plenty of expensive bikes suck too.
i’ve never actually seen ebay’s cheap carbon offerings but i’ll venture a guess that they come in three sizes, all with the same sta, and that only the middle size has a sensible amount of trail.
Actually the geometry of the two eBay bikes I mentioned (Tarmac and Prince knock-offs) were identical to that of the original. And why wouldn’t they be - they’re made in the same mold.
While I’d take high-end aluminum over low-end carbon any day, I think I’d rather wait to have the funds for a BB30 CAAD9 then get this, mostly because building up the Soul would likely cost the more with the Rival groupset I’m looking to get + getting a BB30 crank that isn’t the FSA Gossamer…
Has anyone considered the possibility that BB30 doesn’t take off and becomes the equivalent to dealing with old French parts in a matter of 5 years? I mean, it has slightly more momentum than tubeless road tires, but it’s not exactly fully backed by the industry yet despite what Bicycling magazine may try to say…
Dammit. If I knew this was coming I would have pushed for a white garage door instead of a brown one.
Also, flip it!
Well, something is going to be the standard in bottom brackets, and it’s going to be press-fit. There are a few varying standards out there, the most popular being BB30 and Shimano/Trek’s BB90.
Right now, SRAM and FSA are the only manufacturers producing BB30 cranks, along with Cannondale’s Hollowgram. Campagnolo isn’t on-board, but they do sell a BB30/Campy adapter, which probably only exists because of their Liquigas sponsonship. Shimano is in with Trek on their BB90 system (“Shimano Press Fit” - what a catchy name!), but so far the only manufacturer I know of supporting this is still Trek. In order for BB30 to be the final, official standard, they’ll either need for Shimano’s power to diminish (already happening) or for Shimano to adopt BB30. This isn’t likely in the near future, and it’s a shame because Shimano’s front shifting is the industry standard and their electronic Dura Ace is the cat’s pajamas.
BB30 is currently an option or a standard with Cannondale and Specialized, along with dozens of smaller manufacturers. Giant is most definitely developing a BB30 road frame, which might be the last straw, since once Giant masters it, not only will it mean that the biggest bike company in the world is pushing this standard, it also means that producing a BB30 frame gets easier as Giant factories gain the know-how.
As for it falling out of favor and disappearing, there is always the BB30-to-threaded adapter. You could stick one of those in your frame and not worry (until you can’t find outboard bearings anymore).
All very good points BC. I forgot about that adapter piece.
After reading an article in VeloNews, it seems like whereas BB30 does indeed provide a small amount of increased stiffness and a few grams saved, BB90 may be an even better idea. Either way, Q-factor isn’t really reduced but U-factor is which is chill as hell for me seeing as my stance is duck footed and heels sometimes hit chainstays.
[quote=trackatino]All very good points BC. I forgot about that adapter piece.
After reading an article in VeloNews, it seems like whereas BB30 does indeed provide a small amount of increased stiffness and a few grams saved, BB90 may be an even better idea. Either way, Q-factor isn’t really reduced but U-factor is which is chill as hell for me seeing as my stance is duck footed and heels sometimes hit chainstays.[/quote]
I thought BB30 had reduced q-factor, but BB90 doesn’t (bc BB90 uses same length crank axle, etc)? And what’s a U-factor? I remember reading that BB90 didn’t really have any improvements over regular outboard bearings.
bb90 opens up more options for frame design in carbon frames because tubes can taper to a 90mm wide bottombracket shell instead of the traditional 68mm one (which BB30 still has). All the bb30 cranks that are made by FSA and Sram have MARGINAL advantages at best. The only real reason to get excited about BB30 right now is if you plan on running the cannondale sisl cranks which are in fact the best cranks on the market. Until someone like shimano or campy gets on board with bb30 all the other options will continue to be just so-so cranks with a 30mm spindle attached. The only exceptions so far being the Zipp vuma cranks (which are way to expensive and have a dumbass bolt pattern) and the FifteenG cranks which took what Zipp developed with a 30mm aluminum spider for 68mm threaded frames and came out with a very slick mountain crank.
The only real difference between BB90 and regular outboard bearings is the bottom bracket shell is wider, allowing the bearings, which were formally on the outside of the shell, to move to the inside. There is no improvement with BB90 over outboard bearings, except that it gives Trek more material in the bottom bracket to make the frame nominally stiffer. The spindle remains the same length, so the Q-factor is the same, but Trek doesn’t seem to think that this is an issue since they think that extra carbon fiber makes the frame less flexible in the bottom bracket.
BB30 does indeed reduce Q-factor, and it also provides an oversized spindle (30mm to the normal 22mm in a typical outboard crank) which increases stiffness while allowing for aluminum to be used as the spindle, hence reducing weight.
Re: U-Factor
Basically, heel/ankle clearance.
bad carbon frames are terrible
there is no material hierarchy[/quote]
who’s to say they’re bad, or this is good? most likely the ebay frames are just unbranded frames from other brands a la bikesdirect.[/quote]
seems like nobody would keep the secret if they where awesome huh?
bd isn’t just unbranded frames from other dudes jsyk.[/quote]
A) there’s a thread on RBR of people who love their ebay frames, also good reports on bf
B) aren’t most of them? the example that comes to mind is the track one.
D) no one is designing and setting up new manufacturing for a $340 carbon frame. i cant imagine how they couldnt be knockoffs from the same factory.[/quote]
the anonymous jackasses who post on BF can’t tell a good bike from their asshole.
there’s good bikes and bad ones made of every material. if you had to guess, where do you think the cheapest carbon bike money can buy would fall?[/quote]
but you can tell a good/bad bike from something you’ve never seen before?
it’s easy to copy something.
That means no windtunnel testing, much less R&D, lower production costs.
It’s a shitty realization, especially when you did all the hard work, then another company makes something identical with a fraction of the hard work.
Just because something costs less doesn’t mean it’s worse.
And your opinion means nothing.
What I’m hearing is “it doesn’t have an Orbea decal, and it doesn’t cost $2000, so it’s not good”
but there is also a difference in quality of materials, not just the idea behind it. craftsmanship is probably also less good because of no qc.