Argonaut & Chris King Team Up For Another BB Standard
Moderator: robbosmans
I'm left but to wonder....
On the metal PF30's. Lots of Ti bikes out there. Moots and Lynskey come to mind, it seemed to be the norm when I was shopping last.
On the metal PF30's. Lots of Ti bikes out there. Moots and Lynskey come to mind, it seemed to be the norm when I was shopping last.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
- bikerjulio
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:38 pm
- Location: Welland, Ontario
goodboyr wrote:Wow. A discussion about bb's without any acrimony, attitude, or condescension. I wonder what could be different?
Well, some of the worthiest, knowlegable and opinionated posters have yet to chime in
There's sometimes a buggy.
How many drivers does a buggy have?
One.
So let's just say I'm drivin' this buggy...
and if you fix your attitude you can ride along with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GekiIMh4ZkM
How many drivers does a buggy have?
One.
So let's just say I'm drivin' this buggy...
and if you fix your attitude you can ride along with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GekiIMh4ZkM
This is the first time in a while a bb "standard" has actually made sense. Threaded removes the worry of major creaking, plus ease of install and the dimensions of the standard mean you can adapt the bearings to suit pretty much every crank on the market, along with the fact that there won't be any need for a new crank standard. The point it is to make everything nice and modular so you can run whatever you want, thats the reason they didn't go for 86mm over 68mm. If a few of the big manufacturers and bb makers hop on to this, we might just be seeing clear skies.
-
- Posts: 1145
- Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm
I wasn't aware my English threaded bb was a problem. Maybe its the lack of creaking?
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
The only problem is that they don't make it anymore.
-
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:47 pm
The standard is deficient in that it has omitted the most valuable possible bottom bracket type. Why no provision for both 30 mm diameter and 86.5 mm length spindle like the BB386? And why do folks say that you need the 46 mm shell to allow room for large enough ball bearing to be durable? The BB386 cups that thread into BSA shells use the same bearing cartridges as BB30 and PF30 just located outboard so I don't see the problem. The larger shell possible with the 46 mm diameter to allow larger tubes at the shell junction is a valuable feature, but it would work just as well the a BB386 variant as with the three offerings that have been proposed.
Robert
- wheelsONfire
- Posts: 6280
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
- Location: NorthEU
Question might be if people get annoyed of another "standard" to a degree it matters less if it's good or not?
Seems like a good idea to me.
Seems like a good idea to me.
Last edited by wheelsONfire on Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bikes:
Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.
Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.
-
- in the industry
- Posts: 5777
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
- Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
- Contact:
This is why I think it is a solution in search of a problem as the BB386 standard allows 30mm cranks in a BSA threaded BB shell. The cranks just have to be compatible with 86.5mm BB shell length. Why wouldn't we want that compatibility.
The problem has already been solved why solve it again in a different way.
It is not the fault though of the manufacturers of these things that they exist. The manufacturer wants to sell something and they will produce what sells. The fact these standards persist is because people keep buying them. If no-one bought a Cannondale because of the use of BB30 Cannondale would quickly ditch it.
As with all thing the manufacturer is always blamed for pushing something new onto the buying public but the buying public have got to part with the cash.
The plethora of standards is becoming a real problem for shops it means more things to stock and more returns because buyers are simply confused. The amount of time I gladdy spend explaining to folk the ins and outs of this standard or the other so they get the right bit is not funny at all.
I would be O.K if the T47 became a standard along side BSA so long BB30 and PF30 departed this earth never to be seen again. There needs to be a shake out of hub standards as that is getting out of hand as well.
The problem has already been solved why solve it again in a different way.
It is not the fault though of the manufacturers of these things that they exist. The manufacturer wants to sell something and they will produce what sells. The fact these standards persist is because people keep buying them. If no-one bought a Cannondale because of the use of BB30 Cannondale would quickly ditch it.
As with all thing the manufacturer is always blamed for pushing something new onto the buying public but the buying public have got to part with the cash.
The plethora of standards is becoming a real problem for shops it means more things to stock and more returns because buyers are simply confused. The amount of time I gladdy spend explaining to folk the ins and outs of this standard or the other so they get the right bit is not funny at all.
I would be O.K if the T47 became a standard along side BSA so long BB30 and PF30 departed this earth never to be seen again. There needs to be a shake out of hub standards as that is getting out of hand as well.
-
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:47 pm
bm0p700f wrote:This is why I think it is a solution in search of a problem as the BB386 standard allows 30mm cranks in a BSA threaded BB shell. The cranks just have to be compatible with 86.5mm BB shell length. Why wouldn't we want that compatibility.
The problem has already been solved why solve it again in a different way.
It is not the fault though of the manufacturers of these things that they exist. The manufacturer wants to sell something and they will produce what sells. The fact these standards persist is because people keep buying them. If no-one bought a Cannondale because of the use of BB30 Cannondale would quickly ditch it.
As with all thing the manufacturer is always blamed for pushing something new onto the buying public but the buying public have got to part with the cash.
The plethora of standards is becoming a real problem for shops it means more things to stock and more returns because buyers are simply confused. The amount of time I gladdy spend explaining to folk the ins and outs of this standard or the other so they get the right bit is not funny at all.
I would be O.K if the T47 became a standard along side BSA so long BB30 and PF30 departed this earth never to be seen again. There needs to be a shake out of hub standards as that is getting out of hand as well.
You're right that BB386 does it all, but the BSA frame does not. The 68 mm width shell doesn't provide that wider surface on which to attach bigger stays and tubes or which allows wider stay spacing for wider tires. The wider shell with inset threaded BB cups instead of outboard is actually an improvement, and there is nothing wrong with that. We just need someone to offer the inset, threaded cups to work with BB386 spindles. CK should do it, but in any case I suspect that FSA will do just that.
Robert
Hahaha, was waiting for that comic to show up.
I do think this new BB is a great looking design, but while I have had problems with BB30 in the past, my two PF30 bikes have pretty damn good on the creaking front. If I were in the market for a $6500 custom frame? Sure, I'd go for it, doesn't seem to be a downside not to, but I can understand why not all manufacturers would want to jump on board.
I do think this new BB is a great looking design, but while I have had problems with BB30 in the past, my two PF30 bikes have pretty damn good on the creaking front. If I were in the market for a $6500 custom frame? Sure, I'd go for it, doesn't seem to be a downside not to, but I can understand why not all manufacturers would want to jump on board.
-
- Posts: 871
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:43 am
- Location: The 'Dena
Wouldn't this just come full circle to the bonded threaded inserts delaminating re Cervelo back in the day...?
It looks like a good idea in theory but it could lead to a whole new set of issues.
It looks like a good idea in theory but it could lead to a whole new set of issues.
Yes it does, but that is easy for a manufacturer to do right if they want to. What manufacturers did instead was to just provide an empty shell to the public and let them deal with their own bonding issues which we are stuck with now in the form of alignment issues and use of retaining compounds etc. And all the resulting complications when not done properly. But yes, because of the cost and extra labor involved, it may be a difficult pill to swallow for manufacturers to want to take this on again. Especially when the public has so embraced the new "standards" they've bestowed upon us. Not.
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