http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/11/ ... -bb_388673
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
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!
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.
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.
I can be wrong, and have plenty of examples for that
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.
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
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."
- in the industry
- Posts: 3559
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
- Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 17 Replies
- 1917 Views
Last post by jrccomponents
Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:44 pm
- 1 Replies
- 546 Views
Last post by Berryrice
Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:58 pm
- 107 Replies
- 9512 Views
Last post by mag
Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:33 pm
- 156 Replies
- 18208 Views
Last post by hambini
Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:37 pm
- 9 Replies
- 1012 Views
Last post by jzinckgra
Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:23 am