"Proprietary bottom bracket"

[Elefantino]

CDale is out with its new suspension gravel bike, which looks interesting ... until you get to the bottom bracket: BB-30-83-AI, a proprietary one-off that works with a specific crank and requires specific rear wheel dish.

Ugh.

At least Trek decided to start using a (slightly modified) T47, used by a number of custom builders.

Engineers need less creativity.

[GregL]

Engineers need less creativity.
Respectfully disagree. They need LOTS of creativity, but tempered with knowledge on designing for ease of manufacturing and maintenance. I lead engineering teams with this mantra every day :)

Greg

[MattTuck]

ugh is right!

I saw one of these a few days ago, but not up close. The "suspension" reminded me a bit of the old serotta suspension with the bushings. Didn't get a chance to investigate more.

But, a proprietary BB standard is a deal killer.

[Burning Pines]

Cannondale gonna cannondale

[Big Dan]

Hey, maybe they should build some motorcycles next......



:bike:

[Bentley]

I am not sure that we need another BB standard, oh I mean non-standard. Engineers need to be creative at solving real problems, not just creating new solutions to problems that are imagined. I can speak from experience on this.

[MattTuck]

I am not sure that we need another BB standard, oh I mean non-standard. Engineers need to be creative at solving real problems, not just creating new solutions to problems that are imagined. I can speak from experience on this.


Do we even know how they articulated the problem that this new 'standard' was meant to solve?

[Bentley]

Do we even know how they articulated the problem that this new 'standard' was meant to solve?

Exactly

[bicycletricycle]

Respectfully disagree. They need LOTS of creativity, but tempered with knowledge on designing for ease of manufacturing and maintenance. I lead engineering teams with this mantra every day :)

Greg

Nobody cares how easy manufacturing and maintenance is if they cant get the gearing they want or can't find parts to repair their bike 10 years from now.

[Jaybee]

This isn't exactly a new standard, it's just a Cannondale-specific one. They already use it on their FSi hardtail. In both use cases, the idea is an asymmetric BB cluster to keep chainstay length short while maintaining tire and chainring clearance. The issues are that you then need a proprietary cranks spindle and the wheel dish changes. In theory, the dish thing improves spoke bracing angles, but not every aftermarket wheel can accommodate this.

I appreciate what c-dale is trying to do here, that they are generally boundary-pushers, and initial ride reviews look good. I'm not against proprietary parts that improve the function of the bicycle. That said, the "maybe your nice wheels will work, and maybe they won't, and you'll have to redish them to find out" thing is a deal breaker for me. I also think the paint jobs are ugly.

[MattTuck]

This isn't exactly a new standard, it's just a Cannondale-specific one. They already use it on their FSi hardtail. In both use cases, the idea is an asymmetric BB cluster to keep chainstay length short while maintaining tire and chainring clearance. The issues are that you then need a proprietary cranks spindle and the wheel dish changes. In theory, the dish thing improves spoke bracing angles, but not every aftermarket wheel can accommodate this.

I appreciate what c-dale is trying to do here, that they are generally boundary-pushers, and initial ride reviews look good. I'm not against proprietary parts that improve the function of the bicycle. That said, the "maybe your nice wheels will work, and maybe they won't, and you'll have to redish them to find out" thing is a deal breaker for me. I also think the paint jobs are ugly.


Agree on the paint. They look like cheap imitations of Speedvagen schemes to me.

In theory I agree with the above... that they are trying to improve the machine. And hey, if you know me, you know that I love competition. So, put it out in the market, and let consumers decide. Problem is, consumers (except for those of us on this board) are not making purchase decisions based on bottom bracket standards.

If the standard isn't widely adopted, and you own this bike in 7 years, and you go buy a wheelset, or have a wheelset built for you, will you even know how to communicate that you need something special? It is just going to lead to problems down the road.

Which may be fine, because after 4 years, maybe cannondale expects you to buy a new bike, and so they aren't concerned about long term parts availability. But for the benefit of the consumer, it would be great to get away from this balkanization and move toward something resembling a standard.

[Elefantino]

This isn't exactly a new standard, it's just a Cannondale-specific one. They already use it on their FSi hardtail. In both use cases, the idea is an asymmetric BB cluster to keep chainstay length short while maintaining tire and chainring clearance. The issues are that you then need a proprietary cranks spindle and the wheel dish changes. In theory, the dish thing improves spoke bracing angles, but not every aftermarket wheel can accommodate this.

I appreciate what c-dale is trying to do here, that they are generally boundary-pushers, and initial ride reviews look good. I'm not against proprietary parts that improve the function of the bicycle. That said, the "maybe your nice wheels will work, and maybe they won't, and you'll have to redish them to find out" thing is a deal breaker for me. I also think the paint jobs are ugly.
If it was a game-changer, I could understand. But this doesn't seem to be even a marginal gain.

[Jaybee]

If it was a game-changer, I could understand. But this doesn't seem to be even a marginal gain.

I kinda agree with you here. I love all my short chainstay bikes on dirt, but I’d take 5mm more stay for a normal BB and wheel.

[MattTuck]

After reading the following paragraphs, I think the "problem" is is trying to solve is the inclusion of a double chain ring. I wonder if they could have made it a 1x and kept everything normal.


At this point, you may be wondering how exactly Cannondale managed to provide generous tire clearance, two-ring drivetrain compatibility, and such short chainstays. As always, you don’t get something for nothing.

The Topstone Carbon uses Cannondale’s BB30-83 Ai bottom bracket shell, which is similar to standard BB30 in that the bearings press directly into the frame. Already used on the Synapse, SuperX, and F-Si hardtail, BB30-83 Ai is an asymmetrical shell that’s 5mm wider on the non-driveside than than driveside, and 83mm-wide overall. According to Cannondale, this provides more space for the chainstays to move outward for increased tire clearance.

The 83mm-wide bottom bracket shell not only requires either press-in bearings or press-fit cups, but also a longer crankset spindle that increases the Q-factor relative to standard road bikes.

Also borrowed from the F-Si is Cannondale’s Ai, or asymmetric integration, concept. This offsets the entire drivetrain outward by 6mm, which creates even more room for tires and drivetrain bits.

Downsides? Well, the wider bottom bracket shell requires a longer spindle, which then increases the Q-factor relative to standard road bikes. Granted, narrower Q-factors aren’t universally better for everyone, but nevertheless, many riders will likely be bummed to see this.

And while the rear end uses standard 142mm-wide hubs, the rim has to be dished over to the non-driveside to keep it centered in the frame. This actually improves wheel strength by evening out the spoke bracing angles, but it also means that off-the-shelf wheels won’t work without modification (which won’t always be possible). And then there are all the proprietary parts required, such as the custom bottom bracket spindle and custom chainring spider.

Consider it the price of progress, I guess.

[Elefantino]

Cannondale is determined to be the Sony videotape of the bike world.

(Except Betamax was actually better than VHS.)

[yinzerniner]

Cannondale is determined to be the Sony videotape of the bike world.

(Except Betamax was actually better than VHS.)

And 8-track was better than cassettes!

And one can't forget the other greatest hits of Proprietary Sony Media like MiniDiscs, SACD, DAT, Memory Stick, et al.

But this Topstone looks DOA for the great majority of gravel buyers due to the reasons already mentioned. Which is pretty sad since it seems like the pivot works really well from all ride reports, and it's not priced to the moon for component spec unlike previous Cannondale releases.

[berserk87]

I don't root for failure of bike companies. I wish them success generally.

In this case, though, I'm tempting to wish that Cannondale makes zero dollars on this bike. Zero.

Seen too many horror stories to count regarding proprietary stuff (i.e. Cannondale, Mavic) and been personally burned by it.

[mt2u77]

I wouldn't put this on the engineers. New features, of real advantage or not, are a marketing opportunity. New features sell bikes, so that's what the marketing/sales department demands. The days of engineers leading companies are pretty much gone. This stuff all flows down from a brand strategy, market analysis, etc. -- "our market research tells us we'll capture 10% more sales if we say X, Y, Z, give us something so we can say it."

The Paceline crew represents a very tiny slice of the market. 90% of bike owners probably couldn't even identify a bottom bracket, and if something goes wrong, they just take it to the place they bought it-- "hey, it makes noise down there." 8 years down the line, that bike is long gone and they're on to the next shiny object.

[berserk87]

The Paceline crew represents a very tiny slice of the market. 90% of bike owners probably couldn't even identify a bottom bracket, and if something goes wrong, they just take it to the place they bought it-- "hey, it makes noise down there." 8 years down the line, that bike is long gone and they're on to the next shiny object.

Oh man I hope you are wrong. But you are probably dead on the money.

[rain dogs]

I may be the voice of the minority but I don't see a huge problem with this BB other than I would prefer it be threaded, but as Matt pointed out:

1. The more Gravel bikes trend toward the Mountain spectrum, the less we're going to see 68mm wide BB shells. Want more clearance and double?... no free lunch

2. Hollowgram cranks are already A+++ cranks and they'll play nice with the system, so no one is suffering by using the Hollowgram crank system. Some would say you're using some of the best (strongest, lightest, most modular) cranks available.

3. The Wheel dish is a bit annoying, but unless you're swapping wheels between bikes it's one and done.... build a sweet pair with the correct dish y voila.

That said, I wouldn't buy it, but the BB isn't the make-it or break-it issue for me.

[Jeff N.]

ugh is right!

I saw one of these a few days ago, but not up close. The "suspension" reminded me a bit of the old serotta suspension with the bushings. Didn't get a chance to investigate more.

But, a proprietary BB standard is a deal killer.Absolutely!

[yinzerniner]

I may be the voice of the minority but I don't see a huge problem with this BB other than I would prefer it be threaded, but as Matt pointed out:

1. The more Gravel bikes trend toward the Mountain spectrum, the less we're going to see 68mm wide BB shells. Want more clearance and double?... no free lunch

2. Hollowgram cranks are already A+++ cranks and they'll play nice with the system, so no one is suffering by using the Hollowgram crank system. Some would say you're using some of the best (strongest, lightest, most modular) cranks available.

3. The Wheel dish is a bit annoying, but unless you're swapping wheels between bikes it's one and done.... build a sweet pair with the correct dish y voila.

That said, I wouldn't buy it, but the BB isn't the make-it or break-it issue for me.

Rebuttal:
1 - Kind of a weird point. Don't think anyone's in a tiff about the width, but rather the alignment of that width ie how it's not really compatible with a lot of available cranksets. The offset, alignment, spacers and install is all different.
2 - Yes, they are fantastic cranks, but people like choices. While Aston Martins are great cars they're not for everyone.
3 - This is a pretty big deal, since not all rims/hubs are meant to be be built with the offset dish. It's not a simple "voila" as no one knows how hub flanges and spoke beds will react to different angles and forces than what they were designed for. And with a bike like this people WILL swap wheelsets.

Cannondale always seems to find proprietary solutions for problems, which while sometimes work well are still limiting choice. For the hoarders/tinkerers/cyclists of the world that's a mighty slap across the face.

[JAGI410]

I really like the alloy Topstone, and I'm excited to try out the Carbon one. If it's a good fit then I could see looking past the proprietary BS. At least it's Cannondale, they are easy to work with and get parts from.

[pasadena]

there are so many different bb's now, they are all essentially proprietary.

At this point it doesn't matter. Someone can introduce T47.5, BB30-A.5 or threaded bunghole righty tighty.

no matter what it is, you have to still go through the same steps to figure out what the hell you have, order a new one because no one is going to have the bb you need on hand locally.

[GregL]

Nobody cares how easy manufacturing and maintenance is if they cant get the gearing they want or can't find parts to repair their bike 10 years from now.
Part of good engineering for maintenance is obsolescence planning. You design your system to support a long lifecycle, including replacement of wear parts. In this case, I agree that the new Cannondale does not appear well designed for ease of maintenance. The post to which you replied was a respectful rebuttal to the idea that engineers shouldn't be creative. Engineers must be creative as a basic qualification. We create things for a living.

Greg

[Dude]

Sheesh, it's fine. The bike is fine. It checks all of the boxes, it looks good enough (ie non-offensive) not hard to sell on the sales floor and is priced competitively. The proprietary BB will have an adaptor in a few months. Go to your shop and ride one, it probably feels great.

[bicycletricycle]

I am a product designer / engineer. I make things for a living. I know about the role of creativity. In my experience Solving a difficult problem with custom made proprietary parts is more often a workaround or a marketing ploy than some real move of creative genius. Certainly some ideas or features do require custom components to execute but putting bearings in a frame these days should not require a new standard.


Part of good engineering for maintenance is obsolescence planning. You design your system to support a long lifecycle, including replacement of wear parts. In this case, I agree that the new Cannondale does not appear well designed for ease of maintenance. The post to which you replied was a respectful rebuttal to the idea that engineers shouldn't be creative. Engineers must be creative as a basic qualification. We create things for a living.

Greg

[jtbadge]

This isn't a new BB standard, they've had it on their MTBs for years. And the Hollowgram cranks are great (as are SRAM, for that matter). So what if you can't get an Ultratorque adapter.

I think it's great that the Ultegra models come with 46/30 rings and the clutch RD.

[Mark McM]

This isn't a new BB standard, they've had it on their MTBs for years. And the Hollowgram cranks are great (as are SRAM, for that matter). So what if you can't get an Ultratorque adapter.

Ah, so it is one of those oxymoronically named "proprietary standards".

[bicycletricycle]

Ah, so it is one of those oxymoronically named "proprietary standards".

Ha! that is a silly turn of phrase.

[GregL]

Certainly some ideas or features do require custom components to execute but putting bearings in a frame these days should not require a new standard.
Agreed!

Greg

[weiwentg]

I may be the voice of the minority but I don't see a huge problem with this BB other than I would prefer it be threaded, but as Matt pointed out:

1. The more Gravel bikes trend toward the Mountain spectrum, the less we're going to see 68mm wide BB shells. Want more clearance and double?... no free lunch

2. Hollowgram cranks are already A+++ cranks and they'll play nice with the system, so no one is suffering by using the Hollowgram crank system. Some would say you're using some of the best (strongest, lightest, most modular) cranks available.

3. The Wheel dish is a bit annoying, but unless you're swapping wheels between bikes it's one and done.... build a sweet pair with the correct dish y voila.

That said, I wouldn't buy it, but the BB isn't the make-it or break-it issue for me.

James Huang at Cyclingtips relayed Cannondale's rationale for the BB as part of his review (https://cyclingtips.com/2019/06/cannondale-topstone-carbon-first-ride-review-prices-weights-specs-details/) of the Topstone (emphasis mine):

The Topstone Carbon uses Cannondale’s BB30-83 Ai bottom bracket shell, which is similar to standard BB30 in that the bearings press directly into the frame. Already used on the Synapse, SuperX, and F-Si hardtail, BB30-83 Ai is an asymmetrical shell that’s 5mm wider on the non-driveside than than driveside, and 83mm-wide overall. According to Cannondale, this provides more space for the chainstays to move outward for increased tire clearance.

Also borrowed from the F-Si and SuperX is Cannondale’s Ai, or asymmetric integration, concept. This offsets the entire drivetrain outward by 6mm, which creates even more room for tires and drivetrain bits.

Downsides? Well, the wider bottom bracket shell requires a longer spindle, which then increases the Q-factor relative to standard road bikes. Granted, narrower Q-factors aren’t universally better for everyone, but nevertheless, many riders will likely be bummed to see this.

And while the rear end uses standard 142mm-wide hubs, the rim has to be dished over to the non-driveside to keep it centered in the frame. This actually improves wheel strength by evening out the spoke bracing angles, but it also means that off-the-shelf wheels won’t work without modification (which won’t always be possible). And then there are all the proprietary parts required, such as the custom bottom bracket spindle and custom chainring spider.

I'm not a fan of proprietary standards either, though.

[oldpotatoe]

James Huang at Cyclingtips relayed Cannondale's rationale for the BB as part of his review (https://cyclingtips.com/2019/06/cannondale-topstone-carbon-first-ride-review-prices-weights-specs-details/) of the Topstone (emphasis mine):


I'm not a fan of proprietary standards either, though.

Ya left out the last sentence..
Consider it the price of progress, I guess.

:no:

[steamer]

The bike industry creates new stuff for the primary purpose of suckering people into buying new stuff to supplant their not-yet-worn-out older stuff. Because new stuff is obviously always better, right?

[Jeff N.]

The bike industry creates new stuff for the primary purpose of suckering people into buying new stuff to supplant their not-yet-worn-out older stuff. Because new stuff is obviously always better, right?In the bike industry, I'm afraid necessity is NOT the Mother Of Invention. It's just change for the sake of.....change. For the most part, anyway.

[oldpotatoe]

I am a product designer / engineer. I make things for a living. I know about the role of creativity. In my experience Solving a difficult problem with custom made proprietary parts is more often a workaround or a marketing ploy than some real move of creative genius. Certainly some ideas or features do require custom components to execute but putting bearings in a frame these days should not require a new standard.

What he said..this isn't a new way to put a camera on a ball bearing swivel in the next Mars explorer, it's a bicycle...:eek:

[charliedid]

Here's your new bike. Get in Line. Here's your new bike. Get in ...

https://www.ecns.cn/business/2018/03-06/U542P886T1D294720F12DT20180306104610.jpeg

[Mark McM]

James Huang at Cyclingtips relayed Cannondale's rationale for the BB as part of his review (https://cyclingtips.com/2019/06/cannondale-topstone-carbon-first-ride-review-prices-weights-specs-details/) of the Topstone (emphasis mine):

The Topstone Carbon uses Cannondale’s BB30-83 Ai bottom bracket shell, which is similar to standard BB30 in that the bearings press directly into the frame. Already used on the Synapse, SuperX, and F-Si hardtail, BB30-83 Ai is an asymmetrical shell that’s 5mm wider on the non-driveside than than driveside, and 83mm-wide overall. According to Cannondale, this provides more space for the chainstays to move outward for increased tire clearance.

Also borrowed from the F-Si and SuperX is Cannondale’s Ai, or asymmetric integration, concept. This offsets the entire drivetrain outward by 6mm, which creates even more room for tires and drivetrain bits.

Downsides? Well, the wider bottom bracket shell requires a longer spindle, which then increases the Q-factor relative to standard road bikes. Granted, narrower Q-factors aren’t universally better for everyone, but nevertheless, many riders will likely be bummed to see this.

And while the rear end uses standard 142mm-wide hubs, the rim has to be dished over to the non-driveside to keep it centered in the frame. This actually improves wheel strength by evening out the spoke bracing angles, but it also means that off-the-shelf wheels won’t work without modification (which won’t always be possible). And then there are all the proprietary parts required, such as the custom bottom bracket spindle and custom chainring spider.


Cannondale's explanation doesn't hold water. Tire clearance and brake disc clearance issues are not unique to the Topstone. MTBs have already dealt with the issue and come up with standard solutions, so Cannondale could have just adopted already existing components and solutions for the Topstone, without having to do a completely proprietary re-design of the rear triangle/drivetrain. As far as the Q-factor differences between MTBs and road/gravel bikes, SRAM already has narrow Q-factor (156mm) MTB cranks that have a wider chainline and work fine with standard BBs.

[sg8357]

Nobody cares how easy manufacturing and maintenance is if they cant get the gearing they want or can't find parts to repair their bike 10 years from now.


Geez, in 10 years the bikes will be 187% stiffer, 132% more compliant,
who would want to ride an olde timey bike.:)
(Numbers from the 2029 Cannondale press packet)

[yinzerniner]

Cannondale's explanation doesn't hold water. Tire clearance and brake disc clearance issues are not unique to the Topstone. MTBs have already dealt with the issue and come up with standard solutions, so Cannondale could have just adopted already existing components and solutions for the Topstone, without having to do a completely proprietary re-design of the rear triangle/drivetrain. As far as the Q-factor differences between MTBs and road/gravel bikes, SRAM already has narrow Q-factor (156mm) MTB cranks that have a wider chainline and work fine with standard BBs.

As an engineer though, do you find Cannondale's rationale sound for the AI concept? Benefits seem to include:
-More even spoke tension
-Better hub flange angles
-Less need for asymmetric rims on rear wheel
-Shorter chainstays per given tire clearance without adding bulk (ie dropped chainstays)

Just looking at the benefits it seems like maybe rear wheels should have been dished like AI from the beginning, although that's really only been feasible since the advent of carbon construction and/or advanced titanium and alloy tubing since the chainstays being asymmetric adds complications of their own with regards to frame construction

As a consumer I think it's total b.s. - as stated, solutions that stray far beyond what has already been developed to combat the problem just for the sake of being different. But the benefits (mostly) seem to be there.

[Jaybee]

I also think it's a little unfair to say that there isn't a point to the AI engineering. 415mm chainstays are insanely short for the tire clearance, and you can still fit a 50-34 double. You have to do something to get there, whether that is AI, dropped chainstay, elevated chainstay, some kind of yoke for metal bikes. For comparison, some gravel bikes that do some kind of non-symmetry in the chainstays. :

Allied Able: 420mm, can't fit a double with the elevated chainstay
Trek Checkpoint: 425mm
Open UP: 420mm,
Salsa Warbird: 430mm,


You can decide if you think the Cannondale approach of super short chainstays and longer front centers is geometry that works for you on gravel, but it's pretty clear that if you want that, AI gets you there.

[Mark McM]

As an engineer though, do you find Cannondale's rationale sound for the AI concept? Benefits seem to include:
-More even spoke tension
-Better hub flange angles
-Less need for asymmetric rims on rear wheel
-Shorter chainstays per given tire clearance without adding bulk (ie dropped chainstays)

Just looking at the benefits it seems like maybe rear wheels should have been dished like AI from the beginning, although that's really only been feasible since the advent of carbon construction and/or advanced titanium and alloy tubing since the chainstays being asymmetric adds complications of their own with regards to frame construction.

The first rule of engineering is, "don't re-invent the wheel." As noted before, all the features you mention have already been accomplished with previously standardized components and systems, so the Cannondale system creates more problems than it solves. For example, they have created a proprietary asymmetric 83mm BB shell, when an asymmetric 86mm BB shell already exists (called BBRight). And the BBRight system was designed to work with already existing standard BB cups, bearings and cranks, whereas the Cannondale system does not. How is that progress?