Why BSA Bottom Bracket is much durable than pressfit BB?
Moderator: robbosmans
I have a BB30 BB, but I am also a big complainer about BB30.
I think BB30 would have achieved much quicker and more widespread acceptance if the cranks for BB30 had not used the ridiculous 'wave washer" preload system.
The lighter weight, lower Q, and increased stiffness are all potentially real benefits, but the noise from squeaking and creaking has soured many people (including myself), until I quit using the wave washer cranks. I believe the wave washer allows small motions along the axis of the crank spindle which is where the noises originate. Since I got rid of the wave washers my experience has been entirely satisfactory.
They could have used a crank fastening method just like GXP or Shimano Hollotech. I don't know why anyone ever thought wave washers would work.
I think BB30 would have achieved much quicker and more widespread acceptance if the cranks for BB30 had not used the ridiculous 'wave washer" preload system.
The lighter weight, lower Q, and increased stiffness are all potentially real benefits, but the noise from squeaking and creaking has soured many people (including myself), until I quit using the wave washer cranks. I believe the wave washer allows small motions along the axis of the crank spindle which is where the noises originate. Since I got rid of the wave washers my experience has been entirely satisfactory.
They could have used a crank fastening method just like GXP or Shimano Hollotech. I don't know why anyone ever thought wave washers would work.
@Sawyer: "immeasurably" is a good choice of words in that context. Whether the bottom bracket is in fact stiffer, and whether that is even better or not, is unrelated to whether a pressfit system is used or a threaded system. The stiffness is more a function of the width of the shell. Manufacturers and designers like wider shells because it gives them more real estate (if you will) to build upon. And that part I get. It is the complexity and added costs of combining a better solution than pressfit that they are avoiding. If they could get the tolerances right, and installers would take the proper care and necessary steps to install them correctly the first time, we wouldn't see nearly the number of issues we do with these systems.
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
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Get an Enduro XD-15 BB30 bottom bracket, and premature bearing wear will be something you will no longer contemplate.
Everything else is simply sub-standard, in comparison. Truly amazing, and the best thing I've ever bought, in terms of wear items.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Everything else is simply sub-standard, in comparison. Truly amazing, and the best thing I've ever bought, in terms of wear items.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Honest question: What of the argument that a wider BB shell allows a stiffer junction between oversized downtube and chainstays (BB30 being the exception), while still allowing use of established spindle "standards" eg. HT2/GXP/UT? Legit or marketing rubbish?
Isn't that kind of what it is? For instance, on my BB90 Trek Emonda, the downtube is huge, yet I use the same Campy UltraTorque crank that I use in my 68mm shell Colnagos. They use different adapters but the crank is the same. The wider BB does allow for more leeway in different layups etc, as I was mentioning a couple posts above. Trek isn't exactly a "pressfit" system, and uses slip fit bearings. I was impressed with their tolerances in the shell however, compared to say, Cannondales.
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
kkibbler wrote:Honest question: What of the argument that a wider BB shell allows a stiffer junction between oversized downtube and chainstays (BB30 being the exception), while still allowing use of established spindle "standards" eg. HT2/GXP/UT? Legit or marketing rubbish?
What of it? "Stiffness" has become a good in itself for cyclists, rather than functionally improving the bike. Stiffer bottom brackets don't make you go faster. They just let companies claim their bottom bracket is x% stiffer this year and x% stiffer the next.
I wish all of the manufacturers (cranks, BBs, frames, etc.) could have a big meeting and agree upon a new standard that both satisfies the stiffness (whoopee) and eliminates the problems with pressfit bearings. I envision something like a 30mm spindle with oversized, threaded BB shell. Or possibly a pressfit bottom bracket that threads together through the shell (similar to the Praxis conversion BB).
Basically, all of the current options (besides ol' fashioned BSA) suck.
Basically, all of the current options (besides ol' fashioned BSA) suck.
And world peace would be nice too
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
-
- Posts: 1145
- Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm
ITTY wrote:I wish all of the manufacturers (cranks, BBs, frames, etc.) could have a big meeting and agree upon a new standard that both satisfies the stiffness (whoopee) and eliminates the problems with pressfit bearings. I envision something like a 30mm spindle with oversized, threaded BB shell. Or possibly a pressfit bottom bracket that threads together through the shell (similar to the Praxis conversion BB).
Basically, all of the current options (besides ol' fashioned BSA) suck.
Not gonna happen. I'm reminded of a song by The Jam, 'The public wants what the public gets and the public gets what the public wants."
This of course provides opportunity to custom builders many of which build fantastic bikes with English threaded bottom brackets.
Last edited by fromtrektocolnago on Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels
LeDuke wrote:Get an Enduro XD-15 BB30 bottom bracket, and premature bearing wear will be something you will no longer contemplate.
Everything else is simply sub-standard, in comparison. Truly amazing, and the best thing I've ever bought, in terms of wear items.
If it takes $200 for a bottom bracket to reach an acceptable level of durability, there's a problem. I'm on a BB30 with some WheelsMfg angular contact bearings that will hopefully pan out, but I've never been a fan of press fit systems.
What surprises me is that press fit bearings are common on motorcycles and the creaking etc issues just don't happen there. If motorcycle makers can do it on multiple bearings (swing arm, shock linkage, wheels, heck even transmission and main engine bearings) why can't bicycle frame makers get a single BB shell ID on each frame correct? It just takes a reamer or a hone.
One other thing is that on motorcycle bearings there's no wave washer or adjustable preload BS. No way for the user to get it wrong. (yes I know some motorcycles like BMWs have tapered roller bearings with preload adjustment). There should be no preload on deep groove ball bearings anyhow!
Sram's GXP locates the crank laterally using the NDS bearing. That won't work with press in bearings as the bearing could move outwards from the shell... unless an outer circlip is used, which is what Klein did on their press fit BBs in the 80s.
Anyhow, given that press fits work fine on motorcycles, I think that bike frame makers are just sloppy.
One other thing is that on motorcycle bearings there's no wave washer or adjustable preload BS. No way for the user to get it wrong. (yes I know some motorcycles like BMWs have tapered roller bearings with preload adjustment). There should be no preload on deep groove ball bearings anyhow!
Sram's GXP locates the crank laterally using the NDS bearing. That won't work with press in bearings as the bearing could move outwards from the shell... unless an outer circlip is used, which is what Klein did on their press fit BBs in the 80s.
Anyhow, given that press fits work fine on motorcycles, I think that bike frame makers are just sloppy.
LeDuke wrote:Get an Enduro XD-15 BB30 bottom bracket, and premature bearing wear will be something you will no longer contemplate.
Everything else is simply sub-standard, in comparison. Truly amazing, and the best thing I've ever bought, in terms of wear items.
Why is the Enduro XD-15 BB30 BB so much better than all the others?
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Same as Chris King Pressfit cups. Installed these in a problematic Cannondale Evo along with primer and Loctite 609 and not a peep since.
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