SRAM's New DUB Cranks and Bottom Brackets - First Look

Jan 16, 2018
by Mike Kazimer  
SRAM

What's DUB?

SRAM have announced a major revision to their mountain bike cranks and bottom brackets, a change that's intended to increase bottom bracket longevity, as well as simplify the lineup. The revamp also allowed them to shed a significant amount of weight from the XX1 crankset, and it's now claimed to be one of the lightest options on the market.

Called DUB (Durable Unified Bottom bracket), the most significant update is the change to a 28.99mm spindle for all mountain bike cranks. Previously, SRAM had two different spindle diameters (30mm and 24mm), along with a range of bottom bracket bearing sizes. With DUB, they now offer one spindle diameter and four bottom brackets that will fit all of the existing frame standards.

Where did that 28.99mm number come from? Why not just switch everything over to 30mm spindles and call it good? According to SRAM, their product development in San Luis Obispo, California, tried multiple configurations, beginning with the existing 30mm spindle size, before settling on what they felt offered up the ideal balance of bearing size, durability, and weight. The new bottom brackets have more seals than the previous models in order to keep contaminants like water and dirt from working their way into the bearings. Along with the improved weather sealing, SRAM has gone to metal cups on their press-fit bottom brackets, rather than the plastic cups used previously.

The following video from SRAM provides a little more insight into the concept, as well as a chance to witness some interesting Movember facial hair:




SRAM
The X-Sync 2 SL chainrings found on the XX1 cranks are designed to be as light as possible.
SRAM
All of the cranks now have 28.99mm spindles, and use a threaded bearing preload ring.

XX1 Gets Lighter

All of the cranksets in the lineup have been updated with the new spindle size, but it's the XC-oriented XX1 crankset that received the most significant makeover, one that allowed SRAM to shave 80 grams off the total weight compared to the previous version. Claimed weight for the cranks with a 32-tooth direct mount ring is 422 gram. The weight savings comes from the use of a lighter spindle, as well as a lighter chainring design, where any unnecessary material has been machined off. Not that the performance of professional athletes should be used to justify a purchase, but for what it's worth, Nino Schurter won the World Cup XC overall and World Champs aboard a DUB-equipped bike.


SRAM
The chamfer at the end of the spindle is intended to help prevent it from catching on the bottom bracket's seals during installation.
SRAM
It's too early comment on the effectiveness of the new seal design, but once we get a crankset in for review it'll see plenty of muddy miles.



SRAM
There are now four bottom bracket options to fit the variety of frame designs on the market.



Can I Still Get GXP Bottom Brackets?

The DUB cranks and bottom brackets do replace SRAM's previous models, but there's no need to rush out to start hoarding all the bottom brackets you can get your hands on – replacement parts will be available for at least the next three years, if not longer. Keep in mind that it's been eight years since SRAM last updated their bottom brackets – it's not a component that constantly changes. That being said, the update does mean that shops will need to stock bottom brackets that work for SRAM cranks with 24, 30, and 28.99mm spindles, at least for the near future. Good thing bottom brackets don't take up as much space as wheels...



SRAM


SRAM
SRAM's DUB technology will be found on everything from the highest end XX1 carbon cranks to the more affordable aluminum Truvativ Stylo cranks. DH options haven't been announced yet, but they're in the works.


Specifications and Pricing

SRAM

• XX1 Eagle: $515 - $525 | €570 - €585 | £510 - £520

• X01 Eagle: $485 - $495 | €540 - €550 | £480 - £490

• GX Eagle: $135 - $185 | €150 - €205 | £135 - £185

• Descendant Carbon DUB: $260 | €290 | £255

• Descendant 6K DUB: $105 | €115 | £105

• Stylo Carbon: $260 - $310 | €290 - €345 | £255 - £305

• Truvativ Stylo 6k: $105 | €115 | £105

• Bottom brackets: $38 - $50 | €38 - €52 | £32 - £44










MENTIONS: @SramMedia




518 Comments

  • + 388
 29 ain't dead, long live 28.99.
  • + 36
 29 is a Zombie...zombie...zombie. Please don't Linger. RIP
  • + 112
 Pinkbike, you've got it all wrong! You're supposed to release your piss take product news on 1st of April. I've almost fell for that one though.
  • + 11
 Where is your mustache?
  • + 59
 Gwin tried 29.0mm, was a hair too big.
  • + 2
 keep em guessing
  • + 11
 The filth at 4:19 “we really love riding our parts..” Dirty boy!
  • - 7
flag bighit117 (Jan 16, 2018 at 10:37) (Below Threshold)
 Not to sure what all the negativity is about..... All of the aftermarket companies will support it in no time....
  • + 10
 "Other competitors have a oversized spindle..thats a shortcut. We didn't want to take that shortcut because we have to pay our engineers." In that 28.99 was born, screw off raceface!
  • + 70
 This is why Cam Zink announced his departure from SRAM today after 14 years.
  • + 64
 After years of research, we notice that we have forgotten to set a new standard for BB. Here we introduce the latest DUB.
  • + 28
 Scrolled straight through to the comments thinking “This shit’s gonna have nuts in it!” Not disappointed....
  • + 1
 @bighit117: SRAM OEM umbrella owns them all!
  • + 1
 @Scottybike36: Hi there! Aren't you naughty Wink
  • + 14
 If you have use "durable" as part of a product name, then it's probably shit
  • + 17
 Iv got 28.99 problems but my crank ain’t one!
  • + 9
 Why do they think Eagle is the standard, fuck 12 speed
  • + 0
 oh sram... best I can do is laugh. join me instead of ranting Smile
  • + 9
 So are we even going to discuss the likelihood that they manufacture these things to 0.01mm tolerances? Like f#ck they do and this just stinks of marketing bullshit i.e. we tested every possible diameter and would you believe it but 28.99 was objectively better than 28.98 or 29.00 mm. I mean as if it’s realistically any better than existing 30mm. Then slap a new acronym on it and sell the exact same shit as before only incompatible.
  • + 6
 @psyickphuk: its not the tolerance its the nominal dimension. the ID of bearing races are typically have a range of just under to dead nuts on the nominal, so a 29mm bearing would be something like 29mm +0/-.008 or something. so the shaft diameter would be 28.99 +0/-.01 as and example. I the shaft to hole fitment probably follows some Iso fit but thats out of the scope of the 28.99 vs 29 thing. I do agree its a bunch of marketing wankyness to point out the actual dims of the part. every engineer in the world will call it 29mm cause thats what it f*cking is
  • + 0
 Is it METRIC?! I can”t tell.
  • + 1
 @qreative-bicycle: what kinda grease should I use
  • + 0
 @lazerdr: vaselin, what a question!
  • + 222
 DUB - Don't Upgrade BB
  • + 148
 DU(m)B
  • - 2
 @Uuno: You got it right!
  • + 13
 Durable unified bottom bracket is DUBB? If they can screw 4 letters up..........
  • + 23
 So is this the first new standard for 2018?
  • + 16
 It's not a new standard. It works with what you already have.
  • + 61
 @racecase: Dude, reason and nuance have no place in the PB comments section.
  • + 45
 despite the constant negative press dubfefe
  • + 0
 @mi-bike: Clearly not! Haha, thanks for that!
  • + 1
 @racecase: it is a new standard as in i have to stock another 4 useless bb standards for these cranks...
  • - 4
flag romkaind (Jan 16, 2018 at 10:56) (Below Threshold)
 @racecase: So I can install it it with my ISIS Holzfellers or square taper XTR's ?
  • + 7
 @Gregorysmithj1: Agreed. And @ racecase, it may work with what you already have frame wise...but if you have a $430 set of Sram Eagle XO1 cranks...they still have a 30 mm spindle so...these new BB's won't work. But...like the article says above. I guess Sram will support the 30 mm spindle and GXP for the next 3 years.

I'm a fan of Sram's stuff don't get me wrong but...the last 3 standard changes they committed to are a real bummer. Boost only front forks for 2018, metric shock standard (I hate this one the most), and now this. I guess this one is minor because it is only a BB but...for now it blocks customers from upgrading BB's to a King or Wheels MFG or someting of the like. I guess that's the point though.
  • + 6
 @scbullit36: Boost is not a SRAM standard. Metric is not a SRAM standard.
  • + 18
 @b-wicked: If you're running ISIS and square taper XTR's then you've already been bitching about BB standards for a decade or two. Nothing should faze you.
  • + 0
 @mobaar: but they solely use these two standards on all new components
  • + 1
 @racecase: Unless you do not have a boost frame.
  • + 1
 @vtracer: and? by that logic, lets be mad at them for not making 1-1/8" steerers, QR dropouts, Square taper BBs, etc
  • - 1
 @mobaar: uh 1mm spindle width change from a decade long standard of 30mm is nothing like qr..it's more like changing a 15mm axles to 14mm pointless and makes everything you own incompatible.
  • + 3
 @Gregorysmithj1: 1.01mm change

edited beacuse Maths
  • - 1
 Do U Brag?
  • + 1
 @ReformedRoadie: Boost frame only uses different chain ring offsets you don't need another crankset for boost frame..
  • + 102
 This industry is literally mental, 28.99mm? And that's for an engineering reason not purely to destroy cross compatibility?

What about the chainring, have they changed the mounting spline / interface or is at least that still the same?
  • + 47
 "Where did that 28.99mm number come from?" The question is never answered. But this number is engineering BS, what tolerances are they using ?
  • + 26
 Metric chainlink sizing, Bring it on!
  • + 13
 28.99 spindle to fit a 29mm bore. Not sure why 1mm was an issue, to keep it 30mm with a 29.99mm axle. Seems strange....
  • + 117
 I'm fully on board the 28.99 train. From now on, I shall refer to my 30mm cranks as 28.99+.
  • + 9
 @Racer951, yes, the chainrings still use the same 3 bolt direct mount design as before.
  • + 34
 If I did not know better I would think this is all part of April fools...
  • - 17
flag Luke-VTT (Jan 16, 2018 at 7:47) (Below Threshold)
 @racer951

Bloody stupid comment. If you read the article instead of whincing, you would habe noticed that those spindles are compatible with both bsa and pf bottom brackets, which is exactly the opposite of what you claim: This new system IS COMPLETELY cross compatible with the most common bb standards. From now on, you can use the same crankset for both, BSA and PF.

The chainrings are the same, so you can use every Sram chainring.
  • + 4
 The “engineering resason” it is just bs in typical sram fashion.
They needed to put out a new product on the market (new products more sales) and they figured if they go to 30mm there are several other brands BB and axels to choose from (rf, cannondale, etc etc.). They went with an odd number to increase their sales.
  • + 2
 Good on them if they have tolerances to the hundredth of a millimeter. At least now we know where the money goes!
  • + 2
 SLO Bro's at their finest. Doing a bunch of stupid sh*t
  • + 6
 I'm just excited to say I'm rollin on DUB's.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj0_if5Fozg
  • + 6
 @jdemeritt: G's up Ho's down as you mfers bounce to this.
  • + 15
 I'd have been happy with 29, but I'm happy they went with 28.99 because I can store all the fucks I give in that 0.01mm
  • + 6
 @Luke-VTT: Settle down there, Lukey. I think he meant "cross compatibility" as in using other brands' cranks (24 or 30mm) with these BBs, or vice versa.
  • + 22
 During testing with Aaron Gwin, he noted that they felt .01 mm too large.
  • + 13
 the dude in the video was like we "slooooowly dialed back from 30mm..." to land on 28.99? what a load of shit. this is marketing BS.
  • + 8
 Really SRAM?? A 1.01 mm difference from an existing 'standard'??? This industry needs a dose of reality!!
  • + 13
 You don't need a new bike with a new BB size, it fits on them now. They made a crank better that works with things you have now! How can you hate on that? All you keyboard warriors do is hate... give something a try! Give me _ props, I don't care, you know it's true.
  • + 2
 @Luke-VTT: Compatible with BAS and PF 28.99mm bottom brackets. Their DUB BB isn't compatible with any other crankset spindles without an adapter (24mm to 28.99) that they don't yet make. A 28.99mm to 30mm spindle adapter may be in the works, but that's down the road.
  • + 5
 @Luke-VTT: 30mm cranks already fit in BSA BB shells... (see RaceFace)
  • + 4
 @Climberdave: its compatible with most all common BB shells. Who cares if the BB doesn't work with another brand? GXP BBs already don't work with any other brand's cranks.
  • + 0
 It's SRAM, SRAM do this for almost every single product they make.
  • + 11
 @Luke-VTT: But it's not compatible with existing SRAM and aftermarket 30mm, 24mm or 24-22mm stepped bbs that pretty much every crankset on the market currently fits. It's a calculated move by SRAM to freeze out third parties from bottom bracket sales, if only for a few months while they go into their CAD files and make the inner races 1.01mm smaller.
  • + 4
 Just wait until Wolftooth comes out with an adapter for 30mm BBs. Just $52.99 for a couple of anodized shims!
  • + 4
 If you ask nice enough maybe they'll bring Italian threading to us mountain bikers
  • + 8
 @Fix-the-Spade: Was just about to write this. Everyone please upvote the OP's comment so that we're all aware of the bullshit that's going on. It increases the price of components and makes you're existing eventually incompatible.

"But it's not compatible with existing SRAM and aftermarket 30mm, 24mm or 24-22mm stepped bbs that pretty much every crankset on the market currently fits. It's a calculated move by SRAM to freeze out third parties from bottom bracket sales, if only for a few months while they go into their CAD files and make the inner races 1.01mm smaller."
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: .....stop giving them ideas!.....unless they are paying you!
  • + 2
 Hey, a lot of people have bought a lot of pills to get an extra .01mm . ridiculous is in the eye of the beholder.
  • - 2
 @mikekazimer: "yes, the chainrings still use the same 3 bolt direct mount design as before"

GROUNDBREAKING!!!
  • + 4
 @NRogers27: I would wager they aren't even close to getting +/-.01mm on any product.
  • + 4
 @Whipperman: I would bet it's to fit inside a standardized 29mm ID bearing.
  • + 88
 Realistically when you buy a replacement crankset you almost always need a new bottom bracket too so this causes exactly no issues at all. If they last longer than GXP then surely we all win as this will be OEM spec on a lot of bikes moving forward.
  • + 49
 Unless this uses a custom bearing ruling out the ability for people to use other brands bottom brackets? Why not use 30mm?

Oh, and the shops now have yet another item to stock.
  • + 10
 @Racer951: The reason why not use 30mm is outlined in the video and article above. 30mm spindle in an English threaded BB gives less sealing and worse bearing life.

Shops hate selling things. Its the worst for them.
  • - 10
flag WaterBear (Jan 16, 2018 at 7:27) (Below Threshold)
 I build my own bikes up from the frame. This unnecessary new standard doodoo ain't coming within a mile.
  • + 26
 @Patrick9-32
I currently keep 7 bikes rolling, all of them having compatible cranks, and BCD's matter to me. BB compatibility is not so bad, it's finally more frame related (of Vs threaded).
New bike with DUmB? f*ck.

29 mm instead of 30? Come on...
  • + 4
 @Racer951: Yeah, previously you could use the Sram BB30 crankset with durable 3rd party PF30 BB's such Hope or ChrisKing. Hope even made GXP adapters for their BB's ... With these 28.99mm you are SOL.

I suppose they made it so that they can squeeze this thicker axle into to the smaller diameter BB shells (41mm press fit and BSA)... where 30mm just didn't fit.
  • + 6
 None of this addresses the fact that the biggest wear factor comes from the plastic press in cups.
  • - 11
flag Muckal (Jan 16, 2018 at 8:47) (Below Threshold)
 @Racer951: cause roughly speaking the Balls in the new bearings can be 0.505mm (the 5/1000 is what makes the difference here) n*gger in diameter. That makes them stronger, which makes the bearing last a trazillion to quantillion strokes longer and moar betterer, it's franconian Engineering, you know.
  • + 19
 @Patrick9-32: That's utter bullshit of the gloopiest degree. Modern BSA BBs have the cups and bearings outside of the shell. Using a 30mm spindle makes the bearings a bit bigger but has bugger all effect on bearing seals unless the BB is of a poor quality to begin with. Now a 30mm spindle in a BB92 causes all kinds of problems with bearing size and sealing, but if you buy a bike with a BB92 then frankly you deserve it. 1.01mm extra space isn't going to solve BB92 being fundamentally shit.
  • + 15
 @Racer951: i meant 'bigger', of course.
  • + 12
 @Thustlewhumber: This part seems to: "Along with the improved weather sealing, SRAM has gone to metal cups on their press-fit bottom brackets, rather than the plastic cups used previously."
  • + 7
 @WaterBear: It isn't a new standard. The standards are the 4 different interfaces between frame and BB. Every crank manufacture has a slightly different spindle design for which there is no standard which is why you still need to buy the BB that is meant for your cranks as well as the frame you are putting it in.
  • + 1
 Ya not really a new standard, jjust a different design. it sounds decent and sram does have some innovative ideas but their execution is often lacking. Send in the early adopters
www.pinkbike.com/news/avid-elixir-interbike-2008.html lol
  • + 7
 @BryceBorlick: It's pretty challenging to get everything right when companies are constantly trying to be the leader in technology and design. Sram isn't the only one - Shimano had the same challenges with the most recent XT and XTR brakes when they came out, they tried and new piston material and new master cylinder design, both of which didn't workout at all. So why did they mess with a good thing as they already had great breaks? Because everyone always wants to innovate, and if the bike brands people love to hate on didn't do that for us, man our bikes would be boring.
  • + 6
 Not me, I use hope BB with my race face cranks. They will outlive me and my current frame
  • + 2
 @Racer951: Actually its just the opposite. Shops can now stock one crank that will be compatible with any customers bike.
  • + 21
 @Patrick9-32 Beat me to it. This shouldn't cause problems for many people at all.
Have this and want it? Great, enjoy your new bike and ride on.
Have this but don't want it? Great, swap to one of the million existing BB/crank combinations and ride on.
Don't have this but want it? Great, pick one up for whatever BB standard your frame has and ride on.
Don't have this and don't want it? Great, post a bunch of scathing comments on PB and ride on.
  • - 3
 @Uuno: Kinda makes Boost seem insignificant now.
  • - 8
flag Gregorysmithj1 (Jan 16, 2018 at 10:47) (Below Threshold)
 @Patrick9-32: There is no data to back that up they may have mustaches, corporate music and whiteboards but facts and data are absent. 24mm is plenty stiff but has lost marketing muster theres not real data to show 30, 28.99 blah blah blah is any better. I bet I could make a stiffer or just as stiff BB/spindle with 14mm...
  • + 0
 @Racer951: The 28.99 would've been done so that you can't use DUB cranks with old BB's mostly because of different axle widths with them now using external bearing placement on PF30 etc. They could've used 30mm spindle with a larger external diameter BB still providing the "sealing" mentioned, but it may have been a few grams heavier.

Kinda like Boost using 148mm instead of 150mm so that things like chainline don't get screwed up.
  • + 0
 @meafroninja: Except for those customers that use either BB30 or GXP cranksets!! DUB doesn't fit those.
  • + 5
 @Fix-the-Spade: BB92 being a Shimano design was only intended to use 24mm spindle, Not sure who the genius was that thought putting 30mm into it was.
  • + 1
 @Gregorysmithj1: There are more factors at play. The larger axle allows for a stiffer interface at the crank arm to axle, it’s the whole system that is stiffer, the axle alone 24 or 30 are both stiff. As well a larger axle gets it strength from its diameter rather then the material its made from, so this allows them to use aluminum rather then steel to make a lighter product with the same or more stiffness. You’ve never seen Shimano do an aluminum 24mm axle have we. As a system Dub is now the lightest strongest and simplest system out there with less parts overall for shops to carry.
  • + 2
 @Demoguy: But then the PF92 and BSA (threaded) BB’s would suck and those are the two most used BB standards...
  • + 1
 @Racer951: Once demand for 24mm and 30mm has dwindled to a crawl, it'll maintain the types of BB's stocked, but reduce the crankarms stocked by 50%.
  • + 7
 @Racer951: don't worry bike shops are just as pissed off at this as the customer, bike shop cant afford to keep all the bb they need. buy shimano dont listen to the bullshit of 30mm and 29.99 and all this shit, 24mm is fine and stiff enough and dont buy a bike with a press fit bb.
  • + 1
 @doe222: No change to boost. It's still supported by a chainring change.
  • + 6
 @Gregorysmithj1: "I bet I could make a stiffer or just as stiff BB/spindle with 14mm..."

I bet you could, and it'd be a boat anchor.
  • + 1
 @Fix-the-Spade: Sooo many BB92 bikes come spec'd with Cinch!! So the product managers are telling us that BB92 and 30mm spindles is the best combo? There's more BB92 carbon frames than any other single bb std in 2017 trail and AM bikes...so what's that say about 30mm mtb cranks+bb...all a terrible idea due to the concession on bearing life. Damn, someone better tell RaceFace time's up for 30mm..
  • + 1
 @Thustlewhumber: I hate them things
  • + 2
 @biker-green: somebody gets it.
  • + 1
 @Thustlewhumber: Check out the vital release. They are all metal cups.
  • + 2
 I had shimano Home cranks a few years back with an aluminium 24mm spindle. It was a very thick pipe, about 5mm thick.
  • + 3
 @Fix-the-Spade: I don't think I have ever come across a Pivot owner complaining about PF92 using a 30mm spindle. Surely this is an execution issue not a fundamental design flaw?
  • + 2
 @meafroninja: what idiot would negative prop you? Because you have a point?!
  • + 73
 SRAM Engineer: wow, look at those Race Face cranks, that's a pretty cool design

Marketing: Just make sure they aren't cross compatible, we don't want people using the Cinch 30 BB for ours

SRAM Engineer: I got you, 28.99 it is.

Marketing: We'll just tell the public that it's because of engirneering improvements, afterall, SRAM | Incremental enhancements. Perpetual improvements ...
  • + 3
 Pretty F#cking much eh!?
  • + 1
 Yeah and lets make it work with all the bb shell standards, so we can put a smaller bearing with smaller balls in BB92 and say that it is more durable Smile
  • + 2
 Look that both Cinch and DUB BB's there almost identical. I think Sram was missing out on the action with Cinch shitting all over them on the cross compatibility of different frames etc that you can have with Cinch.
  • + 72
 PInkBike Comment: My press fit BB and 30mm spindle combo are garbage, I'm having to replace a bottom bracket 3 times a season. Why won't someone make a better bottom bracket?

SRAM: We downsized the 30mm spindle to make a more durable bottom bracket in your press fit frame

Aslo a PinkBike Comment: Why didn't SRAM use a 30mm Spindle so I could re-use the 3 clapped-out bottom brackets I already own?!?
  • + 9
 PInkBike Comment: My press fit BB and 30mm spindle combo are garbage, I'm having to replace a bottom bracket 3 times a season. Why won't someone make a better bottom bracket? "

Someone already does. This is SRAM solving SRAM´s problems, not the industries. Nice that you applaud the multinational global efforts they are making to increase their bank balance though. Sure they appreciate it
  • + 6
 @Bustacrimes: SRAM doesn't make 30mm (MTB) spindles that fit BB86. That would be RaceFace, FSA, ethirteen.
  • + 3
 My old Octalink BB on my 2013 Scale is still rocking smooth after 7000 miles. Local trail has a creek crossing as well that I hit many o times.
  • + 14
 @Skidsy It's almost as if we aren't all one person but rather distinct individuals with differing opinions. Weird.
  • + 4
 so basically they compromised on everything to give you you the compromised product you've been looking for
  • + 2
 @mattradical: I wouldn't consider a simplified solution with the lightest front drivetrain available much of a compromise...
  • + 3
 Why did SRAM have to invent a whole new standard when specifying better quality bearings and upping the price of a BB by $5 would have had more effect?
  • + 4
 @mobaar: Skidsy is buying the SRAM reasoning behind their unique axle size and the reasons for not going to 30mm. Of course SRAM would say that??? I am just saying that there are systems that work well with PF frames and 30mm axle. I use Praxis for example. This is a marketing piece that seeks to form opinion on a new "standard". I was just suggesting that if you look past SRAM´s marketing $$$s you will find equally as good cranks, with better BB options for integration into many different frames. i feel sorry for people who cant form an opinion and can only regurgitate those of a marketing department.
  • + 2
 @Bustacrimes: I was merely making fun of the ire in the comments that riders now need to buy a new semi-consumable part (BB) with these cranks. There will be 3rd party options soon enough.

Funny you bring up Praxis, their products are great, but their 30/28mm M30 stepped axle is just as unique as this one, without the likelihood of as much 3rd party support.

Pinkbike commenters just savage any company whose revenue eclipses a threshold, even though the folks working at them are just as committed as the smaller brands.
  • + 3
 @Skidsy: I agree with you. They're people too, and that also have kids to feed and mortgages to pay.

The article mentions how this change will hurt smaller players like race face. I don't see how. Did they get hurt when it changed from Isis to whatever the name of 24mm is? Did they get hurt when 30mm came out? They will make compatible stuff, and sell it to make money, just as they always have. Personally I don't think this bb thing warrants an article at all, much less two.
  • + 56
 So now bricks and mortar shops have a 3rd size they need to carry plus 4 new bottom brackets in order to make it work. Thanks @SramMedia. Is this April 1st - WTF?

So the spindle size has shrunk by 1.01mm so the bearing has 0.55mm (just over half a mm) more space. So you can increase the radius of the bearing ball by 0.275mm (a little over quarter of a mm). And this results in gains in durability? Really? HOW MUCH!?
  • + 9
 Lol, it's not like there being four different BBs is SRAM's fault. Off the top of my head I can think of BSA, PF30, BB30 and BB90. Those are the four most common ones, but there are lots of other BB "standards" out there.
  • + 7
 @mnorris122: Square Taper in 5 different lengths at least; ISIS; BBright; BB92; Italian threaded; GXP; Octalink; not to mention BMX BBs. We don't have all of these in stock all the time though, that's the distributors job.
  • + 5
 @padkinson: don't forget shimano vs campy square taper. power spline, etc
  • + 2
 @mnorris122: There is already 30mm. You really think they needed to make 28.99mm?
  • + 1
 @padkinson: I'm talking about BB shell standards, more to the point.
  • + 0
 @jclnv: No. They're a*sholes, but different BB shell standards isn't their fault.
  • + 2
 Check your math, it's even less
  • + 54
 Want to simplify things? How about if Sram and Shimano used the same spindle size? If I had a penny for every time I heard someone complain about the Shimano spindle size, I'd have exactly zero pennies. Want to make consumers happy? For once, just make a change that is in the consumers best interest and not your bullshit marketing divisions best interest.
  • + 1
 Spot on, buuuuut, ain't going to happen.
  • + 6
 My xtr 24mm crank is just like a noddle flexing and smashing my feet into my frame, im looking for a 47.843 bb spindle...
  • + 42
 A move to 30mm spindle would be stupid enough, but this is retarded. Larger axle makes bearing balls smaller thus less reliable. Riders like Danny Macaskill use 24mm axles to huck to flat from 10+ feet and bike companies say they need 30mm spindles to increase stiffness. My arse. Hey Sram how about you use alloy for your cranks? that would make them more durable, unlike your carbon junk with pedal inserts getting loose.
  • + 14
 I supposed 30mm was rather to make it lighter than stronger? 30mm alu is as strong but lighter than 24mm steel?
Same as with frame tubing.

And also like with frame tubing, the smaller diameter steel one is more flexible, something Danny may want when hucking to flat on his rigid bike.

Assumptions though, if someone can confirm...
  • + 20
 Biggest BMX spindle is 24mm most run 22mm or even 19mm, and they do the biggest huck to flats in the bike industry, without suspension or big wheels.
  • + 9
 @PaulLehr: bmx spindles are steel and heavier,
  • + 11
 the larger diameter is for weight savings, not stiffness. If we were worried only about stiffness we woudl have solid steel axles.

Besides the questionable facial hair, this is a great idea. They rightly saw that 30mm was too large and had bearings too small for the benefit, so they probably just went with the next largest size standard bearing, and that worked out to a 28.99mm spindle. I'm really behind this new design since (eventually) it will lead to a standards reduction; it won't matter what your frame is when buying used cranks anymore, just get a new BB (something you don't want to buy used anyways).
  • - 5
flag WAKIdesigns (Jan 16, 2018 at 7:30) (Below Threshold)
 @Uuno - how does it become lighter when all the weight saving from the axle goes to the bigger outboard bearing and if we are talking pressfit then reliablity goes down significantly since bearing balls size gets smaller by a lot. And there is no other place in the bike where weight saving could be less important. 30mm is a standard bullsht of weight to stiffness ratio as a selling point.
  • + 4
 @WAKIdesigns: going from a 30mm spindle to a 29mm spindle allows for bigger ball bearings assuming the BB shell stays the same size.
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: i´ve seen smaller bearings inside a SRAM 24mm than an Enduro bearing 30mm BB. Are we all assuming that BB bearings must be internal, or did i miss something?
  • + 3
 @Bustacrimes: You are missing the fact that some B.B. don’t work well with 30mm. My guess they wanted single largest diameter (for aluminum spindle and carbon bonded to it) that works with everything. 30mm was always an iffy size for that reason. Originated on road bikes.

For steel axles and aluminum cranks 24mm has it covered. Good riddance GXP, was always retarded just as well.
  • + 3
 @PaulLehr: And a BMX crankset weighs between 800 and 1200 g without sprocket opposed to the 400 of a Next SL. So I could run 3 cranksets...
  • + 3
 Waki, they already had a 30mm spindle before. Basically all of their cranks were available in two versions: GXP (24mm steel axle with the 22mm step down on non drive side - a SRAM only "standard" ) and BB30 (30mm aluminum alloy axle spindle).

The "problem" was the BB30 crank sets could be used with 3rd party BB's since it was a standardized size.... For frames with large diameter BB shell's such as PF30 (46mm inside shell diameter) I actually preferred the BB30 axle version with a nice durable BB such as hope "PF46". Not an option anymore with these DUB's.
  • + 3
 @Axxe: Thanks Axxe. I been using a Praxis crank and BB on a BB30 frame and all this noise about issues had passed me by. Smile
  • + 3
 @adrennan: and going to a 28.99mm spindle allows for even bigger balls!
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: "bearing balls" - like Danny boy at Champéry '11.
I'm pretending this 28.99 thing isn't happening, but I fear it's going to become a PB meme.
  • + 3
 @TucsonDon: maybe it could be the DH standard, for danny hart sized balls
  • + 1
 @PaulLehr: Actually, there are 30mm cromo spindles.
  • + 2
 @Uuno: Danny weighs nothing and is smooth. My friend who weighs 66Kg killed a Profile SS crankset in a month. Also, watch Sean Burns for lack of smoothness. He's got plenty of videos showing crank abuse.
  • + 3
 Waki is 100% right. What are those weight savings between 24 and 30mm axle you are all talking about - 50g? Sorry, but this is f*king insane.
  • + 2
 @DarrellW: your buddy killed a profile crank set? damn
  • + 3
 And here I am running Zee cranks
  • + 0
 @lkubica: you added a 0 too much
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I prefer larger balls... as long, as they are not larger than mine.
  • + 10
 To put it simple: someone at Shimano thought: a 24mm spindle will work. Shimano makes plenty of Hollowtech2 cranksets with such spindle bringing the tech to the masses, phasing out nearly all other axle standards. Most companies follow suit. @mikelevy cries about how freely his ISIS cranks were spinning. Many years later there are pretty much no twisted/ cracked 24mm spindles to complain about. Crank arms fail before the spindles do. Meanwhile mountain bikes get 30mm spindles and carbon crank arms from road bike side of tech. Still no twisted 24mm axles to be seen, yet pedal inserts are falling out while crank shoe business and pressfit bearing business is booming. 24mm axles work for outboard bearings as well as for pressfits. BMXers and trials riders are looking at it with disbelief. End of story.
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: Except SRAM in their infinite wisdom though why just have a thing that works. Lets add GXP nonsense, just so our customers can not spec reliable Shimano BBs and deprive us for an extra few bucks of profit.

Could not they at least use Campy's 25mm?

But 30mm had to go. It was a wrong choice by Cannondale (? Earliest I remember at the moment.)
  • + 1
 @Axxe: Even so, 24mm GXP spindle worked well with inboard and outboard bearings. Sram also introduced their detachable spider which Shimano should adapt too, instead of making XTR chainring being a composite of god knows how many carbons and malynynum alloys that most of reasonable people remove from the crankset before installing it... Sram gave us all narrow wide chainrings and huge cassettes, for that I can suck a ball or two at this company. After 2012 they may burn in hell.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: GXP worked well enough. Except for their relatively retarded attachment and preload. And no need for a different "standard" whatsoever. Though at that moment octalink and ISIS were still a thing... Which you can still buy on the cheap, so all this planned obsolesce fears are bullchit.
  • + 2
 @Axxe: Why are people shitting on GXP it's simple and time proven. One bearing holds left to right movement of the spindle other just support right side of it, simple and doesent have any preload whatsoever, just tighten and go ride. Also you can take seals off and put some grease in the bearing quite quickly, with Shimano bb's there is only a nice writing on it ''Do not disassemble'' and that's all (yes I know you can take Shimano bb's bearings seals off but its kinda pain in the ass).
  • + 1
 @Bustacrimes: Definitely! My Praxis carbon crank and bb are perfectly quiet, stiff, strong and reliable.
  • + 3
 @hamncheez: I buy all my BBs used on the Buy and Sell.

Seriously though, everyone forgets when BBs were 10 different widths for chainline compatibility with different square-taper offsets and 68/73mm bb dimensions. Or when aftermarket chainrings always sucked and requires washers. Or when ISIS and its variants came along. Or early Merlins and Fishers with press-in bearings and custom axles. I'll stop here. None of this whining about "standards" is remotely new.

I hate to admit it, but this is a step in the right (albeit proprietary) direction.
  • + 1
 @adrennan: Although it is possible, the abuse would be pretty high to do such.
Its funny though, Profiles have barely changed what they have done for all the years (over 30 now) and it still works.

A Mate built up a 19mm bossless set for his daughter with a ti spindle. With the Euro BB (BMX Race Bike) and chainring it came in at something like 50grams heavier then some of the lighter choices. Basically a bombproof set up that will outlast the alloy cranks.
  • + 3
 @PinkyScar: what are you on about? Yes there was a mess with 6 axle/ hub shell widths per each axle standard, which Shimano resolved in 2003 by introducing XTR Hollowtech 2, at the same making crank installation super simple and fixing square taper creaking along with midride Isis bearing fails. That was the right direction, what we have now is back in the mess and this is contributing to even more mess. Shimano produces the best cranksets out there, they even made XTR great again, since this stupid bearing preload ring is gone ( that Sram happily adopted). SLX is possibly the best mountain bike crankset ever made considering price, durability, quality and weight. If it only had a direct mount chainring/ spider and replacable pedal insert like Saint it would be the best crankset ever made on planet Earth. So having said that The alloy Sram X1 was the second best crankset ever made. The rest is a bunch of wannabies, with Race Face leading the half retarded club.
  • + 2
 @Drawn: I don’t think alloy is to blame, after all Shimano did aplly BMX system to MTB without unnecessary bollocks, only forgetting getting rid of the fixed spider off course which is unfortunate. MTB cranks don’t get as grinded as BMX ones. Alloy is fine. I just don’t get why have we adopted the roadie tech into mtb with 30mm axles and pressgits. Road biking hasn’t done anything worth adopting. They are virtually out door trainer machines - good luck with that. Gravel is the first time they got the finger out of their bum and admittedly said, “how about we just relax”
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: The Shimano 24mm hollow tech spindle is not one diameter all the way through, but actually designed to have the bearing load in one place. It worked brilliantly up to the advent of BB30/PF30. When it first appeared on BB30 frames many companies internalised bearings and got issues with burn out due to loading the crank in the wrong place. Using a Praxis convertor with external bearings (where the crank was designed to be loaded) solved all the problems for me. The only reason people agree with and believe this marketing tall tail about bearings issues with PF frames and 30mm is because they are ignorant to the solutions already existing. Thats not an excuse for SRAM to tell lies, but it does show them theres a massive ignorant market waiting to be SOLD stuff, and will believe almost anything if served with the right amount of kool aid. One standard would be nice, but when the big boys see it affects there strangle hold on the market that forget about ethics and pray on the ignorant and uninformed. Typical in other industries, and becoming increasingly the norm in MTB and cycling in gerneral. Have a good day dude Smile
  • - 2
 @Bustacrimes: "24"mm spindle not being 24... how relevant is that? Sram here went down a full milimeter. A full milimeter to increase bearing life, come on... that's like using boost to shorten the chainstay length. Lots of frames like mine use BB92 and your conversion kit is worthless. While in most cases (like Trek) incorporating BB92 makes no fkng sense what so ever, in my Antidote it is an effect of a particular suspension design, so it was well motivated to use such thing. Anyhoo, nobody ever needed 30mm +/-0.2mm. 24 works for everything.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I was agreeing that issues with Shimano were design flaws from the frame engineering departments, not an issue with the product.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: and correct, my solution is not good for BB92 frames. You're on your own there Wink
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Yeah I should have more said about them being for BMX racing.
The whole BMX scene seems to be about how to make it simple and durable, which can be had at the expense of only minimal weight.

Still, if you want stiffness in a spindle, why not go Chromo, sacrifice a few grams (or would it be the same because you could go smaller, such as 24mm, although in my column cranks the 22mm is stupidly strong) and be able to have larger bearings. maybe even coax them back to threaded BB's and have multiple rows or bearings for load spread.
  • + 1
 @adrennan: No, Profile SS - that's the superior strength model! And he weighs nothing.
  • + 37
 SRAM. The Trump of MTB Standards.
  • + 53
 Ease up there Switzerland. We get first dibs at making fun of our president.
  • + 19
 @raditude: in this case,first Dubs.
  • + 10
 @scary1: Trump has been golfing more times a week thank i've gone riding! I need an easier job, like being the leader of the free world!

trumpgolfcount.com

#SUPERNEWS
  • + 3
 @raditude: be my guest...
  • + 2
 @Mojo348: What a nightmare.
  • + 29
 I really wanted 29.11mm spindle
  • + 15
 just wait for the boost option next year
  • + 2
 @adrennan: and the superboost 29.99mm the year after
  • + 17
 did everyone complaining about 24mm spindles forget that GXP isn't 24mm anyway? GXP requires its own BB.

Even "24mm" spindles from various brands aren't always compatible. IIRC, Shimano actually measures more like 23.95, where FSA is a true 24. Sounds inconsequential, but I had a 24mm FSA crank that would absolutely not work with an aftermarket "24mm" BB. A Shimano crank worked fine.

Since this doesn't impact frame compatibility at all, no reason for the uproar other than "OMG SIZE WTF GRRR!"
  • + 15
 From NSMB: " As for durability data from the BB side of things. the spindle diameter was just a result of us reducing the size enough to get the sealing we wanted. Sure 1mm might not sound like a lot, but in seal design language 1mm is a big deal. Same way people at first thought +3mm of clearance with Boost148 frames couldn’t make that big a difference. Turns out for a frame designer, 3mm is HUGE and you have seen the awesome new bikes they have come up with since the introduction of that platform. So there will certainly be skeptics like there are with all designs, but the proof is in the results. In all of our lab testing, when compared to the same conditions as our other BBs, the DUB bottom brackets have outperformed our previously most durable bottom bracket (GXP threaded). And the DUB BBs do so in every configuration we offer, not just the one that is compatible with Threaded BSA frame shell standards." - SRAM

I still call bullshit.
  • - 1
 "our previously most durable bottom bracket (GXP threaded)."
Nice to hear what they think of Pressfit.

In every other way: Yes, bullshit!

I am glad the old 29,01mm did not make it and 28,99mm ist the way to go!
  • + 7
 How often do I really change my BB, though? Anyway a typical BB is what, like $30? How many old-style bottom brackets do I have to change before it becomes worth the extra price to buy the new system (in other words to replace my cranks)? My feeling is that it would take a decade before that price advantage would show up.
  • + 7
 So, threaded GXP was the best and we didn't revert to that because why?

Never had a problem with easy to replace $25 Sram GXP BBs, and if you did, they were super easy to swap out and there were a half dozen blinged out upgrades available.
  • + 2
 If you would like to post your seal design credentials I would love to hear your complaints against the decision. Otherwise the only downsides I see are shops having to stock new a new BB size. For the consumer it seems like added BB life would outweigh the small downside of having a third option when buying a BB. And really SRAM already had GXP which I would expect to disappear so...
  • + 2
 A seal is already only 2-3mm tall anyways, so a 1mm increase is like a 50% increase in seal size (oversimplified, I know, but its to illustrate a point). From an engineering perspective, this can make sense.

I agree tho and will call BS on the BOOST garbage. In 2013 (FIVE YEARS AGO!) Specialized released a 29er with short 430mm chainstays, 2x compatible frame without BOOST. 148 just allows designers to be lazy, and for 275+ bikes (which proved to be a dud). BOOST 110 on the front was an absolute scam from day one.
  • + 3
 @hamncheez: It is a tire width thing primarily. That 3mm is critical for getting proper clearance with tires 2.5" and above. Its a perfect storm of larger front chain rings (from large range 1x), a preference for larger rubber (2.5-2.6" even in 29) and properly aggressive large tires like 29x2.5" minions.
  • + 1
 Yeah, I just started to like Sram parts. Especially GXP cranks.
  • + 13
 What a crock of Bull crap this is! The weight savings has nothing to do with the 1.01mm bearing size reduction... This folks is a new standard for the sake of a new standard... Its official I will no longer be buying any Sram components. Considering I was considering an Etap upgrade on my gravel bike complete with a power meter and a new drive train for my mountain bike this represents allot of my money that wont be spent with this company any more.. Their Japanese competition might be a bit slower to release products but at least you know that in a few years you will still be able to get service parts. I know a number of other local riders who are feeling this way as well.
  • + 1
 what you said...
  • + 2
 Sram bites, sucks I have to choose between selling good product (Shimano) and selling product with good margins. I can't support sram's product line the fact they did not recall their guide brakes last year is what did in for me. That was a legit safety issue its a shame they don't value riders safety over profit.
  • + 16
 who need durability when the standard change every 2 years???!!!
  • + 16
 A new standard to help simplify the lineup. Brilliant.
  • - 3
 ...Yes.

By changing two options into one, that is, by definition, a simplification.

I'm not sure how there are this many people who don't see 2 > 1 being simpler.
  • + 6
 @togood2die: but why not use 30mm?
  • + 4
 @Racer951:
As an engineer? Heck if I know! I don't like that .99 dangler either, but my point wasn't arguing their numbers choices, it was pointing out the rampant hypocrisy in everyone's pissy comments.
  • + 3
 @togood2die: No, now you have 3 options because 24 and 30 will be around for many more years unless you expect everyone to change their cranks and BBs overnight.
  • + 10
 @togood2die: Yes, 2 -> 1 is simpler. But this isn't 2 -> 1, it's 2 -> 3. Before we had 24mm and 30mm, now we have 24mm, 28.99mm, and 30mm.

They could have just gone 30mm, and actually simplified things. But they didn't, which proves that this is nothing more than forced obsolescence.
  • + 9
 @TheRaven:
...And since we keep BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS, who's winning that war?

A decade ago: "26-4-LYFE I'll never change wheel sizes!!!"

Crickets now, boys.
  • + 2
 @togood2die: Our choices are to buy or give up the sport. They know this. It wasn't until the direct-ship bikes came along that the industry started listening on price, and now they are reacting. We would need something like that to happen with standards too. Some big enough companies need to decide to tell the standards trends to F-off and continue just building top-notch bikes. That's a bit tougher though than just changing prices. Pivot's "super-boost-plus" idea is a glimpse of that path though. It's a "new standard" that's friendly.
  • + 16
 @togood2die: your math is off, it's 3 vs 2, not 1 vs 2

as usual, there is an xkcd for this

xkcd.com/927
  • + 6
 @xeren: +1 for the xkcd reference.
  • - 1
 They could of just dumped gxp and went to 30mm across the board, that would of be a simplification this is total BS.
  • + 4
 @xeren: +1 was about to post the xkcd link too.

And that's the great thing about standards: there are so many to choose from!
  • + 14
 www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj0uBQ7j5c4

and then we made the spindles 29.99mm hahahhahaha
  • + 1
 That is gold!
  • + 10
 Keep it 24 Shimano and you'll have my business for decades to come....... 28.99 LMAO
  • + 10
 This not a f*cking joke? Wow. SRAM you are crazy with your proprietary shit and new "standards"
  • + 7
 Ever wonder why Shimano don't roll out products as often as SRAM? Shimano addresses durability issues before they roll out products to consumers. SRAM rolls out products faster than a new bike standard can keep up and only addresses durability issues after the fact! That's how the industry rolls....create an issue that doesn't exist and later sell a solution!
  • + 4
 Except shimano has recently given up on doing quality control.
  • + 2
 Agreed. Up to a point (exploding freehubs and migrating engagement points of their brakes come to mind).
  • + 10
 "We simplified things by adding another standard." Truly groundbreaking.
  • - 1
 Sram HQ
"how do we sell our new standard cranks?"
"lets not call it a standard say the opposite of what it is"
"Yeah that seems to work for Trump!"
  • + 6
 I am a total SRAM fanboy, but can we please please please let them stay off on their own little world with this crap? If I don't want to try to shove a 30mm spindle into a BB shell designed around a 24mm spindle, i'll use GXP. Why? Because i'm not a god damn pro racer, i'm not flexing a GXP spindle.
  • + 9
 Thanks but I think I'll just stick to my Shimano cranks, at least with them there is no bullshit!
  • + 14
 That and I can get an SLX crankset for $70 (it weighs the same as XT) and it is literally within 70 grams weight of their carbon offerings. You then have about $200-300 extra to save 70 grams if that floats your boat.

And when you rock strike for the 100th time you'll be fine since it is f*cking metal.

Also, shimano crankset mounting is 100x better than everyone else. I've never seen someone f*ck-up a shimano, I've seen literally dozens of loose SRAM/Race Face setups.

But whatever, a bunch of you jack-holes will buy these f*cking pieces of garbage and yet another standard makes it main-stream.
  • + 1
 @y0bailey: It's simple to f*ck-up shimano bb, a lot of people over tighten them so bearings wear out too quickly. And also I get a bunch of left side bearings that died cause water and right side ones are good and feel like new...
  • + 3
 @y0bailey: if i save an extra 200-300 dollars i am gaining beer weight not saving 70 grams
  • + 2
 @y0bailey: I've f*cked up installing Shimano cranks out of pure stupidity. Twice.
But both times I've been able to just pound them off with a hammer and hammer them back on with zero problems afterwards.
Knowing myself if I bought one of those $600 cranksets is I'd probably break it taking out of the box.
  • + 2
 @acali: how do you f*ck up installing shimano cranks... how are you screwing it up to the point that a hammer is involved. what am i missing
  • + 1
 @adrennan: Easy.
Rebuild about 10 things on your bike. Loosely tighten your crankset and pivot points.
Go out to garage and grab the torque wrench.
Tighten all pivots precisely to manufacturer's specifications.
Forget to tighten the crankset.
Have an awesome ride and then when you are headed back to the car, wham!
Hmm, why is my bike pedalling weird? Oh the arms aren't parallel anymore.
Grab hammer, pound off. Reinstall.
  • + 0
 @b-wicked: but then, since the shimano 24mm BSA is actually a "STANDARD", its £8, for a new BB set, so who even cares!
Shimano have employed an economy of scale. The BBs are cheap and reliable.
What SRAM has done is introduce a VARIENT, not a STANDARD. Proliferantion is a cancer to productive industry
  • + 6
 I was going to but a new group set for a new frame I picked up recently. I've now ruled out SRAM and their absurd "standards". Complete disregard for riders. Seriously, 1mm diameter to go to an existing BB is negligible weight and performance, that certainly outweighs the negative blow back on this. Give your f*cking head a shake.
  • + 5
 So right now product managers, designers, engineers, and even accountants at mountain bike manufacturers are all in agreement: this is a great development. Picking a crankset for a production bike just got a lot less tedious, as did making sure you got the right bottom bracket and that the whole thing actually works properly with a given drivetrain. In fact, bike companies like it so much that SRAM is making a running change on all mountain bike cranks to immediately move to this 28.99 mm spindle. And each individual crankset and BB is a little bit less expensive because development and tooling costs can be spread out over a greater number of cranks. Oh, and your inventory and control costs got a lot lower based simply on the fact that the # of SKUs has been cut by what, 2/3s? Let's call all of this winning, just for fun.

For shops, there's literally zero problems. The usual smorgasbord of SRAM BBs will still be available, only now any bike that comes in with a "DUB" crank in need of new BB is made about 17 times easier to deal with. Bike with a DUB crank needs a new BB? It's literally one of four, only. Realistically probably only one of two BBs for most shops. Which means it'll be a lot easier to stock SRAM BBs, making easier and faster for you to go to your local shop to have yours replaced. As Charlie Sheen once said, now we're bi-winning.

Other benefits? An XO1 crank is now lighter than a Race Face NextR crank. And it's less expensive. And it's easier to deal with and there's no need to mess around with a removable spindle. An XX1 crank w/chainring is now roughly 100g lighter than an XTR 1X Boost crank before you bolt a chainring onto it. Is the 28.99mm spindle any stiffer? Doesn't matter. It's lighter, at least as stiff, durable, and plays nice with pretty much every bottom bracket shell standard that actually matters and is in common use. So now we're actually tri-winning, maybe?

The only stupid thing is SRAM deciding to make a bigger deal of this than necessary. Fact: this isn't a big deal to bike buyers and riders. The annoying video and press releases that make it seem like this is the best thing to ever happen to bike components are silly. You found a way to drastically reduce your SKUs and make life a bit easier for product people everywhere, you haven't cured cancer. Get over it.
  • + 1
 @somebikeguy:

"So right now product managers, designers, engineers, and even accountants at mountain bike manufacturers are all in agreement: this is a great development. Picking a crankset for a production bike just got a lot less tedious, as did making sure you got the right bottom bracket and that the whole thing actually works properly with a given drivetrain"

yeah, its called Shimano HT2 24mm :-D :-D
  • + 1
 @robhill: good luck buying a Shimano (branded) BB for PF30 or BB30 frames.
  • + 1
 @mobaar: Having just bought a new bike, it has an adapter to take a 24mm shimano BB and is fitted with shimano cranks. So why would I care?
All my bikes of varying ages all have shimano cranks, or shimano compatible cranks. I simply wouldnt introduce any press fit or SRAM nonsense without fully understanding how to build it with Shimano cranks!
  • + 1
 @mobaar: Plenty of options out there from Praxis, Hope and a whole load of others that will work fine with Shimano and other 24mm spindle cranks.
Shimano have always had BSA BB as the default fitting and never felt the need for oversize alloy spindles when they can make a full alloy crank with a steel spindle weigh less and be more reliable.
  • + 1
 @peteg55: less weight? M9000 crankset is 200g more than this XX1 crank. That's almost 50% heavier.
  • + 5
 If you don’t like it, vote with your wallet:

SRAM offers a 2 year warranty on their bottom brackets.

Chris King offers a 5 year warranty on their bottom brackets.

My bike has SRAM, Shimano, Raceface and Chris King components.
  • + 5
 I wonder if they licensed Race Face for this design, since it uses a nearly identical threaded pre-load ring and spline interface (and works pretty dang well, in my experience)
  • + 3
 Not sure about licensing, but the pre-load ring design has been around for a while, Rotor was using it before Race Face started using it.
  • + 1
 They have the same preload ring on bb30 cranks for a while ...
  • + 4
 OMG - JUST WHAT WE NEED ANOTHER STANDARD. PLEASE SOMEONE MAKE A SHIM SO THEY FIT A 30 mm BB - more business for problem solvers or wolf tooth. SRAM has come up with a solution for a problem that to me is not that big of a problem - let's throw out our 400 buck 30 mm or 24 mm spindle cranks -so we can less frequently replace our 30 to 50 dollars bottom brackets? I cannot speak to wetter climates but my XTR BB gets replaced once a year - at a cost of 40 bucks. NO REASON TO RETOOL!
  • + 8
 Ooh boy, another standard Smile What a time to be alive!
  • + 4
 Awesome! Now I have a real world example to point to when explaining the concept of fractional gains...or in this case, loses. Good grief!!!

Glad I’m almost finished converting to Shimsno and seriously thinking about Box, MRP, TRP, etc. and any other US based MFG who values their customer instead of emptying their pocket books and extracting their passion for the sport.
  • + 0
 Dont forget Praxis Smile
  • + 1
 ...all those companies you listed manufacture overseas.

Furthermore, your argument is that those companies value their customers by not doing as SRAM has (innovate better products), a point which I think all of those companies would argue against. Every company has to change standards to make better products. Even Shimano.
  • + 4
 I stuck with my 10 speed set up until I switched to Eagle late last year. This meant switching from my Shimano 24mm spindle to the Sram 30... Gear range aside, I saw no difference in stiffness. Literally None! On a side note... there are so many spare parts in my garage! All well worn but excellent for emergency fixes to keep me on my bike. I would take backwards compatibility any day over whatever minuscule bit of performance they've gained.
  • + 7
 Now I see why YT are turning away from SRAM.
  • + 4
 Well SRAM finally managed to make a carbon crankset lighter than Shimano's alloy cranksets. The real question is - have they fixed the problems that made their cranksets maddening? That would be a real innovation.
  • + 4
 SRAM meeting: “Shimano is killing us with these cranksets that cost half as much, weigh less, last longer and their $25.00 bottom brackets. What should we do? A new bottom bracket standard, that will fix it.”
  • + 2
 That about covers it.
  • + 6
 f*ck. I just bought an eagle groupset like literally a week ago now u hit me with this bullshit?
  • + 2
 Yeah man, I agree... they just released the GX Eagle in June... think they would have announced this awesome new standard with the release of the original Eagle groupset. They f*ed all of you, but man what do you expect from an industry that has changed wheel size standards twice in 5 years and made half to all framesets 2 or more years old completely obsolete with introducing boost spacing?

What do you expect from a company who charges $1500 for a drivetrain? For them to have your financial interests in mind? I get it, each new model that comes out, I itch to have it whether a frame set or component, but what stops me for the most part is stuff like this...
  • + 4
 Your GXP Eagle will work exactly the same for the next twenty years. You can still easily buy ISIS or square spindle BBs.
  • + 4
 It’s seems more clear than ever that SRAM is the man. Corporate money making machine that gives two shits about the sport that has roots in garage tinkerers, and simple solutions to just get out and have fun. If you are sick of this industry shit, hit em where they hurt, not the PB comments. #BoycottSram
  • + 1
 Throw your cranks in the garbage and just buy the upgraded 28.99 version. Your friends might point and laugh.
  • + 5
 Currently building up a hardtail, was debating between GX Eagle and XT. Thanks for making my decision to go with Shimano that much easier!
  • - 1
 Dude, XT is the work horse made for the masses. Its the beige corolla of groupo's
  • + 2
 @BoneDog: i would say XT is the Acura TL or MDX of groupo's. Straight Deore would be the Corolla. SLX an accord or nice civic.
  • + 5
 Congrats to those, who just bought a multitool, that fits into their spindle!
  • + 3
 Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is a fuck head. This is clearly obvious way to break free from the 30mm standard for all you suckers out there. Sram doing what it does best.
  • + 2
 It's a good idea for Sram, getting rid of BB30 which doesn't fit in all frames and getting rid of gxp so they only have to make 1 size of crank. They are really only solving their own problems though, everyone else already had this figured out.
  • + 2
 Anybody who thinks that 30mm standard was a good idea for MTB is a f*ckhead. No reliable cheap well sealed BBs for many frame options. Leave it for roadies.
And GXP was a stupid "standard".

Lets keep it 24mm Shimano for steel and titanium spindles, and 29mm for aluminum ones.
  • + 2
 What a bunch of whiners!

Is this a new "standard"? I would argue that it's not. It's a new, incremental development that allows bicycle and component manufacturers to simplify their design, procurement, and manufacturing processes. Manufacturing isn't cheap and any opportunity to simplify how something is made by making common parts and processes is big money for a company.

Does it impact you as a consumer? Well, you can still purchase 24 mm or 30 mm BB's from SRAM for another 3 years or any other number of aftermarket manufacturers beyond that. You'll be able to run whatever BB and crank set you want for the foreseeable future. So no, it probably doesn't impact you as much as you think.

Not only that, but going forward, they will have just one "standard" so now you don't have to worry about multiple sizes and making sure you have the correct BB or spindle size. That's a win.

As far as the 28.99 thing, what does it matter that the spindle isn't a nominal size of 29.00? I guarantee that many of the nominally sized components on any bike aren't exactly that nominal dimension. From an engineering perspective we have to add clearance and tolerance to parts all the time to make things fit. It's a bit weird that something like that has ended up in sales literature, but to you as a consumer and user it doesn't actually matter.
  • + 1
 I think someone made a typo and it was too late to correct, the machine tools were already built... No way this was a deliberate decision. Unless it's just SRAM trolling the industry for a giggle.
  • + 1
 @BenPea: It's probaly not an error. It may have something to do with bearing accessibility.
  • + 2
 Simplifying would be to force bike manufacturers to use threaded gxp and only use one bb standard (gxp or shimano bb with 24mm axle not 24/22).
That way you could use existing cranks with only one BB and when changing cranks you would not have to think about which bb to get.

But of course that means they wouldn't sell as many crank or bbs and that there would be less junk in the world.

There should be a law that forced all brands to pay millions of eco tax when changing standards after less than 10 or 20 years.
  • + 2
 !Srams next innovation! A 191.5 mm disc break rotor, with the stoping power of a 203mm rotor mixed with the modulation of a 180mm rotor put on a 7 bolt rotor to reduce rotor flex at a budget friendly price of only 2 kidneys (all other brake sets not compatible)
  • + 7
 Shimano. Simple.
  • + 2
 Yeap!
  • + 6
 ill just continue to purchase shimano, but thanks anyway.
  • + 2
 The timing or this change is really strange. It's not a typical Sea Otter timed release...and it certainly doesn't coincide with a model year change. Will it be a running change on 2018 bike specs? In which case, 2017 bikes would already be using "1 year old" parts, hurting the ability to sell them before the upcoming model year.

I wonder if a major manufacturer is about to have a mid-year release of a new model.

I actually like the change, as long as it gets away from the marginal durability and longevity bottom brackets that accommodate a 30mm spindle in a standard BB shell.
  • + 2
 And this is why I got out of writing articles for another website.. I too call bullshit on this. Not only will that 1mm not cause any real difference. But it makes it so that the public will have a very difficult time to source out replacement bearings from other brands..Forcing the public to purchase their unique shit. Dumb Utter Bullshit.
  • + 3
 So there were two sizes to choose from, they wanted to make it so everything is one size, and they chose a third size that isn't the same as either of the original two sizes? I will continue boycotting sram products.
  • + 2
 95% of the comments on here are atrocious and coming from people who have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t know what I’m talking about either, believe me. However, I actually know and understand this enough to not to post stupid comments based on false information/assumptions. This ignorance and misinformation by so many people has made almost every comment section of Pinkbike a joke. It’s gotten to the point where Pinkbike shouldn’t even allow comment any more.
  • + 2
 I’m still rocking a Shimano Hone crank with a HollowTech II BB on my carbon Jekyll Team. Sure it’s heavier but it’s been flawless for two years now. And I’ve got spare cups so I probably won’t need to buy anything new until about 2054.
  • + 2
 FFS!
WTF?
F this S!
Seriously, threaded outboard bearing cranks made sense, and still do for so many reasons. I'm not against change, but it should be change for a reason, not to sell more $hit. Cartridge bearing bb's? Awesome! Direct mount Chainrings? Makes sense! Narrow wide? Love it!
Change for changes sake and to sell more product? Boo Yucky!
Before someone starts in with all this stiffness crap, look at the shoes most people are riding in, if people really cared about stiffness, they'd be riding with stiffer soled shoes.
Rant over, I'm going back to my cave, wake me up when we're finally back at some type of "standard".
  • + 6
 Imagine if SRAM actually put their efforts into something useful
  • + 1
 In your opinion what would have been a better use of their time? Honestly more just curious than anything, lots of people seem to make this comment when Sram products come out so figured I would finally ask someone.
  • + 0
 @2bigwheels: How about a lightweight functional internal gearbox instead of adding another cog onto their cassette every year?
  • + 1
 @2bigwheels: improve product performance within the current perameters would be the ticket. The fact that they always solve issues by refusing to accept established interfaces it what we bitch about. Refused accepted freehub bodies, force XD. Refused 142, forced 148. Refused 30, 28.99. What other component brand does this?
  • + 1
 @speed10: wait until Shimano comes out with a new freehub for 12 speed. Can't wait for the uproar about Shimano refusing to use XD.
  • + 0
 @Fluidworks: and if the price is 4 times what a standard drivetrain now costs that will be okay? and knowing your bike will inevitably weigh 3 pounds more is okay as well?

Not trying to argue, just asking questions.
  • + 2
 @2bigwheels: You asked what would be a better use of time for SRAM. I countered with what I would like to see, an actual improvement to bicycles that sorely needs R&D, not another millimeter change to current parts that allows them to create and artificial evolution. Getting hung up on money or weight since the bike industry seems content with the status quo.
  • + 3
 @2bigwheels: I dunno... like improving shock quality so that a monarch plus doesnt leak after 3 rides, or sopping the head wobble on a brand new reverb.
I couldnt care less if its a metric trunnion boosted falcon. Just improve your shit before complicating the range of products.
  • + 2
 This is funny. SRAM says: "we don't want to introduce any new standards", the PB comment section explodes whilst the SRAM techs are still busy peeling off their fake moustaches (to hide their true identity) and preparing popcorn. Keep it coming people, they love your "feedback" Smile .
  • + 2
 I have 3 raceface gold x types sitting on my shelf that I bought thinking I would need and probably eventually will but the original one is still going strong so explain why this was ever a problem because all of my bikes say otherwise.
  • + 2
 What about if they made the BB external? That way they could in theory make the bearings and seals as big as they want while keeping the spindle bigger. Also they could use metal threaded BB cups that screw into the frame to create a nice strong interface that wouldn't develop play.
  • + 2
 BB shell compatibility is only half of the crankset equation. Tell us more about spindle lengths, q-factor and chailine compatibility? Will the boost crank play nice with 142mm hubs or even super boost 157mm, etc?
  • + 1
 the only difference between SRAM boost and non-boost cranks is the chainring offset. These cranks use the same rings as the existing GXP/BB30 cranks, so swapping to non-boost (6mm offset) ring will work fine on 135/142 bikes.
  • + 1
 The most worrying bit is that it sounds like SRAM are thinking about forced obsolescence; the older GXP standards will be supported for at least three years. My XX1 cranks were bought cheap from CRC and I'd hope that they'd last longer than three bloody years.

SRAM are a pain for tinkering with stuff. They were on board with Boost, gave us torque caps, 30mm crank spindles and now 28.99mm and they wonder why people think they're just a marketing company? Shimano manage fine on thinner crank axles.
  • + 1
 Got a RF Turbine Cinch with BB92 on a new bike and this BB is the worst 40$ piece of crap. Combination of 41 mm BB shell inner diameter and 30 mm spindle is engineering absurd! And now this... SRAM needs to fire marketing team that develop products and hire good engineers.
My bike also got BOOST so crank replacement choice is not so big also((
I hate SRAM (except Rockshox, they’re really good).
  • + 1
 seriously SRAM, you're such an industry bully... The only reason you're still alive and well after all the bullshit you puked into the market in the recent years (which is the same reason that entitles you to do so) is the big OEM deals you have with the manufacturers, otherwise your shit would be long ago in the sales section cheaper than Deore.
  • + 1
 Changes like this come around because a company feels like if they're doing nothing they're losing ground. Changing for the sake of it ensures that you don't have a repeatable product that you are truly perfecting. You get just far enough for the product to start working out the real kinks, then introduce a whole new host of them with the next product, because... "Progress". This is why I truly appreciate shimano's methodical approach. People who criticize them for being too slow to adopt change are missing the point.
  • + 1
 Quite frankly, can't say there was 1 single 30mm spindle BB standard. Try to fit different BB and Crank brands together it almost never work. In a smaller extent same goes for 24mm. It's wiser to buy it as a set and that's what 95% of the people will do. Sram goes from 8 to 4 sizes. At the top of that, you can mount your DUB crank on whatever frame you want which was not the case with Sram 30mm spindle and BSA BB frames.
So, it's not a bad move
  • + 2
 Meanwhile, I’ve been waiting for my saint bb and xt crank to wear out for the pass 4 years without any luck. Scuff marks on the crank arms just gets covered up with a $10 decal. Damn you Shimano.
  • + 1
 Because RaceFace has already done this, Sram needed to take 1.01mm of the spindle outside. Did sram never considered removing the same amount of material off the inside??? I guess making a better product using the same standard and having cross compatibility is just not innovative.
  • + 4
 I love mountain bikes, but sweet jesus I'm really starting to hate the industry.
  • + 1
 Don't really care what BB or spindle size is used. Haven't come across one (regardless of Mfr) that doesn't have wear issues due to intrusion of the elements from the outer or inner seals over time. Regular and proper maintenance to a BB and any other part of my bike is what keeps it going longer without buying new replacement parts at a rapid rate.
  • + 1
 Bike manufacturers: "We can't sell our bikes with pressfit BBs, people will only buy the more expensive BSA ones"

SRAM: "OK, we'll change the crank spindle diameter and say it's all good now. It will take people years to figure out nothing's changed"
  • + 1
 !Srams next innovation! A 191.5 mm disc break rotor, with the stoping power of a 203mm rotor mixed with the modulation of a 180mm rotor put on a 7 bolt rotor to reduce rotor flex at a budget friendly price of only 2 kidneys (all other brake sets not compatible)
  • + 1
 So the good I see in this, a common crankset for all the different bb shell standards out there. Obviously everybody is fixated on the 28.99mm new axle standard, I'm willing to overlook this. The miss in logic that I see though, is if they can improve bearing life so much by giving the bearings an extra 1.01mm of breathing room, why not drop the axle to 27.99mm and make an even more kickass BB with even larger balls and better sealing. I'm no engineer by any means, we're all going to ridicule them for introducing a new axle sizing anyways regardless of the size...
  • + 2
 They are constrained by 1) popular BB sizes 2) common bearing sizes 3) MTB needs for sealing.

30mm was for roadies. They did not give a f*ck about riding in mud, so it was doomed to failure. Getting the largest aluminum spindle that can fit in reliably does make sense.

They still will use standard 6806 bearings (like 24mm designed for 6805), but with better seals and such.
  • + 4
 Wait, this fits my existing bike? What good is a new standard if it doesn't obsolete my current frame?
  • + 1
 I understand that some might have troubles with PF92, sure I like threaded BBs more. But I have to say, my bike currently running PF92 for the year with any issues. No strange sounds or promlems. I just bought nice metal cups from aerozine with ceramics bearings for a dime, lube them properly before instalation, did it by my self, cause I have trust issues with lbs and voiala. I feared PF92, now I'm ok with it after year of experience. But I wish to have threaded BB still.
  • + 1
 Can someone upload what should surely be a 153MB Excel compatibility matrix document that shows all the combinations of DUB BBs and Specialized OSBB/BB30/PF with 84.5, 68mm or 73mm BB shell width on a SCS Boost'ed frame with Italian threading?
  • + 1
 What is the point of sealing the bb better but then sacrificing the overall strength of the crank arms themselves and I bet that chainring folds in half with the first heavy strike on it. They are fixing a problem that was never an issue to begin with.
  • + 1
 I don't want this. I changed to GXP on all my bikes because 30mm spindles was crap. 28,99mm spindles will also be total useless crap. But I guess SRAM know this, and will have a 23,87mm spindle ready for release when their dub patent runs out.
  • + 1
 My ancient XX1 cranks are still running strong, but starting to thin at heel rubs. If you invest in carbon cranks look for heel rub protection, they wear quickly. I don't really care about yet another standard, I'm sure Hope has already built new adapters or another threaded BB. XX1 cranks are a worthy investment, and DEFINITELY the ONLY Sram product I will ever buy again.
  • + 1
 Dear SRAM, It is great to see you are making leaps and bounds with your products. It is also a great time to be honest and transparent, you will never see another cent of my hard earned money. Between your shitty brakes and now a new BB size, when I buy new bikes, I will be specifying anything but your brand. Not a red cent.
  • + 3
 Well, they did'nt wait long to throat us a new standard nobody asked in the first place. Thanks Sram, my money will continue to go on Shimano this year again!
  • + 5
 Came here purely for the comment section...
  • + 4
 Thank you for making my choice up, I’ll stick to RaceFace and Shimano and E13 cassette ????????
  • + 1
 Gxp bottom brackets with 24mm spindles didn’t last very long for me. If this actually improves longevity, fine, but SRAM lost me at bb30/pf30 where truvativ B.B. sleeves would immediately creak and the bearings were made of cheese. Pf86/92 has been solid for me both with Shimano and Wheels Mfg BBs. Sram’s alloy cranks are nice but 30mm spindles were unnecessary. I will concede that direct mount rings are better though.
  • + 3
 Fantastic... another standard to be adopted that is just different enough to make claims no one will ever notice. Way to go Sram
  • + 3
 Biggest complaint on raceface cranks is those stupid 2 dollar preloaders stripping threads. wonder if this one is machined or if it's plastic also?
  • + 1
 The older Race Face preload rings were alloy, and were pretty durable IME. The plastic ones are much worse. Not sure why they swapper.
  • + 5
 Cannot believe what I'm reading here. 28.99?? That has to be a joke
  • + 1
 Simplifying the line up from two products to one makes sense.
Going from 30mm spindle to 29mm (sorry 28.99mm) makes no sense. First why the .99. Just call it 29mm, makes no sense to design something to two significant digits like that. And please tell me how 1mm difference makes a difference vs 30mm? Other than forcing BB and cranks to be purchased together? I see this as a move to keep people from buying competitor cranks as an "easy" upgrade to the OEM cranks.
  • + 5
 Because 29 is gay. That would not work
  • + 2
 Another SRAM no need for piece of crap. First the marketing idea second the requirements fit. I would like to see the real added value for the $$$
  • + 2
 That's what I call a far fetched number! The industry is actually quitting standards with all these different products. Every man for himself.
  • + 0
 Is Shimano going to answer with anything or are they just going to give up on mountain biking and keep selling us the same stuff from four years ago. Use to be Shimano was the one pushing the new standards, but they seem to have given up
  • + 5
 I just buy race face...
  • + 1
 Raceface is the bomb man, still have 24mm cranks on a few of my bikes. They have very easily available product knowledge and compatibility charts. old standard new standard, they have a way to fit it up and make it run primo.
  • + 1
 Yea me to. RF cranks can be used with any system you want - 9speed - 12 speed, removable spindals incase you wanted to use on a fat bike etc (not that I do)

30mm bearings by hope work with them and theyre the bomb.

The lower priced 24mm spindle cranks are brilliant foe the money also
  • + 3
 They should change pedal standard to 5/16’’ I hate only having only one pedal thread diameter choice!
  • + 3
 Could we make f*ck OFF SRAM the most common comment on this thread? Maybe they get the idea...
  • + 0
 The one nice thing that had started to happen with 30mm cranks was the cross-compatibility across different BB makers. RaceFace 30mm BBs were crap, so it was great news when King and some other smaller brands started coming out with options. Wheels Mfg, Enduro and others offered solutions to the shitty PF interface by have BBs that use an internal threaded sleeve to press into the BB. Now SRAM says "not a new standard" because of frame compatibility, but blows up that growing cross compatibility of aftermarket BBs to cranks.
  • + 3
 I must have a pretty great life that this is the most upsetting injustice I'm experiencing today.
  • + 1
 I'm on hold with the IRS - Federal Tax Lien letter came on Saturday.
  • + 3
 A crank that can fit in any BB shell? Wow you just invented the 24mm spindle again. Good job.
  • + 1
 Honestly, this is total marketing bullshit. 30mm spindles will fit every BB standard out there as long as they're long enough. BSA, BB30, BB30A, BB386, PF30, BB86/92, BBRight, etc. 28.99mm is just taking the piss.
  • + 3
 Every 30mm BB I tried was a piece of garbage. Its for roadies. Bearings and seals too small for MTB. Will keep running cheap and strong Shimano 24mm - their new BBs are quite nice for now.
  • + 3
 Was this filmed during Movember? That's a whole lot of lip caterpillars for one video.
  • + 1
 Oh you beat me to that comment! SRAM No-shave-November game is strong! Ha!
  • + 1
 so many comments about bottom brackets, oh my. the video made me realize that there are 2 things i mis about living in californ-i-a: mexican food, and the coastline. beaches in the southeast suck-ass.
  • + 4
 Time for more forced obsolescence. Just like an iphone
  • + 2
 This is a move in the right direction. All cranks with one spindle size, easy. Keep making my bikes better Sram!
  • + 1
 And in the end you'll buy a non sram BB with NORMAL bearings with reduction to that stupid 29 something mm. We all done that, nothing to see here.
  • + 2
 Today: 16/01
April fools: 01/04

4*4=16
1*4=4

It sadly does not work, so oh well its not a joke, confirmed
  • + 2
 a look inside the ego that tried to spin this www.instagram.com/p/Bc6YsOpFm6O/?hl=en&taken-by=duncanriffle
  • + 1
 Please explain how this new SRAM spindle standard is really different than the Cinch system. Other than axle diameter of course.
  • + 3
 I've got 28.99 problems, but the BB aint one.
  • + 3
 "What do we want?"
24mm axles and threaded bbs!
"When do we want it? "
  • + 1
 SRAM... YOU made this @%$!11!# "standards" and now you want to save the world by new super-versitile... "standard"???
GTFO! :]
  • + 2
 Finally a solution for a non-existing problem. Next upgrade will be 29.95 BB diameter, thanks SRAM.
  • - 1
 If some aftermarket company had come up with this crankset as an answer to the bottom bracket woes, say some start-up like Oneup or something, I think people would have a completely different take on it. SRAM's marketing made sense to me - buy this crank; it has ideal weight to strength to durability and can be run in any bike you have or will have.

That said, the more companies come out with new standards, the more companies like @bbinfinite will come out with products to make things better.
  • + 1
 But aftermarket companies don't do that - they simply don't have the market presence to get away with a brand new standard.
  • + 2
 Praxis anyone? No more pressfit, saint cranks on any bike you want...

Dub who?
  • + 3
 Oi! Bike industry...F%#* off with your new standards!?
  • + 4
 Shimano: We have no part of it.
  • + 2
 How are they claiming lightest ever when Raceface Next crankset is under 400 grams? Even Next R is just under 400 grams..
  • + 0
 Maybe Sram lists weight w/ BB
  • + 1
 With all the four letter words flying around regarding standards lately, then SRAM goes and releases this!? Are they really not paying ANY attention to their customers?
  • + 3
 Do Mustaches are the new standard to work for SRAM?
  • + 3
 9 out of 10 girlfriends can’t feel the 1.01mm difference
  • + 3
 A new 'standard' ?

Eat a dick SRAM.
  • + 3
 Jesus. I've only just got my head round Boost hubs!
  • + 3
 Is it april 1st already? Sram- masters of bs standards...
  • + 1
 Why does this yet-another-nonsense-product-change need some bearing preload adjusters, and why do Shimano crankset need NO such a thing?
  • + 1
 Shimano cranks too have (and need) preload adjustment - with the plastic insert on the non drive side - but it's a simple no nonsense one and it just works.
  • + 1
 @bosnianrider: I don't use any plastic insert on my 1st gen SLX cranks with 73mm width BB and they are working fine throughout all those 7 years I've been riding them.
  • + 1
 @fluider: The threaded plastic nut is the preload adjuster that's what I'm talking about.
  • + 1
 Sram is pretty clearly anti consumer with all their unnecessary bullshit to drive sales. I’ll keep using raceface cinch thanks.
  • + 1
 @mikekazimer : Some nice journalist work would be to question the real improvement and the necessity for this. You don't have to just copy the press release Sram sent you.
  • + 2
 Concita, business is bad, very bad, wake up


www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj0uBQ7j5c4
  • + 4
 Meanwhile, at Shimano...
  • + 3
 "Let's improve the performance of all of our new groupsets while keeping the prices the same and accessible for all bikes"
  • + 1
 The answer to a question that no one asked. I'm surprised handlebar clamp sizes have stayed standard so far, since these manufacturers are dead-set on changing everything.
  • + 1
 srs? 25.4, 26, 31.8, 35....
  • + 1
 @mobaar: I meant for mtb, since it's 31.8 or 35.
  • + 1
 @matadorCE: right... except 35mm is still basically new (within the last few years), and 25.4 was the MTB standard before 31.8 existed.
  • + 8
 35 can fuck off
  • + 1
 DUMB, DUMB, DUMB, DUMB, DUMB, DUMB, DUMB, DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!! $HIT, I already F'ed it up, I meant Dub. Oh wait NO, IT'S still F'ING DUMB.
  • + 2
 Two years from now, i am going to look at this thread and laugh as 90% of people will have dub cranks on their bikes.
  • + 1
 I’ve marked my calander. I’ll see you right here for a hearty laugh. I love suspense.
  • + 2
 They will because they'll have no choice. The parts will be specced on the complete bikes people buy, not because people will suddenly think 28.99 is the best width for a spindle.
  • + 2
 Hmm, looks awfully like the Raceface cinch system. If you can't beat'm, join'm!
  • + 3
 The system looks the same as the one they used on their BB30 cranks for years now. They just shrunk the axle diameter by 1.01mm which is basically nothing and got rid of the spacer for the new wider BB's... except now you cannot use these cranks with 3rd party PF30 BB's such as Hope or CK...
  • + 3
 They forgot the M in the name
  • + 2
 This whole press release by SRAM is FAKE NEWS....aka bullshit. 1mm? You have got to be kidding?
  • + 2
 ahhhem! 1.01mm good sir
  • + 1
 "There's a whole raft of spindle options". So lets add another one. Difficult to comprehend that the market would actually accept that.
  • + 3
 I thought April Fool's wasn't for a few months?
  • + 3
 And now, my whole new 2018 bike became old.
  • + 1
 Still got that one fixing bolt we all love to over torque. I will not be buying a bike with a SRAM crank as my XT rarely ever has problems.
  • + 1
 2 things they failed on. 1. Product development in California, Those cranks saw zero dirt. Test and develop in Wales please. 2. They're still press fit.
  • + 3
 Oh I wish sram goes under in 2018.
  • + 1
 At least they got rid of that stupid "top hat" plastic bushing for bearing preload. Those things would always deform and slip out of place.
  • + 1
 SRAM is OEM....I'm just looking at this video and see this nice facility in SLO....no wonder these bike and parts prices are so high!
  • + 3
 So Ridiculously Accurate Measurements
  • + 1
 Another SRAM no need for piece of crap. First the marketing idea second the requirements fit. I would like to see the real added value for the $$$
  • + 2
 "Good thing bottom brackets don't take up as much space as wheels..." +1,000,000
  • + 2
 This must be a joke. Please die.
  • + 2
 Why not just make it 69.69 mm and call it a day!
  • + 2
 It's January, SRAM is making an early run at the 2018 PB Innovation Award!
  • + 3
 28.99 Covfefes
  • + 1
 anyone an idea if there will be a chainring for cannondale AI rear triangle for the new DUB cranks? @SramMedia
  • + 1
 So you buy their DUB system and it works with all of their DUB systems. Great ????
  • + 1
 And people wants the end customers to support the LBS. Very much needed when SRAM is trying to put them out of business.
  • + 1
 I have X1 Carbon cranks with pressfit bb 1500 miles and a year later. BB is still smooth and quiet. SMDH
  • + 0
 DH carbon crankset option?? Descendants dont come in 165 anymore??? and all cranks are boost only, can you still make it non boost by swapping to a non boost x sync ring?
  • + 1
 SRAM, do you guys actually read these comments? People are (rightly) pi$$ed. Why are you alienating your core consumer base?
  • + 1
 Sources spent on haircut instead of fixing their guide brakes for example..
  • + 1
 so basically they've just copied hope cranks that came out over a year ago but give them a 28.99mm spindle
  • + 2
 Dude shave your face. Looking like fuckin hunger games bro..
  • + 1
 Ah, it’s that time of the year again when a major manufacturer breaks the internet...
  • + 1
 DUB, MAGA, DACA....words that a child TRUMP can pronounce, but don't understand!
  • + 3
 OK. So, what's next?
  • + 2
 Time to start shopping for discounted SRAM 30mm cranksets...
  • + 0
 Hell yeah! get me some DUB cranks. Just waiting on dem new 100 spoke 30" super boost Daytons. So I can hit the trails with my pistol grip pump.
  • + 3
 I'm getting a handlebar made of welded chain in the shape of a steering wheel! gonna be dope.
  • + 1
 You're showing 4 different BB right there and can't see the problem that's on the table?!! Let me give you a hint: 4
  • + 3
 umm... you know SRAM isn't in charge of designing BB shells, right? Talk to the frame makers.
  • + 2
 @mobaar: .....SRAM is OEM, frame builders can't just build frames without OEM standards.
  • + 1
 @drivereight: tell that to the guys making T47 BB shells.
  • + 2
 A guy walks into an LBS, ask for a BB. Walks out with a Dental degree!
  • + 2
 Must have been filmed in Movember........
  • + 2
 At least they did this without introducing a new BB shell into the mix...
  • + 2
 Because it couldn't be 30mm
  • + 1
 So... 24mm BSA with high qualitiy bearing seals. Cheap and simplified!

Stiffnes, durability? Hardtail...
  • + 2
 One crank fits all is good for us but none reads just complaining
  • + 2
 You've got to be f@ckin kidding me
  • + 2
 Whats the deal with with the mustaches? new standard?
  • + 2
 Urban lumberjack
  • + 2
 What does this mean for us poor Bois still using howitzer cranksets?
  • + 2
 Well, let´s hope it´s better than their taste in beards!
  • + 2
 Mummy.........its happening again
  • + 2
 I still prefer a White Industries Crank
  • + 1
 Is not it time to change the design of the carbon crank(Arm)?
  • + 1
 Someone needs to bad-lip-read edit that video.
  • + 1
 Will wait for tapered spindle and tapered BB.
  • + 1
 Go home, SRAM, you're drunk.
  • + 2
 ( ^_^)o自自o(^_^ )
  • + 1
 Great, another standard I don't understand lol
  • + 2
 DU(M)B
  • + 2
 How we say in hebrew..
חרטה.
  • + 1
 NOBODY should by ANYTHING from this SCAM. Rename SRAM:SCAM
  • + 1
 Sram is german for "silly" Big Grin
  • + 2
 D.U.m.B.
  • + 2
 f*kdub.... oops!
  • + 2
 So... Really About Money
  • + 1
 Another new f!cking crank axle standard, thanks.
  • + 2
 Got mustache"?
  • + 1
 Isn't DUB that gangster brand? More BS from the bicycle industry.
  • + 1
 Fail. I don’t buy SRAM cranks anyway, they’re gash
  • + 1
 SRAM is like Apple products.
  • + 1
 The best Way to meet nee Standards is to develop a nee Standard.
  • - 2
 If they wanted to do the job properly, they should have come up with a bigger BB shell! I suppose they can do this in a couple of years time when they want to make all the current designs obsolete!
  • + 1
 That was a DUmBstep for Sram.
  • + 1
 there is an xkcd for everything!
  • + 1
 is it april 1st already? :/
  • + 1
 simple solution : not buying SRAM products
  • + 2
 FUCK YOU GUYS!
  • + 1
 3:26, "putting like 20lbs of weight test"
  • + 1
 You can't un-read this one!
  • + 1
 enter standards rant here>
  • + 2
 Mind blown
  • + 1
 Bring back the #HammerSchmidt Smile Smile
  • + 2
 DUBble standards
  • + 1
 SRAM you're fixing stuff that aint broke.
  • + 1
 I kept looking for the part of the post that was all "psych!"
  • + 2
 wow, a revolution!
  • + 2
 all boost too.
  • + 1
 raaaaaaa change raaaaaaaa
  • + 1
 PB is where your dreams come to die!
  • + 1
 Preload ring....total pish.
  • + 2
 SRAM can SCRAM
  • + 1
 28.99mm? That's pretty dub...
  • + 1
 Hammerschmidt compatible?
  • + 1
 4:09
ERROR 404: Earth curvature not found
Check ODD TV on YouTube
  • + 2
 Oh for fuck sake.
  • + 1
 28.99mm makes my OCD twitch!!!
  • + 1
 All this talk about a new standard. I just focussed on them beards.
  • + 2
 BOOST!!
  • + 1
 Holy mustache battle!
  • + 1
 lol wut
  • + 1
 stop the madness!!!
  • - 1
 They’d be better off not marketing this. It’d do less harm to their reputation.
  • + 1
 God Damnit.
  • + 1
 What’s qnp?
  • + 0
 Good riddance to that flimsy POS GXP wavy washer!!!
  • + 1
 Bass worm compatible?
  • + 0
 Ha haaaaa... DUmB? No thanks!
  • + 1
 Q Factor?
  • + 0
 I'll pay anything to save 80-100 grams. @Sram, take my money now!
  • + 1
 WILL NOT BUY
  • + 0
 Stick your uncommon size where the sun don't shine !
  • + 0
 April Fools Already?!?
  • - 1
 Thank the Lord, another "standard"!!
  • - 3
 Seriously lol How DU(m)B can they be!!!!!
  • - 1
 DUB be good to me
  • - 2
 f*ck you sram are you kidding me with this shit!?
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.140585
Mobile Version of Website