BB30 vs external, 15 mm vs QR, 142 vs 135 mm?

At 130 lbs and if wanting low Q factor don't count out square taper. Get a
phil wood and your good for decade or more.. Can easily get under 135 mm q with
the right crank and bb and front derailleur combination. I actually have
a triple with 142mm. Low q also means better cornering and aerodynamics..

On Sunday, December 30, 2012, wrote:

> Actually, the pedal-to-pedal distance isn't any narrower on a BB30
> crankset (they still need to be wide enough to clear the chainstays). If
> you have problems scraping your heels on the center of the crank, the BB30
> is narrower there.
>
> I'm personally a big fan of the external bearing options (especially
> Shimano's). The BB30 bearings are harder to install/remove and it has been
> my experience that they have a far shorter lifespan. Additionally, you can
> get a Chris King bottom-bracket for the external standards, whereas they
> don't make one for BB30 (although I hear a PF30 is in the works).
>
> --
> Aaron "Rambo" Harrison
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "eric aldinger" >
> To: "Ryan Storfa" >
> Cc: "obra" >
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:20:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] BB30 vs external, 15 mm vs QR, 142 vs 135 mm?
>
>
>
> At 130 lbs, I doubt you would notice the theoretically stiffer bottom
> bracket provided by the BB30 implementation. For someone with your assumed
> narrower hips, you would benefit from the BB30's reduction in Q factor (the
> distance between the threaded holes in the cranks, think distance between
> each cleat as attached in your pedals). This would produce a more
> ergonomically correct pedal stroke, and reduce potential stress on the
> knee, ankle, or hips. I prefer external cups because I like the aesthetic
> dimension they add to a frame, but the Q factor reduction is a serious
> reason to prefer BB30 for some riders.
>
> references
> http://www.bb30standard.com/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor_%28bicycles%29
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Ryan Storfa < storfar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm looking to upgrade my mtb frame for the first time in a while and I
> see about a bazillion different standards out there now.
>
>
> Bottom Bracket: BB30 vs the external bearing versions (I'm ignoring BB90
> for now)? I have zero knowledge of pros/cons of BB30 other than I would
> assume it is stiffer due to the larger diameter. Any experience of 1 vs
> the other? Maintenance, longevity, performance, compatibility? For
> background info, I'd like to run 1x10 and I'm in the low to mid 130 lb
> range so super uber stiffness isn't a huge concern.
>
>
> Front Axles: I think I've settled on a 15 mm thru axle for stiffness and
> Stans makes wheels compatible with either the old QR or 15 mm by using $15
> adapters. Am I missing anything?
>
>
> 142 vs 135 mm: Again, it seems like Stans makes relatively cheap adapters
> to go from 135 to 142 on the back but does 142 mm get me anything other
> than added stiffness? Is that the "new, new standard" so I may as well go
> with it now or else the bike will be obsolete in 3 years?
>
>
> Th oughts?
>
>
> Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Eric Aldinger
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>


eric aldinger

2012-12-30

At 130 lbs, I doubt you would notice the theoretically stiffer bottom
bracket provided by the BB30 implementation. For someone with your assumed
narrower hips, you would benefit from the BB30's reduction in Q factor (the
distance between the threaded holes in the cranks, think distance between
each cleat as attached in your pedals). This would produce a more
ergonomically correct pedal stroke, and reduce potential stress on the
knee, ankle, or hips. I prefer external cups because I like the aesthetic
dimension they add to a frame, but the Q factor reduction is a serious
reason to prefer BB30 for some riders.

references
http://www.bb30standard.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor_%28bicycles%29

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Ryan Storfa wrote:

>
> I'm looking to upgrade my mtb frame for the first time in a while and I
> see about a bazillion different standards out there now.
>
> Bottom Bracket: BB30 vs the external bearing versions (I'm ignoring BB90
> for now)? I have zero knowledge of pros/cons of BB30 other than I would
> assume it is stiffer due to the larger diameter. Any experience of 1 vs
> the other? Maintenance, longevity, performance, compatibility? For
> background info, I'd like to run 1x10 and I'm in the low to mid 130 lb
> range so super uber stiffness isn't a huge concern.
>
> Front Axles: I think I've settled on a 15 mm thru axle for stiffness and
> Stans makes wheels compatible with either the old QR or 15 mm by using $15
> adapters. Am I missing anything?
>
> 142 vs 135 mm: Again, it seems like Stans makes relatively cheap adapters
> to go from 135 to 142 on the back but does 142 mm get me anything other
> than added stiffness? Is that the "new, new standard" so I may as well go
> with it now or else the bike will be obsolete in 3 years?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ryan
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

--
Eric Aldinger


Ryan Storfa

2012-12-30

I'm looking to upgrade my mtb frame for the first time in a while and I see about a bazillion different standards out there now.
Bottom Bracket: BB30 vs the external bearing versions (I'm ignoring BB90 for now)? I have zero knowledge of pros/cons of BB30 other than I would assume it is stiffer due to the larger diameter. Any experience of 1 vs the other? Maintenance, longevity, performance, compatibility? For background info, I'd like to run 1x10 and I'm in the low to mid 130 lb range so super uber stiffness isn't a huge concern.
Front Axles: I think I've settled on a 15 mm thru axle for stiffness and Stans makes wheels compatible with either the old QR or 15 mm by using $15 adapters. Am I missing anything?
142 vs 135 mm: Again, it seems like Stans makes relatively cheap adapters to go from 135 to 142 on the back but does 142 mm get me anything other than added stiffness? Is that the "new, new standard" so I may as well go with it now or else the bike will be obsolete in 3 years?
Thoughts?
Ryan