# Ceramic Bearings worth the extra money?



## theeGOAT (Dec 24, 2010)

Hi guys,

I am building up a TCR Advanced with a Force groupset. Now when it comes to wheels I am looking at Campy Shamals or Eurus. I noticed the weight is similar, but the Shamals as you know, come with ceramic bearings... Is this something that you guys would consider to be worth the extra money for someone that does fast group rides and road races?

Do they make a noticeable difference in spin up/quieter/etc...

Also how would you compare these wheels to say the Dura Ace low profile wheels?

Thanks for your advice!


----------



## euro-trash (May 1, 2004)

Ceramics are the biggest waste of money out there. Good wheels, just don't make the choice because of the bearings.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

no...no...no...


----------



## theeGOAT (Dec 24, 2010)

I appreciate the input guys. Is there an actual performance benefit at all? Do they last longer?


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

TheGoat- The wear life is actually shorter on ceramics (especially in wet/sandy/salty conditions). The only time that they are actually beneficial is in parts with extremely high RPMs that develop alot of excess heat buildup (which are not bicycles, more like airplanes). So all in all, if you want to look like a goon who spends money in the wrong places, ceramics would be perfect.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Short answers*



theeGOAT said:


> I appreciate the input guys. Is there an actual performance benefit at all? Do they last longer?


That would be no, and no.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I for one wasted $150 or so on a ceramic bottom bracket. I will be going back to a standard Dura-Ace.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> I for one wasted $150 or so on a ceramic bottom bracket. I will be going back to a standard Dura-Ace.


you will lose 3.5 % of total power output to increased drag - at least accordng to Bike Testing Inc., an independent testing conpany...


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> you will lose 3.5 % of total power output to increased drag - at least accordng to Bike Testing Inc., an independent testing conpany...


give it a rest...please.


----------



## carbonconvert (Apr 12, 2009)

*Ceramics are more for bragging rights*

I have the same bike-Giant adv 1 w/force. Mine is the 09 model which is identical to the 11
model. I have been riding it with rolf elans w/ceramics. If you want to impress someone by
holding your front wheel up and watch it spin endlessly, then ceramics are for you. Unless the wheel is spec'd with them, I wouldn't bother. The ceramic headset thing is silly too.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> you will lose 3.5 % of total power output to increased drag - at least accordng to Bike Testing Inc., an independent testing conpany...


I hear the aerodynamics are way better too


----------



## eddyadams (Aug 11, 2007)

Zen Cyclery said:


> TheGoat- The wear life is actually shorter on ceramics (especially in wet/sandy/salty conditions). The only time that they are actually beneficial is in parts with extremely high RPMs that develop alot of excess heat buildup (which are not bicycles, more like airplanes). So all in all, if you want to look like a goon who spends money in the wrong places, ceramics would be perfect.


I love your site, but really... "A goon"? Let's keep thing in perspective. You sell skewers for $160.00, and that Tune Rr. hub for $800.00... There sick, but c'mon. I bet I could find a set of last years DA wheels new for that much. Not to mention the dt 190's on your site come with ceramic bearings.
EA


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

cxwrench said:


> give it a rest...please.


I will if you're able to source a single independent study that shows there's 0 drag differences between ceramic and standard bottom brackets. Your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't count as evidence. Expensive boutique wheels represent a far worse cost-benefit tradeoff than a ceramic bottom bracket. $1000 on a zipp 404 saves about 7 watts over a cheap OEM alloy wheel. At 300 watts - a moderate time trial pace - a $100 ceramic bottom bracket would save 10.5 watts. So, that's either about $10/watt savings or a $142/watt savings....by the way, we rely on industry numbers for the drag # for the wheels too...


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

stevesbike said:


> I will if you're able to source a single independent study that shows there's 0 drag differences between ceramic and standard bottom brackets. Your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't count as evidence. Expensive boutique wheels represent a far worse cost-benefit tradeoff than a ceramic bottom bracket. $1000 on a zipp 404 saves about 7 watts over a cheap OEM alloy wheel. At 300 watts - a moderate time trial pace - a $100 ceramic bottom bracket would save 10.5 watts. So, that's either about $10/watt savings or a $142/watt savings....by the way, we rely on industry numbers for the drag # for the wheels too...


A bearing's smoothness is usually defined by ABEC or ISO ratings, not whether the balls or surfaces are made of steel or ceramic. For the same ABEC rating, the friction is coming from the grease and the seals/shields.

When someone describes how their ceramic-bearing'd wheel spins _forever_, they may claim it's because it has ceramic components. The reality is, it probably has less weather-proof seals and lighter oil. See how long that lasts in the real world....


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

dave2pvd said:


> A bearing's smoothness is usually defined by ABEC or ISO ratings, not whether the balls or surfaces are made of steel or ceramic. For the same ABEC rating, the friction is coming from the grease and the seals/shields.
> 
> When someone describes how their ceramic-bearing'd wheel spins _forever_, they may claim it's because it has ceramic components. The reality is, it probably has less weather-proof seals and lighter oil. See how long that lasts in the real world....


ABEC is not ball grade - it is tolerance. Ball grade - roundness - for ceramic bearings is grade 3 ( round to 3 millionths of an inch). Shimano steel bearings are grade 25...

I don't have a dog in this fight, but just pointing out that a lot of cycling equipment is sold on the basis of very small performance gains. Hundreds or thousands of dollars for a few grams weight savings or reductions in drag. Given drivetrain power losses (often reported at over 7% total power), bearings don't seem like such an unrealistic issue. Besides, the 2 ceramic BBs I have (came with a FSA neo pro crank I got from CRC for $200 for crank and BB and a red crankset) are still in perfect condition after a few hard seasons of racing.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> At 300 watts - a moderate time trial pace - a $100 ceramic bottom bracket would save 10.5 watts.


I'm not sure about those numbers. Repeated power meter testing shows total drive train losses in the range of 2-3%* (so say 10W out of 300), but the vast majority of that goes to deflection of the chain with drag on the jockey wheels second. That leaves only a small fraction for all the other rotating parts: wheel hubs, bottom bracket, pedals.

*http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/04/which-is-faster-cervelo-p2t-or-javelin.html


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

asgelle said:


> I'm not sure about those numbers. Repeated power meter testing shows total drive train losses in the range of 2-3%* (so say 10W out of 300), but the vast majority of that goes to deflection of the chain with drag on the jockey wheels second. That leaves only a small fraction for all the other rotating parts: wheel hubs, bottom bracket, pedals.
> 
> *http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/04/which-is-faster-cervelo-p2t-or-javelin.html


I'm not sure of the numbers either, but even a measly .5 watt savings would still represent a better cost/benefit tradeoff than a zipp 404...


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> I'm not sure of the numbers either, but even a measly .5 watt savings would still represent a better cost/benefit tradeoff than a zipp 404...


They're both overpriced hype. The Zipps at least look cool


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Cableguy said:


> They're both overpriced hype. The Zipps at least look cool


exactly - best post of the thread!


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> At 300 watts - a moderate time trial pace - a $100 ceramic bottom bracket would save 10.5 watts.


Except that it doesn't. You might save 0.5W though compared to the big-bearing BBs that are common these days. 

Velonews did a test awhile back, and the Campy square tapers (non ceramic) had the lowest drag. Not surprising, because any drag that occurs in the bearing and seal will have a lower torque and power effect if the bearing is small.

Do you have a link to the test that shows 10.5W?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

rruff said:


> Except that it doesn't. You might save 0.5W though compared to the big-bearing BBs that are common these days.
> 
> Velonews did a test awhile back, and the Campy square tapers (non ceramic) had the lowest drag. Not surprising, because any drag that occurs in the bearing and seal will have a lower torque and power effect if the bearing is small.
> 
> Do you have a link to the test that shows 10.5W?


http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=2006/reviews/FSA_MegaExo

apparently the test is available on bike testing's site for purchase but I havent seen it. ceramicspeed claims the same number for a complete bike (i believe these numbers are from a Danish magazine test). there's lots of issues in terms of a validated test (rolhoff has a good discussion of this) but then same even with drag studies of frames. theres a thread over at. slowtwitch trying to get test protocol from kestrel for their claims re the 4000 having the. lowest recorded drag numbers...


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Bike Testing Inc appears to no longer exist.

Some bearing manufacturers provide data for calculating bearing frictional torque. If you do the work, I think you will discover that decent steel BB bearing cartridge set that has been run a little while until it is broken in, will have ~1W of power loss at cycling loads and rpms. So that will give you an upper limit of what sort of gain is possible. Most of that will be seal friction though, and using lighter seals (that are common on ceramics) isn't good for longevity.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> exactly - best post of the thread!


Isn't this also why people buy a Prius -- visible to neighbors and friends -- instead of improving the insulation of their house? ;-)


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

Ive put a lot of insulation in my house, and none of it has ever helped my gas mileage. People come up with the weirdest things to bash on priuses! 

Bearing drag on a bottom bracket maybe should be measured in low low inch ounces. Its just nothing, even for a heavy packed, thick grease bb (like my junky FSA). You couple that with a ~170mm lever powered by a human leg, and you have fractions of a percent of your power going to overcome the friction of the bb. Im not sure if measuring that in watts is even a valid unit. 

The drag should be speed dependent, with max drag at max speed. If you unhooked the chain and spun the crank by hand, you should be able to achieve your maximum seal drag.. which you wont even notice spinning by hand. The bearings will have a frictional drag once you load them, but even that should be consistent with speed.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=2006/reviews/FSA_MegaExo
> 
> apparently the test is available on bike testing's site for purchase but I havent seen it. ceramicspeed claims the same number for a complete bike (i believe these numbers are from a Danish magazine test). there's lots of issues in terms of a validated test (rolhoff has a good discussion of this) but then same even with drag studies of frames. theres a thread over at. slowtwitch trying to get test protocol from kestrel for their claims re the 4000 having the. lowest recorded drag numbers...


I know you are only quoting someone else's work, but there is no way that BB bearing drag will be over 50W in a sprint (that I can do). There are people that can peak at 2000 watts leading to 80 watts of bearing drag?

I'm not sure that bearing drag would even be linear. With gearing in the back the rpms aren't significantly different throughout the range of riding.

More information is needed.

-Eric


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the drag will be dependent on torque, with power dependent losses increasing at some rate relative to torque (Rolhoff considers it linearly). Rolhoff has a discussion of the modeling/measurement issues involved - the cyclic torque due to the fact that power peaks twice/crank revolution indicates that testing with constant power (as in a motor) will be misleading unless it uses higher than average power in to model the alternating load of pedaling dynamics.

They report up to 5% power loss in a real system (between 2-5%). They are interested in chainline dependence on loss, since they produce an internal geared hub. 

Part of the argument depends on the relative efficiency of an external BB vs. a square tapered BB. The latter has been tested as much more efficient than an external BB. 

http://www.rohloff.de/en/technology/speedhub/efficiency_measurement/index.html


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

we're talking about 50-150rpm for bicycle use. In terms of bearings, thats really slow. 

Just pull the chain off and spin the cranks as fast as you can, resistance never increases to anything noticeable, you can still spin the cranks easily with one finger, at the spider even (less leverage).


----------



## been200mph (May 28, 2004)

You'll certainly be much faster due to less weight in your wallet...


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> the drag will be dependent on torque, with power dependent losses increasing at some rate relative to torque


This makes sense. I still would like to know that these tests were performed at higher wattages to prove that the increase is in fact linear.

-Eric


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

eddyadams said:


> I love your site, but really... "A goon"? Let's keep thing in perspective. You sell skewers for $160.00, and that Tune Rr. hub for $800.00... There sick, but c'mon. I bet I could find a set of last years DA wheels new for that much. Not to mention the dt 190's on your site come with ceramic bearings.
> EA


In Zens defense, I can't tell you how many times people go into a bike shop wanting ceramic bearings. My brother owns a bike shop and he echos what Zen says. However, a prospective customer still wants it so you sell it. You sell what people buy. That's business. Even if you don't agree with the perceived improvement in a product, as long as you don't have failures, you sell it.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> I will if you're able to source a single independent study that shows there's 0 drag differences between ceramic and standard bottom brackets. Your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't count as evidence. Expensive boutique wheels represent a far worse cost-benefit tradeoff than a ceramic bottom bracket. $1000 on a zipp 404 saves about 7 watts over a cheap OEM alloy wheel. At 300 watts - a moderate time trial pace - a $100 ceramic bottom bracket would save 10.5 watts. So, that's either about $10/watt savings or a $142/watt savings....by the way, we rely on industry numbers for the drag # for the wheels too...


While not "scientific", I can tell you that I did not notice any difference in my watt average on a Computrainer after my BB switch. My 260 watts for one hour average did not change.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> They report up to 5% power loss in a real system (between 2-5%). They are interested in chainline dependence on loss, since they produce an internal geared hub.


Isn't that only the chain and gears? I didn't see anything in the article about bottom brackets.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

So many wheel manufactures that made great wheels with standard bearings were able to almost double the price on there wheels when they proclaimed to the world that these wheels would now only come with ceramics. 

I'm so sick of all this BS from manufactures. Just give me a good solid bike based off tried and true traditional race testing and let the engineers clock out and go home early.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

rruff said:


> Isn't that only the chain and gears? I didn't see anything in the article about bottom brackets.


they say "The measurements include the losses of the complete transmission, bottom bracket, chain, hubs, etc."

one source of evidence that the power loss is constant comes from comparisons of ergomo, SRM, and powertap differences. This is complicated by issues of calibration and measurement error, but there's a pretty consistent report of 5-8 watt differences between them.

"since the Ergomo measures power at the bottom bracket while the Power Tap measures it at the rear hub, the difference could be due in part to losses in the drive train. Drive train losses are often stated as a percentage, but there is some evidence that losses may be a constant amount, with about 5 watts being a suggested figure. If the difference in readings are due to drive train losses, and if drive train losses are (approximately) constant, then a large part of the 7 to 8 watt difference could be accounted for."

from (plots there) http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/ergomo/ergomo-pt.html


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> one source of evidence that the power loss is constant comes from comparisons of ergomo, SRM, and powertap differences. This is complicated by issues of calibration and measurement error, but there's a pretty consistent report of 5-8 watt differences between them.


I suspect this is a combination of lack of measurement precision and limited range of power and pedal cadence. For power to remain constant with respect to cadence would require an inverse relation between drivetrain drag and pedal cadence. Such a relation would be extremely rare. The only mechanism I can think of for this would be if first, losses from chain deflection and jockey wheel drag was insignificant so that the only power loss would be from viscous loss in the chain lubricant. Then second, the lubricant would have to be a first order shear thinning fluid so viscosity decreased as speed increased. The problem is, experiments with clean and dirty chains have shown the first two factors dominate and lubrication on the chain has minimal impact. That's not to say there couldn't be other mechanisms, but I can't think of any.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Did anyone say that power losses were were constant with cadence? Power losses are nearly a constant regardless of power transmission. So from 100W to 400W you have about the same 8W loss. I've noticed this in every "drivetrain loss" study I've seen.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

eddyadams said:


> I love your site, but really... "A goon"? Let's keep thing in perspective. You sell skewers for $160.00, and that Tune Rr. hub for $800.00... There sick, but c'mon. I bet I could find a set of last years DA wheels new for that much. Not to mention the dt 190's on your site come with ceramic bearings.
> EA


Sorry eddy, didnt mean to offend with the word choice. The reason that we sell ceramic bearings, super expensive skewers, and $800 hubs is because some people want them no matter what. Even if I strongly advise against it and directly tell them "This product is extremely overpriced" they still go for it. 99% of customers will open their ears and listen, but the select few just feel they need the ceramics to "keep up with the group" or whatever.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> ABEC is not ball grade - it is tolerance. Ball grade - roundness - for ceramic bearings is grade 3 ( round to 3 millionths of an inch). Shimano steel bearings are grade 25...
> 
> I don't have a dog in this fight, but just pointing out that a lot of cycling equipment is sold on the basis of very small performance gains. Hundreds or thousands of dollars for a few grams weight savings or reductions in drag. Given drivetrain power losses (often reported at over 7% total power), bearings don't seem like such an unrealistic issue. Besides, the 2 ceramic BBs I have (came with a FSA neo pro crank I got from CRC for $200 for crank and BB and a red crankset) are still in perfect condition after a few hard seasons of racing.



From I've been told by my brother and a few other bike shop owners, the difference is so minimal that a wheel would have to be spinning at around 20,000 rpms to to really make a difference. How many people actually ride at a speed fast enough to achieve that? Like most test done in cycling, the thing is to test the best of the supported material against one of the worst of the competitor. Even if it that wasn't exaggeration, the fact that the coveted ceramic bearings wear out faster than their steel counterpart is a disappointing. For what they costs, I would expect more life from them. You seem to be having good results from them but in all honesty, I doubt that they made any difference in your riding. I would bet that they didn't improve your speed. Call me practical but if you race well with them, I'm sure you can race well without them. a high quality set of steel bearings are what I'm looking at when my ceramic bearings wear out.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

terbennett said:


> From I've been told by my brother and a few other bike shop owners, the difference is so minimal that a wheel would have to be spinning at around 20,000 rpms to to really make a difference. How many people actually ride at a speed fast enough to achieve that?


 Not me, not Lance, maybe Chuck Norris, as 20,000 rpm would result in a speed of about 1,700 mph. The cadence required would make me loose form.


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> Not me, not Lance, maybe Chuck Norris, as 20,000 rpm would result in a speed of about 1,700 mph. The cadence required would make me loose form.


Indeed. For me, the problem started with a ceramic bottom bracket on my Schwinn Le Tour. Next thing I knew, I set a PR on my normal training loop. I used to ride it at 9.7 miles per hour, but suddenly I was 2.3 miles per hour faster!
By Jove, I told myself, I'm onto something here. So I tried out some carbon wheels. Suddenly I was riding 5.3 mph faster! It was almost LEAPING up the hills! I wet myself, in fact, and being somewhat lighter, found that suddenly the bike was even faster on climbs!
Next up, I went tubeless...another 10 mph! Passed this dude in a Jaguar, man he wasn't happy, but he saw the deep dishes and gave me a nog of respect.
Then I tried out these carbon bottle holders. Jeez! I though the thing was fast before! Then it occurred to me to use fizzy water, which was lighter. What do you know, a NEW record!...this went on for some time, until finally I went with the ceramic pedal bearings, which turned out to be one step too far... after passing Chuck Norris 0.00014 seconds into a 40,000 lap crit, I realized the bike was actually pedalling itself. After winning the race, I actually had to shoot the pedals off the bike with a tactical 12-gauge to get it to stop. Went back to the basic boron and titanium pedals, and settled for what has now become a standard 1,700 mph.

LESSONS LEARNED
The trick to keeping good form at such high RPMs is reducing the crank arm length. If you are at 175, go down to 172.5 and that should handle it nicely. You will find that with better form, though, you will be able to jump up to 22,500 RPM and 1,875 mph... at which point you will have to change out to a 170 crank to keep form.
For me the bigger problem at those RPMs has been wearing out bib shorts every 3.7 seconds.
I've even experimented with dropping back to 18,000 rpm and going with the 25mm tires, bombproof alloy wheels and dropping down a notch to Ultegra bits... but still the shorts burst into flames every five seconds or so.
What can we tell you.....it's just flat expensive keeping up with the Jones when those sons of *****es are doing 1,500 mph to 1,700 mph.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Missing the point*



heathb said:


> I'm so sick of all this BS from manufactures. Just give me a good solid bike based off tried and true traditional race testing and let the engineers clock out and go home early.


Oh come on! Bicycling magazine stated that ceramic bearings were worth another gear and everybody knows they never hype anything. That's about a 15% increase in power, or around 80 watts. These pikers claiming only 8 watts need to get on the bandwagon! /sarcasm


----------



## jpdigital (Dec 1, 2006)

*I know who can...*



Blue CheeseHead said:


> Not me, not Lance, maybe Chuck Norris, as 20,000 rpm would result in a speed of about 1,700 mph.


Jens Voigt.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

The Origin-8 ceramic BBs are very, very smooth and have little drag. They retail for $100.

However, the Wheels Manufacturing (Shimano only, sorry) standard BB has the same smoothness and the same lack of drag (subjective) and retail for about $55 and should last a lot longer. Plus you can get it in red, blue, green....


----------



## temoore (Mar 9, 2004)

*Campy CULT Bearings*

Not saying they are worth the price, but these bearings at least may have some good longevity (if you believe the hype) due to the specially engineered steel bearing races.

From Velo News:
"CULT
CULT bearing technology increases the performance of USB technology by eliminating the bearing’s grease and most seals. The ceramic ball bearings are always the best in existence (silicon nitride), but Campagnolo adds races made from a new steel developed in collaboration with the German company INA-***.

The new steel is called Cronitect; it increases the bearing system’s resistance to corrosion so that no grease is necessary for lubrication. These bearing can be lubricated with oil alone, and the biggest reason they need to be lubricated is to keep them silent. Campagnolo believes this solution increases the efficiency of ceramic ball bearings past the point of any other manufacturer and will delight those for whom racing is a way of life.
Tech Report: Campy 11-speed. The 11-cogs seem to shift as smoothly as 10.
Tech Report: Campy 11-speed. The 11-cogs seem to shift as smoothly as 10.

The use of Cronitect steel for CULT bearing races will be a Campagnolo exclusive for the next three years. CULT bearings will be standard equipment for Super Record bottom brackets and in Campagnolo and Fulcrum carbon rimmed wheels. "

From Bicycling.com
"Bike Component Reviews
Campagnolo
Cult Bearings
MSRP: $500
Bicycling Review
2010 Buyer's Guide
Issue: Apr 2010
Page: 45
Editorial Review
Not content to offer ceramic bearings only in its high-end products, Campagnolo scooped exclusive use (in a cycling application) of Cronitect steel, a super hard stainless race coated with a chromium nitrogen layer for slickness even without lube. This thermochemical surface treatment resists corrosion and reduces friction—Campy says you don't even need grease. It's available in Super Record cranksets and carbon-rimmed wheels, but the bearings fit any Campy crank or cartridge-bearing hub.—Joe Lindsey

Buy It: If you want to upgrade Campy 10-speed or older wheels
Forget It: If you already bought Super Record and Boras; they're stock "


----------



## lonetree (Mar 15, 2012)

I made a scientific study . I rolled 2 5k bikes down a hill .,one with ceramic one with steel
the ceramic got to the end of the cliff first , but just by a little


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

lonetree said:


> I made a scientific study . I rolled 2 5k bikes down a hill .,one with ceramic one with steel
> the ceramic got to the end of the cliff first , but just by a little


noooooooooooooooooo, not again...


----------



## Mark Kelly (Oct 27, 2009)

stevesbike said:


> I will if you're able to source a single independent study that shows there's 0 drag differences between ceramic and standard bottom brackets. Your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't count as evidence. Expensive boutique wheels represent a far worse cost-benefit tradeoff than a ceramic bottom bracket. $1000 on a zipp 404 saves about 7 watts over a cheap OEM alloy wheel. At 300 watts - a moderate time trial pace - a $100 ceramic bottom bracket would save 10.5 watts. So, that's either about $10/watt savings or a $142/watt savings....by the way, we rely on industry numbers for the drag # for the wheels too...


I have made direct measurements of the power consumption of ceramic bearings vs ordinary steel ball bearings and journal bearings. I used jockey wheel bearings but the results should be applicable to BBs as well. My measurement methods had a detection limit of about 5% of bearing power consumption due to electronic noise on the signal. The difference between ceramic and ordinary bearings was within that limit, eg it was too small to be measureable. 

For there to be a 10.5 watt difference in that 5% margin the bearings would have to be consuming over 200 watts. That is bunk.

If, on the other hand, the study you cited actually says that at a 300 watt throughput the difference in drag between bearings was 3.5% of their contribution to losses (eg one consumed say 1 watt and the other consumed 1.035) that would be believable. At $100 cost that's $3,000 per watt saved.


----------



## svard75 (Jun 10, 2011)

I have a set of easton circuits needed new bearings so went with hybrid ceramics (balls are ceramic races are not). Read reviews these go sooner because the balls are so hard they chew into the race. 1000kms and they still spin like new. Have another set with EZO bearings and seems to feel the same. Like everyone else here already said a good set of wheels should have good bearings. Besides knocking bearings out of a hub is so much easier then properly pressing them back in.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

svard75 said:


> I have a set of easton circuits needed new bearings so went with hybrid ceramics (balls are ceramic races are not). Read reviews these go sooner because the balls are so hard they chew into the race. 1000kms and they still spin like new. Have another set with EZO bearings and seems to feel the same. Like everyone else here already said a good set of wheels should have good bearings. Besides knocking bearings out of a hub is so much easier then properly pressing them back in.


1000k isn't a lot of miles.

What, you don't have one of these?


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

I have Boca's full ceramic bearings for the ultra torque chainset on my good bike. At the price it's not good value, but pedaling feels a little smoother. Just a little.

I'm thinking of getting boca bearings for my good wheels too. Nope, won't make me any faster. But it gives me something to look forward to tinkering with on my bike.


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Hhahahah, sweet. . .*



eddyadams said:


> I love your site, but really... "A goon"? Let's keep thing in perspective. You sell skewers for $160.00, and that Tune Rr. hub for $800.00... There sick, but c'mon. I bet I could find a set of last years DA wheels new for that much. Not to mention the dt 190's on your site come with ceramic bearings.
> EA


So well said! Just awesome. keeping amateur wheelbuilders attitude in check. He's probably mad at the OP for looking at some real wheels (Shamals) versus the crap he probably slaps together.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> you will lose 3.5 % of total power output to increased drag - at least accordng to Bike Testing Inc., an independent testing conpany...


Not 3.5% of total power output, but 3.5% of the friction drag (which in turn is just a few percents of total power output). So a net win would be below one 0.1% of the total power output (in reality, far below).


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

QQUIKM3 said:


> So well said! Just awesome. keeping amateur wheelbuilders attitude in check. He's probably mad at the OP for looking at some real wheels (Shamals) versus the crap he probably slaps together.


this coming from the guy w/ zero rep and 3 little red boxes. hmmmmm...this could get good.


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Hey, get this right. .*



cxwrench said:


> . .and 3 little red boxes.


I prefer Chiclets!


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Only. .*



Cableguy said:


> They're both overpriced hype. The Zipps at least look cool


When those hideous decals are removed.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I only have ceramics on the my Super Record 11 groupset

BTW I got this group as a take-off from a new bike from the local bike shop, new, never riden but at Record 11 price, so I jumped on it.

Now I did have 2 very similar bikes, one built on R11 the other on SR11. My empirical observations are.

Indeed the cranks and rear derailer bearings spin quicker and last longer, no doubt about.

It "feels" lighter when pedaling, the first meters, then after I don't notice a difference, at all. 

I am probably some microseconds faster on the SR11.

It looks nicer.

That's all


----------



## svard75 (Jun 10, 2011)

ergott said:


> 1000k isn't a lot of miles.
> 
> What, you don't have one of these?


That's a really nice set! I have a homemade press 

Bottom line on ceramic bearings vs non ceramic IMO there must be a difference. Why do the pros have full ceramic on their bikes? For the average Joe racer I don't see why not if you have a good wheelset and money to throw at it and If only for the bragging rights.


----------



## Elpimpo (Jan 16, 2012)

It seems as They're geared toward the "every bit helps" crowd. Nothing wrong with that.

If you:
1. Have snapped a carbon seat rail and replaced your saddle with another (lighter) carbon seat railed saddle
2. Train with carbon tubulars and the lightest tires you can find, no matter how many flats you've had
3. Have the lightest shifter cables on the market
4. Roll out with one water bottle on a 30+ mile ride to save grams
AND
You have already upgraded every piece of bike you possibly can:
Then you may just be a candidate for / scratch that / you NEED ceramic bearings all around.

I hear they're making super light weight energy gels....


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Mark Kelly said:


> If, on the other hand, the study you cited actually says that at a 300 watt throughput the difference in drag between bearings was 3.5% of their contribution to losses (eg one consumed say 1 watt and the other consumed 1.035) that would be believable. At $100 cost that's $3,000 per watt saved.


Now you wait just one darn minute. We don't appreciate the sort that understands math and how marketers intentionally misinterpret statistics. 

Way too many dreams of being fast popped that way.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

QQUIKM3 said:


> I prefer Chiclets!


damn, you must be as old as me! do they still make that stuff? :thumbsup:


----------



## Scott in MD (Jun 24, 2008)

Ceiling fan is tougher duty on bearings than bike wheels .... Ceramics are overkill. Great for high temp application but just not needed for bikes.


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

Scott in MD said:


> Ceiling fan is tougher duty on bearings than bike wheels .... Ceramics are overkill. Great for high temp application but just not needed for bikes.


So now I need ceramic bearings in my ceiling fans?

Just as well I don't live in Florida, that would be an expensive overhaul...


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

ergott said:


> 1000k isn't a lot of miles.
> 
> What, you don't have one of these?


That's a beautiful set :thumbsup:


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Yes, anb yes CX. .*



cxwrench said:


> damn, you must be as old as me! do they still make that stuff? :thumbsup:


Blast from the past. . .

Food, Snacks, Beverages & Vending Machines | Food, Snacks, and Candies | Chiclets Tiny Fruit Gum, .5 oz size, 20 ct pack | B472742 - GlobalIndustrial.com


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Salsa_Lover said:


> That's a beautiful set :thumbsup:


Thanks.

Nothing like seeing someone buy a set of $300 bearings and tap them in with a hammer and socket.

Even worse when someone tries to tap out a bearing with a punch from the opposite side. This can ovalize and score the bearing bore (especially lightweight hubs). Not a good idea on a set of $600-$1000 set of hubs.

My high school shop teacher always instilled in me "the right tool for the job". Nuggets like that are priceless. It's also a great excuse to buy tools:thumbsup:


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

gordy748 said:


> So now I need ceramic bearings in my ceiling fans?
> 
> Just as well I don't live in Florida, that would be an expensive overhaul...


have you seen how dusty ceiling fans can get? and we all know heat rises, i think ceramics are perfect for that kind of high speed (upwards of 120rpm) and high heat possibly 110 in the summer) application.


----------



## JohnnyC7 (Dec 11, 2011)

Zen Cyclery said:


> TheGoat- The wear life is actually shorter on ceramics (especially in wet/sandy/salty conditions). The only time that they are actually beneficial is in parts with extremely high RPMs that develop alot of excess heat buildup (which are not bicycles, more like airplanes). So all in all, if you want to look like a goon who spends money in the wrong places, ceramics would be perfect.


I'm curious to know, have you ever rebuilt a ceramic bearing with a decent waterproof grease from new? I've never used them myself but all the ones I see have a minimal amount of thin, silicone based grease so I'm not surprised that so many of them wear quickly. in theory there shouldn't be any reason for them to be worse than a steel bearing given the same lubrication or conditions.

Also Chris King wouldn't use them in their hubs and BB's if they weren't going to live up to CK's reputation!


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

JohnnyC7 said:


> I'm curious to know, have you ever rebuilt a ceramic bearing with a decent waterproof grease from new? I've never used them myself but all the ones I see have a minimal amount of thin, silicone based grease so I'm not surprised that so many of them wear quickly. in theory there shouldn't be any reason for them to be worse than a steel bearing given the same lubrication or conditions.
> 
> *Also Chris King wouldn't use them in their hubs and BB's if they weren't going to live up to CK's reputation*!


you think?  King doesn't use commercially available cartridge bearings like 99.999% of those sold in the bicycle industry, they buy balls and manufacture their own bearings and shield system. much better than most bearings out there. and they offer the ceramic option because people will buy it and it allows them to make more $$ than not having hubs and bb's that have ceramic bearings.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

cxwrench said:


> have you seen how dusty ceiling fans can get? and we all know heat rises, i think ceramics are perfect for that kind of high speed (upwards of 120rpm) and high heat possibly 110 in the summer) application.


Ceramic bearings in your ceiling fan will save you $2.50 per month on your energy bill when ran at medium speed. 

Truth.


----------



## smoo (Sep 20, 2007)

The ONLY advantage of (some) ceramic bearings is ease of maintenance and possible longevity. The campagnolo CULT BB bearings will run without lubrication if necessary so they are a little more "fit & forget" than the steel ones, but this might have as much to do with the very high quality steel races as anything else. 

For my campagnolo wheels (currently running some of the new Eurus) I prefer the old-fashioned cup & cone steel bearings for sensitive adjustability. Also there is just something incredibly satisfying about stripping, regreasing and adjusting a wheel hub with loose ball bearings.


----------

