I have one in the parts bin but have no experience with them.

Before I build a frame around it I'd like to get y'alls' opinion of them.

Many thanks,

--Allen

I'm not a fan at all of the BB30. Having to be pressed in not only makes it more difficult to remove and replace it also greatly limits the number of times it can be done. Since almost all BB shells will be made of aluminum, there are only so many times that that the BB can be removed and replaced before the aluminum shell becomes too worn to securely hold the BB cups. As for having a narrower Q factor I think this isn't a problem for most riders with the current crank width. Some, including myself actually have to add width for proper pedal stroke. I think the manufacturers like it because it's easier and cheaper to use in frames with ever widening tubes and it eliminates the cost of threading the BB shell. The evolution of BB's over the years seems to be very minor improvements in weight and stiffness with sometimes a reduction in durability but mostly it's just large doses of hype.

+Eleventy-seven

Not a fan of progressions that limit durability and user serviceability. This is what you get though, when consumers demand the next big thing all the time. You get innovations that aren't necessarily improvements, but are billed as the Second Coming of Pneumatic Tires.

I find nothing wrong with the function of current external-bearing bb's (well, I prefer adjustable square taper for several reasons), personally, and have no desire to "move forward" just so someone can sell me something.

Never drink the corporate Kool-Aid.

Thanks for the opinions.

How limited in choice of cranks (without using the SRAM BB30 to English thread converter)?

Rofl

It's obvious none of you have ever actually worked on, seen or ridden a BB30 crank to spout any of that.

No more difficult than removing a square taper cartridge bb with the correct tool.

If you've actually serviced a BB30 crank you'll know that it's a very light press fit into the shell - much lighter than say press in headset cups of traditional h.s systems. The bearings typically come out with the crankarms. BB30 worst case, takes one more tool than a square taper or external bottom bracket system to completely service.

Narrower Q-Factor is always an advantage. You can always widen the Q-factor with aftermarket doodads, no such thing exists for the reverse. 99% of the people out there don't run Q-factor increasing accessories, because it's not needed.

Pure speculation and heresay. BB30 by the very nature of the increased shell diameter is stiffer AND lighter, the cannondale BB30 SI crankset + BB = 590g = the lightest production crank/bb set in the world.

Same luddite nonsense that preceded indexed shifting. You have absolustely no proof that BB30 systems "limit durability", user serviceability I already addressed which is bogus.

I know what you're getting at here, but this is a much smaller and less useful step than indexed shifting. Most people see the value in indexed shifting, but are most of us clamoring for a new BB design? No, rec riders just get trickle down from the much smaller racing group. Sometimes it means we get better stuff, sometimes we get what's new, but expensive and not necessarily better. And the stuff we've come to love is no longer supported. Companies exist to sell a product for profit, and what's new sells better. So, you have to create something new to sell. It doesn't mean you're actually making progress.

I'm not a Luddite. I'm just sick of someone introducing the Next Great BB Standard every few years. I can perceive the benefits in terms of stiffness of my external bearings over my old, cheap square taper. But, as junky and prone to flex that BB may be, it still turns much more smoothly. I can appreciate that, and the simplicity of the design and ease of service.

They both have their uses: one is on my work bike, which sees lots of water and grime, while the other is kept relatively pristine. Having one that is easy to service regularly, in one case, makes more sense. The other is perceptibly stiffer, and makes more sense on a bike I put more power through.

For my purposes, and for the needs of many others, BB30 is not a necessary improvement. The desires of people are different, and so there is obviously a group who wants this. I'm not saying it's useless. It just won't make a bit of difference to most people.