nah. i'd say rotor or some other similar sized oddball company.
This is what's wrong with The Industry™
- Thread starter Electric_City
- Start date
-
- Tags
- e-bike
wait are we talking oval on purpose, or oval because of bad design (isis)?
isn't there already an oval spindle/crank arm interface?
no idea. interface maybe, we're talking the spindle itself.
Well, this one is getting pretty close to oval. Think of it as an "evolving standard".
I prefer to curate custom artisanal BB crank interfaces from local free range cruelty free fair trade raw vegan designers for each of my bikes.
My trail bike has one shaped like a cock and balls. Only drawback is that it isn't as rigid the second time I go down the mountain. It also tends to shrink up in the cold.
My trail bike has one shaped like a cock and balls. Only drawback is that it isn't as rigid the second time I go down the mountain. It also tends to shrink up in the cold.
And Oval ball bearings.
I have a set of e13 cranks that I rather like. It's a good interface.
Well actually this makes the adoption of the BB392EVO a great possibility. I don't think anyone is really making a bike with a bb shell to specifically hit this yet, now with Sram cranks that will fit this we could see it take off OEM. Thus a "new" standard.
PF30 bearing size in a BB92 shell width.
I think we'll see it take off, why not run the wider bb bearing spacing with the bigger bearings? If it does being common it will mean that going 28.99 was for nothing other than to kick off adoption of BB392Evo and still be backwards compatible with better bearings in BB92 shells.
Not saying it's a bad interface. It certainly is less "stress risery" than anything else I can think of. I can think of bad things to happen over time....but I've never owned one.
But I'm also sure that a completely round shape is not optimum for the bit of spindle between the bearings..Nothing really to go on other than looking at the forces.
In reality, there should be a larger shell with a larger threaded BB. That's what they shoulda done instead of press fit in the first place. Maybe I'll do that on my next frames. And it will take a 30.01 mm spindle.
That's what T47 is. Same diameter shell and bearings as PF30 but threaded. Best standard in my opinion.
"Like Pivot, Knolly contends that going with 157-millimeter spacing offers up even more potential for designers (though Knolly are calling their take on it "157TRAIL" (as opposed to Pivot's piss-taking "Super Boost Plus 157"). "
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/knolly-moves-entire-lineup-to-157mm-spacing-157trail.html
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/knolly-moves-entire-lineup-to-157mm-spacing-157trail.html
I stated in the last "industry" thread that we need a new ISCG "just because", but I can really see one in the future along with another bb standard. With 30mm spindles becoming common, especially on bikes that use ISCG tabs, the bearings in the BB are becoming smaller and smaller. I can actually see The Industry justifying a new BB. Cause of that diameter getting bigger, a new ISCG will be necessary.
Sort of. But I would want to use a wider shell. And use internal threaded cups, like the old days.
Why? The days of a BB shell being a BB shell are pretty much over. It's more like a housing/frame structure. Wider BB shell means DT can be wider, etc. Usually, there is a suspension pivot nearby that would also benefit
Why not just open up to an 83mm BB like DH bikes? As far as the Q-factor, I really don't think riders will give 2 shits. I go between a 73 and 83 and it requires no thinking at all. Besides, with fat bikes being popular now, they're pushing 100mm+ Bb's. Their Q has got to be enormous. If they went 83mm, boost would have been useless, considering that it's 2mm shy of the 150mm DH standard.
I can't believe some of that BS. The only thing 157 mm hubs do is make a stronger wheel. The claim that it allows switching between 29 and 27.5 plus with no change in geo is hilarious. I wonder how a wider hub negates diameter change?
There are 2 shell width versions of T47. What you are describing is the BB386 version. It's the best. 86mm wide shell threaded for internal bearings. Use it.
That and an improvement of the lower shock mount would be impressive upgrades for your next production run.
Last edited:
I was wondering how Pivot and now Knolly get away with trail width cranks and a 157 hub but if flipping the chainring on a Cinch crank really gives a decent chainline I'm all for it. I can feel a difference between "normal" width cranks and DH width so I don't want a wider Q on my trail bike. I can live with it (I used to take my DH bike on long rides) but I'd rather stick with XC width cranks. Pushing the derailleur and brake rotor outboard is unavoidable but I can live with that for better spoke tension balance.
Last edited:
The Lizards All Concur!
Because xc riders eat that shit up. They have their granny gear but don't have to call it a granny gear.
Already taken care of it.
At least now we know for sure that 24mm spindle makes for a more reliable bb.
And don't spend too much negative energy on bb-interfaces, it will not improve your riding in any way
And don't spend too much negative energy on bb-interfaces, it will not improve your riding in any way
They reference a Sram/Raceface lawsuit. Is this in regard to narrow/wide or something about BBs and cranks? If the former did Wolftooth, etc license narrow/wide from Sram or has Sram just not gotten around to sueing everyone else yet?
SRAM's comments on sealing and causes of bearing failure were interesting. I'd be inclined to agree that end of life for crank bearings on my bikes has been induced by moisture getting past whatever serves for seals.
And yeah, it was designed as an integrated subsystem - good work!
So it all boils down to Trek and their stupid PF92 BBs, and SRAM not being able to sell them cranks because the BB30 spindle is too short. That's why YT kicked them out and went straight to a Shimano/E13 combo.
meanwhile, shimano keeps making durable, reliable cranks that are compatible with virtually everything on the market, except direct mount. definitely wish I went that route over the RF setup I have.
So apparently 30mm spindles that are offered on ALL DH cranks are weaker than 24's?
Explain why 35mm bars are preferred over 31.6? They must be weaker according to sram.
I'm OK replacing a $20 part twice a year, but I'm not ok buying something that's proprietary to one company who will change this in 6 months.
A buddy went off a 6' drop to smooth transition this year and landed perfectly, till his foot hit the ground. His X0 crank had blown apart. There's a piece of aluminum that attaches to the spindle that the carbon is overlapped around. The carbon blew apart and had reshaped to normal after it had come off. Looking at it in hand, you wouldn't really know what happened until you pulled it apart. Jon told me "This is my third one. Back to sram it goes." The BB didn't fail. The spindle didn't fail. The carbon failed.
Im glad to see PB interviewed The Industry™ about what they thought about The Industry™
Like Giant and SC are going to be like "Yeah, we put this shit on our $5,000+ bikes and it sucks balls. But yeah, its good enough for you."
Also, is it just me or does it seem the more money you spend on bikes, the bigger piece of shit it is? You spend $80 on a chain ring and $500 on a 12 speed cassette and $100 on ONE shifter and you get 500 miles out of it. Granted, the shifter is fine, but the rest ends up in a landfill. Yet, an 8 speed cassette is $20, 2 steel chain rings are $30 for both, a front derailleur is $30 and a shifter set is $30. The 8spd cassette, rings and front derailleur weigh the same amount as the 12spd 9-76t cassette and yet lasted me 6 years hassle free! Even used the same chain without a broken link!
Explain why 35mm bars are preferred over 31.6? They must be weaker according to sram.
I'm OK replacing a $20 part twice a year, but I'm not ok buying something that's proprietary to one company who will change this in 6 months.
A buddy went off a 6' drop to smooth transition this year and landed perfectly, till his foot hit the ground. His X0 crank had blown apart. There's a piece of aluminum that attaches to the spindle that the carbon is overlapped around. The carbon blew apart and had reshaped to normal after it had come off. Looking at it in hand, you wouldn't really know what happened until you pulled it apart. Jon told me "This is my third one. Back to sram it goes." The BB didn't fail. The spindle didn't fail. The carbon failed.
Im glad to see PB interviewed The Industry™ about what they thought about The Industry™
Like Giant and SC are going to be like "Yeah, we put this shit on our $5,000+ bikes and it sucks balls. But yeah, its good enough for you."
Also, is it just me or does it seem the more money you spend on bikes, the bigger piece of shit it is? You spend $80 on a chain ring and $500 on a 12 speed cassette and $100 on ONE shifter and you get 500 miles out of it. Granted, the shifter is fine, but the rest ends up in a landfill. Yet, an 8 speed cassette is $20, 2 steel chain rings are $30 for both, a front derailleur is $30 and a shifter set is $30. The 8spd cassette, rings and front derailleur weigh the same amount as the 12spd 9-76t cassette and yet lasted me 6 years hassle free! Even used the same chain without a broken link!
Last edited:
I have no qualms about the RF cranks on two of my bikes, but the BB92 on one of them is the dumbest thing ever. Seemed like a great idea I guess back when they put it on this bike, but pretty much the same time SRAM and RF came out with a 30mm spindle standard for their cranks, RF especially for their lightest cranks, and this manufacturer (pivot) along with pretty much everyone else speced the Next cranks on their high end builds. So they are producing the bikes and putting the cranks on em with these tiny little bearings where there isn't enough room to support it. BB92 was intended for shimano 24mm, but BB92 and 30mm is kind of no-man's-land. I've been pretty aggressive at getting high quality bearings for mine and it doesn't see as much water as my main bike, but the companies that speced these cranks with their BB92 should be slapped around a bit, BB92 was not intended to work with them and it sets up a less-than-optimal situation with the BB bearing size. IMO, the 30mm crank spindle evolution was natural, better stiffness/strength to weight ratio, especially with the carbon cranks, which Shimano is pretty late to the game with. This was being handled just fine with outboard bearings and such, then BB92 came around and everything got stupid.
covered