Do these increase Q-Factor?
Any positives/negatives?
I’ll bite. Won’t effect Q unless they design it to be wider. In theory the BB is stiffer, but how much and how important that is is debatable. One fact that is out there is they are way more exposed to dirt and grit being thrown up by the wheels and all the mgf so far have had contamination problems. I heard Phil Wood was working on it, which could help a lot.
Adding to the observations G-man made, the bearings (cups) are larger. I think that’s a good thing, but I’m not sure.
Bob C.
Larger bearings can be used, since they don’t need to fit in the BB shell. This means two things:
-
bigger axle = more stiffness
-
bigger bearings = less rotational friction
On the downside, they are more exposed to grit, which means you need better seals, which could theoretically mean higher friction,
Whether or not any of these things actually affects you is highly debatable. Tom Boonen wins on a regular old square taper BB. Lance wins on outboard bearings. The real story is that neither technology will be any sort of real limiter or deciding factor.
Are you talking about mercury or yamaha, I would go for the mercs if I was you, you are talking about outboard engines, right?
-
bigger axle = more stiffness
-
bigger bearings = less rotational friction
On the downside, they are more exposed to grit, which means you need better seals, which could theoretically mean higher friction,
Whether or not any of these things actually affects you is highly debatable. Tom Boonen wins on a regular old square taper BB. Lance wins on outboard bearings. The real story is that neither technology will be any sort of real limiter or deciding factor.
-
stiffer than what? (My same old argument)
-
- this is just NOT true, they use smaller balls and more of them - this causes MORE friction as there is a higher total surface area of balls to race. There is also a higher rate from brinelling with the smaller balls.
The closer the bearings are to the crank arm, the less deflection in the BB shaft. Outboard bearings are closer to the crankarm, so there is less of a lever to deflect the shaft. Also, a larger diameter shaft is stiffer for the same moment arm.
So, stiffer than inboard bearings, and stiffer than skinnier shaft.
Stiffer than a smaller diamter axle.
The rotational rate is lower in RPM for a bearing with a larger inner race. And again, you say they use “smaller” balls. Smaller than what? For someone who nitpicks about stiffer than what, what are you comparing to here. At least with the D/A-10 crankset, the first to use the outboard bearing among modern cranksets, it measured as the stiffest overall package among a wide range of cranks. So , by my logic, it means “stiffer than the competition.” As far as ball size, what is the diameter or a ball in the D/A-10 BB and what is the diameter of the ball in a Record BB? Friction in bearings is not only about # of balls…
And again…what is the perfomance advantage? To a machine that has hundreds of thousands of times more force, and the ability read micrograms in changes of flex and force sure there is a diffrence. Where (again) does this alter a bikes performance? When are we going to start to measure the flex in our pedal, cleat, shoe and sock? How about the fat under out foot?
I have ridden DA10, Sweet Wings, Cook Brothers, Dura Ace 7-8-9, Campagnolo Record, Chorus, Centaur, Carbon, Aluminum and many more.
I have ridden BB’s from Shimano 105, 600 Ultegra, Ultegra, Dura Ace, Mavic, Phil Wood, Suntour Superbe Pro, Sachs and more…
Never ever could I tell you what crank I was on while I was in a race…unless I look down to check.
“Are you talking about mercury or yamaha, I would go for the mercs if I was you, you are talking about outboard engines, right?”
EVINRUDE all the way, baaaby!
So, let me get this straight:
You will technical nit-pick about bearing size, but call BS on similar arguments about, well, anything you disagree with?
… and what does it prove that you can’t tell the difference? I’m sure you can’t.
I once gave a friend of mine 2 BB/Crank setups that I had actually seen stiffness tests for. After riding both of them, he was absolutely convinced that one of the setups was significantly stiffer than the other. Man, he was convinced he could tell the difference.
Well, he was right, one of the setups was much stiffer. It just so happened it wasn’t the one he thought it was.
The other setup looked stiffer.
.
How about the fact that NO human can tell one crank from another - we are not capable of reading the minute changes in supposed “stiffness”. The FRAME will flex much more than that of the BB spindle, that is a FACT. People are buing into marketing, and that is great - but - no one, NO ONE will be faster with an ISIS or Shimano “new” style BB than any of the older style system - period. I dont care what your friend “felt” - sometimes, often people feel what they think they are going to feel - that in medicine is called the “Placebo Effect”.
No offense, but that is just pure, unmitigated bullshit.
Your signature line is perfect.
If you beilve that, I am glad you are not my coach…you on the other hand have offered NO proof that any human can feel, let alone have a better performance at any event with a ISIS BB over a Suntour Superbe Pro BB from 1988.
Oh, and my former cycling sponsorship list is MUCH longer than yours…please, let me add USCF Certifified Mechanic, Barnetts Bicycle Institute Trained, as well as United, Mavic, Wheelsmith, Shimano and a few others…I also did tech support at small races like Tour DuPont, RAAM and many others. But what the hell do I know about the technical aspect of cycling at a Cat 2 (Cat 1 for a couple weeks before a crash) racer…nothing I am sure…coach.
Do these increase Q-Factor?
Any positives/negatives?
From the people I’ve spoken to at FSA and Shimano, there is a slight increase in q-factor.
Whatever, Chip.
I love your style, though.
Make nonsensical argument.
Cite non-facts, not in evidence.
Ignore factual refutation.
Change topic.
Make nonsensical argument.
Repeat original nonsensical argument.
When all else fails, get personal.
Oh, btw, not that it matters, I have been a Cat 1 for so long that I forget when I upgraded. But I promise, I won’t think less of you for your Cat 2 status. And congrats on your former sponsorship list. Not that I care, but hey, if it makes you feel better, then great. You win your solo pissing match.
You have a faster car than me, too.
Again, and back on topic…what do you have to back up your ideals that a “Stiffer” BB will help anyones performance? What did Fignon miss out on? Could Indurain have won another on an ISIS? What if Pantoni had the new DA crank…where…oh please tell…where is the handicap of the older style square taper?
You have a faster car than me, too.
And my current car is so slow that it can not get out of its own way. Just for the record…
… and what does it prove that you can’t tell the difference? I’m sure you can’t.
I once gave a friend of mine 2 BB/Crank setups that I had actually seen stiffness tests for. After riding both of them, he was absolutely convinced that one of the setups was significantly stiffer than the other. Man, he was convinced he could tell the difference.
Well, he was right, one of the setups was much stiffer. It just so happened it wasn’t the one he thought it was.
I just skimmed through your posts so maybe I’m missing something, but aren’t you both saying that you can’t feel the difference?
Now that I spend the time to read…yes…I am just an idiot.