Just for info-FSA MegaExo crank/BB install

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

I hope we that sell these things are not setting ourselves up for
something in the future, reliability/maintenance wise. Italian BBs for
FSA are now non existent, and FSA, USA ordered 500, got 50.

Italian BB threading is an obsolete standard, and it should be avoided
whenever possible. When rebuilding one of these obsolete frames is
necessary, obsolescent square taper cranks are likely to have much
better availability of NOS parts into the future.

But just like with a frame that uses a Swedish one-piece crank or a
26tpi Raleigh threaded BB, the best way to prevent recurrent problems
in servicing is to use another frame.

It's possible to keep a '60s FIAT on the road, too, but it you have to
have a committment to the vehicle that transcends common sense.

Chalo Colina

Good info. Its interesting that on the Campy-only website rumors are
that Campy must be coming out with a new crank/bb interface as places
like Colorado C are discounting all their campy cranks.

However, someone else stated that none of the bbs are on sale. My
thoughts are the Campy cranks, especially the carbons, are waaaaay over
priced. When you can get an "equivalent" or better crank, read lighter,
carbon crank from FSA or Weyless/Carbonlord/ Nytex/Pazzaz - which I
suspect all come from Gigante (sp?) in Taiwan, why bother with a Campy
carbon crank.

As for italian threaded bb, yeah its an endangered species, but my
question is why not offer a bb to fit it. Almost all italian bikes and
older bikes like my Carbonframes (now Calfee) still use it. Why miss
out on a sale when it really doesn't cost that much more to produce?

Chalo said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

I hope we that sell these things are not setting ourselves up for
something in the future, reliability/maintenance wise. Italian BBs for
FSA are now non existent, and FSA, USA ordered 500, got 50.

Italian BB threading is an obsolete standard, and it should be avoided
whenever possible. When rebuilding one of these obsolete frames is
necessary, obsolescent square taper cranks are likely to have much
better availability of NOS parts into the future.

I mentioned this to Pinarello, Merckx, Colnago and a few others and
they just shugged. Italian threading is not obsolete, regardless if you
were to wish it so and a reminder that Brit threading was an answer to
[censored] poor wrenching, nothing else. As for square taper, yes, we have
all heard of your exploits with square taper and not trying to get
percsonal, but you are not exactly in the middle of the bell curve.
Makers of spline BBs did not make these for riders such as you. They
made something new that answered no question, solved no problem with
99.9% of the riders out there.

OBTW_ if my Merckx were english threaded, i would not hqave bought it.
I think the Euro builder 'may' still know a thing or two.

Quoted message said:

But just like with a frame that uses a Swedish one-piece crank or a
26tpi Raleigh threaded BB, the best way to prevent recurrent problems
in servicing is to use another frame.

It's possible to keep a '60s FIAT on the road, too, but it you have to
have a committment to the vehicle that transcends common sense.

Ever seen a '60s' Toyota?

Quoted message said:

Chalo Colina

bfd said:

Good info. Its interesting that on the Campy-only website rumors are
that Campy must be coming out with a new crank/bb interface as places
like Colorado C are discounting all their campy cranks.

However, someone else stated that none of the bbs are on sale.

As for italian threaded bb, yeah its an endangered species, but my
question is why not offer a bb to fit it. Almost all italian bikes and
older bikes like my Carbonframes (now Calfee) still use it. Why miss
out on a sale when it really doesn't cost that much more to produce?

They are discounted to move them in anticipation of the next shipments
where the price will be way lower. I think the pricing you see is the
pricing that will stay. Glad Campagnolo is listening. I think carbon
cranks are kinda silly but I think the Campag/standard BB is a better
piece of gear than the FSA megaexo.
http://www.fixedgeargallery.com/2005/feb/chisholm

I just talked to Campanolo USA and there is no redesigned BB/crank
interface in the future.

ITL threading endangered? Not really sure where people get this.
English threading came out when, help me out Sheldon, how many DECADES
ago? and MANY frame makers still thread their BBs italian.....

Pietro Chisolmo scritta:

Quoted message said:

ITL threading endangered? Not really sure where people get this.
English threading came out when, help me out Sheldon, how many DECADES
ago?

Back in the day, there were not national standards, but each
manufacturer had its own "standard."

Over time, one company's proprietary standard would tend to become
accepted and copied, becoming a "de facto" standard, then later becoming
officially adopted.

We've seen this in the past few years with Campagnolo's shifter braze
ons and derailer hanger design, and we've seen it with Sugino's 130, 110
an 74 mm crank bcds.

What is today known as ISO/British botttom bracket and headset
dimensions originated as the proprietary sizes of B.S.A. (Birmingham
Small Arms) bikes. I'm not exactly sure when these were introduced, but
it was most likely prior to WW 1. By the 1920s, B.S.A. had become _the_
standard for high quality British and American bikes.

As to the Italian standard, there's no technical reason for it to exist,
since it has no advantage over the ISO system. I would expect it to
follow the French, Swiss and Raleigh systems into oblivion, but it's not
clear when this might happen.

I would certainly be sorry to see Italian replacement BBs dry up the way
French and Swiss and Raleigh ones have, but I also consider it a foolish
choice to design/spec a _new_ frame with this system. The weight of
history suggests that the Italian standard will be the next one to
disappear.

The standard threaded bottom brackets are actually a bit smaller in
diameter than would be ideal, and there are real benefits to be had by
switching to a larger shell. A number of manufacturers have tried this,
but it will take agreement between multiple frame makers _and_ at least
one major crank/bottom bracket maker to make this happen.

Several proposed "oversized" bottom bracket standards currently exist,
but none has yet received wide acceptance. The proposed BB standards
currently are based around existing cranks/spindle interfaces. To make
the change worthwhile, all of the parts involved need to be made larger:

Bottom bracket shell, bearings, spindle and spindle/crank interface.

I expect this will happen, but I don't know when, and I don't know if
the Betamax or VHS model will be the winning design...

Sheldon "We'll See..." Brown
+---------------------------------------------+
| The nice thing about standards is that |
| there are so many of them to choose from. |
| --Andrew S. Tanenbaum |
+---------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

Sheldon Brown said:

Pietro Chisolmo scritta:

Quoted message said:

ITL threading endangered? Not really sure where people get this.
English threading came out when, help me out Sheldon, how many DECADES
ago?

Back in the day, there were not national standards, but each
manufacturer had its own "standard."

Over time, one company's proprietary standard would tend to become
accepted and copied, becoming a "de facto" standard, then later becoming
officially adopted.

We've seen this in the past few years with Campagnolo's shifter braze
ons and derailer hanger design, and we've seen it with Sugino's 130, 110
an 74 mm crank bcds.

What is today known as ISO/British botttom bracket and headset
dimensions originated as the proprietary sizes of B.S.A. (Birmingham
Small Arms) bikes. I'm not exactly sure when these were introduced, but
it was most likely prior to WW 1. By the 1920s, B.S.A. had become _the_
standard for high quality British and American bikes.

As to the Italian standard, there's no technical reason for it to exist,
since it has no advantage over the ISO system. I would expect it to
follow the French, Swiss and Raleigh systems into oblivion, but it's not
clear when this might happen.

If it's gonna disappear, it sure is happening slowly.I'm not surprized
that French and Swuiss threading has gone away. Neither of those
country's are really considered the 'motherland' of cycling, certainly
not the way Italia is. I'm sure that has more than a little to do with
why Italian threading survives.

Quoted message said:

I would certainly be sorry to see Italian replacement BBs dry up the way
French and Swiss and Raleigh ones have, but I also consider it a foolish
choice to design/spec a _new_ frame with this system. The weight of
history suggests that the Italian standard will be the next one to
disappear.

\

Quoted message said:

Bottom bracket shell, bearings, spindle and spindle/crank interface.

I expect this will happen, but I don't know when, and I don't know if
the Betamax or VHS model will be the winning design...

Or neither, as the VHS disappears in favor of DVD.

Glad I have a garage shelf of things like BBs, and freewheels. Even at
one each new per year, i can ride with all this old stuff well into my
7th decade.

Quoted message said:

Sheldon "We'll See..." Brown
+---------------------------------------------+
| The nice thing about standards is that |
| there are so many of them to choose from. |
| --Andrew S. Tanenbaum |
+---------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

Peter states:

< it's gonna disappear, it sure is happening slowly.I'm not surprized
that French and Swuiss threading has gone away. Neither of those
country's are really considered the 'motherland' of cycling, certainly
not the way Italia is.>

You got to be kidding, France is a MAJOR cycling country. For the
racers, there is the Tour de France. For the tourers, there's
Randoneuring/Brevet events like PBP, and hey, there's even that society
(La Confrerie des 650) for that "650b movement" and kepted alive a tire
standard that's gotten Grant Petersen, Jan Heine, Mike Barry, Steve and
Andy Hampsten and even Sheldon "into" it. Further, how about
Framebuilders or should I say "Constructeurs"? Ever hear of Rene Herse?
Alex Singer (Roland and Ernst Csonka)?

In contrast, Italy does has the "racing" heritage, or should I say
reputation. Yes, there's the Giro for major racing events. But
everyone knows its the "second" hardest tour (after the the TOUR DE
FRANCE).

I will agree that Italy has, or should I say had, excellent
framebuilders like Colnago, DeRosa, Masi, Cinelli, Basso, Casati,
Viner, Bianchi, etc. But, now that most, if not all of their products
are made and bought from frame factories in Taiwan or China. So really
how "italian" are those companies?

Sorry, but you just can't dismiss France as not being a major player in
cycling. The Swiss, perhaps; but not the French!

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Italian threading is not obsolete, regardless if you
were to wish it so and a reminder that Brit threading was an answer to
[censored] poor wrenching, nothing else.

The Italian BB thread became technically obsolete at the time a LH
threaded fixed cup first appeared, but that isn't what I'm talking
about.

The Italian thread is now obsolete with regard to its market support.
Fewer and fewer manufacturers will be making smaller and smaller
numbers of replacement parts for the Italian BB standard, and that has
nothing to do with the fact that it's a technically stupid design.

You can like it, prefer it, support it, whatever...that's your
business. What I'm saying is that Italian BB threading is going away,
and that using it commits a bike owner to an ever-diminishing set of
future equipment choices. That trend will make it more expensive to
support over time, too-- though anybody who is willing to lay down the
ludicrous asking prices for the cheesy stuff that comes from Italian
makers these days will probably consider added expense a plus.

Your predilections in equipment are pretty remarkable, though, Peter.
Tubies, threaded forks, square-taper spindles, self-loosening BB cups:
It looks to me like it's simple technical inferiority and/or service
hassle that makes you gravitate toward designs for which better
alternatives are readily available. I'm surprised you don't prefer
cottered cranks, Dunlop valve tubes, or wooden rims.

Chalo Colina

Sheldon Brown said:

Pietro Chisolmo scritta:

Quoted message said:

ITL threading endangered? Not really sure where people get this.
English threading came out when, help me out Sheldon, how many
DECADES ago?

Back in the day, there were not national standards, but each
manufacturer had its own "standard."

Over time, one company's proprietary standard would tend to become
accepted and copied, becoming a "de facto" standard, then later
becoming officially adopted.

We've seen this in the past few years with Campagnolo's shifter braze
ons and derailer hanger design, and we've seen it with Sugino's 130,
110 an 74 mm crank bcds.

What is today known as ISO/British botttom bracket and headset
dimensions originated as the proprietary sizes of B.S.A. (Birmingham
Small Arms) bikes. I'm not exactly sure when these were introduced,
but it was most likely prior to WW 1. By the 1920s, B.S.A. had
become _the_ standard for high quality British and American bikes.

As to the Italian standard, there's no technical reason for it to
exist, since it has no advantage over the ISO system. I would expect
it to follow the French, Swiss and Raleigh systems into oblivion, but
it's not clear when this might happen.

I would certainly be sorry to see Italian replacement BBs dry up the
way French and Swiss and Raleigh ones have, but I also consider it a
foolish choice to design/spec a _new_ frame with this system. The
weight of history suggests that the Italian standard will be the next
one to disappear.

The standard threaded bottom brackets are actually a bit smaller in
diameter than would be ideal, and there are real benefits to be had by
switching to a larger shell. A number of manufacturers have tried
this, but it will take agreement between multiple frame makers _and_
at least one major crank/bottom bracket maker to make this happen.

Several proposed "oversized" bottom bracket standards currently exist,
but none has yet received wide acceptance. The proposed BB standards
currently are based around existing cranks/spindle interfaces. To
make the change worthwhile, all of the parts involved need to be made
larger:
Bottom bracket shell, bearings, spindle and spindle/crank interface.

I expect this will happen, but I don't know when, and I don't know if
the Betamax or VHS model will be the winning design...

There's a BMX bearing standard called the Spanish BB. More about it and
other thoughts on it here:

http://www.terribleone.com/blog/archives/000602.html

Even better thoughts about most common BBs:

http://www.gsportbmx.co.uk/support/rideuktech/BB_compendium.html

My thoughts:

If the current trend of small BBs/outboard bearings continues, then there
shouldn't be a need to change to another standard, since the bearings are
already as far outboard as they can go without being inside the crankarm
itself. If they were to do that, then we'd end up with bearings inside the
crankarms, and our BB spindles would be stationary. Hmm... maybe I should
patent that.

Are we going to go back with bearings inside the BB shell? Maybe.
Lengthening the BB shell will stiffen things up a bit (maybe unnoticeably
so, but the marketers will jump all over it), the NDS chainstay can move
outwards, and the bearings will have the full support of the frame instead
of residing outside of it.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Phil said:

There's a BMX bearing standard called the Spanish BB. More about it and
other thoughts on it here:

http://www.terribleone.com/blog/archives/000602.html

I have a Fly Bikes "Spanish" BB on my experimental electric bike. It
uses outboard bearings in threaded adapter cups. Contrary to the text
in the link you provided, it is available in both 19mm and 22mm
versions, because I have the 22mm kind. I run Primo Powerbite cranks
on a special extra-long spindle I made.

I used the Fly BB to get better support for a particularly wide crank
setup. It seems to work quite well, and the bearings are large enough
to inspire confidence. However, the cups have a relatively thin sleeve
of aluminum around the bearings, and the wrench flats cut into them
make even thinner spots. I'm not sure that they will hold up long
enough to make bearing replacement an issue. I'm sure that a
purpose-built shell designed to take the same bearings would have
better durability, but it would probably not have the wide bearing
spacing that attracted me to the outboard cups.

My thinking on this is that everyone involved in the quest for a new BB
standard is bending over backwards to avoid using the very best BB
shell standard of them all, the American/OPC shell. It's simple, cheap
to manufacture, easy to service, and can support both spindles and
bearings that are much stronger than those of any other standard BB.
Nothing that has been offered so far as a prospective new BB standard
has as many benefits and strengths.

Chalo Colina

Chalo said:

Phil said:

There's a BMX bearing standard called the Spanish BB. More about it
and other thoughts on it here:

http://www.terribleone.com/blog/archives/000602.html

I have a Fly Bikes "Spanish" BB on my experimental electric bike. It
uses outboard bearings in threaded adapter cups. Contrary to the text
in the link you provided, it is available in both 19mm and 22mm
versions, because I have the 22mm kind. I run Primo Powerbite cranks
on a special extra-long spindle I made.

I used the Fly BB to get better support for a particularly wide crank
setup. It seems to work quite well, and the bearings are large enough
to inspire confidence. However, the cups have a relatively thin
sleeve of aluminum around the bearings, and the wrench flats cut into
them make even thinner spots. I'm not sure that they will hold up
long enough to make bearing replacement an issue. I'm sure that a
purpose-built shell designed to take the same bearings would have
better durability, but it would probably not have the wide bearing
spacing that attracted me to the outboard cups.

My thinking on this is that everyone involved in the quest for a new
BB standard is bending over backwards to avoid using the very best BB
shell standard of them all, the American/OPC shell. It's simple,
cheap to manufacture, easy to service, and can support both spindles
and bearings that are much stronger than those of any other standard
BB. Nothing that has been offered so far as a prospective new BB
standard has as many benefits and strengths.

It's funny that you mention that because I was going to recommend going back
to the American shell. The only thing I would change would be to thread the
interface instead of pressing it in. This could be retrofit on existing
bottom brackets, even, since most have large wall thicknesses.

I thought better of mentioning this earlier, since many of the naysayers
here would scream, "could you believe the additional weight and the ugliness
of it?"

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Phil said:

It's funny that you mention that because I was going to recommend going back
to the American shell. The only thing I would change would be to thread the
interface instead of pressing it in. This could be retrofit on existing
bottom brackets, even, since most have large wall thicknesses.

The press fit is one of the strengths of the American BB. It allows a
reliable, secure installation every time with no special tools. There
is no reason for a bottom bracket's cups to be threaded-- since the
crankarms must be positively attached in any case, they can serve to
retain the bearings axially.

If used with precision-made bearing cups, the American shell's wall
thickness need not be as thick as it is on many BMX bikes. That leaves
room for substantial weight savings over a clueless, unnecessarily
threaded BB like ISIS Overdrive. If users crave a threaded
installation, manufacturers can provide a cartridge unit like Profile's
Evolution bottom bracket:

http://www.us.agoride.com/docs/img_paragraphe/000078/007763P.jpg

It's needlessly heavy and requires special tools, but that might be
comfortably familiar for folks who have put up with other threaded BBs
all their lives.

Chalo Colina

bfd said:

Peter states:

< it's gonna disappear, it sure is happening slowly.I'm not surprized
that French and Swuiss threading has gone away. Neither of those
country's are really considered the 'motherland' of cycling, certainly
not the way Italia is.>

You got to be kidding, France is a MAJOR cycling country.

yep, kidding a little

As for Italian frames made in Taiwan, Colnago just started, but those
will still have Italian BB threading. Other makers have components made
elsewhere, like in Japan(Mizuno), but still Italian threading. ALL
DeRosas, Pinarellos, Colnagos, Pegorettis, Mosers, Guerciottis, Cioccs,
Debarnardis, Casatis, Carreras, etc, are Italian threaded.

I think I know why Italian BB threading has survived. In the world of
frame makers, road, the Italians still probably have the highest number
of frame makers, and all of those except for Bianchi, have Italian
threading. Smallish ones like Daccordi, Scapin, others, that thrive in
Europe, not seen in the US. In contrast, there are few other frame
makers. I can think of only a handful and a half in the US...one in
Spain, few in the UK, a few from France but still many in Italia.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

As for Italian frames made in Taiwan, Colnago just started, but those
will still have Italian BB threading. Other makers have components made
elsewhere, like in Japan(Mizuno), but still Italian threading. ALL
DeRosas, Pinarellos, Colnagos, Pegorettis, Mosers, Guerciottis, Cioccs,
Debarnardis, Casatis, Carreras, etc, are Italian threaded.

And ALL Trek, Giant, Cannondale frames have English threading. I would
bet the number of bikes produced by these three makers outnumbers all
of the brands you cite by a factor of about 100 to 1.

Quoted message said:

I think I know why Italian BB threading has survived. In the world of
frame makers, road, the Italians still probably have the highest number
of frame makers, and all of those except for Bianchi, have Italian
threading. Smallish ones like Daccordi, Scapin, others, that thrive in
Europe, not seen in the US. In contrast, there are few other frame
makers. I can think of only a handful and a half in the US...one in
Spain, few in the UK, a few from France but still many in Italia.

The Italians have a number of small volume frame makers. Other parts
of the world have a small number of huge volume frame makers.

Quoted message said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Quoted message said:

And ALL Trek, Giant, Cannondale frames have English threading. I would
bet the number of bikes produced by these three makers outnumbers all
of the brands you cite by a factor of about 100 to 1.

I think you are projecting what you see in the US with what happens in
Europe. Not so. Europe is not awash with 'US' brands.

There must be some reason why Italian threading has persisted while
Swiss and French has gone away..just one 'theory'.

Besides, nothing wrong with Italian threading, just [censored] poor wrenching.

Peter Chisholm said:

Quoted message said:

And ALL Trek, Giant, Cannondale frames have English threading. I
would bet the number of bikes produced by these three makers
outnumbers all of the brands you cite by a factor of about 100 : 1.

Quoted message said:

I think you are projecting what you see in the US with what happens
in Europe. Not so. Europe is not awash with 'US' brands.

From what I've seen, Europe is awash in Cannondale and Trek. I think
Lance had some influence as well.

Quoted message said:

There must be some reason why Italian threading has persisted while
Swiss and French has gone away... just one 'theory'.

Quoted message said:

Besides, nothing wrong with Italian threading, just [censored] poor wrenching.

Right hand BB cups should not need to be practically welded in place
to not unscrew. Left hand thread takes care of that. I suppose your
wrenching comment may have something to do with that.

[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Peter Chisholm said:

Quoted message said:

And ALL Trek, Giant, Cannondale frames have English threading. I
would bet the number of bikes produced by these three makers
outnumbers all of the brands you cite by a factor of about 100 : 1.

Quoted message said:

I think you are projecting what you see in the US with what happens
in Europe. Not so. Europe is not awash with 'US' brands.

From what I've seen, Europe is awash in Cannondale and Trek. I think
Lance had some influence as well.

Quoted message said:

There must be some reason why Italian threading has persisted while
Swiss and French has gone away... just one 'theory'.

Quoted message said:

Besides, nothing wrong with Italian threading, just [censored] poor wrenching.

Right hand BB cups should not need to be practically welded in place
to not unscrew. Left hand thread takes care of that. I suppose your
wrenching comment may have something to do with that.

[email hidden]

Yep, properly faced BB shell, installed tight with proper lube-none of
the Italian BBs I have installed have come unscrewed. No need to weld.
I have usaed Italian BB shells for 20 years..DeRosa, Ciocc, Simoncini,
Merckx. Never had one unscrew.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Chisholm said:

>And ALL Trek, Giant, Cannondale frames have English threading. I
>would bet the number of bikes produced by these three makers
>outnumbers all of the brands you cite by a factor of about 100 : 1.

Quoted message said:

I think you are projecting what you see in the US with what happens
in Europe. Not so. Europe is not awash with 'US' brands.

From what I've seen, Europe is awash in Cannondale and Trek. I think
Lance had some influence as well.

Quoted message said:

There must be some reason why Italian threading has persisted while
Swiss and French has gone away... just one 'theory'.

Quoted message said:

Besides, nothing wrong with Italian threading, just [censored] poor wrenching.

Right hand BB cups should not need to be practically welded in place
to not unscrew. Left hand thread takes care of that. I suppose your
wrenching comment may have something to do with that.

[email hidden]

Yep, properly faced BB shell, installed tight with proper lube-none of
the Italian BBs I have installed have come unscrewed. No need to weld.
I have usaed Italian BB shells for 20 years..DeRosa, Ciocc, Simoncini,
Merckx. Never had one unscrew.

while theory indicates that italian /can/ unscrew, i've never had it
happen to me either. it's not like the italians don't actually get out
& ride - they /would/ notice if it was a practical problem.

jim beam said:

while theory indicates that italian /can/ unscrew, i've never had it
happen to me either. it's not like the italians don't actually get
out & ride - they /would/ notice if it was a practical problem.

It _is_ a practical problem-- that's why we have LH threaded parts in
bikes, and why Peter emphasizes meticulous installation practice. The
Italians use Italian threading not because it's a good idea, but just
because that's the way they've always done it. And they started out
doing it that way not because it was a good idea back then, but because
it was cheap and expedient to manufacturers. Like the ridiculous
mixture of metric diameters with inch thread pitches that is found in
this and other Italian bike parts, the Italian RH threaded fixed cup is
a testament to the industrial fossilization of the half-assed.

Any threaded BB imposes more procedural requirements for installation
and maintenance than does a one-piece crank (for example). This is
mitigated by what most folks would acknowledge are the relative
benefits of a three-piece crank, benefits that warrant the increase in
expense, inconvenience, and complexity that comes with a three-piece
crank. But is is obvious that whatever installation or maintenance
penalty an Italian BB carries (as compared to an English BB) is not
offset in any way whatsoever by a corresponding benefit. Not
performance, weight, longevity, cost, or even availability. It's
simply an inferior system that is disappearing because it _should_
disappear.

I submit that Italian manufacturers cling to their inferior thread
standard today for reasons that are irrational; by now, there is not
even a manufacturing cost benefit to them for using it. If it had been
called the Turkish thread standard, they would have rejected it decades
ago.

Chalo Colina