News
CCM Crank Hanger and Bottom Bracket Page 1900-1920
Karl and I are wondering if could be possible to narrow down the years of production of CCM bikes made up until about 1920 based on their crankset and/or bottom bracket design. We would like to know if anyone out there can help with providing start or end dates to such changes.
Lately I've been wondering about changes in CCM's crankset. In the 1918 catalogue on page 10 the company makes reference to certain models fitted with the "old (Massey etc.) Crank Hanger", other model numbers with the "CCM Hanger", and still others with the "T" hanger. Some bikes are fitted with axles that have 3-sided ends, but I have a teens CCM Brantford with 6-sided axle ends. Since my axle with 6-sided ends requires repair due to wear, I'm wondering if the 3-sided axle ends was an improvement on that design. Is the 3-sided axle the one referred to as the Model T? Also, on my CCM Perfect Model 50 I have a strange-looking crank arm on the chainwheel side that has a round bulge (see photo below). This same rounded crank arm appears in the 1901 Dominion catalogue I posted recently.
Karl and I recently held three CCM frames upside down and each had a differently designed bottom bracket (see photo below) Karl's pre-1917 Cleveland Cushion frame (no model number) has a bulge on the bottom. Another pre-1917 Cleveland cushion frame (no badge number) I have has two bolts on the bottom, and a Massey Model 14 frame has only one bolt on the bottom. I have an early CCM Perfect Model 50 Cushion frame with the same bulge (and odd crank set mentioned above), and I used to have an early CCM Dominion with the same bulge. I think I was told that this bulge is from frames that originated from the St. Catherines Wellandvale factory. The bracket with two bolts is the same style as two 1899 Lozier Clevelands I have, so they probably originated from that factory. How about the single bolt - is that a bracket from the Massey factory? If we are correct in thinking that CCM was using up old stock from their five founding companies and very early frames contained a hodge-podge of brackets, dropouts, etc, can someone pinpoint the year when CCM changed to a common design across its line of models?
Any sense anyone can make out of the chronology of bottom bracket and crank hanger changes is most welcome.
The rounded crank arm on CCM Perfect Model 50 and in 1901 Dominion catalogue:
Three different B-B's, from left to right, early CCM Cleveland Cushion-frame; another early CCM Cleveland Cushion-frame; early CCM Massey Model 14:
Maybe we could start with people posting photos of their early crank sets and bottom brackets from different ccm nameplates?
The bulge on the bottom bracket is so a one piece crank can be taken out . Some of the early Perfect frames had a cut out in bottom bracket for the same thing on one side . CCM Cleveland,Massey ,Perfect, Brantford all used that four bolt sprocket but all have different spacing of the bolts. At least that is what Ihave found. just make life more interesting.
I concur regarding the purpose of the bulge in the Welland Vale bottom bracket shells. It allowed installation of a single piece crankset in small diameter bottom bracket shells. The concept would be resurrected by CCM in the 1950s, with their Cycosonic cranksets, though the bulge would be located between the chain stays.
The T Hanger was CCM's orignal name for the Triplex. Accordingto catalogues, it orignated in 1916 and was substantially unchanged through 1922, except for a change in the cups that was introduced in 1917.
If I recall correctly, the shell with two pinch bolts were commonly referred to as "D & J", which was a specific brand but like "Kleenex" or "Skidoo", was so dominant in its field that it became a generic term for all shells with two pinch bolts.
The bottom bracket shell with a single pinch bolt is clearly visible in Massey catalogues at least as early as 1899.
It sounds as if CCM standardized upon opening of the Weston factory. Prior to that, I imagine that it was an issue of tooling and stock. A lot of money had been spent to create CCM and then purchase National. They probably didn't want to invest in immediately retooling lthe different factories and there was merit in retaining existing brand loyalties by providing distinctions between brands, at least for a period.
Very informative info Tmar thank you!