Tom Marvin’s list of standards

Good article in the main. The only thing he’s wrong on is Head-sets – integrated is mechanically worse than semi-integrated and full cup – we want something between the bearings and the frame.

Hoping this might be the trend. Sram universal derailleur concept is a good start.

Pure clickbait. Not worth the few bytes of memory it’s taking up on somebodies servers.

It is something that genuinely winds him up and I think it was an article written out of frustration.

He’s definitely wrong about the headsets. 44mm straight headtubes are best. And centrelock (provided everyone commits to the BB tool lockring) is better. Other than that I generally agree.

Clickbait is a bit harsh, looks like a cathartic piece to me and mostly correct.

Apart from about the headsets obvs.

Did he cover chainring fitment? We really could do with ONE direct mount standard rather than six or seven.

And centrelock (provided everyone commits to the BB tool lockring) is better

It’s actually incredibly useful to have a load of bolts that can be fairly safely transferred to other parts of your bike when things go wrong.

Try using a centrelock thingy to hold your SPD cleats on after one of the bolts has dropped off on the trail somewhere.

It’s funny how pedal spindle size hasn’t changed.

Another thing that should be standardised is bearing sizes, manufacturers shouldn’t be able to use non-standard sizes.

It’s funny how pedal spindle size hasn’t changed.

Do BMX pedals still have 1/2” threads?

IIRC one manufacturer tried to mess with it a few years ago for some super thin pedals too. Forget who though

Not such a fan of centrelock. Had a couple develop annoying circumferential play despite being tight. Also fixed some mechanicals with bolts from normal rotors, including a shifter bolt that disappeared mid trail.

Main issue with Tom’s article is 34.9 being Specialized’s standard. Didn’t Scott start that one about 16 years ago with the 04 Genius?

We can’t expect all the tech and shiny new developments without proprietary spec/dims etc causing standard angst. Or, you could but then there’d be complaints of how a UCI-style standards committee is stifling development. There’s a few very influential companies pushing MTB tech and we’ve seen how they leverage compatibility and standards for competitive advantage.

(imo BBs are one area that really does need something new for bikes where square taper cranks aren’t up to the job, seat tubes could/should be larger dia on MTBs …and 1.8″ lower steerer tubes may well be the next thing to annoy everyone)

Bottom bracket shells should all be 73mm wide and with an English thread.

Why 73mm? Well it’ll work marginally better with Boost spaced wheels (more on that later), and you should be using ISCG05 chainguide mounts if you need them, plus I had to pick between 73mm and 68mm, and wider is better.

eg, pick something that exists yet is unsuitable rather suggest something better and create a new standard. Partly how we’re in this ‘mess’. 68 or 73mm BSA is a relic of road bikes and square taper BBs, where it’s just fine The only right thing about it for MTBs now is that it’s threaded. Anyway, E-bikes will make this irrelevant before it needs changing.

It looks like Tom was taking a pragmatic approach based on existing acceptance and picking the least-worst solutions, which is exactly what I’d do.

You need to share you list of ideal standards now Jameso.

It’s funny how pedal spindle size hasn’t changed.

Don’t tempt fate. Although I believe Shimano did try and a much bigger thread diameter but can’t find any pictures now. Also have 9/16, 1/2 and some french size in mm but seems 9/16 stuck for road and MTB.
Awaits next years release of a bigger diameter pedal thread that increases stiffness and dramatically improves handling and other marketing BS

It looks like Tom was taking a pragmatic approach based on existing acceptance and picking the least-worst solutions, which is exactly what I’d do.

You need to share you list of ideal standards now Jameso.

But that’s my point, you either pick pragmatically from what we have and in many cases that’s just kicking the problem down the road, or you design for purpose now and accept the new spec/format. And that purpose now will change in time anyway. Perhaps the answer is to engineer well for the brief we have now, yet that brief might include existing standards for commercial take-up rate. Can’t win…

I predict that seat tubes, steerers and possibly BBs will all change in due course though. Like it or not E-bikes are gaining market share in MTB and will be more influential in shaping spec.

I predict that seat tubes, steerers and possibly BBs will all change in due course though. Like it or not E-bikes are gaining market share in MTB and will be more influential in shaping spec.

Let’s hope the ‘new’ standards focus on them and leave the rest of us clockwork riders in peace for a while…

The thing is, much as it frustrates me, many of the ‘new’ standards are better.
Shimano outboard BB’s with big axle, bolt though axles and hubs, big headsets etc.
I do think there are some absolute howlers that seem more about ‘because’ and ‘marketing’ over function.

You are thinking about it like a bike designer Jameso (what are the best solutions?), we are thinking about it like consumers (what are the most-useful choices from the existing menu of options?).

So I have an MTB with boost spacing, threaded 73mm BB and a tapered headtube which uses press-in cups – what benefits would you suggest I could get from changing any of the key standards?

problem is that the new inventions are IP protected – bike companies don’t make enough profit and turnover to let their new design be used free from licence etc. so a small player will carry on using the tech they don’t have to pay licence for.

You are thinking about it like a bike designer Jameso (what are the best solutions?), we are thinking about it like consumers (what are the most-useful choices from the existing menu of options?).

I think about as a rider/consumer first, always have done. But yes, I get the point about the conflict. (edit to add, I’ve also not been involved with any level of FS frame design since about 2011 so have few opinions of any relevance there)

So I have an MTB with boost spacing, threaded 73mm BB and a tapered headtube which uses press-in cups – what benefits would you suggest I could get from changing any of the key standards?

None, practically. I know what I’d change for my use of an average MTB but you might not prioritise those things.

Headset/Steerer – 1.8 inch lower steerers are incoming, it makes sense on longer travel stuff, if Fox and RS improved their manufacturing tolerances, there wouldn’t be creaky steerers.
ZS/EC 44/56/62. No need for anything else, no variants (looking at you specialized and that campy nonsense)

Wheels – Boost 110/148, superboost can get in the sea. 110×20 front axles would make some sense.

Seatpost – 34.9, more space for the dropper gubbins, better seals etc

BB – BSA 73mm or BB92, 386evo if you like skinny wheeled curly bar contraptions

Crank axles, 24mm, anything else is daft and forces the use of tiny expensive bearings

Bars/Stems, 31.8, 35mm was pointless

Disc mounting, centrelock is stupid, there is no fail safe on a safety critical part, no one carries around a centre lock tool!

Marketing should never be allowed near the specification of sizes, far too much shite in the cycling industry due to them. Obsolesce for absolutely no reason other than to make money.

jameso
Full Member

eg, pick something that exists yet is unsuitable rather suggest something better and create a new standard. Partly how we’re in this ‘mess’. 68 or 73mm BSA is a relic of road bikes and square taper BBs, where it’s just fine The only right thing about it for MTBs now is that it’s threaded.

What exactly do you think is the problem with 73mm threaded BB shells? If it’s wider tyres, then no, 73mm works fine with 3 inch tyres. And if it’s boost, then no, because the answer to that is 142mm rear ends. Basically 2 new things came along, one of which didn’t cause a problem but people claimed it did, and the other should have just gone in the bin.

One of the shittest things about pointless new standards is the way they mess with existing good standards. They all annoy me but boost is possibly the worst offender of all.

didnthurt
Full Member

It’s funny how pedal spindle size hasn’t changed.

SSSSSSHHH! They’ll hear you.

What exactly do you think is the problem with 73mm threaded BB shells?

Not the width for tyres or Boost (wider hubs are a good thing in general imo). The problem for me is the shell is both too small OD and too narrow for a more durable BB design. I wear through HT2 BBS at a rate I’m just bored of. M800s are better but still, just better than a really low base level. The HT2 design improved crank / axle interface at the expense of BB life, a fair trade. I’d take a bit of added weight for the more durable BB design a revised shell could allow.

Have you tried non-disposable BBs? I’ve got a Gusset EXT24 in the fatbike which is at least 7 years old now, just needs bearings occasionally. Calling 73mm threaded “unsuitable” for BB wear reasons is a bit OTT tbh.

For sure it’s not something worth disrupting established standards over… But, having said that there’s loads of scope for a new standard that’d remain fully compatible. In fact there’s a few already though, all push-fits/pressfits.

1.8 inches is 45.72mm. Imperial sizes should be assigned to history.

Standards I dont like/trust/understand have probably become the main reason Ive not bought new bike for ages. I keep thinking Ive found something that ticks the boxes then I find out its got a press-fit BB or something and mental image of [REJECT] stamp appears, and the not remotely urgent search continues.

Resultantly Im riding a £999 Tiagra commuter with 32/33c tyres as road/gravel/cx (seems to do fine) and an MTB with a straight 1’1/8 headtube and 26″ wheels (not dead yet)

Not sure if this is my loss or the cycling industries. I’ve come to think the bigger impact mile for mile, especially this time of year, is the quality of my shoes/jacket/shorts/etc

Have you tried non-disposable BBs?

I did try a housing type that could take replacement bearings but the bearings available just weren’t sealed and protected well enough. Always the more exposed NDS that goes. The SS gets through them fastest, on other bikes the cost to wear rate is fine. Just seems like a compromised design – axle got bigger but not the space around it, the bearings are more exposed, plus separate cups which can bring in the alignment issues.

I don’t think it’s OTT to say it’s a problem. BB wear rates are too high for my use of an MTB which may be higher than many but it’s not unusual. Plenty of lesser problems seem to inspire marketeers or force standards or spec changes?

^ too late to edit but should add – perspective.. it’s not the end of the world, just occasional “ffs..” and faff.

As regards BB standards, I think 73mm hollow tech is fine, possibly T47 (basically bigger screw in) would be a decent leap, because it would enhance durability and reduce maintenance.

It’s the endless press fit BS BBs which need a cull.

If he’s harking back to simpler times he wasn’t around in the boom era of late 80’s, early 90’s as we had far more barmy standards back then. Seat post diameter was literally decided by which tubes you made your frame out of so could be 25, 26.6, 26.8, 27, 27.2, 29.6, 30.9, etc, etc!

Headsets were 1”, 1 1/8th or 1 1/4 and either threaded or not, rear hubs 130mm, 132mm or 135mm. U-brakes didn’t fit canti mounts, V frames couldn’t use canti brakes.

Same as it ever was.

Always the more exposed NDS that goes

They really need to start selling them separately.

Or putting two NDS cups and one DS cup in each box.