T47 Part II.

[jpw]

Would it be quicker to compile a list of builders not using T47, or the other way around? Has this new 'standard' (yes, I know it's not yet a proper standard) penetrated the market to the point that BSA/ Italian/ PF30 et.c. are heading for the door marked exit, or is T47 still very much a niche offering for now?

I think I prefer T47. Some builders do too it seems, but others seem reluctant. I wonder if the reluctance is because chasing the threads comes at the end of the frame fabrication process and there's a worry that if that goes wrong the frame is ruined. Tight thread tolerances?

Is there a T47 website, or a list of T47 builders out there somewhere?

[prototoast]

I suspect builders who won't use t47 (assuming they're not using lugs) would do so because they don't have the tooling for it--jigs, alignment tables, thread chasing and facing. For a small builder, an extra $1,000 in tooling costs is a pretty big pill to swallow if demand for t47 isn't high.

In terms of actual skilled fabricate, t47 isn't any different. Also, as far as adoption of the standard goes, I don't believe Shimano, or campagnolo make a t47 bottom bracket yet, and sram only makes one for the 85.5 mm trek version. I'm not saying t47 is bad, but it's still quite niche, so I'm not surprised if many builders are reluctant to go that route.

[Pegoready]

Considering Paragon makes a steel and Ti pre-threaded shell, I don't see why a builder of a TIG frame would decline the request unless they straight up just don't understand the standard. I could understand the reluctance due to so many "standards" creeping into framebuilding. I'll bet many custom builders got burned by getting talked into BB30/PF30 etc. and delivering ultimately compromised bikes due to creaking.

To me T47 solves a bunch of issues: threaded like English (no creaks), BIG allowing the passage of hydro lines, and again BIG to pass Di2 wires in the scenario of a 30 mm crank spindle where an English BB just doesn't have enough space. If you don't need any of those things, T47 doesn't harm anything other than requiring a BB from a specialty company.

I believe framebuilders haven't settled on a width- 68 mm or 86.5 mm which is kind of a bummer. Plus there's 73 mm for MTBs.

[CAAD]

Trek adopted T47 so it's pretty mainstream. Rob English built my last bike with T47 at my request. Excellent system. I went with the inset T47 (bearings sit inside the shell) able to use SRAM short spindle exogram BB30 cranks.

[timto]

A big factor is the kind of niche the builder caters to.... MTB or 'Race' Gravel / Road where people tend to like BIG tubes and latest and greatest then you'll likely see some T47 adoption /offerings.

Other builders doing city, rando, lugged - more old school bikes won't even be interested or served with that standard given the components they tend to use...

Contrast the bike CAAD describes (being in the first category I mention) vs something like a Bi-Lam Chapman with Rene Herse parts (latter category).

[bikinchris]

To me, if you're gonna build a frame with oversized tubes or you desperately want a super oversized spindle, get T47.
If you're building a steel or Ti bike, use an English threaded bottom bravket.

[unterhausen]

After this thread, I went and looked at how much it would cost to get the cutters and it's only about $300. Have to think about it.

[jpw]

Originally Posted by unterhausen

After this thread, I went and looked at how much it would cost to get the cutters and it's only about $300. Have to think about it.

What are you thinking of doing?

[unterhausen]

I am making a mountain bike frame