"Proprietary bottom bracket"

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by Elefantino

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]

Originally Posted by mt2u77

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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

Absolutely!

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

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.

Originally Posted by GregL

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

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

Ha! that is a silly turn of phrase.