So where are we at with bb "standards" now?

[vqdriver]

Bb30, pf30, bb92, bb95? I can't keep track and I honestly don't even know what those last three even are. In the interest of future proofing and maintaining the ability to run any crank, what would be your bb in a custom?

To make this less hypothetical, I'll be off the queue around mid winter and have been entertaining the idea of using a c'dale crank. If I decide I don't like it I can always use an adapter.....

[Ralph]

On a Cannondale with adaptor......how does that work with standard English BB. I mean....I know it will fit OK, but how does it work over time. Creaks, stuff like that? Got same questions you have.

[sales guy]

No such thing as a standard bottom bracket type. Not anymore.

[#campyuserftw]

Rapha is working on marketing and selling a new type of BB. Search your feelings, you know this to be true. :)

[Ralph]

No such thing as a standard bottom bracket type. Not anymore.

OK.....How about 68 MM English?

[David Kirk]

OK.....How about 68 MM English?

It's a fad - it will never catch on.

:)

Dave

[AngryScientist]

if i were ordering a custom, there is no way i would go with anything other than "standard" english threaded. no brainer for me.

[ultraman6970]

Yeah it wont because 70mm italian threaded is the standard :P

It's a fad - it will never catch on.

:)

Dave

[David Kirk]

Yeah it wont because 70mm italian threaded is the standard :P

And I thought French with a Swiss fixed cup was still the standard by which all else are judged!

dave

[Mark McM]

OK.....How about 68 MM English?

(Putting my pedantic hat on:)

English BB threading (1 3/8" x 24 tpi) is antiquated, and has fallen out of use. Very few bikes today are made with English BB threading.

Instead, it has been replaced with the ISO (International Standards Organization) threading standard (1.37" x 24 tpi). This is the most widely recognized international standard.

So, there it is, two different standards: 1.375" x 24 tpi versus 1.37" x 24 tpi. See? Completely different.

(Ducking out of the room before I get pelted.)

[Louis]

Don't worry about bottom-brackets -this whole "pedals" thing is way overrated, and I doubt they'll last much longer.

What's past is prologue:


http://www.phys.uri.edu/~tony/bicycle/draisien.gif

http://www.goinggoingbike.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Fliz-2.jpg

[#campyuserftw]

Round. The standard is, round.

:beer:

[sg8357]

The current standard is a SKF 118 bb with a Stronglight 49d, 46/30 rings,
170mm.

Anything newer is a fad promoted by the perfidious Albion.

[seat_boy]

We're at the British standard (or ISO) and a bunch of junk that doesn't work as well.

[Louis]

OK.....How about 68 MM English?

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is wrong with this standard?

[Steve in SLO]

BB E-I-E-I-O

Good enough for Old McDonald, good enough for us.

[Ralph]

I think I'm gonna make sure I've got enough 4 arm Chorus and Record aluminum silver cranks with either Campy or Phil 102's to last me the rest of my life....I'm 72 now. I figure I can talk my son into keeping me in frames that will take my suff, and I'm done worrying about it. He can just build me a new frame every few years. Stuff I have now works. No issues....ever.

[John H.]

Where are we? Or where is the industry?
The industry is constantly looking to make a bb that is stiffer, lighter, and more profitable to produce.
Us? I would guess that most of us are good with a threaded bb.
At least I am.

[rustychisel]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is wrong with this standard?

It doesn't fail often enough, necessitating costly repairs and/or a new frame

[Uncle Jam's Army]

What is the problem with making a threaded 68 spindle? If the weight penalty isn't too bad, and you can get stiffness to close to the current carbon super bikes, what's the problem?

BTW, I don't see any non-threaded BB solution as optimal. So I am interested in whatever threaded BB alternatives there might be.

[John H.]

I am guessing that it is less expensive to produce a pf30/bb30 frame.
At least a foreign sourced frame.
Probably no cost savings for a custom builder.

[cmbicycles]

PF30 is less expensive to produce as there is no threading process required, fewer tools, and facing is not terribly important. PF30 tolerances aren't as round as BB30 (this is the reason it is slightly out of favor compared to PF30), as the plastic PF cups take up the looser manufacturing tolerances. All the marketing material I have read says that its a bigger axle, so its stiffer, lighter and more vertically compliant. It is way more better, they wouldn't print the stuff if it weren't true, right?

[BumbleBeeDave]

What's past is prologue:


. . . "Imperfection is perfection" . . . :rolleyes:

BBD

[CircuitHero]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is wrong with this standard?

BB30 and the like are 'stiffer' because you can run a much larger BB shell. Plus, I feel the industry was trying to get away from threads in a place that can potentially ruin your day if you aren't deliberate with your actions.

[pinkshogun]

there's even 2 different types of one-piece Astabula cranks...with regard to their threading and ball bearing size

[Louis]

. . . "Imperfection is perfection" . . . :rolleyes:

I'm sure e-Richie would like the analogy to Shakespeare.

[choke]

BB30 and the like are 'stiffer' because you can run a much larger BB shell. Are they? Most of the marketing says 'yes' but not everyone agrees. From http://kenteriksen.com/faqs/ We do offer a pressfit BB30 shell but we always remind people that it takes away from the overall stiffness of the BB area of the frame. The cranks are a larger diameter, but you don’t increase the stiffness of the frame at all. Also, a threaded BB has more purchase and creates a wider platform for the cranks, not to mention gives you the option of changing systems if you would like to do so in a few years. Remember, the frame will last a lifetime, technology doesn’t. One way that a bigger BB shell can make a frame stiffer is if the builder uses larger diameter tubing to connect to it - but how many actually do?

[John H.]

In my experience it is difficult to build a pf30/bb30 bike out of metal (steel or ti) that does not creak.
They seem to not come out perfectly round despite using heat sinks.
I had a pf30 Moots RSL mtb- loved the bike, hated the bb. The bb or cranks were always causing problems. After multiple bb's, I sold the bike. I could not deal with it.
Had a buddy with a custom steel frame with similar problems.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . "liberated" that from The Bard?

:no:

:p

BBD

[CircuitHero]

Are they? Most of the marketing says 'yes' but not everyone agrees. From http://kenteriksen.com/faqs/ One way that a bigger BB shell can make a frame stiffer is if the builder uses larger diameter tubing to connect to it - but how many actually do?

Maybe it is. Too many variables. This is the bicycle industry, if they tell you its stiffer, then of course everyone will feel the difference on a test ride.

[CircuitHero]

In my experience it is difficult to build a pf30/bb30 bike out of metal (steel or ti) that does not creak.


But thats the thing, its not. BMX has used this style for well over a decade. My bikes have made numerous sounds from a year+ of 10 stair drops and dirt jumps, but BB creak was never one. But, I don't know if thats a question of BMX bikes being made of 4130/520 or not.

[parco]

How do these different BB's affect Q factor?

[Louis]

Maybe I'm too much of a retro-grouch, but when it comes to "innovation" in cycling my first instinct is to assume that the change is being made as an excuse to sell me something new, with the benefits not living up to the hype.

Every now and then the change is an improvement. Typical "good" examples for me are index shifting, clipless pedals, and non-natural chamois. Other times it's a wash. Examples of that: saddles with holes in them and "anatomic" handlebars.

[nahtnoj]

No such thing as a standard bottom bracket type. Not anymore.

Anymore? There never was...

OP, if you don't want to do BSA, get PF30.

PS - Cannondale has been making bikes with BB30 for almost 15 years. Can we please stop pretending like this is some new thing?

[bpm]

How do these different BB's affect Q factor?

I may be showing my ignorance here, but isn't the Q factor really dictated by the chainstays and not the width of the bottom bracket? The chainstays need to be a certain width for tire clearance and therefore the Q factor can only get so narrow, regardless of the width of the BB shell, right?

[sales guy]

Anymore? There never was...

OP, if you don't want to do BSA, get PF30.

PS - Cannondale has been making bikes with BB30 for almost 15 years. Can we please stop pretending like this is some new thing?


The standard for good bikes was a threaded English or Italian bottom bracket and a spindle either solid or hollowed. Ashtabula(one piece) was the other which was traditionally found on department store or cheaper bikes.

So there was a standard for many many years. But not anymore as many companies are trying to find a gimmick that will set them apart and make them noticed. It's the way of the bike world which sadly I am in and helped create all this garbage. Sorry. My bad.

[David Kirk]

I may be showing my ignorance here, but isn't the Q factor really dictated by the chainstays and not the width of the bottom bracket? The chainstays need to be a certain width for tire clearance and therefore the Q factor can only get so narrow, regardless of the width of the BB shell, right?

Right you are.

Q is determined by the size of the tire, the room between it and the stays, the size of the stays themselves, the room needed between the stays and the crank arms and finally the thickness of the crank arm. The BB shell and bearing arrangement have little to do with Q.

In reality chainline is also a large determinate. It's relatively fixed and there is only so much room between the front derailleur and the backside of the crank arm when in the big ring so unless you notch the backside of the arm to clear the changer you get a given width.

Dave

[oldpotatoe]

Bb30, pf30, bb92, bb95? I can't keep track and I honestly don't even know what those last three even are. In the interest of future proofing and maintaining the ability to run any crank, what would be your bb in a custom?

To make this less hypothetical, I'll be off the queue around mid winter and have been entertaining the idea of using a c'dale crank. If I decide I don't like it I can always use an adapter.....

No standards, none..it's whatever the marketing department and manufacturers(less $) can come up with.

I have an idea...a threaded tube, installed into a frame, at the BB, where the bearings just kinda, ya know, thread in there.....

[Lewis Moon]

if i were ordering a custom, there is no way i would go with anything other than "standard" english threaded. no brainer for me.

This. I don't really see any real improvement in the different types of shells. As long as companies make some sort of adapter to fit the differing spindles into an English shell, I'll spec an English shell.

[vqdriver]

i've been curious about the cannondale and sworks cranks, but they are only offered in bb30 so the intent was to allow the new frame to take any crank on the market. nothing against the standard english thread, but there's no point in limiting myself with a custom.

additionally, for as much complaining as there is about yet another change to frame standards, i hadn't heard about them blowing up or any complaints about their functionality. but now that i think about it, i suppose they are indeed in carbon frames primarily. the point about them creaking in metal frames seems like a valid consideration

[Ti Designs]

I bought my first race bike in 1979, it was a used Colnago Super with mostly Campy Nuovo Record parts. That parts kit moved from bike to bike during my racing career. Some time in the early 80's I added an english version of the same bottom bracket to my collection. For 20 years I used two bottom brackets, and they both still work perfectly. I was recently given a Specialized Venge Pro to ride. As a race machine the bike is spectacular, it almost had me believing that some of those guys don't do performance enhancing drugs. But it did have one weakness. The bottom bracket only lasted for two weeks. By the time I gave the bike back there was so much side to side play that the chain couldn't stay on either chainring. I now have a Tarmac SL4, which is a marvel of bike building technology, and at times makes me wonder if someone didn't sneak something into my water bottle. It too has a weakness, bottom bracket bearings only last for three weeks. The second set of bearings I put in failed in spectacular fashion, I was on a ride, almost home when I looked down and saw black smoke pouring from my bottom bracket. My first thought was Di2 and my joke about Lucas wiring. Then I remembered that I still use Dura-Ace 9-speed...

[Ralph]

Campagnolo for 2014 is bringing out cranksets to fit BB30 and some others. "Over Torque Technology".

http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/newsdetail/newsid_428_newscatid_3.jsp http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/newsdetail/newsid_428_newscatid_3.jsp

More info.....more money.

[Kirk Pacenti]

Threaded BB's are becoming all the rage in the MTB world again. ;)

[Kirk Pacenti]

No standards, none..it's whatever the marketing department and manufacturers(less $) can come up with.

I have an idea...a threaded tube, installed into a frame, at the BB, where the bearings just kinda, ya know, thread in there.....

Personally, I really think that the press-in BB was driven by assemblers. Cut 30 seconds out of the BB install and multiply that time savings by 300,000+ bikes per year, and all of a sudden you (the assembler) are saving real money. What an innovation! ;)

Cheers,
KP

[parco]

From Wikipedia :The Q Factor of a bicycle is the distance between the pedal attachment points on the crank arms, when measured parallel to the bottom bracket axle.[1] It may also be referred to as the "tread" of the crankset. The term was coined by Grant Petersen during his time at Bridgestone Bicycles.[2]

Q Factor is a function of both the bottom bracket width (axle length) and the crank arms. Bottom brackets axles vary in length from 102mm to 127mm. Mountain bike cranks are typically about 20mm wider than road cranks.[3]

A larger Q Factor (wider tread) will mean less cornering clearance (while pedaling) for the same bottom bracket height and crank arm length. A smaller Q Factor (narrower tread) is desirable on faired recumbent bicycles because then the fairing can also be narrower, hence smaller and lighter.[3] Sheldon Brown claims that a narrower tread is ergonomically superior because it more closely matches the nearly-inline track of human footsteps.[4]

Though it seems intuitive that a narrower tread is superior, a walking person must put their foot more to the centerline of the body to balance. This is not the case when pedaling a bicycle, where the "steps" are so very close together and balance a non-issue.[citation needed]

Recent scientific research has emerged from The University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom that shows narrower Q Factors are more efficient, likely due to improved application of force during the pedal stroke [5]

So I guess my question is do these different bottom bracket types have different length spindles ?

[sales guy]

From Wikipedia :The Q Factor of a bicycle is the distance between the pedal attachment points on the crank arms, when measured parallel to the bottom bracket axle.[1] It may also be referred to as the "tread" of the crankset. The term was coined by Grant Petersen during his time at Bridgestone Bicycles.[2]

Q Factor is a function of both the bottom bracket width (axle length) and the crank arms. Bottom brackets axles vary in length from 102mm to 127mm. Mountain bike cranks are typically about 20mm wider than road cranks.[3]

A larger Q Factor (wider tread) will mean less cornering clearance (while pedaling) for the same bottom bracket height and crank arm length. A smaller Q Factor (narrower tread) is desirable on faired recumbent bicycles because then the fairing can also be narrower, hence smaller and lighter.[3] Sheldon Brown claims that a narrower tread is ergonomically superior because it more closely matches the nearly-inline track of human footsteps.[4]

Though it seems intuitive that a narrower tread is superior, a walking person must put their foot more to the centerline of the body to balance. This is not the case when pedaling a bicycle, where the "steps" are so very close together and balance a non-issue.[citation needed]

Recent scientific research has emerged from The University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom that shows narrower Q Factors are more efficient, likely due to improved application of force during the pedal stroke [5]

So I guess my question is do these different bottom bracket types have different length spindles ?



No, they don't. There is a standard length on the Shimano, Campagnolo and the other types of cranks with a fixed spindle. So yeah, there is a different Q Factor for many of these cranks. Which many people don't even realize as most people don't know what Q Factor is anymore. Back when cycling had options and people with knowledge of product vs being just marketing hypers, things were very different. Which is why the Bridgestone catalogs frigging kicked ass!!! The catalog was an encyclopedia of everything from how lugs are made, to tubing to Q Factor and wool clothing. Now days, it's all marketing hype. It's all about how we can convince people they have to buy our stuff, or they wil die!
Like Specialized with their wedge in the shoes, yeah, some people need it, not everyone. It's actually closer to 10%! For many, including myself, the wedge they add hurts our feet. But they have you believing you need it or you can't ride a bike...EVER!!!!

[oldpotatoe]

No, they don't. There is a standard length on the Shimano, Campagnolo and the other types of cranks with a fixed spindle. So yeah, there is a different Q Factor for many of these cranks. Which many people don't even realize as most people don't know what Q Factor is anymore. Back when cycling had options and people with knowledge of product vs being just marketing hypers, things were very different. Which is why the Bridgestone catalogs frigging kicked ass!!! The catalog was an encyclopedia of everything from how lugs are made, to tubing to Q Factor and wool clothing. Now days, it's all marketing hype. It's all about how we can convince people they have to buy our stuff, or they wil die!
Like Specialized win their wedge in the shoes, yeah, some people need it, not everyone. It's actually closer to 10%! For many, including myself, the wedge they add hurts our feet. But they have you believing you need it or you can't ride a bike...EVER!!!!

This and your 'apology' in a previous part of this thread means ya gotta spill yer guts as to who ya work for, oh 'industry' guy.

[sales guy]

This and your 'apology' in a previous part of this thread means ya gotta spill yer guts as to who ya work for, oh 'industry' guy.


I will say I currently work for a cycling shoe manufacturer. Before this, I worked for another cycling shoe manufacturer, a bike component manufacturer who made/make wheels, hubs, headsets and bottom brackets. Before that was an aluminum and carbon bike frame/bicycle company. Before that, I traveled for pros as a wrench. Worked in and owned a shop at one point also.

It has been a very long almost 30 years in this every changing industry.

By the way, I was speaking in more general terms than me specifically trying to convince people into things. I know it will sound silly, but I'm not that way and it's the reason I left one of the companies I worked for.

[oldpotatoe]

I will say I currently work for a cycling shoe manufacturer. Before this, I worked for another cycling shoe manufacturer, a bike component manufacturer who made/make wheels, hubs, headsets and bottom brackets. Before that was an aluminum and carbon bike frame/bicycle company. Before that, I traveled for pros as a wrench. Worked in and owned a shop at one point also.

It has been a very long almost 30 years in this every changing industry.

By the way, I was speaking in more general terms than me specifically trying to convince people into things. I know it will sound silly, but I'm not that way and it's the reason I left one of the companies I worked for.

I have seen the enemy and he are us.

Kidding. Even as a shop owner, where, if done right, I could sell anything, but chose products I could stand behind. Tough when ya gottA smile and say, cheery aye aye for the 'boss', but know the product is junque.

Only 'wished' to work for Campagnolo, even with their warts but Tom/Valentino wouldn't move to Colorado. i

Glad I'm done, wrench for myself or a few others, in my garage. Bike industry is weird, strange, words like that.p

[Mark McM]

Right you are.

Q is determined by the size of the tire, the room between it and the stays, the size of the stays themselves, the room needed between the stays and the crank arms and finally the thickness of the crank arm. The BB shell and bearing arrangement have little to do with Q.

In reality chainline is also a large determinate. It's relatively fixed and there is only so much room between the front derailleur and the backside of the crank arm when in the big ring so unless you notch the backside of the arm to clear the changer you get a given width.

Dave

I completely agree that Q factor is limited by all these other factors you mention, and not by the BB type.

However, what hasn't been mentioned here, is the affect of BB type on U factor. While Q factor is the width between the crank pedal flats, U factor is the width of the cranks at the spindle. The U factor can affect the rider's ankle clearance, and depending on a particular rider's physiology and pedaling style, U factor may be more important than Q factor. Riders who are "duck footed" (feet angled outward), such as myself, may have their ankles rub against the crank if the U factor is too high.

The BB standards with internal bearings inside 68mm shells (such as BB30 and square tapers) allow for the smallest U factors. Square taper spindles are available as short as 102mm, allowing U factors as small as 125mm. Wider BB shells, or BB standard that use external bearings, will by nature require wider U factors.

[sales guy]

I have seen the enemy and they are us.

Sadly, yep. And it is a crazy industry we are in. For years Cervelo said they wouldn't switch/use 1 1/8" headsets as they've done the studies and it doesn't make sense as there was no benefit. And then they switched, and switched to tapered. They were adimant they wouldn't switch. But they did.

Just like so many others who've changed for the sake of money. Very VERY few have changed. Paul, white industries, Chris King, rivendell. A small handful.

And it's sad. I miss the 90's of cycling. Racing. Everything! You had that feeling the pros were doping, but the performances weren't so over the top, and they were still friendly and humble. Mountain biking was even more fun.

Oh well, sorry I helped contribute to its demise. But only in that I worked for the companies. I didn't push anything on anyone. Promise!

[oldpotatoe]

Sadly, yep. And it is a crazy industry we are in. For years Cervelo said they wouldn't switch/use 1 1/8" headsets as they've done the studies and it doesn't make sense as there was no benefit. And then they switched, and switched to tapered. They were adimant they wouldn't switch. But they did.

Just like so many others who've changed for the sake of money. Very VERY few have changed. Paul, white industries, Chris King, rivendell. A small handful.

And it's sad. I miss the 90's of cycling. Racing. Everything! You had that feeling the pros were doping, but the performances weren't so over the top, and they were still friendly and humble. Mountain biking was even more fun.

Oh well, sorry I helped contribute to its demise. But only in that I worked for the companies. I didn't push anything on anyone. Promise!

Ernesto, Colnago said at Interbike in a Colnago seminar, in 90s the same thing about 1 1/8 headsets, then switched. 2006->2007 square taper to external for Campagnolo, not for anything else but marketing. 5% gain by one is a 5% loss by another manufacturer. In spite of all the hoopla, bike market still pretty flat.

Rush to have the next greatest 'thing', seat masts, tapered headtubes/forks, silly wheels, internal, electronic, wet disc brakes, yeegads.

I loved the 70s and early 80s when all 'racing' bikes were all the same, winner was the strongest, for whatever reason.

[sales guy]

I agree. The racing back in the 70's they 90's was the best. 80's especially. And I know there are a few others that haven't changed, but very few. Can't think of any right now, but they are out there.

[Kirk Pacenti]

I loved the 70s and early 80s when all 'racing' bikes were all the same, winner was the strongest, for whatever reason.

I never raced road bikes, but I agree with this.

I've often thought it would be pretty cool to have an IROC type race where the competitors were all on identical, semi-retro road bikes. Eddy Merckx Corsa frames and DA 7400 kits would be about perfect (imo, ymmv, etc, etc)

Cheers,
KP

[Kirk Pacenti]

...Mountain biking was even more fun.

I've come to think that 1994/1995 was pretty much the pinnacle of XC MTB racing and XC MTB bike design. Besides materials there really have been few meaningful innovations since that time period... only minor evolutionary gains.

That said, I have way more fun today on my 650b, 140mm travel, do everything very, very well FS bike, than I ever remember having on my bikes from the mid-90's. ;)

Cheers,
KP

[merlinmurph]

...The second set of bearings I put in failed in spectacular fashion, I was on a ride, almost home when I looked down and saw black smoke pouring from my bottom bracket. ...

Now, that's cool.

I, for one, hate these external bearing BB's. I never had to replace a BB until I got a Campy UT crank and didn't realize you actually have to service it, semi-frequently depending on how much you ride and what types of weather.

This is progress?