Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

BB30 vs. BB90...Anyone ridden both?

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

BB30 vs. BB90...Anyone ridden both?

Old 01-27-11, 04:42 PM
  #1  
MAK
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,695

Bikes: Yes, I have bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked 106 Times in 65 Posts
BB30 vs. BB90...Anyone ridden both?

I'm wondering if those of you who have ridden both, experienced a perceptible difference in stiffness, performance, etc.

I did check the search function but there were very few actual "reviews" from members regarding the two bottom bracket designs and I didn't see any direct comparisons.

***For the, "BB90 is Trek so it automatically sucks" crowd, please don't waste my time, your time or other BF members time.

Thanks
MAK is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 04:48 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I ride a BB30 frame/crank, and have tried BB90, and honestly I didn't notice any difference. I don't really notice any real difference from my old square taper though, so I guess I'm not too much help. It probably doesn't help that I'm 120 pounds and a TTer rather than a sprinter.
rpeterson is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 05:08 PM
  #3  
Retro-guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Danville, CA
Posts: 285

Bikes: 1980 Raleigh Super Record

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I've also wondered about all of the different BBxx designations, and what the differences are.

My Scott CR1 Team has an integrated bottom bracket, which is described on their web site as: Integrated Dura-Ace SM-BB9141. Actually, this is what their web-site says for the 2011 version of my bike. If I remember right, for my 2010, I think it said Dura-Ace BB92... (the actual crank-set is 105 Hollowtech II - 5600 series)

Does this imply some minor variation off of BB90? Is their some dimensional meaning to the numbers? Or are the numbers just related to how the integrated BB fits into a particular maker's frames?
rschleicher is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 05:40 PM
  #4  
Should Be More Popular
 
datlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 42,919

Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix

Mentioned: 560 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22473 Post(s)
Liked 8,794 Times in 4,092 Posts
I suspect these newer BB setups are mostly gimmicks/marketing. But maybe I am jaded.
datlas is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 05:55 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 661

Bikes: Trek 4300 Disc

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The argument of some Trek employees is that the BB90 is a better design than the BB30. It's wider and stiffer... That's all what they have to say about it. The gimmick they're trying to imply is that the BB30 is a prototype, while the BB90 is the refined form. However, let's throw in another BB that is supposed to have the best design by combining the elements of both BB30 and BB90 - BBRight. Oh boy...

Quite honestly, I've tried both 30 and 90 and I really can't tell the difference.
gundom66 is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 06:08 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have Madone with Dura Ace 7900 crank set and several bikes with BB30. The quality of the crankset will be the most important. The high end BB30 are quite a bit lighter. I can't tell any difference in stiffness in the high end ones.

I like the idea of BB30 and returning to a common standard.

I would focus on the bike first and not worry about the crank unless you already have an existing crankset you want to carry over.
jay0k is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 06:11 PM
  #7  
VeloSIRraptor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deschutes
Posts: 4,585
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I can't tell a difference...
truthfully, I don't think there is all that much of a difference that anyone could feel regarding BB systems. The rigidity of one bike compared to another and how stiff/wide/long the tubes are make a much larger difference than what bottom bracket system someone uses.

Since there is no "control" for this test, I haven't a clue how anyone could really tell a difference... and that is if you went as far as to make sure you had the same wheels/drivetrain/pedals/etc for both bikes.


however, just since I've given it a try...

"no noticeable difference"
Hida Yanra is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 06:16 PM
  #8  
Batüwü Creakcreak
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The illadelph
Posts: 20,787
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked 287 Times in 160 Posts
Marketing.

Honestly, at this point if you want a good bike at a certain price range you should just pick the one that fits and that is available in a pretty color....
ridethecliche is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 06:41 PM
  #9  
ka maté ka maté ka ora
 
pdedes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: wessex
Posts: 4,423

Bikes: breezer venturi - red novo bosberg - red, pedal force cg1 - red, neuvation f-100 - da, devinci phantom - xt, miele piste - miche/campy, bianchi reparto corse sbx, concorde squadra tsx - da, miele team issue sl - ultegra

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
you're not strong enough to notice.
pdedes is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 07:46 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tariffville, CT
Posts: 15,395

Bikes: Tsunami road bikes, Dolan DF4 track

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked 173 Times in 97 Posts
If you look at the comparisons between BB30 and regular outboard bearing cranks, there were small but measurable differences between the two designs in terms of deflection and weight (using the same manufacturer's cranks but in the two different versions of BB). The difference in stiffness was very small - I'd consider it not significant (and that's a big admission for me). BB30 was a bit lighter because the wider bearings allow an aluminum spindle.

In your comparison, BB30 and BB90, there shouldn't be a "feel" difference in stiffness (if you use a standard outboard bearing crank and a BB30 version of the same crank). I'd be just as good or bad between the two systems.

BB90 refers to the WIDTH of the bottom bracket shell. It means that the previously outboard bearings are now pressed into the BB shell. It does not address the fact that a regular diameter spindle needs to be steel to be strong and stiff enough. Or titanium if you have more money.

BB30 refers to DIAMETER of the bottom bracket axle. It means the previously ~24mm opening is now 30mm. It allows the use of aluminum spindles without sacrificing strength. Since aluminum is 1/3 the density of steel and 2/3 the density of titanium, you can use a larger diameter spindle, retain or improve stiffness, and shed some grams at the same time. Think of a modern aluminum frame versus the flexy flyers like Vitus or Guerciottis.

BB30 uses the standard 68mm BB shell width. BB90 is much wider at 90mm. There are arguments for both. 68mm shells allow a narrower q-factor technically but realistically there is no difference between comparable cranksets (i.e. FSA in BB30 vs same FSA in outboard bearing). I think that a BB30-only crank has a good q-factor but I don't have numbers to back it up. 90mm wide BBs allow a wider downtube and chainstay anchoring points so could make for a stiffer (and probably "less aero") frameset. Remember that the spindle is still the heavier, more flexy design.

Functionally, if I were to sprint on one or the other, there'd be no difference.

However, for principle's sake, I prefer to use a design that makes sense to me. I don't like pressed bearings for maintenance (you need a press) but BB30, the wider diameter spindle, uses a common and accepted engineering principle.

It's the same principle that gave rise to oversize aluminum tubing (wider, stiffer, lighter) and eventually the wider tubed carbon frames, the 1 1/8" steerer and later the 1 1/4" lower steerer. I agree with them and use oversize alum tubing. I can't use a tapered steerer tube because I can't get a Tsunami with a tapered head tube but I would if I could.

The oversize idea also gave rise to the wider diameter bars (31.0) and wider posts. This is a case where sales/marketing (wider must be better) overcame the engineering (there's no reason to go wider). I don't agree with the functionality there so I don't subscribe to them. I use lighter and (measurably) just as efficient 26.0 bars and 27.2 posts.

The true difference will be the slight weight savings you get with the (smarter to me) BB30 design. I know my SRM wired crankset weighs about 675g for BB30. It's efficient, light, and works well.

cdr
carpediemracing is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 08:19 PM
  #11  
Double Secret Probation
 
R900's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Eastern Indiana
Posts: 2,578

Bikes: Madone 6 series SSL, Cannondale CX9, Trek TTX, Trek 970, Trek T2000

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
My Madone has a BB90, and my Cannondale AL cross bike is a BB30. The Madone is really stiff and you can feel power transfer compared to my older generation Madone. I like the BB30 on my Cannondale, but don't believe it's as stiff. Both cranks are Sram Red.
__________________
Time to Ride...
R900 is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 08:19 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
VT Biker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,960

Bikes: Cannondale R700 (2005)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I would like to know the Q Factor difference between:

A) BB 90
B) BB 30
C) External Cups.


Also - keep in mind that BB 30 is essentially moving to Press-Fit cups, as this is cheaper for most manufacturers, as it removes the precision of the standard BB30. But, in order to fit the nylon cups into the bracket and then the spindle, the bearings are reduced in size for press-fit BB 30 bearings, which defeats some of the benefit of BB30.
VT Biker is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 08:44 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tariffville, CT
Posts: 15,395

Bikes: Tsunami road bikes, Dolan DF4 track

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked 173 Times in 97 Posts
BB90 and external cups use the same bearing width, same cranks, so same q factor.

BB30 is a different design but it seems that manufacturers that make cranks for both systems will make their crank arms similar between the two, eliminating q factor differences.

There's also other BB numbers, they have to do with other bearing widths (Campy for example) and who knows what else. I started compiling a list then stopped.
carpediemracing is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 09:51 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
mechBgon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
For those interested, here's a good article giving an overview of the standards: https://www.bikerumor.com/2010/02/17/...ech-breakdown/ And also Park Tool's article: https://www.parktool.com/blog/calvins...ottom-brackets

I predict the press-fit BB86 will become very widespread because it's simple for frame manufacturers to do (just an empty cylinder, no threads or sockets), easy to assemble at the factory, and allows the frame to be wide and stiff at the BB.
mechBgon is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 10:08 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You guys forgot the real advantage to BB30/90..it leaves a bigger hole in the frame to pull air bladders out of the frame after molding!
clink83 is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 10:43 PM
  #16  
-
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by VT Biker
I would like to know the Q Factor difference between:

A) BB 90
B) BB 30
C) External Cups.


Also - keep in mind that BB 30 is essentially moving to Press-Fit cups, as this is cheaper for most manufacturers, as it removes the precision of the standard BB30. But, in order to fit the nylon cups into the bracket and then the spindle, the bearings are reduced in size for press-fit BB 30 bearings, which defeats some of the benefit of BB30.
As mentioned, the Q factors between BB30 and nonBB 30 cranks are usually the same. Some BB30 cranks have better heel clearance as seen here from FSA (called U factor).



Press fit 30 uses the same bearing size as BB30, but the bearings are encased in a nylon sleeve instead of pressed directly into the frame. However, you can't use Press Fit 30 with a BB 30 frame because the BB shell diameter has to be 46mm instead of 41.96mm. Aren't these ridiculous bottom bracket standards fun?!

Last edited by BeeSeeBee; 01-27-11 at 10:47 PM.
BeeSeeBee is offline  
Old 01-27-11, 11:35 PM
  #17  
Gentlemen.
 
ADSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 1,516

Bikes: S-Works e5 Aerotech with 2009 Veloce and a Fulcrum 5s

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Logically it should be three times better...
ADSR is offline  
Old 01-28-11, 04:45 AM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
roadwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Someplace trying to figure it out
Posts: 10,664

Bikes: Cannondale EVO, CAAD9, Giant cross bike.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by carpediemracing
If you look at the comparisons between BB30 and regular outboard bearing cranks, there were small but measurable differences between the two designs in terms of deflection and weight (using the same manufacturer's cranks but in the two different versions of BB). The difference in stiffness was very small - I'd consider it not significant (and that's a big admission for me). BB30 was a bit lighter because the wider bearings allow an aluminum spindle.

In your comparison, BB30 and BB90, there shouldn't be a "feel" difference in stiffness (if you use a standard outboard bearing crank and a BB30 version of the same crank). I'd be just as good or bad between the two systems.

BB90 refers to the WIDTH of the bottom bracket shell. It means that the previously outboard bearings are now pressed into the BB shell. It does not address the fact that a regular diameter spindle needs to be steel to be strong and stiff enough. Or titanium if you have more money.

BB30 refers to DIAMETER of the bottom bracket axle. It means the previously ~24mm opening is now 30mm. It allows the use of aluminum spindles without sacrificing strength. Since aluminum is 1/3 the density of steel and 2/3 the density of titanium, you can use a larger diameter spindle, retain or improve stiffness, and shed some grams at the same time. Think of a modern aluminum frame versus the flexy flyers like Vitus or Guerciottis.

BB30 uses the standard 68mm BB shell width. BB90 is much wider at 90mm. There are arguments for both. 68mm shells allow a narrower q-factor technically but realistically there is no difference between comparable cranksets (i.e. FSA in BB30 vs same FSA in outboard bearing). I think that a BB30-only crank has a good q-factor but I don't have numbers to back it up. 90mm wide BBs allow a wider downtube and chainstay anchoring points so could make for a stiffer (and probably "less aero") frameset. Remember that the spindle is still the heavier, more flexy design.

Functionally, if I were to sprint on one or the other, there'd be no difference.

However, for principle's sake, I prefer to use a design that makes sense to me. I don't like pressed bearings for maintenance (you need a press) but BB30, the wider diameter spindle, uses a common and accepted engineering principle.

It's the same principle that gave rise to oversize aluminum tubing (wider, stiffer, lighter) and eventually the wider tubed carbon frames, the 1 1/8" steerer and later the 1 1/4" lower steerer. I agree with them and use oversize alum tubing. I can't use a tapered steerer tube because I can't get a Tsunami with a tapered head tube but I would if I could.

The oversize idea also gave rise to the wider diameter bars (31.0) and wider posts. This is a case where sales/marketing (wider must be better) overcame the engineering (there's no reason to go wider). I don't agree with the functionality there so I don't subscribe to them. I use lighter and (measurably) just as efficient 26.0 bars and 27.2 posts.

The true difference will be the slight weight savings you get with the (smarter to me) BB30 design. I know my SRM wired crankset weighs about 675g for BB30. It's efficient, light, and works well.

cdr
Wow. Well said and great information...that's a lot for out here. Good job.
roadwarrior is offline  
Old 01-28-11, 07:50 AM
  #19  
Hills hurt.. Couches kill
 
RacerOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Brazil, IN
Posts: 3,370

Bikes: 1991 Specialized Sirrus Triple, 2010 Trek Madone 6.5 Project One, 2012 Cannondale Caad10, 2013 Trek Crockett

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by carpediemracing
If you look at the comparisons between BB30 and regular outboard bearing cranks, there were small but measurable differences between the two designs in terms of deflection and weight (using the same manufacturer's cranks but in the two different versions of BB). The difference in stiffness was very small - I'd consider it not significant (and that's a big admission for me). BB30 was a bit lighter because the wider bearings allow an aluminum spindle.

In your comparison, BB30 and BB90, there shouldn't be a "feel" difference in stiffness (if you use a standard outboard bearing crank and a BB30 version of the same crank). I'd be just as good or bad between the two systems.

BB90 refers to the WIDTH of the bottom bracket shell. It means that the previously outboard bearings are now pressed into the BB shell. It does not address the fact that a regular diameter spindle needs to be steel to be strong and stiff enough. Or titanium if you have more money.

BB30 refers to DIAMETER of the bottom bracket axle. It means the previously ~24mm opening is now 30mm. It allows the use of aluminum spindles without sacrificing strength. Since aluminum is 1/3 the density of steel and 2/3 the density of titanium, you can use a larger diameter spindle, retain or improve stiffness, and shed some grams at the same time. Think of a modern aluminum frame versus the flexy flyers like Vitus or Guerciottis.

BB30 uses the standard 68mm BB shell width. BB90 is much wider at 90mm. There are arguments for both. 68mm shells allow a narrower q-factor technically but realistically there is no difference between comparable cranksets (i.e. FSA in BB30 vs same FSA in outboard bearing). I think that a BB30-only crank has a good q-factor but I don't have numbers to back it up. 90mm wide BBs allow a wider downtube and chainstay anchoring points so could make for a stiffer (and probably "less aero") frameset. Remember that the spindle is still the heavier, more flexy design.

Functionally, if I were to sprint on one or the other, there'd be no difference.

However, for principle's sake, I prefer to use a design that makes sense to me. I don't like pressed bearings for maintenance (you need a press) but BB30, the wider diameter spindle, uses a common and accepted engineering principle.

It's the same principle that gave rise to oversize aluminum tubing (wider, stiffer, lighter) and eventually the wider tubed carbon frames, the 1 1/8" steerer and later the 1 1/4" lower steerer. I agree with them and use oversize alum tubing. I can't use a tapered steerer tube because I can't get a Tsunami with a tapered head tube but I would if I could.

The oversize idea also gave rise to the wider diameter bars (31.0) and wider posts. This is a case where sales/marketing (wider must be better) overcame the engineering (there's no reason to go wider). I don't agree with the functionality there so I don't subscribe to them. I use lighter and (measurably) just as efficient 26.0 bars and 27.2 posts.

The true difference will be the slight weight savings you get with the (smarter to me) BB30 design. I know my SRM wired crankset weighs about 675g for BB30. It's efficient, light, and works well.

cdr
I have BB90 on my Madone, the bearings go in and out with your fingers. No press is required.
RacerOne is offline  
Old 01-28-11, 08:51 AM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
mechBgon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by RacerOne
I have BB90 on my Madone, the bearings go in and out with your fingers. No press is required.
Some do.
mechBgon is offline  
Old 01-28-11, 09:01 AM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Quel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by BeeSeeBee
As mentioned, the Q factors between BB30 and nonBB 30 cranks are usually the same.
Leonard Zinn just talked about this yesterday in his Q&A. I was surprised the Q-factors were so close.

https://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...nd-more_157341

Shimano DA 7900 – 147 mm
Campagnolo Ultra-Torque – 145.5 mm (labeled on the arms)
SRAM BB30 – 145 mm
SRAM GXP – 145.3 mm
SRAM SRM/Quark – 145 mm
Quel is offline  
Old 01-28-11, 10:30 AM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
VT Biker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,960

Bikes: Cannondale R700 (2005)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BeeSeeBee
As mentioned, the Q factors between BB30 and nonBB 30 cranks are usually the same. Some BB30 cranks have better heel clearance as seen here from FSA (called U factor).
It looks as if they could get the Q factor smaller with the BB30, as the crank arms on a BB30 has more curvature from the BB to the end of the crank arm. Using the same designed crank arms of standard cranks with the BB30 would seem to get you to a smaller Q factor. Of course, the limiting factor here is also the chain stays.
VT Biker is offline  
Old 01-28-11, 10:44 AM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tariffville, CT
Posts: 15,395

Bikes: Tsunami road bikes, Dolan DF4 track

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked 173 Times in 97 Posts
I think part of the q factor thing is that there's a limitation to how close the cranks can go to the chainstays, esp with some of the non-round or non-oval stays. Another is that the outboard bearing cranks have been optimized for narrow q-factors - look at how flat and thin some of those arms have gotten (and broad too, to make them stiff enough).

My Cannondale SI crankarms (BB30) are narrow but reach outwards/wider as you get to the pedal end of the thing. It barely cleared some of the tubing on the frame and apparently some large footed riders need to push their feet out to keep their heels from hitting.

Some of those very narrow q-factors of days gone by owe the low numbers to solid cold forged cranks (skinny and heavy). The spindles were longer (and heavier and more flexible) so the cranks were almost parallel up/down, not reaching outwards as you moved away from the BB.

The limitation used to be, at some level, the material, since you couldn't make a skinny cast or heat forged crank. The other limitation was the wider BB (73mm) and stance (to clear a 2.1 or 2.5" tire) of mtb - Shimano's cranks were very wide due to the combination of the two factors, at least for the lower end cranks.

Now, with machining acceptable, hollow cranks, and an emphasis on efficient design versus quality materials, you can get very light cranks without the costs associated with stuff like cold forged aluminum or titanium BB spindles.

It's like new cars vs old cars. A new car may have stamped steel suspension arms and plastic bushings but it works a lot better than an old car with forged arms but less effective suspension geometry with spherical metal arm ends and a much more flexible chassis.
carpediemracing is offline  
Old 01-29-11, 12:41 AM
  #24  
MAK
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,695

Bikes: Yes, I have bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked 106 Times in 65 Posts
Thank you one and all. Great information and explanations. This is how most posts and strings should be.
MAK is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bbqpork
Road Cycling
48
05-23-15 09:49 PM
Bobsled
Road Cycling
6
10-28-11 06:58 PM
Briareos
"The 33"-Road Bike Racing
7
06-25-11 09:39 PM
djpfine
Road Cycling
8
06-04-11 12:31 PM
Allen
Framebuilders
3
12-09-09 04:19 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.