Thanks to my awesome Sister, I have an annual subscription to the cycling magazine VeloNews. Cycling media in general is pretty terrible - races are covered (or not covered) seemingly on whim and the actual race coverage usually omits key details and knowledgeable descriptions of how races actually play out; "gear reviews" are obviously slanted by ad sales; all things Lance are glorified and magnified to a ridiculous degree. I read it anyway, of course, because I like bikes and bike races and bike parts and I like to look at the pretty pictures. And every once in a while there is a worthwhile article such as this month's article on whether or not BB30 is actually a better technology (sandwiched, of course, between an article on "Lance's Entourage" (I kid you not) and a-pay-to-play cross bike shootout).After about 100 (edit: actually ~50) years of reliance on the square taper bottom bracket, the last 20 years of cycling tech are littered with obsolete bottom bracket standards that have come and gone as new "better" technology is developed. First we had Octalink splined internal bottom brackets, followed by ISIS splined internal bottom brackets, followed by the external bottom brackets introduced by Shimano with Dura-Ace 7800 in 2003 which have been adopted throughout the industry and remained the standard since their introduction. Indeed, Shimano continues to use their external BB standard in the 2009-released DA7900 so it appears they are sticking with their guns for at least this generation of components. I'm not a true cycling historian so I'm sure there were some steps in between and other technologies before Octalink of which I am not aware, but the fact of the matter is that the bike industry loves to come out with "game changing" technology every few years to make sure you really do need that new bike or gruppo you've been lusting after. Can you say designed obsolescence?
BB30 has been gaining steam ever since its introduction by Cannondale several years ago. It's now gone mainstream and many bike companies are making BB30 frames and SRAM, FSA, Zipp, and many other companies are making BB30 cranks to fit these frames. The basic idea is that you take the bearings, make them a little bigger and put them inside the frame. You also make the spindle larger (30mm) and aluminum. By making these changes you supposedly arrive at a lighter, stiffer, and narrower crank/bottom bracket setup.
Unlike so many other grandiose component claims, Velonews actually put these claims to the test by comparing the weight, stiffness, and width of FSA K-Force Mega-Exo/BB30 and SRAM Red GXP/BB30 cranks, some of the only cranks that are available in both versions. The results:
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
So, for these cranks, BB30 is slightly lighter but virtually no different when it comes to stiffness or Q-factor. Hooray for VeloNews! Given how sycophantic this publication and the cycling media in general usually are towards equipment "reviews" we finally have someone taking an objective look at this "great" new technology and calling it out for what it is: a gimmick.
It is really striking, however, how these companies have taken this technology with some amount of potential and done nothing with it except hype it up. They brought it to market for the sole purpose of making you buy something new. The cynic in me looks at BB30 cranks, 1-1/2" fork crowns, and integrated seat posts and sees cheap gimmicks designed to move units and kill the secondary market. I would love to be proved wrong, but it looks like the industry has at least in this case failed once again to produce substantive change.
I've had some knee troubles the last couple years which I solved in part by using much narrower cranks: Dura-Ace 7400 with a Phil Wood square-taper BB, Q-Factor 135mm vs. standard Dura-Ace 7800 Q-Factor of 147mm. While searching for this setup, I was astounded at the lack of information in the marketplace about crank Q-Factor. It is not published by the manufacturers and you have to search pretty hard to find it on the websites of tinkering types who have measured it themselves.
It's clear that BB30 could provide an opportunity to finally start making narrow crank setups possible again, but crank manufacturers have squandered this chance. People need different stance widths, yet there are no options for people to get different width cranks. Of course, you can always make your stance wider through pedal washers and other adapters. This is easy. Given a crank, however, you can't make your stance any narrower. So why not make the default narrower (which was supposed to be part of the whole point of BB30 anyway) with allowances to increase stance width using the same washers and adapters fitters are already using to increase stance width in cases where it is necessary?
There are other BB30 cranks on the market, however, so it is possible that some of these cranks could have relatively narrow Q-Factor and higher stiffness. I'd like to see a full test of all these cranks and compare it to, say, the Dura-Ace 7900 crank. Since it appears Shimano has no plans of adopting the BB30 standard in the near future, it would be really interesting to see how these cranks all stack up against one another. Until I get a crank testing setup in my basement, I guess I'll have to wait.






