Are proprietary designs becoming more prevalent?

[MattTuck]

I'll admit that my experience with cycling and bikes is pretty limited, about 10 years.

But it seems lately that there are a lot more proprietary 'standards' being introduced, especially as it relates to the bottom bracket.

Is this a fair characterization? or is this type of thing common in the history of the cycling industry?

[FlashUNC]

The industry goes through fads. This is but one of them.

[AngryScientist]

i just hope that shimano does not kill the pretty longstanding 110/130 BCD chainring standard with their new 4-arm design.

[cmg]

proprietary locks you into their brand. wasn't the ISIS bottom bracket the one to be shared by any company that wanted to adapt to it. none did. Wait until they develop proprietary bolts. but all industries do this not just bicycling.

[rice rocket]

i just hope that shimano does not kill the pretty longstanding 110/130 BCD chainring standard with their new 4-arm design.

Kill? Unlikely. Look how many retrogrouches still run whatever they want.

[Mark McM]

I'll admit that my experience with cycling and bikes is pretty limited, about 10 years.

But it seems lately that there are a lot more proprietary 'standards' being introduced, especially as it relates to the bottom bracket.

Is this a fair characterization? or is this type of thing common in the history of the cycling industry?

In first nearly half-century of the bicycle industry, each manufacturer pretty much designed and built their machines completely on their own, using their own proprietary standards. There was little interchangeability from one manufacturer to the next.

In the first 60 or 70 years of the 20th century, manufacturers started specializing on individual components (such as cranks or freewheels or derailleurs). Assembling complete bikes from components produced by different manufacturers required some degree of standardization, so some de facto standards started to be adopted. However, due to nationalistic rivalries, each bike manufacturing country typically settled on their own standards, which were not necessarily interchangeable with other countries standards. During this era there were many national standards for BBs, including British, Italian, French, Swiss, etc.

During the 2nd US Bike Boom (mid -1970's) US and European manufacturers were unable to keep up with the rapid increase in US demand for bikes, so many bikes sold in the US in this era were sourced from Asia (primarily Japan, at least at first). These bikes typically used the British BB standard, so the British BB standard become the dominant standard in the US.

Additional events in the 1980's increased the move of bicycle manufacturing to Asia. The first was the introduction (and boom) in mountain bikes. This was initially a US phenomena, and mass production of these bikes came from Asia. The second event was the introduction of indexed shifting systems, which originated with Asian manufacturers (Shimano and Suntour), which came to dominate bicycle component suppliers, and drove many companies in the traditional bicycle manufacturing companies out of business. This further cemented the British BB standard as the main international standard.

The British BB standard worked perfectly fine for steel frames and steel spindles. But as new materials started to be used (aluminum and carbon fiber for frames, tubular aluminum for spindles), the dimensions of the British BB standard became too constrictive, and new standards began to be introduced. Currently, the BB standards are in a state of flux, and technical and economic factors will determine if the will continue to evolve in divergent directions, or if there will be another convergence.

So, the era of a single BB standard is really just a few decades at the end of the 2oth century, and doesn't reflect the entire history of bicycle manufacturing.

[jimmythefly]

In general developments seem to be happening at an accelerated rate -but it's not just bicycling, that's all consumer products. We get a new update or new design refresh every year. Things used to stick around a bit longer, maybe getting cosmetic updates but not so many functional changes.

But there has always been a bunch of "proprietary" stuff in cycling. I don't know if I'd really call it proprietary so much as it limits your choices for aftermarket parts.


Raleigh with their own threading. British, French, Swiss, Italian BB threading and shell types. Gazillions of seatpost sizes. We've seen several press-fit BB types (almost from the very earliest days of cycling). Tire and rim sizes have been all over the place. There are several types of inner tube valve. Handle bar (and stem) diameters have come and gone like the wind.

There are what, 3 or 4 versions of what constitutes a "square taper" BB spindle?

Even the size and design of the chain and chainwheel teeth was nowhere near settled upon for quite a while. Same goes for brakes and how and where they attach to the frame. Oh, also spokes and lacing systems.

The derailleur and how and where it attaches to the frame is a whole story unto itself.

[chengher87]

The 4-ring bolt of Osymetric cranks comes to mind.

[regularguy412]

i just hope that shimano does not kill the pretty longstanding 110/130 BCD chainring standard with their new 4-arm design.

Agreed.

As with BB30, BBRight, etc., these are just solutions looking for a problem.

I'm a ShimaNO guy,, have been forever, since practically everyone in this area rides Shimano (and wheel sharing is much easier that way), but I'm surely no fan of the 'aesthetics' of the new 4-arm crank set. And I'm sure it won't make me one whit faster (or slower). The only thing it would lighten is my pocketbook.

Thanks for listening. Maybe I am a Luddite. (written as he unpacks his freshly rebuilt Phil cartridge BB - 103mm square taper that is now over 16 yrs old)

Mike in AR:beer:

[Mark McM]

proprietary locks you into their brand. wasn't the ISIS bottom bracket the one to be shared by any company that wanted to adapt to it. none did. Wait until they develop proprietary bolts. but all industries do this not just bicycling.

Actually, many companies used the ISIS standard, including Bontrager, FSA, Race Face, Sinz, Truvativ, Stronglight, and others. ISIS was created in response to Shimano's Octalink standard. Shimano licensed Octalink to several crank makers, but they never licenced Octalink to BB manufacturers (to this day, only Shimano has made Octalink BBs).

The reason ISIS has largely been abandoned is the same as Octalink was abandoned - it only leaves room for bearings with very small balls. This makes the bearings much less tolerant to contamination of dirt and grit, and also less tolerant to misalignment. Both tend to result in shortened bearing life.

The solution is to use larger bearings, but these won't fit into the standard ISO bottom bracket shell. Therefore the latest BB designes use either external bearings, or enlarged bottom bracket shells.

[Mark McM]

i just hope that shimano does not kill the pretty longstanding 110/130 BCD chainring standard with their new 4-arm design.

If history is any indicator, they will. Shimano has already abandoned the industry standard 5 arm BCD standards on their MTB cranks in favor of their own proprietary 4 arm standards, and appear to be moving in this direction on road cranks as well.

But fear not, there are plenty of aftermarket manufacturers still making chainrings with the 5 arm MTB bolt patterns (which Shimano didn't use as long as they have the 5 arm road bolt patterns), so it is likely that chainrings for the 5 arm road patterns will be available for a long time to come.

[CunegoFan]

Take a gander at the Calfee thread. Five big ones for a frame with a BB/crank only used by Look. No thanks.

[Ahneida Ride]

Consider Textbooks ...

how many freshman calculus books are out there?
and how many revisions ? updates ?

just to extract more frns from students.

[false_Aest]

Consider Textbooks ...

how many freshman calculus books are out there?
and how many revisions ? updates ?

just to extract more frns from students.

Except that there's a few pockets in US where kids are convinced that learning calculus is gonna help Prez Reagan implement StarWars and they're saving their pennies for an Amiga.


Oh Idaho.....

[bthornt]

I am thinking about buying a new frame, and I was initially bewildered by the vast array of bottom bracket choices currently available. In fact, it seems like the threaded bottom bracket is going the way of the threaded steerer and quill stem. But, ...

I like the threaded steerer and quill stem, primarily because you can raise and lower your bars (think about doing this with a threadless fork). Bar height can be lowered with a threadless stem, never to be raised again.

Also, you don't have the unsightly accumulation of spacers between the top race of the headset and the stem that is so prevalent now.

I know progress is important and I'm not some kind of retrogrouch (I don't think), but I wonder how great some of our changes are.

[regularguy412]

I am thinking about buying a new frame, and I was initially bewildered by the vast array of bottom bracket choices currently available. In fact, it seems like the threaded bottom bracket is going the way of the threaded steerer and quill stem. But, ...

I like the threaded steerer and quill stem, primarily because you can raise and lower your bars (think about doing this with a threadless fork). Bar height can be lowered with a threadless stem, never to be raised again.

Also, you don't have the unsightly accumulation of spacers between the top race of the headset and the stem that is so prevalent now.

I know progress is important and I'm not some kind of retrogrouch (I don't think), but I wonder how great some of our changes are.


To quote Alfred E. Newman - 'Planned Obsolescence'

Just like Seat Post Masts.

Mike in AR :beer: