Hambini yes or no?
#101
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 6,016
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1814 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 923 Times
in
569 Posts
I watched one of his frame-trashing videos, where he says that the bearings are crap,
and scratches the race with a utility knife ('tho you can't see it on the screen).
I tried that with my 5 for $13 super cheap-o BB bearings- not even close to scratching,
and don't think I've ever seen a scratched or scratch-able sealed bearing.
Have you?
and scratches the race with a utility knife ('tho you can't see it on the screen).
I tried that with my 5 for $13 super cheap-o BB bearings- not even close to scratching,
and don't think I've ever seen a scratched or scratch-able sealed bearing.
Have you?
#102
Useless Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked 181 Times
in
113 Posts
I think Hambini's point in his discussions of the watt losses is not necessarily to sell his BB's. His criticism's are valid when it's the manufacturers who consistently tout the watt gains of their products due to their company's detail to "wind-tunnel" testing and expensive CAD designs. His point is that all of that "amazing" engineering is lost for good if you can't efficiently manufacture your bottom bracket bearings to line up as to avoid stresses. It's the dirty little secret they don't want you to measure. Instead, you're supposed to be impressed by the flash and beauty of the frames they have. It's good to have a really good frame and components. It's much better to lose weight, eat good, and train properly.
Likes For UKFan4Sure:
#103
Useless Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked 181 Times
in
113 Posts
What I don't think is fair is taking "one bad apple" and creating a fuss about how QC or processes at one company or another are all crap. Now in the case of Cervelo, where they changed tolerance specs of their BB's, that was a farce. Even the bearing manufacturers said the couldn't warranty their bearings in that loose specs.
Last edited by UKFan4Sure; 03-19-20 at 05:27 AM.
Likes For UKFan4Sure:
#104
Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,569
Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1102 Post(s)
Liked 2,136 Times
in
1,441 Posts
Ok. An insulting post and comeback responses which aren’t appropriate. Let’s stop the bickering. We are watching this thread closely so stick to the posting rules.
#105
Senior Member
I watched one of his early video's on the BB 30. He is sedate and not the 5 year-old he claims to be in later videos. I don't see the problem with his presentations, but if you don't like him don't watch him. Or, complain directly to him. https://www.hambini.com/about-hambin...about-hambini/
#106
Senior Member
#107
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 5
Bikes: 1978 Raleigh SuperCourse, 1963 Schwinn Stingray
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Wow, there's so many angles to this. First, I'd say that there's no set answer to "Hambini, Yes or No?". He's a young engineer, clearly bright enough, not mature enough to be introspective and charitable to those who've criticized him.
*Z is Zeppelin sized. As opposed to "D" (dirigible) or "B" (blimp).
*Z is Zeppelin sized. As opposed to "D" (dirigible) or "B" (blimp).
#108
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Old post but: When the BLM thing happened, he posted about his experiences of being of colour and the prejudices. Then he champions stuff from the Chinese who persecute on a daily basis. There are many of (him). Peak Torque being one and an absolute ton of Aussie ones, all having their egos massaged by communist, oppressive Chinese products being made available.
So he's a talented engineer, it's not aerospace, it's a bloody bicycle.
Hatefull due to his dual standards. £££
So he's a talented engineer, it's not aerospace, it's a bloody bicycle.
Hatefull due to his dual standards. £££
#109
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,592
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1541 Post(s)
Liked 1,702 Times
in
956 Posts
Old post but: When the BLM thing happened, he posted about his experiences of being of colour and the prejudices. Then he champions stuff from the Chinese who persecute on a daily basis. There are many of (him). Peak Torque being one and an absolute ton of Aussie ones, all having their egos massaged by communist, oppressive Chinese products being made available.
So he's a talented engineer, it's not aerospace, it's a bloody bicycle.
Hatefull due to his dual standards. £££
So he's a talented engineer, it's not aerospace, it's a bloody bicycle.
Hatefull due to his dual standards. £££
In what way are Farsport wheels 'communist oppressive'? I thought they were reasonably priced carbon wheels? I had no idea the wheels were communist!
#110
Homey
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,519
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2424 Post(s)
Liked 1,392 Times
in
891 Posts
Old post but: When the BLM thing happened, he posted about his experiences of being of colour and the prejudices. Then he champions stuff from the Chinese who persecute on a daily basis. There are many of (him). Peak Torque being one and an absolute ton of Aussie ones, all having their egos massaged by communist, oppressive Chinese products being made available.
So he's a talented engineer, it's not aerospace, it's a bloody bicycle.
Hatefull due to his dual standards. £££
So he's a talented engineer, it's not aerospace, it's a bloody bicycle.
Hatefull due to his dual standards. £££
Why is this being discussed here?
#111
Expired Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,461
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3638 Post(s)
Liked 5,316 Times
in
2,701 Posts
Old post but: When the BLM thing happened, he posted about his experiences of being of colour and the prejudices. Then he champions stuff from the Chinese who persecute on a daily basis. There are many of (him). Peak Torque being one and an absolute ton of Aussie ones, all having their egos massaged by communist, oppressive Chinese products being made available.
So he's a talented engineer, it's not aerospace, it's a bloody bicycle.
Hatefull due to his dual standards. £££
So he's a talented engineer, it's not aerospace, it's a bloody bicycle.
Hatefull due to his dual standards. £££
#112
Senior Member
Regardless of what you think of the dude, he's a good engineer and I'd trust his data and his assessments of appropriate tolerance. That said, he only gets the worst frames sent to him. His reasonable argument to this is that there should be QC in place to keep any bikes way out of tolerance reaching the public, so take that for what it's worth. Some manufacturers (and particular periods of their manufacturing) have some notoriety--Cervelo somewhat generally (and he legitimately reams them over having a internal published manufacturing tolerance that really isn't acceptable), also a lot of Cannondales, etc. I'm working mechanic but I haven't seen enough Canyon (especially road bikes, which tend to have owners more concerned with BB performance). Take what I say with a grain of salt since I currently work for a Giant retailer, but while I've seen other manufacturing issues, they seem to have remarkably good BB shell tolerances in my experience.
I am in general in support of him giving manufacturers a hard time about their tolerances, because they really need to sort this crap out. It's a frickin' cylinder with some bearings crammed in--they should be able to get this right. There's no reason that PF BBs should suffer more issues than threaded.
Ride what you got unless your BB is actually a problem. If you have issues that seem to stem from tolerance (rather than water/grit intrusion) then take it up with them. The downside is that it's trickier with them being direct to consumer.
I am in general in support of him giving manufacturers a hard time about their tolerances, because they really need to sort this crap out. It's a frickin' cylinder with some bearings crammed in--they should be able to get this right. There's no reason that PF BBs should suffer more issues than threaded.
Ride what you got unless your BB is actually a problem. If you have issues that seem to stem from tolerance (rather than water/grit intrusion) then take it up with them. The downside is that it's trickier with them being direct to consumer.
Likes For cpach:
#113
Senior Member
#114
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 418 Times
in
250 Posts
As an engineer I will say engineering problems are almost never as simple as lay people make them out to be. Probably especially true in the bicycle industry where you can’t throw nearly unlimited money at a problem until it goes away.
#115
Senior Member
For reference, I'm not an engineer but I am a workinc mechanic. Sure, of course, but there are some seriously misplaced priorities when they engineer a 60g weight savings, or a half watt of drag, off a frameset and deliver frames with bb shells way out of tolerance. This has a huge impact on user experience, has real impacts on mechanical efficiency, and also is a massive time and money suck for local retailers. Also some companies have way more pf bb problems than others. This has been such a problem that threaded shells are making a comeback for road/gravel (often as T47).
This is made worse by bad ideas being common, like 30mm spindles being shoved in BB86/92 shells with impossibly thin bearings.
Likes For cpach:
#116
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 418 Times
in
250 Posts
For reference, I'm not an engineer but I am a workinc mechanic. Sure, of course, but there are some seriously misplaced priorities when they engineer a 60g weight savings, or a half watt of drag, off a frameset and deliver frames with bb shells way out of tolerance. This has a huge impact on user experience, has real impacts on mechanical efficiency, and also is a massive time and money suck for local retailers. Also some companies have way more pf bb problems than others. This has been such a problem that threaded shells are making a comeback for road/gravel (often as T47).
This is made worse by bad ideas being common, like 30mm spindles being shoved in BB86/92 shells with impossibly thin bearings.
This is made worse by bad ideas being common, like 30mm spindles being shoved in BB86/92 shells with impossibly thin bearings.
But frames are not sold based on the BB shell tolerance. You say 'misplaced priorities', but what are the customer's priorities that drive the design?
Let's look at it from a different angle: Marketing is telling the engineers at Superduper Bike Company LLC that customers are demanding the lightest, most aero frames. But the engineer says, 'Nah, customer is wrong, BB spec is more important' and designs a frame that's heavier and not quite as aero, but that BB shell will never be more than +/- 5 microns off. However in the 'Road Bike Zealot' magazine frame round up the review says, "Superduper's new frame is almost .1KG heavier and in our wind tunnel tests it was 0.25s slower over 40km than the other frames ranking it at the bottom in our test." Zero mention of that wonderful BB. A blog by the popular "NYC Bike Braggart" nicknames the new frame 'The Pig' because it feels so heavy and slow. Sales nosedive. Instead of selling an expected 10,000 units, only a few hundred frames are sold. Continued development of high-end frames at Superduper is now in question and Engineering is 'invited' to explain this f*up at the next board meeting.
A lighter frame isn't a misplaced priority if it sells better. That some frames produced are bad might be the cost of hitting other metrics, and accepting the cost of some returns preferable to not hitting cost or weight targets. The unfortunate part is that some customers are certainly getting lemons which if not resolved properly to the customers satisfaction is inexcusable. Maybe it's time that the Lemon Laws are extended to bike retailers so the customer has clear recourse and drives higher industry standards.
Likes For billridesbikes:
#117
Senior Member
I get it. As a tech you're at the sharp end of customer complaints. And Hambini makes and sells bottom brackets so he's hardly a neutral observer.
But frames are not sold based on the BB shell tolerance. You say 'misplaced priorities', but what are the customer's priorities that drive the design?
Let's look at it from a different angle: Marketing is telling the engineers at Superduper Bike Company LLC that customers are demanding the lightest, most aero frames. But the engineer says, 'Nah, customer is wrong, BB spec is more important' and designs a frame that's heavier and not quite as aero, but that BB shell will never be more than +/- 5 microns off. However in the 'Road Bike Zealot' magazine frame round up the review says, "Superduper's new frame is almost .1KG heavier and in our wind tunnel tests it was 0.25s slower over 40km than the other frames ranking it at the bottom in our test." Zero mention of that wonderful BB. A blog by the popular "NYC Bike Braggart" nicknames the new frame 'The Pig' because it feels so heavy and slow. Sales nosedive. Instead of selling an expected 10,000 units, only a few hundred frames are sold. Continued development of high-end frames at Superduper is now in question and Engineering is 'invited' to explain this f*up at the next board meeting.
A lighter frame isn't a misplaced priority if it sells better. That some frames produced are bad might be the cost of hitting other metrics, and accepting the cost of some returns preferable to not hitting cost or weight targets. The unfortunate part is that some customers are certainly getting lemons which if not resolved properly to the customers satisfaction is inexcusable. Maybe it's time that the Lemon Laws are extended to bike retailers so the customer has clear recourse and drives higher industry standards.
But frames are not sold based on the BB shell tolerance. You say 'misplaced priorities', but what are the customer's priorities that drive the design?
Let's look at it from a different angle: Marketing is telling the engineers at Superduper Bike Company LLC that customers are demanding the lightest, most aero frames. But the engineer says, 'Nah, customer is wrong, BB spec is more important' and designs a frame that's heavier and not quite as aero, but that BB shell will never be more than +/- 5 microns off. However in the 'Road Bike Zealot' magazine frame round up the review says, "Superduper's new frame is almost .1KG heavier and in our wind tunnel tests it was 0.25s slower over 40km than the other frames ranking it at the bottom in our test." Zero mention of that wonderful BB. A blog by the popular "NYC Bike Braggart" nicknames the new frame 'The Pig' because it feels so heavy and slow. Sales nosedive. Instead of selling an expected 10,000 units, only a few hundred frames are sold. Continued development of high-end frames at Superduper is now in question and Engineering is 'invited' to explain this f*up at the next board meeting.
A lighter frame isn't a misplaced priority if it sells better. That some frames produced are bad might be the cost of hitting other metrics, and accepting the cost of some returns preferable to not hitting cost or weight targets. The unfortunate part is that some customers are certainly getting lemons which if not resolved properly to the customers satisfaction is inexcusable. Maybe it's time that the Lemon Laws are extended to bike retailers so the customer has clear recourse and drives higher industry standards.
Good manufacturers could market this if they wanted to. Plenty of companies exist on half watt claims of lower fiction. They could just claim that their stock BB saves 2.4 watts over the industry average or whatever, which would appeal to the riders buying race targeted bikes.
As a mechanic this is doubled edged. On one hand, it gives me the chance to create solutions where others have failed. On the other hand, it really sucks if the bikes you're selling have major issues. So far I've been pretty lucky, except for having to face way too many flat mount disc mounts on new bikes.
Likes For cpach:
#118
Mostly harmless ™
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,424
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked 213 Times
in
127 Posts
I get it. As a tech you're at the sharp end of customer complaints. And Hambini makes and sells bottom brackets so he's hardly a neutral observer.
But frames are not sold based on the BB shell tolerance. You say 'misplaced priorities', but what are the customer's priorities that drive the design?
Let's look at it from a different angle: Marketing is telling the engineers at Superduper Bike Company LLC that customers are demanding the lightest, most aero frames. But the engineer says, 'Nah, customer is wrong, BB spec is more important' and designs a frame that's heavier and not quite as aero, but that BB shell will never be more than +/- 5 microns off. However in the 'Road Bike Zealot' magazine frame round up the review says, "Superduper's new frame is almost .1KG heavier and in our wind tunnel tests it was 0.25s slower over 40km than the other frames ranking it at the bottom in our test." Zero mention of that wonderful BB. A blog by the popular "NYC Bike Braggart" nicknames the new frame 'The Pig' because it feels so heavy and slow. Sales nosedive. Instead of selling an expected 10,000 units, only a few hundred frames are sold. Continued development of high-end frames at Superduper is now in question and Engineering is 'invited' to explain this f*up at the next board meeting.
A lighter frame isn't a misplaced priority if it sells better. That some frames produced are bad might be the cost of hitting other metrics, and accepting the cost of some returns preferable to not hitting cost or weight targets. The unfortunate part is that some customers are certainly getting lemons which if not resolved properly to the customers satisfaction is inexcusable. Maybe it's time that the Lemon Laws are extended to bike retailers so the customer has clear recourse and drives higher industry standards.
But frames are not sold based on the BB shell tolerance. You say 'misplaced priorities', but what are the customer's priorities that drive the design?
Let's look at it from a different angle: Marketing is telling the engineers at Superduper Bike Company LLC that customers are demanding the lightest, most aero frames. But the engineer says, 'Nah, customer is wrong, BB spec is more important' and designs a frame that's heavier and not quite as aero, but that BB shell will never be more than +/- 5 microns off. However in the 'Road Bike Zealot' magazine frame round up the review says, "Superduper's new frame is almost .1KG heavier and in our wind tunnel tests it was 0.25s slower over 40km than the other frames ranking it at the bottom in our test." Zero mention of that wonderful BB. A blog by the popular "NYC Bike Braggart" nicknames the new frame 'The Pig' because it feels so heavy and slow. Sales nosedive. Instead of selling an expected 10,000 units, only a few hundred frames are sold. Continued development of high-end frames at Superduper is now in question and Engineering is 'invited' to explain this f*up at the next board meeting.
A lighter frame isn't a misplaced priority if it sells better. That some frames produced are bad might be the cost of hitting other metrics, and accepting the cost of some returns preferable to not hitting cost or weight targets. The unfortunate part is that some customers are certainly getting lemons which if not resolved properly to the customers satisfaction is inexcusable. Maybe it's time that the Lemon Laws are extended to bike retailers so the customer has clear recourse and drives higher industry standards.
I'd add that marketing can and does greatly affect what customers want.
It's not the other way round, for the most part.
Though it's fair to say that smaller companies don't have much power in changing that, they have to see how to fit in the existing situation.
Likes For Bike Gremlin:
#119
Full Member
I mean technically what he says isn't wrong it's just how badly is your bike is effected if at all. So one of the biggest defects always seems to be the BB not being perfectly round. This eventually leads to loss is efficiency, creaking, and or the bearing prematurely going bad. Now your BB could be only slightly off and you never notice it, so to say all frames from "x" manufacture are bad would be wrong. It's funny the one company I remember him actually approving is Winspace, since not only was the frame very clean inside with no noticeable voids but he found the BB to be in spec which seems to not be always the case with the bikes he has in his shop, but yet again he is normally sent bikes from people who are having BB issues, which kind of brings up the point, are the bikes Hambini essentially reviews more the exception or they the status quo of what that bike brand represents? If Hambini had 100 Canyons how many of them would be in spec vs not? Hard to say since his sample size is small and then his data then becomes subjective since he starts to extrapolate his small findings for an overall conclusion.
#120
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2332 Post(s)
Liked 2,094 Times
in
1,311 Posts
He is only half full of it, like most 5 year olds.
Only another engineer can figure out which half is bollocks and which is gold.
Only another engineer can figure out which half is bollocks and which is gold.
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 13,553
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4199 Post(s)
Liked 2,914 Times
in
1,782 Posts
It's fun to always be the smartest man in the room (at least in your own mind).
#122
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,760
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked 1,197 Times
in
758 Posts
Weight is unrelated to bore tolerance. Athletes are irrational regarding performance, but reasonable bore tolerance is fairly important if going faster is the goal, not to mention the maintenance difficulties. I don't mean watt or two. Really bad shells blow up in a fraction of the time and are noisy and create an abundantly obvious amount of friction. Manufacturers need to suck less at making frames, and we need more resources holding them accountable. Hambini isn't great at this for a lot of reasons, but I get some of his intentions.
Good manufacturers could market this if they wanted to. Plenty of companies exist on half watt claims of lower fiction. They could just claim that their stock BB saves 2.4 watts over the industry average or whatever, which would appeal to the riders buying race targeted bikes.
As a mechanic this is doubled edged. On one hand, it gives me the chance to create solutions where others have failed. On the other hand, it really sucks if the bikes you're selling have major issues. So far I've been pretty lucky, except for having to face way too many flat mount disc mounts on new bikes.
Good manufacturers could market this if they wanted to. Plenty of companies exist on half watt claims of lower fiction. They could just claim that their stock BB saves 2.4 watts over the industry average or whatever, which would appeal to the riders buying race targeted bikes.
As a mechanic this is doubled edged. On one hand, it gives me the chance to create solutions where others have failed. On the other hand, it really sucks if the bikes you're selling have major issues. So far I've been pretty lucky, except for having to face way too many flat mount disc mounts on new bikes.
Plus just because BB tolerance isn't perfect, it could very well be within the cost management parameters of manufacturing and after sales support. Among the usual good quality manufacturers, money saved by less than perfect manufacturing most likely results in very little customer dissatisfaction and what they consider reasonable costs for rectifying that small amount of dissatisfaction.
That's why the actual decision makers aren't pure engineers, accountants or marketers - although they might have training in any of those areas, or they might be really smart liberal arts majors or self-educated folks with highly developed people, systems management and big picture skills. They have to balance the exactitude of the engineers with the bottom line of the accountants and the ideal product the marketers think the customer wants.
Last edited by Camilo; 08-01-22 at 11:50 PM.
#123
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 581 Post(s)
Liked 921 Times
in
518 Posts
I enjoy reading posts from people who are offended that an engineer criticized poor manufacturing tolerances.
Every brand has 'fanboys' - people who believe Brand ZYX is the best because they bought one, and to admit it's not the best is admitting they got taken. Same illogical stance as 'patriotism' - the belief that your country is the best based solely on the fact that you live there.
News flash: your opinion doesn't actually effect the greatness of a thing or place, and a rational person would admit faults without taking it personally.
Every brand has 'fanboys' - people who believe Brand ZYX is the best because they bought one, and to admit it's not the best is admitting they got taken. Same illogical stance as 'patriotism' - the belief that your country is the best based solely on the fact that you live there.
News flash: your opinion doesn't actually effect the greatness of a thing or place, and a rational person would admit faults without taking it personally.
#124
Senior Member