@@richardwilliams1728 a can of coke is not too expensive & the engineering & manufacturing tolerance that goes into a ring pull is immense - our hairdresser jockey can do this
Perhaps we're premature in ditching press fit. It seems like bike manufacturers have moved to T47 just when they had finally implemented processes that allow them to properly do press fit. Based on the opinions of the mechanics I know and what I've seen anecdotally, far fewer people are bringing in 2018-2022 bikes with creaking press fit BBs then there were ten years ago. Also BB86 has always been less problematic than other press fit standards, unsurprisingly that's the standard that both Giant and Canyon have stuck with.
Replace press fit with BSA and we're in agreement. Easy to service. Worked for decades. There's zero reason to be fucking with the rest of the bullshit.
But isn't a Press Fit interface inevitably going to wear out until it will be out of tolerance? You use a threaded interface as often as you like. And most of the time, changing groupsets or groupset generations will require you to put in another BB into your frame. How often can you do this with Press Fit? I put the 4th BB into my carbon Ridley frame. It was much slacker than in the beginning. I had to use a liberal amount of Loctite to get it to fit snugly.
I think everyone who's been paying attention has been expecting the Pressfit 'standard' to end. And the surest sign I had was when I found a Pressfit press tool on a US website...for $20. Once the tools become aftermarket and cheap, the industry is definitely done with whatever system they "used" to be in love with.
My Trek came with a T47 for Shimano which was a Praxis T47-IB (85.5 inboard bearing) which require a Trek specific tool to install. The tool made for a better fit without damaging the frame. When the Praxis BB wore out, I replaced with one from Wheels MFG. This required a different T47 tool as the outside notches were different. Then I replaced with a Chris King T47 which required yet another T47 tool as the outside notches were different. However, Chris King T47 + Sram Dub AXS Red = :)
Nicely done, thanks. Seems like if you don't like press-fit shiite they'll serve you up some threaded shiite...but it's still shiite. I still wonder WTF was wrong with the old-time, tried and true square taper setup? I've heard most of the stiffness arguments but I recall speaking with a tech guy from a major component maker when their large diameter spindle setup debuted. He said their test-ride team would come back from riding with 'em and say nothing - UNLESS they were told beforehand the new setup was stiffer/lighter/generally way better...then (and only then) they'd be singing the praises. In the end it's ALL marketing-maven bullspeak and cyclists seem to be particularly willing to swallow it to the delight of companies like SRAM, Cervelo, etc.
Any suggestion on an "unthreaded bb" set to fit to a trek madone with thread damage to left side on T47 type threaded shell. I need Sram bearing type if possible ... I know the product exists but that's it. Any help appreciated. Rethread tools are hugely expensive and no local shops have them. Regards
Quite a lot of deflection comes in the bearing and the connection joints. You are more likely to feel deflection in the pedal than the BB for example because the bearings are small.
Has anyone ever made a bottom bracket from a crossed roller ring? Cause we need an option that makes ceremicspeed look like a bargain bin special. I think the market can support it. Who's with me? *crickets*
The real question is - is a 30mm axle better than a 24mm one? If so (and I believe it's because at that size you can make it from aluminium, and therefore lighter), then is it worth all the other faffing about with it? Press fit is generally fine, it's the old stuff and the crap stuff that makes the news (and the RUclips).
Perhaps a dump question but the wall thickness of the threaded sections of the T47 seems excessive - could you increase the sleeve diameter slightly to get rid of some of that material - I know the sleeve would of course then weight a little more?
I would argue that press fit is "potentially" still THE best solution. Why?.... Because it requires only one thing to be done correctly by the frame manufacturer: produce a straight, on-size, round bore in the carbon. I'll admit that it appears only TIME and possibly Look can currently do this, however this could be done >IF< there was a quality standard that manufukturers (haha) were held to for the BB shell bore (and they were willing to spend the extra 5 dollars to do so). Very high accuracy can be produced fairly easily in a machined, single-piece press-in BB using the correct machining approach. T47, while conceptually fine, has more points of potential shite-quality and/or inaccuracy on the manufacturing end. I would NOT trust ANY frame manufacturer to .... - produce a high-quality, reliable bond interface to the aluminum insert - cut the thread correctly on-size with a quality surface finish - cut each thread precisely square to its end face - cut the threads perfectly concentric to each other - cut both end faces perfectly parallel to each other I have serious doubts that any frame manufacturer will be able to machine the T47 interface with any degree of precision. I suppose it could be argued that many will be able to produce it "good enough", however when buying a $4000-$6000 frame set, we should all be demanding more than that. My 2cents.
I have a Ridley Cyclocross bike with Pressfit BB that I have had since 2016 and still has that BB I originally installed on it when I built the bike. Never had an issue and the cranks spin almost as well as a figget spinner. If you don't believe me click on my avatar to see the video short.
I have 2 Treks with PF92’s and they’re rock solid. IMO, people deform the press fit by not using proper press tooling, and then blame the mfr when it creaks.
Is it really that difficult for all but high end bikes to use BSA and be done with it? There is no need for a plethora of standards which make sourcing replacement parts a nightmare. It's not like most cyclists will tell the difference
Top work. There is some humorous irony that the reason pressfit has developed its poor reputation is because of the Hambini channel. We have been rapidly buying tools for the increased number of T47 we are seeing that need facing after lazy paint jobs. T47 isn’t the answer, more educated mechanics and consumes are! The main advantage is that T47 will be easier for mechanics to fix post production, until they corrode away anyway. Saying that, I have only seen 1 bonded in BSA fail because of corrosion and that is a tiny fraction of the pressfit problems we fix.
One of the things I have seen first hand is the large amount of consumers going back to their retailers and claiming faulty goods under the consumer rights act. I'd imagine that this has filtered up through to the bike manufacturers who are unhappy at the high level of returns as it costs them a lot of money. Give it time, I think there will be more bond failures - it's inevitable in damp northern england.
@RollinRat I've been willing to slide on some red lines (cough...internal routing...) but I will never buy a bike that isn't BSA. Not for the least of reasons, I have to do my own maintenance.
@mapdec Agree T47 isn’t the answer nor any other solution the manufacturers may present until they opt to put their hands in their pocket and simply manufacture basic stuff properly. Press fit issues solutions identified years ago just a few dollars manufacturing cost per frame to resolve (basic as making a round hole opposite another). Now we have them driving us down the route of bonded alloy BB sleeves and galvanic issues. Colnago learnt that lesson 20+ years ago and very quickly resolved it by using Ti sleeve instead - no issues thereafter. But fat chance of that happening in the majority of the manufacturers as they knowingly design problems into products for inbuilt obsolescence . See the last 5 years on multiple issues. Suspect we have the next ‘walk of shame’ by the manufacturers lined up in plain sight. Deep breaths 🙄
@RollinRat (leaving a note for myself. I enjoyed the story - especially what your dad and grandad instilled in you. I do the same - “diy so you know…” for my vehicles (LandCruisers). I trusted a “reputable” shop because I was busy and figured they had a good reputation, and they made a mess. Never again. Anyhow, thanks for sharing).
I love that newer Cannondale models are now going to be spec'ing T47. They basically pioneered press fit BBs via BB30, and now they're going back to threaded after flipping the industry on its head. Ultimate troll move lol.
The other day I saw someone defending manufacturers going back to threaded by saying that it's good for everyone because "It is hard to get the tolerance right for a press-fit BB, so by going threaded we can get rid of the problems (i.e. creaking) of press-fit BB". I just can't believe that they think the bike companies who sell them 5000 usd frames that somehow can't get the manufacturing tolerances right for a, quoting hambini, "a round hole" can provide them anything of true quality. What I don't like isn't about all the stiffness talks or anything. I am just furious that the bike companies are getting away with putting out inferior products but still charging you the same price, all while talk about how amazing their manufacturing process is, and the fact that people are accepting this.
One of the only good things I see about returning to threaded BB standards is installation and removal uses the same tool. No pullers and presses required (except if you're servicing it).
This is the problem now, anytime I purchase a new bike I'm thinking "Okay, whats going to go wrong on this?" because quality control and development of these products is awful.
I feel that using carbon fiber is a major disadvantage if you need tight dimensional tolerances, especially when said industry spends more on marketing than engineering or manufacturing and does not have the same resources as the bigger players such as the aerospace industry. If you ask any decent frame builder to make a frame from steel or titanium with a press fit bottom bracket there is a good chance you will get better tolerances for less money than say the best carbon frames and without many of the problems such as those aluminum inserts debonding from the carbon. Of course none of the roadies or weight weenies would be very keen to ride a heavier bike with a rounder hole.
All this driven by the belief that a bipedal mammal, that can barely crank out 1/10th of a horsepower, will see a benefit from a 30mm axle vs one that’s 24 or 25 mm.
Us fat boys have lots of torque and Power and shimano hollowtech has always coped. Shame the bonded cranks don’t stand up to 500+ watts at 60 rpm. Maybe that’s why the media want you to ride 160mm cranks and spin at 120rpm
truth bombs from Hambini as per, got to let my LBS know about u, thanks for all the info you put to us non-engineering types and thus empowering us when it comes to bike mechanics 🙏❤👊
Ah, yes, the world does need a Hambini standard. There's no question about that. Nice technical pointing with the high precision mech pencil. Regards, Chris
Likely an unpopular opinion, but I’d rather a technically inferior BB design that is more easily repeatable for the manufacturers who have demonstrated an inability to control the relevant tolerances. I’m inclined to think this way as the performance of an acceptable T47 BB implementation will perform better than all the fucked up press fits. I wholly acknowledge that PF bottom brackets can be ‘repaired’, but most consumers are ignorant to that fact, or unwilling/unable. However to be fair, the consumer shouldn’t be responsible for QC and corrective action. I have a T47 bottom bracket on a gravel bike that had galled threads despite a thorough greasing. Thankfully the manufacturer was willing to simply send me another frame, but I don’t anticipate that will be how the industry handles this moving forward. All that said, the disbonding/corrosion issues can be avoided, I think this may result in a better quality of life for the consumer. However I remain cautiously skeptical.
The big advantage of the t47 86 for custom frames like mine is that I can clear larger tires with a shorter chainstay since there is more frame material to attach the chainstays to. For road applications, I see the benefits of the 68. Also with the 68, you can put the t47 86 in them to run the older style bb30 cranks.
Love these videos explaining the standards. My take, fwiw: given the actual manufacturing standards in the bike industry, a BSA 68 with 24mm axle makes, by far, the most sense.
My bike shop had a 10 or 15 year old Felt that came in with a debonded bb cup. Hopefully, resins/manufacturing has improved since to make this issue obscure
Bloody ridiculous... putting an aluminium threaded insert that's bonded into carbon to me is asking for trouble or will cause more problems than it fixes, There is nothing wrong with pressfit bb86 ffs🤦🏻♂️
@Roger Bergua well that was way before pressfit standard. They went to pressfit because the threaded insert was shite and would seize or the bonds fail, nowframe manufacturers are going back to threaded and cheaping out while charging 100% markup. You can spend less on a yahama sports bike, which is way more complex to make. Yet there's not many issues with alignment, even with carbon parts. Let's thank specialized and trek for their incompetence😂....🤦🏻♂️
I was seriously considering Factor for my next bike. I am their target audience: A sucker willing to vastly overpay for the drool factor. The moment they announced they're switching to T47, I lost interest. You're telling me for $7000 you can't make a frame that meets BB86 specs, and your marketing's spinning it as some glorious new improvement for me when it's transparently a cost cutting measure?! Pass.
@@Dolmar-Rick That's not before press fit standard. It's just that you are pressing the bearings against a metal shell instead of carbon. Actually, I have a Fuji Altamira from 2013 with press fit BB86 that has a metal shell bonded in the carbon frame. I am not talking about a threaded bottom bracket.
Dub BSA has worked fine last 3 years on my trail and gravel bikes with a fair amount of abuse. Neither bike came with DUB I upgraded from cartridge on a Cannondale on one and from GXP on a Specialized on another. I do periodically disassemble and inspect the bearings and cups and have replaced one or both cups if the bearings feel gritty at all. The basic bsa dub bb is fairly inexpensive to keep spares and replace considering replacement is rare. The seals are pretty effective just gotta be careful with the little blue o rings on the sleeve. No creak or noise has has been from the BB on either bike.
Yes , a downgrade for sure, i thought my pedal was bend, but then i saw it was my axle that moved side to side slightly. Something that has Never! happened with the integral square tapered one, or even with on my vintage bicycle, that still has steel axle, caps. And bearing cups.
So we've come full circle. Trek, Cannondale and others had big problems glueing alloy inserts into their carbon frames for BSA - before they went to press fit. I suggest they will now have exactly the same problems with T47 - as per your list in this video. Getting a metal frame gets rid of most of those issues, however. Anyone doing titanium frames with T47 yet?
I've been running BSA30 bottom brackets without any issue for over 40,000km between 2014 and September last year when the bike's replacement arrived. Most of that on the same set of bearings, which remained smooth. Setup was Rotor 3D+ cranks and Power2Max power meter on a Cannondale CAAD9 that had a BSA BB sleeve fitted by the OEM to accept Ultegra cranks. I would happily use that setup again.
I did a new bike build with the T47A (bbright etc) and it performs fine but was a bit annoying installing it because you need two different tools and as you said, you need perfect tool alignment to get proper engagement with that 2mm while not scratching the frame.
Question: on a more generic view, if we stuck to steel, 24 mm axles, would many of these bearing/clearance/tolerance issues improve? I haven't bought a crankset in a couple of years but I deliberately avoided a 30 mm axle on my last build because all the compatible BBs seemed like they were bodging a larger axle where there is no reasonable way to do it - either undersized bearings, very thin walls, low tool engagement or a combination thereof. I also don't like aluminium axle faces rubbing on the steel bearings, but that's just me.
The only real advantage a 30 mm aluminum crank spindle has over a 24 mm steel one is light weight. Actually getting it to work on a bicycle and its bearings though is a whole 'nother story, and you've pretty much enumerated all the arguments for steel/against aluminum. Shimano has rightly taken flak for their bonded crank arms coming apart, but their core Hollowtech II crank spindle design is pretty darn solid. For best results one could just stick with a 105 R7000 crank, or one of the non-series units (FC-R510, FC-R520) if weight isn't as much of a concern.
@@TypeVertigo “30mm aluminium spindle is lighter’. That’s the marketing front. Manufacturers love aluminium spindle because it’s easier to machine and easier to form, more or less, to a similar weight as a shimano 24mm spindle. Look around, there’s no single manufacturer makes 24mm spindle as light as shimano, including Rotor 24mm Aldhu track spindle (there should be someone weighing Aldhu spindle on yt)
Seems like a shame to go full circle from more or less the Truvativ ISIS overdrive (late 90's or early 00's). I guess T47 easier to install but doesn't address the issue of what you said in early video about the bearing being under compression (on the Campy cranks) with old sq. taper, ISIS or octalink cartridge bottom bracket. Up until a couple years ago I used a Phil Wood BB for 10 years and never once had to fuss with it. Seems like if went back to three crank system with cartridge bottom bracket (pressfit or threaded) much of this BB shit show would go away. I never remember having many issue with Octalink or any sq taper BB, other then the Dura Ace Octalink didn't last.
As in the size of the balls themselves? I can tell you that, all else being equal, a larger ball has greater load handling capability, is less sensitive to grease viscosity, and is less prone to damage from contamination. It's like a bigger wheel going over a rock vs getting completely stopped by it and then skidding. Ideally the bigger bearing then pulverizes the debris.
I just realized why my four year old doesn’t object when I change the youtube channel to watch your videos….it is the disney blanket on the table that keeps the interest. (FYI- I do turn on captions and mute audio on the more profane videos). How come you haven’t been sued by Disney yet? Better be prepped in advance , b/c if the that blanket goes away…it is going to break some hearts 😉😉😉
Shimano in general has great design but they really seem to be falling behind in terms of this basic stuff. I suspect that SRAM has a much more agile development process.
I've just tried to extract my worn out T47i from my cheap Tifosi gravel bike and it's total bullshit. The tool has no purchase at all, one slip and you're screwed. Had to resort to waterpump pliers and some swearing. It's out, but it's not going back in because it'll never come out again. New one en-route.
Thanks for this great information, Hambini. Having built a couple bikes for myself, figuring out bottom bracket/axle/groupset compatibility is a royal pain.
I am looking at a bike frame that specs "BB: BBT-47." Is this the same as "BBrighT-47 Bottom Bracket?" I want to run SRAM DUB in their 'Wide chainline crankset' for a gravel bike. Is this setup like your 'Hambini Racing T47A T47-77 BBrighT-47 Bottom Bracket SRAM DUB Crankset' line? SRAM specs T47 (85.5), T47 (Road and Road Wide) 68mm, T47 (Road and Road Wide) 77mm, T47 (Road Wide: 85.5mm), T47 (Road: 85.5mm). How do I determine the width I need and find out if you have it in your line? Is it likely Hambini Racing T47i T47-86.5 Bottom Bracket SRAM DUB? Or, do I need a number direct from manufacturer on the crank-crank width? If there weren't so many BBs I would ask much fewer questions!
@Hambini great vid very helpful and to say if they keep moving the goalposts there’s no need to face the core problems . Keep shining the spotlight thanks
Hambini, I don't know what to do. I'm old. Have a 50 y.o. bike. Upgrade long overdue. I'm interested in a Litespeed Arenberg. Love Shimano gearing. But now the frame bracket choices are a nightmare on all bikes it seems. With Shimano, corrosion is now rampant on their higher end stuff. There's incompatibility among components. Cranks are breaking in half. Brake levers corroding. What the heck's going on here? These bikes cost thousands of dollars, and yet, they suck. I like the new Shimano 105 R7120 mechanical 12 speed groupset, with disc brakes, a compact 50/34 chain ring, a 12-36T cassette (because it's hilly as hell, over here, and I'm 70 y.o.) I feel that unless I get some assistance, though, I risk spending my life savings on a piece of junk bike that will fall apart, or even potentially, get me killed. The Litespeed Arenberg that I've got my eye on is constructed of titanium, as I'm sure you are aware of-and offers options, choices, all sorts of things-when you attempt to order it on their website. Do you have any advice on how to approach this? Here's a summary of what they're offering, and my responses to them in parentheses: 3AL/2.5V titanium with size-specific tubesets, each with wall thickness controlled, drawn and tuned per size (Sounds good to me.) Titanium dropouts, disc brake mount, headtube and bottom bracket designed and CNC machined in house at Litespeed to deliver optimal strength-to-weight (Again, sounds good to me. But what do I know? Their default bottom bracket is a PF30. Its upgrade, is a T47. But who knows what that even means? I'm hoping you do, Hambini, and what mating it to a titanium frame would do. Is this all a good idea? Should I stick witht their standard PF30 one, or move up, for about $250.00, to the T47 model?) Clean and classic fastback seatstay design (Okay, Whatever.) Optimized for 28c to 35c tires (I'd like 32 mm wide tubeless tires, and also, later, to add third-party Orange-Velo stainless-steel mudguards to it; but can I? Would they fit? They're 45 mm wide.) Shift cable routing: mechanical external or electronic internal (Strictly mechanical, for me.) PF30 bottom bracket shell, with T47 threaded bottom bracket upgrade available (Again, I have no idea if that's good or bad. The more I read about such things, the more confused I become.) Litespeed vinyl graphics provided standard, with up to nine color choices (The Etched Finish upgrade is being offered at no charge currently, which sounds nice.) Bright Brushed frame finish provided standard (Beautiful, it is.) TiDize color anodization upgrade available (Not interested.) Frame sizes: XS, S, M, ML, L, XL and custom (I hear horror stories about everyone buying bikes too big for them, despite the charts displayed online to help out.) Proudly handcrafted in Chattanooga, TN using globally sourced premium materials (Nice, but . . . ) Average weight for size medium frame: 1,425 grams (Not a concern, I'm adding mounts for a rear rack and will put a big bag on top for all my stuff to bring along with me.) postimg.cc/wtPnBdFp (Beats me.) postimg.cc/t7yGn9pq (Again, beats me.) postimg.cc/gallery/Wg8dkww (This is beyond me.) postimg.cc/xkzBxVWx (I have no idea. Hey, I'm no engineer. Love your detailed video here. But again, the more I read and view all this-the worse it all seems. Like none of it is supposed to go together.) postimg.cc/14q4G8Cw (But here’s the best part. the requests field. Where you can ask for anything you like. I filled it in with all sorts of requests, mainly, what I had mentioned in the beginning, that which I was interested in: a specific groupset, for instance; room for fenders, and so forth. Later, in a chat I had engaged in with them on their website, I was told that none of my requests could be honored though-because the items I had requested were not listed in their options. So why, I ask you, would they place a field titled “Component Requests” if the customer couldn't actually request things? I already filled out what was listed as options or upgrades. When saved, the entirety of my list, including my choices, my requests, showed up as a document: my personal list, as it were, as if it had been approved, and given a price for the whole thing. So now what would happen if I were to go to the check-out section and pay for it. Wouldn’t they have to honor the entire list they themselves had printed up and thus build the bike that way at their stated price?) The entire bike industry baffles me, to be honest. Are these people on drugs, or what? Sorry for the length of this rant of mine, and if none of these screenshots showed up. Not sure how to insert them. Thank you for all you do, Hambini. I really mean that.
Sadly it's clear that the industry is driven by marketeers rather than engineers. As an old, boring, cynical engineer-on-paper I'm happy to sit on the sidelines with my range of faithful, historic, BSA-threaded BBs while this latest industry clusterfuck sorts itself out. PF's great on paper if manufacturers can hold appropriate tolerances / QC; which they've proven time and again isn't possible. In the real world threaded is more viable from the perspectives of achievable manufacturing tolerances and user-serviceability. PF is bollocks, threaded works. T47 looks viable if you want a fat axle; while for those of us not outputting 1kW while coasting Threaded BSA / 24mm Shimano Hollowtech standard is perfectly acceptable. As usual, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. As always props to Hambini for breaking it down, cutting through the bullshit and telling it as it is. Personally as OCD as I am, I'll continue to waft ever-onward on my old, steel, BSA-BB'd beardy-old-man-never-going-to-have-sex-with-a-real-woman-again tourers - and bollocks to all this chancer-new-tech rubbish.
Can you please advise which is better for a titanium frame with Ultegra Di2, BSA threaded BB shell or T47 treaded BB shell? Is it worthy to "upgrade" for T47 BB shell when selecting titanium frame?
Hello sir. I have a off topic question. Idk who else would probably know this since you are the bearing God. I have a 2019 trek emonda slr h2. I purchased barebone. So I need a headset and hardware. I contacted trek and they gave me only 2 bearing numbers. Is there a kit online that has everything complete cause I only seem to find the lower one. Upper: 427357, Lower: 417578 Thanks in advance pablo.
No mention of 73mm wide frames. Only 68mm, and then the mega wide 86mm with nothing to hold on to. Do I have to buy Hope T47 BB to use T47 on 73mm frames or does Hambini BBs work on 73mm wide frames?
Are you sure the bearings in a Hollowtech II Shimano BB are 6805 (e.g. SKF 61805)? That would mean 25mm bore diameter while the Shimano spindle is 24mm.
I’m having an issue with my Colnago V3rs BB. I have Sram DUB power meter. My bike shop ordered a T-45 ceramic speed. It fits perfect but when they tighten the preload, it stops spinning freely. If they don’t tighten it enough, there is play in the cranks. What’s going on? They also installed a new preload adjuster. They have to put enough spacers on the drive side so the spindle doesn’t hit the screws of the front derailer. Will wavy washers help? Any recommendations and help would be appreciated. Thanks for your great videos!
Hi! What do you think is the best BB standard if you would design it? Would it be different for aluminium vs carbon frame? Do you believe aluminium spindle is better because there is no possibility of galvanization or do you prefer steel spindle? Whould you have different designed BBs for 24mm vs 30mm spindle? Thank you
Maybe I’m An idiot, but I cannot really find what crank gonna fit into 86 mm. Do I need wide SRAM axle DUB Or can I use normal Shimano where to get this info. 🤷
Other than you tube propaganda there is absolutely nothing wrong with a press-fit BB. If you like threading - get the threaded together bottom brackets. There are plenty of those for the cheap out there.
If I put a T47 or any threaded bottom bracket in a titanium frame, is galvanic corrosion a problem? And what is best to stop it, copper/copaslip, anti seize/assembly paste, or bearing grease?
The amount of different BBs out there is too much for me to keep up with so gonna ask here. A gal I go riding with has a 2016 Giant Liv Avail with a DuraAce crank and she's got the BB creak. I replaced it some months ago (I don't remember the part number and the box is at the shop), adding blue Loctite, but she's capable of some decent wattage so it started creaking again. Is there a manufacturer that makes a threaded one or do I have to have a custom one made?
Just curious, bsa and t47 are both bonded to carbon frame, so theyre probably equally susceptible to galvanic corrosion or bonding issues right ? Seems to me that bb386 is still the best standard because they accommodate both 24 and 30mm axles, shame not that many frames use this standard, I know BH and the earlier Merida scultura use that standard
The question is, nowadays, how many you see disbonded / bonding issue on threaded bb shell? I never see one fail regarding disbonded cheap cfrp with threaded bb. I am my self got one cheap frame on the shelf. Even it is cheap frame, shite material & quality but threaded bb in it work flawlessly. Here is why I choose threaded bb. In average, the smallest tolerance for cfrp that we can get fresh out of the the mold is +/-0.03mm. Need to make it small diameter then machine the pf bottom shell to accurate size. 1) In my experience dealing with Class A aerospace/advance cfrp material & process, once you machine the cfrp layer, it will damage the integrity cfrp itself and it getting worse by put stress on it. 2) Cfrp is not favorable for continuos stress + cyclic loading. 30 to 40% of it is polymer (plastic), prone to be scuff during installation. 3) For short time use in race, yes pf bb on cfrp can work flawlessly. For longevity and daily usage, pf is not ideal. 4) When you deal with pf, you don't know how tight is tight. My friend's frame, pf b.shell worn out after 2 years. Mine bb68 still strong and it is objectively tighten at 45nm. 5) Threaded bb, easy maintenance and recycleable. We can reuse the bb. Just take out worn bearings but using heat gun then put it back by using heat gun. The bearings slide in and out like butter (heat the bb, not the bearings). 3 times my recycle bb68 receives new performance bearings. 6) The bearings can be replaced, so the cost is cheap. You need only the performance bearings, cost you 50usd. Conclusion, I will choose bb system with easy installation, easy maintenance, no damage to bb shell, lower cost and recycleable. It
I’m 98% into the square taper, friction shift, rim brake “everyday” bikes, but this marketing gains racing stuff is really interesting. Pretty unbelievable that they’re only finally getting around to putting the bearings back into the frame instead of continuing on hanging them out like testicles.
What is the thread specification exactly? If I have to tap an insert to fit a T47 bottom bracket, what would be the major and minor diameters of the thread and the thread profile?
Just going to keep using the BSA that has forked for years without a problem, that I already have tools for. Never had a problem with a BSA BB. Never had a problem with 24mm axle. Never had a problem with a metal bike. Unless you're one of roughly 200 individuals lining up for an over-hyped French group ride, your watts are irrelevant.
Great stuff! After watching some of your vids, I get the consensus that this is primarily an issue with carbon frames and bonded sleeves. How about small lot production of Ti frames from a moderately sized bike shop brand? Haro's Masi... to be specific. Their Incanto Ti frameset is PF. Let's face it... its name only. It will not be Faliero or even Alberto craftsmanship, but I'm pretty confident they will be aligned and circular, leading to a creak free life. Worth the gamble?
In the 90's Colnago frames suffered intermittently from Galvanic corrosion in relation to the threaded bb insert. They fixed this by bonding in titanium inserts instead. A few years later they reverted back to aluminium and never suffered a relapse the aforementioned corrosion.Colnago ( like Pinarello I believe) have always used a threaded bb and don't suffer from galvanic corrosion or de-bonding on the bb interface so it must be doable to do this reliably.
Pinarello never stopped having threaded BBs. My Pinarello bottom bracket area got gobbled by galvanic corrosion within 18 months and had to be warrantied. Then the same happened to the replacement. I do have exceptionally acidic sweat though ... .for non-freaks I wouldn't expect galvanic corrosion to trash the BB until just after the stingy two-year warranty has expired.
Would Ti be a better option than Al? It doesn't corrode, therefore avoiding galvanic corrosion and it won't de-bond either ... as I can testify after leaving a carbon seatpost in a Titanium frame for too long - they weld themselves without the need for a bonding agent. Some boutique brands recognize the issue and put their use of Ti inserts on their marketing. When I'm paying in excess of £3k for a frame, I wouldn't mind paying an extra £100 for a Ti BB to extend the lifespan beyond two years.
serious question/point - Hambini, why don't you/will you ? design a proper workable quality 'standard' for production bottom brackets
To expensive?
I don’t think the problem is the standard(s), it’s that the bike industry can’t accurately build frames to them.
@@richardwilliams1728 a can of coke is not too expensive & the engineering & manufacturing tolerance that goes into a ring pull is immense - our hairdresser jockey can do this
@@blackdoublezero every frame is different though so it would mean building a custom BB for each frame.
@@blackdoublezero okay google, what is an economy of scale??
I am not into cycling at all, however I always watch for all the engineering knowledge.
Perhaps we're premature in ditching press fit. It seems like bike manufacturers have moved to T47 just when they had finally implemented processes that allow them to properly do press fit. Based on the opinions of the mechanics I know and what I've seen anecdotally, far fewer people are bringing in 2018-2022 bikes with creaking press fit BBs then there were ten years ago. Also BB86 has always been less problematic than other press fit standards, unsurprisingly that's the standard that both Giant and Canyon have stuck with.
Please don't, just let press fit die.
Correct. The least amount of parts will bring you the best solution. It´s up to the producers to meet the standards, or tolerances. Rgr
Replace press fit with BSA and we're in agreement. Easy to service. Worked for decades. There's zero reason to be fucking with the rest of the bullshit.
PF execution was BAD on average (in terms of median bikes)
Threaded all the way!
But isn't a Press Fit interface inevitably going to wear out until it will be out of tolerance? You use a threaded interface as often as you like. And most of the time, changing groupsets or groupset generations will require you to put in another BB into your frame. How often can you do this with Press Fit? I put the 4th BB into my carbon Ridley frame. It was much slacker than in the beginning. I had to use a liberal amount of Loctite to get it to fit snugly.
I have 2 bikes, one with bsa bb and the other with a PF 68mm not a single problem whatsoever! Both are great
I think everyone who's been paying attention has been expecting the Pressfit 'standard' to end. And the surest sign I had was when I found a Pressfit press tool on a US website...for $20. Once the tools become aftermarket and cheap, the industry is definitely done with whatever system they "used" to be in love with.
My Trek came with a T47 for Shimano which was a Praxis T47-IB (85.5 inboard bearing) which require a Trek specific tool to install. The tool made for a better fit without damaging the frame.
When the Praxis BB wore out, I replaced with one from Wheels MFG. This required a different T47 tool as the outside notches were different.
Then I replaced with a Chris King T47 which required yet another T47 tool as the outside notches were different.
However, Chris King T47 + Sram Dub AXS Red = :)
I love my Hambni T47 bottom bracket. My LBS that installed it when building my bike said it was the smoothest BB he's ever seen
Thank you.
Nicely done, thanks. Seems like if you don't like press-fit shiite they'll serve you up some threaded shiite...but it's still shiite.
I still wonder WTF was wrong with the old-time, tried and true square taper setup? I've heard most of the stiffness arguments but I recall speaking with a tech guy from a major component maker when their large diameter spindle setup debuted. He said their test-ride team would come back from riding with 'em and say nothing - UNLESS they were told beforehand the new setup was stiffer/lighter/generally way better...then (and only then) they'd be singing the praises.
In the end it's ALL marketing-maven bullspeak and cyclists seem to be particularly willing to swallow it to the delight of companies like SRAM, Cervelo, etc.
Any suggestion on an "unthreaded bb" set to fit to a trek madone with thread damage to left side on T47 type threaded shell. I need Sram bearing type if possible ... I know the product exists but that's it. Any help appreciated. Rethread tools are hugely expensive and no local shops have them. Regards
I'm having a problem getting a T47a right now for my factor ostro, is it possible to use t47 internal and external, to fit my frame?
Do all the T47bb's use 6806 bearings or just the 30mm axle ones? If I get a 24mm axle T47bb do i get the smaller Shimano bearings?
I don’t get why they’re so hung up on bottom bracket stiffness; Tom Boonen won Paris Roubaix on square-taper campy cranks, ffs
d*** measuring contest, average rider wouldn't notice the difference
Seeing who can get the stiffest axle.
Quite a lot of deflection comes in the bearing and the connection joints. You are more likely to feel deflection in the pedal than the BB for example because the bearings are small.
@@Hambini do hairdressers prefer a smaller bearing, or a stiffer axle? That’s the question that needs answering on this channel
@@simonbailey2151 mine likes stiffer axle....
Meanwhile, my 20+ year old Shimano XTR UN91 square taper BBs are still working flawlessly.
Has anyone ever made a bottom bracket from a crossed roller ring? Cause we need an option that makes ceremicspeed look like a bargain bin special. I think the market can support it. Who's with me?
*crickets*
The real question is - is a 30mm axle better than a 24mm one? If so (and I believe it's because at that size you can make it from aluminium, and therefore lighter), then is it worth all the other faffing about with it? Press fit is generally fine, it's the old stuff and the crap stuff that makes the news (and the RUclips).
Perhaps a dump question but the wall thickness of the threaded sections of the T47 seems excessive - could you increase the sleeve diameter slightly to get rid of some of that material - I know the sleeve would of course then weight a little more?
Yes you could but it would reduce space for cables
@@Hambini I have an idea - let's run them on the outside of the frame!
I would argue that press fit is "potentially" still THE best solution. Why?....
Because it requires only one thing to be done correctly by the frame manufacturer: produce a straight, on-size, round bore in the carbon. I'll admit that it appears only TIME and possibly Look can currently do this, however this could be done >IF< there was a quality standard that manufukturers (haha) were held to for the BB shell bore (and they were willing to spend the extra 5 dollars to do so).
Very high accuracy can be produced fairly easily in a machined, single-piece press-in BB using the correct machining approach.
T47, while conceptually fine, has more points of potential shite-quality and/or inaccuracy on the manufacturing end. I would NOT trust ANY frame manufacturer to ....
- produce a high-quality, reliable bond interface to the aluminum insert
- cut the thread correctly on-size with a quality surface finish
- cut each thread precisely square to its end face
- cut the threads perfectly concentric to each other
- cut both end faces perfectly parallel to each other
I have serious doubts that any frame manufacturer will be able to machine the T47 interface with any degree of precision. I suppose it could be argued that many will be able to produce it "good enough", however when buying a $4000-$6000 frame set, we should all be demanding more than that.
My 2cents.
I have a Ridley Cyclocross bike with Pressfit BB that I have had since 2016 and still has that BB I originally installed on it when I built the bike. Never had an issue and the cranks spin almost as well as a figget spinner. If you don't believe me click on my avatar to see the video short.
I have 2 Treks with PF92’s and they’re rock solid.
IMO, people deform the press fit by not using proper press tooling, and then blame the mfr when it creaks.
Is it really that difficult for all but high end bikes to use BSA and be done with it? There is no need for a plethora of standards which make sourcing replacement parts a nightmare. It's not like most cyclists will tell the difference
Unavoidable voids 🤔
Ok so it’s “technically inferior” to a standard that in practice is actually inferior most of the time in production? Damn that’s some click bait!
HelllloooOOOOOOoooo :D
Crazy that 30mm only exists because lardos want to ride a race bike but refuse to lose weight.
oh those bike company guys ...🫣🤯
Threaded BBs are not new technology threaded BBs have been around for the longest time.
Top work.
There is some humorous irony that the reason pressfit has developed its poor reputation is because of the Hambini channel. We have been rapidly buying tools for the increased number of T47 we are seeing that need facing after lazy paint jobs. T47 isn’t the answer, more educated mechanics and consumes are! The main advantage is that T47 will be easier for mechanics to fix post production, until they corrode away anyway.
Saying that, I have only seen 1 bonded in BSA fail because of corrosion and that is a tiny fraction of the pressfit problems we fix.
One of the things I have seen first hand is the large amount of consumers going back to their retailers and claiming faulty goods under the consumer rights act. I'd imagine that this has filtered up through to the bike manufacturers who are unhappy at the high level of returns as it costs them a lot of money.
Give it time, I think there will be more bond failures - it's inevitable in damp northern england.
@@Hambini For sure. Frame reports for warranty claims are a notable part of our work now.
@RollinRat I've been willing to slide on some red lines (cough...internal routing...) but I will never buy a bike that isn't BSA. Not for the least of reasons, I have to do my own maintenance.
@mapdec Agree T47 isn’t the answer nor any other solution the manufacturers may present until they opt to put their hands in their pocket and simply manufacture basic stuff properly. Press fit issues solutions identified years ago just a few dollars manufacturing cost per frame to resolve (basic as making a round hole opposite another). Now we have them driving us down the route of bonded alloy BB sleeves and galvanic issues. Colnago learnt that lesson 20+ years ago and very quickly resolved it by using Ti sleeve instead - no issues thereafter. But fat chance of that happening in the majority of the manufacturers as they knowingly design problems into products for inbuilt obsolescence . See the last 5 years on multiple issues. Suspect we have the next ‘walk of shame’ by the manufacturers lined up in plain sight. Deep breaths 🙄
@RollinRat (leaving a note for myself. I enjoyed the story - especially what your dad and grandad instilled in you. I do the same - “diy so you know…” for my vehicles (LandCruisers). I trusted a “reputable” shop because I was busy and figured they had a good reputation, and they made a mess. Never again.
Anyhow, thanks for sharing).
I feel cheated! no PEN IS WORKING, damn....
I love that newer Cannondale models are now going to be spec'ing T47. They basically pioneered press fit BBs via BB30, and now they're going back to threaded after flipping the industry on its head. Ultimate troll move lol.
“Cannondale quotient” is our universal term for how many proprietary things are on any given bike. It’s a huge pain in the ass.
The other day I saw someone defending manufacturers going back to threaded by saying that it's good for everyone because "It is hard to get the tolerance right for a press-fit BB, so by going threaded we can get rid of the problems (i.e. creaking) of press-fit BB".
I just can't believe that they think the bike companies who sell them 5000 usd frames that somehow can't get the manufacturing tolerances right for a, quoting hambini, "a round hole" can provide them anything of true quality. What I don't like isn't about all the stiffness talks or anything. I am just furious that the bike companies are getting away with putting out inferior products but still charging you the same price, all while talk about how amazing their manufacturing process is, and the fact that people are accepting this.
One of the only good things I see about returning to threaded BB standards is installation and removal uses the same tool. No pullers and presses required (except if you're servicing it).
This is the problem now, anytime I purchase a new bike I'm thinking "Okay, whats going to go wrong on this?" because quality control and development of these products is awful.
Basically manufacturing that relies entirely on Teflon plumbing tape. And the industry wonders why they are in free fall.
I feel that using carbon fiber is a major disadvantage if you need tight dimensional tolerances, especially when said industry spends more on marketing than engineering or manufacturing and does not have the same resources as the bigger players such as the aerospace industry. If you ask any decent frame builder to make a frame from steel or titanium with a press fit bottom bracket there is a good chance you will get better tolerances for less money than say the best carbon frames and without many of the problems such as those aluminum inserts debonding from the carbon. Of course none of the roadies or weight weenies would be very keen to ride a heavier bike with a rounder hole.
@@yonglingng5640 campy entered the chat
All this driven by the belief that a bipedal mammal, that can barely crank out 1/10th of a horsepower, will see a benefit from a 30mm axle vs one that’s 24 or 25 mm.
Well, to be fair, on Metal Frames T47 does leave a lot more room for internal routing, so thats another point to take into consideration.
Your average Tour level pro can ride at 360w for an hour and sprint at 1500w....a bit more than 1/10th hp......does that change things?
Us fat boys have lots of torque and Power and shimano hollowtech has always coped. Shame the bonded cranks don’t stand up to 500+ watts at 60 rpm. Maybe that’s why the media want you to ride 160mm cranks and spin at 120rpm
@@tednruth453 I couldn't give two fucks what all of 200 people on the planet can do. The fuck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Mind you, the instantenous torque can be in car territory. That's a big part of the reason frames eventually fatigue and die - metal ones, too.
truth bombs from Hambini as per, got to let my LBS know about u, thanks for all the info you put to us non-engineering types and thus empowering us when it comes to bike mechanics 🙏❤👊
Ah, yes, the world does need a Hambini standard. There's no question about that. Nice technical pointing with the high precision mech pencil.
Regards,
Chris
RIP pen check
Likely an unpopular opinion, but I’d rather a technically inferior BB design that is more easily repeatable for the manufacturers who have demonstrated an inability to control the relevant tolerances. I’m inclined to think this way as the performance of an acceptable T47 BB implementation will perform better than all the fucked up press fits.
I wholly acknowledge that PF bottom brackets can be ‘repaired’, but most consumers are ignorant to that fact, or unwilling/unable. However to be fair, the consumer shouldn’t be responsible for QC and corrective action.
I have a T47 bottom bracket on a gravel bike that had galled threads despite a thorough greasing. Thankfully the manufacturer was willing to simply send me another frame, but I don’t anticipate that will be how the industry handles this moving forward.
All that said, the disbonding/corrosion issues can be avoided, I think this may result in a better quality of life for the consumer. However I remain cautiously skeptical.
Give me a gas pipe steel frame from the 1980s and a square tapered bottom bracket any day of the week
The big advantage of the t47 86 for custom frames like mine is that I can clear larger tires with a shorter chainstay since there is more frame material to attach the chainstays to. For road applications, I see the benefits of the 68. Also with the 68, you can put the t47 86 in them to run the older style bb30 cranks.
I can already hear thousands of Chris King fans screeching wildly
Chris King buzz intensifies.
😂
Been riding a squared tapered campagnoloy bottom bracket on me bike for the past 25 years........nee problems laddie.
Love these videos explaining the standards.
My take, fwiw: given the actual manufacturing standards in the bike industry, a BSA 68 with 24mm axle makes, by far, the most sense.
Wrong. Those teeny tiny bottom brackets aren’t big enough to route internal hydraulic hoses, but nice try Fred
So many "standards" must make it difficult to repair and reuse older bits. This must generate a lot of sales.
Oh no. The pen doesnt work anymore??????
You manly made the case for Carbon Frames, what's your take on threaded BBs for (custom) Ti Frames ( or for that matter also Al and Steel )?
*turn on notifications for this post*
My bike shop had a 10 or 15 year old Felt that came in with a debonded bb cup. Hopefully, resins/manufacturing has improved since to make this issue obscure
Another industry BB "standard"....must be Sunday.
Talking stiffness and there is absolutely no sign that the pen is working :(
Blame the RUclips police and the tossers that dobbed me in
@@Hambini Seriously ????? 🙄
Bloody ridiculous... putting an aluminium threaded insert that's bonded into carbon to me is asking for trouble or will cause more problems than it fixes, There is nothing wrong with pressfit bb86 ffs🤦🏻♂️
they haven't been around for long enough yet but I imagine that going forward, a load of bonds that break will become unavoidable.
It was common for the first BB86 to use aluminum inserts bonded into the carbon. You have a weight penalty, but it results in a much better alignment.
@Roger Bergua well that was way before pressfit standard. They went to pressfit because the threaded insert was shite and would seize or the bonds fail, nowframe manufacturers are going back to threaded and cheaping out while charging 100% markup. You can spend less on a yahama sports bike, which is way more complex to make. Yet there's not many issues with alignment, even with carbon parts. Let's thank specialized and trek for their incompetence😂....🤦🏻♂️
I was seriously considering Factor for my next bike. I am their target audience: A sucker willing to vastly overpay for the drool factor.
The moment they announced they're switching to T47, I lost interest. You're telling me for $7000 you can't make a frame that meets BB86 specs, and your marketing's spinning it as some glorious new improvement for me when it's transparently a cost cutting measure?! Pass.
@@Dolmar-Rick That's not before press fit standard. It's just that you are pressing the bearings against a metal shell instead of carbon. Actually, I have a Fuji Altamira from 2013 with press fit BB86 that has a metal shell bonded in the carbon frame. I am not talking about a threaded bottom bracket.
They all went BACK to BSA, then started their variation sh!t all over . . . again!
So what you're saying re T47's potential problems is that we should all go back to alloy frames 😜
Dub BSA has worked fine last 3 years on my trail and gravel bikes with a fair amount of abuse. Neither bike came with DUB I upgraded from cartridge on a Cannondale on one and from GXP on a Specialized on another. I do periodically disassemble and inspect the bearings and cups and have replaced one or both cups if the bearings feel gritty at all. The basic bsa dub bb is fairly inexpensive to keep spares and replace considering replacement is rare. The seals are pretty effective just gotta be careful with the little blue o rings on the sleeve. No creak or noise has has been from the BB on either bike.
Yes , a downgrade for sure, i thought my pedal was bend, but then i saw it was my axle that moved side to side slightly. Something that has Never! happened with the integral square tapered one, or even with on my vintage bicycle, that still has steel axle, caps. And bearing cups.
So we've come full circle. Trek, Cannondale and others had big problems glueing alloy inserts into their carbon frames for BSA - before they went to press fit. I suggest they will now have exactly the same problems with T47 - as per your list in this video. Getting a metal frame gets rid of most of those issues, however. Anyone doing titanium frames with T47 yet?
You can find custom titanium builds at least
Seeing my hairdresser tomorrow. Might ask for a t47 69
I’ve had BB30 with its aluminium sleeve for 10+ years and never had any issues, so hopefully the sleeve in T47 will not be a problem
Yay another new set of standards. Completely ruined by company’s not being able to make a parallel round hole. 😂
I've been running BSA30 bottom brackets without any issue for over 40,000km between 2014 and September last year when the bike's replacement arrived. Most of that on the same set of bearings, which remained smooth. Setup was Rotor 3D+ cranks and Power2Max power meter on a Cannondale CAAD9 that had a BSA BB sleeve fitted by the OEM to accept Ultegra cranks. I would happily use that setup again.
I did a new bike build with the T47A (bbright etc) and it performs fine but was a bit annoying installing it because you need two different tools and as you said, you need perfect tool alignment to get proper engagement with that 2mm while not scratching the frame.
Question: on a more generic view, if we stuck to steel, 24 mm axles, would many of these bearing/clearance/tolerance issues improve? I haven't bought a crankset in a couple of years but I deliberately avoided a 30 mm axle on my last build because all the compatible BBs seemed like they were bodging a larger axle where there is no reasonable way to do it - either undersized bearings, very thin walls, low tool engagement or a combination thereof.
I also don't like aluminium axle faces rubbing on the steel bearings, but that's just me.
The only real advantage a 30 mm aluminum crank spindle has over a 24 mm steel one is light weight. Actually getting it to work on a bicycle and its bearings though is a whole 'nother story, and you've pretty much enumerated all the arguments for steel/against aluminum.
Shimano has rightly taken flak for their bonded crank arms coming apart, but their core Hollowtech II crank spindle design is pretty darn solid. For best results one could just stick with a 105 R7000 crank, or one of the non-series units (FC-R510, FC-R520) if weight isn't as much of a concern.
@@TypeVertigo
“30mm aluminium spindle is lighter’.
That’s the marketing front.
Manufacturers love aluminium spindle because it’s easier to machine and easier to form, more or less, to a similar weight as a shimano 24mm spindle.
Look around, there’s no single manufacturer makes 24mm spindle as light as shimano, including Rotor 24mm Aldhu track spindle (there should be someone weighing Aldhu spindle on yt)
Is everything okay? You sound a little tired.
Seems like a shame to go full circle from more or less the Truvativ ISIS overdrive (late 90's or early 00's). I guess T47 easier to install but doesn't address the issue of what you said in early video about the bearing being under compression (on the Campy cranks) with old sq. taper, ISIS or octalink cartridge bottom bracket. Up until a couple years ago I used a Phil Wood BB for 10 years and never once had to fuss with it. Seems like if went back to three crank system with cartridge bottom bracket (pressfit or threaded) much of this BB shit show would go away. I never remember having many issue with Octalink or any sq taper BB, other then the Dura Ace Octalink didn't last.
Look at all those standards! That's the great thing about standards...there's just so many to choose from!
Would be really interesting to hear your thoughts on bearing size/diameter and how that affects performance and if it does at all?
As in the size of the balls themselves? I can tell you that, all else being equal, a larger ball has greater load handling capability, is less sensitive to grease viscosity, and is less prone to damage from contamination. It's like a bigger wheel going over a rock vs getting completely stopped by it and then skidding. Ideally the bigger bearing then pulverizes the debris.
Pressed fit = *creak* *creak*
I just realized why my four year old doesn’t object when I change the youtube channel to watch your videos….it is the disney blanket on the table that keeps the interest. (FYI- I do turn on captions and mute audio on the more profane videos). How come you haven’t been sued by Disney yet? Better be prepped in advance , b/c if the that blanket goes away…it is going to break some hearts 😉😉😉
Notable to mentioned that shimano does not yet make a t47 24mm BB, however SRAM does make (sell) T47 Dub BBs.
Shimano in general has great design but they really seem to be falling behind in terms of this basic stuff. I suspect that SRAM has a much more agile development process.
I've just tried to extract my worn out T47i from my cheap Tifosi gravel bike and it's total bullshit. The tool has no purchase at all, one slip and you're screwed. Had to resort to waterpump pliers and some swearing. It's out, but it's not going back in because it'll never come out again. New one en-route.
Thanks for this great information, Hambini. Having built a couple bikes for myself, figuring out bottom bracket/axle/groupset compatibility is a royal pain.
I am looking at a bike frame that specs "BB: BBT-47." Is this the same as "BBrighT-47 Bottom Bracket?" I want to run SRAM DUB in their 'Wide chainline crankset' for a gravel bike. Is this setup like your 'Hambini Racing T47A T47-77 BBrighT-47 Bottom Bracket SRAM DUB Crankset' line? SRAM specs T47 (85.5), T47 (Road and Road Wide) 68mm, T47 (Road and Road Wide) 77mm, T47 (Road Wide: 85.5mm), T47 (Road: 85.5mm). How do I determine the width I need and find out if you have it in your line? Is it likely Hambini Racing T47i T47-86.5 Bottom Bracket SRAM DUB? Or, do I need a number direct from manufacturer on the crank-crank width? If there weren't so many BBs I would ask much fewer questions!
@Hambini great vid very helpful and to say if they keep moving the goalposts there’s no need to face the core problems . Keep shining the spotlight thanks
Hambini, I don't know what to do. I'm old. Have a 50 y.o. bike. Upgrade long overdue. I'm interested in a Litespeed Arenberg. Love Shimano gearing. But now the frame bracket choices are a nightmare on all bikes it seems.
With Shimano, corrosion is now rampant on their higher end stuff. There's incompatibility among components. Cranks are breaking in half. Brake levers corroding. What the heck's going on here? These bikes cost thousands of dollars, and yet, they suck.
I like the new Shimano 105 R7120 mechanical 12 speed groupset, with disc brakes, a compact 50/34 chain ring, a 12-36T cassette (because it's hilly as hell, over here, and I'm 70 y.o.) I feel that unless I get some assistance, though, I risk spending my life savings on a piece of junk bike that will fall apart, or even potentially, get me killed.
The Litespeed Arenberg that I've got my eye on is constructed of titanium, as I'm sure you are aware of-and offers options, choices, all sorts of things-when you attempt to order it on their website. Do you have any advice on how to approach this?
Here's a summary of what they're offering, and my responses to them in parentheses:
3AL/2.5V titanium with size-specific tubesets, each with wall thickness controlled, drawn and tuned per size
(Sounds good to me.)
Titanium dropouts, disc brake mount, headtube and bottom bracket designed and CNC machined in house at Litespeed to deliver optimal strength-to-weight
(Again, sounds good to me. But what do I know? Their default bottom bracket is a PF30. Its upgrade, is a T47. But who knows what that even means? I'm hoping you do, Hambini, and what mating it to a titanium frame would do. Is this all a good idea? Should I stick witht their standard PF30 one, or move up, for about $250.00, to the T47 model?)
Clean and classic fastback seatstay design
(Okay, Whatever.)
Optimized for 28c to 35c tires
(I'd like 32 mm wide tubeless tires, and also, later, to add third-party Orange-Velo stainless-steel mudguards to it; but can I? Would they fit? They're 45 mm wide.)
Shift cable routing: mechanical external or electronic internal
(Strictly mechanical, for me.)
PF30 bottom bracket shell, with T47 threaded bottom bracket upgrade available
(Again, I have no idea if that's good or bad. The more I read about such things, the more confused I become.)
Litespeed vinyl graphics provided standard, with up to nine color choices
(The Etched Finish upgrade is being offered at no charge currently, which sounds
nice.)
Bright Brushed frame finish provided standard
(Beautiful, it is.)
TiDize color anodization upgrade available
(Not interested.)
Frame sizes: XS, S, M, ML, L, XL and custom
(I hear horror stories about everyone buying bikes too big for them, despite the charts displayed online to help out.)
Proudly handcrafted in Chattanooga, TN using globally sourced premium materials
(Nice, but . . . )
Average weight for size medium frame: 1,425 grams
(Not a concern, I'm adding mounts for a rear rack and will put a big bag on top for all my stuff to bring along with me.)
postimg.cc/wtPnBdFp
(Beats me.)
postimg.cc/t7yGn9pq
(Again, beats me.)
postimg.cc/gallery/Wg8dkww
(This is beyond me.)
postimg.cc/xkzBxVWx
(I have no idea. Hey, I'm no engineer. Love your detailed video here. But again, the more I read and view all this-the worse it all seems. Like none of it is supposed to go together.)
postimg.cc/14q4G8Cw
(But here’s the best part. the requests field. Where you can ask for anything you like. I filled it in with all sorts of requests, mainly, what I had mentioned in the beginning, that which I was interested in: a specific groupset, for instance; room for fenders, and so forth.
Later, in a chat I had engaged in with them on their website, I was told that none of my requests could be honored though-because the items I had requested were not listed in their options. So why, I ask you, would they place a field titled “Component Requests” if the customer couldn't actually request things? I already filled out what was listed as options or upgrades.
When saved, the entirety of my list, including my choices, my requests, showed up as a document: my personal list, as it were, as if it had been approved, and given a price for the whole thing. So now what would happen if I were to go to the check-out section and pay for it. Wouldn’t they have to honor the entire list they themselves had printed up and thus build the bike that way at their stated price?)
The entire bike industry baffles me, to be honest. Are these people on drugs, or what?
Sorry for the length of this rant of mine, and if none of these screenshots showed up. Not sure how to insert them.
Thank you for all you do, Hambini. I really mean that.
Sadly it's clear that the industry is driven by marketeers rather than engineers. As an old, boring, cynical engineer-on-paper I'm happy to sit on the sidelines with my range of faithful, historic, BSA-threaded BBs while this latest industry clusterfuck sorts itself out. PF's great on paper if manufacturers can hold appropriate tolerances / QC; which they've proven time and again isn't possible.
In the real world threaded is more viable from the perspectives of achievable manufacturing tolerances and user-serviceability. PF is bollocks, threaded works. T47 looks viable if you want a fat axle; while for those of us not outputting 1kW while coasting Threaded BSA / 24mm Shimano Hollowtech standard is perfectly acceptable. As usual, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
As always props to Hambini for breaking it down, cutting through the bullshit and telling it as it is. Personally as OCD as I am, I'll continue to waft ever-onward on my old, steel, BSA-BB'd beardy-old-man-never-going-to-have-sex-with-a-real-woman-again tourers - and bollocks to all this chancer-new-tech rubbish.
Can you please advise which is better for a titanium frame with Ultegra Di2, BSA threaded BB shell or T47 treaded BB shell? Is it worthy to "upgrade" for T47 BB shell when selecting titanium frame?
Hello sir. I have a off topic question. Idk who else would probably know this since you are the bearing God. I have a 2019 trek emonda slr h2. I purchased barebone. So I need a headset and hardware. I contacted trek and they gave me only 2 bearing numbers. Is there a kit online that has everything complete cause I only seem to find the lower one. Upper: 427357, Lower: 417578
Thanks in advance pablo.
No mention of 73mm wide frames. Only 68mm, and then the mega wide 86mm with nothing to hold on to. Do I have to buy Hope T47 BB to use T47 on 73mm frames or does Hambini BBs work on 73mm wide frames?
Are you sure the bearings in a Hollowtech II Shimano BB are 6805 (e.g. SKF 61805)? That would mean 25mm bore diameter while the Shimano spindle is 24mm.
I’m having an issue with my Colnago V3rs BB. I have Sram DUB power meter. My bike shop ordered a T-45 ceramic speed. It fits perfect but when they tighten the preload, it stops spinning freely. If they don’t tighten it enough, there is play in the cranks. What’s going on? They also installed a new preload adjuster. They have to put enough spacers on the drive side so the spindle doesn’t hit the screws of the front derailer. Will wavy washers help? Any recommendations and help would be appreciated. Thanks for your great videos!
Hi!
What do you think is the best BB standard if you would design it?
Would it be different for aluminium vs carbon frame?
Do you believe aluminium spindle is better because there is no possibility of galvanization or do you prefer steel spindle?
Whould you have different designed BBs for 24mm vs 30mm spindle?
Thank you
Maybe I’m An idiot, but I cannot really find what crank gonna fit into 86 mm. Do I need wide SRAM axle DUB Or can I use normal Shimano where to get this info. 🤷
Other than you tube propaganda there is absolutely nothing wrong with a press-fit BB. If you like threading - get the threaded together bottom brackets. There are plenty of those for the cheap out there.
Oh no! This was The First video for last 1-2 years with pp presentation but withOUT the "PEN 15 working" test! I'm sad as the press-fit standard.. ;-)
If you were building a custom bike. Would you spec a t47 BB? I've always used bsa and avoided sram 30mm axles.
When are we going to get some "keep bangin' your hairdresser" bumper sticker, t-shirts or hats?!
If I put a T47 or any threaded bottom bracket in a titanium frame, is galvanic corrosion a problem? And what is best to stop it, copper/copaslip, anti seize/assembly paste, or bearing grease?
Still using a BB90, your favorite.😆
The amount of different BBs out there is too much for me to keep up with so gonna ask here. A gal I go riding with has a 2016 Giant Liv Avail with a DuraAce crank and she's got the BB creak. I replaced it some months ago (I don't remember the part number and the box is at the shop), adding blue Loctite, but she's capable of some decent wattage so it started creaking again. Is there a manufacturer that makes a threaded one or do I have to have a custom one made?
Trying to undo 40+nm torqued BB that is potentially stuck in place due to galvanic corrosion, with 2mm of material to get purchase, no thanks!
HI THERE! I have aDogma F10 with italian bsa.There is a t47 internal with italian threaded?
Just curious, bsa and t47 are both bonded to carbon frame, so theyre probably equally susceptible to galvanic corrosion or bonding issues right ? Seems to me that bb386 is still the best standard because they accommodate both 24 and 30mm axles, shame not that many frames use this standard, I know BH and the earlier Merida scultura use that standard
The question is, nowadays, how many you see disbonded / bonding issue on threaded bb shell? I never see one fail regarding disbonded cheap cfrp with threaded bb. I am my self got one cheap frame on the shelf. Even it is cheap frame, shite material & quality but threaded bb in it work flawlessly.
Here is why I choose threaded bb.
In average, the smallest tolerance for cfrp that we can get fresh out of the the mold is +/-0.03mm. Need to make it small diameter then machine the pf bottom shell to accurate size.
1) In my experience dealing with Class A aerospace/advance cfrp material & process, once you machine the cfrp layer, it will damage the integrity cfrp itself and it getting worse by put stress on it.
2) Cfrp is not favorable for continuos stress + cyclic loading. 30 to 40% of it is polymer (plastic), prone to be scuff during installation.
3) For short time use in race, yes pf bb on cfrp can work flawlessly. For longevity and daily usage, pf is not ideal.
4) When you deal with pf, you don't know how tight is tight. My friend's frame, pf b.shell worn out after 2 years. Mine bb68 still strong and it is objectively tighten at 45nm.
5) Threaded bb, easy maintenance and recycleable. We can reuse the bb. Just take out worn bearings but using heat gun then put it back by using heat gun. The bearings slide in and out like butter (heat the bb, not the bearings).
3 times my recycle bb68 receives new performance bearings.
6) The bearings can be replaced, so the cost is cheap. You need only the performance bearings, cost you 50usd.
Conclusion, I will choose bb system with easy installation, easy maintenance, no damage to bb shell, lower cost and recycleable. It
I’m 98% into the square taper, friction shift, rim brake “everyday” bikes, but this marketing gains racing stuff is really interesting. Pretty unbelievable that they’re only finally getting around to putting the bearings back into the frame instead of continuing on hanging them out like testicles.
What is the thread specification exactly? If I have to tap an insert to fit a T47 bottom bracket, what would be the major and minor diameters of the thread and the thread profile?
Well, yes us bigger (30mm) guys appreciate the extra room of a T47. Size matters.
So T47 is basically BSA version 2.0
Yup, just scaled up for fatter tubes
Just going to keep using the BSA that has forked for years without a problem, that I already have tools for. Never had a problem with a BSA BB. Never had a problem with 24mm axle. Never had a problem with a metal bike. Unless you're one of roughly 200 individuals lining up for an over-hyped French group ride, your watts are irrelevant.
Are you ok? You seem very subdued in this video. Are bottom bracket standards finally getting to you?
Everyone should use the same headset and bottom bracket and seat tube diameter and tru axle. Problem solved.
I will only trust Japanese Products.
Rather than Unreliable Sram
Who does their greasy bike business on a Disney princess blanket anymore… that’s so 1999.
Great stuff! After watching some of your vids, I get the consensus that this is primarily an issue with carbon frames and bonded sleeves. How about small lot production of Ti frames from a moderately sized bike shop brand? Haro's Masi... to be specific. Their Incanto Ti frameset is PF. Let's face it... its name only. It will not be Faliero or even Alberto craftsmanship, but I'm pretty confident they will be aligned and circular, leading to a creak free life. Worth the gamble?
Why doesn't the interconnecting sleeve just screw each cup together so its one solid unit? Would solve alot.
In the 90's Colnago frames suffered intermittently from Galvanic corrosion in relation to the threaded bb insert. They fixed this by bonding in titanium inserts instead. A few years later they reverted back to aluminium and never suffered a relapse the aforementioned corrosion.Colnago ( like Pinarello I believe) have always used a threaded bb and don't suffer from galvanic corrosion or de-bonding on the bb interface so it must be doable to do this reliably.
@RollinRat Exactly,spot on!
Pinarello never stopped having threaded BBs. My Pinarello bottom bracket area got gobbled by galvanic corrosion within 18 months and had to be warrantied. Then the same happened to the replacement. I do have exceptionally acidic sweat though ... .for non-freaks I wouldn't expect galvanic corrosion to trash the BB until just after the stingy two-year warranty has expired.
Would Ti be a better option than Al? It doesn't corrode, therefore avoiding galvanic corrosion and it won't de-bond either ... as I can testify after leaving a carbon seatpost in a Titanium frame for too long - they weld themselves without the need for a bonding agent.
Some boutique brands recognize the issue and put their use of Ti inserts on their marketing. When I'm paying in excess of £3k for a frame, I wouldn't mind paying an extra £100 for a Ti BB to extend the lifespan beyond two years.
I don't think they will stop with those shitgrades anytime soon.