Bb30

[BrandonT]

Hey

I am curious to see how many people are switching over to new frames w/ either BB30 or one of the other new bottom bracket's.

Have you had issue with the new bearings? I have heard that the BB30 bearings from some manufactuerers are not up to the job.

Anyone have feedback?

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Stiffer, lighter... Sure. Long term reliability is still up in the air, and they won't take over as the new standard, just another option. I don't like the idea of press fit bearings in such a high stress area of the bike. Hubs, fine, have mixed feelings about using them in BB's though. I'm sure it will get better and be more accepted over time just like integrated headsets.

 

[titleshot]

I thought Cannondale has been using the BB30 system for a long time now with good results?
I dont see anyone complaining about them.
Lighter and stiffer BB sounds like a good system to me.

 

[shane_fedon]

As a manufacturer, i think wether you go shimano's bb86/bb92, or the bb-30 your not going to go wrong. the shimano standard's are great because by increaing the bb shell you definitely increase the stiffness hands down.

but....the crank spindle is the same size 25mm [shimano] 24mm [fsa,sram,truvative] for this new standard shimano uses and the q-factor and U -factor stay the same as per manufacturer.

in the bb30---the shell width is still 68[iso]/70[italian] for road. but the spindle is increased to 30mm. as well the I.D. of the frames bb shell is increased from iso--33.88mm to that of 41.96mm, not even considering the OD which for carbon it generally 54mm and for titanium and alumnium increased to maintain desired wall thickness. on top of that the q-factor and the "U-factor" dimension is decreased bringing increased ankle clearance and decreased pedal stance. this is allowed because there are no cups in between the crank arms and the bearings.

what does all this mean? well that both bb new standards increase stiffness by like 40% at the frame, the bb30 reduces q-factor/u-factor, which for some is a blessing and others a dread.

both standards have been tested and on the market now for a few years. FSA worked with cannondale on the bb30 for a few years before that perfecting things. long term durability, no worries there, they are both great! let us also not forget, klein, fisher, fat city, etc.. all in the early nineties started using press fit cartridge bearings, which was a new standard back then, just as an fyi, so nothing is really new.

bearings though, yeah really make sure you pay attention there. TH industries, which owns FSA, makes great ACB bearings and cartrige bearing. as long as you go with the manufactures bearings, you should see great performance and longevity. some aftermarket bearings you will have to watch out for though.

great topic! to get to the route of your question, both types of standards as well as the iso standards will be around for a long time, depending on the application and frame builders spec, but nevertheless will be around for years to come.

all the best, shane

 

[fabramowski]

I call Bulls**t. I owned a 2008 Spec. Tarmac s-works sl with BB30 and I had to adjust the cracks all the time. I had to replace the breaings 3 time in less then 1 year. Stiffness is not as high as you think, Velonews did a comparision between all the different BB standards and they were real close to each other. That is why Look, Cervelo, Pinarello, and ect...still use the old standard.

 

[shane_fedon]

I call Bulls**t. I owned a 2008 Spec. Tarmac s-works sl with BB30 and I had to adjust the cracks all the time. I had to replace the breaings 3 time in less then 1 year. Stiffness is not as high as you think, Velonews did a comparision between all the different BB standards and they were real close to each other. That is why Look, Cervelo, Pinarello, and ect...still use the old standard.

wow, that sucks about your tarmac! what cranks did you have? and adjust cracks? that's not good, what do you mean?? did you have specialized's cranksets and bb bearings? i feel for you, as i would be pis*ed as well!



All i will say is that i read that article on velonews. we all know that velonews didn't do a good job in both there explaination as well as "research methodologies" sorry, but that's pretty much a fact, based on thier explaination of what they did or didn't do.

stiffness:
the stifness of the cranks, depending on the company that manufactures them, all fall within standards dictated by international import compliance testing procedures [ie. CEN,DIN, etc..] so to only see a margininal increase within the crank itself concerning stiffness is reasonable and justified.

weight:
i saw velonews also compared weight. that really doesn't matter to much, but is explained because of the larger diameter spindle. by increasing the diam, you can reduce wall thickness to adjust weight and maintain strength. in otherwords, it would be over kill to have a larger diameter spindle, and maintain the wall thickness, where of course weight would increase for the crankset as a whole.

what makes the bb30, or 86/92shimano standards stiffer, is the fact that the frame has to be accommodating bigger bearings i.e. bigger bb area, etc... which means an increase in the surface area. so, crankstiffness should be tested within a speciac frame, it's the entire assembly that really makes or breaks the perceived and actual stiffness we're talking about.

in deciding what to do for our bikes, buying and testing competators frames are a must, as well as adhereing to our own testing protocol and decison on what is stiff enough/or not, for our brand and what we want to see compared to our competition. most companies, i would hope do that. i know companies i have work at, we have always done this to ensure our marketing falls in line with what is true, not just what sounds good.

i definitely wouldn't use velonews as a valid source [disclaimer i do read velonews, it's just this article was really terrible] as they do not have the experience, nor methodologies to back up soild results. but... that being said, Tour magazine, a german mag, has both the experience as well as the appropriate staff who's extremely versed in testing procedures, as well as are engineers, to conduct a valid test. they actually are the mag that everyone in the indusry looks to for real unbiased results, and to see how they stake up.

FYI: companies try sending Tour mag frames during their testing sessions to try and get real results that conform to what they want to see. but, luckily Tour mag's people don't publish those results. Tour mag got wise a few years ago because some companies were utilizing higher TOW carbon fibers, in otherwords cf that is higher in strength and modulus of elast., which are subequently extremely more expensive then standard HM cf's used in their standard bike's layup schedule. this was to actually fool Tour mag. now, Tour goes to online and to LBS to buy framesets and components to test off the shelf. this is great because it's representative of what is really being used, and what the test results would really be. it sucks when Tour mag shames a company by publishing what is real and contradictory, but hey we all learn from our mistakes, or hopefully do! every company that doesn't perform well in their tests all have come back swinging the following year! it's good for business as it keeps we manufactures inline concerning our claims!


ok, sorry, i probably discussed more then what people would want to read, but i haven't even scratched the surface on this topic. oh, i know what i did forget, that was comenting on cervelo, look, etc.... you know, i can't speak for them, every company decides what is best for their brand. what i will say is that a companies tube shape selections help compensate for components they may or maynot be used on a bike. as well, new molds are expensive, and i understand why some companies are still waiting to see what becomes accepted.

but the premise of this thread was what are manufactures doing concerning headed or not headed towards specing bb30 or shimano's 86/92 standards versus iso and italian, and will this be something that more companies are starting to decide to do from both our companies pov as well as what i see at the shows from my competitors.

something else just occered to me, hell, if bigger is better, then the italian standard M36x 24tpi was well ahead of it's time compared to the iso or the now obsolete french standard.

have a great night! shane

 

[fabramowski]

I used the Spec. S-works cranks. They would come lose all the time even with threadlock being used. The bearings are just as (bad/good) as standard outboard bearings with getting water and dirt inside. Here is some numbers for FSA K-Force Mega-Exo/BB30 and SRAM Red GXP/BB30 cranks,

Weight
FSA: BB30 30g lighter
SRAM: BB30 20g lighter

Stiffness
FSA: BB30 0.5% stiffer
SRAM: BB30 0.7% stiffer

Q-Factor
FSA: 149 vs. 146mm
SRAM: 145 vs 144mm

Not a whole lot of differents. Just remember your only changing the DIA. of the shaft by 5mm or 6mm not a whole lot. Your going from Steel shaft to an Aluminum one. If you want to really change it the ZED monobloc crankset from Look uses oversized 65mm bearings. Thats a differents.
I like the numbers from Tour Magazine but I see some bias towards Germany companies since the top 2 frames in thier Frame Test were German. So I take their results just as you take Velonews results.

 

[shane_fedon]

I used the Spec. S-works cranks. They would come lose all the time even with threadlock being used. The bearings are just as (bad/good) as standard outboard bearings with getting water and dirt inside. Here is some numbers for FSA K-Force Mega-Exo/BB30 and SRAM Red GXP/BB30 cranks,

Weight
FSA: BB30 30g lighter
SRAM: BB30 20g lighter

Stiffness
FSA: BB30 0.5% stiffer
SRAM: BB30 0.7% stiffer

Q-Factor
FSA: 149 vs. 146mm
SRAM: 145 vs 144mm

Not a whole lot of differents. Just remember your only changing the DIA. of the shaft by 5mm or 6mm not a whole lot. Your going from Steel shaft to an Aluminum one. If you want to really change it the ZED monobloc crankset from Look uses oversized 65mm bearings. Thats a differents.
I like the numbers from Tour Magazine but I see some bias towards Germany companies since the top 2 frames in thier Frame Test were German. So I take their results just as you take Velonews results.

No worries, but just remember, velonews tested the cranks, which we all know and knew before they so called published there findings, that the cranks themselves wouldn't see a huge difference in stiffness. [thanks for coping in the results] it's the entire assembly together [frame + cranks + bearings], because the increased diam. of the shell is what really gives the assembly the greater stiffness, not the crank itself.

the S-work cranks, i know the guy who actually designed them. they are great cranks, but i will say, the bearing assembly that is used is in fact there downfall! your absolutely right there, and man that would suck to go thru 3 bearing sets in a year! i would be upset as well!

this is also why Look did what they did! i love what Look did, if you look at the bb area, as well as the frames stiffness, which isn't officially published, they might have the stiffest plateform out there! but it's also not because of the cranks! it's the whole package!

i love it that they took from bmx and added a great design and enginnering flare for there company!! absolutly love it! i did the same thing when i was chief of engineering at ASI [fuji-kestrel-SE-breezer] not with the cranks, but with the brakes, headset, etc.. there are great ideas out there! i say keep it coming. i'm actally working on a similar project, yet completely different, that i can't discuss yet, but i think Look is going in the right direction for sure! so is cannondale, with FSA's help of course! it's an exciting time for technology in cycling!

oh, before i forget, those german companies you were talking about in Tour mag., the funny thing is, the carbon frames your talking about are actually made in Asia which i think is great! German engineering is some of the best out there, but i will say, whether it be the germans, asian's, american's, etc.. we are all only scratching the surface of carbon construction! you'll see soon!

great insight though! all the best, shane

 

[fabramowski]

For the spec. S-works cranks I used 3 different companies and a set of ceramics and they all developed the same thing. Dirt inside the bearings. The bigger the bearing the bigger the seal. The only way to solve this is install complete sealed bearings, the only thing is you would need to order them special and the weight is more per bearing. It is also a concern that the tolerance for BB30 is +/-.025mm, for something to be pressed in and out of, it will soon developed play between the bearing and the BB sleeve that is part of the frame. And I cannot walk into any bike shop and ask for a BB30 bearing, unlike a standard BB. I can tell you that my Cervelo R3-SL is leagues above my Giant TCR Advance with press in BB when it comes to the BB area and cranks. I just see BB30 as a fad.

 

[BrandonT]

Thanks for all the great and useful information! My concern is that we have a lot of BB30 bikes coming in the next couple years in mountian, road and cross and if the bearings are as bad as I have heard in recent weeks do I want to continue to spec them. Is there a better solution then fully sealed bearings?
I have also heard that some people have given up on their BB30 and put in the converter to make them standard bearings. Which would be a big expense to replace a crank. You have to be pretty annoyed with a system to do that in my experience.

I believe that the BB30 system has been around for a few years and is gaining momentum and with anything new in cycling it is going to take a few years to sort itself out. Is it good enough though to keep around? Is the new Shimano a better system?

Thanks again for the insight.

 

[fabramowski]

I would say nope. Once you convert a BB30 BB to standard you cannot go back, You end up glueing in the conversion bb. If the BB30 was so good and has been around since 1993 why is it just catch on now 15 years later. If you look at the BB30 standard on the internet there is only 4 companies using the standard. I think C'Dale used it to make you buy there cranks and BB, thats just me though...Makes you wounder why it took 15 years........It also makes you wounder why track cyclist still use square taper BB's...

 

[shane_fedon]

I would say nope. Once you convert a BB30 BB to standard you cannot go back, You end up glueing in the conversion bb. If the BB30 was so good and has been around since 1993 why is it just catch on now 15 years later. If you look at the BB30 standard on the internet there is only 4 companies using the standard. I think C'Dale used it to make you buy there cranks and BB, thats just me though...Makes you wounder why it took 15 years........It also makes you wounder why track cyclist still use square taper BB's...

now, now...15yrs?? more like 10yrs let's not give'm too much credit! , but even that wasn't the "bb30" we know of today. that has come about over the last 4 years. FSA is there maker and why they are also at the forefront of the bb30 movement.

actually though, please don't kill me for saying this, i don't mean harm, just i will say you are dead wrong on 4 companies.
i can name 20 right off the top of my head that are using the bb30 or bb86 oversize standards. not being cocky, just want it known that most of the major companies worldwide are going in this direction. yes most are in fact american companies, but nevertheless. please lets not impose our opinions here, lets just give the guy the facts so that he can make his own decsion.

regardless, of the bb: iso, italian, bb30, bb86/92, Looks bb62. obviously bigger is better for increasing stiffness [remember not the crank, but the frame is what is stiffer by nature].

i will not agrue about the bearing issue, some are better then others. my fsa bb30 bearings have seen 3000miles, which i know isn't much in 6 months, but they are holding up great. honestly no matter how big the bearings go, you will always be able to get an adaptor to retro fit all the other brands. We all have to do this, or we shoot ourselves in the foot!


these new standards will be around for a while! as well, iso and italian aren't going anywhere for a long time. so, you can pick and choose. FSA is also getting ready to put there new adaptor that will hands down be better then there orignial permanent solution. i definitely agree, it's a weight penalty now, but not if you wait for fsa's new adaptor. fyi: getting a bb30 compatible frame and running iso will be practically as stiff, depending on the company. .



all the best.

 

[fabramowski]

10 years is a long time to have something in place and just now starting to get hype. I'm just stating whats on the web site for bb30, nothing more, heck you can even look for yourself. it would seem if their is 20+ companies on board they would update that kind of information. FSA cranks are carp as well, look at any form and people have so many probelms with them comming loose,(sound familier, spec. cranks....) The BB doesn't do anything for frame stiffness. It's the bike frame and how the carbon is laid-up around the BB. I guess Pinarello, Colnago, Cervelo, De Rosa, Pegoretti,..ect. are not major companies. Like we say "I think someone needs to step outside and stop sniffing the glue" you almost sound like a hype machine, "It's the best thing ever" (mybe I need to stop sniffing the glue....)

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Hey

I am curious to see how many people are switching over to new frames w/ either BB30 or one of the other new bottom bracket's.

Have you had issue with the new bearings? I have heard that the BB30 bearings from some manufactuerers are not up to the job.

Anyone have feedback?

Big problem with bikes that come out of a box. Shims are included with cranks but with built bikes, no shims so....ya get a customer with a BB30 bike, cranks noisy, loose, move side to side but sram, etc have to shims to sell. With the help of james Huang, I sourced some so can fix this very common issue with BB30...

Big BB shell makes it easier(cheaper) for frame builders to hook a BIG downtube tube to it. I have sourced some better bearings also..the 'standard' in lots of cranks(even Red ceramics) don't last very long when they get wet. If ya do either have new bearings or replace them..pry the seal off, grease in there, seal back on...even ceramics.

With all the stiffer, lighter stuff, it makes you wonder how the big sprinters of their day ever did it with just square taper cranks on a 68 or 700mm wide BB shell and teeny steel tubes. When you hear 'stiffer, lighter', the differences are tiny, TINY. Often when you hear ohh so much bicycle 'technology' related claims, they always imply the 'old standard' was crap and the new standard is the only way forward. 'Stiffer, lighter', but that doesn't mean the old stiuff was heavy and soft/sloppy. It's being driven by $ and marketing, not cycling performance, much like threadless was painted as so much better, also compact frames, when really all it was was a way for bike frame/fork makers to save money...

 

[James Huang]

One thing for everyone to keep in mind:

As is always the case, bottom bracket bearing life is often dictated not by the bearing itself, but the precision and tolerances of the bearing seats relative to the intended spec.

People still talk about how square-tapered bottom brackets last forever and in many cases, that's largely true. But for most of those, the driveside and non-driveside bearings are housed in a single unit and since the overall diameters of all the parts involved aren't really that big, the system is fairly tolerant of a bottom bracket shell that's maybe not perfectly faced or reamed.

BB30, on the other hand, is incredibly dependent on the quality of the machining of the shell. The axles are bigger and stiffer, the surface and contact areas between the parts are larger, and there's no built-in slop in the system. Since everything is pressed directly into the shell, everything has to be spot-on in terms of diameter, lateral and angular position or else there will be inherent stresses that those components likely aren't meant to withstand.

In the case of those Red ceramic bearings, I won't personally vouch for their longevity as I haven't used them myself, but any hybrid ceramic bearing is likely to fail faster than a steel bearing if the alignment is off. Since the balls are (or rather, should be...) much harder than the races, unintended lateral or angular stresses will quickly pound the races into oblivion. Steel bearings, on the other hand, are more closely matched in hardness between the balls and races and so are more tolerant of misalignment.

Long story short, BB30 bottom bracket shells do make it easier to fit larger down tubes and seat tubes but assuming the frame manufacturers are adhering to the stated design tolerances (which are very stringent), the overall costs are likely quite a bit higher than with standard threaded shells.

PressFit 30, however... now that's looking pretty promising but we can save that for another thread

 

[Bustedknuckle]

One thing for everyone to keep in mind:

As is always the case, bottom bracket bearing life is often dictated not by the bearing itself, but the precision and tolerances of the bearing seats relative to the intended spec.

People still talk about how square-tapered bottom brackets last forever and in many cases, that's largely true. But for most of those, the driveside and non-driveside bearings are housed in a single unit and since the overall diameters of all the parts involved aren't really that big, the system is fairly tolerant of a bottom bracket shell that's maybe not perfectly faced or reamed.

BB30, on the other hand, is incredibly dependent on the quality of the machining of the shell. The axles are bigger and stiffer, the surface and contact areas between the parts are larger, and there's no built-in slop in the system. Since everything is pressed directly into the shell, everything has to be spot-on in terms of diameter, lateral and angular position or else there will be inherent stresses that those components likely aren't meant to withstand.

In the case of those Red ceramic bearings, I won't personally vouch for their longevity as I haven't used them myself, but any hybrid ceramic bearing is likely to fail faster than a steel bearing if the alignment is off. Since the balls are (or rather, should be...) much harder than the races, unintended lateral or angular stresses will quickly pound the races into oblivion. Steel bearings, on the other hand, are more closely matched in hardness between the balls and races and so are more tolerant of misalignment.

Long story short, BB30 bottom bracket shells do make it easier to fit larger down tubes and seat tubes but assuming the frame manufacturers are adhering to the stated design tolerances (which are very stringent), the overall costs are likely quite a bit higher than with standard threaded shells.

PressFit 30, however... now that's looking pretty promising but we can save that for another thread

Just got my RSL with the pressfit BB 30(FROM FSA) and I was surprised it was plastic. I would have thought it would have been aluminum..Gonna see when I install a 7900 group, with Wheels inserts to see if this thing works well. Also hope I can swap bearings with better grade ones than the ones standard on the insert(not ceramic).

 

[James Huang]

Why were you surprised? It was intentional to use nylon instead of aluminum as it's less likely to creak and more forgiving of slight dimensional aberrations. The former was especially important for Ti frames as proper BB30-equipped ones were prone to making a lot of racket otherwise unless the cartridges were glued in with Loctite or doused in anti-seize.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Why were you surprised? It was intentional to use nylon instead of aluminum as it's less likely to creak and more forgiving of slight dimensional aberrations. The former was especially important for Ti frames as proper BB30-equipped ones were prone to making a lot of racket otherwise unless the cartridges were glued in with Loctite or doused in anti-seize.

Because with all the 'lighter, stiffer' hype of BB30, nylon is automatically 'less stiff' and will give when aluminum will not. Glue in bearings? No thanks..grease and then more grease(or antisieze). Don't really want to unglue a BB shell when ya smack out glued in bearings after they have gone south.

The Moots guys said they used the press in because they couldn't keep the shell from warping a wee bit when welding, making the bearings not square when installed in a more 'normal' BB style(bearings directly in the shell).

I have an idea...how about weld the shell, then...thread it!!!..you know, machine it with threads and you could, you know, just thread in bearing cups!! What an idea!

 

[James Huang]

Peter,

Have you tried removing those cups from a frame yet? You don't have to bond them in place; they should be tight enough as is. And the nylon doesn't creak like a metal press-fit cup might but still doesn't compress under load since it's so thin.

Grease and more grease, or anti-seize: good in theory and maybe it works for us in Boulder but try something like that long-term where people regularly ride in the wet. Doesn't take long for grease to wash away, especially when you have customers that insist on washing their bikes after every ride (and I'm sure you have customers like that as I did when I was still in a shop).

And yes, of course threaded cups would work. As would square-tapered bottom brackets, lugged steel, down tube friction shifters, and of course, anything of any vintage that said "Campagnolo" on it.

But then again, the customer whose RSL you're currently building probably specifically chose that bike because it would build up lighter than the standard Vamoots, and that PressFit 30 BB saves a fair bit of weight.

But yes, I know, "weight doesn't matter"...

Regardless, I just don't understand why you're so up in arms about a press-fit BB. Last I checked no one was campaigning for thread-in headset cups.

 

[dolophonic]

I use BB30,it works great and my Canondale SISL is super light and very stiff.
I do a lot of miles and have had no issues. I have a carbon frame and also a steel frame both BB30. Its a good system. I see no problems with the bearings... give it a go.

 

[fabramowski]

I think you shouldn't worry about what type of BB you get with your bike. The differents between them all is too small to really amount to any real advantage over the other. If I gave you all the diffenrent BB that are out there in a blind test you couldn't tell the differents. (I have ridden them all), They all make the cranks work the same way. What you should be looking for is a complete package, frame, grouppo, and bike fit. Cycling is about having fun, unless you get paid to ride, then thats even better since you get a free bike anyways....

 

[lostintime]

Hey

I am curious to see how many people are switching over to new frames w/ either BB30 or one of the other new bottom bracket's.

Have you had issue with the new bearings? I have heard that the BB30 bearings from some manufactuerers are not up to the job.

Anyone have feedback?

I stick with good ol' tapered BB's ..... but I'm a definite old school rider.... I ride steel frames.

The problem with BB's these days is they are changing every few years. Every one claims it's the greatest. Now we get BB30 , BB90 . It will never stop, and likely become ever more proprietary for each frame manufacturer. It's very much a divided industry.

I'm so glad tapered BB's will continue to be made ..... and I suspect it will outlast most designs.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Peter,

Have you tried removing those cups from a frame yet? You don't have to bond them in place; they should be tight enough as is. And the nylon doesn't creak like a metal press-fit cup might but still doesn't compress under load since it's so thin.

Grease and more grease, or anti-seize: good in theory and maybe it works for us in Boulder but try something like that long-term where people regularly ride in the wet. Doesn't take long for grease to wash away, especially when you have customers that insist on washing their bikes after every ride (and I'm sure you have customers like that as I did when I was still in a shop).

And yes, of course threaded cups would work. As would square-tapered bottom brackets, lugged steel, down tube friction shifters, and of course, anything of any vintage that said "Campagnolo" on it.

But then again, the customer whose RSL you're currently building probably specifically chose that bike because it would build up lighter than the standard Vamoots, and that PressFit 30 BB saves a fair bit of weight.

But yes, I know, "weight doesn't matter"...

Regardless, I just don't understand why you're so up in arms about a press-fit BB. Last I checked no one was campaigning for thread-in headset cups.

It's actually our demo RSL and we are waiting to put a 7900 group on it. Just got the insert, made by FSA.

Geez James, 'up in arms' I isn't. Another new 'standard', in a bike we are going to sell so naturally I want it to be the best and most trouble free I can make it. The press fit 'solution' was Moots way to have BB30 w/o a warped BB shell, something inevitable with a welded bike. In order to mate the drawn downtube, seattube and stays effectively, larger shell was called for..an engineering decision to make the frame 'work', not just to feature BB30.

It is what it is and 2011 will see a BB30 Campagnolo crank. So I'll be able to put Campagnolo on a RSL(not possible in 2010).

 

[James Huang]

Hi Peter,

Well, you have to admit that you didn't exactly sound all that stoked about the press-fit BB in your post and from prior experience, I know your feelings about new 'standards' and whatnot.

As for the Campy and BB30: they've announced a *press fit* BB30 version or a proper BB30 crank?

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Hi Peter,

Well, you have to admit that you didn't exactly sound all that stoked about the press-fit BB in your post and from prior experience, I know your feelings about new 'standards' and whatnot.

As for the Campy and BB30: they've announced a *press fit* BB30 version or a proper BB30 crank?

"sound'? tough in a forum. We sell lotsa Moots, gonna love the pressfit in the RSL...

I think the manufacturers need to wait before they claim anything 'new' is a 'standard'. BB30 sure isn't a standard. The gorilla in the room will help to make something a standard..shimano. Surprised they haven't embraced BB30.

In Taiwanese website they showed a proper BB30 Campagnolo crank for 2011. Saw it first posted in the Serotta fourm.