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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
...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."
"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.
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.
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
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 Don't worry though, pretty sure we can still blame SRAM somehow...lets talk with the boys over in legal first thing tomorrow!
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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?
"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?"
"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
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.
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.
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.
Problem solved without writing a book response.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again, if 30mm doesn't allow for enough seals, why introduce cranks to this spec? Test before release to market.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just like Shimano when they went from Square Taper to Octalink 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.
@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).
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.
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.
As long as it is fairly priced, durable and functions well.
This is the new world. Its cut throat out there now-a-days.... Move it or loose it... Unfortunately.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
9 speed XO aint no friggin gimmick, homeslice.
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.
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.
Either way, if its on the frame your dealing with you have to deal with it.
You bastard son of a bitch.
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 ?
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.
What's not to like?
sad it's all Boost though
They come with boost rings but you can flip them to fit standard chainlines, or I'm sure aftermarket rings will be available soon
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.
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.
And yes, the full-Eagle group rule is definitely an interesting development.
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. . .
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
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!
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.
See the 5th row down in the column of this link:
www.cobanengineering.com/Tolerances/ANSIRunningSlidingFits.asp
And yes even with manual milling processes "half a thou" (0.0005") it completely normal.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Dub is commercial bullshit,
buy Shimano bottom bracket for $30 and replace it when it's broken after more than 10 years
You could call it "Sram-wrap"
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...
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....
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.
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.
you aren't special. anyone can piece together a 1x drivetrain that doesn't fail, is not proprietary, and cost 33%.
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.
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
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.
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...
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
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...
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.
"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.
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.
@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.
Does it fit my bike...great. Does it work...great...
who really cares what the size is?
At least admit that the 30mm was designed wrong in the first place.
30mm spindles work fine in large diameter BB30 and PF30 shells.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Sorry but, #willnotbuy
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.
It is just cheating on customers.
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!"
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...
“I love the light weight and stiffness of the 30mm crank setup, but I wish it had the durability of the 24mm crank setups.”
SRAM has made their bed. Its up to the consumer to decide whether they will lay down and take it.
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!!
New standard? Fine. This 28.99mm shit is just marketing wank though, and makes everything else they say suspect.
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.
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.
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...
It seems like this new diameter has a major constraint since it is constrained by needing to be compatible with PF92.
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.
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!
And then there's the 12 speed... give me my old 10 speed XTR that costs about one quarter the price of the SRAM XO 12 speed any day. It shifts better, it's easier to adjust and ~1/4 the price. Yea, I do like the 12 speed but when it gets out adjustment, I need to take it to the shop to get it adjusted as I have yet to be able to get it tuned in myself. The SRAM tuning gizmo is absolutely useless so don't waste your money. That was actually the comment form the bike shop mechanic who played around with the tuning for about 15 minutes and couple/three test rides 'till it was shifting correctly.
Things that want to make me scream!
Or a standard £20 shimano threaded BB that lasts 4 years...
How come mtb BB's don't have an over axle spacer like bmx 3 piece cranks? If you want longer lasting bearings.....
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!
forums.mtbr.com/attachments/downhill-freeride/30858d1095213133-should-i-re-build-my-old-beast-beast-after-new-forks-2%5B2%5D.jpg
Enjoy!
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 ;-)
Because they just don't give a F@$#%
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
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.
Plus will have surface finish in microns, CNC Has not eliminated some errors?
So you come up with a whole new standard and screw everybody
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.
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.
I guess we have our answer now...28.99 won...#loselose either way...
I m calling the DUB boycott
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!"
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...
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.
As for bottom brackets (any brand).... stuff wears out its not rocket science
All the time and energy put into posts/reactions should be put to better use.
Please down vote me now.
youtu.be/Jj0uBQ7j5c4
media.giphy.com/media/xONLuIZi4ZMJ2/giphy.gif
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*
That is fairly funny
Ride your damn bike. Quit acting like spoiled brats. Be happy you have a bike and thank SRAM for 1x11and 1x12.
Get real.
Psh.
#FKSRAM
30mm on the other hand is compatible straight across the board as long as the spindle is long enough. A BB386 spindle is truly compatible with all BB standards out there.
Make them 25 mm with a Ti axle like a Campagnolo Super Record road crank! Great for weight and durability, and the price should make the Pink Bike Forums howl. A new Campag SR Crankset is almost $500 on Merlin!
I don't like Eagle, but look how many mid level bikes are offered exclusively with it in 2018?
For example if I wanted a carbon reign I have to get Eagle.
You don't always get a choice, some bikes will only come with 28.99
Or bitch about it on pb, that is fun too!
People said "so don't buy it" for Eagle, when now it actually means you can't buy a huge number of bikes, this will likely be the same
I do think the 1.01mm extra room they created for bearings is a joke.
There are already 30mm spindle pressfit BBs that use the outer race directly as the "bearing cup" which is really the main engineering solution implemented here, not the dimension change.
I also think 24mm is amazeballs, and this redesign for what will probably be a 40g? saving will be too marginal even for this weightweenie.