Argonaut & Chris King Team Up For Another BB Standard

[goodboyr]

I wonder how they would tap threads in a pf30 shell and ensure the two sides were exactly aligned. The misalignment is one of the things that kills bb bearings.

[joepac]

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".

Also, Praxis Works also pretty much solved this with their collet BB...

[bm0p700f]

@rpenmanparker while standard 68mm shells may restrict BB shape a bit but on the tyre width front I have many BSA threaded frames and most can take 28mm tyres without issue (one can't because of short chainstays). One has clearance for 31mm tyres and mudguards (Genesis Equilibrium Ti Disc) so a wider shell does not help create more space for tyres. It is a stiff frame, beside I have yet to see any evidence that a stiffer BB shell area translates to improved power transfer. If it was that clear then surely someone could prove it.

[rpenmanparker]

@rpenmanparker while standard 68mm shells may restrict BB shape a bit but on the tyre width front I have many BSA threaded frames and most can take 28mm tyres without issue (one can't because of short chainstays). One has clearance for 31mm tyres and mudguards (Genesis Equilibrium Ti Disc) so a wider shell does not help create more space for tyres. It is a stiff frame, beside I have yet to see any evidence that a stiffer BB shell area translates to improved power transfer. If it was that clear then surely someone could prove it.

Clearly the notion of needing more rooms on the BB shell doesn't have you convinced. That is fine. I am neutral on it myself. I was just describing the thought process many folks are applying regarding wanting the wider BB shell. And with a threaded shell, there is really no reason to not want it. It becomes equivalent to outboard cups on a BSA shell. Given the selection of 86.5 mm wide spindles in different diameters, there is no reason having this new standard should be problematic. It is just needed for someone to make the threaded bearing cups for each spindle diameter.

[Calnago]

The sheer larger size of the shell is a big boon to frame manufacturers in that it simply provides more room for all kinds of tubing shapes to be joined to. And that is important when you're dealing with the freedom of creating molds and different layups to accomplish a variety of things. It just opens up a lot more possibilities for frame manufacturers. This is a separate issue from all the talk of creaking, spindle size, etc., which occur on the inside of the shell.

[kgt]

+1

[euan]

I wonder how they would tap threads in a pf30 shell and ensure the two sides were exactly aligned. The misalignment is one of the things that kills bb bearings.

Same way you would a BSA shell

[hjb1000]

What about carbon BB shells- is there any way to mold threads into carbon? If possible that would make a lot of sense versus using an alloy sleeve bonded in.

[goodboyr]

I wonder how they would tap threads in a pf30 shell and ensure the two sides were exactly aligned. The misalignment is one of the things that kills bb bearings.

Same way you would a BSA shell

I assumed the shells were pre tapped on alloy frames and welded in place. And for carbon frames the threaded bsa shells were one piece that was bonded into frame. This is tapping a frame in situ.

[Chiva]

I wonder where I would take my carbon frame with bonded aluminum BB shell to be tapped?? Machine shop??

[UpFromOne]

Carbon has to be an insert. Tapping an existing typical carbon layup will compromise the fibers & structural integrity.

Having said that, anyone for molding in threads??? LOL shot in the dark manufacturing...

[prendrefeu]

Having said that, anyone for molding in threads??? LOL shot in the dark manufacturing...

Not really, not cost effective at a large scale for manufacturing.

http://www.schmolke-carbon.com/carbon/c ... chraub.php

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.

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)

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.

Do you really think other manufacturers are going to jump on this?
Heck no they won't.

"Yeah, as a business let's totally concede to a competitor and use their standard! Yeah!"
The guys at FSA, Specialized, Cannondale, Trek, Colnago and so on are thinking "shit, better start making this new BB standard stuff! it's so much better than our standard!"

More standards drive sales that is the main purpose of this.

Which unfortunately describes many, but not all, of the 'innovations' in cycling. Gotta sell something new, right?
(as someone wanting to have my own products as well, I can't blame them, but it is something to note)

Yep. Just like computer tech.

BTW - BBRight is an open "standard" as well. Any frame makers besides Cervelo (and their homage counterparts) using BBRight?


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.

[goodboyr]

Well stated. Totally agree.

[rpenmanparker]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean. BB386 BB bearing cups and crank are compatible with BSA. The 30 mm spindle just fits into the BSA shell. I have run BB386 threaded cups and cranks in two BSA frames.

[mattyNorm]

I'm most excited about this for mountain bikes, now I can have a wide shell for better clearance and a threaded bb of simplicity. As a mechanic I'm usually against new "standards" popping up but this is different. Usually it's just company X releasing some new crap with y% stiffness and all the same old problems. However this actually addresses real problems in an elegant way that ultimately benefits the end user. While I agree with Prendrefeu about the unlikely hood of any major manufacturs adopting this anytime soon one can always hope. Also this has some good info http://www.bikerumor.com/2015/11/07/pbe ... ine-works/