Spanish Bbs?

[sayshell]

why don't trials bikes use spanish bottom bracket shells? They are lighter, and they can't strip so less prone to failure. I imagine the reason is because aluminum is too weak, but that makes no sense. If bering cartridge is sitting directly in the frame vs sitting in a cup directly in a frame the shell is still taking 100% of the impact either ways. Integrated headsets work fine on trials frames so why not go for integrated bb shells? I got the idea cause I saw this (second product down)

http://www.echobike.com/

[Matt Burrows]

I agree, I hope Deng starts using the new BB design on all his frames and not just the 24s!

[sayshell]

yeah its great! Simplicity is always less prone to failure and weighs less too.

[Mark W]

Spanish BBs use an irregular, custom-made bearing. On the other hand, Mid BBs use a regular, off-the-shelf bearing. Out of the two, Mid would definitely be the way to go. Main problem with it is just having to start using a new system - like with the Urban 24, you have to use that BB and a lot of people might not want to, especially those who run square taper cranks, for example. There's a lot less choice. I definitely agree that it's a better system, but I think it'd be better if trials companies came up with their own system that was adapted for trials bikes, rather than taking a BMX 'standard' that not even the majority of BMX companies use...

EDIT: Also relies on higher tolerances in BB shells too, which I doubt most trials companies would/could be bothered to actually work to.

[Leistonbmx]

Spanish BBs use an irregular, custom-made bearing. On the other hand, Mid BBs use a regular, off-the-shelf bearing. Out of the two, Mid would definitely be the way to go. Main problem with it is just having to start using a new system - like with the Urban 24, you have to use that BB and a lot of people might not want to, especially those who run square taper cranks, for example. There's a lot less choice. I definitely agree that it's a better system, but I think it'd be better if trials companies came up with their own system that was adapted for trials bikes, rather than taking a BMX 'standard' that not even the majority of BMX companies use...

EDIT: Also relies on higher tolerances in BB shells too, which I doubt most trials companies would/could be bothered to actually work to.

Wouldn't really be hard to make the same axle, just with square tapered ends?

Most BMX companies use either spanish or mid now-a-days.

I'd also hope companies did work to an acceptable tolerance, which surely they would if they need to thread the BB shells. Profile for example, due to a pretty poor tolerance, alot of their hubs preduced a wobble after a period of riding. Same with their cranks.

[Mark W]

Profile cranks wobble simply because of their design. Any 48-spline crank will develop wobble, virtually every one I've used has. Equally, their hubs weren't wobbly 'cos of the lack of tolerances, they were just made wrong which is why they started selling them with spacers to make them work properly. If you check out the threads on a lot of frames, there's a pretty big difference in accuracy and quality between a lot of trials companies - just a look at the cranks different makes offer should be able to tell you that

Majority of BMX companies run Mid now, and very few are making new frames with a Spanish BB just 'cos it is a random bearing size whereas the Mid makes more sense. Just seems like it'd be better if MTB companies made one that could use an off the peg bearing too. It wouldn't be hard to do the taper spindle either, my point was that no-one is...

[Leistonbmx]

I didn't really mean the cranks wobbled due to tolerance issues. Jut put it in there as another product of Profile's developing a wobble. Now, if they were made wrong. (what was it that made them wobble?, shell width i'm guessing.) Profile needing to send out spacers to increase the size of the axle width, is them needing to sort their tolerances. They also refused warranty on alot of hubs because of the wobble.

Mid is probably more used due to it being an off-the-shelf bearing, the bearing being bigger will also mean it is less prone to blowing. Fly use spanish bb's still, and they continue to produce them to sell them too, as do a few other companies. There must be an advantage to them using spanish BB's on their frames. Probably because they can make money from selling the BB's to suit frames they sell, therefore increasing the profit they make as a company.

[Mark W]

I didn't really mean the cranks wobbled due to tolerance issues. Jut put it in there as another product of Profile's developing a wobble. Now, if they were made wrong. (what was it that made them wobble?, shell width i'm guessing.) Profile needing to send out spacers to increase the size of the axle width, is them needing to sort their tolerances. They also refused warranty on alot of hubs because of the wobble.

Yeah, the shells were all made too wide. It was more the spec was wrong, rather than the tolerances, if that makes sense? Like it was the way they were made that sucked, rather than the tolerances to which they were made.

Mid is probably more used due to it being an off-the-shelf bearing, the bearing being bigger will also mean it is less prone to blowing. Fly use spanish bb's still, and they continue to produce them to sell them too, as do a few other companies. There must be an advantage to them using spanish BB's on their frames. Probably because they can make money from selling the BB's to suit frames they sell, therefore increasing the profit they make as a company.

Last sentence = literally on the money. They made their own size, which companies like Macneil also took on. That size kinda sucks if you run 22mm spindles - I blew a few Spanish BBs in my Hollowbite days. The 'advantage' is primarily that it was lighter than a US and stronger than a Euro, but Mid works better, basically...

[Leistonbmx]

Yeah, the shells were all made too wide. It was more the spec was wrong, rather than the tolerances, if that makes sense? Like it was the way they were made that sucked, rather than the tolerances to which they were made.

Last sentence = literally on the money. They made their own size, which companies like Macneil also took on. That size kinda sucks if you run 22mm spindles - I blew a few Spanish BBs in my Hollowbite days. The 'advantage' is primarily that it was lighter than a US and stronger than a Euro, but Mid works better, basically...

If they were too wide, why would they need spacers to increase the width?

Hollowbites, and powers too are still used by ALOT of people, as are many other 22mm axled cranks. I, personally* havn't used a spanish on any of my BMX's only Mid and unsealed US. I also use 22mm cranks (wombolts, yes snap happy but i'm on the V1's still after nearly 3 years.) and I havn't ever blown up bearings. I'm not sure on how often/how many people have blown spanish ones.

*sp?

Edited December 8, 2009 by Leistonbmx

[Mark W]

Virtually everyone I rode with broke a set or two of bearings. I think I killed 3 bearings in all. That seems to be why most companies that use Mid BBs say they use Mids, as well as the ease of sourcing the bearings. They're stronger than the Spanish is lighter, if that makes sense?

I don't know how you can trust Wombolts

[Leistonbmx]

Virtually everyone I rode with broke a set or two of bearings. I think I killed 3 bearings in all. That seems to be why most companies that use Mid BBs say they use Mids, as well as the ease of sourcing the bearings. They're stronger than the Spanish is lighter, if that makes sense?

I don't know how you can trust Wombolts

Right, I wonder what Fly's reason for keeping to spanish is? I doubt they'd just say its to make more profit

I think only one person around here has blown a spanish bearing, though...

As for Wombolts, I am 15, ride park, pretty smooth and don't weigh alot. When/If they snap Odyssey will probably just replace them with Twombolts, but there's a possibilty they will refuse as they've been ridden for a long time without any issues. Although others broke within months. Odyssey are real good for warranties. Even if they do refuse i'll be cool with it. Didn't expect them to last this long anyway. Hollows with Ti axle are next on the list.

Again..

If they were too wide, why would they need spacers to increase the width?

[Mark W]

Right, I wonder what Fly's reason for keeping to spanish is? I doubt they'd just say its to make more profit

I think only one person around here has blown a spanish bearing, though...

I'd imagine it's because it's 'their' system, basically. I guess they wouldn't really know if people were blowing up bearings or whatever simply because they'd have no way of knowing themselves. They're all about 'lightweight' and shit like that, so it suits their sort of company identity. It's just not as good as Mid, in my opinion.

And yeah, with that Profile thing, I thought the whole deal was was that the seats for the bearings were too far along, so they didn't really meet up with the stops on the axles, or something along those lines? Or vice versa...

[sayshell]

wait a sec, spanish is the same size as euro and mid is bigger right? Well then doesn't it make sense to use spanish because euro already works fine, and deng already makes berings for them.

[Mark W]

Spanish isn't the same size as Euro. I know a few people who made their Euro frames fit a Spanish BB, and they had to machine out the threads of their frame then take a bit more out too, so it's ironically a 'mid' size between Euro and Mid. Mid is the same as a US BB, but without the cups.

[Matt Vandart]

What is mid?

[Mark W]

What is mid?

Mid is the same as a US BB, but without the cups.

[Matt Vandart]

Ah cool

[eskimo]

Echo could always make a Spanish to Euro cups. Like the old US to Euro. But then again, if they're giving away bottom brackets with the axle too, then i guess it's not an issue.

I think i've missed the point. But i've never broke a bmx bearing, but then i've never had Euro. Only on the trials bike, which yes i did bust a few.

[Mark W]

Why would they want to make a Spanish to Euro cup? Or d'you mean from the Echo-sized BB to a traditional MTB size? If it's the latter, then there'd not be muuuuch point, simply 'cos their system's quite a bit better. If you wanted to run a set of taper cranks, it'd probably be not much different money-wise to buying the Echo frame and some cheaper ISIS cranks rather than any kind of adaptor (which always seem to be quite expensive, if my US->Euro adapter was any kind of guide). Plus ISIS rules over taper

I think the 'point' so to speak was that Echo's new system kinda blows normal MTB BBs out of the water, but it just needs to be incorporated by more companies.

[Matt Vandart]

Where can I see a pic of this new echo system?

[Matt Burrows]

Echo bike

[Mark W]

Echo's site just got flagged up as an 'Attack Site' on this browser I mean, I know their site's shit, but I didn't think it'd try and hurt me...

That's the Adamant one, but it's the same as the Echo.

[craigjames]

Got to say if the format went industry wide, the way its creeping into high end road and xc bikes then i'd be all for it, it would most likely mean higher production costs for frame manufacturers due to the post weld machining of the bottom bracket cups and it would in my mind need a universally available bearing size to be adopted as the standard. But i think the benefits of the sytem outweigh its cons.

[Mark W]

I don't think it needs to be a universal standard just 'cos... well... it doesn't? Seperate facets of the bike industry should have their own standard maybe, but not like an overall one just because there's so much variation that it'd be pretty difficult, but also pretty pointless. You don't have to do post weld machining either, although it's a lot better.

[craigjames]

By "universally available" i meant a standard bearing size that you can buy off the shelf rather than a manufacturer specfic custom sized bearing. Obviously for the manufactures it means you have to buy their bearings and gives them a strangle hold over it, but for availability and for interchangability between frames a standard bearing should be used.

I appreciate that different disciplines require different things, but would it not be wise to adopt a standard if it was introduced into the DH/FR market? I agree introducing an industry wide standard for all disciplines would be very difficult and negate a lot of the benefits and needs of each discipline. I don't know if i'd want to buy a frame that wasn't post weld machined, knowing how inconsistantly some trials frame can be put together the idea doesn't fill me with confidence. Surely you'd want the bearings to be as near to perfectly aligned as possible?

Edited December 10, 2009 by craigjames