I have a few of these, accepted as compromises on the bikes I wanted to buy/build up… I’ve tried to avoid including things which I was a bit annoyed as I had to buy new parts but on reflection are decent improvements.

– 10, 11, 12 speeds on any non-road bike
– 11, 12 speeds on a road bike
– 1x anything (many on ‘gravel’ bikes realising now that a sub-compact 2x with a more compact cassette is preferable – has been possible for decades using square taper triples). And thus also 10t cogs and requisite freehubs.
– Thru axles on the rear of any non-mountain bike.
– Press-fit BBs
– Integrated (i.e. drop-in directly to frame) headsets.
– Tapered steerer tubes on about 75% of bikes that have them.
– 1 1/8th steerer tubes on steel road bikes (seriously – a 1 inch threadless/ahead set up rides beautifully – benefits of modern stems and bars with compliant ride). Current obsessions with wide tyres on road bikes might not be so prevalent without overly stiff frames/forks.
– Steep seat tube angles on any bike not a TT bike.
– Short chain stays (for the type of bike) on any bike.
– Flat mount on ‘gravel’ bikes.
– Flat whites.

Internal cable routing

This gets my vote. No practical advantage, only aesthetic. Makes working on your bike much harder. Usually results in a rattle or two which can be a nightmare to eliminate. Hides cable rub until it causes frame failure or rubs a hole clean through the frame.

Honourable mention for press-fit BB’s.

Yes – how did I miss this one!

Honorable exception maybe to internally routed rear brake cable in top tube on a road bike where full cable outer is used. Although even then I’m questioning the point – full cable outer would be used maybe for a winter bike – where you probably wouldn’t want extra holes in your frame.

What this thread is highlighting is that people who don’t see the benefit of an idea are happy to tell those who do that they’re wrong.

Isn’t that the point?

I think it’s just that some people do recognise the supposed benefits, but either through a. trying the product or b. considering the possible benefit versus affordability & hassle, are of the opinion that it’s not a good idea. That lots of people want to talk about it maybe says something about a culture of must-have/upgrading present on the internet (much less present in real life I reckon).

But every year all the other companys edge closer a little tiny bit at a time but proclaim it to be new and cutting edge geo…
Is the reality that they’re just stretching it out half a degree here and 10mm there to make sure they can have a new cutting edge model next year that’s still 2 degrees and 30mm out?

Probably more likely that their typical customers are more conservative and averse to sudden change. Plus not everyone actually wants a 63 deg head angle with a 550 mm reach!

There’s a growing list, especially now that some arsehole has decided that we need another head tube standard.

The one that deserves the most derision is the outfit who think that £50 is a reasonable price to charge for a front mudguard.

A friend has a bike he bought as a teenager in 1974 which has a press fit bottom bracket.

Apparently the bearings did eventually give up after a couple of decades. He’s now on his second set of bearings.

I’ve always felt that Hollowtech II (and other external types) bottom brackets were a retrograde step. Octalink just worked and I’ve consistently failed to ever wear one out. As I understand it, HTII was meant to offer the same size axle/stiffness as Octalink with the same bearing to axle ratio as square taper; consequently they were pushed as ‘longer lasting’.

Initially folk seemed to wear HTIIs out after a few rides. Things have improved markedly (BB facing seems to help too) but they still don’t seem to be anything like as durable as Octalink.

The cynic in me suspects that HTII have lasted so long as a standard due to the fact that they wear out more quickly than Octalink and consequently Shimano sell more. It’s interesting to note that as HTII longevity has increased some of Shimano’s newer HTII BBs (XTBB800?) have been redesigned with smaller bearings. Apparently this is ostensibly due to the fact that they spin up more quickly but again the cynic in me suspects that it’s so they’ll wear out a bit more rapidly (built in obsolescence).

I think most HTII wore out quickly initially because people prel-oaded them too much.

HTII was meant to offer the same size axle/stiffness as Octalink

HTII is supposedly much stiffer, as you could increase the axle diameter (to 24mm) and it’s lighter as well and the wider spaced bearings make the whole thing much more rigid, and replacing bearings that have worn out is a piece of piss as well. and for once because it used the existing BB threads, completely backwards compatible which is mostly what people seem to complain about in threads like these.

I think TBH you make a case for everything to be “worse” than it was in the past, but I think you’d have to have particularly opaque rose tinted specs to zero in on octolink.

This 8s a valid point ..I know of a bike having done over 20k on a square taper..but considered htll for my cross(potential to upgrade to 10 speed more easily..)..but have concerns of the longeverty ..

Is it THAT bad?…

but have concerns of the longeverty .. [sic]

It depends do you think that 20K square taper is exceptional or normal. Cause if you think it’s the latter, pretty much everything you use is probably going to disappoint.

Octalink just worked and I’ve consistently failed to ever wear one out.

Octalink was awful. I trashed one in a single ride once, fortunately the LBS manager had fitted it and was with me on the ride. Got a deal on a HT2 setup shortly afterwards.

No I’m aware that that BB is finally rumbling but know that’s a long time to keep going and is quite exceptional.. it’s all dry weather miles ..but I’m curious if the difference is comparable ..my sqr tpr is already looking pretty gritty ..and I’m at only 2700 miles…im to be precise asking in terms of overall performance and lifespan is htll compatible to using all year on a commuter with a conventional sqr tpr but be equally easy to service(quick and simple to realistically swap bearings without any to much hassle) and if the upgradablitiy is actually worth any minor difficulties with making them fit?

Octalink was bad. My last two M800 (XT) bottom brackets both lasted 11 months/3000-3500km. I’ve resigned myself to accepting the reduced lifespan compared to square taper in return for easier installation and removal, and the knowledge I won’t be angle grinding any more cranks off.

I’m still on a 26er but pretty relaxed about most new standards etc when it comes time to buy a new bike. However, internal cable routing (on a hardtail) and press fit bottom brackets would rule out a frame for me – no real benefits, just hassle.

now that some arsehole has decided that we need another head tube standard.

Wait, what?

Oh well, I must have been lucky with Octalink (never tried ISIS which I believe was really bad). Good to know that HTII is up to scratch as I’ve finally recently got around to changing.