossed them. Not
worth trying to return them.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 12:46:42 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.

Modern crank bolts can be made out of aluminum and instead of allen bolt may be Torx. Usually you can use the camera option on your smart phone to see close enough to identify this.

Aluminum crank bolts are for weight weenies, and I did try a torx
driver on them. The bolts were mismanufactured. I tossed them. Not
worth trying to return them.

They also may have been misordered. There are Torx and Torx Plus
heads. Common Torx heads have a 15 degree drive angle, while Torx
Plus has a zero degree drive angle.
<Loading Image...>

"The Evolution of Torx: From Torx to Torx Plus and Beyond"

(7:52)

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 12:46:42 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.

Modern crank bolts can be made out of aluminum and instead of allen bolt may be Torx. Usually you can use the camera option on your smart phone to see close enough to identify this.

Aluminum crank bolts are for weight weenies, and I did try a torx
driver on them. The bolts were mismanufactured. I tossed them. Not
worth trying to return them.

They also may have been misordered. There are Torx and Torx Plus
heads. Common Torx heads have a 15 degree drive angle, while Torx
Plus has a zero degree drive angle.
<https://i.imgur.com/dvIdABh.jpeg>
"The Evolution of Torx: From Torx to Torx Plus and Beyond"
http://youtu.be/EhRcWaEkHtE (7:52)

Good video! I haven't come across external Torx yet.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 12:46:42 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.

Modern crank bolts can be made out of aluminum and instead of allen bolt may be Torx. Usually you can use the camera option on your smart phone to see close enough to identify this.

Aluminum crank bolts are for weight weenies, and I did try a torx
driver on them. The bolts were mismanufactured. I tossed them. Not
worth trying to return them.

They also may have been misordered. There are Torx and Torx Plus
heads. Common Torx heads have a 15 degree drive angle, while Torx
Plus has a zero degree drive angle.
<https://i.imgur.com/dvIdABh.jpeg>
"The Evolution of Torx: From Torx to Torx Plus and Beyond"
http://youtu.be/EhRcWaEkHtE (7:52)

No, I don't think so. The other smaller bolts on that order all took a
#5 metric. The 16mm bolts were just a bad bunch. New ones on order.
Be here tomorrow.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 12:46:42 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.

Modern crank bolts can be made out of aluminum and instead of allen bolt may be Torx. Usually you can use the camera option on your smart phone to see close enough to identify this.

Aluminum crank bolts are for weight weenies, and I did try a torx
driver on them. The bolts were mismanufactured. I tossed them. Not
worth trying to return them.

They also may have been misordered. There are Torx and Torx Plus
heads. Common Torx heads have a 15 degree drive angle, while Torx
Plus has a zero degree drive angle.
<https://i.imgur.com/dvIdABh.jpeg>
"The Evolution of Torx: From Torx to Torx Plus and Beyond"
http://youtu.be/EhRcWaEkHtE (7:52)

Standards are wonderful. We ought to have lots of them.

[Zen Cycle]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 12:46:42 -0500, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder
The chain ring guard came so I set about mounting the chain rings and
the guard. I ordered new chain ring bolts because I didn't want to
disassemble the old crank. The new inner bolts had hex deep down
inside and I figure that was fine until I could not find a allen
wrench that fit them. I tried both metric and standard and nothing
fits. The bolts on my old crank take a #5 allen.
Does anyone know what's going on?
I ordered another set of 16mm bolts and they look like they have a
larger hex that's not set deep inside it.

Modern crank bolts can be made out of aluminum and instead of allen
bolt may be Torx. Usually you can use the camera option on your
smart phone to see close enough to identify this.

Aluminum crank bolts are for weight weenies, and I did try a torx
driver on them. The bolts were mismanufactured. I tossed them. Not
worth trying to return them.

They also may have been misordered.  There are Torx and Torx Plus
heads.  Common Torx heads have a 15 degree drive angle, while Torx
Plus has a zero degree drive angle.
<https://i.imgur.com/dvIdABh.jpeg>
"The Evolution of Torx: From Torx to Torx Plus and Beyond"
http://youtu.be/EhRcWaEkHtE (7:52)

Standards are wonderful. We ought to have lots of them.

I'm living that life

[cyclintom]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Catrike Ryder
Aluminum crank bolts are for weight weenies, and I did try a torx
driver on them. The bolts were mismanufactured. I tossed them. Not
worth trying to return them.

They also may have been misordered. There are Torx and Torx Plus
heads. Common Torx heads have a 15 degree drive angle, while Torx
Plus has a zero degree drive angle.
<https://i.imgur.com/dvIdABh.jpeg>
"The Evolution of Torx: From Torx to Torx Plus and Beyond"
http://youtu.be/EhRcWaEkHtE (7:52)

And of course millions of bicycles use Torx Plus fittings. Liebermann knows!

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Catrike Ryder
Aluminum crank bolts are for weight weenies, and I did try a torx
driver on them. The bolts were mismanufactured. I tossed them. Not
worth trying to return them.

They also may have been misordered. There are Torx and Torx Plus
heads. Common Torx heads have a 15 degree drive angle, while Torx
Plus has a zero degree drive angle.
<https://i.imgur.com/dvIdABh.jpeg>
"The Evolution of Torx: From Torx to Torx Plus and Beyond"
http://youtu.be/EhRcWaEkHtE (7:52)

And of course millions of bicycles use Torx Plus fittings. Liebermann knows!

Trex perhaps? Not millions, but it's a start.
Notice that it's a 5 lobe bit. Probably fits a security fastener:
<https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/equipment/bike-accessories/bike-tools-maintenance/bike-shop-supplies/trek-torx-plus-ipr25-security-bit/p/36771/>

More:
"Broken Bosch motor mount bolts!" (ebike):
<https://www.mtbr.com/threads/broken-bosch-motor-mount-bolts.1174943/page-2>
<https://www.mtbr.com/attachments/1660303699180-png.1995140/>

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
And of course millions of bicycles use Torx Plus fittings. Liebermann knows!

Trex perhaps?

Notice how neatly I combined Torx (fasteners) and Trek (bicycle mfg)
to produce Trex (decking).

[Zen Cycle]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
And of course millions of bicycles use Torx Plus fittings. Liebermann knows!

Trex perhaps?

Notice how neatly I combined Torx (fasteners) and Trek (bicycle mfg)
to produce Trex (decking).

uh, yeah.... that's what happened ;)

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Zen Cycle

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
And of course millions of bicycles use Torx Plus fittings. Liebermann knows!

Trex perhaps?

Notice how neatly I combined Torx (fasteners) and Trek (bicycle mfg)
to produce Trex (decking).

uh, yeah.... that's what happened ;)

I assure you that it was quite accidental. If it had been
intentional, I would have included the T-Rex (dinosaur) or T.Rex (the
band).
<https://darkcycleclothing.com/products/t-rex-on-a-bike-print>

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Zen Cycle

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
And of course millions of bicycles use Torx Plus fittings. Liebermann knows!

Trex perhaps?

Notice how neatly I combined Torx (fasteners) and Trek (bicycle mfg)
to produce Trex (decking).

uh, yeah.... that's what happened ;)

I assure you that it was quite accidental. If it had been
intentional, I would have included the T-Rex (dinosaur) or T.Rex (the
band).
<https://darkcycleclothing.com/products/t-rex-on-a-bike-print>

I’m not a million miles away from Barnes railway bridge where he died, and
the younger folk are baffled as to why it’s called Bolan death bridge! Be
that via Strava segments or chat!

Gives one a chance to try to educate the youth!

Roger Merriman