Didn't see anything about it on the board yet, but I did find the article interesting. Another BB standard, this time from Ben Farver of Argonaut and Chris King as they try to fix what they see as the shortcomings of the various BB30 standards.
Opinions?
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/11/ ... -bb_388673
Argonaut & Chris King Team Up For Another BB Standard
Moderator: robbosmans
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Why? How does this improve against the new colnago standard for example. And I know there are a lot of complaints about pf30/bb30 installs, but there's also lots with no issues. And what's the chances any frame company would adopt this. I just think it's too late in the game. We already have too many "standards".
I am so excited about this. I was just about to post but you beat me to it. This is pretty much the same solution as Colnago uses on their C60's. I think that up until this announcement, Colnago's Threadfit system was/is by far the best solution to the existing problems forced upon us by the whole BB30/PF30 fiasco. It's still a fix to problem and adds a further layer to everything, but in the absence of PF systems going away, it's a good solution.
Very briefly...
Downsides:
To the consumer: Nothing. But it's not backwards compatible. Basically it's going back to the trouble free era of a threaded BB shell but retaining all the benefits of a larger shell, mostly for frame design options in my opinion. Hip Hip Hooray. Burn, pressift, Burn in hell!
To the manufacturer: Cost and labor. The whole move to the BB30 and it's successor PF30 systems in the first place was to reduce costs, number one. If they were to adopt something like this, they might be thinking they are going backwards in their efforts to reduce costs and labor. Too bad I say... give us something that works! Will they? Probably not
Positives:
To the consumer: Silence, golden lasting silence. Ease of maintenance.
To the manufacturer: They can still have the large amount of "real estate" around the BB shell for which to attach large tubes and shapes.
Whether this catches on or not, and I suspect the large manufacturers will hate it with a passion, will be borne out in the marketplace. But it is a very good and sound advancement. I won't call anything a "standard" these days when it comes to bottom brackets because the whole thing is a complete joke. But this is the first development since moving away from the old BSA threaded shells that I could truly embrace.
Kudos to Argonaut Cycles and Chris King!
https://vimeo.com/144672392
Very briefly...
Downsides:
To the consumer: Nothing. But it's not backwards compatible. Basically it's going back to the trouble free era of a threaded BB shell but retaining all the benefits of a larger shell, mostly for frame design options in my opinion. Hip Hip Hooray. Burn, pressift, Burn in hell!
To the manufacturer: Cost and labor. The whole move to the BB30 and it's successor PF30 systems in the first place was to reduce costs, number one. If they were to adopt something like this, they might be thinking they are going backwards in their efforts to reduce costs and labor. Too bad I say... give us something that works! Will they? Probably not
Positives:
To the consumer: Silence, golden lasting silence. Ease of maintenance.
To the manufacturer: They can still have the large amount of "real estate" around the BB shell for which to attach large tubes and shapes.
Whether this catches on or not, and I suspect the large manufacturers will hate it with a passion, will be borne out in the marketplace. But it is a very good and sound advancement. I won't call anything a "standard" these days when it comes to bottom brackets because the whole thing is a complete joke. But this is the first development since moving away from the old BSA threaded shells that I could truly embrace.
Kudos to Argonaut Cycles and Chris King!
https://vimeo.com/144672392
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
Isn't the Colnago standard different insofar as you still used pressed in cups? The threads in the C60 BB are for the metal sleeves. And they are replaceable in case of "wear" though you'd probably have none with the metal sleeves.
There may be lots with no complaints but thee are still way too many with complaints. Reading the recent Praxis topic, it sounds like installation methods even recommended by manufacturers were not all sorted out. It seems like most creaking issues can be remedied with the correct retaining compound (loctite 609 or similar plus catalyst).
The whole press fit system just made it harder for shops and home mechanics. A threaded system makes things easy for everybody. I can't believe that press fit systems saved any money. You can imagine all the support and waranty aggravation they have caused.
And I know there are a lot of complaints about pf30/bb30 installs, but there's also lots with no issues. And what's the chances any frame company would adopt this. I just think it's too late in the game. We already have too many "standards".
There may be lots with no complaints but thee are still way too many with complaints. Reading the recent Praxis topic, it sounds like installation methods even recommended by manufacturers were not all sorted out. It seems like most creaking issues can be remedied with the correct retaining compound (loctite 609 or similar plus catalyst).
The whole press fit system just made it harder for shops and home mechanics. A threaded system makes things easy for everybody. I can't believe that press fit systems saved any money. You can imagine all the support and waranty aggravation they have caused.
Correct me if I'm wrong - it's 68mm wide BB shell, isn't it ?
So question is , why not 86mm wide ??? 2 most popular ( quantity ) standards are 86mm shell ready, so in the name of saving few percent of existing bb30 cranks ? Nay...
another thing is come-back to bonding all to cf ... strength of PF30/386 is full carbon shell. Any bonding 2 materials with different electrical resistance will cause issues. Sooner or later.
Personally I never met creaking issues with PF30 nor 386Evo . BB30 , BB86 (with all variations ) - oh yes.
So question is , why not 86mm wide ??? 2 most popular ( quantity ) standards are 86mm shell ready, so in the name of saving few percent of existing bb30 cranks ? Nay...
another thing is come-back to bonding all to cf ... strength of PF30/386 is full carbon shell. Any bonding 2 materials with different electrical resistance will cause issues. Sooner or later.
Personally I never met creaking issues with PF30 nor 386Evo . BB30 , BB86 (with all variations ) - oh yes.
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.
Mark Twain
I can be wrong, and have plenty of examples for that
Mark Twain
I can be wrong, and have plenty of examples for that
1) Let's not call the Colnago Threadfit a "standard". It's their solution to making the best of a bad situation. In fact, let's not even use the word "standard" anymore when it comes to Bottom Brackets. At least not pertaining to anything since BSA Threaded.
2) And yes, you still use press in cups to the threaded inserts of Colnago's Threadfit system. That's what I mean when I say it's basically adding another layer to the whole thing. But it is better than pressing anything directly into a frame shell that may or many not be up to the exactly tolerances that pressfit requires. It's often that interface between the BB and the frame shell that is the source of creaks and noise, hence the use of all sorts of retaining compounds ets, not to mention trying to get things aligned perfectly.
I am not sure on all the details of the Argonaut/Chris King solutions, but I think it will be very very similar to the Colnago solution.
@Grill: Agreed, nothing wrong with BSA... but given that large shells are likely here to stay, and they do provide benefits to frame design for sure, and given that larger shells can accommodate larger spindles (which may or may not be of concern, doesn't look like Shimano has any interest for example), why not at least get the BB shell and BB interface a little more solid in the meantime. I think this is a good development. Even if the large manufacturers don't adopt it, the smaller independent frame builders could now claim a serious advantage in doing so. For what it's worth, every one of my bikes currently has a BSA threaded bottom bracket and they are silent, trouble free, and rock solid. The only exception I have is an old Italian Basso with Italian threads.
2) And yes, you still use press in cups to the threaded inserts of Colnago's Threadfit system. That's what I mean when I say it's basically adding another layer to the whole thing. But it is better than pressing anything directly into a frame shell that may or many not be up to the exactly tolerances that pressfit requires. It's often that interface between the BB and the frame shell that is the source of creaks and noise, hence the use of all sorts of retaining compounds ets, not to mention trying to get things aligned perfectly.
I am not sure on all the details of the Argonaut/Chris King solutions, but I think it will be very very similar to the Colnago solution.
@Grill: Agreed, nothing wrong with BSA... but given that large shells are likely here to stay, and they do provide benefits to frame design for sure, and given that larger shells can accommodate larger spindles (which may or may not be of concern, doesn't look like Shimano has any interest for example), why not at least get the BB shell and BB interface a little more solid in the meantime. I think this is a good development. Even if the large manufacturers don't adopt it, the smaller independent frame builders could now claim a serious advantage in doing so. For what it's worth, every one of my bikes currently has a BSA threaded bottom bracket and they are silent, trouble free, and rock solid. The only exception I have is an old Italian Basso with Italian threads.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
-
Jmdesignz2
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:27 am
Friends of mine work in the industry and from discussions with them - the biggest issues with threaded BBs were end-user created for the most part.
Cross-threaded, over-torqued and seized bbs.
It was not uncommon for a novice to attempt to remove their threaded bb and go the wrong way - tighten it way too much and strip out the cups/faces.
lately I have seen nearly all bb cups that are threaded have a little "tighten this way" arrow - something I've not seen until lately but do applaud
I conjecture that the press-fit "standard" was brought out to combat these end-user issues plus make it faster and easier to construct and build frames
Cross-threaded, over-torqued and seized bbs.
It was not uncommon for a novice to attempt to remove their threaded bb and go the wrong way - tighten it way too much and strip out the cups/faces.
lately I have seen nearly all bb cups that are threaded have a little "tighten this way" arrow - something I've not seen until lately but do applaud
I conjecture that the press-fit "standard" was brought out to combat these end-user issues plus make it faster and easier to construct and build frames
-
Jmdesignz2
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:27 am
Pressfit 30 is apparently easier to build in carbon
from the article - "...wanted to use PF30 because it gives you a nice big canvas on which to work for the layup,” says Farver. “When we’re designing the shape of the frame, the BB is an area of a lot of complex curves. The bigger area you have to work with, the more accessible it is from a CAD standpoint."
from the article - "...wanted to use PF30 because it gives you a nice big canvas on which to work for the layup,” says Farver. “When we’re designing the shape of the frame, the BB is an area of a lot of complex curves. The bigger area you have to work with, the more accessible it is from a CAD standpoint."
I think the most interesting thing about this "solution" is being able to cut the threads into already existing PF30 frame albeit metal only, if your are so inclined.
-
Jmdesignz2
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:27 am
rmerka wrote:I think the most interesting thing about this "solution" is being able to cut the threads into already existing PF30 frame albeit metal only, if your are so inclined.
hmmm - bingo
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
