Hey Zedro, not sure what happened to that other thread about Chris King being stupid, but what is imperfect about ISIS? What would you do differently, assuming you're limited to a standard shell?
Paging Zedro re ISIS
- Thread starter OGRipper
- Start date
thats the problem, we're limited to a standard shell, so the space for the bearings is limited, and so will the bearing life. I'm guessing CK wouldnt (or havent been able to at this point) be able to get the bearing life they wanted, and them being all about bearings and their durability, wont put their name on one.
someone (King?) could make an outboard bearing-style bb for ISIS, or would it be too wide for the chainline on most bikes?
Race face already has one in the works if I remember correctly, similar to Shimano.
If this works, I'll bet King will follow and make it better.
If this works, I'll bet King will follow and make it better.
The outboard bearing design is like having a deep inserted cup headset. It is stronger. But only to a point.
Think about it. Bottom Brackets fail at the bearings more so then the spindle. I've never broke anything in a Bottom Bracket. You gotta be very hard on your stuff to snap a spindle. Exploding bearings could happen anytime though due to cheap bearings etc....
I think that there keeps being a change in the MTB world with standards. ISIS is probably the standard right now but companies don't want to reinvent the wheel. Same goes with rear hubs right now, you have QR, 10mm, 12mm, 15mm, 20mm. Who in the hell wants to make/produce/stock 5 different hubs alone the 135, 140, 150, 160mm spacing? Just too many differences in designs.
King will 99% jump on the bottom bracket world once there is a standard that isn't going anywhere. I don't think you'll get a 10 year warrenty on their Bottom Bracket though. Headsets are almost bullitproof.
Think about it. Bottom Brackets fail at the bearings more so then the spindle. I've never broke anything in a Bottom Bracket. You gotta be very hard on your stuff to snap a spindle. Exploding bearings could happen anytime though due to cheap bearings etc....
I think that there keeps being a change in the MTB world with standards. ISIS is probably the standard right now but companies don't want to reinvent the wheel. Same goes with rear hubs right now, you have QR, 10mm, 12mm, 15mm, 20mm. Who in the hell wants to make/produce/stock 5 different hubs alone the 135, 140, 150, 160mm spacing? Just too many differences in designs.
King will 99% jump on the bottom bracket world once there is a standard that isn't going anywhere. I don't think you'll get a 10 year warrenty on their Bottom Bracket though. Headsets are almost bullitproof.
I've heard that some of the recent outboard bearings have a similar life to isis. The bearings may be bigger but because they are outboard there isn't enough room for decent seals without affecting chainline too much. So you either have big exposed bearings of tiny sealed ones. Thats just based on rumor and second hand knoledge, time will tell how the outboard bearings really hold up.
I'm not at all surprised King are not making an isis bb, I used to get the cheap shimano cartridge bbs and they would last at least 18 months. I have yet to get more than 3-4 months out of an isis bb before they start to feel worse than the shimano bbs did when I changed them. Not to mention isis bbs cost 2-3 times as much.
I'm not at all surprised King are not making an isis bb, I used to get the cheap shimano cartridge bbs and they would last at least 18 months. I have yet to get more than 3-4 months out of an isis bb before they start to feel worse than the shimano bbs did when I changed them. Not to mention isis bbs cost 2-3 times as much.
FSA makes the Megatech which is supposed to address the issue of undersized bearings. According to FSA, they came up with the megatech size because if they went any bigger and the gains were diminishing and it wasn't worth the weight gain. Unfortunalty, not many frame manufactures have embraced this standard. I have built road bikes with them and they do make a lighter stronger BB junction.
i believe the problem is more about the bearing alignment issues the outboard style cups raise. In this case, the cups and bearings are independant of each other rather than connected by an integral shell. Poor frame BB facing and cup concentricity would add to the problem.
I wish companies could get together and come up with a new BB frame shell standard a-la 1.5 headtubes, which could also be made backwards compatible.
BBs fail at the bearings most of the time. But one of the reasons is that as axles have gotten bigger for stiffness and light weight (like for ISIS), the bearings have gotten smaller, since one way or the other it all has to fit in the same tiny little euro bb shell. By moving the bearings outboard, you can use bigger bearings, which should be more durable.
It's really different from a deeper headset, but since you mention it, the cups on an outboard-style bb (and probably the bearings too) need to be stronger than usual, since the cups (not the shell) bear the downward forces from the axle more than on a conventional bb.
And I know race face has an x-type bb/crank combos out now, but haven't heard about an outboard bb for use with a regular ISIS crankset. Anyone else?
Rumors of a King bb have been floating around since way before ISIS, when square taper was the only option and there was no other "standard" out there, so I'm not sure about that 99% statement. I'm guessing that (like Zedro said) King simply hasn't been able to come up with design that meets its usual standards of excellence that would be even remotely affordable.
And back in the day, before bb axles got bigger (at the expense of bearing size), broken and bent bb axles were pretty common.
It's really different from a deeper headset, but since you mention it, the cups on an outboard-style bb (and probably the bearings too) need to be stronger than usual, since the cups (not the shell) bear the downward forces from the axle more than on a conventional bb.
And I know race face has an x-type bb/crank combos out now, but haven't heard about an outboard bb for use with a regular ISIS crankset. Anyone else?
Rumors of a King bb have been floating around since way before ISIS, when square taper was the only option and there was no other "standard" out there, so I'm not sure about that 99% statement. I'm guessing that (like Zedro said) King simply hasn't been able to come up with design that meets its usual standards of excellence that would be even remotely affordable.
And back in the day, before bb axles got bigger (at the expense of bearing size), broken and bent bb axles were pretty common.
They did, its called Megatech.
http://www.oversizebb.com
This has been around for at least 2 years. The only bike I have seen with it are high end road bikes. The MTB guys just haven't embraced it. I'm not sure why. You could make the frame for Megatech and make an adapter for euro ala the 1.5 standard.
There is no reason we couldn't all run BMX bb either.
its not a standard if no one is using it, Megatech might as well be put in with BMX as far as we're concerned. Theres also ISIS Overdrive in the works, but it seems like they may be going too big.
I think people will accept no less than a threaded BB standard. If 22mm (max) BB axles are settled on, then it should be fairly easy to establish a sensible standard that could conform to 2 or 3 piece setups.
You state that you wish the industry would come together and develope a standard. Well they did, and nobody used it so it kinda faded away. If they come up with another "standard", why would it have a better reception? I think there is too much invested in euro bb to convince bike companies to make something bigger and better. The 1.5 had better luck because it promised reduced headtube failures and therefor fewer warranties. Internal headsets mean you can sell a bike for less money and make more. The larger bb doesn't have those advantages. Plus, the layman can't see it on the showroom floor, unlike the 1.5. 1.5 is as much about marketing as it is about strength. I think we're stuck with the euro bb for a bit longer.
As for durablitity, I have been running my profile 3 piece going on 5 years. Not a single problem, touch wood. And I'm not sponsored by them
I would guess the reasons why it hasn't been embraced by the mtb community are;
1. press in bearings. The current thread in sytem is nice as a consumer, all I need is a $10 tool to remove a bad bb and put in a new one. With press fit bearings I have to spend 10 times as much on a tool or use a homemade press or wooden blocks and a hammer and risk damageing the frame.
2. A cartridge bearing with two metal washers covering it is not a good enough seal for mtb use. A couple of really wet rides or where the bb goes under water and you need to service the bearings. Ok on a road bike or bmx not on a mtb.
3. All the standard really is is a bmx bb with out bearing cups. Why not make an isis spindle and some bmx bb cups and bearings?
If they just make it the same as the current sytem but with a bigger shell and sold adapters so it was backwards compatable I would look for it when buying a new frame.
who exactly is 'they'?
anyways, just calling something 'a standard' is purely academic unless its actually used and maintained as such. The 1.5 camp had agreements and products in the pipeline by the key component sectors and companies, they produced it and it stuck, even if only has a minority standard, which is what we are looking at here. Its upto the smaller frame manufacturers to step up like the 1.5 needed, since they have the flexibility to do so.
But anyways, we'll see how the outboard style does.