Do you think that the PressFit 30 standard will win and actually become some sort of international standard, and do we need the same thing for headsets, such as the 1.5 inset standard? (vertigo cycles I think). Any frame builders, designers like to comment about the pros and cons?

Do you mean BB30?

There's already a lot of standards floating around, BB30 as on Cannondales etc, BB90 as on Treks, OSBB as on Specialized, and the weird press-fit standard BBs that Lapierre's have.

BB30 and 90 aren't patented in the hope that others will adopt them, both have merits, I'd say BB30 more so. OSBB is almost BB30, but is just very slightly different for the sake of it. The Lapierre approach achieves nothing at all IMO!

Headsets are pretty well standard. Aside from the internal/integrated/external thing they're pretty much all the same. It also doesn't require different forks, unlike with BB30 vs BB90 (for example), so it's not really the same issue.

PreesFit 30 is a bit like BB30 just a bit simpler to manufacture (I think), and the whole headset thing needs to be sorted out, internal, external, 1 1/8, 1.5, taper steerers.http://www.standard44.com/44/

The headset thing re 1.125/1.5/taper is not about 'being sorted' though, it's about horses for courses. I don't really see that as the same issue as the BB standards.

I don't get what 'Press Fit 30' is though, as BB30 is just press fit bearings, couldn't really be any easier!

Edit: Pressfit 30 is a SRAM product so you can fit a 'normal' HT2 chainset into a BB30 frame, I think!

I thought Press Fit 30 was different outer diameter to BB30? And assumed it was SRAM/Truvativ just trying to be different (again). But I could be wrong.
edit: I thought it takes a BB30 crank/axle not HT2.

Clear as mud isn't it. I thought the pressfit 30 allowed the use of 30mm spindles rather than the 24mm HT2?

Perhaps it is that way round then. The SRAM blurb says 'requires no change of chainset' which made me think it worked with normal cranks, but then says it's 68/73mm compatible.

I think the red herring is the '30mm' thing, it just appears to be another GXP bottom bracket option from reading reviews.

I think there is the press fit adapters – so you can use existing HT2 etc cranksets. And also, the press fit style bearings which mean you can use an oversized axle for the crankset – which I guess is where the weight/stiffness improvements can be found.

My Extralite bearings were 44mm outside diameter pressed into the BB shell and held in by an interfearance fit and the c-clips. They accept a 30mm axle. Incidentally this was the same as the standard 68mm set up but didn't use the cups.

Edit: there were also some small spacers which i suspect are used to shim the axle length to fit the width of the BB without the bearing cups.

So what's the OD of BB30, that Extralite setup sounds like BB30! I know it fitted in an OSBB frame, which is the same as BB30 but with a wider shell (inexplicably).

This does need some standardisation! Companies like Lapierre doing their weird things don't really help, nor do Spesh who just do their own take on a 'standard'!

choie is good, and bigger often is better.. in diameter anyway. a lot of it depends on the sizes of the tubes you want to join to the BB /headset, more than the advantages of a larger bb spindle etc themselves.

OD is 44mm. I think the BB width is different though. This can be sorted with the press in adapter or in my case some thin spacers that sit behind the bearing and in front of the c-clips. Simplistically doesn't BB30 mean 30mm spindle?

James-0 – the point of OS BBs in whatever format is you can use a larger spindle. Because its got a bigger diameter it can be stiffer and you can (in many cases) actually use less material, so its lighter. Also because you don't need the bearing cups you again saving weight (no cups). I can't see what the size of the tubes has to do with it. Especially with carbon.

Taken from weightweenies. Pretty comprehensive…but does pose the question…why?

Dear Raton,
Yes, BB86, often confused with “BB90,” uses existing integrated-spindle/external-bearing cranksets on a press-in bearing system. BB30 is often perceived as a Cannondale and Specialized system and may account as much as anything for a host of BB83/BB86/BB90/BB92/BB94/BB95 “standards” now in circulation by bicycle manufacturers who don’t necessarily want to adopt the system of their competitors.

Here is a quick guide to a number of these new standards:

BB30, or 30 X 68 and 30 X 73mm bottom brackets, come in either 68mm or 73mm shell widths for road or mountain bikes. The spindle diameter is 30mm, and the 41mm-diameter bearings press straight into the BB shell and are held in place by snaprings. In addition to Cannondale (who named the system) and Specialized (which doesn’t call its system BB30), FSA and SRAM (TruVativ) make BB30 cranksets; Shimano does not, and Campagnolo makes press-in adaptor cups to fit its Ultra-Torque (and Fulcrum Racing-Torq) cranks to a BB30 shell.

Scott and Shimano came up with BB83/BB86, often called the “Shimano system,” but not by Shimano. It accepts a standard 24 X 90mm road or 24 X 95mm MTB crank spindle. The shell is 86.5mm wide with a 41mm ID. The bearing has a 37mm OD and is pressed into a nylon insert with a 41mm OD that presses into the frame . Each insert’s shoulder is 1.75mm wide, creating the 90mm width and hence the BB90 name. Shimano, FSA and SRAM offer BBs to fit this shell; Campagnolo makes press-in adaptor cups to fit its Ultra-Torque (and Fulcrum Racing-Torq) cranks to BB83/BB86 shells.

BB92 is the MTB version of the BB83/BB86 with a 91.5mm wide shell for MTB triple cranks. Again, the 3.5mm of the two shoulders add width to 95mm.

BB90 is Trek’s Campy- (and Shimano-, SRAM-, FSA-) compatible Madone system. The BB shell is 90mm wide by 37mm ID. The 37mm OD bearings (the same bearings as inside an external-bearing cup) insert directly into the carbon frame and accept integrated-spindle cranks.

BB95 is the MTB version of BB90 with a 95mm wide shell on the new Trek Top Fuel and Fuel EX carbon.

Wilier’s new system has a 94mm wide BB into which a Campagnolo Ultra-Torque (or Fulcrum Racing-Torq) crankset fits directly without cups or retaining clip.

It is odd Lapierre went with the press-fit BB given it will give a negligible weight saving and limits their customers to one model replacement BB. However given that the replacement BB is a Shimano one I'm wondering if it's something Shimano will start pushing more in the future so it could just be Lapierre are ahead of the pack.

But the Spesh standard isn't quite BB30, you can't fit S-Works cranks into a BB30 frame and vice versa, the shell width is different.

Blimey! 😕 and I thought it was bad enough with multiple square taper, ISIS, Octalink, etc. and that's before the HT1, HT2, GXP, Campy external fittings.
I'm sure this used to be a conspiracy to make people buy new cranks instead of replacing worn rings & bearings, as well as to make people keep buying new tools. Now I reckon it's to make people buy new frames!
Seen a few BB30 frames out there, but have resisted up to now.

Nick – is the spindle longer or shorter? The availability of the s-works crankset is pretty poor. Is the new lightweight carbon spider one even available here?

IIRC the spindle is longer, as the shell is slightly wider.

I wouldn't hold me to that though! No idea about a new spider, didn't even know it was changing! Don't really stay in touch with all that anymore!

I think there is now 2 options. A standard S-Works and a S-Works SL. The latter comes with a carbon spider which reduces the weight by a fair bit.

That makes sense. I'm trying to get my head around this. If you look at the differences between the BB30 and SW-OS versions of the Extralite crank you see that with the BB30 you use press in cups to hold the 41mm OS bearings. With the SW-OS you press the bearings straight into the frame. I guess this compensates for the wider frame shell.

james p – i said, "bigger often is better.. in diameter anyway"

as in the diameter / stiffness / weight relationship is understood, what i'm getting at is that if you want a larger alu or ti DT to take CEN stress from a big fork (for ex), a taper head tube and / or larger BB shell can mean less manipulation or ovalisation is needed, welds are over a larger radius or larger area – for example there are many ti frames out there with DTs that are heavily ovalised vertically to weld to a much slimmer head tube, this isn't always ideal and larger BB shells and head tubes can help avoid this.
with carbon it's about maximising frame design options to an even greater extent i think, or bonding cups into the carbon, but i don't design carbon stuff so i'll not go into that.

tbh, the axle stiffness thing is cerrtainly there but that's the main marketing angle – the real demand for the larger BB shells and headtubes came from frame designers wanting greater er.. flexibility.. in frame design, ie cannondale's 1 1/4 road headtube was about reducing the amount of twist in carbon steerer tubes. it's also to get bigger beaings in the BB shell. Tapered steerers on sus forks feel pretty good too, mainly under straight-line braking rather than steering twist though.

Are there many metal frames with BB30, virtually all the ones I can think of are carbon…

Whyte ti is only one i can think of offhand

No arguments on headtubes – but there appears to be very little demand for OS BBs from designers of metal bikes if we can only think of 1 non-carbon BB30 type frame.

Are the Cannondale CAAD9s BB30?

I think a handful of German manufacturers do BB30 (alu) frames. Rose/RedBull definitely are, Focus, Univega, etc. might be too.

oh yeah, cannondale too, there will be a few others. right now a lack of a universal std may be the main thing holding it all back, headtubes seem to have settled though.

I don't think that headsets have settled at all. If you include road bikes it seems there are standard threadless, low profile (zero stack), IS, Microtech, Columbus type, Hiddenset, Taper and 1.5. There may be more, but for mountainbikes (and road bikes) if it settled on a taper system that would be great. http://www.standard44.com/44/

But the Spesh standard isn't quite BB30, you can't fit S-Works cranks into a BB30 frame and vice versa, the shell width is different.

Confusingly, on their road frames it is BB30 but called something else; on their MTB frames it's different.

No arguments on headtubes – but there appears to be very little demand for OS BBs from designers of metal bikes if we can only think of 1 non-carbon BB30 type frame.

Most of them are indeed carbon but there are more frames becoming available (Bianchi/Time/Focus/Ridley etc.); in terms of metal frames you are right that there aren't many (CAAD9/Flash alloy; Cinelli XCR; Whytes (incl. the new steel one IIRC); Rose bikes) though a few custom builders will do you one…

Andy

Edit: Also Merida 0.9 & Ninety-Six

Are there many metal frames with BB30

The Whyte 19 steel uses BB30.

This has now turned into naming all the metal frames with BB30, and there's still not many! Barely worth resurecting really!

There must be a new standard since the thread started though, it's been a couple of weeks!

Confused?-You will be. It used to be bad enough with one shell width and a host of axle lengths, let alone this many different "standards". I foresee many disgruntled customers who can't get the correct BB immediately from their bike shop because they either don't know what they've got, or thinking the shop's crap because they only carry 47 different types of BB, but not their type.My head's hurting just thinking about what i've got to look forward to from behind the counter, can't somebody please make it all go away?

Great thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from!

Confused?-You will be.

Oh yes. You would also think that 2 Cannondale Flash BB30 frames (one carbon, one alloy) would have the same width BB – and you'd be wrong (cue delay while LBS phones FSA to get the required spacers…)

Andy

Why can't BBs use angular contact bearing like headsets? Then all that would need replacing is the cartridge bearings which could be pulled out of the cups by hand once the cranks have been removed.

Why can't BBs use angular contact bearing like headsets? Then all that would need replacing is the cartridge bearings which could be pulled out of the cups by hand once the cranks have been removed.

But that's basically what you do with BB30, just pop down the local bearing supplier for new bearings and pop new ones in. No need to bother the LBS.

It was something I got very used to doing with my Epic last year, they usually lasted about 6 weeks!

Most of the above replies refer to BB30, not the same as Pressfit30 at all, Pressfit 30 strikes me as quite a sound idea, no fine tolerances as with BB30 which for the occasional framebuilder such as myself is a good thing. Not sure which chainsets you can use with it though. Anyone know?

As for constantly changing standards I've not recovered from 1 1/4 headsets a few years ago -another blind alley.

the axle stiffness thing is cerrtainly there but that's the main marketing angle

True as for the headset it is all marketing.
Guess how big is a motorcycle headset steerer.