“Durable Unified Bottom bracket, the most significant update is the change to a 28.99mm spindle for all mountain bike cranks”

SRAM DUB Will Replace 2 Current Crank Standards With A New One

woy oj!

*Fixed your link for you – Chipps 🙂 *

TBH GXP is/was fine in some applications (and with some BB’s) but in others* it was utterly shit.

*any early GXP BB, most aftermarket GXP BB’s, and fat bikes. All because there was no preload on the plastic bushing to keep it in place.

You couldn’t make this up could you? 28.99mm 😆

SRAM get a lot of grief for being a marketing company which their employees get defensive about, but these sill ‘standards’ that they’re often the driving force behind really don’t help that cause. Shimano saint cranks do fine on a 24mm spindle, so why an earth do SRAM need to do something else?

I like their 11 speed drive trains, but they annoyed the world with Boost and now this. Hmmmmm.

By replacing two current crank axle standards with one new one, SRAM will also be drastically reducing the number of bottom brackets it needs to produce as well.

That is the my favourite bit.

Hmm, is this actually really a standards change? All I can see is that SRAM have invented a new BB and axle combo for their own cranks….

By replacing two current crank axle standards with one new one, SRAM will also be drastically reducing the number of bottom brackets it needs to produce as well.

😆

By replacing two current crank axle standards with one new one, SRAM will also be drastically reducing the number of bottom brackets it needs to produce as well.

And increasing the number of bottom brackets that shops need to stock. Yay, thanks for that.

Cheers Chipps!

You couldn’t make this up could you? 28.99mm

To be fair… 30mm axles are just a fraction too big to work properly in a threaded shell. That extra 1.01mm will make it feasible to get a sleeve in there that doesn’t wear on the axle (yes I am looking at you RaceFace). Why its 1.01mm smaller… who knows.

If 1.01mm smaller is better, surely 6mm smaller is almost 6 times betterer 🙂

Bring back UN72 😆

did someone at SRAM order a 5 year supply of 28.99mm dia tube or something?

I’ll stick to my threaded bb shell with an external bottom bracket with a 24mm axle or a square taper bb thanks.
SRAM can stuff this up their arse 👿

I do think that SRAM genuinely troll us for the lolz.

Other brands are available with proven bearing longevity and I will be sticking with them for the foreseeable.

I can’t wait to see my SRAM rep this weekend @ Core Bike show…

When he starts to tell me of the “benefits of the new 28.99mm DUB axle system” he may just find a drive side arm complete with 32T X-Sync 2 chainring already fitted, irreversibly shoved up his rectum! 🙄

If 1.01mm smaller is better, surely 6mm smaller is almost 6 times betterer

5.94 times betterer.

When he starts to tell me of the “benefits of the new 28.99mm DUB axle system” he may just find a drive side arm complete with 32T X-Sync 2 chainring already fitted, irreversibly shoved up his rectum!

I think that if this became the defacto standard (no pun intended) response from the bike industry to SRAM, then we’d quickly have new components that were betterer but that did not mean that new wheels/frame/forks were required first.

I guess that 0,01mm is the clearance you wouild normally specify for a 29mm nominal id bearing. But anyhow that is a non-standard size of bearing.

But anyhow that is a non-standard size of bearing.

No flies on you mate! 😉

Do you work in the bike industry? If not, you should do… SRAM and companies like them would love you! 😆

By replacing two current crank axle standards with one new one, SRAM will also be drastically reducing the number of bottom brackets it needs to produce as well.

That is the my favourite bit.

I expect they’ll also drastically reducing the number of cranks they need to produce, as right-thinking people will stick with 24mm-axle Shimano chainsets.

I expect they’ll also drastically reducing the number of cranks they need to produce, as right-thinking people will stick with 24mm-axle Shimano chainsets.

Either that, or they’ll go for the OEM marketplace with this and you’ll get a lot of punters with three six month old bikes in needing a new BB which being non-standard will cost a mint and they’ll be able to up their profit margin here.

I would imagine that SRAM’s ideal scenario is that replacement DUB bearings cost less than an entire Shimano crankset/BB and chainring (remember, different standards on the latter which will mean swapping the BB entails new cranks, a new chainring, a new chain AND a new cassette).

You can bet that SRAM have figured that a generic BB30 adaptor would have to be a wafer thin 0.505mm shim, which would be a swine to fit.

Canny bike buyers should ask their retailer to supply and fit a (cheaper) Shimano replacement at time of bike purchase.

Either that, or they’ll go for the OEM marketplace with this and you’ll get a lot of punters with three six month old bikes in needing a new BB which being non-standard will cost a mint and they’ll be able to up their profit margin here.

I can guarantee it’s this… IN SPADES!

SRAM are very good at getting into the OEM market. I’m privvy to the standard trade prices of SRAM and Shimano, but not the OEM. I am told by those that are privvy to OEM pricing that SRAM is much keener than Shimano hence they manage to take much more of a lions share than perhaps the customer SRAM vs Shimano argument might dictate they should.

Let me just state that I like a lot of SRAM products, and I genuinely think that a lot of their innovation does move the game on. I was sceptical about 11spd initially, but I was won over quite quickly once I’d ridden it. 12spd I couldn’t wait for, and I’m not ashamed to say I think it’s a bloody excellent product. That said… When the SRAM rep insisted I run a SRAM crank and X-Sync 2 chainring with Eagle rather than the Raceface SIXC I already owned as I would “drop the chain all the time with the Raceface ring” and it “wouldn’t be a fair test of how well Eagle performs running it with non SRAM cranks and ring”… I politely pointed out that all the cranks and chainring do in a 1x system is turn the **** chain, and with the inner width of a 12spd chain being the same as an 11spd one, given I’d had no issues with Raceface rings on 11spd why would I suddenly have problems with it on 12spd?

No answer…

Almost 18 months later I’ve done 1000+ miles on Eagle, all the time with a Raceface crank and ring fitted… It’s been flawless! 🙄

Don’t see how it’s any different to when Raceface introduced the CINCH cranks rather than X-Type… it’s not a new BB standard, you don’t have to buy it, but as someone who had to oversee ordering a whole host of BB30 and GXP cranks and BB’s when Eagle came out I for one am glad they’ve simplified it!

I never used to like Sram, I was always a Shimano fanboy through and through, but Eagle has been so good on my T130 I’m converted. I’ll be investing in a set of X01 DUB arms when my BB wears out for sure!

Anyway…

Can’t believe it’s taken this long for this to appear!

[video]https://youtu.be/4wYqu_YlPIM[/video]

😉

Good job I don’t like SRAM or else this news might annoy me.

As long as this

Shimano Bottom Bracket Hollowtech II Saint SM-BB80-B

keeps available…SRAM should “DUB” as much as they like to dub.

😯

Best DUB Compilation:

isn’t bad – or?
🙄

DUB be good to me

When the SRAM rep insisted I run a SRAM crank and X-Sync 2 chainring with Eagle rather than the Raceface SIXC I already owned as I would “drop the chain all the time with the Raceface ring” and it “wouldn’t be a fair test of how well Eagle performs running it with non SRAM cranks and ring

Judging from the comments on Facebook from a friend we have in common, their reps sure are indoctrinated / brainwashed into the SRAM way!

it reminds me of working on CAD and dimensioning a drawing only to find that it’s somehow a little off so you simply adjust it to display to 0 decimal places. Only when you send the files to someone else’s machine, your error is there to see (and in this case manufacture).

I’m still not totally convinced 24mm wasn’t a bit too big really, seeing as how BMX cranks existed happily in US, Euro and Mid sizes with 3/4″ (19mmm) and 7/8″ (22mm) for a fair old while before we started this merry dance, TBH Square taper would still be more than adequate for 95% of people, but it doesn’t exactly help turnovers.

But 29mm down from 30? FFS, if anyone really believes that’s going to vastly improve bearing life then the SRAM marketing dept’ have definitely earned their keep…

lawman91 – Member

Don’t see how it’s any different to when Raceface introduced the CINCH cranks rather than X-Type…

Cinch aeffects run on a standard 24mm BB, my Nexts were shite but they were 30mm, nothing exotic. Actually my old racefaces were 24mm too now I think of it. Not really comparable to these 650b cranks

SRAM have one job to do with BBs, make one that doesn’t absolutely suck balls. Til they do that they can **** off. The combination of shit lifespan and new standard is so obviously bad that anyone that buys it deserves all they get. But the OEMs are going to be the problem, Shimano have shown how to get rubbish ideas accepted.

SRAM’s goal was to combine the lighter weight and stiffer performance of BB30, with the bearing reliability of GXP.

😯

At first I thought it was dumb but it does make sense. Shimano cranks are 24mm and fit every bb type. SRAM are just doing the same but with a burlier axle and making it easier for themselves by only having one axle type. Once production of bb30 and gxp cranks stop then only bb’s need to be produced. So even if bike shops have to stock another type of bb at least they don’t have to stock the more expensive two cranks that are the same but different axles. Hopefully this means the end of bb30

Hopefully this means the end of bb30

BB30 is dead. Long live BB28.99.

I assume the lip on the axle

is called the DUBstep?

Yup, those are the SkrilXX1 cranks

s’funny, my old BB30 squeaked for ages, but when I finally pulled the cranks off I found a dead mouse in there.

[video]http://youtu.be/yMl68dEcOAg[/video]

I wish the 24mm spindle on my Shimano cranks were less flexi…said no one…ever.

….