engin-cycles-T47-new-threaded-bottom-bracket-standard-2016
The first Engin Cycles frame with the T47 bottom bracket standard.

An idea has been floating around some of the smaller industry players for about a year now. Brands like White Industries, Chris King and Paragon Machine Works were all thinking that people liked threaded bottom brackets, but that frames and cranks had changed so much over the past decade, getting larger diameter tubes that didn’t go as well with the tiny English threaded BB. These ideas progressed in distinct conversations running their own courses until one company contacted another to make a bottom bracket, and then everything really fell into place to (hopefully) replace the pressfit bottom bracket.

The driving force was to take the advantages of a 30mm spindle and modern frames and combine them with the proven durability, quiet performance and lovability of the traditional threaded bottom bracket.

The result is a new standard called T47, for “Threaded 47”. It measures M47x1, meaning a 47mm outside-thread diameter with a 1mm thread pitch (25.4 tpi equivalent). That puts it very close to the 24 tpi (threads per inch) currently used on English threaded bottom brackets, so it’s essentially been proven on bicycles for many, many years. And that slightly finer thread pitch helps to manually hand tap and chase the threads, a handy feature for frame builders.

To work, it needs a 46mm diameter bottom bracket hole on your frame, which happens to be the same exact measurement of a PF30 BB shell. That’s not a coincidence. White Industries pushed hard to make it a universal and backward compatible design.

“You could literally take a metal PF30 frame and tap it, creating a frame for a threaded bottom bracket. Pretty cool, right?” says Drew Guldaliun, owner and builder of Engin Cycles.

enduro-bearings-torqtite-threaded-pressfit-bottom-brackets01

Conversely, any frame built around this new standard can also use existing thread-together aftermarket bottom brackets from Wheels Manufacturing, Praxis and Enduro (shown above).

T47 BB’s will work for both 30mm and 24mm spindles, using just four different cups and six different width shells to cover internal and external setups on virtually any frame.

Alec White, of White Industries, was one of the originators of the idea and told us “this has the potential to become the one single standard for the entire industry. It makes that much sense.”

It’s an open standard, meaning any and all frame and component manufacturers can use it at no charge and without any licensing. For frames, Argonaut Cycles and Engin Cycles helped bring this new standard to market, and both will have bikes ready to roll very soon. White Industries and PMW will have taps available for frame builders to make frames for the new standard, and those parts will be shipping in time for builders to prep NAHBS bikes for February 2016.

Chris King Threadfit 30i T47 threaded bottom bracket 2016

The video above and this image of Chris King’s new ThreadFit 30i BB are showing prototype bits. Production models will use a TorqTite tool to engage notches on the outside of the BB shell, like what’s shown on the Enduro parts earlier in the post.

white-industries-T47-threaded-bottom-bracket02

These are the first production-level T47 bottom bracket bits from White Industries. They say some brands could also end up using the Race Face tool. Regardless of which install tool, the companies that helped make this happen wanted everything to work with existing tools and standards as much as possible, hence the compatibility with existing install equipment.

white-industries-T47-threaded-bottom-bracket03

white-industries-T47-threaded-bottom-bracket01

Everything old is new again. Thank goodness.

Look for hands-on pics of new parts from several of these brands this weekend live from the Philly Bike Expo!

101 COMMENTS

  1. You know what, that’s a good idea. Good luck to them and I hope to see 47threaded bbs appearing as standard on PF30 pushing brands like Specialized. If they could kill off PF92 while they’re at it that would be awesome too.

  2. @notRAPHA- Where does it say there will be two new standards? I don’t see it anywhere; the article clearly states it’s ONE new standard.
    If this new standard kills or badly injures all PF bottom brackets, that’s awesome. If it doesn’t, then there’s one more new standard, and not much harm done. People complain a lot about new standards, but some of them are actually good- one of them being Boost, another seeming to be this one. All the reliability of English bottom brackets and all the stiffness and giant bearing size of press-fit ones? Sign me up (after the standard gains traction).

  3. They seem to have done so many right moves with this. But I do have a question, why bearings outside the BB shell? Isn’t that a step removed from stiffness/protection from an in-shell solution? Can anyone enlighten me on this? Appreciated.

    I had horrible longevity with external threaded BBs from most manufacturers for years, while my in-shell BBs have been set and forget.

    I love the big shell, great for putting stiffness in a frame in the right spot.

    P

  4. The issue is not “press-fit is bad”. The issue is manufacturing tolerances on frame and poor installation of the bearing on press-fit applications.
    All threaded BB cups, be they standard English or this T47 have bearings “press-fit” into the cups. The reason why threaded BB cups seem to be better is that the cup tolerances seem easier for the manufacturer to hit (given their cost and QA/QC) and the bearings are factory installed by trained personnel with proper equipment.
    Anyway, T47 is welcome in these eyes.

  5. @ Mr. P – are your external threaded BB frames faced correctly? And are you torqueing the cups to spec? Non-square and flat mating surfaces on your frame, as well as over-torqueing your cups, will distort the cup and increase internal loads on the bearing, resulting in failure.
    Or, you just have bad luck…

  6. OK, I can be on board with this. The conversion seems simple enough, and starts to move toward a unified standard. I have a few PF30 steel frames, and my biggest question at his point is how much the BB cutting tool will run. Most shops won’t have one any time soon as mass produced PF30 alloy frames are a proportionately smaller segment of the market and this product won’t apply to carbon. Hopefully Park will make an accessory available for the BTS-1.

  7. “You could literally take a metal PF30 frame and tap it, creating a frame for a threaded bottom bracket. Pretty cool, right?” says Drew Guldaliun, owner and builder of Engin Cycles.

    If I can tap a steel PF30 bottom bracket shell, I’m switching immediately. Please tell me yes… my PF30 Chris King bottom bracket sucks. I need to try the thread-together systems if nothing else.

    I will never understand how we got to PF30 instead of a large threaded system in the first place… but I hope PF30 dies in fire.

  8. hard to say without actually measuring or seeing drawings but on the BB in the pic, looks like a ham fist could crack the stop/face if that outboard OD is same or smaller than the threaded insert. fail of so.

  9. YES. it has been 3 months and I hadn’t seen a standard change so i was worried that the industry was slacking. Actually this is good. a 24/30 mm axle compatibility is a go ahead. Larger weld area is always good. bigger bearings is also great.

  10. I’m still hanging on to my bikes with a “tiny English threaded BB”, but I would definitely favor adoption of this standard. Companies aren’t going away from giant BBs and I won’t buy a bike with PF, so this would actually make mainstream frames usable to me.

  11. @Mr.P, Really? In my experience, it’s the internal BBs – like BB30 – that are way more susceptible to the elements than a threaded Shimano BB, for example. ISIS was one internal exception that was very weather-proof, but it had other issues. My Hope threaded BB has so far outlived all other standards on my various bikes not counting replaceable loose-bearing types. BBRight? Nope, BBWrong.

  12. The industry should have NEVER left BSA English BB’s in the first place.

    Having a 30mm crank spindle over Shimano’s 24mm is hardly an advantage when people just go out and put Speedplay pedals on their cranks, which have pencil size spindles, that create waaaay more flex than any difference between Shimano and competitors’ cranks. It’s oxymoronic.

  13. Seems like a move in right direction, I only question this:
    “Conversely, any frame built around this new standard can also use existing thread-together aftermarket bottom brackets from Wheels Manufacturing, Praxis and Enduro ”

    That seems you could put a thread-together BB into a new T47 threaded shell. That would be a very bad idea as you would be sat on the tips of the threads.

  14. Remember the old raceface threaded bb’s though?? They were terrible! Did not last long at all! I have 5 bikes with pf and don’t have any issues with any of them… so far out perform any threaded bb I have had including the “flash” brands like hope and chris king

  15. @Mike, the reason we got to press fit BBs is that they’re $10-15 cheaper per frame when you’re talking big factories in Taiwan. Yes they still have to cut and face the bb shell, but they don’t have to tap it, which lets them take a whole stage out of the manufacturing process. Hopefully if enough people take enough bikes back because of creaking bbs press fits will go away.

  16. Once again, the powers-that-be are attempting to answer a question that NOT ONE of my customers has asked. I’m sticking with my old-school threaded BB’s and so are my customers. Don’t shove things down our throats we don’t need. Seriously.

  17. @(not)Rapha

    Backwards compatible, open standard and source, common tools,complaints from users acted on by industry, will fit multiple current axle widths and standards, still keeps the advantages of bigger bb shell and carbon lay-up et al.
    Basically if you put a thread in a current frame they have a BB to fit that. You should be applauding a rational consumer driven solution to a real problem; that is all too rare in the bike industry.
    Well done, T47 BB is a great idea.

  18. It will be interesting to see if we’ll be able to get small EBBs with 24mm axles out of this also. If I could swap between a geared setup on a BB centered in the shell and a SS setup on a short-swing EBB setup in the slightly larger (but not full EBB size) shell, that would be pretty cool.

  19. Hmm….Companies already make threaded external BB’s for English threaded 68mm shells to fit 30mm spindles, (Rotor/ FSA/ Race face/ ect) though I understand it is about larger BB and tubing interface is what drives the small builders to this.

    That said, For this to work in a carbon frame the manufacturer has to bond alloy/or steel threaded inserts (or shell)…which adds to more problems down the line vs. eliminating them. (The point was eliminating creaking right?…time bomb clock ticking in background)

    So for the small Steel Ti builder who has issues keeping tolerances..this could work better and be easier than a PF30 if they want to use the larger BB interface..but it is creating a “Threaded” solution for the typical carbon frame and possibly creating more problems.
    Since King and other Niche builders are behind it, there will be a following…but for the larger companies who make bikes to scale….One action always affects another.

  20. I do not understand this at all. The only possible way I’d buy a frame with 47×1 is if it came with threaded adapter cups for some other standard like the current PF30 to English adapter cups.

    The point of BB30 and PF30 is the bearings are INSIDE the bottom bracket shell. This shows external bearings. Then what’s the point? FSA 386 bottom brackets and ROTOR 30mm already make 30mm spindle bottom brackets for English threaded frames. You don’t need 47×1 for 30mm spindles.

    The only point to a 47×1 shell is for extra extra large downtubes with a threaded interface. This is the only point. Extra large diameter tubes on steel frame bikes. For any frame using normal, oversize, double oversize tubes, there’s really no disadvantage to using a standard English BB.

    I hope this fails.

  21. Am I the only one that hasn’t had a single issue with my BB92? Seriously, 0 issues in 2+ years of riding year round in the NE. Plus it allowed my 29er to have super short chainstays which I looooooove!

  22. This is the greatest idea I have heard of in a long time.

    I can see a threaded eccentric bb coming out of this.

    DOWN WITH PRESS FIT!

  23. This seems like a good idea to me. All going well (and I know this won’t happen) we would settle down with the original BSA/English threaded shell and this new oversize threaded shell. Nice and simple. I’ll put up a months worth of my wages to bet this won’t happen. Some clown will find a way to come up with another version of this new standard. It’s madness how so many frame brands come up with their own versions of stuff simply to try and create a marketing edge over the competition. In the end the unknowing consumer loses out.

    So, great job White Industries, Chris King and Paragon Machine Works!

  24. Also this isn’t going to stop them from putting PF30 on carbon frames because threading carbon. In the end this is just another standard.

    And they already make eccentric PF30s. In fact, it’s easier to have an eccentric PF30 because there is no threading. I can’t see what possible advantage making a threaded to smooth adapter cup so an eccentric BB can infinitely adjust has over the shell being smooth in the first place.

  25. New tech is fun and I like the idea of standards that make more sense than the current options, and this seems to do that. Naturally it would be upsetting to any consumer or otherwise-invested manufacturer, but I would posit that those feelings are left by the wayside once an industry has moved to a smarter place.
    I haven’t had issues with my PF30, it creaked for half of one cold ride, but I quickly found that riding it, instead of freaking out about sounds, made the noise disappear in short order. This new standard sounds amazing even without PF30 qualms – If indeed it is possible to thread existing metal PF30 shells, and go back to PF30 after having threaded a shell, then I don’t see any issues. It’s truly an opt-in or opt-out standard, with the focus on compatibility for the masses. Sweet.

  26. Sorry Bros, saw the article about the CK bb on The Radavist, and then came over here and thought White Industries release yet another version. I stand corrected. please use your frustration toward multiple KOMs on tonights ride

  27. I agree with @RC Speed I like this idea on something like a Ti or aluminum frame (with big tubes, I never understood PF30 on skinny tube steel bikes) but I remember when carbon frames did have metal BB shells bonded to them, about 6+ years ago. It was one the point of failure on any warranty. Saw it a lot of Cervelos especially, among others. I’ve never been big on bonding materials especially on high stress areas.

  28. On my one bike that has a press fit BB I have had 3 BBs over the course of about 3000 miles. I can’t even begin to count the number of customers bikes I’ve had with the same issue. I’ve had the same outboard bearing on a bike for 5 years and close to 5k. I’m pretty excited about this, even though it is a new standard and we have way to many of those.

  29. “Threaded metal sleeves in carbon frames are awful!”

    -said no Santa Cruz owner ever.

    Seriously guys, no reason to think carbon frame manufacturers couldn’t do this.

  30. Fantastic stuff. This reminds me of Sean Chaney’s (Vertigo) creation of the 44mm ID head tube/headset standard about 5 years ago. I bet we’ll see a LOT of these.

    Great work, Drew.

  31. @Matt
    There’s no almost reason for carbon frame makers to use 47×1 over BSA metal sleeves. The main “tubes” are not directly mitered to the bottom bracket shell. The BB interface does not have to the as large as, and virtually never is, as large as the monocoque BB structure. As explained before, the bearings are external, so there’s no reason the shell needs to be large enough to house internal bearings. 30mm axles with external cups can be handled by BSA. One of the big reasons to use PF30 in the first place is not needing a metal shell.

    So there is every reason to believe carbon frame manufacturers won’t use 47×1. 47×1 solves a single problem. Needing a large downtube-BB interface on welded (metal) frames and having threads.

    That’s it.

    • Call me crazy, but I’ll trust the judgement and expertise of owner and head of Argonaut a whole lot more regarding the worth of this standard versus some anonymous mouth on the internet like you. 🙂

  32. As far as durability goes it is more about what brand of BB you are using then whether it is PF or external.
    And it has been my experience as a mechanic that the external threaded BBs are the biggest culprits of creaking and have more flex.
    Whereas the PF BB don’t creak (if installed correctly) and the internal bearing are much stiffer.
    If you don’t want your PF BB to creak install it with grease NOT threadlock.
    You wouldn’t install your headset with threadlock, so why would you install your PF BB with threadlock.
    The argument is that threadlock keeps the BB in; but when have you ever heard of a headset slipping out when the fork is intalled.
    Just like the fork and stem would keep the headset from ever coming out; the cranks would keep the PF BB from slipping out.
    USE GREASE IF YOU DON’T WANT YOUR PRESS-FIT BB TO CREAK.

  33. Thanks god there’s a new BB size. The .0001 percent technical advantage that this new technology will give me should guarantee that I win all the bike races and events I enter. It will also be a fantastic way for our local bike shops to spend all that excess cash that they always have sitting around in their bank accounts – to stock the 12 new bottom brackets that all the customers will want to purchase.

  34. And when is White Industries releasing a modern spindle cranks!???? I love them, but they are not the best company in terms of buisiness. Contributing for the industry and us customers, but not anything to show yet! Love to see your new ones, and I am buying!

  35. Two things should be noted that seem to be missed in a lot of the comments. The first is that this standard was invented by the head of Argonaut, a carbon frame manufacturer who clearly doesn’t think the shell will be a problem. The second is that this statement is earlier in the article: “T47 BB’s will work for both 30mm and 24mm spindles, using just four different cups and six different width shells to cover _internal_ and external setups on virtually any frame.” (Emphasis mine.) So some manufacturers, like Argonaut from the pictures in the video, will indeed be using this as an internal system.

  36. @David Lewis
    Apparently you’re right, I’m not sure if it was there earlier, or the fact that they mentioned the threaded PF30 BBs and showed an external cup BB, but it’s becoming more of a moot point as most crank manufacturers are moving away from BB30 specific cranks.

    On a carbon frame, 47×1 metal inserts would only really offer legacy support for older narrow axle BB30. FSA is moving towards their 386EVO 30mm axle standard, SRAM is making BBright compatible cranks which I can only assume means it should work with BSA 30mm cups, Rotor also uses a long 30mm axle for external cups, Campagnolo did make a BB30 crank but it is compatible with BB86 so it would be compatible with a BSA shell given the right BB, Shimano doesn’t make BB30 at all, Cannondale doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with BB30/PF30, since they started them.

  37. “And that slightly finer thread pitch to manually hand tape and chase the threads, a handy feature for frame builders.”

    Forget to edit before posting?

  38. Also add that, for carbon frames, wide, not narrow shell standards are becoming increasingly popular for frame designers.

    47×1 is for people who work metal, the main limiting factor is the tube diameter to prevent overhanging miters, but 68/73mm is usually wide enough for metal.

    Carbon on the other hand doesn’t care about BB interface diameter, but it does care about width, because width is the limiting factor in tube size on carbon. BBRight, BB90, BB86, BB386, all show this trend, it’s not about the diameter so much as the width, and 47×1 appears to be standard traditional 68mm width.

    So carbon manufacturers who want a threaded BB can either offer legacy support to BSA bottom brackets which will be in production for a long time, or offer legacy support to narrow axle BB30 cranks and require new bottom brackets for everything.

  39. As I stated on a facebook post earlier today:

    Like I said years ago when the PF30 idea came out: why did we stop using the press-in BBs from BMX… because they aren’t attached to the bike and they are gonna creak like an old set of stairs!! What’s wrong with threads? NOTHING!

    I also understand that looking at outboard bearings isn’t very attractive but it was a quick-fix that should have been thought out a bit more before being implemented. I have in my possession a thread-form for carbon fiber that would have eliminated the “press” portion of that, would retain the light weight and ease of fabrication that the PF30 has and eliminate the possibility of creaking. Think anyone was interested? nope.

  40. I like the idea, but this will result in just as many spec issues as there currently is. 4 different cups and 6 shell widths? i’m a fan of threaded but the new standard should be just that- 1 standard size.

  41. Two Thumbs up. The discussion being had here is mostly irrelevant, as realistically this probably won’t be used in mass production bikes but its a great idea for custom bikes, especially (exclusively for now I guess) TIG welded stuff.

  42. While a part of me has that kneejerk “ugh, another standard!” reaction, I get what they’re trying to do here. I really do.

    But the deal is, I’m not willing to put up with “adapters” in order to run 24mm spindles, and I’m not willing to give up my Shimano drivetrain (because SRAM couldn’t make a reliably shifting front derailleur if their lives depended on it). Nor am I willing to put up with as much as 17%-20% jumps between gears to run a 1x on a road bike (sorry, no SRAM-pity here).

    If Chris King and company can go so far as to develop this new standard, then surely they can build a 24mm Shimano-specific version without bull**** like spacers or adapters.

  43. @J N H

    I guess my question was a little rhetorical. I get that PF30 is cheaper, but my last frame with PF30 cost about $2,000. I can spend another $15 for a better solution. There’s just zero (non-short sighted) reason to be sacrificing quality on a bottom bracket. I’m probably preaching to the choir, but there’s a reason everyone started putting Chris King headsets on in the 1990’s. Labor costs on wear parts trumps component cost all day every day. I want bottom brackets 1) super high quality, and 2) easy to service (by me). We managed it with internal headsets, but bottom brackets apparently are a tougher nut to crack.

    Anywho, PF30 still sucks.

  44. I definitely wish this were around when I got my Seven built. I wanted a lighter crank and stiffer BB interface but BB30 was a no go and PF30 wasn’t around yet. This will definitely delay my next big bike purchase. Its so nice to be able to not have to have super spendy tools at home to pull and install a BB and yes, have stuff that’s light, stiff and durable.

    I’m still betting there will be some issues with getting manufacturers to make threaded BBs in carbon frames at the high end. Its still going to be lighter to not have threaded cups and threaded BBs in a high end carbon frame. I definitely feel the weight gain is worth it but most manufactures won’t. They want the frame to be as light as possible rather than as light as what’s reasonable. I don’t care about having the very lightest bike but all the other benefits from modern tech will get added to the top end frames(ride quality, stiffness, weight) that will unlikely have these threaded BBs.

  45. Soooooo….. the solution to crappy pressfit bottom brackets, that were meant to be so much better than threaded brackets is… wait for it… a threaded bracket. (sarcastic slow applause). Make no mistake PF was about spitting bikes off a production line cheaply. But wait…. oh I am so powerful I need a giant BB shell to stiffen up my frame!!! If you really think that is true then I have some waterfront real estate you might want to buy…. let me consult a tide chart before we pop down for a look at it.

  46. @Mike: PF30 is the sign of a lazy frame builder. It’s not about the ~$15, it’s about the time and effort they don’t want to spend. Makes you wonder what else they’re cutting corners on…

  47. I would just like to point out that 30mm crank spindles fit inside standard(english) AND italian bottom brackets shells.

    In fact, The Hive currently manufactures a 30mm crank which can be ordered with a Hive brand 30mm standard threaded 73/68mm bottom bracket. Clearly, though far less popular, 30mm cranks would work in italian bbs with the proper bottom bracket.

    In otherwords: King, White and Paragon are full of s, and all of this could have been done on standard(english) threaded bottom brackets.

  48. I love this idea. I too would tap my PF30 steel BB’s the day I could find a tap and new BB. However, I also love the idea of the 44/56mm “Inset” press in headset from Chris King, which I see very widely adopted.. amongst small frame builders. The big players are still putting crappy integrated headsets in, and BB30/PF30 was as close as they could get to doing the same thing to the bottom bracket. I suspect we’ll this widely adopted among small builders, but the companies like trek and big red S with their own special BB90’s and OSBB versions of press fit BB’s that they have been hyping as better for years aren’t going to let go that easily of the cost savings in manufacturing and then have to eat their words that a thread in system is better.

  49. It’s Gary from BBInfinite, the one-piece PressFit bb dudes.

    The market is flooded with screw together bb’s just like this already and all of them perform rather badly. A Chris King one will perform about the same but I’m certain it will require ten times the maintenance. I’m not calling them out. They’re the ones who insist on lots of service.

    Now, screw-together pf bb’s (oxymoron) generally don’t creak if put in right, but their spin performance is awful. About as good as Shimano external cups if you’re lucky, which isn’t that great. Also, none of the threaded-together bb’s work correctly in any wide form-factor bb frame shells like BB86/92 and 386Evo because the shell is already at the limit and adding flanges adequate for a tool interface cause cranksets to stretch to their limits of adjustment and beyond. Another issue is that they push the crank out on both sides, namely the drive side, and so you end up with a bad chain line, causing poor shifting and exaggerated driveline noise in several gear combinations. Anyone who works on the new Shimano 11Spd or the new gen Campy knows how sensitive the front derailleurs are to chainring location. The spec is 43.5mm’s from bb center-line. Go outside of this range more than 0.05mm and you lose a trim position. This is probably the biggest problem with most screw together systems come to think of it. It’s impossible to get chain line right in wide bb bikes.

    Screw-togethers will work great for a PF30 or Specialized OSBB because of their narrow form-factors. Plenty of cup sticking out for tool engagement. Anyone ever see what a strew together pf bb looks like after it’s been installed? It’s pretty torn up. Seeing that I make this kind of stuff it’s hard not to come off as a shill. I have such intimate knowledge of this subject it’s hard not to comment.

    I can tell you right now that Shimano ain’t gonna go for this, and this alone will stymie it. They’ve used their considerable influence in the market to shift just about every new frame over to BB86/92—their baby—to the point that even Wilier is BB86 now, and they’re the guys who practically invented BB386Evo. Unreal.

    Good luck to everyone in the screw-together market. If all you’re trying to do is get rid of creaking issues it can be a viable solution. If you want to get rid of creaks and increase performance without sacrificing durability AND without pushing Q-factor out on wide format bb frames, then it’s not so great.

    Gary

  50. I used to have 7 bikes all with interchangeable parts.

    Now with all the new standards coming out, I have 7 bike with zero interchangeable parts. The industry is not evovling, they are making money.

    Engineer the best size, threads, length, weights, blah blah blah and make it. Don’t change stuff every couple of months. Don’t fix things that are not broken.

  51. 3 years on the same BB92 without any problems, including 2 months in Nepal! Somebody please tell me what is wrong with the first silent, long lasting, inexpensive maintenance free standard that allows for better frame design? I can only hope Shimano ignores the pinkbike whiners…

  52. Gary- You said that bikes with wide chanciness get bad shifting. But won’t that be helped (on MTB’s, at least) by the wider rear spacing offered by 142mm thru-axles and, more recently by the additional 3mm offered by Boost?

  53. @Gary Mailhiot,

    I dunno. I went to your website and it felt like a used-car sales commercial.

    You’ve failed to address the substance of the article in any meaningful way. And what do you mean by ‘spin performance’? You mean the bearings in the BB are slowed? The threading of the cups in to the shell?

    Give it another try:
    — Address what problems, if any, you see with PF30
    — Shimano may not ‘go for it’, but as the article stated, the system is backwards compatible with 24mm cranks. We see numerous market offerings from SRAM for BB30. That’s never been a standard Shimano or Campy have supported, and yet, on my wall sit a BMC and Cannondale with BB30. Both bikes have Shimano cranks installed.

    I could go on, but maybe start there?

  54. This is good (assuming we sidestep https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png). A few big names on board, and a pretty popular raison d’être.

    I’d also like to see it used with a short-throw eccentric; for a start, it would be feasible to fillet braze unlike big heavy Bushnell shells. The forward and backward compatibility is a masterstroke.

    The only real downside is that it’s not a standard thread size, so taps will be VERY expensive (and remember you’ll need two). If people are going to go tap their PF30 shells, they’ll need threadcutting taps rather than the normal (cheaper) chasing taps in the Park BB sets.

  55. Finally!
    after years of seeing new standards being announced and years of customers with creaky PF and other modern BB standards. This one finally makes sense!!! Why has it taken so long!!

    • CK has a reputation that’s far more than the sum of its parts. Their components are polished well, and colorful, and their website talks a big game about being socially & environmentally conscious (for a company that chooses to bright-dip anodize lol), but when you get down to it, their hubs are very maintenance heavy and finicky while neither being an original design nor tackling anything that hasn’t been solved by a hundred other companies already far more simply, their BB’s wear out in a season after all these years of driving everyone away from the most reliable BBs in history, and their most popular part, which their entire “untouchable” reputation was built on, the headset, uses a bloody o-ring to hold the steerer in the top race, while they bang on admonishing every MFG and wrench in the entire bike biz for being ignorant & incapable on the criticality of maintaining precision alignment of the bearings on the steerer. CK tops my list of overrated, overblown companies selling BS, starting with fundamentally flawed, half-baked products, and throwing wads of over-engineering at them hoping no one notices they’re more flash than substance.

  56. The last time a frame manufacturer made a BB standard and shared it openly, we got BB30.

    The last time CK collaborated on a BB standard we got ISIS, which led to GXP, the failure of which compared to HT2 cranks led to mass adoption of BB30.

    CK is responsible, indirectly for BB30. This had better be the best BB in the history of the universe.

  57. I like it. It’s backwards compatible with about any standard (at least for road). It allows you to use whatever crank you want. It seems it would allow the use of bearings with bigger balls, thus prolonging the life of the bearings and reducing friction.

  58. i like threaded systems for anything because they provide better chance of riders being able to service their bikes at home with less expensive tools than press-in systems (whose success is very sensitive to the precision of the tools used to instal/remove them and the skill of the mechanic) I’ve often thought headtubes/headset cups should be threaded as well for this reason. If you see this as an uneeded new standard, it’s just a drop in the bucket. But hey, it might be the solution many people need.

    I find it interesting that no one’s mentioned the Mason Cycles Definition frame yet. It’s an aluminum frame, mind you, but it employs a huge diameter BB shell that’s hollowed out and stepped down on the ends to accept BSA bb’s. It solves the problem of needing larger tube-joining surface area without a pesky BB30 setup. I thought that idea would catch on before something like this.

  59. T47 is just an a big BSA, no more.
    BSA -> 1.37″ x 24 TPI = near M34.8 (mm) x 1.058 mm
    T47 -> M47 (mm) x 1 mm

    Why (Threaded) “T47” and not (Metric) “M47x1” ?
    With “M47x1” everybody can understand, it’s mechanical and simple, universal.
    Stop to create new name when it’s not helpful.

    Why not M47x1 BB but it’s ok on metal frame and not as good on carbon frame. I don’t think is a good thing for carbon. With carbon we must assembly/press an internal threaded M47x1 insert in the smooth carbon frame bottom bracket, and only after screw the threaded M47x1 external cup to put the ball bearings.

    Ball bearings for 30mm spindle have 42x30mm dimensions. 47-42=5 /2=2.5mm thickness, slim.

    Be careful with choice of diameter for this new standard. All parts must be easily comptatible.

  60. I’m not convinced this is the “Answer”, purely for the lack of material in the section. For EXTERNAL bearings it should be fine. BUT, what about the true BB30 short spindle crank such as SRAM Red where everything is housed inside the 46ID*68mm wide shell?

    Here’s my reasoning. A BB30 bearing is 42mm OD. PF30/T47 ID is 46mm. This only gives you 3mm wall thickness of what is often mid spec alloy for you bearing carrier/cup be it screw together, T47… or worse case, plastic. Such a large diameter ‘ring’ is not that ‘stiff’, and the bearing shells of a BB30 bearing are so thin, that any distortion forced upon the bearing and it carrier by an out of round or misaligned shell will lead to bearings binding and failing. (I had issues with a Ti frame shell being out of round, it had to be refinished to stop the shell deforming the 2pc pressfit alloy carrier).

    The argument that T47 will be less sensitive to dimensional variation isn’t true. all the BB systems need similar levels of alignment, both axially. face to face parallelism. and roundness. and I’d actually argue this is more difficult to achieve for bb30 systems, with misalignment exaggerated as your diameters increase, and this has a negative effect on the bearings themselves.

    I think that T47 is a good idea, but I would have gone up to M48 or M50 thread sizes to really allow a decent shell thickness, but you will still have the issue of axial alignment of the shells. Fine for mass producers with precision machining centers, arguably more difficult for smaller operations, and perhaps impossible for hand tool based bearing cutters. You’re still having to align 2 parts across the width of the BB shell. This is where screw together and complete press in systems have highest merit, as they are arguable best and eliminating axial misalignment.

    I think the only option left, though rather extreme for separate L/R cup systems, is large OD cups (say 50mm) with spherical inserts that house the bearings. Though extreme in perhaps weight and other areas, it can counter for tolerance issues in all 3 degrees. I’d even argue that the whole bike crankset system is mechanically flawed as you’re not supporting the inner races with a shoulder or spacer sleeve on the spindle anyway.

    At the end of the day, its about getting the bearings into the correct operating spec, and they are VERY sensitive to frame tolerances. For any builder/manufacture of frames, they must choose or recommend a system which can accommodate the tolerances inherent in their manufacturing process and also accommodate the various crank set standards. This is root cause of creaks and bearing issues.

    If something is creaking, then it’s moving, You have to stop that movement.

  61. I’ve been away from bikes for 3 years and am astonished that this problem is still doing the rounds. My favourite system over 25 years riding and spannering was Specialized BB30 frame with Cannondale cranks. Super easy to work on, no creaks, long lasting strong and solid.

    It seems everyone is developing systems to make things easier for their own situations – this solution seems great for small volume metal frames, hipsters if you like 😉 Anyone who thinks BSA BB’s where the ideal solution clearly hasn’t been around long! Threads suck. Why haven’t headsets got threads any more? They are no infinitely more reliable as a result.

    The chain line example is just what I mean – ‘not our problem’

    The consumer is nowhere near the top of the list with any of these solutions…

  62. This actually has good potential, IF the Big Guns Shimano, Campy, SRAM, then the d*mn frame makers, suck it up and admit they’ve all been forcing weird-a** standards galore for a decade, with not much but exasperation to show for it, from all parties dealing with repair/re/re/replace, service intervals approximating beer run frequency….
    The most durable BBs are generally seen as the good old semi-sealed can units Shimano made fifteen and more years ago; I’m still on my original MTB and no issues at all. Why? because the ‘can’ keeps the two sides solidly aligned, true and parallel. All the frame threads do is align the CAN itself, so easy and low-load that many of the endstop rings were made of plastic!
    This new standard may quickly open the door for newer, larger, but once again sealed units where a thin tube could link the two sides for alignment, and the frame contacts could again only serve to fix the can in place with no major facing or precision threading issues.
    But don’t hold your breath.

  63. How about chainline? Will this standard help alleviate the problems that modern systems have aggravated? All these solutions appear to suit those designing them but rarely have the consumers best interests at heart.

  64. @HuH – if you can find a single shop selling left and right hand M47x1mm taps, I’ll be surprised. Right hand M47x1.5mm is available, but still not really a standard size. M48 is easily available, but the ISO thread pitch is 5 or 3mm, so not at all suitable for this application.

    @Hobblealong – c’mon, this is nothing at all like threaded headsets. Not that reliability is really an issue for headsets, but how could the threads themselves possibly be the cause of any problems?

COMMENT HERE: (For best results, log in through Wordpress or your social media account. Anonymous/fake email comments may be unapproved or deleted. ALL first-time commenter's posts are held for moderation. Check our Comment Policy for full details.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.