I never said open mold products are bad. In fact, I said just the opposite. Last sentence I wrote, "This doesn't mean it's a bad BB by any means."
And it's not just the spelling mistake. It's the fact that there is nothing of actual substance on that page. It's just a lot of engineering jargon thrown together in an attempt to justify something, but without actually giving any background to support that claim. There are huge non sequiturs in your "logic." Proofreading and fact checking wouldn't kill you...
Same thing with your list of pro athletes - it's just designed to distract from actual substantive discussion of the products themselves. It's well known, for example, that Continental tires have some of the worst rolling resistance performance of any tires out there, especially their tubulars because they use butyl tubes. But the list of pros who win on Contis is extremely impressive. That does not, however, mean Contis are fast tires.
I'm really lost about what sort of feedback would you expect someone to give from using a BB? It didn't strip when I installed it? It still "feels" good? Not exactly quantitative feedback. People who give the sort of feedback you have quoted are simply giving anecdotes. There is value in that, but it's not particularly valuable to another customer, even if you think it has value to you. I suppose it does have "value," because it seems to be the only thing that actually lends credence to your products.
You demonstrate the superiority of your product using an unloaded spin test, which is a relatively poor marker of performance for a loaded scenario. In other words, spinning a crank by hand without a chain on doesn't correlate very well to what happens when you pedal a bike. The fact that you say that it does makes me very skeptical about everything else you say. There are just a lot of warning signs on your website that would keep me from ever buying your product.
Furthermore, you advertise the superiority of your grease by saying Boeing and Airbus use it. Use it where? The grease used on the joints and pistons on wing flaps has totally different requirements that what is used in a turbine, and is different because of that. And, since Boeing and Airbus don't actually make their own engines, saying they use it in "their" engines would also be misleading. But even beyond that, assuming you are talking about the most obvious spinning part of a plane - the turbine - the applications are totally different. In one case, we have a very hot environment where the main axle is spinning at tens of thousands of revolutions per minute. In other case, we have a relatively low-temp range bottom bracket with a heavy vertical load - and torque - moving at 10s of revolutions per minute. It's a totally different world. For reference, most airplane bearings have a grease fill percentage of less than 10%. Most bicycle BB bearings have a grease fill percentage greater than 90%. But you can avoid all that by just describing what you use. There are good greases. DuPont Krytox, which Zipp uses, is one of the best. Just say what you use. Saying that Boeing and Airbus use it is meaningless to me and to everyone else. But it's another case of dodging, just like when you piggyback later on Sapim's quality. Sapim makes good spokes. That doesn't mean every wheel made with Sapim spokes is a good wheel. It just means that the wheels have good spokes. But at least with the wheels you actually advertise the spokes. Do the same with the grease.
Many of the best bearings in the world are made other places than Japan. SKF - Sweden - and FAG - Germany - both come to mind. Good enough for plenty of F1 teams. So again, your statement that the best bearings should be made in Japan is totally misleading and false. The Japanese can make good bearings. They can also make cheap bearings. That's why there are ABEC ratings and ISO standards. An American made ABEC 7 bearing is made to tighter tolerances than a Japanese made ABEC 3 bearing. That's just a fact. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a bearing in any reputable part that is not made to ISO standards.
At the end of the day, I don't need to use a product to point up some major warning signs that smack entirely of marketing hype. Chris King makes their own products in their own factory in the USA and have a long history of reliability, performance, and simple manufacturing excellence. Hawk Racing relies on a technology - Folmer Technology - that isn't even described in general terms on your website, yet which we are somehow to supposed to take - on faith - as being superior.
To me, what you advertise is no different than the ceramic hype of FSA's "Ceramic Revolution" which you try to cut down on your site. Ceramic isn't automatically better; on that point, we agree. It is just harder and *can* offer some advantages - like the ability to make more round balls that are also harder. If you want the fastest BB run no seals and lube with oil. Just make sure that you only do that on race day. But that's not a very good strategy for most people. So give some *real* substance about why what you make is in any way better. That's what you still haven't done.
If you really wanted to prove a point, you would have spent at least some of your rather lengthy post attempting to disprove some part - any part - of what I wrote. Come on here and explain what Folmer Technology is. Explain what grease you use. After you do that, then I might consider putting a set of "Folmer Technology" bearings in my bike. But until that point, no thanks.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp