With SRAM now pushing the DUB bottom bracket spindle standard to road, too, BBinfinite decided it was time to create a full line of their one-piece, perfectly-aligned bottom brackets to go with them. Quick background: BBinfinite’s unique one-piece BB unit places the bearings inside a single shell, allowing them to perfectly align them. Contrast that with individual press-in cups or even thread together BB’s where there is opportunity for misalignment (although, granted, it’s greatly diminished with the thread-together options), and you end up with a BB that keeps the bearings lined up in perfect parallel. The result is a bottom bracket that’s ultra smooth, even with standard steel bearings and races, and has better durability because the bearings aren’t subjected to off-axis loads, turn after turn.

bbinfinite shows how to silence creaky bottom brackets with the best BB design for road and mountain bikes

For the DUB collection, they created a polymer insert to size their 30mm ID ABEC-7 steel and Ceramitech bearings down to 29mm for the DUB spindles. This eliminates any metal-on-metal contact, which they say further reduces any chance of noise and prevents any long-term galling of the spindle. They say the design is so solid that they offer the industry’s only lifetime bearing exchange warranty, ceramic included. DUB BB’s are available for:

  • PF30 road and mountain
  • BB86
  • BB92
  • BBRight
  • BB386EVO
  • OSBB PressFit road and mountain

They also offer a threaded version for standard English threaded BB shells where a press-thru design like their one-piece BB’s won’t work. Italian threaded, PF30A, and BB30/BB30A are coming soon. Prices start at $170 for ABEC-7 versions and $225 for Ceramitech. Threaded DUB products are $110/$165.



  1. If the bearings are placed outside the frame, this design seems to make sense, since the effect the shell can have on it is reduced. On shell designs that use internal bearings, I’m confused as to how misalignment can be mitigated, since the shell will deform the bottom bracket unit. They’re selling a gimmick, since the real problem is expecting a shell to have a tightly toleranced bore so the bearings aren’t compressed. No matter how well you make the bottom bracket unit, it can’t fix an improperly machined frame. That’s exactly why threaded shells show better function and durability.

    Common shop facing/reaming tools often aren’t good enough either. We need to point the finger at frame manufacturers if they can’t do it to spec.

    • You are confused on many levels. Assuming a carbon fiber frame with separate left and right shells, the tube of a one piece bottom bracket is much stiffer than the frame.

      • I don’t buy it. You mean to tell me that the large misalignment this aims to address won’t deflect it along that span? That doesn’t make sense to assume you can brute force bearing alignment with a carbon structure reliably without introducing residual forces within the “cups”. You’re also describing typically higher quality frames in which this is an excessive solution. The cabling issue is yet another headache.

    • well, I think they mean if it’s gonna be misaligned it will be the whole crank and BB instead and not the bearings alone? lol.

  2. I installed one of these once. My main thought was “good luck ever, ever removing this from the frame”. But if that’s not a concern, then by all means.

  3. As a machinist, I feel there is a better solution. What if you turn, bore, thread and part off an aluminum slug in one setup for perfect alignment. Use a standard thread pitch used on bicycles, and then pot the slug into a carbon frame, or weld it into an aluminum frame.

    I would then make aluminum cups that externally hold bearings and seals. Replacement would simply involve unthreading an old cup assembly, and threading in a new cup assembly.

    What do you think? Yay? Nay?

    • Wow that would be awesome! The external bearings would totally get not destroyed in muddy/wet areas every 6 months, and definitely not limit design as it relates to Q factor, chainstay width, and chainring selection! What a great idea.

  4. These one piece bottom brackets are a good idea, but these BBinfinite ones are mass produced. I suggest you obtain some internal micrometers, do some measuring, and Hambini Engineering will machine you a fully custom bottom bracket fit to the exact dimensions of the bottom bracket shell in your frame. The tolerances of the parts he machines are bang on. He also can machine you Delrin inserts, not cheap molded polymer ones.

    Just a satisfied customer…

    • FWIW, BBinfinite is making their own BB units in Arkansas, not outsourcing to an Asian supplier or other nameless manufacturer…they are the manufacturer, so other than the actual bearings, it’s a made-in-America part.

      • BBinfinite may be manufacturing in Arkansas, but these bottom brackets are still mass produced. Hambini will machine one for you down to the ten-thousandth of an inch to match your frame perfectly. He can also accommodate special needs your bike may have, such as to work around cabling issues.

        • And yet that’s completely necessary for the overwhelming majority of riders. Hell, I’ll bet “Hambini” is only necessary for a very small fraction of riders, your love of Hambini and his love of himself notwithstanding.

        • ten-thousandth (0.010 in.) or one thousandth (0.001 in.)? The former is sloppy and any machinist should be ashamed if that is their tolerance. The later is easy and a min requirement for bearings this size/spacing if you want longevity, and a min requirement for a part like this.

          I have a BBInfinite bottom bracket. It was under 0.0005 in. (half a thousandth of an in.) round before and after installation. I can’t really measure better than that with a snap gauge and micrometer.

          My only issue with them is they eliminate the Campy wavy washer which I actually like.

          • And it’s likely most cyclists can’t measure better than 0.0005 inches, and if a customer can’t measure better than that, what good is making a custom BB to within 0.0001 of an inch?

            • I can’t measure it to below 0.0005″ with my home tools, but I am pretty sure the BBInfinite tolerance is lower than that given how they are made.

              As for value? It’s likely most cyclist can’t measure below 1/32″ (0.031) but that doesn’t mean part tolerances below that aren’t needed. Being able to measure something as a consumer and having reliability/functionality issues from that something being of poor tolerance via the manufacturer are two very different issues.

              • > I am pretty sure the BBInfinite tolerance
                > is lower than that given how they are made.

                How do you have any idea what their tolerances are beyond the one unit you measured, or how do you know how they are manufactured? Do you work for BBinfinite?

  5. BBInfinite are very good. Most situations don’t require them, but when they do, you’ll be glad they’re there. Bonus for the plastic sleeve between bearing and spindle. Every bottom bracket should have that, especially with aluminum spindles.
    ” (although, granted, it’s greatly diminished with the thread-together options)” -Nope. The threads are a loose fit, and the threaded part of the center sleeve is thin, allowing distortion. The press-fit part is a loose fit, necessary to be able to turn the cups in the threads. I’d go so far as to say that thread-fit bottom brackets are MORE creak prone than standard.

    • I really do love how folks are talking off axis wear and power loss on a BB….when it is proved over, and over, and over again that a single chainring on the front has FAR more wear and power loss due to friction over a double setup (see Leonard Zinn)….sure, I have a single front chain ring on my MTN bike (but, I am not smart enough to run two shift levers and avoid trees)

      • I can only speak from my experience with Wheels Manufacturing screw-together bottom brackets: There is a lot of slop between the left and right shells, even when they are screwed together. Even if such screw-together bottom brackets had better thread tolerances, a one piece shell is preferable, as it minimizes the chance of misalignment between the left and right bearings.

        Polymer reducers are nice as they eliminate galvanic corrosion between the aluminum spindle and the (steel) bearing race. Perhaps 30 mm spindles should have never been made. 28 mm would have allowed polymer reducers to be a part of the system. But the advantage in second moment of area of a 28 mm spindle over 24 mm is not that great, so at that point, maybe everyone should have stuck with 24 mm spindles.

        When installing a bottom bracket with a 30 mm spindle, be sure to grease the spindle and inner races with dielectric grease such as Super Lube to inhibit galvanic corrosion.

  6. Not sure anyone is still reading these, but this reminds me of how square-taper BBs evolved from the the old style cup-and-cones, where each cup threads into its own side, to one-piece BBs (Shimano UN-55, etc.) where the entire assembly threads into one side and the piece that threads into the opposite side is just a spacer that locates the assembly in the center of the shell but doesn’t thread to it at all. Does anyone else see this as a similar evolution in press-fit?

    I can’t see a reason for me to move past threaded shells and Hollowtech BBs. So simple to install and maintain.

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.