What's the Deal With SRAM's DUB System? More Questions

Jan 17, 2018
by Vernon Felton  
SRAM DUB

Yesterday, we took a first look at SRAM's new DUB crank and bottom bracket system.

And then shit blew up.

In the comments section, that is. So I summarized what I thought were some of the most common comment threads and punted a handful of questions back to SRAM. While I was at it, I also reached out to a couple bike company product managers—these are the people whose job it is to spec the bikes you ride. What's their take on DUB?

Let's start with Roberts Graudins, the product manager at SRAM who was in charge of developing DUB.


Okay…28.99. You guys had to know that you were going to get a rash of shit for not simply saying “29”. Why, then, 28.99?


Here is the straightforward answer. We wanted to be as transparent as possible. When I started at SRAM over 12 years ago, I was a design engineer for cranks who was a bit OCD on accuracy and details. So now as a product manager, when I was asked what the diameter was I told you the honest answer. 28.99mm is literally what the nominal dimension on our design drawing says and so that is what we shared with everyone. We could just round up and say 29mm to dumb it down, but when asked what the spindle diameter is, we wanted to be honest. There is no marketing twist to it, just actual values we have machined our DUB spindle to. We also saw a few comments about “Do they really machine to those tolerances?” The answer is yes. We expect the DUB BB/Spindle combination to perform at a really high level and part of that comes from having to hold really tight tolerances on our parts.


SRAM
Photo by Mike Kazimer

In practical terms, how much more durability (in terms of riding hours or, I suppose, hours on the testing machines), did you gain by going to 28.99 millimeters (rather than 30)?


When we looked to develop the DUB platform, our goal wasn’t to specifically make the system more durable than 30mm systems. It was to make the whole sub-system equal or better than our most durable system today (24mm, GXP threaded), but at the same time reducing the weight like you get from 30mm systems. To do that we benchmarked everything we had with our current platforms (24mm and 30mm systems). And just like all other BBs in the market, each combination of spindle and BB has its particular benefits. Typically you see 24mm platforms being more durable, but heavier than 30mm systems. While on the flip side 30mm systems typically being lighter, but not as durable in certain frame BB shell configurations as 24mm systems.

There are compromises in almost all of those systems today because the majority of them were designed with a lot of constraints about making sure things weren’t too far out of the norm. But like we found with Eagle technology drivetrains, sometimes the best solutions out there are the ones that don’t necessarily follow the norm. So we looked at it from a clean slate and asked ourselves how we would design a new platform of cranks/BBs to have the benefits of both 24mm and 30mm systems today, but still be compatible with all the major frame shell standards in the market.

SRAM DUB

Durability was a key part of that, but is also one of the most tricky elements to put numbers to that accurately translate to every rider. Putting durability is terms of riding hours is almost impossible as there are no two riders who ride exactly the same, in the same conditions, with the same cadence or intensity and maintain their bike the same. What would be considered two hours of riding for one rider could actually be equal to what another rider would equal in 10 hours of riding. Which is why having a number to define that doesn’t really help translate to what riders actually see in the field because everyone is different.

But as to not skirt the question, we can say that a large number of folks in the industry either know someone or have personal experience with the durability level of SRAM’s 24mm, GXP threaded crank/BB system. And what we can say is that every single DUB BB configuration now outperforms in the lab and in the field where we were from a contamination durability standpoint than our current GXP BB systems. The percentage of what that translates to you as a rider again varies depending on how you ride and where you ride, but it is clear that it will be better. So while I can’t give a number or percent of how much better it will be that translates exactly to every rider individually, I can say it will be better than what is out there today for every rider.

SRAM
Photo by Mike Kazimer


Going to a 28.99-millimeter diameter spindle allows you to run larger ball bearings than is the case with a 30-millimeter spindle (at least, that's certainly true within the confines of a BB92 bottom bracket shell). What is the precise difference in bearing size between 28.99 and the 30-mm compatible models already in your line up?


The reason for us going to 28.99mm wasn’t to have a larger ball size for the traditional 30mm frame BB shell configurations. The diameter actually came from us listening to the market about them wanting less configurations on cranks, but at the same time not wanting to give up any of the benefits of their current 24mm configuration or their 30mm configuration. We would hear things like, “I love the light weight and stiffness of the 30mm crank setup, but I wish it had the durability of the 24mm crank setups.” And so our target was to find a single solution that would be the best of both worlds.

Our goal for DUB was to achieve three key factors to address that desire from the market. Simplicity, durability and compatibility.

Simplicity in that we wanted to find a solution that would allow us to provide a single crank design that would fit onto any MTB bike regardless of the frame BB shell standard that was chosen by the OE to use in their design. Durability in that we wanted to ensure the BBs of this single crank solution would be just as durable in any frame BB shell standard configuration that the OEs chose to design to. And finally to make sure that simple and durable solution is compatible with those frame BB shell standards that are out there today.

So in order for us to achieve a single solution that gave us good sealing and durability in all of the common frame BB shell standards that exist today, we ended up with a 28.99mm DUB spindle. This was the diameter our engineers landed on that provided us the balance of having a simple, durable and compatible solution to all major frame BB shells standards in the market. The ball size was just one small item we looked at in the landscape of all the things that add up to our DUB BB solution (ball size, bearing race thickness, internal/external seal design, part tolerances, grease fill, grease type, spindle/interface, spindle/crank attachment features, frame BB shell standards, frame BB shell tolerances, etc.)


SRAM DUB

How/Why exactly did dropping 1 millimeter in spindle diameter result in better sealing? Did it, for instance, allow you to change the size and shape of the seals? If so, by how much? What does that matter?


One of the most common MTB BB shell standards that frame manufacturers use is the PF92 standard. On top of that, the popularity in the market of shoving 30-millimeter spindle cranks in all frame BB shell standards has grown. The problem with this combination is that putting a 30-millimeter spindle in that small of a shell diameter (PF92) makes it so tight you can’t really add any proper seals to prevent premature wear on the BB due to corrosion. Some of the BBs in the market today for that combination (30mm spindle/PF92 shell) have little to no actual sealing of the bearings. And that is something our engineers just weren’t happy with from a performance level.

The most common failure for BBs is not that the balls wear out or are overloaded by impact loads, it is because they start to corrode due to contamination. And so for us, going down in spindle size allowed us to add more sealing both from external contamination and internal contamination. Externally, we were able to have a double layer of sealing to protect from external contamination.

Internally, it allowed us to have a better sealed bearing and fully-sealed center tube to protect from internal contamination caused by water getting into the BB shell of the frame. Both of these reinforcements to sealing we felt were needed to make sure our BBs did not wear out prematurely.

So, yes, while it does sound small, 1 millimeter is enough to add these types of seals to add that corrosion protection. Other frame BB shell standards that OEs use in their designs don’t have the same constraints for space as the 30mm/PF92 combination, so aren’t as big of a concern on space. But as we don’t control what frame BB shell standards OEs use on their designs, we have to make sure our designs have the best possible performance in any configuration. And DUB does exactly that for the main MTB frame BB shell standards that are being used by manufacturers today.


Some people might see the release of DUB as a move made specifically to close your component ecosystem from companies such as Shimano, FSA and, specifically, RaceFace, the latter of which you are currently in a lawsuit with. How do you respond to that?


Our intention isn’t to close anyone out from anything. Our intention is to make the best possible drivetrain systems and components that fit on bikes that are in the market. Sometimes that means not just following the norm. If we did that, we’d all still be riding 26” hardtails with 80-millimeter travel forks and 3x8 gearing. Sticking with the norm often comes with a bunch of compromises on the design and with Eagle technology (DUB included) drivetrains that isn’t what we were after. With Eagle technology, our goal was to make the best possible drivetrain system in the market. The only way for us to be able to deliver what we did with Eagle was to go away from the norm. And so far, based on the number of riders we see in the market on Eagle drivetrains, we feel we did a pretty good job in achieving that. DUB technology on our crank products is just one more step to furthering the Eagle technology package.

SRAM DUB

I think that part of the anger from readers in our comments section stems from the fact that your video states that DUB is "backwards compatible." In some ways that’s true—in others it’s not. To wit, DUB will fit on any existing frame AND you can now swap a DUB crank from one bike to the next with no compatibility problems.

DUB cranks and bottom brackets, however, are not backwards compatible with existing cranks or bottom brackets. How do you respond to some of the reader statements that suggest that your video is being a bit disingenuous with its "backwards compatibility" claim?


We view “compatibility” in terms of our systems being compatible with MTB bikes that exist today. Like you have heard in articles before on Eagle drivetrains, our target for Eagle was to create the best possible drivetrain system—not a bunch of random components that are hung on a bike. And now that DUB is the latest technology of the Eagle technology family, we view it the same way. As a system. When that is how you look at it, we have a hard time seeing how it isn’t backwards compatible to the existing frame BB shell standards that are in the market today. Hence, why we were genuine when we said it is “backwards compatible”.

This does, however, highlight the difference of how some of the readers might have been looking at it. They potentially see DUB as 2 separate sub-components (BB and Crank), where we see it as one sub-system (crankset) that is ultimately part of one full drivetrain system (Eagle). If we look at viewing it as individual components between BB and crank, then you can make the argument that no BB/cranks in the market are fully “backwards compatible”. Not even the existing ones that folks in the forum were mentioning (24mm systems). They are all based on being used as a sub-system and only those sub-systems can really be called “backwards compatible”. For example, not all 24mm cranks/BBs are created equal. The diameters, bearing placements and even attachment methods aren’t the same between all 24mm crank configurations. So if those sub-systems are considered backwards compatible, how isn’t DUB in that same boat?

SRAM
Photo by Mike Kazimer


...AND NOW FOR THE BIKE COMPANIES....
Per the intro to this piece, I sent out a late-night missive to a bunch of product managers at major bike brands--these are the men and women whose job it is to equip every bike in their product line. I asked each product manager whether they'd spent time on DUB yet, whether they felt there was credence to SRAM's claims of improved durability and whether they felt that DUB would impact their job—making it either easier or harder to spec bikes in the future. Here's what a few of them had to say:

Kevin Dana, Product Manager, Giant Bicycles
"I have spent ample time on the new DUB system on both XC and Enduro applications, with the latter having being ridden everywhere from Whistler, to Sedona, to SoCal, dry and dusty to sloppy at times, and back to dry and dusty. I honestly can’t complain about the new system at all, and in Giant's case, the new system actually shaves some weight off of the previous generation SRAM product. Not saying that weight is a defining factor in product decisions, but let’s face it, nothing is really getting much lighter these days, so you take it when and where you can if it makes sense. As far as durability claims, time will tell the truth, but the new system is sealed relatively well, and I’ve experienced a system that has actually settled in quite nicely with no slop, and no creaking. To me, that’s always a win.

"As for making product decisions simpler? Nah. Not for us, at least. There’s no complications in choosing a BB; it’s either compatible or it’s not. In terms of choosing the overall drivetrain? While some brands are more apt to break up and “Mr. Potato Head” drivetrains, for Giant, it’s traditionally a system approach to drivetrain spec. The various systems offered now generally meet the needs of most (not all) of Giant’s customers. There’s enough aftermarket options out there to meet any individual needs these days, but Giant’s focus is delivering a solid core foundation in which each part works together as intended, and is easy to service and troubleshoot when issues do arise. Let’s face it, not every manufacturer’s frame tolerances are up to snuff, which in turn leads to shifting issues, which then you start chasing individual components. Is it the RD hanger alignment? The frame? Cheap chain? Oval chainrings? (kidding).

"Cranks and BB’s haven’t changed too disruptively in a while, and I certainly won’t get caught up in what diameter the spindle is. Do they fit my bike? Are they strong enough? Do they look rad? Spin freely? Sweet, let’s go smash some rocks."


Tara Seplavy, Product Manager, GT Bicycles
"For us it was just a swap over. The old ones will no longer be available for OEM purchase after a certain date. It also does not impact all of the crank models. Because SRAM enforces purchase of the full Eagle group (FC, RD, SL, CS, CN) it kinda locks you in anyway to a crank purchase.

"As for longevity, we haven't had enough ride time to really comment yet. But, if this makes it easier for brands to spec a single BB part number, or simplifies production for factories, or increases the chance that your local shop will have the BB you need in stock, then all the better!"


Josh Kissner, Product Manager, Santa Cruz Bicycles
"I've had a set of cranks for a few months now and they've been problem-free. I'm not the best durability tester, as I ride too many different bikes to put a proper thrashing on anything in a short time period. Plus I live in California... I will say that we've never had BB durability issues with SRAM products, I suspect because we've always used threaded/GXP cranks on our bikes. I think the bearing/sealing issues people were having are on bikes with pressfit BBs, especially the smaller diameter ones (BB 86/92, etc).

"How will it impact my job? No real change in that regard, but it will make our bikes lighter as we can use the aluminum spindle with our threaded BB's now. Which is sweet. Where we spec Eagle, SRAM forces us to buy complete drivetrains (cranks included), so there's no change to the amount of work/debate (or lack there of) to decide specs. Obviously we're happy when something we're already purchasing gets improved, and that's what's happening with DUB."


Alex Cogger, Product Manager, Rocky Mountain
"Since SRAM delivered samples to us for ride evaluation in the fall (and believe it or not 2019 spec needs to be locked in and final in December), we have only put a little bit of time in on the new DUB cranks, and so far have not encountered any issues. Hard to say what the future holds, but we have to have faith they have done their homework.

"As far as DUB's impact on our jobs goes... it’s same same but different. SRAM cranks have always used SRAM-specific BB’s (unlike Race Face and Shimano which are interchangeable, for example). So DUB or no DUB, we still buy SRAM BB’s for SRAM cranks. This is not a new standard, simply a change in the design in their components. I recognize that it’s tough for dealers however, who need to stock new BB’s now.

"SRAM is the dominant drivetrain in performance MTB (for good reason, thanks to leading the charge in 1x and the advent of Eagle), and they have decided all new performance cranks will get DUB’ed (get it?). Furthermore, their drivetrains are a closed systems as they pertain to cranks / rings / bottom brackets, so we are all in with DUB if we want to spec Eagle (which we do)."


Ian Schmitt, Product Manager, Kona Bicycles
"The durability [with DUB] has been very good. I’ve had the same bottom bracket in my bike since August and have had no issues with it. Normally I have 24mm or GXP cranks on my bikes and I replace my BB when its worn. Usually 4-8 months depending on how much I am riding and the conditions. The bearings in my crank still spin freely and have no grinding or play. I’d say that the claims are valid and that the new BB and spindle interface is an improvement.

"DUB doesn’t really change my job one way or another. The ordering process is the same whether I’d spec a GXP crank or a DUB crank. No change to the frame-fitment or design and an ostensibly better product make it an easy decision, which doesn’t impact the value of a consumer's current bike."


555 Comments

  • 1152 47
 "The most common failure for BBs is not that the balls wear out or are overloaded by impact loads, it is because they start to corrode due to contamination. "...from one engineer to another, how do you sleep at night knowing you designed a product that wouldn't hold up? "The problem with this combination is that putting a 30-millimeter spindle in that small of a shell diameter (PF92) makes it so tight you can’t really add any proper seals to prevent premature wear on the BB due to corrosion. " ... How did you just all of sudden realize this? The concept of seal design has been around forever, you guys did the consumer a disservice by supporting the trend and pumping out poorly designed parts...

"The diameter actually came from us listening to the market about them wanting less configurations on cranks"... again, instead of improving on one, you created another... did you talk to the rest of the industry? The lack of a standards organization in the bike community is killing us... instead of competing through technology, you guys just create new sizes with baseless claims of improvement...

" We wanted to be as transparent as possible" Then show us the data from the tests, show us WHY this is better, let us determine how much better. "We could just round up and say 29mm to dumb it down, but when asked what the spindle diameter is, we wanted to be honest."... if you are concerned about dumbing things down for us, be honest, and just give us the data with the parameters and let us decide if it will be beneficial.
  • 70 15
 This is the best comment and should be upvoted by everyone!
  • 38 11
 ↑ This. Came here to say this, with the same quotes copied ready to paste. And I'm not even an engineer.

Jeeez..... if you are about being as transparent as possible, why didn't you choose to tell people that PF92 would lead to faster corrosion in the name of weight saving and let the consumer decide what they want? 'No proper seals' people. Around the BB!!!!

Sorry, but 'the industry' just doesn't wash clean anymore; there is apparently always some residual bullshit hiding somewhere.

Everyone thinks they can smell it.
Internet forums are full of people increasingly willing to say they can smell it.
Journalists are even routinely asking where it is with every new component development.

New improved washing powder people, the one we used to tell you was whiter than white, wasn't I'm afraid.

Giddy up.
  • 28 3
 It's the OEMs who are making bikes with BB92s. You think Sram would really give all those sales up to Shimano or other companies to make a point about engineering?
  • 19 5
 @orientdave: I got downvoted into oblivion for basically saying the same about the recent Knolly announcement. Can the companies just get together come to a consensus, design around what is truly optimal, and think in a 10 year time line? Rather than just limping from one tiny 3% gain in “performance” to another every few years?
  • 48 8
 @jcav5: A couple points to your comments: Sram has never made a PF92 BB for their 30mm spindled cranks, because as you mentioned there is no room for bearings with good sealing. The whole point of DUB was to simplify, to have on size spindle on all cranks combined with BB's for all standards which provide the durability benefits of 24mm with the weight benefits of 30mm. Finally to your comment about SRAM recreating the existing issues with big spindles in a PF92 BB - They don't mention this in the pinkbike press release but they solved that problem by making the PF92 cups metal and having the cup also be the outer race for the bearing. So there is more "bearing size" gain with that plus the 1mm from the spindle. The result: WAY MORE SEALING.
  • 11 3
 @vernonfelton if you go for another round of questions, can you ask why 28.99 specifically since they were essentially working within a range of 24 > 30. Did they test different configurations and this was optimal or just randomly choose 28.99. What would another 1-2 millimeters have done to the stiffness/weight/durability ratio?
  • 16 8
 Thank you for stating this. Sram is all about the bottom line, not what is best for the mtb community.
  • 7 5
 @jcav5 totally agree, thats the point, if your saying something is better, stronger, stiffer - show us the data, you do have some baseline point to which you are comparing, otherway - how do you know it ? you made it up ? testing and comparision is the way you can say something has improved, if you did that you do have some data... and as we didnt saw any of those ever - we can just assume its all lie.
  • 16 6
 @firehole: All business is about the bottom line.
  • 12 9
 I've had a few sram bb's in my time. They have all been quite bad. I most certainly will not be buying any new products from them. They seem to be leading the 'new standards' front.
  • 84 28
 @jcav5 Every year SRAM publishes a very detailed parts list for every AM component they manufacture known as the "SRAM Spare Parts Catalog". This annually published "data" we'll call it, just so happens to be lacking the very BB you're scolding them for creating (the 4130) DAMN! I guess you're the a*shole, you win this one SRAM!
Then you ask for more data so you (the informed consumer that you are) can make the call on whether or not this new tech really makes a difference. But let's be real here. Would you take a good hard look at said data if it were available? I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but you're ignoring something as trivial as a parts list!? You don't even know what they actually make! What the hell are you going to do with test lab results?! And how the hell are you going to find these results if they don't smear them in your face! You might be surprised with how much info they share on their site if you bothered looking.
And come on! How is a new crank and BB combo, from a company who already makes a spindle standard that requires a proprietary BB, killing you? GXP has existed for years and f#ck-all but a GXP crank fits into that Satan spawn of a BB. Pretty sure no one's actually lost sleep over GXP and it's silly to assume anyone will with DUB.
Worst case you buy one of these cranks to upgrade your existing one (cause rad cranks get chicks and make you good at bikes, true story!) and you have to buy a new BB to go with it. Call this a 'Win' for SRAM if you like, but you just bought their crank (which won't make you any more desirable or better at bikes, true story!) and that's where the money is, not the BB Frown
The more reasonable argument would be the hassle associated in moving existing parts over to a different frame, but that's pretty weak too. Say you're old frame is a BB92 and the new frame is English threaded. CRAP! Dub or no Dub you're still buying a new BB Frown Don't worry though, pretty sure we can still blame SRAM somehow...lets talk with the boys over in legal first thing tomorrow! Smile
Or maybe you go from PF30 to PF92. But gosh darn-it!! This PF30 bottom bracket from the old frame sure doesn't seem to fit in the new one. Damn! New BB again...AND nothing to do with DUB...again! But SRAM kind of created PF30 so I'm sure it's still their fault! Carl in legal said we've got a shot at this one!
Then instead of improving they've just created a new standard? Errrrrr...how to you make something better without um...F*CKING changing it! Would graphics do?!?! CARL!!!!!
The reality is that SRAM has to make parts to fit all the existing FRAME standards. Unless you live under a rock, that's LITERALLY THE ONLY PART OF A BIKE SRAM DOES NOT MAKE!!! Cranks to fit all the frames out there used to take 2 crank types (BB30 and GXP) and a pile of BB types. With DUB it takes 1 crank and far less BB's. Not sure if you understand what that means, but they just DRASTICALLY cut their crank SKUs!
Believe it or not, the consumer wins here too! (Sit down Carl!) Say you have a DUB crank and you move to a different frame with a different BB interface. With DUB you can take your existing crank and install into whatever frame you just bought with the added CONFIDENCE that there's a bottom bracket out there that's been designed and tested for durability by SRAM.
Granted this SKU cut won't pay off (for SRAM) until they kill PF30 and GXP crank production in a year or so. But once they do, they can just make whatever BB's for the old stuff, and all the new DUB stuff. It means that if you have DUB crank there's a properly engineered BB to fit it into your frame, AND that pesky 'Spare Parts Catalog' will be a few pages thinner if you ever decide thumb through it.
  • 26 2
 PF92 works fine. You just have to use a 24mm crank. I never understood why people insist on trying to squeeze a 30mm crank in a PF92 shell (people who accidentally ordered the wrong crank online?). These were never designed to work together, so it's not strange that you get these issues when you try it anyway.
  • 14 2
 Last time I bought a BB it was ironically the simplest and cheapest part on my bike. Yes the cranks are expensive, but If they just standardized the crank to BB interface we could all move forward with our lives. The customers have spoken, pressfit is stupid... make threaded 30mm BB's standard and lets move on. Just like they should never have gone back to 15mm axles, they just should have rounded everyone up to 20mm front and 150mm rear spacing.
  • 17 8
 @stinky-d-lux:

I don’t need a parts list, I want to see their claims backed up with numbers. I want to see how much better DUB actually is...was it enough to justify the change? To SRAM, surely it was enough, because their marketting team can say “improved” if there was even .1% increase in fatigue life. The issue isn’t necesarily THIS new bb standard, it’s the whole idea that SRAM gets to make baseless claims and make money fixing issues that they helped create.
  • 9 9
 @stinky-d-lux: You have, IHMO, failed to grasp the point being made, and wonderfully well. May I invite you to re-read what @jcav5 wrote, and see if you can't see what their point is.

Just to make things like crystal clear here, what @jcav5 wants SRAM to show us, if they wish to be transparent, is the test data on which SRAM based their conclusions that, and I quote, "every single DUB BB configuration now outperforms in the lab and in the field where we were from a contamination durability standpoint than our current GXP BB systems."

Will they show us? Nah, course not. That is up to them. However @jcav5 in no ways deserves being at the receiving end of your rant.

The cool thing to do would be to say "Ah, sorry, got the wrong end of the stick there", and everyone walks away saving face.....
  • 3 2
 @biker-green: SRAM have never made a BB for 30mm/PF92 because their BB30 cranksets do not have a long enough spindle for this combo, so they never had a crank to work with it and therefore didn't make a BB either.

Though with my experience of SRAM BB's in general it is for our benefit that they never made one. Chocolate teapot comes to mind.
  • 10 0
 @dangerousdave: my guess would be that they just went with the smallest nominal amount (1mm) smaller than the already standard 30mm spindle to keep almost the same stiffness but achieve the necessary extra room needed to improve the seals, 0.5mm each side is a lot to work with when designing bearing seals.
  • 23 7
 From one engineer to another... You do realize that SRAM never has made 30mm spindle for PF92? Or were you just so eager to show everyone that you got a diploma?

Regarding the diameter, what is the standard you think that SRAM should follow? There is no 24mm standard, there is a BB30 standard, but it's more about the frame interface. It's not that hard to understand, they wanted to make a crank with a light aluminium spindle, that can fit in existing frame BB-interfaces. To get an aluminium spindle comparable in stiffness to a steel spindle it needs to have a larger diameter (one engineer to another, I guess you probably already knew this). But since the commonly used 30mm diameter leaves very little room for bearings and seals in a PF92 shell, SRAM decided to make it slightly smaller. How much smaller? Well I guess as small as they could make it without compromising to much on stiffness while still creating enough room for the bearings and seals.

I think it sounds great, lighter cranks, better bearing life and I don't have to care what BB-interface my frame has, if I buy a SRAM crank it will fit. What's the downside?
  • 5 2
 @SonofBovril: There are a number of external cup threaded BB30 BBs available, SRAM doesn't want you using their BB30 cranks on them so hence the new standard. But just like their stupid 24mm GXP crank axle which tapers to 22mm to stop you fitting it to a Shimano BB its very easy to get a shim so you can. And I suspect a little alloy or plastic shim will return their new cranks to 30mm and then you can use what ever BB you want.
  • 6 10
flag WAKIdesigns (Jan 18, 2018 at 3:09) (Below Threshold)
 @eldsvada: the issue is that we are talking about dressing the elephant in the room while nobody should have let it in, in the first place. As few including me point it out 30mm is the issue. If 24mm spindles deal with stress just fine, better than the crank arms then tere is no discussion about a MTB crank spindle necessary. For highly questionsble weight savings (as big as decreasing aerodynamic drag of outboard bearings for a road bikes) due to incorporating larger diameter tube, please go BB30. Now One could also argue that creating wide 92mm BB shell, the stiffness of the front triangle frame gets improved, but hello, how about most of these weight minded frames are made of stiff as fk carbon fibre, so can we just stop pretending? Vast majority of BB92 usage in bike world is highly unjustified, like in Treks. Anyhoo, if you have pressfit bb, keep the fkng axle at checked 24. If they made 25.999 and said stiffer and lifhter than 24, but still plenty of room for big bearings and good sealing - I wouldn’t care as much, but anything close to 30 - get the fk out.
  • 10 3
 @WAKIdesigns: I'll quote my self:
"I think it sounds great, lighter cranks, better bearing life and I don't have to care what BB-interface my frame has, if I buy a SRAM crank it will fit. What's the downside?"
  • 4 8
flag WAKIdesigns (Jan 18, 2018 at 3:36) (Below Threshold)
 @eldsvada: you missed an important detail: better bearing life than what? 30mm axle - not over 24mm axle, at least the Shimano one. If Sram couldn't sort out fkng GXP bearing life to the standard of Shimano that's their problem with their 24mm. Maybe if they incorporated quality of Hope or CK in their GXPs they would have no issues with their otherwise excellent cranks. Also if I buy a crankset with 24mm axle it will fit every frame regardless of the interface. Shimano Hollowtech 2 for riders by riders since 2003. We wake up everyday thinking how to improve our crank spindles. the only thing I am beggin to hear now is a person saying that it hard to package Shimano cranksets because the axle is attached to the driveside.
  • 9 2
 @WAKIdesigns: I can't answer for Shimano, since I've been on GXP for the last five or so years (without issues). But otherwise, the answer to your question is in the text above:

"But as to not skirt the question, we can say that a large number of folks in the industry either know someone or have personal experience with the durability level of SRAM’s 24mm, GXP threaded crank/BB system. And what we can say is that every single DUB BB configuration now outperforms in the lab and in the field where we were from a contamination durability standpoint than our current GXP BB systems."

So in short, SRAMs cranks and BBs just got better. The cranks got lighter with more compatibility and the BBs got more durable (maybe not by much compared to GXP, but still better, I guess time will tell).

I get that this upsets many people, SRAM changed something and made things better for customers. This is a tuff nut to swallow, ranting on the internet is one of the few upsides of winter to many people out there. I hope you all will find spring and peace soon 3
  • 8 6
 @eldsvada: that's something I am forced to believe, although the common sense says otherwise. Bigger bearing balls are less suspectible to failure than the small ones. Whether the failure comes solely from water penetration and flushing out grease, possibly contaminants entering the bearing is way out of my knowledge. Being forced to believe them goes also for the factor of what quality of bearings are being put into all those BBs. Cheapest stuff from fidget spinners or top of the line SKF stuff. So what are they comparing? I am not saying Shimanos are great, I go through one through at least 1,5 year, however! In all cases of my Shimano bearing failures they never ended up with bearings being fkd up mid ride and as far as I know the 30mm pressfits can seize completely mid ride. So Sram ordered better bearings now then no wonder they get better results. I would love to do a recorded interview a few bike mechanics and hear about their noted record of failures of one system over another. Ultimately it is them seeing the stuff happening with all makes of everything first hand.
  • 2 0
 Wow, I raise my both hands for comments,
  • 3 7
flag chappers998 (Jan 18, 2018 at 4:49) (Below Threshold)
 Bike industry, the biggest scam!
  • 2 0
 @freeriderayward: I agree, pretty much all our SRAM BBs were switched out fairly quickly (because they didn't last very long) for cheap but reliable Shimano or more expensive but everlasting Hope BBs.
  • 9 1
 Everyone just go get a DUB ............ And smoke it; chill the f*ck out!
  • 1 0
 Mmhmm.

A lot of those answers they provided may provide an "answer" in the language they're allowed to use, but man...

As someone who was a little cheeky about the PB hypocrisy train the other day on the first DUB article, I can honestly say, this kind of half-service only sets me more in the middle.
  • 9 0
 You are talking as if SRAM makes a PF92 BB to fit a 30mm spindle, which is where the issue is. They do not sell this configuration, so it's not like they designed & sold a part they didn't believe in. Race Face makes this configuration, so it's more of a shot at them. (Which is a bit of a cheap shot, admittedly)

I don't get the angst here. I think it's just a continuation of the general dialogue right now about standards. I'm excited that I won't be limited to one bottom bracket shell type when choosing new frames to move an existing build to.

Again, I REALLY don't understand the big deal here. It's just a friggin bottom bracket purchase.

They still haven't addressed when this will be available, or what the rollover date for OEMs is.
  • 2 2
 Agreed. Not to sound like a nerd but...show me the Weibull analysis that proves this spindle diameter/ bearing config will last longer than 24mm or 30mm. Without that, it is marketing fluff.

Disappointed in this one. My last bike had a PF92 and the ONLY way I could get it to stop creaking was to upgrade to a Wheels MFG bottom bracket that had a threaded BB shell. Short term this will not be an option with Sram. So...if you have these cranks...and it turns out you want a better BB than what Sram has to offer...guess what...you're out of luck.
  • 5 1
 Jcav5@ it easy...if you don't approve don't buy it
Problem solved without writing a book response.
  • 1 1
 @enger: if it only was so simple... I’d say, “if you don’t like it don’t buy it, and since you have no influence over their possible future projects that may actually make you chose something you don’t like, you may as well chill out about it and have some good time
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns:
Totally agree. Ever had shimano XTR and XT HT2 cranks with PF92 and BSA73 bottom brackets. Got only one issue with hope bearings from pf41 kit, replaced them by enduro bearings and no issues since 2 years despite mud, sand and snow.
Got a GXP crank once with PF92 plastic cusps from sram, it start to creak and drag within 2 weeks of use in summer conditions...
From my little experience, it seems that bearings and bearing interface quality are more important than everything else concerning 24 mm spindle crank.
As for weight a shimano XTR crank+ BB is on par with everything else at sram for same price.
  • 2 6
flag woofer2609 (Jan 18, 2018 at 8:42) (Below Threshold)
 Well written! Sram, are you listening, or gonna just keep truckin' forward spewin' new "standards"?
Vernon very clearly asked what "the precise difference" between the old and the new bearings would be.
Roberts/Sram took 4 freakin' paragraphs to avoid answering.
Why? Because Sram didn't do enough r and d when originally designing their 30mm spindle bb's, and avoided sealing them properly, just to rush product out the door.
Dollars to doughnuts the new bearings are the same size.
Sram, do your job properly in the first place.
  • 1 3
 @mrfish: Yup. But why didn't they do this in the first place is the question.
  • 2 1
 @gnralized: to be entirely fair... my BB92 to 24mm Shimano bearings started creaking out of the box (after installation ofc...) as much as Hope BB92 to 30mm bearings they replaced (they were screwed within few months. you could feel one rotating like crap). I sold the Hope crankset and got SLX so I was like "you gotta be fkng kidding me!!!" BUT! The creaking subsided after a few rides Big Grin And I fitted them carefully with Parktool bearing press so no... I did not install them with a hammaH. As to fashion oriented in my personal opinion M7000 cranks look stunning. You just need thick plastic foil or the anodizing wears out as hell.
  • 3 7
flag Thustlewhumber (Jan 18, 2018 at 9:08) (Below Threshold)
 Press in BB's will creak, no matter what you do. You gotta convert to a Wheels Mfg. threaded BB to eliminate the creaking. Which, again, none of this 28.99 bearing seal nonsense addresses.
  • 14 0
 @UtahBrent: I 100% agree with you. Sram isn't creating a new "standard" and anyone who thinks Sram is creating a new "standard" is a moron. The actual "standard" is the FRAME (PF92, PF30 etc.)

Sram just makes the APPLICATION/INTERFACE. They have every right to design and manufacture their own products to whatever specs they want that will work with bike FRAME STANDARDS.

How is this any different than any other company in the world?

Every Sram hater on here makes it sound like Shimano has never changed any of their product designs... interesting...

Personally, I'm a fan of Sram for their continued innovation of their own products and making cycling better in spite of all the whinny little babies on PinkBike.
  • 8 0
 @stinky-d-lux: Slow clap! Thank you for your spot on comments. I find all of the Sram haters comments and arguments on here hilarious because they seem to hate Sram just for the sake of hating Sram. Their arguments don't make any sense.
  • 6 0
 @jcav5 : Have you ever requested the same "hard data" from Shimano that you are asking Sram to provide? I can very easily make the same argument you are. Why the hell is Shimano making TWO sizes of cranks when only one is needed? Why is Shimano making things more complicated rather than simplifying? Why is Shimano not trying to make their products better?

I'm sure you'd say these are dumb questions because Shimano IS doing a lot of those things. So anything Shimano does is OK. But anything Sram does everyone throws up their hands and calls foul. GTFO.
  • 2 1
 @jcav5 Have you ever requested the same "hard data" from Shimano that you are asking Sram to provide? I can very easily make the same argument you are. Why the hell is Shimano making TWO sizes of cranks when only one is needed? Why is Shimano making things more complicated rather than simplifying? Why is Shimano not trying to make their products better?

I'm sure you'd say these are dumb questions because Shimano IS doing a lot of those things. So anything Shimano does is OK. But anything Sram does everyone throws up their hands and calls foul. GTFO.
  • 2 0
 @eldsvada: YEEEEESSSS!!!!!
  • 3 0
 @jaymac10: Jeez, it is the Sram coming out with this, so well, they get their head hit. There's plenty of other crankset makers I wouldn't consider buying, like Race freaking Face. Or every single god damn carbon fiber crankset. If I wanted my cranks to wear shoes I'd want socks and kinky sock suspenders to go with them. I actually like the Sram X1 in 24 GXP. Anyhoo, let's just make hollow pedal spindles in 15mm mount to make them stiffer and lighter, or let's go full retard and make pressfit integrated pedal bearings. That would be fun! And light! CBros would jump on board, since their bearing/bushing kits are their Achilles Heel. Everything can be improved and don't knock it until you've tried it, at some point people were whining on disc brakes too. Oooh it's Pinkbike and it's armchair engineers, what do you expect.
  • 4 0
 @eldsvada: How is it possible to be defending Sram while at the same time make so much sense? lol... The Shimano fan boys are loosing their minds right now! hahah
  • 12 2
 Alright I can't take it anymore! You're all mad at the wrong thing! If compatibility is your concern, you should be mad at the current GXP/BB30 situation (or the lack of chainring choices/ridiculous # of BCDs from Shimano over the years). But even then... Have a current gen X01 carbon crank and want to take it to a new bike? You're in luck (provided the new frame is English threaded/bb92). Have a bike with a GXP crank on it and wanna keep that bike alive for the next 15 years? You're likely to no longer be able to get service parts for your pivots or suspension by then but since I can still source the same Gigapipe ISIS BB that I raced the NORBA series on in 2003... I'm guessing you'll be fine on BB replacements for a while to come. And Shimano really? The words Shimano and Cross-compatible don't generally even work phonetically in the same sentence which sucks for Shimano crank owners since those chainrings are literally the industry's worst narrow wide rings!

Is reliability your concern? Guess what.... BB bearings are heavily leveraged and exposed to a lot of corrosion! Shit wears out... if you don't like it you're playing the wrong game. As to whether the Dub interface (or certain applications of it) exceeds the performance of the current BBs, who knows but I'm guessing that the slightly smaller spindle diameter will help it last longer than Race Face BBs which I currently sell 3 of to every 1 Sram BB that I sell despite the Race Face being spec'd less frequently. Shimano also recently downsized their bearing size on a number of their BBs as well so if you're all wrapped up in bearing size, you should be concerned about new Shimano products for the same reason.

And as for all of the whiners whining about "not being able to get a shiny Chris King" upgrade for Dub... First of all, King (and the other aftermarket BB guys) already offer solutions for almost every BB shell interface on the planet. Do you really lack faith that they'll be able to/are already working on a dub aftermarket upgrade? Additionally, my experience with a lot of those "upgrades" is that although the bearings may be better, the fitment is not always ideal and can involve a bunch of shims/spacer/etc. that are additional sources of noise and as a result need to pulled and cleaned as frequently if not more than the stock Sram ones. Not only is that a reason why I believe aftermarket BB upgrades are one of the biggest waists of money you can put into a bike, but also something that Dub should make LESS COMPLICATED (one spindle size/fewer spindle lenghts/adjustable bearing preload/etc). So if you really really really hate Sram BB's, my guess is you will still have the option to upgrade, and it should be an easier install. And and since someone mentioned Wheels Manufacturing in this mix... I tried one of their aftermarket solutions last year after I took the bait on Specialized dealer clearance pricing and bought two bikes with PF30 BB Shells. It was SO FAR OUT OF TOLERANCE that I would have literally had to JB Weld the thing into the frame to keep it from wiggling around... It did not matter that it threaded together! How's that for 'precision engineering" that all of these aftermarket "upgrades" offer? BB's wear out... get over it.

And one final thing (because I'm curious): How many you that commented above actually work in a repair shop and deal with BB compatibility issues on a daily basis. I do and can tell you that my world stands to be quite a bit simpler with Dub.
  • 3 1
 @Thustlewhumber: I’ve never had a PF BB creak ever, I know lots of people say they do. I guess every one I have ever owned has been in carbon though, so maybe alloy PF BB’s creak? Either way I feel like that problem is way over blown then reality.
  • 3 0
 @bngofast: you are totally right. And you supported my argument that experienced mechanics are the only people who can really talk about this. Although my bike mechanic still laughed at this 28.99 SRAM thing... You covered so much that we can bring up the nazis, Gwin thanking God and Sam Pilgrim getting on the E-bike. BTW it is extremely amusing to watch mechanics hammer the BB30 bearings out of shiny 3000$ carbon frames...
  • 3 1
 @bngofast: You’re the best, they should post your comment on the top of the page. Literally everyone who is posting negative anger comments must have only read the title and non of the details in the press release.
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: 1 1/8 inch park tool headset cup removal tool does the trick. If I take an extra an 30 seconds I can usually get em out clean enough to put back in another frame (just did that on a Fatboy the other day actually).

And @biker-green: Last summer being the first summer I'd actually owned the BB30 platform, I had the same experience. I think good installation is key (i.e. not assembled by specialized) and green loctite/sleeve retainer can help too. I will say that between the two bikes I had, one alloy and one carbon, the alloy would get a bit creakier but I'm not willing to call it the BB as anytime I hosed the bike off, it shut up, which usually only makes bb issues worse.
  • 1 2
 @biker-green: Well, I read it, but nowhere did Roberts answer Vernon's very specific questions, and the corporate answers basically translate into "we have no choice, Sram is going to force us to use this system if we spec anything Sram".
Again, if 30mm doesn't allow for enough seals, why introduce cranks to this spec? Test before release to market.
  • 1 1
 @WAKIdesigns: you are absolutely correct...chilln' out is a good solution.
  • 4 0
 @woofer2609:
Because there are standards called PF30 and BB30, that are specifically designed for 30mm cranks. Using a 30mm crank in a PF92 frame on the other hand is just a botch.
  • 3 1
 @stinky-d-lux: nicely done, some truth for the people. Unfortunately the sheeple want blood. Consumers will cry bloody murder about the fact that reducing SKUs is also just added profits for SRAM, but will ignore the fact that fewer BB and crank SKUs will bring down prices.

No one seems to have noticed that these new BBs come in precisely one iteration each. There were price savings associated with doing that, too. So every BB they make stays at a reasonable price, with good performance.
  • 1 2
 @roggey: bring down prices. Now that’s a stretch. “Insert your Cheap online bike shop” Pricing on Sram select cranksets nearly doubled since 2012 so dream on. I paid 180€ for the first XX1 crank arms, now they cost 300 sumthaeng. Look how much fkng X1 alu costs. SLX is half price of it.
  • 4 0
 @Thustlewhumber: As a mechanic myself, my GXP crankset pressfit BB92 is smooth and creak free with 1500 miles about 9 months of riding, I have had many bikes with Pressfit and no creaking unless it is a trash bb... Pressfit is not the issue, the issue is usually not properly installed
  • 1 3
 @teamcliff: Sram... cuts team to afford to create new irrelevant standards.
  • 1 0
 @biker-green: why did it take to 2018 to figure this out?
  • 3 1
 @dangerousdave: 28.99 is the size the spindle needs to be to allow it to be freely fitted in to a 29mm id bearing, 29mm doesnt fit a 29mm id bearing 28.99 does,
  • 4 0
 @jcav5 You are taking the "We wanted to be as transparent as possible" comment out of context here. The product manager gave that as an answer as to why they chose 28.99 instead of 29.0, not as a statement about being transparent about their research and development.

Releasing all the data from their tests would add cost to the product, open them to more criticism and nit-picking, and might devulge their research, design, and testing procedures to their competitors. I don't think it's realistic for consumers to except that level of transparency.

My biggest criticism of DUB is that the one bolt on-the-end design is inferior to the Shimano style 2 pinch bolt design in my experience, and more likely to come loose.

Basically this whole problem (and alot of other one's) was created because of Press Fit bottom brackets and that is where the fake rage should be deflected to. I'm much more disappointed in bicycle consumers for supportong the bike manufacturers, who created an inferior standard (PF) over a proven one (threaded), than I am with a component manufacturer who created a new interface to solve some of the problems the bike manufacturers created. Anybody riding a bike with Press Fit on it complaining about this is a hypocrite who made a bad purchase and won't admit it.
  • 1 0
 @biker-green: Same here, although I have had them on both aluminum and carbon. No creaks on either. I am a bit OCD about keeping things clean and maintaining things, so not sure if that is a difference. I have one riding buddy that seems to NEVER clean his stuff up and knows nothing about maintaining his bike. Funny, because he is a mechanical engineer. Guess whose bike creaks the most, breaks the most, and is in the shop the most?
  • 3 0
 Why do you all care? Not like any of you can afford a DUB XX1 crankset anyways... SMDH
  • 1 2
 @Flowcheckers: Agreed with you until the last sentence. I am as happy to admit BB92 is worse than outboard bearings in every single functional and structural aspect as to the fact that I masturbate on daily basis. The issue is that If I like a certain bike I will buy it, No matter the BB. I’m not superstitious. Crossing out entire bike because of BB standard is stupid, it is an act of complete lack of awareness of the phenomenon of compromise and design process. While vast majority of bikes with PF standards would do just fine with outboard bearings, some like mine aactually need it for suspension system layout to work as desired by a designer.

It is undeniable that 24 axle works better with pressfit than 30 given same quality of bearings, bearing ball diameter is almost twice as big. Not 0,5mm bigger - this is laughable for Sram to claim it solved everything. Then a standard 24mm crankset like Shimano works with every bb out there. Theeen we can add that 30mm exists only because it is a couple of grams lighter. So SRAM had two coices, either go 24or 30, but they sucked up to idiots who will fall for a lighter crank, so what they did is they polished a turd.
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: why do you even try. go home.......you're drunk
  • 1 0
 @bicimane: Long term thinking is bad for short term profits.

Totally agree though, a true standard based on best available science would be great. What I think we all need to remember is that companies are in business for one reason, to make money. We are outraged every time a company does something that makes them more money, but the solution is simple; DON'T BUY THEIR STUFF. If they lose money because of a business decision they will change course in order to resume making money (sales). The power rests with consumers.
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Luckily some of the best manufacturers still use threaded bb's, but i would not buy a PF bike because then the BB would be an unnecessary weak spot on the bike.

Mostly agree with you about 24, though not sure if it's ideal for PF. SRAM did take off a little weight, however by choosing the same axle size for two different standards they sacrifice the ideal bearing size for both. Sort of makes DUB and a dud from an aftermarket purchase perspective and difficult to market from an engineering perspective (hence the distracting mustaches?). Why buy something that's engineered around an engineering sacrifice? Seems more about simplifying things for oem and bike shops rather than creating the the best possible crankset for each different standard. SRAM pretty much acknowledge this when they say durability wasn't the goal.
  • 1 0
 @bngofast: Ever tried Hope BB? The quality is spot on. I’ve had zero reliability issues. I ride nearly every day. In all conditions. Really a put it on and forget it solution.
  • 2 0
 Just seems like a huge missed opportunity to not release a new pedal at the same time... "Introducing the Dub(step)"
  • 2 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Sram doesn't claim to have changed the ball bearing size, just added more/ seals.
  • 2 1
 @eldsvada: There is no downside.
  • 2 1
 @jaymac10: Every Sram hater on here makes it sound like Shimano has never changed any of their product designs... interesting...

Just like Shimano when they went from Square Taper to Octalink to Hollowtech......
  • 1 0
 @Demoguy: or Shimano's crazy XTR BCDs in the past...
  • 1 0
 @MrDiamondDave: xtr and Dura ace often have their own special sizing and spacing. Not sure why, but it's been that way for decades. Kind of like an elitist club or something.
  • 1 0
 @Demoguy. Shimano changed their cranks because there were clear improvements to durability and stiffness, especially when they changed to Hollowtech.

SRAM is creating a new product for the sole reason of simplifying things for bike manufacturers & bike shops, and clearly is sacrificing engineering standards that would create a more durable product for consumers in the process. @vernonfelton didn't criticize them for it or even bring it up, but that is the big disappointment, criticism, and weakness of DUB. It is also why Shimano has more durable bottom brackets, they aren't as willing to sacrifice their engineering standards as SRAM will simply to reduce sku numbers. The fact that SRAM is advertising this as the reason for making DUB cranks shows they have no shame in prioritizing the interests of bike manufacturers over the interests of consumers.

It will be disappointing if other crank manufacturers go this route. The smart thing for SRAM's competitors to do would be to call SRAM out for their engineering compromises and create separate interfaces for each size of bottom bracket shell designed around the optimum bearing size for each.

But as long as bike consumers and reviewers purchase and tolerate bikes with garbage engineering standards(PressFit bb's) without any critical thinking, bike component manufacturers who lack engineering integrity(SRAM) will likely continue to sacrifice their engineering standards to deal with the mess.
  • 1 0
 @Flowcheckers: Pfft, this is the interwebs, you aren't supposed to make sense and respond in the comments section in a logical and non-confrontational manner (rolls eyes.)
  • 193 25
 Translation from the product managers: “It doesn’t matter what we think. If we want to spec Eagle, Sram dictates we use their cranks, even if they are made from playdough.” Maybe this is why YT canned SRAM drivetrain for 2018 and went to a Shimano/E13 combo.
  • 50 6
 It sounds more like YT made a large commitment to e13 rather than just dropping sram, their marketing reflects it. There arent many brands that have a full e13 build on bikes and im sure that having Aaron on e13 made them push it even harder.
  • 36 31
 Sram forced oem gear is the worst!
  • 12 19
flag wibblywobbly (Jan 17, 2018 at 13:30) (Below Threshold)
 exactly. Also, the market wants 12 speeds in back and doesn't care about cranks.
  • 6 1
 @Tr011: They specd a lot of e13 parts on their bikes before Gwin signed. My 2015 Capra came with e13 cranks, wheels, hubs, and chain guide.
  • 10 8
 @lewispea: yes, because they made a deal with e13 and got everything for super cheap
  • 22 1
 In fact, product managers were saying: "it doesn't matter, as long as WE don't have to redesign our whole fleet of models. This new dub standard fits within our bike-frames ... excellent."

@vernonfelton, you sure SRAM didn't sent you the marketing manager? This guy answered none of your questions ... at least, not in a way an engineer would (aka precise data/answer).
  • 60 7
 The bottom line is going from 30mm to 28.99mm spinal has nothing to do with seals and everything to do with making 30mm incompatible.
  • 31 5
 This EXACTLY. Could you imagine being a product manager right now? With Shimano defecating the bed on 1x stuff for so long and SRAM as nearly the only game in town, there is so little differentiating bikes beyond the frame:

Susp: Fox or RS (get a discount if you spec RS since you have to spec a complete SRAM drivetrain)
Rubber: Maxxis 98% of the time
Cockpit: House branded yawnage w/ only a couple reasonable oe dropper options.
Wheels: Stans, DT on the high end or formula something on the low end.
Drivetrain: SRAM...any SRAM you want as long as it's SRAM.

S-Ram it down their throats boys.
  • 12 2
 @ckcost: great point.the end user wants SRAM 12 speed or nothing. Plus they are under pressure to squeeze as much profit out of the bike as possible, hence the rise in no name parts.

For the dropper you can take the SRAM package,and the reverb, Race Face dropper package with bars and cranks (no more 12 speed...) or whatever KS will sell.

Santa Cruz went with Novatec on all their low end stuff. Nothing like blowing up hubs left and right on 5k bikes with zero replacement help.

And don't forget that 90% of the time the Maxxis are some OEM special extra hard compound.

I9 is really moving in to the high end wheel build space with the OEM's. I'm scared all the extra volume is going to hurt their quality.
  • 28 0
 @wibblywobbly: "the end user wants SRAM 12 speed or nothing" I don't particularly agree with this. IMO, the end user wants enough range for their needs and dont really care about the actual number of speeds.

As long as it is fairly priced, durable and functions well.
  • 22 2
 Why were there no questions about the prevalence of moustashioed men at Sram?
  • 4 6
 @Tr011: e13 is so much worse trash than sram.
  • 1 0
 @jclnv:

This is the new world. Its cut throat out there now-a-days.... Move it or loose it... Unfortunately.
  • 8 6
 @ckcost:

The reason shimano hasn't gone nuts for 1x is because unlike sram... they don't see more frequent rear derailleur replacements as being the target to go after in aftermarket sales to dealers and consumers...because that's what you get with eagle and other drivetrains built around 50T (or similar) cogs. A rear derailleur cage that's extended downwards to hold chain tension on a pie plate cog, puts it closer to hitting the same sorts of things you already smack your pedals into.
  • 11 6
 @deeeight: the reason why they havent gone nuts for 1x is because they are more concerned about their road market, and I see more mangled shimano derailleurs through the shop than sram
  • 33 2
 @Tr011: Mechanics see more Toyotas than Alfa Romeos too, therefore Toyotas are unreliable
  • 9 3
 @ckcost: btw, "Sram" is "shame" in Russian... Couldn't suit here better.
  • 16 12
 @deeeight: @Tr011
I may be waiting a long time but I’m still waiting for the day that everyone realises that massive cassettes over 42-44t just present more problems than they solve. If you need that sort of range you’re basically riding cross country and well, there’s already a tried and tested solution for that application (2x or 3x).
Having more than one cog at the front is now seen as uncool because it sort of represents the less gnarly side of the sport but we can still tell if all you’ve done is move the gearing range to the back, I still see you Lycra boy!
There’s no shame in cross country (despite my tongue-in-cheek comment above) but there is when you pretend not to be a cross country rider because YOU think you’re not cool enough and over compensate by riding what is basically a DH bike with see-through tyres and 10,000% cassette on the back wheel.
1x is a load of shit SRAM cooked up just like DUB. Over here people have been taking the unused cogs off the front for decades, we didn’t give it some stupid name, we just did it. If you needed more range you just left them on.
I’m praying people see the light and realise Shimano was right all along but SRAM has slipped its filthy tentacles into our minds and it’s grip grows ever stronger.
  • 4 0
 @Tr011: The 2018 YT lineup uses shimano/raceface for shifting/cranksets, ethirteen just supply the wide range 11sp cassette in a lot of cases. @carym is right that this looks more like a deliberate move away from SRAM drivetrains than a great deal for ethirteen.
  • 3 2
 @ThomDawson: +100000 tup
  • 3 3
 @ThomDawson: I've been playing with the number of cogs up front since I was a little kid. I remember a dirt bike I had with 2 cogs upfront and a Shimano SIS shifter because it was one of those shifters without set positions in which I could just calibrate for one gear at lowest position and the other at the highest position and that's it, and this was an "emergency" extra gear to be used sporadically. The shifter was even fitted to the frame and not the handlebars.

Nowadays I run my all-mountain/freeride bikes with the truvative hammerschmidt (which is kind of a pain in the *ss with the noise and added maintenance) and get 2 cogs upfront and 9 or 10 on the rear, which is more than enough. I've always tried as much as possible to use the shortest rear derailleur possible and the new set-ups are just ridiculous in terms of rear deraileur size. That only gives you added chain noise and chain slap and reduces the general strength of the rear deraileur. Sorry, but 1xInfinite is not for me.

Just to add to your description of DH bike with see through tires and all I would say that having a rear cog bigger than your disc brakes also kind of gives in the XC interest, and for XC, there are clearly better bikes.
  • 6 1
 @ThomDawson: yes mate. Also, I'd rather not transfer sprung weight from the middle of the bike to the hub. Switching from a 40 quid 250g cassette to one worth more than my cranks and weighing nearly as much is also not ideal.
  • 3 2
 @ThomDawson:
Nah, that is just your opinion and I strongly beg to differ, as does the market. Your CC analogy is also more than questionable. Bigger bikes are heavier and have more travel and need to go up equally steep climbs, so more need for more range.
1x offers huge advantages. First of all: silence. Underated, but so much better. Secondly: consistence of AS behaviour. No bad compromises on drivetrain influence have to be made. I hated that in the past with 2x.
Other points: less weight, cleaner cockpit, way easier to clean.
So yeah, ticked all of my boxes when 10-42 came out at reasonable prices (gx), I have always hated 2x. Always laughed at 3x. But I already know: You pedal up Eiger north wall on 32/11-23. All others are pussies. Understood.
  • 3 0
 @ckcost: I think you over estimate the average bike buyer. They don't think of it like you. They only see 12>11

People have shown for years they make a bike decision almost solely on the basis of the rear derailleur while ignoring wheels and other components. Look at how bikes are speced...
  • 5 0
 @ArturoBandini:

The silence is coming from clutch cage derailleurs... not the fact its a single chainring. Reducing chain slap from lackluster cage tension is where the silencing comes from.
  • 2 1
 @deeeight: you run a shorter tighter chain too, so its much much quieter regardless of clutch ...
  • 4 2
 @ArturoBandini:
You’re quite right, that is just my opinion and you are just as entitled to yours.
Not at all, I try not to pedal for too long anywhere let alone Eiger. I use a 34/ 11-40 and if I can’t get up something usually no amount of gears would help me. I’m short and use short cranks, I spin ridiculously slow cadence and often travel slower than walking pace yet use less energy - my point being we’re all different and I don’t care how many gears or what range suits you or your riding.
I just don’t like SRAM, I don’t like what they do, who they are or the way they smell. They are just one big stinking pile of rehashed gimmick. And for a company who’s only gift to cycling is gimmick they have way too much sway. Cheesey tat under a thick veneer of marketing and ridiculous prices.
  • 1 0
 @AbsolutX: They sent him the Product Manager, who essentially is the Marketing Manager...he just happens to be a former engineer.
  • 2 2
 @ThomDawson:

9 speed XO aint no friggin gimmick, homeslice.
  • 1 0
 @kmg0: Yeah! That nine speed group was so legit but xtr is quite a bit better than it was ten years ago. I think if you blindfolded me I couldn't tell the difference between xo 9 speed and eagle.. actually I don't think the shifter has changed at all except a few cogs.
  • 3 0
 @jclnv: Having had to deal with an existing 30mm spindle and PF92 frame I think this makes a lot of sense.
In practical terms it opens up the option to have a larger stronger spindle (than 24mm) with the benefit of the wider PF92 shell. Maybe the skinny guys riding XC wont care but the bigger guys who ride DH/AM might.
  • 3 0
 @ryanme:

the chain isn't shorter. If anything they're now longer on most bikes. The amount of chain needed to wrap a 30T ring and 50T cog is greater than you'd need to wrap a 36T ring and 40T cog as many 2x11 drivetrains run.
  • 1 0
 4 out of 5 Doctors and Dentists recommend replacing your components every 9-14 months.
  • 1 0
 @jclnv: you are 100% wrong sir. Do some more reading
  • 2 1
 @ThomDawson: amen brother! Long live 2x for everyone who wants to ride it!
  • 1 0
 @ThomDawson: Bro... take a deep breath, Sram will release it's tentacles from your poor brain soon enough. In America where we have mountains for our mountain bikes, Eagle is the shit and Sram is well loved. 1x, some stupid name though? Should Sram just tell their marketing department to go home?
  • 2 2
 @GM303: it’s well loved over here too bro! That’s my point. We were all riding the same hills well before Eagle but we’ve been brainwashed. 1x wasn’t really the name I was thinking of, it’s just an easy way to describe what you’re doing with the chainrings. What I meant was that SRAM loves to give things stupid names, it’s how they claim ownership of other people’s (usually quite trivial) ideas.
  • 1 0
 @ThomDawson: For sure man, except like a couple others have mentioned, the simplicity has been a big draw for a lot of riders. I ran a 3x and dropper post on my first full squish bike before all the integrated remote mounting options and it was a mess. Simplifying the crank, cockpit, and cables and losing the extra chainrings and derailleur was huge. I'm sure it's different for everybody, but I'm riding better/higher/further on an eagle cassette, sure some of it is progression I suppose, but the eagle gets this Clydesdale to the top for sure. I think they are doing so much so well, but get taken to the whipping post when they want to change anything. I live/ride near a sram corporate office and more than anything, they are just people that like to shred like the rest of us, not some bag full full of diabolical ding-dongs. In some capacity the marketing is a bit of a game i'm sure, but they are just trying to stay in it. If I get a new crankset, I'll be psyched to see if this new bb set-up makes a difference, if not, I'll just replace my gxp bb and keep on ripping.
  • 1 0
 @Travel66: PF92 is dumb. Pressfit has to be PF30 IMO.
  • 2 0
 @jclnv: You may want to explain why you call it dumb?
Either way, if its on the frame your dealing with you have to deal with it.
  • 1 0
 @Travel66: Well it's dumb in that you're largely restricted to a 24mm spindle.
  • 1 0
 @jclnv: Well your not restricted, you can use both 24 and 30 and I think I’m right in saying 30mm wasn’t a big thing when PF92 was introduced so I don’t think dumb is the right word.
  • 3 0
 I want a DUB headset and DUB Hubs @SramMedia and DUB 28.99 Handlebar / Stem combo
  • 1 2
 @jclnv: do you even know what you're saying.... you sound like a idiot
  • 3 3
 @MrDiamondDave: Show me the 30mm PF92 options. You sound like a c*nt.
  • 1 2
 @jclnv: Raceface makes one and Hope makes a PF92 cups you c*nt
  • 1 2
 @MrDiamondDave: Raceface is shit and how much is that Hope c*nt?
  • 1 1
 Check out Lars take on gearing on the Patrol he’s built up on his insta. The guy pisses me off, always doing what I’m thinking Mad I’m not fully sold on shorter offset forks but as I said above totally agree about massive cassettes and the issues they present. Nice to see people doing things differently and trying to find a better way instead of just the usual bigger=better crap.
  • 1 1
 @MrDiamondDave: All I'm saying is PF30 makes way more sense as a pressfit standard. Bigger bearings (and the all important seals), and makes for lighter, stiffer, carbon frames. When it came along PF92 should have been relegated to road bikes where you have little option but to run Shimano's crappy 24mm spindle.

You bastard son of a bitch.
  • 3 1
 @ThomDawson: Agreed. The bike shop guys looked at me really funny when i asked what i needed to go back to 2x for my used Process 153. Crosschaining seems to have magically disappeared. Agreed 1x is cleaner but to equal the same gear inches as the 2x that came stock on the bike, I'd need to run 28/46, which means a nw chainring to fit on the small bolt circle. My legs are definitely not getting stronger, and the mountains appear to have the same grade as before 1x came along, so I'll stick with 2x for a while yet.
  • 3 1
 cross chaining is a real thing a lot of folks don't grasp. 11 and 12 speed cassettes have actually gotten wider than 10 speed because they now step the granny cog inboard over the hub flange (where the spokes go) and they're doing that with chain lines which were designed around multiple chainrings. What's worse is that the thinner (in overall width) a chain gets to fit between cogs with narrower spacing, the less stiffness it has to resist being twisted/bent by either a bad case of chainsuck going in between cassette and spokes/dropout, crank and BB shell, or catching some trail debris in between chain and cog/ring. And once bent... its damned hard to straighten perfectly so effectively that means... expensive new chain.
  • 1 2
 @deeeight: I have not run into an issue with my chain having a mind of its own with any 11 or 12 speed systems, the offset chainrings are there to correct your chainline. Trail debris can mangle any drivetrain not just the fancy eagle stuff, it can wreck your 3x7 noobtrain just the same. Have you actually put in time on any of the eagle stuff or are you just speculating?
  • 3 1
 I have had to replace chains on customers bikes which bent.
  • 2 1
 @deeeight: a GX eagle chain is like $30
  • 2 1
 A GX might be, but an XX1 is a lot more.
  • 1 2
 @deeeight: So what. Run a GX eagle chain, it is the same, shifts the same, is like 3 grams heavier and 1/3 the price for a wear item that gets trashed no matter your riding, MTB or road. It's a moot point. The 12 speed is actually working pretty darn well so I am glad I can pick up 11 speed cheap now Big Grin
  • 2 1
 @kmg0:

WHAT PART OF "customers bikes" wasn't plainly clear and obvious to you ?

What part of the fact that they were being replaced because they were bent wasn't clear for that matter ?

Are you making an effort at being this obtuse or does it just come naturally to you ?
  • 1 1
 @deeeight: let the customer pay for it then and quit complaining
  • 1 1
 @deeeight: No I work at a shop, have got a long time, and I don't see the issue. You crash and break your shit, you can replace it with a cheaper version since its a regular wear item, or go for the nice stuff. What is the big deal? I'm really not seeing the big deal. It's like complaining about cutting tires. Don't ride, slow down, run heavy tires, or replace them often.
  • 3 1
 Regardless of replacing chains or not, and taking into account the offset 1X offers, the angle of the chain when run on the largest sprocket (which is often, as 1x gear ratios are just now catching up to 2x) is fairly drastic, and therefore inefficient. It is also harder on the parts concerned, which wouldn't be such a big deal if the rear cassette was all steel, as most were in the past, but now the larger cogs are aluminum.
Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense to have 24t n/w chainrings and conventional 11-36t rear sprockets. I'm kinda curious why this hasn't been done, as it is easier on the rear hub as well. Smaller rings/ cogs will always be lighter. Until then, I'll continue to run 2x in the extremely steep area where I ride. I have no hate on for 1x, but it isn't a binary choice.
1x was introduced poorly in that it didn't offer the gear inches 2x did, assuming that overnight riders somehow got stronger legs or mountains became less steep. As cassete sizes increase, percieved weight losses are offset by friction and weight gain.
  • 1 0
 @woofer2609: #singlespeed4life
  • 113 16
 You guys know BB's are extremely cheap right? Like $30ish? And really, how many people are buying a new crankset and are going to be super frustrated that their old BB doesn't work? The next time I get a new crank will probably be on a new bike, and in that case, I don't care about a 28.99mm BB coming with it. And if you do wear something out, it'll probably be the BB first, in which case you can just buy the same kind of BB you'd normally buy to fit your crankset.
  • 23 50
flag RedBurn (Jan 17, 2018 at 13:35) (Below Threshold)
 Cant upvote more ...THIS whole DUB thing commercial bullshit. Any Shimano bottom bracket last for 10 years ....
  • 21 0
 You probably don’t live in the UK. You think you know mud? Well...let me tell you, out here it eats BB’s for breakfast, and it never stops raining. If you buy cheap, you’ll keep on buying. Hope or Chris King are the better options really if you don’t love changing BB’s, especially with all these PF bikes out there.
  • 8 3
 This is one of the few new standards that i thought were a good idea. This has the opportunity to be more durable, inexpensive, lighter and backwards compatible with my current frame.

What's not to like?
  • 5 0
 @vesko: actually people pressure washing their bikes kills bb's. My bottom brackets last a few years
  • 2 1
 @vesko: well if you buy hope an a decent crank, you won't have to worry about DUB anyways...

sad it's all Boost though
  • 1 0
 @konamann:

They come with boost rings but you can flip them to fit standard chainlines, or I'm sure aftermarket rings will be available soon
  • 1 0
 @RedBurn: Bullshit you done smoked too many DUBS
  • 2 1
 @MrDiamondDave: I really dont understand the PB population. I commented literally the same thing lower in the comment section and I'm at +28 props.... Big Grin
  • 2 0
 @RedBurn: Nice f*ck what others think, #makeyourownopinionandbeadickaboutit
  • 87 10
 This was a bit painful to read. Pinkbike's question were very good, but the answer seemed to dodge as much as possible. Sram was afraid to share results. Answers like this just don't cut it: "And what we can say is that every single DUB BB configuration now outperforms in the lab and in the field...".
  • 8 0
 We understand that it does change rider to rider, but a ballpark percentage would be nice. Does it last 0-10% longer? 20-30% longer? Giving a ballpark estimate based on the average rider is not being dishonest, it's relateable to the consumer.
  • 4 2
 I kept waiting for a clear explanation of why subtracting 1.01mm made the improvements they claim. And why exactly how that improvement was big enough to justify a new standard so close to the old.

Instead of a clear explanation, the answers seemed like misdirections to similar topics,trying to make you think the question was actually being answered. That's a classic dodge.

Thus, I remain skeptical that there is an engineering justification for creating even more "standards". It seems more likely that intentional incompatibility was the primary reason for this 1.01mm difference. SRAM, being a a dominant player in the industry, benefits from breaking compatibility with all the other drivetrain manufacturers.
  • 56 0
 "Because SRAM enforces purchase of the full Eagle group (FC, RD, SL, CS, CN) it kinda locks you in anyway to a crank purchase."

Isn't this what SRAM sued Shimano for back in the day? The settlement that allowed them to buy Sachs, Rock Shox, Truvativ, Avid, etc.? I suppose they aren't forcing everyone to buy hubs, headsets and seatposts like Shimano was, but this raised my eyebrow a bit.

Maybe someone who knows more can chime in.
  • 9 3
 Exactly, that was the biggest take away...and not acknowledging no non-boost option.
  • 28 0
 @ReformedRoadie, the difference between Boost and non-Boost SRAM cranks is in the chainring, not the arms themselves. You'd just need a chainring with 6mm of offset and it would work with a non-Boost bike.

And yes, the full-Eagle group rule is definitely an interesting development.
  • 3 6
 @mikekazimer: I got that, but you cannot buy a crank with it, so you have to buy a DM chain ring for your new DUB crank..which you had to buy a BB with.
  • 8 0
 Actually sram has options for their cranks in a non boost chainring option
  • 2 2
 @Tr011: the chart from the original article says either "Boost" or "Boost, Fat 4, Fat 5".
  • 4 0
 @ReformedRoadie: Im looking at the expected lineup from a sram distributer
  • 8 0
 @mattbrown9
Shimano was sued for having a closed groupset yes.

The ruling was that unless it posed a health risk (ie. true incompatibility with chain/chainring etc.) you could not specify that you could only buy Shimano parts. This meant that Shimano had to allow product managers to purchase and spec groupsets or components of those groupsets how they wanted.

Now, that doesn't mean that you can't delay shipment or dramatically increase prices if your products aren't all sold together soooooo. . .
  • 11 0
 @whilgenb: I see Shimano product managers the world over rubbing their hands with glee and shooting emails to to companies about the excellent value of SLX and XT compared to SRAM.
  • 4 0
 At the time... you bought shimano hubs because that's all that was available for shimano cassettes. SRAM sued because the oem discount for complete groups was removed if you didn't want shimano shifters, and all they offered at the time was their grip shift shifters, which they were having problems getting OEM purchases of, because the brand managers paid more for a shimano group without the shimano shifters, than they did for a complete shimano group. So putting gripsnot on a bike raised the price tag of the bike, for shifters that worked worse.

The settlement didn't allow them to buy those other brands... the profits from OEM sales and the financial problems the other brands dug themselves into is what allowed them to be bought by SRAM. That they're locking the eagle as a full group is a major reason why Sunrace is doing brisk OEM sales of their shimano freehub compatible super wide range cassettes even in 12 speeds. They have an 11-50 12 speed, 11-50 and 11-46 11 speed, and 11-42 and 11-46 10 speed offerings.

www.sunrace.com/products
  • 1 2
 @deeeight: and the shift quality is comparable to SRAM but still not as smooth and accurate as Shimano
  • 1 0
 @ReformedRoadie: BOOST everything with DUB
  • 45 6
 Roberts Graudins: “Do they really machine to those tolerances?” The answer is yes. We expect the DUB BB/Spindle combination to perform at a really high level and part of that comes from having to hold really tight tolerances on our parts.


0.01mm is 4/10,000's of an inch. That's 4 ten-thousanths. Not 4 thousanths (aka "4-thou"), but 10x smaller.

I don't know many mass-consumer metal parts made to those kind of tolerances. Racecar engine & transmission parts? Sure. Jet airplane components? Also yes. Satelites & rockets? No doubt.

But a $50 bottom bracket spindle holding a tolerance of 4/10000" ? Get real!
  • 29 6
 Yeah its such bullshit. They're saying theyre holding a 10 micron tolerance which is just false. A red blood cell is about 10 microns, a human hair is up to 100 microns thick, which would be 10 times bigger than their tolerance? Bull. Are they accounting for the 2-5 micron thick anodizing coating? For a part this well manufactured, how are they transporting it? are you supposed to use gloves when installing? If 10microns was so important you think they would say something, but nah they'll just ship it in a cardboard box.

Even IF they are doing that ridiculous tolerance, why?!? Bearing interfaces do NOT need that kind of precision. Furthermore, the performance difference between 29mm and 28.99mm is actually nothing, so why bother jerking us around with this 28.99mm BS. Its just marketing, shitty, shitty marketing.
  • 22 1
 @LavenderGooms: Not true actually. For a running fit in a hole about 1" in diameter, the shaft should be 3-7 TENTHS of a thousandth of an inch undersized of the bearing ID. That's a normal tolerance and 28.99mm would be a normal shaft size for a 29mm bearing. A 29mm shaft will not slide into a 29mm ID bearing.
See the 5th row down in the column of this link:

www.cobanengineering.com/Tolerances/ANSIRunningSlidingFits.asp
  • 9 2
 @KennyWatson: Interesting, you're right on that. So a 28.99mm shaft WOULD fit cleanly into a 29mm bearing. That chart would also indicated that they do indeed hold such tolerances. The thing is though, that means that if Shimano BB bearings are 24mm ID then the shaft would be 23.99mm OD. Or old GXP was a 23.99mm shaft. So while SRAM is correct with their number, calling it 28.99mm and not just 29 still kinda screams marketing wank to me.
  • 8 4
 .....shaft ..........hole
  • 4 0
 @LavenderGooms: Yeah calling 28.99 is a little wierd. It'd be pretty normal to reference it based on the bearing ID and just call it 29mm. Kinda wanky to call it 28.99. You could give the benefit of the doubt and say they are being precise but to me it reads like they are trying to make it sound fancy. It uses 29mm bearings.

And yes even with manual milling processes "half a thou" (0.0005") it completely normal.
  • 1 0
 @KennyWatson: they stated that's the nominal for shaft, which is a slide fit into bearing ID (like you say, prob 29mm).

From there they are grinding the shaft to their tolerance, which was never listed, so the comment is comical. The tolerances could be +- 5mm or they could be +.01mm, or -/-. In aeropsace where we make landing gear components, we regularly do high tolerance cyls and pistons, pins and bushings which get precision ground after HVOF or chrome plating, and these are typical tolerances for us and its very doable with grinding or even some turning operations, but we control this very well in order to achieve this every time, and our product is of significantly higher quality and precision. Without seeing SRAMS production setup and methodology, or their tolerances, it's impossible to say, but chances are they are not producing these to perfect size for every part with the volume they do and history of quality. .01mm is .0004" which is normal for precision bushing/shaft tolerances. Once these shafts hit the market it will be easy for us to check the actual sizes.
  • 2 0
 @KennyWatson: Yep! I asked a good machinist friend of mine his opinion and he agreed with you that 28.99mm is likely the nominal size of the shaft, and that holding a small "half a thou" tolerance would be expected for a part like this. Apparently on large production runs for parts like these they use a centerless grinding technique which makes hitting small tolerances like that relatively cheap for a large number of parts. I still think its silly for SRAM to say 28.99mm, but we can always call it 29mm for convenience sake, I know I will.

I'd also like to take a micrometer to a new GXP spindle and see that it measures out too, for curiosity's sake, as well as a DUB bb whenever our shop gets them in.
  • 3 2
 This is Sram we are talking about. Its probably actually more like 28.99mm (+-.5mm)
  • 1 0
 @LavenderGooms:
I'm in manufacturing and if you said a shaft is Ø29mm then as a basic tolerance you would have +/- 0.5mm
by saying the shaft is Ø28.99 then the basic tolerance is +/- 0.01mm
VERY different outcomes when machining parts.

Marketing wank or not, they are correct.
But if they said it's Ø29.00 +0.00 -0.02mm that is the same as Ø28.99.
Which is easier to say?
  • 52 15
 Why not release more technologies at once? Why constantly release a new technology/design in serial? Seriously, how hard would it have been to roll out Boost, Eagle and Dub all in the same shot? You just released Eagle not too long ago. This is what frustrates me and probably others, every 6 months its some new roll out, new standard, new dimensions. Now current Eagle cranks are out dated. Its freaking iPhone, 5, 5s, 6, 6s, 7, etc etc all over again.
  • 23 9
 You assume that all of these things were thought of simultaneously and executed with as much ease that they would be ready on time. If 1x was ready to go, but boost wasn't, would you miss out on being first to market if shimano was ready to launch theirs?
  • 13 12
 Because consumers don't want to wait that long. If Apple only rolled out a new iPhone every 3 or 4 years with multiple huge updates, they'd lose too many customers to Android as Android gradually upgraded feature by feature. Every company designs iteratively like this, pretty much. If SRAM waited a long time between updates, Shimano would bleed customers from them in the meantime.
  • 5 5
 @raditude: yeah they definitely needed to hurry up and beat Shimano to the 12 speed market right? I get your point but I don't think it applies across the board. Every 6-12 months our brand new bikes have something become obsolete. And half of the reason is because of the incremental-ness of it all. 142, to boost, to 157. Eagle, to Eagle Dub. It's kinda silly.
  • 18 3
 @mtemp: But your bike is no less awesome despite the updates. My bb spindle measures 30mm, Still gonna send it!
  • 9 4
 @gumbytex: I'd be happy to wait "that long." These are very expensive purchases and I'd rather get 4 updates at once that get them in piece-mill and have parts become obsolete (or old school) in a matter of months. Imagine if Ford put out a new 5.0 motor for its F150 in 2017, then in 2018 they completely changed the fuel injection system, then in 2019 they turbo'd it, then in 2020 they switched to a supercharger, mid year in 2020 they changed to a new 4.8 etc.
  • 2 2
 amen.
  • 11 2
 Because the engineers at SRAM work for specific divisions, with their own goals, budgets, and timelines. Tying the release of one system or subsystem to another just adds more constraints to the design and release process, without a tangible benefit.
  • 15 12
 @raditude: how much R&D do you really think went into DUB? A couple hours in CAD, a few minutes to generate the NC code, a couple hours in the machine shop, and then a week on the test machine? Proof of concept, done. These are not complicated concepts... seal design, bearing design, shaft design, and optimization... it's all covered in basic engineering courses... from a technical standpoint, this all just frustrated me.
  • 3 3
 @WrenchRy87: do they have an entire bottom bracket division? lol
  • 19 1
 There’s nothing outdated in the old eagle cranks. You willl be able to get new bottom brackets for your current cranks for longer than your cranks will survive. You can still get BBs for square taper if you want them. The only people that will be negatively affected are the bike shops who have to carry one more $30 msrp bottom bracket, that really they won’t carry and just order from the closest QBP when they need to for a repair.
The reality is this does simplify one part of the whole system, one crankeset that works with whatever the frame B.B. has, either threaded or pressed. Which is huge for when you transfer over parts from a previous frame. My old carbon BB30 cranks won’t fit most of the new frames because the pressfit fad is over and everyone is on threaded now. This move should prevent that kind of obsolescence.
I understand people’s new standard fatigue, but this is really not something to freak out over. It’s not getting frame manufacturers to change a thing: this is not boost all over again. No one has invested $500 in a BB like a hubset that won’t work later. BBs are wear items and need to be replaced eventually. I think we need Xanax for Pinkbike forums on this one.
  • 3 2
 @whambat: they are in fact inferior which makes them outdated... according to SRAM
  • 2 2
 @jcav5: @jcav5: spot on, the engineering of mtb products except suspension and wheels is pretty simple . Ebikes are responsible for poor innovations on the other components, again.
  • 1 0
 @mtemp: actually, I agree with Sram on that. BB30 should just die.
  • 3 0
 I think you're overestimating the size of product and engineering teams at bike companies. The "mtb drivetrain" team at Sram probably only has bandwidth to work on a couple of major features for any given season. It's next season by the time they've done the market research, the engineering, gotten OEM sales on-boarded, and configured manufacturing.
  • 4 0
 @jcav5: I imagine it was someone at sram going, Shit look at our sku count on cranks, how can we make less. Some dude in engineering said, "hold my beer"
  • 1 0
 $ $ $ $ $ $
  • 36 3
 Seriously, what is wrong with 24mm external threaded BB's (apart from many manufacturers not speccing them)? The weight penalty is negligible if comparing like (aluminum) cranks.
Stiffness? Pu-leez, most people ride with spongy soled shoes that effectively negate any marginal stiffness gains.
The industry is more disorganized, and less "standard" than it was before "IS" was implemented in the mid to late 90's.
  • 8 0
 Right. Love how they had riders at the end of their release video talking about product testing it. Who cares. It's going to work. It's just a different sized spindle! Hire me as a professional rider so I can say "yup, still stiff".
  • 37 8
 You know, Vernon might be the gamechanger. Imagine when bike manufacturers design the next bullshit standard or expensive, useless oem crap, they'll have to think in the boardroom, "Shit, that Vernon Felton guy is going to ask us these questions and not back down. Maybe we should make some changes before release or else we'll all look like asses and tone down our marketing speak that we can't back up."
  • 34 2
 Anyone else totally skip reading this article just to get to the pile-on down here???
  • 35 6
 COMMENT SECTION SUMMARY:

Dub is commercial bullshit,

buy Shimano bottom bracket for $30 and replace it when it's broken after more than 10 years
  • 42 11
 dammit.. what do am I supposed to do with my tinfoil hat now?
  • 246 6
 wrap it around your 28.99mm spindle and it might fit a 30mm BB shell
  • 8 4
 @gumbytex: You sir, win the internet today.
  • 11 11
 @gumbytex: improv genius!
  • 17 0
 @gumbytex: Ghetto DUBless!
  • 8 0
 Put a couple potatoes in it and make yourself dinner
  • 1 1
 @gumbytex: Least Racist Bigly Stable Genius!!
  • 6 0
 @gumbytex:
You could call it "Sram-wrap"
  • 2 0
 @joeyrotundo: non USA be like huh? but I’m amused
  • 45 18
 Interviewing Product Managers about their opinions of things they didn't pay for is a waste of time.
  • 34 9
 To be fair, they're really the only ones, other than SRAM's own test riders, who have any experience with DUB yet.
  • 16 21
flag makripper (Jan 17, 2018 at 13:12) (Below Threshold)
 @mikekazimer: then why even bother until you can do an actual review?
  • 27 5
 @mikekazimer: To be fair, they are the least likely to be critical about the product they spec'd on their own lines. Like giving yourself a C on a paper before you let the teacher grade it.
  • 22 8
 @makripper: In order to provide further insight into a topic that generated hundreds of comments in a short period of time. It was obvious that plenty of readers had questions and concerns, so Vernon asked the questions that seemed to be the most pressing.

We will be reviewing the new cranks and bb's, but a review of components like that is more of a long-term project - it takes a lot of riding time to really comment on durability, etc...
  • 16 4
 I'm sure they work fine, it's just pointless. They're not going to criticize what they're going to spec on their bikes.
  • 4 6
 @vernonfelton: BB's go with their respective cranks. It is an easy concept and certainly not as hoopla-inducing as PB commenters have made it. Just the amount of uninspiring one-liners from the various PM's make me think that part could have been left on the cutting room floor.
  • 1 4
 @BiNARYBiKE: but they do, if the stuff is breaking and everyone hates it why would consumers buy a bike with it?
  • 15 2
 @mikekazimer: in this there is still not a real reason given behind 28.99. I wish they would just say "yeah it was just to make it so you couldn't use other bb because we feel if you mix a sram crankset with a race face bb it will not be properly engineered for perfect spacing and gear load" that's perfectly rational and fine. This corporate shill video and industry fluff is what pisses off readers..
  • 13 0
 @mikekazimer: When a guy from a bike company goes straight to the 'well why don't we all go bike to riding bikes from 20 years ago then,' argument when every little 'improvement' they put out is questioned would you guys do us all a favour and head the article with a photo of them with a strap on dildo superimposed onto their head. Just so we know how seriously to take him/her.
  • 7 0
 @mikekazimer: I really feel like a hands-on review in the field is kind of useless for a product like this. Interview some bike mechanics who have to deal with the new "standard" after it's been out for a little while, see what that side of the equation has to say.
  • 8 0
 @vernonfelton: They are also the least likely to shit on Sram in a public forum.
  • 4 0
 And things that they're forced to sell, basically.
  • 5 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: Exactly -- total BS response.
  • 4 0
 Exactly - speccing bikes from scratch? What's not to like about DUB? Aftermarket is a completely different story
  • 4 0
 @vernonfelton: @mikekazimer Simply put: conflict of interest. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. etc.
  • 2 1
 @Gregorysmithj1: it literally says in the article that 28.99 was chosen to allow for better sealing in an PF92 shell.
  • 8 29
flag Monstertruckermotherfuker (Jan 17, 2018 at 15:19) (Below Threshold)
 @vernonfelton: do I really have to explain how you saying “precisely” to Mike is like........I don’t know, two dudes in the 69 position.
  • 26 3
 @Monstertruckermotherfuker: Or it could also be one person agreeing with another. It's a single word that says what it means. Call me crazy, but my mind doesn't immediately conjure up images of people having sex with one another. To each their own though...
  • 10 28
flag Monstertruckermotherfuker (Jan 17, 2018 at 16:15) (Below Threshold)
 @vernonfelton: you had your minions down vote me and upvote you in 14 minutes, quick damage control.
  • 6 1
 @Monstertruckermotherfuker: I think your comment was over the top but I'd like them to give some personal opinions about this pr nightmare of a rollout
  • 16 1
 @mikekazimer: How about asking a single bike shop owner how they feel about another new standard?

Asking a bicycle company what they think about their #1 component supplier that they've probably signed a multi year contract with is like asking an employee what they really think of their boss, while they're in the same room together....
  • 10 14
flag dontfeedthetrolls (Jan 17, 2018 at 19:38) (Below Threshold)
 @Monstertruckermotherfuker: Get f*cked you mouth breathing homophobe.
  • 4 3
 @dontfeedthetrolls: pretty sure his comment was actually the opposite of homophobic, he’s using it in its appropriate way to signify two dudes sucking each other off. Could have replaced it with “feeding each other cheeseburgers” with the same effect. But political correctness FTW.
  • 18 1
 @Gregorysmithj1: Fair enough. Since I haven't ridden or even touched DUB i can't offer any opinion about the quality or performance of the product. Nobody can, other than the people who've ridden it, which is why I turned to product managers who, at times, can have almost an entire season on a product before even us media hacks ever hear about the stuff. Furthermore, some product managers are massively opinionated, passionate and willing to say exactly what they think--in general, I like to hear their two cents on stuff...all of which made them interesting sources here and, really, the only sources outside of SRAM to talk to. So, in an effort to get the most balanced perspective at this very early juncture, I asked a few what they thought.

What do i think (your real question)? Again, I've got zilch to say about performance and that'll be true until I've ridden a bunch of muddy miles with the stuff, but in general I like the idea of having one spindle size over a variety of bottom brackets; that just simplifies things.

I hate press-fit bottom brackets--I've never been shy about that--and if (a big if) this adds durability to some bottom bracket configurations, I'll be happy about that turn of events.

I'm glad that DUB doesn't require some new bottom bracket shell configuration....the world needs a new one of those like it needs a new version of herpes.

I think SRAM could have saved themselves some grief by just calling it 29 millimeters. I think my first question points in that direction. I think they shouldn't have said in their video that DUB was backwards compatible, since one logical way of understanding that statement is to think that you can run DUB cranks on existing bottom brackets or DUB bottom brackets with existing cranks...neither of which is true. You can run DUB cranks and BBs on any existing MTB frame and that's, again, a good thing, but, yeah, the "backwards compatibility" part of their messaging was confusing, which is why I asked them about it.

I'm curious as to why 28.99 proved superior to, say, 27 or 26 or 25 millimeter spindle diameters, but your guess as to why that's true or whether it's true is as good as mine.

In short, I'd like to get on a set of the stuff and ride it for myself, abuse it the way I abuse everything else and see if it measures up. That's going to take some time. If any media outlet vomits up a "review" in the next two months, they will be doing everyone a disservice since it's going to take a lot longer than that to determine whether the claims of increased durability are true.

Phew....that's my opinion, but I also know what people say about opinions.... Cheers.
  • 3 0
 @vernonfelton: Gosh, you have a LOT of patience! Us bikers are a bunch of complainers. People are reacting as if SRAM had released a proprietary BB shell that would require a full frame redesign. At the end of the day this changes nothing for the final consumer...
  • 2 0
 @dontfeedthetrolls: didn’t say I had a problem with gay people I said telling your boss he is right all the time seems like you are stroking each other and does nothing to convince people of your point. It’s like two twins telling each other that “you are pretty”. I am not homophobic btw and to prove it I will now be YOUR friend, better now princess.
  • 23 1
 "we have a hard time seeing how it isn’t backwards compatible to the existing frame BB shell standards that are in the market today" well here is a slow clap for making a BB standard that fits in a bike frame. well done sram
  • 29 9
 DUB = Dumb, Useless, Bullshit !!!!
  • 3 4
 YES
  • 5 1
 Gotta love the industry cronies down voting you
  • 1 0
 @poozank: All is virtual, does not hurt Smile
  • 20 1
 I guess sram gave up on making the reverb more reliable and focused on something easier.
  • 3 0
 Brilliant
  • 21 5
 I don't have enough mechanical or engineering knowledge to form a strong opinion on the DUB system, but I do have enough leadership and life experience to know that it is much easier to criticize and post anonymous cheap shots than it is to offer constructive contributions to a conversation or debate. Maybe Pinkbike should do a poll that measures the emotional intelligence of the people who regularly comment on this site, and then post the score beside our Pinkbike handles. This would help us all to more efficiently scan through the comment sections. I'm guessing around 75 negative props for this....
  • 18 5
 What would be a really nice move from SRAM is if they would allow/welcome Shimano, Race Face and others to share this new diameter, i.e. make it an open standard. And if Shimano et al. would actually follow suit, that would reduce the number of different standards in the long term. But I guess that's just wishful thinking...
  • 4 1
 Open innovation it's called, and the arguments in favor of how it allows for real innovation to take place, and for everything to move much faster are huge. However... at least in biking it's still a utopia!
  • 17 0
 Shimano allow the use of 24mm axles and their pinch bolt + end cap attachment method. For a long time FSA used it whilst Raceface used the 24mm axle but a different end cap design. Trouble is Shimano do the best and cheapest cranks with steel 24mm spindles, so everyone else had to find a way to make it more better-er than Shimano (and so far they have all failed).
  • 6 4
 @Fix-the-Spade: yes exactly. But even Shimano wanted to better out themselves with this silly XTR 970 thing with dumb preload ring. They learned their lesson though and xtr is back with regular interface
  • 22 0
 Shimano resists useless changes as long as they can, it's why I like them so much.
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: I forgot about those, lucky for me I've got M980s.
  • 1 0
 We need it to work the other way around though. Shimano already has stronger, cheaper, (and until recently) lighter cranks that are backwards compatible with every BB they've made since like 2006. Even now, the 3-year-old XTR alloy crankset is only like 30g heavier than this not-yet-released piece of cutting edge carbon tech. We need everyone else to just give up and adopt Shimano axles and BBs.
  • 1 0
 @TheRaven: Yes, talking of SRAM product reliability - I'd like SRAM to adress their pedal inserts getting loose in their carbon cranks first before they talk of strong axles... wait... I take that back!!! Fkrs will resize the insert to 14.99mm...
  • 14 1
 So, basically.... it's an easy solution as the end user... DONT BUY THEIR SHIT.

Supply and Demand people... quit buying SRAM stuff for a while. Hurt em' where it hurts. It's the same old song and dance, and every f*ckin one of us is SICK AND TIRED of stupid ass changes like these... for absolutely ZERO other reason than making something else "not work" anymore.

Hit em' in the wallet.
  • 12 0
 Interesting that SRAM are forcing bike brands to spec full eagle groupsets only, is this a backlash against the increasing market share for crank manufacturers (other than them & Shimano) since 1x drivetrains have become the norm? Raceface and e13 cranks have been increasingly popular on complete bikes in the last few years.
  • 13 1
 I'd wager the spindles won't even be manufactured to within a 0.01mm tolerance. Do you know how small 1/100 of a millimeter is??? I hope pinkbike has the cajones to measure a few of these with a good micrometer and publish the findings. What a joke.
  • 6 3
 Yeah I was thinking the same thing, a spindle machined to 0.01mm tolerance would be absurdly expensive. The price doesnt reflect that at all. I call BS.
  • 7 1
 Hope's tolerances for their hub bearing fittings are 0.005 mm. I think 0.01 is pretty normal for machined metal parts.
  • 3 1
 @jzPV: you sure your not confusing inches with mm? 0.005" would be pretty standard.
  • 2 1
 @orangenut: Nope. Seen in their production video from the Pro 4 (they quote it and you can see the measuring process and tolerances on their screen).
  • 14 2
 Why is it that SRAM only seams to be able to make better products by changing standards? I get it, don’t follow standards and just engineer to the optimal spec. However, Fox offers shocks and forks in all measures and seams to just look at improving what they have, whatever the standard might be. Shimano always puts out a seamingly flawless product at a good price...that doesn’t break...on an old standard. I’m still running the same hubs. And then you have the other opposites, like Hope, who don’t care for standards and aren’t trying to impose them. They built a narrower hub they know won’t sell just because they can for their new bike, and it’s just as stiff as boost. I’m done with anything Rochsocks, SRAM, Truvative. Ditched my reverb which kept breaking, switched to Shimano gearing and the next thing to go are my code brakes. They can keep their future 28.1 wheels!!!
  • 12 0
 Here's an honest question. Sram was going to get shit about this no matter what, so why did they announce it like it was some great new advancement while almost-apologetically trying to pretend it's not a new system? It's really not a big deal to anyone but them, their cranks and BBs were already proprietary before so everybody flipping out is over-reacting, why didn't they just let the stuff start showing up on bikes in 2019? Could have saved themselves a lot of headache.
  • 11 2
 My $.02 ... f*ck off SRAM. Try focusing on those thousands and thousands of brake failures before revamping your mediocre drivetrain.

you aren't special. anyone can piece together a 1x drivetrain that doesn't fail, is not proprietary, and cost 33%.
  • 9 0
 Blah blah blah. That’s a whole lot of bullshit which basically translates to inventing products for problems that don’t exist to exploit the consumer for more sales. This industry is disgusting.
  • 11 4
 SRAM forcing the OEM's to buy the full Eagle package including their cranks is a great move on their part.

Not sure how good it is for us when Race Face is shut out of the OEM market and Shimano is content to be the number one purveyor of drivetrains for 400$ bike, but it's great for SRAM.
  • 14 7
 I really don't understand why everyone is so annoyed at this?

Everyone in the comments "can't believe sram has made a spindle that is lighter, stiffer and the BB just as durable as 24mm what idiots"

They are making a better product. Everyone will have forgotten about this in 6 months time
  • 8 1
 Beware the New Unwanted Standards are now breeding like rabbits. The DUB 28.99999 (rounding by the way is now taught in grade 7...) basically has been created by the PF92 according to SRAM. And how we all love that standard. Nothing like a 10 thousand dollar mountain bike sounding like a Walmart special left in the elements for a year. What was wrong with the BSA?

I am waiting for the next move by industry. Perhaps the new axle diameter will inspire the new stiffer 154.49999 rear axle spacing to find that perfect balance of stiffness and alignment to perfect the chain line based on the small increase in chain drag as a result of the new better seals on the DUB.

In the last 20 years I have never arrived at a race worried about my BB because I did not check it the day before. Anyways - like another person commented - I was checking my calendar to see if it was April 1.
  • 16 6
 ☝️☝️☝️☝️never read so much bullshit in my life.
  • 1 1
 You mean in the article or in the comments?
  • 10 0
 So why is sram suing raceface?
  • 7 0
 Narrow-Wide chainring patent.

Praxis Works and Wolftooth are party to similar action.

Illinois court filings can be found here: www.plainsite.org/dockets/2oys12yox/illinois-northern-district-court/sram-llc-v-race-face-performance-products
  • 4 0
 @dougfs: ok i got my popcorn..
So nw was already a thing(tractors) but sram will try and say its unique when made for bikes im guessing and some tooth shapes arent differnet enough...
  • 5 1
 Narrow-wide chain pulley systems have been used in agriculture machinery for around 100 years now. The fact that you can sue for this....well....there are no words....except for one.....'Murica.
  • 2 0
 @dougfs: I think you´ll find that Praxis and Wolf Tooth resolved this issue some time back. Only RF have the pockets deep enough to not get bullied by SRAM and try to fight the case. This is pretty typical from them at the moment - the Product Managers above all admitted they have been forced to spec full Eagle, which when Shimano did the same it got them sued. I think they are getting close to where Spesh were when they sued a small bike shop with the name Cafe Roubaix and Neil Pryde bikes over their "allez" model - Once the consumer saw it for what it was (using your money as a stick to threaten legal action you know smaller companies cant afford to sustain) the taste of victory wasnt so sweet. Judging by the comments here, its pretty clear this could be their "Cafe Roubaix" moment. I hope so - no one likes a bully Smile
  • 2 0
 @Boardlife69: See my other comment on this. Its common practise to threaten legal action when you have a good amount of loot in the bank. For the smaller company, you can gamble your future on winning what i consider a spurious case - BUT its possible the case is decided by a judge who cant tell the front of a bike from the back! Show that judge two similar looking rings and get your expensive lawyer to drag the case out until the little company cant afford to defend it anymore. Stay classy SRAM.
  • 7 1
 So to sum up - 73mm threaded BB + 24mm spindle all the way. All other "solutions" is either marketing BS, weigh weenies wet dreams or frame designers laziness.
Btw, I love the idea o f inventing pressfit with not enough diameter to host a super-light and stiff 30mm axle with bearings which actually live longer than half a year.
  • 13 7
 Ian Schmitt, Product Manager, Kona Bicycles
"The durability [with DUB] has been very good. I’ve had the same bottom bracket in my bike since August and have had no issues with it. Normally I have 24mm or GXP cranks on my bikes and I replace my BB when its worn. Usually 4-8 months depending on how much I am riding and the conditions.
4-8 months???? Very Good? Seriously?
I have Shimano bottom brackets (cartridge and external bearing) that are 15 yo and 10 yo respectively.
4-8 months might as well be considered disposable. That's ridiculous, and I'm riding year round, pacific north west wet and muddy conditions.
  • 18 11
 15 year old bottom brackets with daily aggressive riding in the PNW? Really?
  • 13 4
 @brianpark: Never said daily or aggressive, so ...
  • 9 3
 @brianpark: I have a Octalink BB that is 12 years old used daily as a commuter in Vancouver.Spins as freely as day one.And you shouldn't put words in people's mouths.
  • 5 1
 @brianpark: Pretty sure a UN52 could be ridden round the world twice and still feel barely worn in. The one in my commute bike is nearly as old as me.
  • 4 0
 @rideonjon: Weird, that's probably the same BB I'm running. To be clear, I should have clarified that the cartridge bearing BB is an Octalink V1 BB-5500 on a commuter in Vancouver as well, so no, it doesn't see mud, but 4 days a week X 27km's round trip X 42 weeks per year on a 2003 Devinci is a conservative 71,000km's. To be honest, it is starting to get a marginal bit of play as of this year, but I think I got my $ worth.
Not sure of the external model on my mtb, but probably sees 60 rides per year (at least). I just rinse off after each ride with a low pressure hose.
  • 4 2
 @thedeathstar: fair enough, but a mountain bike product manager likely does both at certain times in the year.

@woofer2609: is the 60 MTB rides a year in the PNW the one that's been good for 10 years? 600 mountain bike rides on a BB in occasional PNW slop is still pretty impressive.
  • 2 0
 @brianpark: I'm with you. I have yet to find a bb that will last over 1 winter here in the PNW. I would love to hear anyone who has. The biggest issues seems to be sealing and bearing corrosion resistance. If these SRAM BBs are actually sealed well enough to prevent water ingression in PNW winter riding, I'll be the first to get one. So far both Shimano and Enduro bearings have failed in my BB due to corrosion. Next I'm going to try Enduro's Stainless Steal bearings and see if the softer balls still last longer because at least they do not corrode. What I want to know is why it seems no one in the bike world is making bearings out of some of the better heat treatable stainless steel bearing materials like such as UNS S42027 / AMS5898 / SV30 / 1.4108 /X30CrMoN15-1. I know it would cost more but at least they should last in corrosive conditions and still be hard enough for long life in dryer conditions.
  • 1 0
 @Xorrox: How often do you clean and grease your bearings? I guess never, because it says "Do Not Disassemble". I clean even the new bearings and put grease, like Sheldon Brown said: "when in doubt, put some more" Big Grin . I even tried with thick oil on one of my bikes and, after 14 months and almost 2 winters, is still going strong.
  • 1 0
 i messengered in chicago on UN54s and they lasted under a year. Dirt, salt, grime, 3-5 hours a day on the bike and they were roached. everything dies.
  • 1 0
 @kmg0: Just think how long a Raceface BB would have lasted,you would have had to carry 2 spares with you and change them on your coffee breaks.As a former bike courier a year out of a BB is not bad.
  • 2 0
 @rideonjon: Ha ha, right! I never realized how blown my bearings were until I replaced my hub bearings (phil wood ftw) and bb at the same time. It was like I had been running no air in my tires!
  • 6 0
 It's not difficult to improve on your old GXP BB durability. I went through one in a couple of weeks once, commuting each day off road. Compare to Shimano that I usually get 6mths to a year out of. So great if that's improved.
Problem is due to the over complexity and lack of durability over the last decade (yes, I too had the disaster that were Juicy's and GXP) I've moved all my family's bikes over to Shimano, and actively tried to avoid SRAM. So now I'm unlikely to move - either through not trusting SRAM or the fact I'm now stocked with Shimano spares and bike set ups...
  • 6 0
 New standards make it so the awesome shit is cheaper and us non-dentists can afford it. I do however feel peoples frustration with how the industry is changing insanely fast. My new 2018 bike is still on back order, and does not include Ultra Mega Boosty Boost or this new bullcrap DUB system that I am now more confused on after reading SRAMS half backed answers. But really who the hell cares get out there and ride your f'ing bike because lets face it half these pros we see could out ride us anyday of the week on a fully rigid junker.
  • 6 0
 We made it 28.9999745 because it provides the exact frequency resonance of a tires rolling contact point on trail dirt. Our vigorous testing demonstrated vibration cancellations , overall increasing traction, ride quality, and small bump compliance an average of 7.64%. And most importantly, we want to make your stuff obsolete.
  • 6 0
 DON'T FALL FOR THE TRAP! The more we talk about DUB and these new stupid standards, more brands will start to think we care about it enough to spec them on future bikes. They did it with boost last time. The best defense against new standards it to ignore it.
  • 1 0
 you are correct sir
  • 3 0
 "Hypernormalisation" It got Trump in the Whitehouse and Putin has been using this ploy for years.
  • 14 6
 2.5 weeks into 2018 and already new bogus standards. Enough already f@ckers!
  • 3 3
 Can you read? Where did you see "new standard"?
  • 3 1
 @racecase: hes clearly better at intuiting than you.
  • 5 0
 Comments on any new bike part are going to be subject to "Standard Fatigue". The last 5 years have burned riders with crap new standards. So much so, that any change is going to rumble up distrust, and resentment. Like being caught cheating on your wife...
  • 10 1
 An XT BB is $19. Just sayin'.
  • 5 0
 And its the right diameter from the begining!
  • 6 1
 Cool. So I guess the DUB system is trademarked/patented? So this stuff will be supplied as original equipment, and any 3rd party who wants to supply compatible replacement parts has the choice of either lawsuit or licensing agreement? Just a question...
  • 1 3
 And thats different to anything elsr how exactly?
  • 12 4
 The dude from Giant nailed it.

Does it fit my bike...great. Does it work...great...

who really cares what the size is?
  • 7 3
 Nobody, until you need to replace it and you find out your "standard" is outdated so you have to order it and wait =less riding time.
  • 2 3
 Are you talking about your dick or a crankset?
  • 7 2
 I am loosing faith in SRAM. They are stating 29 is much better than 24 or 30 and that they have done a lot of testing bla bla bla.... Shoulden't have they done THE TESTING when they were introducing THEIR OWN 30 "standard"?

At least admit that the 30mm was designed wrong in the first place.
  • 3 0
 As many others have stated.. .SRAM doesn't make a 30mm to BSA/BB92 option, so you're mad at them for something they don't even make. Sums up this comment section fairly well.

30mm spindles work fine in large diameter BB30 and PF30 shells.
  • 2 0
 @mobaar: I never mentioned BSA or BB92. I know 30mm spindles work fine, but if they were 29mm from the begining we wouldn't need a new axle standard.
  • 2 0
 @IluvRIDING: SRAM didn't invent 30mm either. That was Cannondale.

The real issue is the 30mm/BB92 system. Neither one were designed to work with the other, but several companies made it happen (e13, RaceFace, FSA). SRAM never jumped on that bandwagon.

The problem is that it does produce a lighter crank. If SRAM wanted to be lazy, its super easy to make a longer 30mm spindle, whip up a BB and call it a day. This IS SRAM trying to do it right from the start.
  • 1 1
 @mobaar: They din't have to adopt it from the begining. They did.
  • 5 0
 BSA30 system basically negate SRAM's argument. It's been around and it works well. And the 10-thou precision argument is pretty ridiculous. why can't you machine it to 29.00 (still 10-thou precision)?? the whole "I'm just giving you a honest answer, I was an engineer, and we speak in precision" reasoning is pretty distasteful.
  • 1 1
 Except BSA30 isn't a solution for BB92 frames (which, BTW, is a Shimano standard)
  • 1 0
 @mobaar: right, one is pressfit, and one is threaded; again, Rotor has Press Fit 4124. The point is that Dub isn't an entirely new concept, it's just SRAM's way of forcing manufacturers' hands. Now there will have to be new toolings, production lines and etc. It's Easy for SRAM to set up for such, but for a smaller manufacturer, it's a strain on the business. So let's compare apples to apples.
  • 5 0
 It's easy to forget that right now you can purchase an XT crank and BB for about $150. The chainring will be steel, you can adjust the preload on the bearings, and the plastic bb cups compress just enough to compensate for any imprecision in the frame while reducing creaking. If your bb wears out in the middle of nowhere, there's a good chance a shop will have a replacement in stock. Remind me why I should care about SRAM BBs.
  • 10 6
 This crank/bb will fit in my three mountain bikes I currently have, so I have no complaint about compatibility. If I buy a crankset, I have to buy a bottom bracket to go with it. That's how I've always done it.

Now if product managers can start putting shorter crank arms on their smaller bikes...that would be great. 175 is honestly too long for me and my short ass legs on my small and medium frames.
  • 4 0
 I wish they had asked why a 30mm spindle in a longer length would have not been acceptable. Then it would have truly been backwards compatible (as long as you had a BB for a 30mm spindle of course) instead of this new 28.99 BS.
  • 1 1
 BB92
  • 6 0
 I'm willing to bet most premature BB bearing failures are caused by cup misalignment, bad seals, and/or too high of preload during install.
Sorry but, #willnotbuy
  • 4 0
 "We've changed the measurement on everything else so many times in the last five years....the only thing left was to re-invent the wheel....I mean bottom bracket..."

Another new standard under the guise of "weight savings". At least this article pointed out that the "dub" shit isn't compatible with any of our previous shit.
  • 4 0
 First, the 28.99 smells like marketing rubbish. Thermal expansion differences between the aluminum axle and the steel bearing will change the sizes more than .01 mm. Also note well that on my new road build I am using Campagnolo cranks which use a 25 mm axle. So the 29 mm axle seems like a nothing to me.

Second, the standards issue is a moot point. As many have already explained the expensive part to replace is the frame, not the BB / bearing holder. As long as they support BSA I am good to go. All my frames except one use BSA BBs. I could complain about the lack of support for French threaded frames. I am replacing my perfectly good Peugeot CFX-10 road bike frame because those French BBs are getting hard to find.

Third, I doubt that the diameter alone will make much of a difference in the seal effectiveness. And we need to agree that the quality of the seal makes the difference in BB life expectancy. I had a perfectly fine Race Face BB that failed after being ridden under water for 500 meters. If they have made a better seal, then they have a good product. When I need to replace my Hope cranks I would consider theirs.

Fourth, Pink Bike's testers should just find a nice swamp and ride under water for half a click to test BBs for life expectancy. It trashed my RF bearings in one ride.
  • 4 0
 Honestly who cares guys?

Reliable sources claim that Shimano will launch for 2019 (so end of this year or earlier) a 12-speed XTR group with direct mount chainrings.

Given Shimano track record one can assume that, it will be light, aluminum/bulletproof , with 24 spindle (without ever braking ever creaking c**k rings) and best value for money BB's on the market. And probably will be cheaper than Eagle cranks to start with.
  • 4 1
 They were doing direct mount chainrings twenty years ago ironically... introduced with the 1996 XTR and later trickled down to the XT and LX groups, the back side of the drive side crank was splined to take either a direct mount big chainring (which was then the spider onto which the middle and granny ring were fitted) or a spider for 64/104 4-bolt chainrings (LX/XT) or 68/112 4-bolt (XTR) rings. All three cranks used the same spline interface though, and aftermarket companies offered spiders as well as other component makers adopted the system as well (like Adventure Components).

A 24mm diameter aluminum alloy BB spindle is still stiffer than the 17mm titanium spindles many of us were using to lighten our crank setups 25 years ago.
  • 1 0
 Not trolling, I think I might have read somewhere that it's 13-speed. Again, the emphasis is "might have"; vitalmtb forum maybe?
  • 2 0
 @sc213626:

I recall that it was a patent for the 13sp group. Might be wrong.

The guy told me clearly that this new XTR will be 12sp, direct mount and will have new cassette driver to allow for wide range cassette. I think it will be the one from now old groups. I can't recall the name.
  • 2 0
 @LeetusBee:

You want to know what's coming from shimano, you search the US patent documents...uspto.gov

For example, this 9,855,794 which is a new rear hub patent was granted 17 days ago based on a filing from August 2016. Then we have 9,862,454 granted also this month is for a new crankset patent that relates to keeping the chain on the sprocket. 9,868,491 was granted only 3 days ago and is a new cassette patent, and finally 9,862,451 was granted 10 days ago for a bicycle control device. There were a dozen other patents granted in november and december 2017. One particularly interesting one is 9,829,085 which relates to new sprockets using a sandwiched layer construction (like the ice tech rotors).
  • 5 0
 Can't wait for everyone to freak out whenever Shimano gets around to coming out with 12 speeds and comes out with their own new hub standard.
  • 8 1
 How about this though.......just go ride your bike.
  • 5 0
 I'd like to hear whether the "metal cups on their press-fit bottom brackets" are wearing away the inside of the press-fit cups on carbon frames.
  • 9 2
 i call B U L L S H I T on sram...this is nothing more than a money grab...
  • 5 1
 Reverb, avid brakes, guide brakes....new bb...just another thing to toss into the "of course it's broken, it's sram, I should have waited 4 years while they worked out the issues" box
  • 4 1
 Summary: "Yeah thanks, so we just made changes to make change and mainly to make more money because it worked the last time we made unnecessary change. Don't worry though, next year we'll change it to 27.01 and everyone will forget about this development. And meanwhile, all our older products will go up in price due to supply and demand and we'll make even more money."
  • 3 0
 That´s a problem when companies grow too big. they have to make more and more profit every year to make their investors happy. You cannot do this with products and standards that last forever. It´s like with apple making old iphones slower.

It is just cheating on customers.
  • 4 0
 Call Chris King and let them know you want to learn how to make reliable BBs. They are a kind bunch, I'm sure they'll teach you something valuable. Just forget the marketing BS you guys learned over the years.
  • 3 0
 Pointless! After 4 years of riding my Deore Cranks with the stock BB, I finally changed them. I rode Race Face Chester cranks with the Shimano BB, until I had to change my chainring and used the BB as an extractor tool, since my crank seized a bit, which in term ruined one side. Had that not happened, I would now start year 5 with a 9 Euro BB. P.S. The BB had been on 4 bikes, one DH frame and 3 street frames, which all suffered incredible amounts of abuse. I apologize if I did not understand the article or did not care about it.
  • 5 2
 The Scene----SRAM Product Lifecycle Management meeting, Sometime Early 2017.

Senior Leadership: "What segment of the premium market do we not have 90% market share or greater?"

Product Manager: "Cranksets, we lost 27.99% of market share last year."

Senior Leadership: "Why?"

Product Manager: "Because Race Face"

Senior Leadership: "How could you let this happen?"

Product Manager: "They aren't playing fair, they use a 30mm alloy spindle so they can make it lighter than ours. But everyone knows when stuffed into a standard bottom bracket shell the bearings suck!" (ed. forgets to mention that a major part of the appeal is Race Face's modular approach)

Senior Leadership: "OK, two part solution. 1. Engineering-Do what Race Face is doing, fix the seal issue that Race Face has! Do whatever it takes, don't create 99 problems 2. Everyone wants Eagle, we're so hot right now. Until the new cranks are available, let's minimize the damage by making sure that the only OEM available part numbers are complete drivetrains, cranks included! They'll have no choice."

Old engineer in back corner of room: "Remember that time SRAM sued Shimano because they..."

Senior Leadership (interrupting): "I'm glad we're all in agreement. Get after it!"
  • 12 7
 so more marketing bs? cool. 28.99 is ok but what about 28.9999999? missed opportunity here boys!
  • 4 0
 My communication leader tells me that 28.9856743 is even better.
  • 10 4
 If I'm reading this right... press fit is the real problem?
  • 3 0
 Always has been.
  • 1 0
 well, specifically PF92 due to the lack of clearance for proper sealing. Other PF frames can cope with 30mm axles - there are a number of very good third party BBs that take care of the job. So its SRAM solving the PF92 issue, instead of letting that dumb standard die. The added benefit of closing out third party manufacturers NEVER crossed their mind **sarcasm alert ** Smile
  • 6 3
 Why couldn't you go 29mm instead of 28.99mm?! I can't believe their tolerances are that tight. The difference is 10 MICRONS! It's microscopic! A red blood cell is 10 microns wide. Is SRAM like making microchips on the side?
  • 4 2
 Plus even if they are manufacturing to a 10 micron tolerance, why?! Bearing interfaces do not need to be that tight by any means, and I can guarantee there is 0 performance difference between a 28.99mm spindle and a 29.

New standard? Fine. This 28.99mm shit is just marketing wank though, and makes everything else they say suspect.
  • 1 1
 It's typical marketing BS to show the level of manufacturing quality and how much they care about their products. 0.01mm doesn't make any difference on an AL crank spindle. Sounds cooler than 29 that's it...
  • 2 1
 Shaft made in Ø29h6 tolerance is actually between 28,987 and 29,000. And that is quite typical shaft-bearing combinations.
  • 4 0
 Wanna make a difference? Refuse to buy any new bikes with a DUB set up. Get the message back to SCAM through the bike companies.
  • 2 0
 My take is that yes, the system probably is best of both worlds... 30mm and 24mm, split it, get benefits of both. The engineer here is telling likely the god honest truth about it. He honestly built the best system he could at this time.

Now Sram corp guys are the ones who need to decide if this is a good business move, if it's going to piss everyone off, if it's going to close out competition, make money, boost overall appearance, etc... and they are disingenuous if they (corp guys) are not doing it for money and market share...

I call bad move on corp guys for doing this and not seeing what a cluster they are making here. I'd be mad sitting there with my brand new Eagle drivetrain from 2017 christmas... and then this came out.
  • 2 0
 So after reading through this article of marketing bull, I feel it's obvious that SRAM did this to save money and keep business within their company. Now that every frame is using the same spindle, they're only producing one spindle now instead of 4 different ones. Cheaper and simpler, but not necessarily better. They said themselves that 28.99 is a compromise that worked well for all four different BBs, but it's not the BEST diameter for any of them.
  • 3 1
 I wouldn't consider rounding up from 28.99 to 29.00 on their drawing "dumbing it down", but the opposite. Given this application, .0004in difference on nominal isn't going to make a damn difference, and they definitely aren't measuring/inspecting these parts to the tenth...

Now I'm curious to see what tolerance they have on that dimension on their design drawing if keeping a 28.99 vs 29.00 nominal was such a critical decision...
  • 8 1
 Bike industry is fucked.
  • 1 0
 Agreed - The big companies are squeezing it for every last penny. When these companies were smaller and run by bike enthusiasts, not accountants (who work for the global, multinational investment company that owns them) life was so much simpler. Getting too big for their boots and until the consumer votes with its wallet this aint stopping any time soon. Frown
  • 1 0
 BMX and Dirt is still OK. Well there are only a couple of good forks for Dirt, Rock Shox excluded, but it could be worse.
  • 3 1
 I'm glad they are intentionally focusing on quality seals and reducing corrosion within the system. Here in the PNW, it seems like chains and BBs are the first parts I end up replacing on any new bike. And that's simply because water and grime easily make their way in and pretty quickly deteriorate the parts from the inside out.
  • 2 0
 This is still bollocks! They force smaller component companies to adopt another size for their customers who don't want SRAM everything on their bike. What if I want a Enduro or Chris King BB not a SRAM!? Compatibility is getting pretty complex unnecessarily.
  • 2 0
 the larger these component manufacturers get, the more BS bleeds into their marketing to justify each new useless BB & hub axle width standard being shoved down our throats almost annually. please give me a threaded BB shell so i can manually install my Neanderthal HollowTech II bottom bracket without expensive proprietary tools - KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid
  • 3 0
 I remember when their plastic esp derailleurs were printed to look like carbon. Tells you all you need to know about their culture. Meanwhile a 7700 rear derailleur or FC remains a timeless thing of beauty.
  • 3 0
 I 'd love to meet the guy who made that comment! What? There is two of them?

“I love the light weight and stiffness of the 30mm crank setup, but I wish it had the durability of the 24mm crank setups.”
  • 2 0
 I thought "Oh, why are all bashing at Highness of theirs ShRAM? It's simple axle OD that will fit into 29mm bearing.""
But I'm looking if there actually are any standard ballbearing right now available with 29mm ID, and ... THERE ARE NO.
I can find some 28.58 which is obviously some inch factor, but then there is only 30mm ID size.
.
So yes, SRAM HAS once again came with yet-another-nonsense, serving their manufacturing cost cut while at the same time cutting consumers from an option of using competitor's part when in dire need. So if you forget to stock yourself with spare BB cups-and-bearings before you leave to 1 week vacation and your BB bearing fails, you will be stocking yourself with beer at the cottage.
  • 2 0
 "... 28.99mm is literally what the nominal dimension on our design drawing..."
Are you sure about that? not something like 29h7 or so?
Anyway, it's January and all 2018 Bikes that are equipped with Sram are already a little out of date...
  • 3 1
 I'm not an engineer, but a professor in social sciences. Let's explain how things work in the mtb industry looking at our capitalist system which we live in: in our system the profit is what really matters in the end, customer's satisfaction? Yeah it's important, but not important as money. So you're right when you argue against this idiosyncracy, but you know, we don't live in a system that works for our happiness, neither the mtb industry. Riding the mtb makes you happy, but when it becomes a job it's definitely submitted to the rules of capital and free market, and that's why the industry doesn't have the will to optimize the standards in the present and (I'm pretty sure) it will never do that in the future. Why? Simply because it's how things go in this world under capitalism. Remember, Sram doesn't give a s***t about your request, it's the Ceo that decides what is good and what is wrong. Only with the worker's control there is the opportunity to hope that the social needs will meet, but it won't happen in the mtb industry. That's why I'll stick to my 26" with 12x135 Smile
  • 2 0
 Im the long run customer satisfaction has the final say in profit. Which is why noone but beatniks like you care that Yugo is defunct.
  • 4 0
 Someone has to pay for the engineers. So by doing micro gains in net performance every year. You get to keep your job for another year! 68/73/83 mm for life!!!
  • 2 0
 SRAM is struggling with a market philosophy ripped straight from tech industry: increasing returns. But in tech that works because certain companies come to control the entire environment in which new technology is developed. By trying to do so, SRAM is effectively trying to manipulate the parts industry, the frame industry, and the consumer all at once. But increasing returns are only effective when those who get ahead can stay ahead, like Microsoft of Apple. Bearings, as SRAM is finding out, require optimization, industrial standards, and precision. None of those things work well in an environment of increasing returns--they work well in a market of decreasing returns where the companies have to continually make their products to a higher standard in order to stay ahead.

SRAM has made their bed. Its up to the consumer to decide whether they will lay down and take it.
  • 1 0
 This is the only intelligent comment that I read so far. Kudos to you atwyrrk. I absolutely agree. Car manufacturers are similar but on a higher level of competition- It's you lead or get the heck out of my way.

Not very much to compete with the big dogs in MTB world(Shimano, SRAM, Race Face and etc..... for Co. I forgot to mention). Every one WANTS to be #1 and that's a constant battle. Innovation is one way to out do others. My.5 cents. Enjoy the Ride!!
  • 7 5
 What's the deal? It's probably bollocks, that's the deal! Probably the idea is bearings you can't just go and buy elsewhere.

Or a standard £20 shimano threaded BB that lasts 4 years...
  • 4 1
 I have a 10 year old XTR bottom bracket that I've had on a few different hardtails. I can't kill the thing. meanwhile, I'm on my 3rd raceface bb...
  • 8 3
 I'm just not that into SRAM.
  • 1 3
 (wisher) No one cares.
  • 2 0
 Here's a genuine question I've wondered since I got back on an mtb in 2007.
How come mtb BB's don't have an over axle spacer like bmx 3 piece cranks? If you want longer lasting bearings.....
  • 3 0
 Most quality bb's do have a sealed spacer between the two cups.
  • 2 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: no, not the plastic seal. BMX 3 piece cranks have a metal spacer tube that sits over the axle and between the bearings. It stops the bearings from distortion when pre load is applied.
  • 1 0
 @nojzilla: I think probably because BMX style cranks get blasted up super tight .. not torqued specifically.

If you use shimano cranks you are not adding a tonne of pre load pressure to the bearings, just getting them snug so it spins well with no play - you can over tighten these very quickly and if the cranks do not spin nicely then you have achieved that!
  • 2 0
 @ryanme: I only use shimano cranks for that reason, finger tight on the axle pre load an then tighten the pinch bolts. Less bearing load means longer lasting BB's. A bmx type axle spacer would eliminate bearing loads all togeather
  • 2 0
 @nojzilla: Shimano BBs last for donkeys ... I do not see the need, the plastic spacer probably offers some bearing support, a metal option would be heavier and probably unnecessary.
  • 3 0
 At least Vernon is asking the questions. He knows it, we know it, money makes the world spin, lets think of some shit and flog it 2 the idiots.
  • 2 1
 "not all 24mm cranks/BBs are created equal. The diameters, bearing placements and even attachment methods aren’t the same between all 24mm crank configurations. So if those sub-systems are considered backwards compatible, how isn’t DUB in that same boat?" Exactly! I don't get the fuss about it...
  • 3 0
 Well, I'm think I am on the correct direction: 32 spokes rims, threaded BB, no-tapered forks, 135/100/20mm hubs, 27.2/31.6 seatposts... I'm happy!
  • 1 0
 "There are compromises in almost all of those systems today because the majority of them were designed with a lot of constraints about making sure things weren’t too far out of the norm. But like we found with Eagle technology drivetrains, sometimes the best solutions out there are the ones that don’t necessarily follow the norm. So we looked at it from a clean slate and asked ourselves how we would design a new platform of cranks/BBs to have the benefits of both 24mm and 30mm systems today, but still be compatible with all the major frame shell standards in the market."

It seems like this new diameter has a major constraint since it is constrained by needing to be compatible with PF92.
  • 2 1
 I just wanna say thank you pinkbike for supplying a forum for people like me to bitch hilariously in the comments, and also pouring fuel on the fire by posting an article that basically says "if your rediculous comment voices the communities opionon we'all take it to the company directly" sweeet. Comedy gold this whole section... made my night
  • 1 0
 Okay…28.99. You guys had to know that you were going to get a rash of shit for not simply saying “29”. Why, then, 28.99?

Here is the straightforward answer. We wanted to be as transparent as possible. When I started at SRAM over 12 years ago, I was a design engineer for cranks who was a bit OCD on accuracy and details. So now as a product manager, when I was asked what the diameter was I told you the honest answer. 28.99mm is literally what the nominal dimension on our design drawing says and so that is what we shared with everyone. We could just round up and say 29mm to dumb it down, but when asked what the spindle diameter is, we wanted to be honest. There is no marketing twist to it, just actual values we have machined our DUB spindle to. We also saw a few comments about “Do they really machine to those tolerances?” The answer is yes. We expect the DUB BB/Spindle combination to perform at a really high level and part of that comes from having to hold really tight tolerances on our parts.

@vernonfelton it is great you asked that question but I don´t really think SRAM gave a real answer. To be honest that it is 28.99mm does not explain why they came up with that odd number. Also the rest of the answer is marketing mambo-jambo. Why is it so hard to give an answer and say like "the diameter is a result of xy in combination with xy"?

Is there not an actual reason and is it "just" a very clever decision to get everyones attention because of the odd number? It would save a lot of money for a campaign as SRAM just have to release the product and every MTB related page needs to extend thte comments section ;-)
  • 1 0
 Vote with your dollars! If you don't like it, don't buy it. ...I'm running all Shimano on all of my bikes. I just buy last year's products on closeout. Of course, I'm behind on this new fangled boost thing... currently riding 142mm on my Canfield and my DH bike has a 150mm rear hub. gasp!
  • 2 0
 So I guess this is why SRAM and Shimano weren't at the Bike Standards—How Did We Get Here?—A Podcast www.pinkbike.com/news/bike-standardshow-did-we-get-herea-podcast.html

Because they just don't give a F@$#%
  • 1 0
 That was a good listen! Thanks for posting the link...
  • 1 0
 If you look at the spindles, the 30 or 28.99 diameter or whatever is only on the machined section that sits inside the BB bearing race.
Whats the bet that the middle section of the tube (sat in fresh air inside your frame) is the same diameter.
This was probably a cost exercise to keep the minor diamter the same and reduce the stock size at the major diameter, thus saving material.
Basically, its a crock of shit whether this is true or not anyway
  • 1 0
 Pleased that the general consensus is calling BS on this. Once the consumers realise that withholding your support means being vocal and not buying marketing led stuff we can return the trade to where it was maybe 10-15 years ago. Bike people, making bike stuff, for bike people. Not accountants pursuing more margin than last year so they can buy another gas guzzler and a condo by the beach with their bonus for shafting people they never mix with and have no empathy for. With any luck the kool aid drinkers who accept this sort of marketing driven "improvement" and need it to keep them interested will go elsewhere for their fix, and we can get back to durable product thats made with the consumer in mind.
  • 1 0
 Every time we need to change from one frame to another we need to change parts that most of the times are in the beginning of their life. You claim this and that part will last longer and so on but most of those parts are ditched with plenty of life on them because you just made them obsolete with a new size or standard. Do you even know the meaning of the word "standard"?

The 2nd paragraph on the most voted comment is absolutely right. Not only you are killing us, you are making us frustrated and disappointed with this thirst for sales.
  • 1 0
 I would guess that shifting proprietary standards, that make it difficult for aftermarket companies to make enough of any one design product that is both reasonably priced and decent quality, as a repair part or upgrade, are just too profitable as a practice to abandon because they are frustrating to those who want to ride their bikes. However I guess it does simplify ordering parts, if you want to use an SRAM component it will only be compatible with SRAM components. I looked at the comments from OEM bike manufacturers and it seemed like the wrong people to be asking as they are obviously not just trying to figure out what bottom bracket parts to order that are a decent price and a bit more durable to replace worn out stuff when the crank is still good. They are negotiating a price on the whole set, not just wear parts and will just bear in mind you can't spec an SRAM crank with any other BB.
  • 1 0
 This is what you get when marketing runs the company!
Roberts Graudins, product manager from SRAM, really needs to come out and say it’s 29mm rather than 28....point nine nine mm.
I’ve heard of psychological pricing, ie $19.99, but never heard of psychological engineering where it’s designed to 28.99mm instead of 29mm.
  • 3 2
 I get it, hating sram is cool. Its still the lightest and best tradeoff crankset there is though. Compat is actually fine. Its not like if they invented a new bb standard. You guys would complain no matter what they release then buy it anyway because right now its the best there is at least in that area. If you wanna bash sram for fun you should probably pick on their rockshox line instead....
  • 2 0
 So what are theTolerences then + & - cant just say 28.99 it will be manufactured to + or - so much due to tool wear
Plus will have surface finish in microns, CNC Has not eliminated some errors?
  • 2 1
 I don't care about 28.99 one bit but I am PISSED! NO MENTION whatsoever of the ridiculously heinous facial hair cult SRAM clearly has going and points to seriously concerning issues with their corporate culture. Presenting themselves as either a complete joke, child-molester, or I-think-I-am-so-badass-I-can-pull-this-off-toolbag seems to be a prerequisite for entrance into this sad little company. Keep the news coming that re-affirms why I have kept all my bikes void of SRAM for the last decade and plan to continue.
  • 1 0
 Yep.
24mm GXP BB's on all my bikes running just fine. Industry nailed-it pretty well here between reliability, weight, and ease of service. Never once felt a need for 30mm BB! My bearings stay sealed, little to no flex, why change a good thing? Like other short-lived designs I saw the 30mm BB combo as a potential failure issue. I have owned every conceivable standard since the square taper, and I have seen 'em come and go....some in a few races. (Mtb. racer turned trail/enduro rider since 1991) 28.99mm is the next big hit of marketing cool-aid for you to gulp down. Hope you like lots of sugar.
What's more important? A few grams, or reliability? What value puts a smile on your face the most? Want to save weight? Drop a pound off your butt. Want reliability? Stick with 24mm combo!
Maybe next we can debate the ridiculous axle standards!
  • 1 0
 Now do we have to wait for Wheels MFG or SKF to make after market bb bearings? Or is SRAM serious this time that the bb and bearings they are making are actually good? Honestly no companies that ive seen to date has made a bb or bearings that compete with SKF on quality and durability. So i tend to try and choose frame / crank combos (bb92 with shimano crank, pf92 with gxp or shimano crank) that allow me to use SKF or wheels mfg bottom brackets.
  • 2 0
 Wow! I don’t visit PB for a couple days because it’s the dead of winter and the place blows up. Anyway... my solution is RF turbine crank, Hope BB. Done and done. Ride on.
  • 1 0
 “I love the light weight and stiffness of the 30mm crank setup, but I wish it had the durability of the 24mm crank setups.” And so our target was to find a single solution that would be the best of both worlds.

So you come up with a whole new standard and screw everybody lol
  • 12 12
 Everyone has their preference, but as a Shimano fan boy for life I was considering moving to eagle, but after this 29.99999 bullshit I'm staying with Shimano. Have never purchased a Sram product in my life, nearly did, now definitely won't. Someone sack the marketing manager!
  • 4 2
 You can still switch to Eagle, just run RaceFace cranks instead of SRAM. RF has superior cranks in most cases anyway.
  • 1 1
 @seraph: Just as long as you never need to re-sell them. If you buy Raceface, plan on keeping it until it dies.
  • 1 0
 @TheRaven: have you tried the nextsl? Do you even ride the bike?
Google for nextsl issue and enjoy the show.

I've had 2 nextsl both failed the same way which is a design fault. Its the same way everyone elses fail. My friends nextsl failed.. Same way.
The carbon delaminates at the crank spindle insert and develops play.
I warrantied them AGAIN and switch one bike to their alu crank the other the sram and its been fine ever since. Ebayed the nextsl.

Don't get me started on the raceface bsa bb... Just google raceface bb bsa problems... Everyone replaces it with the rwc bb or changes bearings weekly. Joke of a product.
  • 1 0
 @bankz: I think you meant to respond to Seraph and not me.

I was simply pointing out that there basically is no resale value on Raceface cranks. So whether you pay $300 for Atlas or $500 for SixC, once you break the tape on the box, it's worth about $60.
  • 6 5
 Sometimes keeping quiet and let people forget is a way better option. But to be honest how can you forget 28.99! What an epic fail decision even if the product is really good.
  • 5 1
 i have reliable sources that tell me Sram was debating whether or not to dumbdown the 28.990674391 to 28.99.

I guess we have our answer now...28.99 won...#loselose either way...
  • 6 4
 Gunna whip out the caliper in the pits. Make sure everyone is riding proper 28.99. You know, for performance and safety reasons.
  • 4 4
 WHY a so many people arguing about a f*cking button bracket!?!???? I mean what the f*ck!! buy a Shimano one, it costs 30$ maximum and and you're good for 10 years at least.. END OF THE STORY !!!

I m calling the DUB boycott
  • 1 0
 My Shimano one cost 9 Euro retail and lasted me 4 years, up until I used it as a crank extractor. Shimano FTW!
  • 2 0
 @FrEeZa:yeah I exaggerated. 30 $ is really the maximum price you Pay a Shimano bottom bracket
  • 2 2
 If I get a new Dub crank now for my 12x142 27.5" bike and next year want to get a 27.5+ bike or one of the new Knolly 157trail bike can I swap the spindle in the crank to make it work? It looks like the spindles are not removable and if versatility was one of the driving design setups why was that not considered?
  • 5 1
 All of those bikes you mentioned used the same spindle length - you'd just need the right bottom bracket depending on if you needed threaded, PF92, etc...
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: You are assuming they have a ring that can reach the correct chainline. The RF ring and other can be mounted backwards, the SRAM ring can not, thus you would need a wider spindle to get the correct chain line (with spacers as the BB shell and BB is the same). BB and Chainline are different things.
  • 1 0
 @OTBSteve, I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but SRAM does make chainrings with 3mm and 6mm of offset - those should allow you to make these cranks work.
  • 4 0
 Too much justification and still all of it sounds like bullshit.
  • 4 0
 What does any of this have to do with making riding bikes more fun?
  • 4 1
 All hail the advancements in internal gearboxes - That's what customers really want, not 12-speed
  • 4 0
 I got 28.99 reasons, and Dub ain't gonna be one....
  • 2 2
 dear SRAM,

NOBODY GIVES A f*ck ABOUT YOUR every-year-non-sense-so-called-standards. We really don't. We ride Shimano and sleep well in the night.

PS: Go #uck yourself every time when you think "hey, thats gonna work better!"
  • 1 1
 Honestly, I was looking at the comments and cannot believe how much energy is being spent on what is really a none-issue.

My first MTB I got 1990 and since then, every new MTB I built up was better in any way then the previous one. "Standards" did come and go, but really, here we are not discussing a new standard.

You buy a Race Face crank, you buy a Race Face BB. You buy a Shimano crank, you buy a Shimano BB (unless you have BB30 frame, then you are screwed with original BBs). You buy a SRAM crank, you buy a SRAM BB.

How much is a BB of the total cost of a bike anyway? 1%? Just shut up and buy a new one. I let you keyboard heroes discuss about these peanuts, I'm out for a ride...
  • 1 0
 I still don't get it. I have PF92 and SRAM GXP on both of my bikes, 24mm spindles. What would I need to do to put DUB on? Or do I even care? Not knowing if I even should care is killing me.
  • 1 0
 You wouldn't need to do anything special to put DUB on - if you were in the market for new cranks, you'd buy a crank and BB and install it on your bike. That's it.

Do you need to care? Probably not - there's no real need to rush out and buy it if your existing setup is working fine. For most riders, this is something that will come on a new bike, rather than an aftermarket purchase.
  • 1 0
 SRAM’s new 28.99mm BB standard. Designed by philogrobilzed engineers experiencing dystania, and needing to fudgel things a bit at the behest of snollygoster bastards running the marketing dept!
  • 1 0
 SRAM’s new 28.99mm BB standard. Designed by philogrobilzed engineers experiencing dystania, and needing to fudgel things a bit at the behest of snollygoster bastards running the marketing dept!
  • 1 1
 well done SRAM. super light, longlife...well, maybe not a reason to swap for 75gr ...but will certainly be part of my next project/bike! (haha, some folks will always complain -> SRAM is making the lightest crankset worldwide...with a BB lasting way longer and people are p$%" off #FACEPALM ...)
  • 2 0
 I get it you got to make sure parts are not backwards compatible in order to maximize profits. Will just keep buying shimano and race face I guess.
  • 9 5
 Yawn .. so Much drama.
  • 6 4
 I think im going to go for a p00 someone give me a nudge once this is all over.
  • 8 5
 #nostandartisthenewstandart
  • 5 1
 Go DUB yourself
  • 1 0
 So... Now my limited-run eagle cranks are amongst the rarest objects in the universe! I should sell them in 5 years for twice the value of my bike!
  • 3 0
 this idea must have come from the shit hole!
  • 2 1
 What I got out of that was, it's an in-between size so they can make an aluminum spindle work better with pressfit BBs. But it will get spec'd on everything. OK.
  • 5 2
 It’s just a crank,what the heck is this ,people are getting paranoid
  • 2 1
 Not paranoid. SRAM likes to pull this kind of BS stunts. Boost was not needed, given that 150mm spacing already exist for DH.
  • 2 0
 @sc213626: Why does SRAM get the hate for Boost? Pretty sure Trek started that ball rolling.
  • 2 0
 @mobaar: Because 95% of the comments on here are from morons who don't know what they are talking about!
  • 1 0
 @mobaar: forgive me for partial correctness, it seems that Both SRAM and Trek were behind it. with SRAM being the first manufacture to produce Boost hub and Trek the first manufacture to incorporated it. My thoughts remain.
  • 1 0
 @jaymac10: do enlighten us with your thoughts.
  • 2 0
 It's all Marketing generating revenue to pay for all their posh digs and sprinter vans! SRAM is OEM, go figure!
  • 2 1
 I don't see an issue. don't buy it if you don't want it? then when it get spec'd on your new bike I bet you'll be happy. who ride anything but sram or RF cranks anyway?
  • 1 1
 See your logic would mean there wouldnt be 200 whiney bitches crying on here while they cant ride during the winter. They need this outlet or their emorional overload would cause their head to explode.
  • 1 0
 They will push this on OEM bikes and once you want to change everything you will have to get them once more. That is why I switched to dirt and street, I gave up Smile
  • 2 0
 Oh boy, I can't wait to see what new drive train comes out tomorrow! I hear it's gonna blow Dub away...
  • 3 0
 Anyone else replacing their GXP cups once or twice a year? sick of it
  • 4 0
 Do you nerds even pedal?
  • 1 0
 I dunno, I just pressfit my BB with a bumload of grease and it lasts at least 2-3 years in the salt. BBs are max $50, unless you by Chris King for some reason
  • 7 7
 I just can't believe all the commenters that claim to LOVE this sport, but would HATE to put a buck back into it. What gives? SRAM is not forcing you to do shiz. Calm down people!
  • 3 4
 couldnt agree more
  • 4 0
 @racecase exactly, not a new standard, not forced to buy it but just wanting to find a reason to bitch about something. I guess shame on sram for making it easier on shops and consumers—sRAM is being forced to adapt to a frame market In which there’s no continuity but they’re the bad guys. SRAM made a better, lighter, stiffer and easier to service crank that will fit all bikes on the market today, wtf is the issue!!? I’ve installed, serviced and ridden DUB. It better in every way than SRAMS previous cranks and in my opinion better than any other current system out there. Once People try it, they’ll get it
  • 3 0
 @forsinapu: Well said, why is everyone shitting on Sram for trying to make their product application to FRAME BB STANDARDS better?
  • 1 2
 its because when this crap is stuck on every new bike they can spec it with your stuck with this regardless if you want it or not. That's how they get there products to market these days it has very little to do if its something you actually want or not. Every time they make more options the greater the risk of us not finding the parts we need as mostly the newer parts get stocked and older parts get dropped. So now they build in planned obsolescence of bikes. My 2013 bikes is quite a nice bike and still in great condition but its getting harder to find nice parts for it as it was pre-boost and pre 650b and does not have boost bb spacing of even 1 x 11 gears. Yet its still lighter than most carbon offerings under 6k and and has kashima everything and works great for my needs. I have a 2017 fox transfer dropper on it so I am not against every new product but I hate change for change's sake. Oh well may as well just accept that every 7k bike is redundant after 3 years as this will be the future. Better to buy new and cheap bikes more often and then chuck them away rather than spending big money on a bike only to have every standard change on it yearly.
  • 1 1
 I happen to really like Sram, components work well and for the most part you can get repair kits when things go south.
As for bottom brackets (any brand).... stuff wears out its not rocket science
  • 1 0
 Wondering how big the hammer will have to be to get the steel cup pressfit bearings back out once they've rusted tight to the BB shell
  • 2 0
 Super. But what about the creaking problem with all of your press fit BB's?
  • 1 0
 Since we're getting frame manufacturers in on this conversation, can we ask them why their pressfit and BB30 bottom brackets seem to play the 'out of spec' game all the time?
  • 2 1
 it's still a marketing crap, 99.99% of riders won't see any difference, they want you to buy new stuff, the same old story as 650B
  • 1 0
 Note to bicycle industry- don't promote stupid shit in the dead of winter, wait until June or July when there is a lot more noise in the media
  • 2 1
 Meh, big deal, don't like it buy something else.
All the time and energy put into posts/reactions should be put to better use.
Please down vote me now.
  • 1 0
 Hey SRAM im Not happy with the diameter of disc brake bolts. Could you please organize a team of engineers to come up with a New standard?
  • 1 0
 I think PB needs a bottom next (add to favorites) with ( I don't like it ) to avoid many comments.
  • 3 2
 Wait, do you hear that? sounds like SRAM is gonna make money because people have no choice but to CONSUME!
  • 3 2
 Establish a market dominance....then leverage that by completely shafting everyone. It worked for shimano.
  • 3 1
 Hahahaha OMG no one is buying Sram sh*t!!
  • 3 0
 DUmB
  • 1 2
 Why not come up with a system that uses a stepped spindle? 24mm at the bearings and 30mm through the frame? Keep the string bearings, lose a little weight, boom. No new standard necessary.
  • 2 0
 Cool, but I think I’ll just wait for the 26.99 mm
  • 3 0
 Bass worm
  • 1 0
 Pretty sure the first batch is misprinted and the second gen will be “dumb” as originally intended
  • 2 0
 Id love seeing these guys called out like this.
  • 2 0
 Looks like a Session......err I mean a Race Face.....
  • 1 0
 Whew Im okay - I am on a 26" hardtail but it has a160mm fork and 1X drivetrain. No DUB though.
  • 2 0
 This sums it up ¦>[
youtu.be/Jj0uBQ7j5c4
  • 1 0
 Maybe SRAM did their 2899 base RnD on the 41mm BB. Then they exploit the idea. PF86/89/92 are crap.
  • 1 0
 Yet another reason for the entire bike industry to go suck a fat one. What a load of b******t.
  • 2 0
 So what's wrong with 26" bike with 80 mm fork, tell me please?
  • 1 0
 I got one. I’m actually rebuilding it now because I ride to work everyday in mixed conditions and mixed surfaces. Asphalt bike path gravel bike path, single track, and a rock filled drainage creek bed. It makes a great, hardy all around, extreme commuter bike. Simple reliable stiff and robust. Not gonna win an XCO WC on it. But that isn’t the point of it.
  • 1 0
 Are we all talking about bicycles here? Or fighter jets! They're effin cranks, who cares!
  • 1 0
 All I know is that I live in Seattle and so my BB lasts about 6 months. Will this new standard fix that?
  • 2 0
 Honestly, what's wrong with 24mm? Razz
  • 2 0
 24 will never die...oh wait, wrong standard.
  • 1 0
 SOOOOO, raceface used narrowide, and SRAM basically made a CINCH crank... CALL IT EVEN? ridiculous
  • 1 0
 $35 bearings are the problem. Upgrade to King or Hope or any of the other companies that offer quality bearings.
  • 1 0
 Really hot theme, but no more words. Define vote in money spend — your, at not pinkbike or sram or marketology shit Smile
  • 3 3
 SRAM:

Stop
Reconsider
Another
Manufacturer

it’s a shame they OE Spec a majority in the market..... because of this, nobody stands up to them.
*tisk*
  • 1 0
 I think this just adds to the notion that BB92 was a poorly thought out and executed standard.
  • 1 0
 Bah bah bah bah bah sell more anks bah bah bah. ha ha bullshit 28" wheel better than 27.5" bah bah. fuk me
  • 2 2
 you guys are a trip. "The sky is falling!!!"
Ride your damn bike. Quit acting like spoiled brats. Be happy you have a bike and thank SRAM for 1x11and 1x12.
Get real.
  • 1 0
 Why were Shimano not asked what they thought of this new standard? Fight, Fight, FIGHT!!!
  • 1 0
 wow....good job another new pointless standard.....I laugh at the reasoning behind this cash grab.
  • 5 4
 Aaaaaand...... it spins back up
  • 6 5
 It'll hold out for 27.5 cranks...
  • 4 3
 DUB will beat CAV again this year unless the CEL get into the finals.
  • 2 1
 Does he say "Eagle" more or "going away from the norm"?
  • 1 0
 You mean in the article or in the comments?
  • 2 0
 DUMB
  • 1 0
 That's not "really high tolerances"
  • 2 0
 Nah, still don't buy it.
  • 1 1
 Sounds like they know what they are talking about! Thanks for making it simpler!
  • 1 0
 Alex Cogger just went to Thailand. Same same but different.
  • 2 1
 The comments up top are too fucking long to read...
  • 1 0
 Sunrace, Microshift Suntour, X- Fusion, DVO We have alternatives
  • 1 0
 "We could just round up and say 29mm to DUB it down..."
  • 1 0
 And another reason why my winterproject will get some XTR Cranks!!!
  • 1 0
 Thank God the interweb wasn't around when they killed square taper........
  • 1 0
 You can have them in any color, as long as it's black. I can dig it.
  • 1 0
 ^^ idiot. please disregard.
  • 2 0
 PR disaster for SRAM?
  • 1 0
 I don't read books, i read comments on pinkbike
  • 1 0
 gg sram dAbed on the haters
  • 2 0
 sram BB's always sucked.
  • 1 0
 Why no 165 mm carbon cranks?Why no shorter than 165 mm options anymore?
  • 1 0
 What a bunch of marketing-driven BS wow.
  • 1 0
 At least don't require a new frame, like boost and metric shock standard.
  • 4 0
 Busy Dub-stepping?
  • 3 0
 @macross87: *groan* I hate dub-step.
  • 1 0
 Strong not string
  • 2 1
 why im here?


Psh.
  • 1 0
 Here we go again...
  • 2 0
 I cant wait for the next episode of that laughing Mexican on a quiz show!
  • 1 0
 Shimano FTW
  • 1 0
 NVM
  • 1 0
 DUB CFRO
  • 1 0
 ohhh no!!!
  • 1 1
 Literally fuck this
  • 1 2
 Availability???
  • 1 0
 @TheChoppingBlock: Is that backed by anything official?
  • 1 0
 @Sapling: Disitributors are all intending on these showing up last week of Feb. All the arrival dates show 3/1 availability.
  • 1 4
 oh look, a new standard sram will change again in 6 months. fugg off
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.121036
Mobile Version of Website