Originally Posted by
rubiksoval
How could I have used that same logic? Who, in the history of the horror of BB90 ever said there was nothing wrong with it? BB30 didn't have near the issues, but again, whoever said there was nothing wrong with it? Creaks galore, bearings wearing out in 5 minutes, etc., etc.
Nothing to do with weight and everything to do with proper functionality.
BSA doesn't have two problems. People wanting to run silly oversized spindles may have problems, but seeing as how the number one brand (Shimano) doesn't, it's not a problem for me and us purists who recognize a superior product.
- BB90 clearly, while perhaps in a lab, made sense for carbon fiber bikes, made no real sense in the real world because eventually, requiring that level of precision meant lots of failures in installation.
- BB30 - at the very least, unless (like me) you have the shorter spindle crankset, in theory, you could thread the BB and convert to a T47. But from what I can tell, Press Fit, was actually worse than BB30 for creaks, even if easier due to lower manufacturing tolerances.
I think the entire emphasis on BB stiffness is a solution looking for a problem. The vast majority of cyclists are not going to be able to flex a fram such that BB stiffness is an issue. However, that being said, if there is no ultimate harm in switching to T47 (basically, a larger BSA), and it does allow for increased stiffness for those who actually benefit from it (track sprinters, crit racers, really tall/heavy riders), then no big deal going down that path.
It would be interesting into finding out the origin of the Cannandale BB30 endeavor in the late 1990's. I always surmised it was in part to deal with the competition from carbon fiber, and trying to create a comparative advantage....yet, they made it open source
(which I always assumed was because without FSA and others willing to jump on board with the standard, people would balk at proprietary,