# BB30 - more framemakers to adopt in 2010?



## G A /\/\ /\/\ A (Apr 27, 2009)

So, looks like a lot of the US-based companies (ie Cannondale, Specialized, Trek) have adopted BB30.

Do you think we will see more of the European companies (ie Colnago, Orbea, Look) adopt BB30 in the near future? 

Originally i thought not, but a friend of mine reminded me that the European companies might be holding out since Campagnolo is reluctant to adopt BB30...just like they were reluctant to adopt outboard bearing BBs in the recent past.

So, does BB30 become an industry standard?


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

I certainly believe it will. You have Cannondale first, followed by (in no particular order) Full Speed Ahead, SRAM, and Specialized all making the cranksets. As far as I know, Cannondale and Specialized are the only frame makers (so far) that offer BB30 compatible frames.

I'm anxious to see if Campy/Shimano develop compatible cranks. I think if just one of them does, more frame frame companies will follow 

https://www.bb30standard.com/index.html

-Chris


P.S. How can this not make you smile?


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

more widely available, perhaps/likely/inevitable... pick one

but a standard? no... there has never been a standard, prob never will be. ISIS was gonna be the mtn bike standard, and where is it now?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

RoadBikeVirgin said:


> As far as I know, Cannondale and Specialized are the only frame makers (so far) that offer BB30 compatible frames.


Van Dessel is making them. There is a boutique builder called Form that offers BB30 as an option.

I'm sure the list will grow. I am just as sure that I won't be "upgrading". Crank price inflation has been ridiculous these last few years. I sure wish people would stop falling for these ploys.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Van Dessel is making them. There is a boutique builder called Form that offers BB30 as an option.
> 
> I'm sure the list will grow. I am just as sure that I won't be "upgrading". Crank price inflation has been ridiculous these last few years. I sure wish people would stop falling for these ploys.


1/3 of a pound dropped off your bike is not a ploy to people who are concerned about weight. From what I've seen from your posts, I doubt your one, but I don't think you represent the average of the buying public. I think it is an interesting concept. It seems to be undersized, considering the size of bottom brackets (especially on carbon frames) these days. But dropping a significant amount of weight while narrowing q-factor it really doesn't seem to have a disadvantage, besides the price of course .


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

I'm with FatFred on this one. It's going to be more widely available, but not quite a standard yet. The standard BBs of today have BBs made by Shimano and Campagnolo. It's going to take, at least, one of those companies to start making a BB30 before we can say that it is a standard.


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

It IS a "standard." It is a standard that has already been adopted by Cannondale, SRAM, and FSA (Full Speed Ahead) - so far (http://www.bb30standard.com/links.html). It's also offered on some of the higher-end Specialized bikes as of this year. Now, is it as popular or selling as much as the other bottom bracket standards? Of course not.

I believe SRAM making the Red in BB30 (and I believe I read there will be a 2010 Force BB30 crank as well) was the first huge step to this standard becoming more widely used (adopted). I believe Specialized now offering the S-WORKS BB30 cranks is also another clear sign that more and more companies will be adopting the standard.

I also don't believe that the other current BB standards will be going anywhere either. We're all consumers though, aren't we? We LOVE choices!  

Now I'll certainly agree - about 900 bucks for cranks and bb - pretty crazy. I bought USED C'Dale Hollowgram Si SL cranks/bb last month for 500 bucks - again, crazy!

Anyone want to take a stab at the next major frame maker that'll offer a high end BB30 bike? I vote Trek (wild guess). How about which component manufacturer will come out with the next BB30 cranks? (Shimano or Campy?)


----------



## timkstl (Mar 25, 2009)

i believe that it's a positive change. it's really a good system as long as the tolerances are good from the manufacturer. i have had nothing but good experiences with the system over the last few years.

(i have only had experience with the cannondale bb30's)


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

RoadBikeVirgin said:


> It IS a "standard." It is a standard that has already been adopted by Cannondale, SRAM, and FSA (Full Speed Ahead) - so far (http://www.bb30standard.com/links.html). It's also offered on some of the higher-end Specialized bikes as of this year. Now, is it as popular or selling as much as the other bottom bracket standards? Of course not.
> 
> I believe SRAM making the Red in BB30 (and I believe I read there will be a 2010 Force BB30 crank as well) was the first huge step to this standard becoming more widely used (adopted). I believe Specialized now offering the S-WORKS BB30 cranks is also another clear sign that more and more companies will be adopting the standard.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but just because it is marketed as a standard does not make it so.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rook said:


> Sorry, but just because it is marketed as a standard does not make it so.


It IS a standard. The question is, will it be a successful and lasting one? :idea:

Just because a standard appears, and is rejected, does not mean it wasn't a standard. It's just a standard that 'didn't make it'. History is littered with 'em.

Was Betamax not a standard just 'cuz it failed?
.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> It IS a standard. The question is, will it be a successful and lasting one? :idea:
> 
> Just because a standard appears, and is rejected, does not mean it wasn't a standard. It's just a standard that 'didn't make it'. History is littered with 'em.
> 
> ...



Correct, Betamax was not a standard either.


----------



## Bluechip (Feb 19, 2004)

I believe that Trek and few other makers are trying another standard- BB86. It's basically just like standard outboard bearings that are pressed in to the frame vs cups that are screwed in.


----------



## bdaghisallo1 (Sep 25, 2007)

Come on now, let's employ some intelligence here.

BB30 is indeed a standard, in that it is a specific design to which shells are manufactured by various manufacturers. In that regard, it is no different to the BSC bottom bracket design standard or the ITA bottom bracket design.

It may not be, nor evolve to be, THE market standard such that it supercedes all other available bb design standards, in that it comes to dominate the market to the point that consumers think of it as the default bb design option, but that doesn't mean it isn't a standard in the engineering and design sense.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

I don't think we'll see Campy producing a BB30 "standard" crank anytime soon. For '09 they have UT/OS cups that adapt their current UT models to a BB30 shell.

And if memory serves me right, Pinarello has been producing BB30 "standard" frames for a couple of years now.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

bdaghisallo1 said:


> Come on now, let's employ some intelligence here.
> 
> BB30 is indeed a standard, in that it is a specific design to which shells are manufactured by various manufacturers. In that regard, it is no different to the BSC bottom bracket design standard or the ITA bottom bracket design.
> 
> It may not be, nor evolve to be, THE market standard such that it supercedes all other available bb design standards, in that it comes to dominate the market to the point that consumers think of it as the default bb design option, but that doesn't mean it isn't a standard in the engineering and design sense.



Oh. Well ok. I guess if you wanna say it like that then yeah. It's not THE market standard, but it's like a kind of standard.


----------



## akatsuki (Aug 12, 2005)

What are the licensing fees? I am sure they are unreasonably high like tubeless which will inhibit adoption and also have Trek making their own. A real standard would just be a spec and basically be free to use.


----------



## STARNUT (Jun 19, 2005)

Who cares if it's an industry standard or not? The option is supported by 3 crank manufacturers soon to be 5 (Shimano and 3T). If the judge of a "standard" is by it's widespread acceptance then the Italian BB is going the way of the Dodo and for a long time it was the "standard".

It's a different system, it works well, and it is a significant improvement over what is currently out both in terms of weight and stiffness.

Cannondale has been making it since the CAAD7 at least (maybe the 6) and prior to that the "1st generation" was on the downhill and mountain bikes. It's not as if it just came about. The Evil S adopted it after the engineer who designed it went to the darkside from Cannondale in about 2002 ish I think.

Campy will likely never do until one of the big Italian brands goes BB30. Judging by the rate at which they have adopted new stuff (English BBs, integrated HS, threadless forks) it'll be sometime in past 2020 by the time you see and Italian BB30 frame :lol:. I hope I'm wrong.

By in large, the bike industry is an _awful_ example of standardization

Starnut


----------



## bdaghisallo1 (Sep 25, 2007)

From the www.bb30standard.com site:

"BB30 is a free international standard that both frame and component companies can utilize to offer consumers more choice and better performance."


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> . . .besides the price of course .


Which is my gripe. I'm all for lighter options being developed for people who want to pay a premium.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

STARNUT said:


> ...the bike industry is an _awful_ example of standardization
> 
> Starnut



I continually wish that the players in the bike industry would get together and create more standards (or get rid of more standards as the case may be). I cannot agree with your statement at all, however. When was the last time you could buy a part from Chrysler and put it on a Chevy? When was the last time you could buy a part for a Ducati and put it on a Harley? While I crave a 31.8 handlebar standard across the board, for example, it is still amazing that you can buy a custom frame from whoever you want and have literally hundreds of thousands of component choices from manufacturers all over the world. It may not be perfect, but it's not "an awful example of standardization."


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

*OMG! You are sooooooooo right! I forgot about all those different standards!*



bdaghisallo1 said:


> From the www.bb30standard.com site:
> 
> "BB30 is a free international standard that both frame and component companies can utilize to offer consumers more choice and better performance."



Haha! It's so nice of Canondale to put up a website and claim that what they have is a "standard". 

Let's not stop there. Oh no.
HEADSET STANDARDS
My old 1" headset is now the 1" headset standard, followed by my 1 1/8" headset standard. Oh yeah. And then, there's my now defunct 1 1/4" MTB headset standard. Ummm what else. And then there's the internal headset stadard.

Oh wait. There's more. 
SEATPOST STANDARDS
There's the 27.2mm seatpost standard. The 28.6mm seatpost standard. The 29.4mm seatpost standard. The 31.6mm seatpost standard. GEEZ!!! I forgot! We also have the integrated seatmast standard!

How could I forget!!!! 
CRANKSET STANDARDS
Obviously, there's the compact crankset standard, the standard standard crankset standard. Oh year, there's the triple and the double ring crankset standards too!

Geez guys!!!!! With all these standards, how can I even pick anything on my bike that isn't a standard!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rook said:


> Correct, Betamax was not a standard either.


Um, no. Bad answer.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Um, no. Bad answer.




Haha. I gotta admit. That is pretty funny. LOL! I remember that old game show!


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

bdaghisallo1 said:


> From the www.bb30standard.com site:
> 
> "BB30 is a free international standard that both frame and component companies can utilize to offer consumers more choice and better performance."


And note the less than subtle slam on Trek.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

You mean this?
"The most hyped example of unconventional BB bearings in 2008 was with the new Trek Madone . FYI, theirs is not an example of BB30. Rather, all Trek did was move the cups from outside the BB shell to inside the shell. There was no meaningful weight savings and no consequential reduction in Q-factor. We don't understand, exactly, why they did this. With BB30 you essentially rid the bike of BB cups. That's the key. And it's the future. "

I think the Competitive Cyclist folks should do a little studying before printing stuff like this, it makes them look very uninformed. Aside from the Q factor comment and not BB30 here, everything they have to say is wrong. If they don't understand why Trek did it then they're just not paying attention. I'd bet they do understand the reasons but because they don't _sell_ Trek, they'd rather slam them.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

*Chris King must have a problem with the BB30 then*



davidka said:


> You mean this?
> "The most hyped example of unconventional BB bearings in 2008 was with the new Trek Madone . FYI, theirs is not an example of BB30. Rather, all Trek did was move the cups from outside the BB shell to inside the shell. There was no meaningful weight savings and no consequential reduction in Q-factor. We don't understand, exactly, why they did this. With BB30 you essentially rid the bike of BB cups. That's the key. And it's the future. "
> 
> I think the Competitive Cyclist folks should do a little studying before printing stuff like this, it makes them look very uninformed. Aside from the Q factor comment and not BB30 here, everything they have to say is wrong. If they don't understand why Trek did it then they're just not paying attention. I'd bet they do understand the reasons but because they don't _sell_ Trek, they'd rather slam them.




What happens with the BB30 standard, which I happen to like, is gonna like screw up? Hahaha. OK, let me explain...

You know how Chris King likes to harp on about how frames devoid of headset cups are soooooo bad because the bearings will eventually pit out the inside headtube of a bike frame? And then, rather than just replacing the headset cups, you have to replace the frame? Well lookie here. The BB30 standardo has guess what missing? That's right. The BB cups! OMG! It's so funny. And yet nobody is saying, "OMG! You're going to get the inside of the frame all pitted and you know, gonna have to replace the whole frame soon!"


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

rook said:


> And yet nobody is saying, "OMG! You're going to get the inside of the frame all pitted and you know, gonna have to replace the whole frame soon!"


Is there even a single case of this happening yet? I'm just curious, but I haven't heard of a single complaint regarding this.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

RoadBikeVirgin said:


> Is there even a single case of this happening yet? I'm just curious, but I haven't heard of a single complaint regarding this.



No. Not a single instance. Cannondale has been successfully using no cups in their BB for years and BBs receive alot more flex in them than a headset. So, it just goes to show what a tool that Chris King guy is for using his patriotic scare tactics to try to get the bike industry not to move to internal and integrated headsets. In Europe, integrated headsets are everywhere. You really only see the external cup headsets used by custom builders in the USA because French, Italian, Dutch builders, etc don't speak English and for the most part are insulated from all the Chris King hogwash.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

I guess if I had to pick one gripe about bb30, it's that it's got a lack of backwards compatibility.

It's not too hard to put the latest, greatest outboard bearing crankset on any bike made in the last 50-60 years. It's also not too hard to put a 40 year old campy crank on a brand new carbon wunderbike.

I don't think you can do this with a bb30. 

could you even put a bb30 in a custom steel frame? (some of us like steel )


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

"a" standard- certainly
THE standard- never


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

buck-50 said:


> I guess if I had to pick one gripe about bb30, it's that it's got a lack of backwards compatibility.
> 
> It's not too hard to put the latest, greatest outboard bearing crankset on any bike made in the last 50-60 years. It's also not too hard to put a 40 year old campy crank on a brand new carbon wunderbike.
> 
> ...


Well, BB30 frames DO come with a "sleeve" you can install to make them work with standard bottom brackets, but it's basically permanent and won't allow you to use BB30 cranks any longer, so in a way you're right  They obviously felt like the standard design could only be improved so much before you have to change it to improve it.


----------



## Papa Stewbaca (Apr 15, 2009)

The "sleeve" in my '06 Cannondale Synapse is being removed as we speak. They are only permanant in the sense that you "loctite" them in. Cannondale makes a tool to remove them (I think they only sell them to dealers) and FSA makes a tool for removing the sleeves as well. So, you can use any crank on a BB30 frame (english or italian) and then remove the sleeve and use a BB30 system.. The principles behind the BB30 really speak for themselves. Less parts=less weight. Shorter spindle = less weight & MORE STIFFNESS.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

RoadBikeVirgin said:


> Well, BB30 frames DO come with a "sleeve" you can install to make them work with standard bottom brackets, but it's basically permanent and won't allow you to use BB30 cranks any longer, so in a way you're right  They obviously felt like the standard design could only be improved so much before you have to change it to improve it.


Wow. Now I am confoooosed. Got pictures???


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

buck-50 said:


> Wow. Now I am confoooosed. Got pictures???


A couple of photos I found of the adapter...


















Installation of adapter...









Removal of adapter...


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

Papa Stewbaca said:


> The "sleeve" in my '06 Cannondale Synapse is being removed as we speak. They are only permanant in the sense that you "loctite" them in. Cannondale makes a tool to remove them (I think they only sell them to dealers) and FSA makes a tool for removing the sleeves as well. So, you can use any crank on a BB30 frame (english or italian) and then remove the sleeve and use a BB30 system.. The principles behind the BB30 really speak for themselves. Less parts=less weight. Shorter spindle = less weight & MORE STIFFNESS.


That's PARTIALLY accurate. The adapter sleeve is removable on alloy BB30 frames, but NOT carbon fiber...


----------



## Papa Stewbaca (Apr 15, 2009)

My Synapse is carbon frame, but with an alloy BB so I guess I got lucky that mine is older. I believe the new frames are all carbon. Good info though, as now I'm chewin' my fingernails hoping my frame isn't damaged.

Mike


----------



## RoadBikeVirgin (Nov 21, 2008)

Papa Stewbaca said:


> My Synapse is carbon frame, but with an alloy BB so I guess I got lucky that mine is older. I believe the new frames are all carbon. Good info though, as now I'm chewin' my fingernails hoping my frame isn't damaged.
> 
> Mike


I pulled that info directly from the "HOLLOWGRAM SL CRANKSETS Owner's Manual Supplement."

I didn't realize they did the older CF bikes with alloy BB's. Interesting


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Got it... so there's still no way to make a bb30 crank backwards compatible. 

yuck. 

of course, I still like square taper.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

buck-50 said:


> Got it... so there's still no way to make a bb30 crank backwards compatible.
> 
> yuck.
> 
> of course, I still like square taper.


The crank, no. A BB30 frame possibly - witness Campy's BB30 adapter cups to fit their UT cranks in a BB30 frame.

Meanwhile, my smoothest crankset is my old square taper Record. Low "Q Factor" and as slick, light, and stiff as I'll ever need.:thumbsup:


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

i thought that adaptor was press-fit for what giant is using in their frames not BB30?? - edit: my bad campy does both!

in any case i agree with richard, the UT design i've had issues with - its not good - it needs to go...

ST was the best campy did...

rook, CK's problem was with the cups being the frame, the old 'integrated' style with the headtube as the cup which bearings (which can be loose) roll on.... that is not how bb30 works, it runs on sealed cartridge bearings which have its own races.... much like the current integrated headsets... CK is in fact doing it own version of an integrated headset slated for mid-year IIRC?

the old system that CK objected to must be dead, since i haven't had one apart in my hands...


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

wankski said:


> i thought that adaptor was press-fit for what giant is using in their frames not BB30?? - edit: my bad campy does both!
> 
> in any case i agree with richard, the UT design i've had issues with - its not good - it needs to go...
> 
> ...


I've got a UT Centaur alloy crank coming for my Bertoni build. No personal experience, but from what I've seen at the shop, properly installed (including facing and chasing the bb shell) it's pretty slick. I guess I'll find out.

And yes, some early "integrated" headset designs used the headtube itself as the bearing races/cups. Really stupid. Run it loose, brinnel it, and throw the frame away.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

i hope you have better luck than i did with my centaur UT (alloy).... big ring lost a tooth - tore off from the base.... the rings are no longer stamped 'made in italy' so i guess they're made cheaper elsewhere.... smashed my DS bearing inside 6000 kms....

compared to my ST chorus BB and record cranks, poor in comparison... I now have the record rings on my UT, these have triple the mileage no issues... the BB the same and still very smooth...

be aware that unlike ST, the UT bearings require periodic cleaning and re-lubing.... kinda a step backwards in maintenance IMO.

cannondale's hollowgram si is a far superior design IMHO. I hope to move onto that... so far UT for me has been a mistake. Next time i see an ST record or chorus crankset NOS for cheap i'll probably move back.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

The Centaur crank I found is the '07 with the machined Ultra Drive rings, not the cheaper mostly stamped Exa Drive they put on the '08's and '09's. Those even look cheap.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

Richard said:


> The Centaur crank I found is the '07 with the machined Ultra Drive rings, not the cheaper mostly stamped Exa Drive they put on the '08's and '09's. Those even look cheap.


same as mine.... i noticed they switched to the cheaper stamped rings that used to only come on veloce UT when the system came out.... nice...  

the carbons always had those stamped rings IIRC, otherwise it made chorus slightly redundant... :thumbsup:


----------



## pcxmbfj (Nov 11, 2002)

"The problem with standards is there are so many of them."

I come from an industry ruled by standards. 

Standards can be proprietary, industrial, global, political, or defacto.

Without a standard how would a product be manufactured? Trek has a standard for its bottom bracket so it can be replicated internally or externally. 

Cycling has no official standards-setting body like the ITT, FCC, or IEEE to approve industry standards but when the frame came into existence a "proprietary" standard was set for bottom bracket, stem, bottle cage, wheel, etc.

When those standards were followed by other frame builders, stem and bottom bracket makers, they became "defacto".

If approved by standards-setting body they became "industry." 

Bolts are standardized english or metric, lubricants by SAE and on and on, on and on.

So the question is not" if standard but what standard".


----------



## lancezneighbor (May 4, 2002)

rook said:


> Haha. I gotta admit. That is pretty funny. LOL! I remember that old game show!


Some of the funniest vids on youtube are the old game shows.


----------



## SanoDan (Oct 6, 2009)

Appreciate the info and photos provided on this thread. I'm searching for a way to modify my custom frame to accept new bb bearings, and the BB30 adapter may be the solution. 

My frame was built in late 2003 with the "Megatech Oversized BB", an open standard promoted by FSA back then. It uses bearings pressed into an OS BB shell, carrying an ISIS spindle. The bearings are 27x43x8. They couldn't get any major brands to accept the standard back then, but my custom builder and I thought it was the way to go. Unfortunately, FSA says they "no longer support the design", and I haven't been able to find any sources online or thru LBS for these unique-sized bearings.

Thinking perhaps the Cdale threaded adapter could be installed in my BB. Since it was machined to accept 43 mm bearings, the adapter is one mm OD smaller. Another possibility for me might be to have thin sleeves installed, then directly press-in the 42mm BB30 bearings. Would appreciate any advice or ideas.

Note for those jumping on the BB30 bandwagon, my obvious question is we be able to buy replacement bearings down the road? Cannondale likely has good intentions for long-term customer support, but at this point I'm leary of any "new standards" until they are well-established. I keep bikes "forever", so at this point British/ISO threads look good!


----------



## russotto (Oct 3, 2005)

Making such small changes is difficult. If you could find half-millimeter tube stock in 43mm, you could probably use the insert, but I think that will be hard to find. To put the BB30 bearings in would require you shim both depth and circumference, which seems even more problematical. Maybe you could find a machinist who could make a custom insert with 43mm OD and English threading.

I think the BB30 standard uses a bearing size which was available before BB30 was conceived, so it shouldn't disappear even if BB30 goes out of style.


----------



## maximum7 (Apr 24, 2008)

I've talked with two different bike mechanics and they both say other than some grams, there's hardly any benefit.
Is it Cannondales and their buddy companies attempt at a slight innovation to get more money rolling in. Yes thinks I. 
Just like their single fork MT. bikes. 

What about companies like Look and Time who still make lugged frames? How big is that lug going to have to be to accommodate a BB30?


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

not to mention the myriad of aftermarket suppliers for the bearings.. just ebay it!

also FSA make the parts (inc tools) and sell em too... BB30 should have some longevity (i hope)..


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

some mechanics are dipshits... just saying... Alot of assessment also has to do with context too, as in "should i upgrade just for bb30?" or the straight up question "does bb30 have merit?"... two different answers. I've drunken the koolaid on bb30, but my answer to the first is NO.

name a drawback. go on, i dare you. (ok, aside from the cost of cannondale's top end bb30 cranks). All bike innovation is incremental.

Having worked on the system, and having to put up with UT cranks costing me a lot of coin with various problems, i can tell you i'm making the move and already have a bb30 frame to accept them. Best designed cranks on the market. The q-factor, light weight, stiffness and heel clearance is all gravy. Only thing i would upgrade are the chainrings...


----------



## SanoDan (Oct 6, 2009)

russotto said:


> Making such small changes is difficult. If you could find half-millimeter tube stock in 43mm, you could probably use the insert, but I think that will be hard to find. To put the BB30 bearings in would require you shim both depth and circumference, which seems even more problematical. Maybe you could find a machinist who could make a custom insert with 43mm OD and English threading.
> 
> I think the BB30 standard uses a bearing size which was available before BB30 was conceived, so it shouldn't disappear even if BB30 goes out of style.


Agree the 1mm difference makes it tough to use a reducer. Could make a tube from flat 0.5mm shim stock, but of course it's got little strength for a press-fit. Perhaps the Cannondale threaded adapter could be bonded into the shell with epoxy, using the 0.5 mm clearance as the bond width. 

Yes, the BB30 bearing (30x42x7) is widely available currently as a "6806" or "61806".


----------



## SanoDan (Oct 6, 2009)

akatsuki said:


> What are the licensing fees? I am sure they are unreasonably high like tubeless which will inhibit adoption and also have Trek making their own. A real standard would just be a spec and basically be free to use.


It's an "open standard", meaning free license. Anyone who wants to build a bike and sell it with the dimensions and specifications can do so. Check out the license agreement and review the drawing sheet at "bb30standard.com". 

Just remember that my frame was built with the "open standard" which was the hot thing in 2002/2004. FSA offered the same free licensing, but apparently the big boys didn't want to utilize a design based on ISIS spindles. 

For my frame in late '03, FSA supplied the OS "Megatech" bb shell, the bearings, "Megatech" end caps, and a ti ISIS spindle. The frame builder bought the tooling needed to do the finished machining of the bearing seats. FSA made an investment in a good idea, but literally couldn't give it away. 

True, the ISIS spindle even in ti is heavier and more expensive to produce than the aluminum spindle of the BB30 system; that's the only technical reason I can see in favor of BB30. Of course, to the consumer these changes mean zip, more so if the replacement crankset you want or need in 2015 is no longer available


----------



## master2129 (Mar 30, 2007)

I raced on a BB30 this season and I have to say that I hope B30 DOES NOT become the standard. After about 300K my BB developed an annoying creak. It never went away so the sponsor sent me a new frame. Everything was good until I hit 500K and the same annoying creak happened again. On a different frame with BB30 on it the same thing happened to my team mate. Not sure why this occurs, but our Mechanics go bananas when it does. The bearings and the way they fit in the cups can cause the creak. Fortunately, maintenance is easier on the BB30. But I still trust normal threaded BB cups over the BB30. Maybe this year will change.


----------



## SanoDan (Oct 6, 2009)

master2129 said:


> I raced on a BB30 this season and I have to say that I hope B30 DOES NOT become the standard. After about 300K my BB developed an annoying creak. It never went away so the sponsor sent me a new frame. Everything was good until I hit 500K and the same annoying creak happened again. On a different frame with BB30 on it the same thing happened to my team mate. Not sure why this occurs, but our Mechanics go bananas when it does. The bearings and the way they fit in the cups can cause the creak. Fortunately, maintenance is easier on the BB30. But I still trust normal threaded BB cups over the BB30. Maybe this year will change.


Never had that problem with my BB, but agree the fit issue is trickier with these press-in bearings than with the conventional threaded cups. The press-in bearings rely on an interference fit, which requires that the bearing shell ID be machined to tight tolerances, eg, within .0006" to .0016" less than 42mm, the nominal bearing OD. Could be your frames were machined slightly out of tolerance, or not concentric side-to-side, or the cartridge bearings you had were undersized. If the frames were machined to the large side of the spec, and the bearings were on the small side, ie, below 42mm by 0.005" the interference fit would be too loose and the bearings would start to move within the bb shell. Just a tiny bit of movement can be the source of some loud creaking noises, and once the bearing starts to move around under load, the shell is going to wear quickly, leading to a frame that's a candidate for the junk bin.


----------



## russotto (Oct 3, 2005)

If the problem is the bearings moving in the shell, loctite cylindrical retainer would likely solve it, but it's a "works once" sort of solution in a CF bike (because of the heat required to remove it).


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

RoadBikeVirgin said:


> P.S. How can this not make you smile?


Smile? Why? Because it's a whopping 40 grams lighter than my Campy SR crankset? Or because it's so mind-bogglingly clunky and ugly looking it makes your fellow-riders wanna cry?


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

STARNUT said:


> It's a different system, it works well, and it is a significant improvement over what is currently out both in terms of weight and stiffness.


Says who? There are non-BB30 systems out there that are about the same weight or lighter than existing BB30 ones. Same with stiffness, too: It is not true that existing BB30 systems are the stiffest on the market. Most certainly, the "significant" is highly debateable. There's nothing wrong with BB30, but it's not like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, either.

P.S.: Not mentioning the fact that this nonsense about stiffness all over the place is a red herring if there ever was one. There is no high-quality crankset since the days of square taper where the "lack of stiffness" was of any consequence whatsoever. Differences in stiffness at the levels we are talking about here are completely and utterly irrelevant for your performance.


----------



## JimP (Dec 18, 2001)

*Loctite*

Sure Loctite will solve the problem just like FSA has used Loctite to glue the MegaExo cranksets together to solve their poor engineering/manufacturing issues with left crank slop. When a new "standard" is developed / adopted first by companies like FSA, I will wait until either Shimano or Campy adopts it before considering buying it. 

Smaller "Q" factor? So you move the ball of your foot closer to the BB but what have you done to move the chainstays so you heel doesn't touch? This sounds like more marketing fluff.


----------



## SanoDan (Oct 6, 2009)

Yes, agree locktite isn't much of a solution. As you know, the issue of bb shell tolerances becomes more critical with press-in bearings. Unlike the old boring threaded bb cups, solutions such as refacing, shims, or teflon tape can't be used to correct minor issues with under/over sized bores, misalignment or depth. 

Also agree you're smart to wait until the big boys adopt the newest "standard", to be assured of a decent selection of replacement hardware down the line. From experience with the "Megatech OS BB", I know FSA doesn't have the muscle to keep an open standard afloat.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

One issue, too me, is that home mechanics will be at a disadvantage wrt press fit bearings. Normally you need a hand press and a bit of fixturing to do a good consistent job of press fitting parts (bearings in this case).

Of course this is also a problem with Trek's so-called BB90 setup as well.

So what are DIYers supposed to do (aside from putting down the cash for a proper setup)?


----------



## SanoDan (Oct 6, 2009)

That's certainly another disadvantage to press-in bearings for many of us. I will do all the bike maintenance at home, including removing and replacing cartridge bearings in wheel hubs, but won't attempt the BB bearings without proper tooling. I take my bike to my LBS mechanic for this one; they're a Trek dealer so have had lots of experience with the MTB BB's already.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Well, I'll try and steer clear of the BB30 if I can then. Thanks for the info. Fortunately, there are a couple of LBSs in the area with significant experience with Trek MTB.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

master2129 said:


> I raced on a BB30 this season and I have to say that I hope B30 DOES NOT become the standard. After about 300K my BB developed an annoying creak. It never went away so the sponsor sent me a new frame. Everything was good until I hit 500K and the same annoying creak happened again. On a different frame with BB30 on it the same thing happened to my team mate. Not sure why this occurs, but our Mechanics go bananas when it does. The bearings and the way they fit in the cups can cause the creak. Fortunately, maintenance is easier on the BB30. But I still trust normal threaded BB cups over the BB30. Maybe this year will change.




BB30 is less prone to creaking than a standard cartridge BB. So, I would say that your problem with the creaking is due to your frame, not the BB30. In fact, this is the one and only time anyone has ever mentioned that BB30 bottom brackets creak more than the cartridge BBs.


----------



## SanoDan (Oct 6, 2009)

Agree the BB30 would be less prone to creaking if the frame and bearings are both finished within specified tolerances to obtain a proper tight interference fit with the correct concentricity and end clearances for the spindle. I've not had any issues like this for my Megatech OS BB over 25K miles now and two replacement sets of bearings. However, the bearings were obtained directly from FSA, not bought on ebay. 

In fact, I'm very happy with the press-in bb system with ISIS spindle.....except for the fact that FSA no longer supplies the bearings. Apparently TH Industries (their parent company in Taiwan) was the only manufacturer in the world for 27x43x7 bearings. 

FSA tech support did send me additional info yesterday; ie, the drawings for the Megatech BB I have, as well as the new BB30 drawings. They did make a threaded adapter for a couple of years to allow conversion to British threads (like the current threaded adapters but 43mm rather than the current 42mm that BB30 requires). 

Believe my best solution to go forward is to install a BB30 threaded adapter. Since it's 1mm too small, I'll have to use locktite 660 rather than a press-fit, but it should be solid.


----------



## zion rasta (Aug 15, 2004)

I predict that the BB30 crap will go the way of carbon stays on an aluminum frame.

BB30 sounds good for racing when you can get a new bike for every stage.

BB30= Let the creak fest begin...


----------



## kingennio (Jul 3, 2006)

zion rasta said:


> I predict that the BB30 crap will go the way of carbon stays on an aluminum frame.
> 
> BB30 sounds good for racing when you can get a new bike for every stage.
> 
> BB30= Let the creak fest begin...


are you speaking for experience or hearsay? I'd like to know because I was inclined in BB30 for my next bike but your comment has put me on hold...


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

"America" is not a country either. There are two "Americas", North and South... but those are continents... and a United States of ....America. You know the chant..."U-S-A! U-S-A!" not "A".


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

it is here to stay...for now..lol

it is a very good application to use with carbon..
narrows q, lighter, stiffer and has the attention of most manu's..

imlo


----------



## cyclust (Sep 8, 2004)

The bottom bracket shell is really the last part on modern bike frames that haven't gone oversized on a large scale basis. Tube size, headset size, seatpost size, dropout spacing have all gotten new standards in the last 20 years. It's just a matter of time until somebody made an improvement in the BB design. Is BB30 THE new standard? Well, 2 of the worlds biggest bike companies have adopted it, so unless another very heavy hitter [read Trek] comes out with something that clearly trumps it, then BB30 will continue to pick up steam. One GREAT feature of BB30 is that adapters are available to convert back to standard threaded applications, and the adapters work perfectly, and are very reasonably priced. But as some others have noted, it will take an offering from Shimano or Campy for BB30 to really take off. The offerings from Cdale, the originator of BB30 are just too overpriced for widespread acceptance.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

cyclust said:


> The bottom bracket shell is really the last part on modern bike frames that haven't gone oversized on a large scale basis. Tube size, headset size, seatpost size, dropout spacing have all gotten new standards in the last 20 years. It's just a matter of time until somebody made an improvement in the BB design. Is BB30 THE new standard? Well, 2 of the worlds biggest bike companies have adopted it, so unless another very heavy hitter [read Trek] comes out with something that clearly trumps it, then BB30 will continue to pick up steam. One GREAT feature of BB30 is that adapters are available to convert back to standard threaded applications, and the adapters work perfectly, and are very reasonably priced. But as some others have noted, it will take an offering from Shimano or Campy for BB30 to really take off. The offerings from Cdale, the originator of BB30 are just too overpriced for widespread acceptance.


Again, recall how many of the "world's biggest bike companies" jumped on the ISIS/octalink bandwagon, and recall how well that went after a few thousand miles of real world testing exposed it's serious flaws...

BB30 will take off IF:

1- it is less expensive to manufacture. 
2- it is less expensive to manufacture AND it can be sold for more money, increasing profit margin.
3- it is easier to work on for home mechanics. Cartridge BBs don't last as long as traditional cup-and-cone BBs, but they're so easy to work with that no one cares. Same with external BBs- they are so easy to install (and cheap) that whatever problems they might have are brushed aside. 

Lightweight will only get you so far- figure 99% of bikes sold in the U.S. cost less than 500 bucks. And for someone who buys a bike for under $500, light weight just isn't a concern. So, can you make a BB30 crank that sells for $25 bucks to the bike company that they can slug onto their most popular models? if not, it's not going to work.

Most of the innovations in bike design over the last 20 years have been mainly innovations in profit making. Nothing wrong with that, but that's what it'll take for BB30 to "take over".

For example- threadless forks- now manufacturers only have to make 1 fork instead of 1 for every size frame like they did for threaded. 

Compact frames, sold in 3 sizes are less expensive to stock than frames sold in 6 sizes. 

I would be willing to bet that shimano's "hollow tech" cranks are a lot less expensive to stamp and polish then the forged cranks of 10-15 years ago. 

just a thought.


----------



## asad137 (Jul 29, 2009)

SanoDan said:


> Believe my best solution to go forward is to install a BB30 threaded adapter. Since it's 1mm too small, I'll have to use locktite 660 rather than a press-fit, but it should be solid.


1mm is actually quite a bit of slop, and I'd be concerned about getting the bearings concentric. You may want to find some 0.5mm shim stock to take up that extra clearance.

Asad


----------



## Troy16 (Jan 2, 2003)

*yet another gimmick for the tyipical Fred*

LOL

Almost as funny as that idiotic Lynskey Helix frame. Lets twist the tubes fellas, they are now stiffer.


----------



## Courageous Lion (May 4, 2008)

I purchased a BH G5 with the BB30 frame. It is now 309 miles since I put it together and the stinking bearings are having a problem. They are not smooth like they started out. They are SRAM Red bearings that came with the SRAM Red crank. I was unable to torque to specs without binding the crank. Now the BB makes a clicking noise that is driving me nuts. I'm a 270 pound rider and these bearings look like a joke to me. Like they should be on a skate board, not a bicycle.


----------



## ChuckUni (Jan 2, 2003)

PressFit30 is a much better solution for both the user and the builder...


----------



## Courageous Lion (May 4, 2008)

*Pressfit*

Well, that is great, what if your frame isn't a PF30? I am going to find a set of roller bearings that will fit in that hole with a 30 mm inside diameter and the same thickness. I can GUARANTEE YOU that roller bearings are not going to go to hell in 309 mils like ball bearings will.


----------



## ms6073 (Jul 7, 2005)

Courageous Lion said:


> I was unable to torque to specs without binding the crank.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ratherbeintobago (Dec 24, 2008)

Courageous Lion said:


> I am going to find a set of roller bearings that will fit in that hole with a 30 mm inside diameter and the same thickness.


Any luck sourcing 30x42x9mm/6806 roller bearings?

Andy


----------



## kkapoun (Sep 1, 2009)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Van Dessel is making them. There is a boutique builder called Form that offers BB30 as an option.
> 
> I'm sure the list will grow. I am just as sure that I won't be "upgrading". Crank price inflation has been ridiculous these last few years. I sure wish people would stop falling for these ploys.


i had to reread this one
thought you said vin diesel was making them
woahhh now. hold the phone. Vin [email protected]#%ing DIESEL!?!?!? if he is on board, then it has to become an industry standard.

i need more sleep...


----------



## Litey (Mar 3, 2011)

*SANo Dan MegaTech*

Does Anybody know ...or Sano Dan if your'e out there !!!
If he ever came upon a solution to His Megatech issue (MOST)
I have same isssue and wondering if I can get some kind of shim to make a
BB30 fit and then use adapters or ...go with the glued in sleeve as Dan 
spoke of doing ... Please help if any one knows something ...Thanks


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

STARNUT said:


> Who cares if it's an industry standard or not? The option is supported by 3 crank manufacturers soon to be 5 (Shimano and 3T). If the judge of a "standard" is by it's widespread acceptance then the Italian BB is going the way of the Dodo and for a long time it was the "standard".
> 
> It's a different system, it works well, and it is a significant improvement over what is currently out both in terms of weight and stiffness.
> 
> ...


Good thing you were wrong. It's Now 2011. 
Bianchi, Pinarello and Time are all making their top level frames with BB30. 

I agree that the bike industry is aweful at standardization. Bottom Bracket outside the frame was just stupid. It is bound to die a slow death in time with BB30 Open Source now.


----------



## zion rasta (Aug 15, 2004)

Time is a French company....


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

Yes Time is French and a great frame too.
I was just making the point that Europe is adopting the BB30 in their frames...as they know it rocks. 

I ride BB30 and it is far superior to my Hollowtech external bearing BB.


----------



## maximum7 (Apr 24, 2008)

I have yet to hear a bike mechanic who knows his stuff, say that BB is superior and worth the hype. 
It's not, and it's too bad the bike manufacturers are just doing what people think they want.

Good job Cannondale, you've done what Monster Cable and Bose have done by suckering in people with hype.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

When I had my custom frame made I had the option of BB-30, I am not really sold on it anyway, but I thought I would discuss it with my mechanic anyways. He just scowled, shook his head in the negative and mouthed a quiet "no". I agreed that there was not enough real benefit to cripple my frame with BB-30 and went standard.


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

LOL guys...

BB30 is already dead.

Welcome to 2011.

WE ARE talking about the cycling industry right?

An industry where 'new' is always just a model number away...

There are no real or open or blah blah blah standards....

...............again BB30 is already done.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

Looks like I am the odd man out.

I love bb30 and think its the best out there so far.

- more ankle clearance
- stiffer axle 
- cleaner looking design
- cheap bearings that are good and easy to replace or upgrade
- lighter bearings
- lighter crankset w shorter axle and no cupped spider.

Should I keep going? BB30 is far from dead- its just getting started.
I think the nay-sayers on this thread should ride it and then come back and comment on just how "crappy" BB30 is.

Many agree thats its the shite.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

BB30 created the only lightweight 30mm spindle that is in use and compatible with not just BB30, but PF30 and (for Rotor and some other cranks) BBRight. This is different than the outboard bearing cranks that appear to have similar 24mm spindles but have limited BB interchange. 

BB30 shells have the advantage of requiring the fewest replacement parts for bearing changes - just the bearings. That's pretty nice compared to scraping an entire sealed BB and spindle unit. This idea is not new, Klein and Merlin sold a lot of pressed in BBs a decade or so ago - just not with 30mm spindles.

The downside to BB30 is mainly that the shell itself is painful to machine and requires post weld single pass machining that is more complex with the BB shell facing done on an English BB.


PF30 shells are supposed to be cheaper, but raw shells cost the same as BB30s from Paragon Machine, so that is yet to be seen. PF30 was designed to work with carbon BB shells, while BB30 works better with metal since there is an interference fit. PF30 uses nylon "cups", so there is more to replace and fewer sources for replacements.

BB86 makes sense only as a better adapter for GXP style crank spindles, as far as I can tell.


One argument that has never made sense to me is all the discussion about Q factor. Ultimately, Q factor is limited by the standardized chainline of road bikes and go along with rear dropout spacing. So they aren't going to get real small anytime soon, no matter how narrow the BB.



I think the BB30 compatible cranksets for use in a variety of BB types are now fairly standard. Whether BB30 as opposed to PF30 or other systems continues to rein has yet to be seen - but Moots and Lynskey recently jumped to PF30 despite metal BB shells - maybe PF30 requires less post weld machining.


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

In the end, Shimano is the ultimate dictator for any driveline standard.

If they say DuraAce gets a new BB, then all frame manufacturers will follow suit.

If they say Di2, then all frame manufacturers start building Di2 compatible frames.

Frame makers can play as much as they want with oversize diameters of headsets, handlebar clamps etc.

But when it comes to driveline standards... Shimano.......

Face it, this is where we are.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

shabbasuraj said:


> In the end, Shimano is the ultimate dictator for any driveline standard.
> 
> 
> But when it comes to driveline standards... Shimano.......
> ...


I don't think this is necessarily true anymore. Compacts became common without Shimano offering that option on DA or Ultegra. That was SRAM's doing, just like they led the way with some of the MTB derailleur design. Campy put the cables under the tape first. Now Shimano follows those leads.

Shimano is still relevant, but as long as their stuff can be made compatible with newer standards, like 30mm spindles, the new standards can exist on their own. Consumers embraced carbon cranks without Shimano's blessing as well.

Shimano has had their share of dead-ends, too. Road SPD, Biopace, oversized pedal axles, deep spline cassettes. Octalink. 

Good ideas are good ideas. 30mm axles are here to stay, and BB30 is the simplest BB system for use with them.


----------



## ChuckUni (Jan 2, 2003)

Pressfit is better, IMO. Less crazy tolerance = easier to build. Plus less chance of damage to the frame/bearing fit over time. Easier to deal with overall.


----------



## draganM (Nov 27, 2001)

it's good to get feedback on the creaking issue, that's always been my biggest peeve with bicycle cranks. Although I havent tried BB30 yet, based on 20+ years experience in manufacturing and mechanical design it just yells "creakfest" to me. While cartridge bearings in the headset are wonderful *IMO* the BB is too high of a load area for press-fit cartridge bearings. If the load was strictly Axial I think it would be fine but the BB experiences a twisting lateral load when pedaled due to the mechanics of the human body. Again rider weight could be the make or break factor here.

The current DA hollowtech outboard bearing design is the least "creakiest" cranks I've ever ridden and I really like the design overall and how it goes together. IT was the smoothest assembly and free'est spinning crank i've ever instaleld and I've tried many different designs over 20+ years of riding. I can remember how awful the loose bearings and cups were back in the early 90's and prior. The inboard cartridge was a great leap forward but had a lot of drag on it (friction) and would also creak.

AFA stiffness not being a factor I can ony imagine that comment coming from light 150 pound riders. As a 200+ pound guy I could easily feel the difference when Shinmano introduced forged hollow tech arms and felt it again with the current hollowtech spindle design.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

The argument that BB30 or PF30 decreases Q-factor is pure hogwash. It only helps your ankle clearance.

The Q remains the same. It needs to --because the crank arm clearance to the chain stays -and your heel clearance to the chainstays will interfere if you pulled it in tighter. 

Do you guys remember when Lance Armstrong worked with Trek to make the "narrow bike" about ten years ago? They wasted about 100 grand designing a frame with an ultra narrow Q factor and what happened? It flopped. Why? Because there was no power advantage --only a comfort disadvantage. A Q factor of 140mm-150mm is what you want. If you go narrower it hurts your hip joint. That's why we have pedal axle extenders for riders. The BB30 and PF30 is where we need to be.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

skygodmatt said:


> - more ankle clearance
> - stiffer axle
> - cleaner looking design
> - cheap bearings that are good and easy to replace or upgrade
> ...


- Ankle clearance has nothing to do with the crankset. Actually, if you are talking about a smaller Q-factor, that would result in reduced ankle clearance.
- So what? Existing axles are plenty stiff, and there is exactly zero benefit from additional stiffness.
- Heh, but who wants cheap bearings?  
- There is no noticeable difference in the weight of the bearings.
- The weight difference between top-of-the-line BB30 cranksets versus conventional ones is tiny.



Kontact said:


> One argument that has never made sense to me is all the discussion about Q factor. Ultimately, Q factor is limited by the standardized chainline of road bikes and go along with rear dropout spacing. So they aren't going to get real small anytime soon, no matter how narrow the BB.


Exactly.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Pirx said:


> - Ankle clearance has nothing to do with the crankset. Actually, if you are talking about a smaller Q-factor, that would result in reduced ankle clearance.
> - So what? Existing axles are plenty stiff, and there is exactly zero benefit from additional stiffness.
> - Heh, but who wants cheap bearings?
> - There is no noticeable difference in the weight of the bearings.
> - The weight difference between top-of-the-line BB30 cranksets versus conventional ones is tiny.


130 grams or 20% is tiny?


I think everyone agrees there is an ankle clearance advantage, which isn't a bad thing. And it seems to me that cranks that stick out in the middle might also have increased Q for ankle clearance over the spindle. So 30mm axles can assist in trimming otherwise unnecessary Q.

I think the only thing preventing narrower Qs from being useful is saddle design. You can't get your legs too close together if you're squeezing a lunchbox between your thighs.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Kontact said:


> 130 grams or 20% is tiny?


My Campy SR crankset is 600 grams. You got a crankset at less than a pound, somewhere?



Kontact said:


> I think everyone agrees there is an ankle clearance advantage, which isn't a bad thing.


No idea what this could mean. The only way I can make sense of the concept of ankle clearance is when talking about the distance between my heels and the chainstay. That one has absolutely nothing to do with the crankset, as somebody else pointed out earlier. I don't see any other clearance issues that could be relevant.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

*Q- Factor*

I think we need to define Q-factor: 

Q Factor is not the width of the bottom bracket as some posts on this thread suggest. 

Q factor is the width between the crank arms where the pedals attach. It's measured outside to outside. 
http://www.nytro.com/index.cfm/nytro-blog/bb30-supersix/
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/qfactor/qfactor.htm

That being said: The Q factor of the Sram BB30 and the GXP cranksets are the same at about 150mm. The only difference is that the BB30 crank has a shorter and obviously larger diameter spindle. You DO get more ankle clearance with BB30. Also, you don't have to "cup" the spider inward to line up the chain line.
This has obvious benefits. 

If you want to talk about weight then BB30 has it won-
The bearings only weigh 50 grams compared to Shimano screw ins that are 100 grams. Also you can get them for $15 at any bearing shop compared to Shimano's $50.
The cranks are lighter. Cannondale BB30 crankset is 590 grams with the bottom bracket. It happens to be the lightest production complete crank/BB set-up in the world right now. 

Good points are brought up by Kontact when he posted that Shimano has had many misses with their pedal and driveline inventions. They don't set the "standard" anymore. 
Also Kontact stated that any narrower Q will result in your thighs scraping the outside of your saddle--another excellent point. 

Plus there are physiological problems associated with a Q factor that is too narrow. The body's bio-mechanics don't want your pedal stroke to go too far off center.

Edit: When I mention "ankle clearance" I am referring to the distance between the center of the crank and your ankle as you come down over the top of your pedal stroke. A BB30 crank spider doesn't stick out as much. So if you have large ankles or pedal with a slightly inward heal then you are less likely to strike it on the way down.


----------



## bobski (Aug 12, 2005)

Pirx said:


> My Campy SR crankset is 600 grams. You got a crankset at less than a pound, somewhere?


Well, that's not quite a fair comparison. It's more appropriate to compare same-level cranks. Example: SRAM Force GXP = 791gm w/BB SRAM Force BB30 = 645gm w/BB.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Pirx said:


> My Campy SR crankset is 600 grams. You got a crankset at less than a pound, somewhere?


The otherwise identical SRAM Red cranksets with BBs weigh 130grams different. Campy doesn't make a crank with a 30mm aluminum spindle, so I guess they are stuck in the 600s since the aluminum 30mm spindles are measurably lighter than the 24mm steel ones.




Pirx said:


> No idea what this could mean. The only way I can make sense of the concept of ankle clearance is when talking about the distance between my heels and the chainstay. That one has absolutely nothing to do with the crankset, as somebody else pointed out earlier. I don't see any other clearance issues that could be relevant.


There are two "ankle clearances". When the pedal is in the forward position your heel and ankle get close to the spindle, just like your heel gets close to the stay. On certain external BB cranks, some people have gotten bit by the exposed spindle ends. The center of the crank is about the same outer width as the Q. Narrower systems don't stick out as much in the middle.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Kontact said:


> The otherwise identical SRAM Red cranksets with BBs weigh 130grams different. Campy doesn't make a crank with a 30mm aluminum spindle, so I guess they are stuck in the 600s since the aluminum 30mm spindles are measurably lighter than the 24mm steel ones.


It looks like the SRAM Red crankset is listed at 660g (just got the number from CompetitiveCyclist), as far as I can see. Campy SR is 620g or so for the steel axle, or 585g for the titanium crankset. That would be 80 grams _lighter_ than that SRAM BB30...



Kontact said:


> There are two "ankle clearances". When the pedal is in the forward position your heel and ankle get close to the spindle, just like your heel gets close to the stay. On certain external BB cranks, some people have gotten bit by the exposed spindle ends.


Yes, that's what I was referring to as irrelevant. At least, I have never had my ankle hit the end of the spindle. I ride Campy only, if it matters, so I don't know if that would be a potential issue with SRAM or Shimano cranksets.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

bobski said:


> Well, that's not quite a fair comparison.


Why not? It shows that you can build "standard" (non-BB30) cranksets that are about as light, or lighter, than any BB30 one. In parentheses, and to be fair, I think Cannondale has a BB30 crankset that's lighter than the Campy SR. But that one is unbearably ugly...


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

skygodmatt said:


> Cannondale BB30 crankset is 590 grams with the bottom bracket. It happens to be the lightest production complete crank/BB set-up in the world right now.


If you are going top-of-the-line, then the Campy SR 11 Titanium crankset is 585g, plus about 15g, I believe, for the cups. So, yeah, the BB30 beats Campy by a whopping 10g. Whoohoo... See my comment about aesthetics, however.  



skygodmatt said:


> Edit: When I mention "ankle clearance" I am referring to the distance between the center of the crank and your ankle as you come down over the top of your pedal stroke. A BB30 crank spider doesn't stick out as much. So if you have large ankles or pedal with a slightly inward heal then you are less likely to strike it on the way down.


Yes, granted, but like I said, I never had an issue with that ankle clearance, so it's not relevant, for me. Granted, there may be people/setups for which this is important.

P.S.: About the non-cupped spider, first, there's plenty of non-BB30 designs that have plane spiders, and the benefit of this geometric feature, while theoretically clear, has little practical relevance.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Pirx said:


> It looks like the SRAM Red crankset is listed at 660g (just got the number from CompetitiveCyclist), as far as I can see. Campy SR is 620g or so for the steel axle, or 585g for the titanium crankset. That would be 80 grams _lighter_ than that SRAM BB30...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what I was referring to as irrelevant. At least, I have never had my ankle hit the end of the spindle. I ride Campy only, if it matters, so I don't know if that would be a potential issue with SRAM or Shimano cranksets.


You seem to be confusing SRAM vs. Campy what is actually being discussed. 

The Red example shows that by using a 30mm aluminum spindle the crankset got 20% lighter. That implies that a Campy SR similarly re-engineered for a 30mm spindle would weigh 530 grams, considerably lighter than the Titanium version. I don't mean that it would definitely get down to 530, but if SRAM saved 130 grams, Campy could save at least a 100.

Again with ankle clearances - not a Campy problem, but a general design problem that narrower bearing spacing assists with. At the very least, it means that you're eliminating 2cm of unnecessary spindle and have more design options for the crank arms. 

Not everyone can spend $600 on just cranks, so comparing everything to SR doesn't make much of a point. BB30 cranks do their magic even at the $100 price point.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

Pirx said:


> It looks like the SRAM Red crankset is listed at 660g (just got the number from CompetitiveCyclist), as far as I can see. Campy SR is 620g or so for the steel axle, or 585g for the titanium crankset. That would be 80 grams _lighter_ than that SRAM BB30...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what I was referring to as irrelevant. At least, I have never had my ankle hit the end of the spindle. I ride Campy only, if it matters, so I don't know if that would be a potential issue with SRAM or Shimano cranksets.


Nope. Competitive Cyclist got a weight of 591 grams when they weighed the BB30 crankset with no BB. 
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=BUY_PRODUCT_STANDARD&PRODUCT.ID=5318&MODE=

When they weighed the Comparable Campy SR steel axle they got 628 grams. 
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/p...-ultra-torque-carbon-crankset-8003.198.0.html

Both are excellent cranks no doubt. 

I weighed my 175mm 39/53 Sram Red BB30 crank and I got 623 grams. 

The weight of the Campy cups and BB30 bearings are close to the same at about 50 grams. 

So, the BB30 Sram crank is still lighter by about 37 grams or so. 

Even if it is the same weight, you're comparing it against a Campy Crank which is a lot more expensive plus it doesn't have the benefits of BB30.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Kontact said:


> You seem to be confusing SRAM vs. Campy what is actually being discussed.


Oh please... It would help if you did not assume that the person you are debating this with is an idiot. I stated very clearly why, and to what purpose I brought up the Campy example. Now, this might go a bit over your head, but the fact that the non-BB30 crankset I am citing for comparison is from Campagnolo doesn't matter one wit. I just happen to be familiar with it. Here, I'll spell it out for you: The fact that there are non-BB30 cranksets on the market that equal or best the lightest BB30 cranksets demonstrates that the famed weight advantages of BB30 are nothing but speculation, and have no basis in fact. To be extremely clear, what I am saying is not that there is no weight advantage to BB30 cranksets. This may or may not be the case, but the point is that this famed advantage has not been demonstrated. Ergo I call it speculation.



Kontact said:


> The Red example shows that by using a 30mm aluminum spindle the crankset got 20% lighter. That implies that a Campy SR similarly re-engineered for a 30mm spindle would weigh 530 grams, considerably lighter than the Titanium version.


It implies absolutely nothing of that sort. In fact, this is pure fantasy. The difference between the BB30- and non-BB30 cranksets from SRAM is more than just a different spindle. You can fantasize about what would happen to the Campy crankset if it went BB30, but any speculation of that sort is without any factual basis whatsoever.



Kontact said:


> I don't mean that it would definitely get down to 530, but if SRAM saved 130 grams, Campy could save at least a 100.


Ah, now look here! So, maybe not 130, but at least down by 100? May I ask from where you pulled this amazing number? Want me to spell it out for you?  



Kontact said:


> Not everyone can spend $600 on just cranks, so comparing everything to SR doesn't make much of a point. BB30 cranks do their magic even at the $100 price point.


Alright, pick a $100 BB30 crankset, and then compare its weight to the lightest $100 non-BB30 crankset you can find. At that point you may have shown that at that pricepoint, BB30 has advantages. Now you would have to do the same for some other price points, and then we can talk. I notice that the SRAM Red crankset isn't exactly cheap, either, and that cheaper BB30 cranksets are a lot heavier.

I note in parentheses that I won't even go into the question of why prices (such as Camapgnolo's) are what they are, and whether or not it might be possible to produce a similarly lightweight crankset at a much lower pricepoint.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

skygodmatt said:


> Even if it is the same weight, you're comparing it against a Campy Crank which is a lot more expensive plus it doesn't have the benefits of BB30.


What benefits? :devil:


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Pirx said:


> Oh please... It would help if you did not assume that the person you are debating this with is an idiot. I stated very clearly why, and to what purpose I brought up the Campy example. Now, this might go a bit over your head, but the fact that the non-BB30 crankset I am citing for comparison is from Campagnolo doesn't matter one wit. I just happen to be familiar with it. Here, I'll spell it out for you: The fact that there are non-BB30 cranksets on the market that equal or best the lightest BB30 cranksets demonstrates that the famed weight advantages of BB30 are nothing but speculation, and have no basis in fact. To be extremely clear, what I am saying is not that there is no weight advantage to BB30 cranksets. This may or may not be the case, but the point is that this famed advantage has not been demonstrated. Ergo I call it speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't have BB30, don't need it, don't lose sleep over it. I am working off a very simple paradigm:

SRAM engineers made a pretty light crankset. The same engineers redesigned it for an aluminum axle, didn't change the composition or outer dimensions much otherwise, and ended up with a pretty decent weight difference. Rotor and FSA did the same things with similar results.

At this point it requires a conspiracy theory to suggest that the weight difference isn't due to the axle length and/or composition.


I am fully on board with the notion that there are lot's of ways of making a crank, some of which are lighter than others. Clearly, Campy makes a light crank without the use of an aluminum spindle. Other brands do, too. But the brands that make two versions of the same crank in 30 and 24mm, always come out lighter with the oversized one - and nothing you've said makes Campy immune to this.

100 grams? I pulled that out of the same place as your objections. I was just pointing out that when the savings was drastically reduced, it was still a dramatic difference in weight.

Over and over we have seen that oversized carbon, titanium and aluminum parts are easy to make lighter than their steel equivalent at the same or greater stiffness, and this is no different. Crying "no, no no!" and only making references to a crank that does not come in both flavors is not really convincing.

Do we need BB30? No, we didn't need anything after square taper. But your objections to BB30 sound little different than those who claim that threadless headsets and outboard bearings are just marketing. Oversized, short aluminum spindles are an easy way to knock weight off the crank with little or no downside. And that's nothing to get upset about.

I have no illusions about convincing you of anything. But 5 years from now you'll be proudly sporting Super Duper Record with Amazing Torque, the Campy 30mm spindled crank system, and telling everyone how stupid something else is.


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

Fellas...

Again. BB30 is already a thing of the past. Just like any other 'standard' you find on a bicycle.

There are NO standards in the bike industry.

I define standard differently, I guess.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

shabbasuraj said:


> Fellas...
> 
> Again. BB30 is already a thing of the past. Just like any other 'standard' you find on a bicycle.
> 
> ...


By your standard, English BBs aren't a standard either.

30mm, BB30 compatible spindles are here to stay. They might get matched with PF30 or something else, but since all you need to go BB30 is a shell and two standard cartridgeds, BB30 is unlikely to evaporate.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

If BB30 is a thing of the past....then why are Time, Pinarello, Bianchi and Specialized, Cannondale, Felt, Parlee, Moots, Lynskey, Guru, Crumpton and Focus... making their new 2011 $3000 -$5000 framesets with BB30?


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

Bb30 will be replaced by a newer standard. This is THE rule of marketing in the bike industry. 

I am not trolling. If at this point in time, you do not understand this fact then you have not been involved with cycling very long.

This industry will market and look for any perceived edge it can find. Contrary to any real practical use. 

1.5" headsets? Sure. Why not 2" then?

Ballbearings you say? Why not ceramic ones then? Especially rich when one considers ceramic bearings on a human powered machine.

Standard saddle rails? Nah how about a SLR monolink?

Oversize handlebars? Wrong. We will be sold something better/larger/more ridgid/lighter, and for good measure we will wrap it in carbon.

26" MTB wheels? They are ok until you ride 29ers. But wait. 31ers have to bettter! Right?! You bet they will be buying those. 

My point is anyone who claims that any given standard rules supreme over some other one, is just missing the point. Manufacturers will feed us and market whatever they please. 

And we will buy it, no matter how much we rationalize how much better the old ones are. 

The industry is continually marketing, evolving and adapting. 

So go buy your bb30. Tell yourself it is the greatest and best spindle blah blah blah. 

Enjoy it. Break it. Then go buy B135 as that standard will not even have any bearings.

edit typo


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

shabbasuraj said:


> Bb30 will be replaced by a newer standard. This is THE rule of marketing in the bike industry.
> 
> I am not trolling. If at this point in time, you do not understand this fact then you have not been involved with cycling very long.
> 
> ...


I don't have a BB30 anything. But I appreciate riding a bike with brifters, light threadless fork and clipless pedals.

I assume you're riding a 28 lbs. lugged steel bike with sew ups, a 5 speed freewheel and centerpull Mafacs, just like the rest of the Amish. Or is it a bit lighter and easier to use than that because you are just as much a "sucker" as the rest of us for improvements? (As long as they don't offend whatever sensibilities you have this week.)


Innovation is nice. It doesn't hurt anyone, you don't have to get on board with it if you don't want to and BB30 allows for a lot of flexible alternatives. BB30 is light, simple and compact. No one is claiming it is the ultimate anything, just that it is a nice open standard solution to building a better BB. I don't see why it upsets you so much.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

Valid points...

True, the marketing of anything new will sell because we assume that newer is better. 

Speaking of which--look at Cervelo. They have BBRight on their frames. They take a 30mm spindle but it's 79mm long. So, it's really a BB30 crank spindle with an extra 1.1cm in length. Funny...it's like a split between a Shimano 90mm shell width and the BB30's 68mm shell width. 
Sheeshh...good luck finding cranks for that one. 

...and let's forget Wilier. Their frames integrate Campy cranks and you need to buy adapters to run Sram and Shimano. Not BB30. Not Hollowtech. Not BSA 68mm thread. NEW design.

I would definitely say 30mm axles are here to stay for at least 5 years.
The bottom bracket world is completely insane.


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

Kontact said:


> I don't have a BB30 anything. But I appreciate riding a bike with brifters, light threadless fork and clipless pedals.
> 
> I assume you're riding a 28 lbs. lugged steel bike with sew ups, a 5 speed freewheel and centerpull Mafacs, just like the rest of the Amish. Or is it a bit lighter and easier to use than that because you are just as much a "sucker" as the rest of us for improvements? (As long as they don't offend whatever sensibilities you have this week.)
> 
> ...


Sure pal. Keep defending your beloved bb30. It is apparent that it is ALL YOURS.

I am riding SR11.
Love it....

..... till SR12.


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

skygodmatt said:


> Valid points...
> 
> True, the marketing of anything new will sell because we assume that newer is better.
> 
> ...



Ya man, 

The best part of all these new frames with "THE NEW" BB standard is the fine print.

At the bottom of all those glossy ads, you may see.

"Frame is compatible with model X, Y, and Z bottom bracket with the installation of A, B, and/or C adaptors and/or spacers."


----------

