White Industries Engin Cycles Paragon Machine works t41 threaded press fit bottom bracket-26

If you missed the big news on Thursday, there’s a new bottom bracket standard in town. Now before you start sharpening those pitchforks, this one appears to be a bit of a different animal. The short of it is that it uses the same shell as a PF30 bottom bracket, but it is threaded to eliminate the press fit part of the equation.

A true collaboration between companies, at the Philly Bike Expo you could basically take in every step of the process by walking from one adjacent booth to another. Start at Paragon Machine Works for the Bottom Bracket shells, move over to White Industries for bottom brackets, and finish at Engin Cycles for the complete build (and the prototype White Industries T47 crankset)…

White Industries Engin Cycles Paragon Machine works t41 threaded press fit bottom bracket-22

Custom frames will start with the new T47 BB shell from Paragon Machine Works in steel or titanium. As mentioned in the last post, these are the same shells for PF30, just machined with a M47x1 metric thread. Paragon Machine Works will also be offering taps that will fit standard Park Tool Tap handles so that existing frames can be modified. Yes, if you have a metal frame with a PF30 or BB386 shell you can bring it to a qualified mechanic/frame builder to cut threads for the T47 BB. Not only that, but even after the shell is threaded, the bottom brackets should still work with thread together pressfit bottom brackets which would come in handy if you wanted to use something like the Beer Components PF30 Eccentric BB adapter.

White Industries Engin Cycles Paragon Machine works t41 threaded press fit bottom bracket-28

White Industries Engin Cycles Paragon Machine works t41 threaded press fit bottom bracket-27 White Industries Engin Cycles Paragon Machine works t41 threaded press fit bottom bracket-29

White Industries Engin Cycles Paragon Machine works t41 threaded press fit bottom bracket-30

In addition to White Industries and Chris King, Enduro will also be making T47 compatible bottom bracket s for both internal and external cup applications. External cups will be used on 68/73mm shells while the internal cups would be used for 86mm shells. Alec White who is one of the creative minds behind the concept says that eventually there should be a fitment to cover almost the entire spectrum of bikes and White Industries will be putting together a compatibility chart for all of the various cranks and bottom brackets in the near future.

These bottom brackets were actually made in a week’s time and rushed to the show where they arrived early this afternoon. Along with the bottom brackets, Enduro will have a matching tool socket, the BBT-015, which mimics the larger BBT-025 for the internal cups.

White Industries Engin Cycles Paragon Machine works t41 threaded press fit bottom bracket-11

White Industries Engin Cycles Paragon Machine works t41 threaded press fit bottom bracket-15 White Industries Engin Cycles Paragon Machine works t41 threaded press fit bottom bracket-14

White Industries Engin Cycles Paragon Machine works t41 threaded press fit bottom bracket-16

We already got a sneak peek at the T47 BB from White Industries, but what we didn’t see was their prototype crankset built around the standard. Obviously, since T47 BBs are compatible with current cranks with both 24 or 30mm spindles, the White Industries crank will work on other BBs as well, but they have built it with their bottom brackets in mind. Still in prototype phase (if the Sharpie wasn’t a dead giveaway), the White Industries T47 cups are built to eliminate the need for spacers and includes an adjustable preload collar.

The crank was hung on a beautiful bike from Engin Cycles which is covered here.

paragonmachineworks.com

whiteind.com

endurobearings.com

55 COMMENTS

  1. Enduro Tools and Bearings always lustworthy. Nice to see a new standard that benefits old tech. Want to try this – need to get the creaking BB30 sounds out of my nightmares.

  2. Re: MotoPete, I’d have to agree that Enduro tools are very nice, but the bearings not so much. I’ve gotten far more use from the SKF or EZO equivalents in both hubs and BB’s.

  3. Im wondering if you use a PF bearing with a poly sleeve and give it something to hold a wrench on the outside if you could screw the poly into the threads? Dunno if it would do anything significant though.

  4. It’s heavier and can suffer the same galvanic and debonding problems of old threaded alloy shells in carbon.
    More expensive to produce and is just a step backward.
    Just educate people in the right way of fitting and removing and have manufacturers accept responsibility for out of spec frames or parts and the creaking goes away.
    I have five bikes, none of them have ever creaked. two threaded and three press fit.

  5. …..and the circle is completed. Just like it used to be only now with larger spindle. Why do we keep doing this?
    Hopefully a new 40mm bb standard will come out and that will enhance my riding experience even more than bb30 has. Let’s face it, sometimes you’re cruizin along thinking this is great but what if my bb spindle was a larger diameter then it would be truly amazing!!’

  6. I have yet to see a single T47 shell 86mm wide as indicated in the article. Only 68mm. And I only see pictures of internal cups on 68mm shells.

  7. One of the benefits with threads is that you need a BIG spanner and that’s it.
    No need to bang on the bearing (or use hard to find $$pulley extractor) to get them out for service or hard to get/very expensive press-tools to get them in.

    Apart from that I always had problems with outboard bearings until extreme measures been taken as in epoxy.

  8. “External cups will be used on 68/73mm shells”
    plus it’s a larger dia than BSA so it’s got larger bearing cups.

    So does it clear inner rings of 2 and 3x MTB chainsets? The current HT2 design has tight clearances there.

  9. Going back to the pedaling loads behing handled radialy by threads ?
    This is one bad design, one of the first thing taught to mechanical engineering students.
    Press fit is the correct way to mount bearings. The industry better improve their quality control rather than reintroducing this poor design…

    • Yeah, because all those old school internally threaded BB’s for decades and decades had so many issues????? Press fit is for the lazy and those willing to live with creaks. 🙂

  10. It occurred to me, if you’re going back to threaded BBs with bearings inside the shell, you should mount all the bearings as a cartridge unit, and simply use the cup on the other side to support it, like cartridge square taper BBs. That ensures perfect alignment of the bearings instead of relying on the threads making the bearings perfectly concentric and the faces perfectly parallel. Even cheap cartridge BBs roll smoother than many 2-cup systems.

  11. Vincent – a voice of reason at last! Pressfit bearings are in the cups of your threaded BB..! This is about bad manufacturing practises and low quality in frames resulting in out of spec BB shells. It’s not about the BB it’s about the frame.

  12. “This is one bad design, one of the first thing taught to mechanical engineering students.”

    The real world tells us that it takes more than mech eng theory to make a bike that works under repeated hard use. Try looking at repeatable tolerances across >100 manufacturers, different materials, etc. The theory taught may be sound but testing will tell you that press-fits only work in some places. Not all.
    The people that reversed the drive-side thread to handle precession understood all this a long time ago.

  13. Vincent, also I realise that a threaded BB cup has press-fit bearings in it, my point is that a frame’s BB shell is subject to distortion in welding and a BB cup-bearing fit can be controlled in a much tighter way by manufacturer of the complete unit. So I suppose that agrees with both our points.

  14. @Vincent- I wouldn’t expect the industry to introduce quality controls. Maybe having threads handle the loads is a bad idea, and maybe they even teach budding mechanical engineers that this is something one doesn’t do. But the loads we humans create are not very high, certainly not high enough for it to be an issue. Press-fit in theory maybe COULD be better. But in REALITY, press-fit creaks and a lot of people have had problems with it.

  15. Anyway the bearing are pressfited in those threaded cups. This is nonsense. Just make pressift properly please ! (my lapierre pressift has 0 creak, mi giant trance has some).

  16. Can anyone feel the differences between the myriad BB standards when their BB is not creaking?

    If you can, then please Google ‘nocebo’,

    You’re not fooling anyone with your clairvoyant ability to detect 0.5-degree head tube angles and 0.04 PSI differences in tire pressure. You think you can, but you can’t. You just like to be That Guy around the campfire.

  17. @anonymous: “I have yet to see a single T47 shell 86mm wide as indicated in the article. Only 68mm. And I only see pictures of internal cups on 68mm shells.”

    Maybe reread the article? It’s all right there in front of you:

    “In addition to White Industries and Chris King, Enduro will also be making T47 compatible bottom brackets for both internal and external cup applications. External cups will be used on 68/73mm shells while the internal cups would be used for 86mm shells. Alec White who is one of the creative minds behind the concept says that eventually there should be a fitment to cover almost the entire spectrum of bikes and White Industries will be putting together a compatibility chart for all of the various cranks and bottom brackets in the near future.”

    Remember this is currently all in the prototype stage. Do you think Enduro can’t make a T47 bottom bracket for internal 86mm shells, when they’ve made one for an internal 68-73mm shell (third image from the top)?

  18. Working as a bike mechanic for the past 8 years, I see just as many BSA bottom brackets in for popping and cracking as I see PressFit…
    For 90% of both BB’s, it is purely due to a lack of maintenance from the owner of the bike.
    While PressFit tends to be “harder” to fix than threaded, I don’t see T47 solving the main problem for MOST peoples situations..
    Regular Maintenance.

  19. By the way… 30mm spindles where already possible in “normal” threaded frames.
    Threads performed in a shop by an experienced professional should result in perfect tolerances! For sure…
    Maybe the industry should ask for these handgifted professionals so bb30 tolerance issue was resolved, instead of going into new standards.
    Always good to see how the industry moves!
    For me bb30 rules, creaks are a signal you should open your cranks and do some maintenance.

  20. @John
    Except thats not the case. The internal cups are used on 68mm shells for BB30 cranks. The article implies internal cups are for 86mm shells, which haven’t even been shown. Read your quote again.

    @Mecianico do Paladar
    It seems to me that threads will always have slightly more variability in alignment than a perfectly aligned press fit, like in square taper cartridge bottom brackets, plus it allows you to put a preload spacer between the bearings.

    The reason why bearings were split into left and right cups that because external bearings could not fit through the shell, and for press fit, there was no retaining mechanism to prevent it from creeping out the side it came.

    Non-adjustable cartridge bearings separated into left and right cups were a step backwards. There’s a reason why ISIS, octalink and square taper cartridge BBs all kept the cartridges in perfect alignment by only putting them on one side.

    If T47 manufacturers refuse to take advantage of this, that’s truly lost potential of this standard.

    • if press fit were sooooo wonderful in that thing called the real world you would not have a gazillion guys bringing their press fit bikes into shops and makers with multitudes of complaints . That thing called the real world can be a real beotch. LOL

  21. Anonymous,

    ISIS’s first attack on the public was to unleash their BB-design-of-mass-destruction.

    After terrorizing the cycling public, they were emboldened to destroy the entire middle east.

  22. Bicycle industry is not able to manage good tolerances on pressfit & BB30 & … , except some brands, it’s like that. Poor professionals.
    Threaded type BB with external cups is not mechanical (problem of load contact and alignement), bad solution but…. in practice (low load) it’s ok.
    Better solution is a wide big BB on frame + cartridge unit like our old Shimano BB ! But it’s ok with threaded cup… on metal BB frame.

  23. I dunno about you guys, but I’m really glad to see suppliers designing parts to work with manufacturers inabilities to build and finish a bicycle frame to any kind of reasonable tolerance. God forbid builders decide to sharpen their game and work with established standards that are, in fact, better engineered.

  24. @anonymous: Patience, grasshopper. Or do you not understand what prototypes are?

    “Enduro will also be making T47 compatible bottom brackets for both internal and external cup applications” and “…the internal cups would be used for 86mm shells.”

  25. @Gruntled- I am with you. But given that no frame builders are not going to step up to the plate, the the only realistic option is for bottom bracket makers to do it.
    On the other hand, carbon frame makers went to press-fit for a reason: it lowers their bottom line, and they won’t likely go back to threaded. So anyone who has a carbon frame, and almost anyone who is going to buy one down the road, is still stuck with press-fit.

  26. @John
    Read your quote.

    First of all, if they’re machining the tubes, it’s not hard to make one that’s 18mm longer.

    Second of all, BR is clearly misinformed about something, saying that the internal cups are for 86mm use. They’re clearly used for 68mm width. So either internal cups are for use with either length, or there is no 86mm shell. To imply they’re not for 68mm is wrong.

  27. Mecanico do Paladar is correct, 30mm axles in a threaded BB has allready been done, and there was nothing wrong with it, actually have been riding most of my bikes like that for ages. Making these large diameter wide BB’s is mainly a benefit for getting more stiffness into a carbon frame, so hard to tell why these “custom metal frame” bike makers are so keen on this new std.

    And unless giant, merida, and shimano decide to go down this road, its just going to be another expensive option on your allready expensive custom frame

  28. A few people have commented that it has always been possible to put 30mm axles in traditional threaded bb shells. Maybe so, but it left you with two choices: 1) use external bearings or 2) use internal bearings that are smaller. T47 allows us to have big internal bearings with a honking big 30mm bb axle. But- as everyone knows, the pedal axles we use are pretty small, and they may be a bigger limiting factor in drivetrain stiffness at this point than anything else. New pedal axle standard, anyone?

  29. This has to be one of the best ideas to happen to the bike industry since 30mm axles came around. I, for one, really hope this becomes the norm. Awesome work guys!

    Now, not that there’s anything hugely wrong with current standards, but why not apply this thinking to the headest?

  30. @Alex
    Carbon frames need wider BBs. Metal frames need larger diameter BBs for welding oversized tubes.

    @Tim
    What’s the advantage of an internal bearing if the frame/shell width is the same? The ability to use older BB30 cranks?

    The advantage of threaded internal bearings is to make cartridge BBs like square taper ones. It’s an advantage that is not being utilized. Cartridge BBs were only split into separate left and right hand cups because you could not fit the bearings through the shell on threaded shells. Then with press fit, you needed flanges on both sides to keep the cups from creeping out, so again, you could not put the cups through the shell.

  31. @anonymous- internal cups are good because they mean the bearing is supported by the inside of the frame. On the other hand, external cups may have less exposed axle length, so that the axle has less leverage against them. The ideal would be internal cups with a wide shell to minimize exposed axle length.
    I can see why metal full suspension frames might need this new standard- the added stiffness is good, but for hardtails, I don’t think it’s much better than a traditional English XXmm width shell. Who needs all that stiffness on a hardtail? They need to flex some.

  32. I like it. The first thing I though is I’m going to thread every PF30 frame that comes within reach. Problem is most of them are actually carbon shelled. Its the BB30 (carbon) frames that have an alloy insert.

  33. The elephant in the room: Shimano. They have never taken to BB30. How many bikes with BB30 and Shimano components do you see out there having to either use a different brand crank or a BB30 adapter?

  34. The reason Shimano hasn’t made a 30mm spindle is because Shimano knows that 24mm spindles are good enough for the best riders on the planet. Look at world-class riders… World champion Track sprinters are still on square-taper Dura -Ace track cranksets. Who here is really flexing cranks and spindles enough to shout, “Dang, this is a really flexy crankset”? Certainly not me.

    What I do know is that Shimano over-engineers their products. There’s a reason they haven’t changed spindle diameters for many, many years while dimensions on many other parts have evolved. It could be that they figured out that the maximal lateral force a human being could conceivably put on a crankset is a finite, measurable number… and then engineered cranks well beyond that, resulting in the 24mm spindle in common use today. But what do I know?

    The REAL elephant in the room is the question of whether 30mm spindles truly offer a real benefit.

    Let’s look at real facts: Example? The jump from a square taper BB to 24mm is a real benefit and immediately noticeable. Why? No unsupported axle protruding from the bearing, a less heavy BB assembly, a bigger diameter spindle… all these combined to create a noticeably stiffer pedaling platform. It is undeniably better in every aspect (aside from bearing exposure to elements perhaps). The physics supports the idea.

    However, the jump to a 30mm spindle delivers, in all cases, negligible improvements to a rider in terms of just stiffness.

    The original idea of BB30 was to:
    a) Remove the external cup and move the bearings inside the shell for a closer pedaling stance (truly the best benefit of BB30)
    b) Increase the size of the spindle for added stiffness (really a non-benefit).
    c)Decrease weight. The resulting spindle can now be made of a lighter material since it is bigger. This makes a lighter, stiffer crank. The bottom bracket bearings are now directly in the frame, saving weight as well.

    T47, if I understand correctly, will necessarily make the actual bottom bracket shell even NARROWER if you wish to keep the effective face to face width of a BB30 shell (to make room for the external cups), resulting in some… interesting dimensions to work around in terms of where to put chainstays. Sure, you’ll likely still have plenty of real estate for smallish road tires, but what about riders who want fat (and I’m talking cyclocross-and-up-sized) tires, short chainstays AND narrow stance? AND room for chainrings?

    The limitations of BB30 immediately made themselves known in the arena of carbon CX frames. Chainstays had to be made quite tall to counteract the limited real estate between tires and crankarms whilst maintaining proper stiffness, AND still had to leave space for mud clearance. With T47 I can’t imagine that is going to improve, as chainstays will now have to be cantilevered outboard to make room for tires, possibly actually negating some weight savings and sacrificing stiffness. The impacts will be different for carbon vs metal frames due to how their physical construction. Carbon, not so much. Metal? You gotta leave room for welds somewhere. What about that distortion of the metal shell upon welding?

    Really, this is is turning into the same issue that bred the Boost 148 standard for MTB. And that’s a totally different can of worms.

    But, for the record, I believe T47 is a great idea.

  35. @Aaron you sound like an industry insider that works for a manufacturer that’s stuck with Shimano (like Trek). Everything about BB30 and BB90 sounds great until you get the bikes back after being on the road. The Trek Madones (all carbon shell – pressed bearings) with very short life spans. They soured me to BB90. On the other hand I saw pretty good performance on BB30 Cannondale and Specialized did a fairly good job. I cared as a retail sales and service person with a desire to keep customers happy. To have bikes that have a modicum of durability so folks can get their miles ridden relatively trouble free. It only got weirder (worse) after the migration to PF versions and cheaper implementations further down product lines. If I had to pick a direction for solutions to come from – it would be durability. Bearings that last and design that keep service simple.

    It would be great to hear reasons why you like T47 after stating the problems you see with it.

    @ Mechanic !A The issue of just as many problems related to BSA BB’s. So many aluminum frames make up the bulk of what is sold. It’s an inherent problem to that frame material.

  36. You guys are ALL missing the point. This standard is clearly aimed at (mostly) custom made steel/ti/alu bikes.

    for these bikes, where distortion from welding, longer term serviceability, and flex in the actual BB tube itself are all relevant issues, T47 makes a LOT of sense.

    RE 30mm spindles, with T47, you don’t have to run one, but you can, regardless you still get the advantage of the bigger O.D B.B.

  37. Threads don’t suck, they work in all machinery. A tightened down threaded BB cup in use is a threaded joint under repeated transverse load. If you tighten it enough, it creates enough friction to prevent any movement, just like all the standard threaded joints everywhere. And if there *is* movement, then the joint self loosens and this can only be prevented with threadlocking, which is a hack. Just chase, clean, lubricate, and tighten; this works.

    I also don’t get the logic of T47 being aimed at custom frame builders. Those builders are in a better position to ream their press fit shells to precision needed by PF style BBs, than mass frame producers are.

    And most importantly, there’s nothing so wrong with BSA shells and 24 mm HT2 steel spindles in external bearing BBs as to warrant phasing it out as the mainstay solution for metal frames throughout the whole industry. There is all the tooling to make the bearings aligned within tolerances, and to chase the threads so you can tighten those cups.

    Principle of parsimony dictates choosing the interface which can run with the loosest tolerances that still do the job. This is why threads are better than press fit for BB shells.

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.