Argonaut & Chris King Team Up For Another BB Standard

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

User avatar
mythical
Posts: 1515
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:49 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

by mythical

The ideas of this cooperative bottom bracket solution is much to my liking, kinda like a grassroots emergence of a new paradigm. :thumbup:

A few years ago, I designed the successor to a well-known USA-made aluminium frame with an ISIS Overdrive BB shell, which uses M48x1.5mm threads, and matching proprietary cups for all popular BB ‘standards‘. The frame nearly went in production when the investor suddenly pulled the plug and the brand has since vanished.

I find this T47 a better solution because it allows the threading of metal BB shells made for PressFit PFBB30 cups. Now I already consider it my go-to BB standard. T47 will probably gain traction and stick around for at least a while.
“I always find it amazing that a material can actually sell a product when it’s really the engineering that creates and dictates how well that material will behave or perform.” — Chuck Teixeira

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



mariovalentim
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:03 am

by mariovalentim

what brand was it? Klein?

AndreLM
Posts: 479
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:53 pm

by AndreLM

I doubt we will see any of the big brands adopt this in the short-term. However, this will be found on most modern / bespoke metal frames (think Moots, Firefly, etc), and it will be a real competitive advantage over "regular" carbon frames.

Not that this would make any difference for the average cyclist...

gravity
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:01 am

by gravity

prendrefeu wrote:Personally I like BB386, but have BSA on all of my bikes at the moment. Even a custom frame I had made recently runs BSA/68mm traditional standard.


Tell us more about this custom frame you made :?: Separate thread, maybe?

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8580
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Glendale / Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

When it gets built up I will make a separate thread. It's aluminum, 1300g, semi-aero, just wanted something very reliable to travel with and have spare for friends to ride while visiting from out of town (yet still relatively WW with tuning and custom bits) ;)
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

Zigmeister
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:09 pm

by Zigmeister

I believe Wheels manufacturers solutions basically deals with all of the standards/press fits in an elegant solution. So, you have the benefit of a screwed together BB, just not as part of the side/shell, just in the middle of the BB sleeve itself.

For example, PF86 for a Scott Foil, I use this BB, never had any creaking/issues whatsoever, plus you have many options of ceramic, angular steel bearings etc.

http://wheelsmfg.com/bottom-brackets/bb ... ckets.html

So IMO, it actually sounds like they are creating a new standard for their own purposes to jump in the market and cause even more issues with who/what/how etc.

Use this one personally for a SRAM/Quarq PM setup.

http://wheelsmfg.com/bottom-brackets/bb ... black.html

Not advertising for them, just found these BBs to be real well thought out, creak/noise free, simple to maintain with standard tools. Basic press I made, and the BB park tool/for BB. So not as super easy as a BSA or their idea, but not much more work really except a few minutes, which is rare you do anyway.

Besides a BSA and I suppose their concept, which this is a BSA basically with a larger bearing (has anybody actually proven any stiffness of a larger BB/Bearing setup?)

I believe the real advantage they claim is having the space/size to work around all the angles of a BB for manufacturing purposes, and then second is the screw in convenience and the oversized bearing?

BrianAllan
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: Location Location!

by BrianAllan

prendrefeu wrote:Personally I like BB386, but have BSA on all of my bikes at the moment. Even a custom frame I had made recently runs BSA/68mm traditional standard.

Underrated note. The largest drivetrain manufacturer (by an an enormous margin) and one of the most powerful engineering teams in cycling chooses not to develop larger spindles, and it's 2015... what does that tell you about the industry as a whole? Is a lot of it smoke&mirrors, numbers that can often be attributed to psychological bias ("yeah! I can feel better power trasfer! thankfully I bought this new product!") and lots of marketing based on the cool factor? Absolutely.

Take Chris King - whose fame rests upon their headsets which are not necessarily any greater than other headsets they just look really nice, have colors and are quite heavy - along with Argonaut which produces nice, high end carbon frames for the affluent and you've got two "high marque" brands with enough hype-clout to get people to request this new 'standard' on their next frame.

Do we really think major manufacturers will go this route?
Cannondale wants to push their BB30
Specialized wants to push their PF30
Trek wants to push their BB/PF86
Cervelo wants to push BBRight
and so on... do you know that Rolo even has their own standard for the BBs they put in their frames? Yep, absolutely.

FSA sorta combined many of these into BB386 and not being a frame maker themselves it can catch on because it doesn't have the signature of a competitor that comes along with it. Imagine if Cannondale picked up PF86? or Trek started using BBright? It would be a "concession" to a competitor for their standard... but since FSA is not a frame designer, their standard can get picked up while saving face.... and so it has across many manufacturers.

Argonaut? They make frames.
Chris King? They make headsets & BBs... and other over priced hyped up stuff.

Any bets on when the next bottom bracket "standard" will be touted?
I'd say late 2016 or early 2017.

If it come from a 'neutral party' it may have more than one manufacturer using the standard. If it comes from a company (or two) that has interest in the standard's acceptance, it won't be accepted by their competition. Period. This is how competitive business works.


I think we’re all aware of the current state of modern bottom brackets. Your point, if I may summarize it for you is, “Since Shimano and Campagnolo only make a 24mm standard, the performance benefits of a 30mm spindle are negligible”

There are several distinct perceived benefits with this new standard. Would you care to address them? Just calling ChrisKing a bullshit company isn’t really addressing the technology.

And regarding technology, yes, new standards are frequent. Some of them good, some of them bad. Some catch on, some don’t despite being superior. It’s not an insightful analogy. :beerchug:

User avatar
corky
Posts: 1732
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: The Surrey Hills

by corky

Not just CK or Argonaut...... A lot of the higher end small(er) builders/manufacturers are moving to the 47 'standard' ....White Industries, Engine, Firefly.......

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8580
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Glendale / Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

BrianAllan wrote:I think we’re all aware of the current state of modern bottom brackets. Your point, if I may summarize it for you is, “Since Shimano and Campagnolo only make a 24mm standard, the performance benefits of a 30mm spindle are negligible”


The performance benefits do exist, however they may not be as significant as touted. SRAM does produce a 30mm spindle variation for many of their cranks. Although I do like Campagnolo, it's no slight against them, but they are a distant 3rd in terms of market reach/clout so really let's see what the elephant in the room is up to and that's Shimano. They're sticking with 24 despite all of the new developments for larger spindles. Maybe one day they'll come around... but until then, it's worth noting and make of it what you will.

BrianAllan wrote:There are several distinct perceived benefits with this new standard. Would you care to address them? Just calling ChrisKing a bullshit company isn’t really addressing the technology.


1. I didn't call CK a bullshit company. You even quoted my own post, I would prefer if you keep your own terms to yourself, thanks. I do stand by, however, that the company is largely built upon marketing and hype. That's part of a successful business. They do produce quality goods (as stated), however they are not that much better than other competing brands and are often unnecessarily heavy in mass.

2. EVERY new "standard" has "several distinct perceived benefits". Yes, every single one of them. Why would I bother pointing out the new benefits of the new "standard" in a thread that not only has previous posts about those benefits, but also an entire article linked! You want me to post another reiteration of what has been stated before? Another "standard" will come around from another company/group and those too will have "several distinct perceived benefits" over its predecessor, yet it just adds to the "standard" count, it does not eliminate its predecessors at all. Does a person want whatever benefits the new standard will have? Yes, well then get it! In no way did I state this new "standard" is a bad thing. It has benefits! If you want those, or need those, and somehow believe that the existing "standards" are not good enough, then good on you and go for it.

Did you miss the point of what I wrote?

BrianAllan wrote:It’s not an insightful analogy.


And that wasn't an insightful post, I guess? I'm pointing out the cyclical nature of "standards" and why they are not always picked up as actual "standards" across the industry. Many people don't see this, I'm sorry to have not realized your genius, that you would have read that post, that you already knew this above all others and I wasted your personal time. :beerchug:

If other small manufacturers pick it up, that's great. BB386 was also picked up by many smaller manufacturers.
When a "standard" comes out that the big companies pick up, then it's time to start paying attention.

To use an example in the tech world: remember Firewire? It was Apple's version of a standard. Who had it, besides Apple? Basically feeder brands that provide to Apple customers, small makers of re-branded generics, and Apple. No slight on Apple, I *love* using my macs and while not a fan boy I tend to buy mostly Mac computer hardware.
USB was developed by, at the time, the BIG boys: Compaq, DEC, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC and Nortel. Not Apple, not the small kid in the room, the big boys got it. Guess which one caught on? USB (and its further iterations). Now, coming soon: Thunderbolt 3. It uses a USB-C interface, developed by perhaps the biggest industry giant in the room: Intel (analogies to Shimano are appropriate here). We'll see how it sticks, but the likelihood is very, very high.

We'll have another new standard soon anyway, which will make (small) manufacturers question, again, how they should re-orient their designs and tooling... all of which costs money. Meanwhile the big boys will have their own new "standards" or stick with previous "standards." And thus "standards" may never really get established in the marketplace like BSA has because it was used for so long with little in the way of competition (aside from ITA threaded variations).
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I really don't think anyone these days should be even using the word "standard" when talking about Bottom Brackets unless it's referring to what was once truly a standard for a long time, that being the threaded bottom bracket shell. What we've seen since came about as a means to reduce costs of manufacturing and labor. The result has been far less than completely successful in practice, although it is much cheaper for the big guys to produce, but to this day the manufacturers cannot control the process enough to ensure a completely reliable end product. If they could, then companies like Praxis and BB Infinite wouldn't even exist. This design really has nothing to do with whether a 24mm or a 30mm spindle or some other variant is being used. You could adapt whatever you wish. But it does go back to a threaded shell to form the basis of the interface for any bottom bracket you may wish to install in it, knowing that the threaded interface will be secure, aligned, and trouble free (presuming properly faced edges where outboard cups may be used). It's a sound design, the downside is that it definitely would add complexity to the frame manufacturers process, and with that added costs. For that reason alone, manufacturers will resist. But I for one, presented with a choice of two identical frames... one with the threaded bottom bracket, and one with any of the other current options out there, would choose the threaded bottom bracket all day long without question. It's simply better.
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

benzebub
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 1:24 pm

by benzebub

hello guys, can anyone point me in a good direction to buy a White industries, or Chris king T47 bottom bracket?

also wheels mfg told me they are planning to release a T47 in late 2016, how would that compare to chris king or white industries? I might be interested in the angular contact variant if this would provide a gain in performance
But I could be wrong

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

To be clear, you don't just go buy a T47 BB and put it in any frame. The frame has to designed and built around it. Or, if you have an Alloy PF30 shell you may be able to get that threaded to accept the T47 cups.
Contact Chris King directly for details.
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

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

bm0p700f wrote:While I like the idea of T47 I do feel when compared to bsa threaded bb it is a solution in search of a problem.

+1

benzebub
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 1:24 pm

by benzebub

Calnago wrote:To be clear, you don't just go buy a T47 BB and put it in any frame. The frame has to designed and built around it. Or, if you have an Alloy PF30 shell you may be able to get that threaded to accept the T47 cups.
Contact Chris King directly for details.


the frame will come with a t47 threaded shell so it will be compatible. I just haven't seen any bottom brackets for sale online.
But I could be wrong

User avatar
mrgray
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:56 am

by mrgray

i'm still getting my head around this stuff in general but is it fair to say the advantage of this t47 over BSA is only that it allows use of 30 mm crank without overly small bearings and associated longevity issues? or does it achieve extra width over 68 mm as well?
Bobo S&S Steel Bike - 7.5 kg
Oltre XR2- 6.6 kg
Look 585 - 6.8 kg
Look 695 SR :D

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply