Integrated BB and Campy...

wilmar13 said:

If so why would so many pro riders/teams that would kill for a 1% advantage, continue to ride with Campy and its antiquated taper BB, unless it really makes no noticable difference in the real world?

There ya go.Isn't it fun to answer your own question?

boudreaux said:

There ya go.Isn't it fun to answer your own question?

Well that is what the realist in me says, but I am hoping someone can give me a legitimate reason to upgrade to a yummy FSA carbon crank with the Mega-Exo BB, because then I will be so much faster at the weekly crit 😄

Of course if Magnus Backstedt, the largest and most powerful rider (in terms of peak wattage output) in the pro ranks, doesn't seem to have a problem with the old square taper, then us mere mortals won't gain anything from switching...but it is easier for me to blame my equipment over my genetics. 😉

A couple of years ago, a friend bought the brand new ISIS splined RaceFace Next crankset for his MTB. $300 for the whole thing. I picked up the exact same crankset with the old square BB axle on a clearance for $130.

Darned if either of us could tell any difference. Other than the difference in our bank accounts.

Look at it this way - when Campy charges you an arm and a leg for a crankset, at least you get a gorgeous carbon crankset you can see.

wilmar13 said:

OK the question of when Campy was going to get on board the splined BB train has been around for a while, but with the recent launch of all the integrated BB type cranks (Shimano, FSA, Truvativ, etc.) I think the question is even more valid. I mean I have no doubt that the integrated BB with outboard bearings is stiffer and more efficient in tests than the old style taper BB that Campy still uses, but does it offer a "real world" difference? If so why would so many pro riders/teams that would kill for a 1% advantage, continue to ride with Campy and its antiquated taper BB, unless it really makes no noticable difference in the real world?

Ths simple fact is that the outboard bearing/integrated type are cheaper to manufacture; that is the real driving force behind the improvement. P-R-O-F-I-T-S

Professional racers depend on the equipment to bring home the bacon. Integrated BB cranksets are a recent and relatively untested development. Would you risk your income on a piece of untested equipment?

When those guys abuse the newer cranks in training or on their personal rides and decide that they are OK, and/or if one of the crank manufacturers pays enough to get them to use one of the new-fangled gizmos for racing, they may switch.

I wouldn't expect them to switch just for the sake of newness. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.

TD

I am not discounting what you said, but I think it has no impact as to what a racer chooses for equipment. Pro teams are more or less split 50/50 between Campy and ShimaNO and it has only to do with sponsorship of the team. If it were just FSA, and the other small players perhaps it is true, but we are talking about Dura-Ace now so roughly 50% of the Pro peloton are riding with it (actually more because a few teams do use FSA cranks with Campy). I guess I am just trying to figure out for myself if Campy is behind the times on this one by sticking to what works if there is something better, or if it is all just hype. I mean the theory behind larger bearings further spread apart being stiffer is not arguable; it is stiffer.

My point is, if many pros that make way more power than most of us could don't need them to be better, does anyone? I have read countless articles in cycling mags from all over the world touting what a big step forward this is for efficiency and yet my original statement about why doesn't everry pro use them then is still valid. Someone tell me I am wrong and that every cycle mag in the world is not singing the praises of this "marvelous design" (albeit 10 year old ala Bullet Cranks), simply to lick the boots of its advertisers.

I too get excited about new stuff, but before I run out and spend $400 I would like to see some kind of tangible proof of the hype (trust me if FSA had a Mega-Exo carbon crank in 180mm length I probably would have already blown the cash...). Has anyone ever seen anything intelligent and informative written to explain this disparity? Is it all just to cover up the fact that the splined BB's larger diameter led to unforeseen premature bearing failure?

wilmar13 said:

I am not discounting what you said, but I think it has no impact as to what a racer chooses for equipment. Pro teams are more or less split 50/50 between Campy and ShimaNO and it has only to do with sponsorship of the team. If it were just FSA, and the other small players perhaps it is true, but we are talking about Dura-Ace now so roughly 50% of the Pro peloton are riding with it (actually more because a few teams do use FSA cranks with Campy). I guess I am just trying to figure out for myself if Campy is behind the times on this one by sticking to what works if there is something better, or if it is all just hype. I mean the theory behind larger bearings further spread apart being stiffer is not arguable; it is stiffer.

My point is, if many pros that make way more power than most of us could don't need them to be better, does anyone? I have read countless articles in cycling mags from all over the world touting what a big step forward this is for efficiency and yet my original statement about why doesn't everry pro use them then is still valid. Someone tell me I am wrong and that every cycle mag in the world is not singing the praises of this "marvelous design" (albeit 10 year old ala Bullet Cranks), simply to lick the boots of its advertisers.

I too get excited about new stuff, but before I run out and spend $400 I would like to see some kind of tangible proof of the hype (trust me if FSA had a Mega-Exo carbon crank in 180mm length I probably would have already blown the cash...). Has anyone ever seen anything intelligent and informative written to explain this disparity? Is it all just to cover up the fact that the splined BB's larger diameter led to unforeseen premature bearing failure?

Well, certainly the octalink and ISIS designs suffer in bearing life,but BB are relatively cheap. There was a test in velo news that compared cranks and proclaimed the new DA 10 the stiffest setup. But stiffer than what?? If something is stiff enough,then what value is stiffer,especially if it cost $400. Additionally, many will spend the bucks just due to the advertizing hype and others will pay for bling and poseur' points regardless of cost. I use old square taper,both shimano and campy as well as the DA and ultegra octalink stuff and can't tell the difference in 'performance or stiffness'. No reason for me to spend the dinero on the 'new and improved' BS. But, many will because they buy the hype or have a strong herd mentality.

boudreaux said:

Well, certainly the octalink and ISIS designs suffer in bearing life,but BB are relatively cheap.

The cups to replace the bearings in the new integrated systems are even cheaper. If your planning on buying a new crankset and bottom bracket with the intention of eventually replacing the bearings more than a couple times, doesn't it make sense to get the integrated system?

tas1978 said:

The cups to replace the bearings in the new integrated systems are even cheaper. If your planning on buying a new crankset and bottom bracket with the intention of eventually replacing the bearings more than a couple times, doesn't it make sense to get the integrated system?

It doesn't matter to me about bearing replacement, etc. All I want to know is there a REAL performance advantage to the outboard bearing design. I know it is stiffer and as another thread about larger riders brings up, stiffness does matter for those of us that are larger than average and put out reletively large amounts of power. Since most of the time we are riding we aren't sprinting I realize that any gains to be had are minimal at best, BUT at high effort levels such as a short hill or sprint, are there measureable parasitic losses from the square taper that the outboard bearing design eliminates? I agree with the previous post about stiffness requirements in that if it is already stiff enough who cares if it is stiffer... but I have never heard anything accept "this is stiffer than so and so..." Even when Velonews did an extensive crank test a while back, all I remember them talking about was stiffness reletive to each other, there was no mention of what was already sufficient.

I am probably being too anal, but the crux of the problem is I am building a sweet new bike, and I am trying to determine if I care if my new steed has a taper BB...If the outboard bearing design is just marketing hype to sell more product, then I don't care. If it really has serious, measurable, performance advantages (on the bike, not maintanence) then I do. The problem is no one really knows for sure it seems... therefore I will most likely stick with my trusty plain-jane Campy Record cranks that are either antiquated or timeless. 😕

wilmar13 said:

It doesn't matter to me about bearing replacement, etc. All I want to know is there a REAL performance advantage to the outboard bearing design. I know it is stiffer and as another thread about larger riders brings up, stiffness does matter for those of us that are larger than average and put out reletively large amounts of power. Since most of the time we are riding we aren't sprinting I realize that any gains to be had are minimal at best, BUT at high effort levels such as a short hill or sprint, are there measureable parasitic losses from the square taper that the outboard bearing design eliminates? I agree with the previous post about stiffness requirements in that if it is already stiff enough who cares if it is stiffer... but I have never heard anything accept "this is stiffer than so and so..." Even when Velonews did an extensive crank test a while back, all I remember them talking about was stiffness reletive to each other, there was no mention of what was already sufficient.

I am probably being too anal, but the crux of the problem is I am building a sweet new bike, and I am trying to determine if I care if my new steed has a taper BB...If the outboard bearing design is just marketing hype to sell more product, then I don't care. If it really has serious, measurable, performance advantages (on the bike, not maintanence) then I do. The problem is no one really knows for sure it seems... therefore I will most likely stick with my trusty plain-jane Campy Record cranks that are either antiquated or timeless. 😕

The hollow-pipe axles may be lighter, but I wouldn't worry about the stiffness of the square end axles. Just don't think there is any significant bending or torsional windup of the axle itself.

The twisting of crankarms under heavy input does occur, since the pedals are hung outboard by a distance several times more than the thickness of the arms. Can feel the FSA carbon arms twisting slightly when my bike is stationary and I stand on a pedal, but I've never felt anything at all on the road. To me, it's not a concern either.

If you're building a new bike and are concerned about BB stiffness and bearing life, I'd recommend looking at the FSA Megatech BB system, which uses an OS BB shell and larger cartridge bearings. I've got this set up and believe it has several advantages.

Tas1978, what's your pricing source for this? Parts available now - old Ultegra Octalink is normally available for under $40 (Performance). New outboard bearing design is at $40, but granted this is new stuff. So it'll be a large number of changes before ever making up the difference assuming that costs go down. Bdr is right on it here. These improvements benefit about 1% of the riders, but the 99% rest of the riders make it possible through jumping on the marketing.

tas1978 said:

The cups to replace the bearings in the new integrated systems are even cheaper. If your planning on buying a new crankset and bottom bracket with the intention of eventually replacing the bearings more than a couple times, doesn't it make sense to get the integrated system?

For what it's worth, there is rumor of a new Campy bb:

http://www.campyonly.com/rumors.html

Personally, I've tried square taper, thru to Octalink , thru now till DA7800 integrated.

I'm a pretty light guy at 69-70kg, and I spin a lot more than most of the guys around me. If you must ask, well, the difference can be felt !

I would say the integrated design is indeed superior to the splined spindle, which in turn is superior to the square taper ...

So, guess its best you try for yourselves before declaring something based on myth...

maxxevv said:

Personally, I've tried square taper, thru to Octalink , thru now till DA7800 integrated.

I'm a pretty light guy at 69-70kg, and I spin a lot more than most of the guys around me. If you must ask, well, the difference can be felt !

I would say the integrated design is indeed superior to the splined spindle, which in turn is superior to the square taper ...

So, guess its best you try for yourselves before declaring something based on myth...

Problem with trying this stuff for yourself is that once most of us spend $400 for a new crankset/BB, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. We think we can feel the improvement, even when nothing measureable is there. That's how myths get started.

dhk said:

Problem with trying this stuff for yourself is that once most of us spend $400 for a new crankset/BB, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. We think we can feel the improvement, even when nothing measureable is there. That's how myths get started.

Well, I thought so too. But a tempered objectivity made sure that I did not fall into that phase of things.....

I guess if you have had your equipment long enough, and used them hard enough, it becomes immediately clear the differences once you swap them. Much like how so many people can feel the immediate difference when their seat heights vary as little as 2-3mm after having it stuck there in the last position for like the past 2-3years.

Its a common fallacy among many people too that whatever they have stuck to is the best there is in the market and immediate reject another product even without giving an objective overview or trial ....

Does that sound somewhat familiar sometimes ... ??
😎

dhk said:

Problem with trying this stuff for yourself is that once most of us spend $400 for a new crankset/BB, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. We think we can feel the improvement, even when nothing measureable is there. That's how myths get started.

I agree and the purpose of my original post was to try and find if anyone knew of any test to prove conclusively one way or another. I even wrote to Leonard Zinn to pose the same question (IF it is better, why does campy still use square) and his response was:

No idea. It's a mystery to me.
Thanks,
Lennard

maxxevv said:

Personally, I've tried square taper, thru to Octalink , thru now till DA7800 integrated.

I'm a pretty light guy at 69-70kg, and I spin a lot more than most of the guys around me. If you must ask, well, the difference can be felt !

I would say the integrated design is indeed superior to the splined spindle, which in turn is superior to the square taper ...

So, guess its best you try for yourselves before declaring something based on myth...

I appreciate the comments of someone who has actual experience with both types. Perhaps this forum isn't as poor as one member has made it seem inititally...

In the end, while it is stiffer, but the real world results may be imagined, perception is reality.

Is it a waste of $400? No not if you need a crank to begin with, and that is what a Record crank and BB cost anyway (I need 180mm). I am going to buy the Dura-Ace and be done with it. :p

I apoligize in advance to all the campy worshipers out there for my blasphemous actions, I do prefer campy, but I have already stepped over to the darkside with my racing tandem that has 10speed campy components and Sh!tmano derailers and cassette for wider gearing, so what is one more hybrid in my stable... 😄

wilmar13 said:

I appreciate the comments of someone who has actual experience with both types. Perhaps this forum isn't as poor as one member has made it seem inititally...

In the end, while it is stiffer, but the real world results may be imagined, perception is reality.

Is it a waste of $400? No not if you need a crank to begin with, and that is what a Record crank and BB cost anyway (I need 180mm). I am going to buy the Dura-Ace and be done with it. :p

I apoligize in advance to all the campy worshipers out there for my blasphemous actions, I do prefer campy, but I have already stepped over to the darkside with my racing tandem that has 10speed campy components and Sh!tmano derailers and cassette for wider gearing, so what is one more hybrid in my stable... 😄

You're not alone here. Pinarello crossed over the line too by putting FSA carbon crankset and OS BB on their high-end Dogma.

I still prefer to have my BB axle seperate from the crankset, and really don't see any advantage to permanently joining the two. Is there any way to replace the axle due to wear, or does Shimano just expect everyone to buy a whole new crankset?

jasong said:

Tas1978, what's your pricing source for this? Parts available now - old Ultegra Octalink is normally available for under $40 (Performance). New outboard bearing design is at $40, but granted this is new stuff. So it'll be a large number of changes before ever making up the difference assuming that costs go down. Bdr is right on it here. These improvements benefit about 1% of the riders, but the 99% rest of the riders make it possible through jumping on the marketing.

performancebike.comsub cat.cfmOpen ↗

Ultegra bottom brackets at this site are $10 more than outboard bearings at the same location. I guess $10 isn't really that significant--I'm sure that you could find cheaper prices somewhere else. Supergill is probably correct that the manufacturers make more money because the cups are so much cheaper to make than the entire bottom bracket, so they are going to push the new design.