# Press Fit vs Threaded



## octave (May 11, 2014)

so, Pinarello just announced their 2015 lineup.

and i was surprised to see that their top end models (Dogma and Prince) have a threaded bottom bracket shell, and not press fit. i do not know what the Dogma was in previous years, but i do know that the Paris, which the Prince is replacing, had been press fit from 2012 until 2014.

i like threaded because it is simple to install and uninstall, and apparently Team Sky's mechanics prefer threaded for exactly that reason...

what with all other big-name high end frames coming with some sort of press fit bottom bracket, i thought it was very interesting that Pinarello went the threaded route. but, i was curious what you all think about the Press Fit vs Threaded debate, as i have only ever had bikes with threaded, so i cannot really compare differences in stiffness or durability or anything...


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

octave said:


> so, Pinarello just announced their 2015 lineup.
> 
> and i was surprised to see that their top end models (Dogma and Prince) have a threaded bottom bracket shell, and not press fit. i do not know what the Dogma was in previous years, but i do know that the Paris, which the Prince is replacing, had been press fit from 2012 until 2014.
> 
> ...


I think press fit is a solution looking for a problem looking for a solution. Never rode thinking my bottom bracket isn't stiff enough, and with way too many complaints about bottom bracket creak brought on my this new solution, my head just scratches. That said, Colnago came up with an interesting hybrid solution used on the new C60. 

Way too much is being made of stiffness in discussing the new road bikes. I've never gotten on any of my recent bikes and seen the frame flex and think it needed to be stiffer, and for those who are doing club rides and ride long in the saddle, I would think comfort and compliance would be more valuable attributes in a road bike. The guys who do custom builds as a whole still support English threaded. It's the mass producction guys who have mostly moved to press fit and one reason is obvious, it's cheaper to build


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

The ITA threads on my bikes have never come loose or squeaked.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

octave said:


> so, Pinarello just announced their 2015 lineup.
> 
> and i was surprised to see that their top end models (Dogma and Prince) have a threaded bottom bracket shell, and not press fit.


It's a far more complex (expensive) machine operation to make threaded BBs. Press-fits are cheaper to make, and pass more burden onto the consumer.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Notvintage said:


> It's a far more complex (expensive) machine operation to make threaded BBs. Press-fits are cheaper to make, and pass more burden onto the consumer.


This. Also, press fit is a little lighter, so they get to use that as a selling point.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

I wish more companies would do what's right, makes sense and simply works instead of simply following the herd of stupidity and compromising frame design for a few grams and current marketing spin. It would also be nice if bike and component purshasers didn't fall for inferior products so there would be insentive for other makers to do things right.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> I think press fit is a solution looking for a problem looking for a solution. Never rode thinking my bottom bracket isn't stiff enough, and with way too many complaints about bottom bracket creak brought on my this new solution, my head just scratches. That said, Colnago came up with an interesting hybrid solution used on the new C60.


From the engineering perspective I really like their solution, I hope they stick with it as it's on the N+1 list in my case.


----------



## octave (May 11, 2014)

hey everyone, thank you for the responses!

jay strongbow, could you go into a bit more detail about the second part of your comment? i think when you were talking about inferior products you meant the press fit bottom brackets? what else did you have in mind?

i am trying to learn as much as bicycles as possible, so, again, thank you all.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

octave said:


> hey everyone, thank you for the responses!
> 
> jay strongbow, *could you go into a bit more detail about the second part of your comment? i think when you were talking about inferior products you meant the press fit bottom brackets? what else did you have in mind?*
> i am trying to learn as much as bicycles as possible, so, again, thank you all.


Sure.

Carbon clinchers, many integrated seat post designs, integrated headsets, hubs that can't be services without a special/expensive tool, carbon stems (I'm not anti carbon, but it doesn't make sense for stems), various reinventions of the wheel, disc brakes on a road race bike, those chain rings that aren't round....just off the top of my head.

that's just my opinion but I think all the things I listed above are, for the most part, solutions looking for a problem and a step down from what they are supposed to an improvement upon.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I wish more companies would do what's right, makes sense and simply works instead of simply following the herd of stupidity and compromising frame design for a few grams and current marketing spin. It would also be nice if bike and component purshasers didn't fall for inferior products so there would be insentive for other makers to do things right.


Blame the consumer and the reviewers. if the identified press fit as a negative and consumers voted with their purchasing dollars we'd see better designs. But grams and stiffness are what sells, along with improving the bottom line of the bike sellers.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Agree


----------



## MercRidnMike (Dec 19, 2006)

I know part of the reason some bike companies use to justify press fit bb's: stiffer bottom bracket areas. The hype is that the larger diameter for the pf bb's allows them more area to attach to, making it possible for a larger, beefier and stiffer bb area. For the average rider, the difference is probably nil, but for a pro, it might make a hair's bit of difference.


----------



## octave (May 11, 2014)

MercRidnMike said:


> I know part of the reason some bike companies use to justify press fit bb's: stiffer bottom bracket areas. The hype is that the larger diameter for the pf bb's allows them more area to attach to, making it possible for a larger, beefier and stiffer bb area. For the average rider, the difference is probably nil, *but for a pro, it might make a hair's bit of difference.*


that is what i find so interesting about Pinarello sticking with (or maybe going back to) the threaded bottom bracket on the Dogma-- Team Sky asked for a stiffer bike, so they redesigned everything AND YET went with a threaded bottom bracket that is purported to be less stiff.

interesting.

in any case, i think my italian-threaded bottom bracket on my 2011 Paris is plenty stiff!


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

MercRidnMike said:


> The hype is that the larger diameter for the pf bb's allows them more area to attach to, making it possible for a larger, beefier and stiffer bb area.


Marketing BS. 
The Dogma has a metal sleeve the ITA cups thread into. The outside of the metal sleeves are bigger than press fit cups. So my BB should be larger, beefier and stiffer than a press fit frame.
Badabing!


----------



## 195cranky (Jun 25, 2013)

In a nut shell (or in this case a BB shell) press fit sucks. Sucks big time. I ride longer cranks, am a Clydesdale, have some leverage/power/torque/dead weight/ballast (what ever you want to call it) out of the saddle (cracked one carbon and one alu frame at outboard, drive side, chain stay just back from BB both in less than a week to give you an idea of what I have to put up with) and can say any frame I have with press fit or BB86 sucks. Noisy, squeaky, loosey goosey, POS, PIA, don't ever want to have again, never buy frame with, wont even consider it. 

Have done two recent new custom frame builds and both have threaded BB not by default but by pure desire and insistence. Might be considered a throw back or old school. Frame builder does not see as many of them now a days and when I do my next custom it will for sure be threaded. No choice in the matter and no desires to try anything PF or similar. 

If you want to know how I really feel about press fit garbage. Well...it SUCKS! Might work for some who are lucky, or climbing monkey sized, or put up with the ever present and ever lasting problems, or have no choice. When I have a choice and you can call me screwy, but I for sure like to screw my BB cups onto threaded and ride problem free. 

Good for Pinarello for whatever reason and for not drinking the Kool aid on the easy, cheap way. Hope more follow. 

Keep on screwing!!


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

195cranky said:


> In a nut shell (or in this case a BB shell) press fit sucks. Sucks big time. I ride longer cranks, am a Clydesdale, have some leverage/power/torque/dead weight/ballast (what ever you want to call it) out of the saddle (cracked one carbon and one alu frame at outboard, drive side, chain stay just back from BB both in less than a week to give you an idea of what I have to put up with) and can say any frame I have with press fit or BB86 sucks. Noisy, squeaky, loosey goosey, POS, PIA, don't ever want to have again, never buy frame with, wont even consider it.
> 
> Have done two recent new custom frame builds and both have threaded BB not by default but by pure desire and insistence. Might be considered a throw back or old school. Frame builder does not see as many of them now a days and when I do my next custom it will for sure be threaded. No choice in the matter and no desires to try anything PF or similar.
> 
> ...


I think I'll be joining you with custom on my next build. Having gone from 70's Schwinn, to entry level Trek, to Aluminum Trek to 5200 to top of the line Colnago, the only place left to go is high end custom Ti(and of course English threaded). I'm ruminating Firefly Ti.


----------



## Mr645 (Jun 14, 2013)

They seem to hold up just fine for the worlds best pro riders. I would guess that they put some power down through the BB86 press fit frames


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

My bike has a normal threaded bottom bracket and I can remove it using normal tools that I bought years ago. I have no problems with it and just ride on a 105 bottom bracket that cost $20.00. My bottom bracket area does not need to be the size of a whiskey barrel.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

Mr645 said:


> They seem to hold up just fine for the worlds best pro riders. I would guess that they put some power down through the BB86 press fit frames


Don't forget that their frames get torn down frequently if not daily, replaced if necessary etc, etc. 

For the rest of us we want 'ride and forget' which is exactly what threaded cartridge bbs have offered for the past thirty or so years.

If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it!


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Mr645 said:


> They seem to hold up just fine for the worlds best pro riders. I would guess that they put some power down through the BB86 press fit frames



Pro riders ride whatever their sponsors give them. They also have the luxury of having the best support mechanics supporting them throughout their ride and after.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

Mr645 said:


> They seem to hold up just fine for the worlds best pro riders. I would guess that they put some power down through the BB86 press fit frames


Pro bikes come with a pro mechanic and a back up bike.
If you want to qualify something based on that pros use it, use the bikes the the pros buy and use on their own not team supplied bikes.


----------



## mjduct (Jun 1, 2013)

Trek_5200 said:


> Way too much is being made of stiffness in discussing the new road bikes. I've never gotten on any of my recent bikes and seen the frame flex and think it needed to be stiffer


Put It in a trainer sometime... I had a specialized that the bottom bracket swayed 2 inches to either side each pedal stroke when I put the hammer down. I've had better luck with modern carbon frames, but carbon "work softens" and I'm starting to see a little give in my cervelo r5.

As for the argument of press fit vs threaded. It all comes down to manufacturing costs... Threads require pretty right tolerances = more QC = more cost, also by exporting more of the bottom bracket weight to the cups they can make a frame "lighter" without actually doing much.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Carbon "work softens"???????? Now thats a load of bs!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

mjduct said:


> Put It in a trainer sometime... I had a specialized that the bottom bracket swayed 2 inches to either side each pedal stroke when I put the hammer down.


2 inches doesn't pass the smell test. And the trainer doesn't simulate real world riding conditions because the bike can't rock side-to-side.

Having just spent $200 to (hopefully!) fix BB30 creak I'm not a big fan of press fit BB's. Miniscule gains in exchange for major annoyance. What really gets me is that many years after its introduction the bike industry still has not figured out how to deliver creak free PF BB's to the consumer. That's shameful IMO.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Dunbar said:


> 2 inches doesn't pass the smell test. And the trainer doesn't simulate real world riding conditions because the bike can't rock side-to-side.
> 
> Having just spent $200 to (hopefully!) fix BB30 creak I'm not a big fan of press fit BB's. Miniscule gains in exchange for major annoyance. What really gets me is that many years after its introduction the bike industry still has not figured out how to deliver creak free PF BB's to the consumer. That's shameful IMO.


Colnago has an interesting solution on the c-60 and explains why press fit in carbon is problematic. That said, i never once thought of the threaded bottom bracket as a problem limiting my cycling, so intend to stick with this approach, if I get a new bike some day, I will go custom so as to avoid the press fit issue.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

^For those of us who don't want to spend $5k+ on a Pinarello/Colgnago frame that doesn't leave us with many cheaper options. I'm sure those well paid Italian employees live comfortable lives and all but that's a lot of money to spend on a frame to stick it to _the man_ when it comes to press fit BB's. There are some pretty good adapters out there that will fix the issue for a lot less money. It's just that with the good adapters you're essentially reverting back to a threaded BB which obviously adds weight and cost.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Dunbar said:


> ^For those of us who don't want to spend $5k+ on a Pinarello/Colgnago frame that doesn't leave us with many cheaper options. I'm sure those well paid Italian employees live comfortable lives and all but that's a lot of money to spend on a frame to stick it to _the man_ when it comes to press fit BB's. There are some pretty good adapters out there that will fix the issue for a lot less money. It's just that with the good adapters you're essentially reverting back to a threaded BB which obviously adds weight and cost.



You can a custom Ti or Steel frame with english threading fora lot less than a Colnago Carbon frame. But if you are trying to buy a whole bike for 2k, then I agree you are out of luck.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> You can a custom Ti or Steel frame with english threading fora lot less than a Colnago Carbon frame. But if you are trying to buy a whole bike for 2k, then I agree you are out of luck.


Try finding a carbon fiber frame for under $3500-4000 with a threaded BB. They're nearly extinct at this point. And that doesn't even get into the issue of whether the frames with threaded BB's are desirable to the person spending the money. You're really narrowing your options in the mid-to-high end if you take the position that it must have a threaded BB.


----------



## mjduct (Jun 1, 2013)

goodboyr said:


> Carbon "work softens"???????? Now thats a load of bs!!!!!!!!


Really? You think it work hardens and gets stiffer over time? Resin breaks down, allowing the fibers to get more flexy... Any frame maker who has dealt with carbon will tell you it gets softer over time.


----------



## mjduct (Jun 1, 2013)

Dunbar said:


> 2 inches doesn't pass the smell test. And the trainer doesn't simulate real world riding conditions because the bike can't rock side-to-side.


I would video it for you but I pulled the ultegra off that bike, replaced the original sora/targa mix and sold it off for $500

And I agree it's exaggerated in the trainer, at the same time I don't stand up on my trainer so that force isn't applied, which might even be more... but my cervelo R5, and salsa colossal don't move nearly as much in the same trainer...


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

goodboyr said:


> Carbon "work softens"???????? Now thats a load of bs!!!!!!!!


It's a myth. Your body will decompose way before the carbon frame will


----------



## jjcools (Jun 28, 2011)

They have the same issues with MTB pressfit BBs. They all creak. I think it is more expensive to make the carbon threaded BB vs pressfit so they all moved to pressfit. My BMC SLX01 had a threaded BB but the BB junction was alumnimum, the SLRo1 is pressfit.


----------



## MikeWMass (Oct 15, 2011)

I like my threaded bottom bracket, external cabling, 5600 shifters so I can change the shift cable and housing without having to rewrap the bars. I like straight tubes so I can carry a frame pump under the top tube and still have 2 water bottles (and my bike doesn't look like a dog taking a dump!).
When I get a contract with a pro team, I will worry about the few extra grams.
Few people who have driven a race car would want one for daily use, why do so many people think that what pro cyclists ride is what they should be riding every day?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

MikeWMass said:


> I like my threaded bottom bracket, external cabling, 5600 shifters so I can change the shift cable and housing without having to rewrap the bars. I like straight tubes so I can carry a frame pump under the top tube and still have 2 water bottles (and my bike doesn't look like a dog taking a dump!).
> When I get a contract with a pro team, I will worry about the few extra grams.
> Few people who have driven a race car would want one for daily use, why do so many people think that what pro cyclists ride is what they should be riding every day?


Some riders pay big $$$ for a bike like that. Today they call it a custom build.


----------



## wabasso (May 18, 2012)

mjduct said:


> Put It in a trainer sometime... I had a specialized that the bottom bracket swayed 2 inches to either side each pedal stroke when I put the hammer down. I've had better luck with modern carbon frames, but carbon "work softens" and I'm starting to see a little give in my cervelo r5.
> 
> As for the argument of press fit vs threaded. It all comes down to manufacturing costs... Threads require pretty right tolerances = more QC = more cost, also by exporting more of the bottom bracket weight to the cups they can make a frame "lighter" without actually doing much.


Bicycle marketing companies love you.

Seriously.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

MikeWMass said:


> I like my threaded bottom bracket, external cabling, 5600 shifters so I can change the shift cable and housing without having to rewrap the bars. I like straight tubes so I can carry a frame pump under the top tube and still have 2 water bottles (and my bike doesn't look like a dog taking a dump!).
> When I get a contract with a pro team, I will worry about the few extra grams.
> *Few people who have driven a race car would want one for daily use, why do so many people think that what pro cyclists ride is what they should be riding every day?*


In the motorcycle world, they call it: race on sunday sell on monday
Most people who buy replica racing bike don't have the skills nor the fitness to ride like a pro racers. But see... the marketing department know all too well that we want think we can ride like our hero racers.

In the car world, same thing. Most people who buy Ferraris and the supercars will never take them to the track, much less race them. But it's cool to pretend we can drive like Michael Schumacher anyway


----------



## Dopamine (Jun 2, 2009)

As an ex shop monkey I am happy to see that the vast majority of folks on the forum are wise to the crap that is pressfit BB's. Sure you can save 10 grams or whatever and get an x% increase in stiffness, but you know you don't need either of those things and you know they will come with the trade-offs of creaking, popping, and far more overhauls.

With threaded BB's I will stick with Shimano external cups - they never need a spot of maintenance until you kill the bearings and then you replace them for $25. Octalink cartridge BB's were plenty good too. I would honestly take a square taper BB over a pressfit and that's pretty sad - big step backward for the mainstream brands.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

If you pick apart a bike you'll see plenty of examples of where the bike companies cut costs and sell it as an improvement. Was looking at my 5200 and comparing it to the online version of the Madone 7. Gone are the aluminum rear drops or use of aluminum steerer in the fork. While it undoubtably adds to weight, it also creates durability. The cynic in me thinks most of the changes in bikes are being driven by the accountants.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Trek_5200 said:


> If you pick apart a bike you'll see plenty of examples of where the bike companies cut costs and sell it as an improvement. Was looking at my 5200 and comparing it to the online version of the Madone 7. Gone are the aluminum rear drops or use of aluminum steerer in the fork. While it undoubtably adds to weight, it also creates durability. The cynic in me thinks most of the changes in bikes are being driven by the accountants.


You actually think it's cheaper to design and engineer full carbon forks and frames? Really? Not to mention actually manufacturing them...


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> You actually think it's cheaper to design and engineer full carbon forks and frames? Really? Not to mention actually manufacturing them...


I think it is cheaper to engineer and manufacture a full carbon frame with a Press Fit BB rather than a traditional threaded BB.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> It's a myth. Your body will decompose way before the carbon frame will


Just sitting on a workbench, sure the CF will last forever. But as you use a CF part, the forces do start to break down the resin. The resin is strong in compression, the CF is strong in tension. You alternate patterns with the CF mat to create strength in 3 dimensions. Similar to how re-bar is used to make concrete structures strong. Carbon fiber is just a specific type of FRP (Fiber Reinforced Plastic). I have a step-son who is baseball player. Gone are the days of sub $100 aluminum bats for travel ball. Now it's all about the $400 composite bats (CF barrel). Those bats are well know to get more "pop" as the resin breaks down until you hit the point of catastrophic failure. The best hit you'll ever have with these bats is the hit before it breaks. There are even YouTube videos on how you can "break in" these bats for more pop at the sacrifice of bat life.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Right.........I'm sure Boeing is going to be very interested in your amazing "facts" about carbon fiber. Very sad...........


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

goodboyr said:


> Right.........I'm sure Boeing is going to be very interested in your amazing "facts" about carbon fiber. Very sad...........


I'm gonna do my best to be polite, so here goes.

Planes do have a life span and will hit a certain point where they will be retired from service. Airbus has had some issues. American Airlines Flight 587 that crashed in New York in the fall of '01 was the direct result of a CF structure failing. Listen carefully to what I am about to say, carbon fiber has a limited life span, just like everything else. Everything will eventually fail, whether that happens within the desired lifespan or not is up to the engineers, chemists, and the manufacturing process. There isn't a material that exists that has an unlimited lifetime. Engineers design backwards from the desired goal. With airplanes, you look at load capacity, range, number of take-offs/landings, flight hours, etc... and work your way back. They have plenty of smart guys who are materials engineers who understand how to make their CF parts last for the needed time frame. With bicycles, I do wonder how much testing is going on and what the expected lifetime of the various CF parts that are available to us is? Are they designing a bike that can last for 10,000 miles? Or simple designing the lightest bike that can withstand a 1 time load test in a lab?


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

CBus660R said:


> Planes do have a life span and will hit a certain point where they will be retired from service.


I'm a licensed aircraft mechanic who works in the aviation field. Aluminum commercial aircraft can last 30-50k hours pretty easily. Carbon fiber doesn't get brittle or crack like aluminum so it can probably last even longer. Many aircraft get scrapped before that due to heavy maintenance costs that have nothing to do metal fatigue. Commercial aircraft are pressurized and see much greater loads than a bicycle. I don't think the average consumer could ever wear out a carbon fiber bike. Now if you drop it or crash it that's a different story.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

CBus660R said:


> I'm gonna do my best to be polite, so here goes.
> 
> Planes do have a life span and will hit a certain point where they will be retired from service. Airbus has had some issues. American Airlines Flight 587 that crashed in New York in the fall of '01 was the direct result of a CF structure failing. Listen carefully to what I am about to say, carbon fiber has a limited life span, just like everything else. Everything will eventually fail, whether that happens within the desired lifespan or not is up to the engineers, chemists, and the manufacturing process. There isn't a material that exists that has an unlimited lifetime. Engineers design backwards from the desired goal. With airplanes, you look at load capacity, range, number of take-offs/landings, flight hours, etc... and work your way back. They have plenty of smart guys who are materials engineers who understand how to make their CF parts last for the needed time frame. With bicycles, I do wonder how much testing is going on and what the expected lifetime of the various CF parts that are available to us is? Are they designing a bike that can last for 10,000 miles? Or simple designing the lightest bike that can withstand a 1 time load test in a lab?


You just changed the subject. Your original contention was that cf frames get "softer" with use. Thats bs.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Dunbar said:


> I'm a licensed aircraft mechanic who works in the aviation field. Aluminum commercial aircraft can last 30-50k hours pretty easily. Carbon fiber doesn't get brittle or crack like aluminum so it can probably last even longer. Many aircraft get scrapped before that due to heavy maintenance costs that have nothing to do metal fatigue. Commercial aircraft are pressurized and see much greater loads than a bicycle. I don't think the average consumer could ever wear out a carbon fiber bike. Now if you drop it or crash it that's a different story.


More non-sense perpetuated by the those who would have you upgrade otherwise good bikes.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

goodboyr said:


> You just changed the subject. Your original contention was that cf frames get "softer" with use. Thats bs.


I never made that contention, that was someone else. I merely chimed in that CF is not some wonder material that won't break down and degrade over time.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Sorry. My mistake. However your contention, although theoretically true is irrelevant to the useage of cf in bicycle frames.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> I'm a licensed aircraft mechanic who works in the aviation field. Aluminum commercial aircraft can last 30-50k hours pretty easily. Carbon fiber doesn't get brittle or crack like aluminum so it can probably last even longer. Many aircraft get scrapped before that due to heavy maintenance costs that have nothing to do metal fatigue. Commercial aircraft are pressurized and see much greater loads than a bicycle. I don't think the average consumer could ever wear out a carbon fiber bike. Now if you drop it or crash it that's a different story.


Then you're well aware of the FAA service intervals which are pretty strict. Why is that? Because they want parts, systems, and even whole planes out of service before an issue is probable instead of highly unlikely. Are we doing that in the bicycle industry too? CF is general term for a FRP made up of carbon fiber mat and resin. There are multiple varieties of resins and weaves of mat. Are our bikes designed with the same engineering and testing as airplanes? What is the intended life span? That's my point. It comes down to the resin used and how it's manufactured as to whether CF will have the strength and life span desired. Heck, I can make CF parts in my garage if I want. Buy some pre-preg sheets, a simple vacuum system, an oven and go to town. Doesn't mean my CF parts are as good as what comes out of a Boeing or Airbus factory. When we know that most bike frames come out of a few factories in China and Taiwan and the difference between them is the "unique" design shapes and paint job and sticker kits, you do have to wonder how much engineering is going into a bike frame. There certainly isn't the engineering and testing going into a bike frame that went into a Boeing 787.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

goodboyr said:


> Sorry. My mistake. However your contention, although theoretically true is irrelevant to the useage of cf in bicycle frames.


Maybe, maybe not. Do we really know? That's my point. We take at face value that the bike companies are selling us a product that will last a reasonable time before it fails. I ride a Trek Madone 4.5. It's a CF bike. I'm not worried about it failing on me in the least bit. And I'm not afraid to buy another CF bike either. But that doesn't mean they are indestructible super frames that can be ridden for ever and only parts like drive train components will need to b replaced as it get's passed down to my step-son and his children and their children too.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

And you trust trek because? I mean why stop at cf, since your hypothesis applies to all engineered materials. If I were you I would be hiding in my basement with my two year canned food supply.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

goodboyr said:


> And you trust trek because? I mean why stop at cf, since your hypothesis applies to all engineered materials. If I were you I would be hiding in my basement with my two year canned food supply.


You're reading way too much into my threads, but I will say that all engineered materials will fail eventually. The question is, will they fail before or after they exceed the design criteria (length of service is typically one of those criteria) and was the design criteria stringent enough to begin with? To think that CF is some super material that isn't constrained by the same limitations as everything else is naive. I for one am comfortable with assuming that most engineered products were designed accordingly and are perfectly safe, although there certainly are plenty of bridges in this country I wouldn't want to live under


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

CBus660R said:


> Then you're well aware of the FAA service intervals which are pretty strict.


The FAA requires inspections at certain intervals but they do not require that you scrap an airframe out at a certain number of hours or cycles. Delta just retired its last DC-9 and those aircraft were 35-40 years old.


----------



## 195cranky (Jun 25, 2013)

Press Fit and the like still SUCKS!!


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

One last try. A well engineered material in the correct application will not fail............There's no need to say "ever" because that creates a theoretical. Ever could mean 300 years from now. Who cares?


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

This thread has crashed... and it seems to be made of carbon fiber. 

ps. given two, otherwise equal frames, I will always choose threaded over press fit. Now, can we shut up about carbon fiber life span, go start another thread and argue there.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

Dopamine said:


> As an ex shop monkey I am happy to see that the vast majority of folks on the forum are wise to the crap that is pressfit BB's. Sure you can save 10 grams or whatever and get an x% increase in stiffness, but you know you don't need either of those things and you know they will come with the trade-offs of creaking, popping, and far more overhauls.
> 
> With threaded BB's I will stick with Shimano external cups - they never need a spot of maintenance until you kill the bearings and then you replace them for $25. Octalink cartridge BB's were plenty good too. I would honestly take a square taper BB over a pressfit and that's pretty sad - big step backward for the mainstream brands.


This is exactly my view. Every mechanic i've talked to says pressfit is crap. Annecdotally if I hear creaking on a group ride, it's coming from someone with a pressfit BB. Meanwhile, I installed a $25 Ultegra external bearing threaded BB about 6,000 miles ago and haven't had to even think about it: it's silent, it's smooth, it works.

I'm with people that a lot of the "advancements" in component design over the past 20 years have simply made things worse. Traditional external cup headsets, threaded BBs, cup and cone hubs, alloy clincher rims, traditional caliper brakes, alloy stems and bars, standard seatposts with clamping collars: all of these things simply work better, last longer, are easier to set-up and require less maintenance. Non-threaded traditional headsets (AHeadsets) and Shimano's pinch-bolt Hollowtech cranks are the only relatively recent advancements I truly like. Quill stems creak too much, threaded headsets are too finicky and square taper had a nasty habit of loosening over time. These newer designs attempted to solve these real problems. Pressfit, cartridge hubs, proprietary seatposts with weird clamping mechanisms etc, these are breaking things that aren't broken. 

To me, this isn't retro-grouch thinking, it's twenty years experience building and maintaining bikes.


----------



## Shuffleman (Sep 4, 2013)

This is an interesting topic that I never considered before today. I am currently in the process of purchasing a new bike. I am building it myself and never considered many of these things. I purchased a Campy groupset but have been searching high and low for my frame. I have been looking at Colnago, Orbea, Focus, Ridley, Masi, Cube, BMC and a few others. I recently came accross Cube as well. I need a 60" frame so it has been harder to find (on my budget).
The Cube has a press fit bottom bracket and I am curious how that works with a Campy adaptor? Does anybody here have any experience with using a Shimano Press Fit BB with a Campy adaptor? If so, what are your thoughts, good and bad?


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

CBus660R said:


> I think it is cheaper to engineer and manufacture a full carbon frame with a Press Fit BB rather than a traditional threaded BB.


I remember someone debunking this a couple of years ago. I don't think pressfit's any cheaper to make than threaded. Threaded is relatively easy to make as long as the frame is straight. Any bike shop can face a threaded BB, lateral tolerances aren't that big a deal.


----------



## octave (May 11, 2014)

i just rode my bicycle with a threaded bottom bracket today. creak free. loved it. i hope it lives forever, even though it is carbon fiber.


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

Dunbar said:


> Try finding a carbon fiber frame for under $3500-4000 with a threaded BB. They're nearly extinct at this point. And that doesn't even get into the issue of whether the frames with threaded BB's are desirable to the person spending the money. You're really narrowing your options in the mid-to-high end if you take the position that it must have a threaded BB.


Not for long!


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

I recently spoke to somebody at Campagnolo as I had some BB queries for our frame prototypes. The guy I spoke to explained that PF was what the industry wanted us to use, but that he and his buddies preferred to use threaded BB's.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mambo said:


> I recently spoke to somebody at Campagnolo as I had some BB queries for our frame prototypes. The guy I spoke to explained that PF was what the industry wanted us to use, but that he and his buddies preferred to use threaded BB's.


good to see the latest Pinarello Doggie going back to the threaded bb!


----------



## jtompilot (Mar 31, 2002)

Dunbar said:


> The FAA requires inspections at certain intervals but they do not require that you scrap an airframe out at a certain number of hours or cycles. Delta just retired its last DC-9 and those aircraft were 35-40 years old.


Dude, you are so wrong. There are several airframes that are life limited. I currently fly and maintain a Sabreliner 65 that has a 30,000 hour/cycle life limit. It's scrap metal after that. The original model 40 and the 60 & 75 series were 10,000 hour/cycle limited unless modified to the higher 30/30.

It's beyond me why the FAA never gave the 737 a life limit. It wasn't till a plane or two became convertibles before the FAA started the aging aircraft inspections.

And don't get me started on plastic airplane parts. That Airbus in NY broke the carbon fiber vertical stabilizer.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

The example given was commercial aircraft. The Sabreliner 65 is a business jet (and a very old design with very few still flying today.) And 30,000 cycles in a typical airline application would be 50,000+ hours which is unlikely to ever be exceeded. In a business jet 30,000 cycles would be well over 50 years of flying at high utilization rate. My field is business aviation and the highest time jets I've seen had ~25k hours and maybe 13k cycles on them (30+ year old Learjet freight dogs) and I know for a fact those airframes have since been scrapped.


----------



## jtompilot (Mar 31, 2002)

Dunbar said:


> The example given was commercial aircraft. The Sabreliner 65 is a business jet (and a very old design with very few still flying today.) And 30,000 cycles in a typical airline application would be 50,000+ hours which is unlikely to ever be exceeded. In a business jet 30,000 cycles would be well over 50 years of flying at high utilization rate. My field is business aviation and the highest time jets I've seen had ~25k hours and maybe 13k cycles on them (30+ year old Learjet freight dogs) and I know for a fact those airframes have since been scrapped.


I was just pointing out the fact that there are several airframes that have life limits. Even the new Lear Jets and 737-900 have airframes that are based on very old technology that have served the industry well.

I doubt that all the carbon fiber stuff on aircraft will last as well as the 30 or 40 year old aluminum planes. I also think it's easier to inspect for damage on alum or steel than carbon for the average bicycle rider.


----------



## scott967 (Apr 26, 2012)

Seems like there are plenty of China crabon bikes that offer BSA/BB30 options so it doesn't seem a problem for them. That suggests to me the PF30 push is marketing-driven.

scott s.
.


----------



## SundayNiagara (Apr 17, 2014)

Here's some interesting news from Felt:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/felt/ask-felt-265078-43.html#post4642776


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

jtompilot said:


> I was just pointing out the fact that there are several airframes that have life limits. Even the new Lear Jets and 737-900 have airframes that are based on very old technology that have served the industry well.


With non-destructive testing technology out there there isn't much point to scrapping an airframe at a certain cycle life. You inspect it at specified intervals and repair any discrepancies. Business jets are not analogous to airliners because they are hangar queens in comparison to the utilization commercial jets see.


----------



## Corenfa (Jun 9, 2014)

I find this thread to be humorous and typical of the bike community in general. CF is bad, carbon clinchers is bad, discs are bad, basically, if it's not the same as my huffy from 1981, it's probably bad.

Believe it or not, some people buy gear based on its performance. Sometimes that means making a small compromise in part of the gear, but it's often a conscientious choice. My CF frame has a PF30 BB. 4,000 miles on it without even so much as a bearing adjustment and there's no creaking. The ONLY noise on my bike is from my right cleat where it mates with the shoe and one rear sprocket that's rounding out it's teeth.

It's amazing to me that so many discussions are focused on how crappy every one else's gear is and how marketing is driving all changes. Sorry - in small shops like Colnago, Felt, etc., the marketing division doesn't control that. Maybe (maybe) in the corporate structure of something like Trek.

The engineers at these companies are trying to eek out every bit of performance possible. It is the very nature of making sporting gear. It's competitive. Sometimes those performance gains are made at the expense of something else, but very rarely is it safety or stability. It's often at longevity (where it doesn't directly impact safety), but that's a business initiative, not a marketing one.

Often, it's demand. Pure and simple. The customer wants a <16 lb bike. So, engineers find the best way to give that to them. If that's a PF BB, cool. If that's carbon clinchers, cool. 

To listen to some of these posts, I should expect to die sometime within the next month thanks to my creaky PF BB, my CF bike, my carbon clinchers, and my prone-to-snapping-in-half shifters. Yet, after a few crashes and thousands and thousands of miles, I've yet to encounter even one equipment failure (shy of a replaced chain here and there, some cogs, and tires/tubes).


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Corenfa said:


> I find this thread to be humorous and typical of the bike community in general. CF is bad, carbon clinchers is bad, discs are bad, basically, if it's not the same as my huffy from 1981, it's probably bad.
> 
> Believe it or not, some people buy gear based on its performance. Sometimes that means making a small compromise in part of the gear, but it's often a conscientious choice. My CF frame has a PF30 BB. 4,000 miles on it without even so much as a bearing adjustment and there's no creaking. The ONLY noise on my bike is from my right cleat where it mates with the shoe and one rear sprocket that's rounding out it's teeth.
> 
> ...


just wait until your current cups wear out and new ones go in. Then you'll start b*tching about that creaking noise.


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

I had way more creaking with square taper and octalink than I have ever had with OSBB or BB30.

When was the last time you had to resort to Teflon plumber's tape on a bottom bracket to get rid of the creak. Used to be pretty common.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

and this thread is a perfect example of why pressfit bb are a pain to deal with

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/ge...roy-my-frame-pressing-pf30-bb-pop-325216.html

who knew that installing (and removing) a pressfit bb can be so traumatic


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

mjduct said:


> ... I had a specialized that the bottom bracket swayed 2 inches to either side ... but carbon "work softens" and I'm starting to see a little give in my cervelo r5.


Seriously? Your R5 has breakdown in the resin to the point where it has "work softened"? That is a manufacturing fault and should be reported to Cervelo. They offer a lifetime warranty (right?) and if you're getting delamination or cracking or resin compression failures, it does not sound good. 

My carbon bike has a threaded bb shell and the carbon is overbuilt and will outlast me, provided it doesn't have an impact beyond its design loads.

As a product design engineer, I see no reason for me to want a press fit BB or even an integrated headset (I was forced into integrated an headset).


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

SNS1938 said:


> Seriously? Your R5 has breakdown in the resin to the point where it has "work softened"? That is a manufacturing fault and should be reported to Cervelo. They offer a lifetime warranty (right?) and if you're getting delamination or cracking or resin compression failures, it does not sound good.
> 
> My carbon bike has a threaded bb shell and the carbon is overbuilt and will outlast me, provided it doesn't have an impact beyond its design loads.
> 
> As a product design engineer, I see no reason for me to want a press fit BB or even an integrated headset (I was forced into integrated an headset).


he's just implying that either
1) manufacturers would purposely under build/spec BB shells that pro's rely on and use on the regular
2) he puts down inhuman power figures that would plastically deform the resin or wear them down rapidly before simulated and calculated prediction. He can send over his "work softened" R5 and Specialized. I'll ride them 'til the BB shells break off. 

But on the note of integrated headsets, I'm not too negative on them because they're constantly loaded in compression. Unless one was wrestling the bike improperly they're not subject to too much torsion - in general there ideally isn't that much force applied to the system until a sprint or out of saddle stretches. And it's simpler as there's no need for a press tool or those thin wrenches. 

I surely never liked the idea of PF BB's though.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

Corenfa said:


> I find this thread to be humorous and typical of the bike community in general. CF is bad, carbon clinchers is bad, discs are bad, basically, if it's not the same as my huffy from 1981, it's probably bad.
> 
> Believe it or not, some people buy gear based on its performance. Sometimes that means making a small compromise in part of the gear, but it's often a conscientious choice. My CF frame has a PF30 BB. 4,000 miles on it without even so much as a bearing adjustment and there's no creaking. The ONLY noise on my bike is from my right cleat where it mates with the shoe and one rear sprocket that's rounding out it's teeth.
> 
> ...


This misconstrues a lot of what people are saying here. You make it sound like we're a bunch of illogical curmudgeons. 

Have you considered that perhaps people here have learned through personal experience that some "advances" don't make sense? 

Have you considered that people here have personally ridden the gear in question for years and rejected the purported "performance gains" you speak of as empty hype?

Also, you seem to be arguing that the only reason people buy this stuff is because of customer ignorance. It seems as if you're simply proving our point.


----------



## Corenfa (Jun 9, 2014)

Hiro11 said:


> This misconstrues a lot of what people are saying here. You make it sound like we're a bunch of illogical curmudgeons.
> 
> Have you considered that perhaps people here have learned through personal experience that some "advances" don't make sense?


Well yes, but that isn't applicable to everyone. Individual experiences cannot be passed off as gospel for all. 




Hiro11 said:


> Have you considered that people here have personally ridden the gear in question for years and rejected the purported "performance gains" you speak of as empty hype?


Yes, but have you considered that research and even physics disagree with many of those assertions. And that false economies don't survive in highly competitive market places for long in most cases. 




Hiro11 said:


> Also, you seem to be arguing that the only reason people buy this stuff is because of customer ignorance. It seems as if you're simply proving our point.


Actually, I didn't state or imply that in any way.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

It's not like brand new 2014 BB30/PF30 bikes are being returned to dealers after a few months of riding due to BB creak. It's so refreshing to see that the bike industry has fixed the creaking issue. /sarcasm


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Corenfa said:


> I find this thread to be humorous and typical of the bike community in general. CF is bad, carbon clinchers is bad, discs are bad, basically, if it's not the same as my huffy from 1981, it's probably bad.


Your words, not that of anyone in this thread. You're the one making comparisons. I don't want to get into a debate over CF but like any material, it has its pros and cons. Likewise, the press fit stuff has its pros and cons... I don't judge them all the same, I think BB90 and BB30 are better options than the other press fit styles... in the case of BB90, the advantages are solely in frame construction. The main reason manufacturers use PF30 or equivalent, is cost savings... I think that is a settled matter. So you are upset that anyone here is not happy with cost-savings in frame manufacturing that don't get passed down to the consumer, assuming there is no other performance gain (frame rigidity, larger spindle, etc. which can be achieved multiple ways)? 

I find it amusing that people can have a rational, well informed discussion about a new technology... and you still get someone who is here just for the sake of argument, with nothing to add but insults and an attitude.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

Dunbar said:


> It's not like brand new 2014 BB30/PF30 bikes are being returned to dealers after a few months of riding due to BB creak. It's so refreshing to see that the bike industry has fixed the creaking issue. /sarcasm


My six-week old bike seems to have developed a creak in the past week. Back it goes to the shop.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

mambo said:


> I recently spoke to somebody at Campagnolo as I had some BB queries for our frame prototypes.


Praxis Works just released their BB30 solution for Campy Ultra-Torque. Nightmare is over.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

LVbob said:


> My six-week old bike seems to have developed a creak in the past week. Back it goes to the shop.


We have the same frame. I went through two sets of Wheels Mfgr adapters in 4-5k miles due to creak (the ones that Specialized includes.) The press in cups are a bandaid solution IMO. I would recommend getting one of these solutions. I'm using the Praxis Works but the Wheels Manufacturing bearings are replaceable (Praxis Works says you have to replace the whole thing when the bearings wear out.)

CONV BB FOR SHIMANO - Praxis Cycles

Wheels Mfg BB30 Outboard Bottom Brackets


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

Dunbar said:


> We have the same frame. I went through two sets of Wheels Mfgr adapters in 4-5k miles due to creak (the ones that Specialized includes.) The press in cups are a bandaid solution IMO. I would recommend getting one of these solutions. I'm using the Praxis Works but the Wheels Manufacturing bearings are replaceable (Praxis Works says you have to replace the whole thing when the bearings wear out.)
> 
> CONV BB FOR SHIMANO - Praxis Cycles
> 
> Wheels Mfg BB30 Outboard Bottom Brackets


Thanks for that. Didn't you also change out the cranks? I'm considering going to an Ultegra crank just so it's a complete group.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

LVbob said:


> Thanks for that. Didn't you also change out the cranks? I'm considering going to an Ultegra crank just so it's a complete group.


It was a warranty replacement so I swapped my "old" 5700 group set onto the frame. I believe you bought the complete bike which comes with an FSA BB30 crank. In that case they probably just need to reinstall the BB30 bearings using Loctite 609. If you do upgrade to the Ultegra 6800 crank you'll need to buy an adapter like the two I listed. Shimano cranks are 24mm spindle vs. 30mm for BB30 which means you need to run an adapter.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

Dunbar said:


> It was a warranty replacement so I swapped my "old" 5700 group set onto the frame. I believe you bought the complete bike which comes with an FSA BB30 crank. In that case they probably just need to reinstall the BB30 bearings using Loctite 609. If you do upgrade to the Ultegra 6800 crank you'll need to buy an adapter like the two I listed. Shimano cranks are 24mm spindle vs. 30mm for BB30 which means you need to run an adapter.


Yeah, I looked at the Praxis and Wheels MFG. websites the other day to get an idea of what moving to an Ultegra crank would cost. Still not sure I'm going to do it but it would be nice to have a full group on the bike. May just do new wheels and leave the crank alone.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

It's hard to beat Shimano cranks for shift quality but the FSA SL-K isn't a bad crank. I bet with the adapter and install you'd be looking at ~$400 for the 6800 crank. You can always ebay the SL-K to recoup some of the money. Don't bother with the cheap ~$20-30 BB30 adapters for Shimano cranks. You'll spend more in the long run replacing them with something decent.


----------

