I was wondering if anyone knew if campy had any plans to do away with the square taper bb spindle in the near future??? It works fine but IMO it's the one thing that does need changing. any thoughts

They announced a new system for the 2007 line, but no details yet are available.

I was wondering if anyone knew if campy had any plans to do away with the square taper bb spindle in the near future??? It works fine but IMO it's the one thing that does need changing. any thoughts

Just curious, but why does it need changing?

I don't understand the opposition to it? Just because Shimano experiments seemingly every other year with new BB designs, why is Campy expected to follow? The square taper is simple, proven and just works.

I don't buy the flex argument. 2 questions.
1. Tell me specifically who on the face of this Earth is able to flex a 3in long pipe
2. If so, which race(s) have they lost as a result?

brewster

If it is a problem with campy bottom brackets, Phil Wood makes a nice 102mm in stainless steel and titanium. It is an excellent alternative. My commuter has an older Dura-ace crankset that requires a 103mm and I have had no issues with my PW bottom bracket. I don't even know it is there, just like a bb ought to be. Other than that, I can find no real advantage in one design over another. Why did shimano change so many times? Their first foray into non square taper was crap IMHO. You could always tell who was riding one in a pack by the creaking.

I don't buy the stiffness argument either, but I suspect Campy has been under a lot of pressure from the cycling population, due to the perceived obsolescence of the square spindle.

I don't buy the stiffness argument either, but I suspect Campy has been under a lot of pressure from the cycling population, due to the perceived obsolescence of the square spindle.

ShimaNO keeps comnig up with new BB designs for two reasons:
1. The "latest and greatest" turns out to be a piece of crap.
2. "Newer is Better" keeps ignorant consumers coming back for more. I guess I'm one of them...I installed an external bearing XT crank set on my mountain bike...and it's a piece of crap...new bearings every three months...and I live in SoCal! Also, it seems to flex even more than the XT ES-71 it replaced.

All my bikes (mtn an rd) over the last 10+ years have had some type of bb other than the "old" sq taper so when I thought about switching to Campy I was a little worried about the bb. I really liked the Campy carbon cranks so I decided to give the sq taper a shot again after all these years, and all I'd read about how the new stuff was so much stiffer and had better bearing life, etc... Well, I worrried for naught. I have had no problems with flex, bearing life or anything else. Granted I'm not too big (160-170) and I've only had the Campy stuff for a year but I've got no regrets. Actually, I've found one thing I like better about the sq taper as compared to the new outboard bearing bbs and that is the sq taper spindle is shorter (Q factor?) so the crank arms curve out from the bottom bracket to the pedal and now my heal doesn't rub on the crank arm any more.:D

Square taper is where it's at! I dono why they are changing, infact it bothers me. I've ridden octlink, isis, and square taper, guess which one I've had the least amount of trouble with? You can't fit a round peg in a square hole.

I'm right with all of you on this one. All these people who think Campy is behind the times simply because they still use the square taper BB have been sold a bill of goods.

I am a fan of the square taper. I placed a Chorus square taper bottom bracket in my road bike in 1998, and haven't touched it for 8 years. Never has creaked, still totally smooth. I ride quite a bit, and in all kinds of weather.

I just threw a Centaur BB in my new ride I am building and if it gives me half the service of my last one it is money well spent.

My last ISIS bb lasted less than a year, and creaked.

Actually, I've found one thing I like better about the sq taper as compared to the new outboard bearing bbs and that is the sq taper spindle is shorter (Q factor?) so the crank arms curve out from the bottom bracket to the pedal and now my heal doesn't rub on the crank arm any more.:D

This is an interesting point, often neglected.
Campa in their OEM introduction said they delayed this bb innovation because they wanted to offer a system which was superior to the square taper bb in every single aspect and didn't sacrifice anything: ease of installation, Q-factor, Q/ankle/heel-clearance(see quotation above), ease and cost of maintenance, stiffness, look/design, weight, price.
However they didn't show the system yet, so no one knows. They'll probably disclose it at the next Taipei show in march, cannot wait longer than that if they want OE specs.
If their claims are truthful, I see this as good news.

...offer a system which was superior to the square taper bb in every single aspect and didn't sacrifice anything...
...However they didn't show the system yet...

To meet the markets never ending demand for new and improved Campagnolo will introduce a revolutionary new product that will satisfy all the loyal Campagnolo users that demand a product with performance equal to or better than the tried and true square taper. The product will also keep pace with shimaNO's marketing juggernaut by revealing an exciting new design that will last for years into the future.

drum roll........

A parallelogram taper BB spindle with equal sides and right angles. With new math and the dumbing down of our kids no one will notice that a parallelogram with 90 degree angles is a rectangle and if it also has equal sides it is a square.

To meet the markets never ending demand for new and improved Campagnolo will introduce a revolutionary new product that will satisfy all the loyal Campagnolo users that demand a product with performance equal to or better than the tried and true square taper. The product will also keep pace with shimaNO's marketing juggernaut by revealing an exciting new design that will last for years into the future.

drum roll........

A parallelogram taper BB spindle with equal sides and right angles. With new math and the dumbing down of our kids no one will notice that a parallelogram with 90 degree angles is a rectangle and if it also has equal sides it is a square.


Sounds high tech and revolutionary... no pun intended. I'm sure it will be stiff enough for the likes of Magnus Backstedt and Tom Boonen and that it will be easy to install and maintain. I'm sure the ceramic ball bearings will mean the unit will only have 50% of the rolling resistance and 3 times the life cycle of any other brand on the market.

I'm sure it will be carbon and sexy. It will require special .8mm and 11.6mm Allen wrenches; available from Campagnolo for $34.99. This bottom bracket will retail for $290.99. Finally the BB unit will only work with the new multidirectional carbon nanotube crankset. This crankset will only intially be available for the first six months with 172.5 arms. These sexy motherf'kers will cost you $899.99.

Shimano will release an enitely new and improved bb and crank unit in 2008 that will retail for $1290.99. Further cryptic technical details will be leaked to the media by the Shimano marketing department during the 2006 Tour de France when cyclingnews.com spots Jan Ullrich using the prototype.

"It will require special .8mm and 11.6mm Allen wrenches; available from Campagnolo for $34.99." Sheldon will figure out that the Campy corkscrew will work quite well in a pinch. - TF

Shimano will release an enitely new and improved bb and crank unit in 2008 that will retail for $1290.99. Further cryptic technical details will be leaked to the media by the Shimano marketing department during the 2006 Tour de France when cyclingnews.com spots Jan Ullrich using the prototype.

Within a month of its release, we will see photos of Shimano cranksets detached from the BB in pro races. When the new outboard bearing DA set came out last year, a friend wrote, "Both cranks were attached to [name deleted]'s feet, but neither were attached to the BB anymore." I asked him if [name deleted] were competent, and I got back that [name deleted] has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from UC Berkeley. I fear for my safety.

Although I don't think there is really much (if any) gain over square taper, I don't really worry about the reliability or saftey of the external shimano cranks. I have a pair of the XT external BB cranks on my trailbike and they are the best mountain cranks I have ever used. Seriously mistreated those things last year, and they are smooth as silk.

I'm sure it will be carbon and sexy. It will require special .8mm and 11.6mm Allen wrenches; available from Campagnolo for $34.99.
HA! 34.99? What is this shimano? More like 134.99.

Campy has said no fancy proprietary tools and better prices for the cranks, we shall see after the Taipei fair which is due in March.

LOL - just check the pro peloton, all these shimano riders running over the finish line with the crank arms swirling from their feet.... c'mon

LOL - just check the pro peloton, all these shimano riders running over the finish line with the crank arms swirling from their feet.... c'mon

Ridiculous, isn't it? How could you make it to the finish line?

Ridiculous, isn't it? How could you make it to the finish line?

That's one of the photos that I had in mind, thanks for posting that ;-).

Another shimaNO benefit, no special shimaNO tools needed for crankarm removal.

and as stated. Boonen, Petacchi, Backstedt, Di Luca, Bettini, McEwen, Valverde... how do these guys win on such archaic horribly functioning cranks and BB's?
I mean someone should tell them they are supposed to lose to the guys whose crank arms come off attached to their shoes.

and folks Boonen, Backstedt and Petacchi probably put more torque on thsi juncture than anyone.

Simple, they are only using it, not maintaining it.
The mechaninc are changing everything every season.
Maybe several times in middle of the season?
That means that the Shimano/Campagnolo is only usable one year.... (?!)
(this is what they are telling us throught changing everything every season!)

Such stuff with it's short service life are useless for me,
I WANT something reliable and durable and lasts long!

Have not anybody asked why they are changing the groups every years?
for Shimano it was 9gears, now it is 10gears with less tolerance for weather and bad
maintenance/adjustement. More work must be done to keep it clean and well functioning.
I am glad that I have the last year's 9gears 105system! :cool:
Althought I am considering selling it and buy a Rohloff, but the twistshifter stops me... :eek:

Simple, they are only using it, not maintaining it.
The mechaninc are changing everything every season.
Maybe several times in middle of the season?
That means that the Shimano/Campagnolo is only usable one year.... (?!)
(this is what they are telling us throught changing everything every season!)

Such stuff with it's short service life are useless for me,
I WANT something reliable and durable and lasts long!

Have not anybody asked why they are changing the groups every years?
for Shimano it was 9gears, now it is 10gears with less tolerance for weather and bad
maintenance/adjustement. More work must be done to keep it clean and well functioning.
I am glad that I have the last year's 9gears 105system! :cool:
Althought I am considering selling it and buy a Rohloff, but the twistshifter stops me... :eek:What are you talking about? Campy cranks only good for one year? Whatever bud. They change things every year to make it new and different, so as to sell more product, not becuase it has a short service life.

I've had campy cranks going on 3 years, and god only knows how many miles, they look like they've been used, becuase they have, and they've been taken on and off the BB spindle I dono how many times. I've had to replace other stuff on the bike before I've even thought about my cranks/bb, infact I haven't thought about them until now.

Simple, they are only using it, not maintaining it.
The mechaninc are changing everything every season.
Maybe several times in middle of the season?
That means that the Shimano/Campagnolo is only usable one year.... (?!)
(this is what they are telling us throught changing everything every season!)

Such stuff with it's short service life are useless for me,
I WANT something reliable and durable and lasts long!

Have not anybody asked why they are changing the groups every years?
for Shimano it was 9gears, now it is 10gears with less tolerance for weather and bad
maintenance/adjustement. More work must be done to keep it clean and well functioning.
I am glad that I have the last year's 9gears 105system! :cool:
Althought I am considering selling it and buy a Rohloff, but the twistshifter stops me... :eek:

That's funny: my Record 10spd group has been dead reliable for about almost 6000 miles now. Tunes easy, but only needs tuning when I change cables, cassettes, or summat; seems to bear up to my occasional lack of cleaning; and nothing has gone tits up. Cranks only lasting a year? You're kidding, right? You understand that cranks aren't made of aluminum foil or balsa wood, don't you? My narrow, allegedly short lived Campy C10 chain has displays virtually no stretch.....now how can that be?

You also understand that pro racing is different than your riding, right? It's not like you have a lot of money on the line, sponsors to please, riders to pay.

Rohloff? Really? It is a fact that internal hub gearing is a lot less efficient than traditional bike gearing.

Simple, they are only using it, not maintaining it.
The mechaninc are changing everything every season.
Maybe several times in middle of the season?
That means that the Shimano/Campagnolo is only usable one year.... (?!)
(this is what they are telling us throught changing everything every season!)

Such stuff with it's short service life are useless for me,
I WANT something reliable and durable and lasts long!

Have not anybody asked why they are changing the groups every years?
for Shimano it was 9gears, now it is 10gears with less tolerance for weather and bad
maintenance/adjustement. More work must be done to keep it clean and well functioning.
I am glad that I have the last year's 9gears 105system! :cool:
Althought I am considering selling it and buy a Rohloff, but the twistshifter stops me... :eek:
Careful, no negativity is allowed within a post that mentions the 'C' stuff and being different cannot be tolerated (Rohloff indeed!). "There is only ONE way - MY way." - TF

only to replace with 177.5's. 6 years, god knows how many 10's of thousands of miles.I'll pull out of retirement when I build my loose parts Frankenbike.

That's funny: my Record 10spd group has been dead reliable for about almost 6000 miles now. Tunes easy, but only needs tuning when I change cables, cassettes, or summat; seems to bear up to my occasional lack of cleaning; and nothing has gone tits up. Cranks only lasting a year? You're kidding, right? You understand that cranks aren't made of aluminum foil or balsa wood, don't you? My narrow, allegedly short lived Campy C10 chain has displays virtually no stretch.....now how can that be?

You also understand that pro racing is different than your riding, right? It's not like you have a lot of money on the line, sponsors to please, riders to pay.

Rohloff? Really? It is a fact that internal hub gearing is a lot less efficient than traditional bike gearing.

[begin insane ranting]
Worser, there is plastic cranks too! (carbons)
Plastic stuff everywhere, no wonder how it's going! :p
[end insane ranting]

Seriously, my point is more like this:
Since they does have to change/redo everything every year, to make it better, to sell more,
that does implicitly means that the compoments have short life since they does not have enought trusts into the components to let it be unchanged every years.

My reason of ranting is that I does not have a lot of money (and time!), that's correct.
That's why I wants good components who is usable over several years who demands little
mainenance.

Look at ISIS, Octave, Intergrated - all less reliable than the squaretapered BB.
Still, the industry tries to "invent" some new systems... :(

I am running Shimano 105 now, and it is crappy.
If I changes to Champagolo Chorus or so (who I wants, due to more ergometric shifting, 105 is awkward in the upshifting),
but the bottom line is the same -> deraillier systems are quirky and demands a lot of TLC.
(not that 105 is'nt unreliable, it works fine when it is well adjusted)

I does not know why 'folks are buying new compoments/groups every year, my only suggestions I can come with is: "worn out" or "bored" or "it must be better this time!"

Rohloff: Yes, more friction -> ~3-7%. No problemo for me.
I prefer to be outside cycling instead to be inside and maintaining my bicycles, screaming.
Expecting to use the same hub more than 10 years, with less maintenance cost.
(cheaper chains, cheaper oils, changes chains less often because they are thicker and stronger)
Big selling points for me! :D

my antiquated 99 Record (which is heavier than today's Chorus) is still doing fine, fairly maintenance free.I rebuilt the shifters after something like 20K miles. Pros put more miles and abuse in a year than most average consumers do in 3-5. Campy is not making parts to die in a season. Never been their corp MO (and another reason why they've stuck with Square taper BB's), Tulio was all about a well running, reliable and easy to repair system.

So to think they are making throw away parts is a falsehood. Now a Rohlhoff may be what you are looking for, my guess is it will have similar issues as the automatic tranny for cars does to manual. less maintenance but when it goes bad, oh my.

Most car makers launch a new version (MY) every year, not because their cars only last one year, just because their sales and marketing prople feel insecure and hope to sell more products by "refreshing" them every year or so.
I ride ten year old Campy parts (except wheels) and with little maintenance they work just fine.

There is nothing inherently wrong with square taper bb's, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with 1" threaded headsets.

But the new technology IS better, both from an installation and maintenance standpoint. Durability remains to be seen, but nobody was writing home over the "octalinks" (or ISIS) which now look like "interim" products.

The "two-piece" crankset is here to stay, and Campy has lost sales due to their lack of one. :D

Richard

this road bike thing started when i realised i needed to get fitter to compete with the skinny mtb climbers, i have a external xt crank on my mtb and i thought it was the stink. when i puchased my roadie i new that campag was for me but i was a little apprehansive about the cranks and i was sure that they would need replacing as i would feel them flex and then die a quick death as i am a big guy who has been know to break parts (shimaNO). Well to cut to the chase, no flex, nada, none, zip bike has been going strong for about 6 months with only about two cleans, will i replace them? yes with more square taper campag goodness. (record) Come to think of it my old roadie about 15yrs steel had a square taper and it still goes with no probs, wonder how the xt will go in 15 years, dirt aside.

There is nothing inherently wrong with square taper bb's, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with 1" threaded headsets.

But the new technology IS better, both from an installation and maintenance standpoint. Durability remains to be seen, but nobody was writing home over the "octalinks" (or ISIS) which now look like "interim" products.

The "two-piece" crankset is here to stay, and Campy has lost sales due to their lack of one. :D

Richard

You're kidding, right? How is something better than a square taper installation? Last few times I did one, there's, uhm, actually nothing technically difficult about the process. Straight forward, piece o' cake, walk in the bark, a tickle of the ol' twig and berries, a downright doddle. Maintenance? What is difficult about that? Oh sure, since they're generally quite a bit bigger than ISIS, Octalink, or other systems bearings, square taper BB bearings tend to last longer (or have the potential to). So is it a problem to have long bearing life?

Two piece cranksets offer no real substantive improvement. Sure they're stiff, but when will stiff be stiff enough? I haven't seen Boonen weeping lately about how noodly his square taper BBs are. And I've heard tell that youngin' can pump out some wattage.

Your reasoning is akin to those that say, "Software build X.5 is much better than X.4 because it's 0.1 more." Uh huh.

Next.

You're kidding, right? How is something better than a square taper installation? Last few times I did one, there's, uhm, actually nothing technically difficult about the process. Straight forward, piece o' cake, walk in the bark, a tickle of the ol' twig and berries, a downright doddle. Maintenance? What is difficult about that? Oh sure, since they're generally quite a bit bigger than ISIS, Octalink, or other systems bearings, square taper BB bearings tend to last longer (or have the potential to). So is it a problem to have long bearing life?

Two piece cranksets offer no real substantive improvement. Sure they're stiff, but when will stiff be stiff enough? I haven't seen Boonen weeping lately about how noodly his square taper BBs are. And I've heard tell that youngin' can pump out some wattage.

Your reasoning is akin to those that say, "Software build X.5 is much better than X.4 because it's 0.1 more." Uh huh.

Next.


The engineering problem with the square taper junction on any peice of equipment is that the ouside piece (crankarm in this case) will eventually crack if installed often enough. That may be 10 times, may be 10,000 times, but it will crack. Working as an engineer in a plant, specing a piece of equipment with a square taper would bring on the wrath of the maintainance guys real fast.

As far as Campy crank arms go, I've installed a few and can see no reason why they would not last a lifetime of once per year tear downs if torqued correctly. The real problem would be someone who routinely re-tightens the bolts. They will keep turning (even to torque spec) until the arm cracks.

TF

I forgot to mention that campy said you'll be able to take the system apart and put it back a zillion times, without any change or wear of the system, in about 10 seconds.
In two weeks they'll show it to the bike makers attending the taipei show, so I'll be able to report.

campy - NO don't do it. don't give in. if its not broken don't fix it (so it can break like the others have). more stress concentration points with less metal around them=more opportunity for breakage. 0.00000001% ain't worth it.

You're kidding, right? How is something better than a square taper installation? Last few times I did one, there's, uhm, actually nothing technically difficult about the process. Straight forward, piece o' cake, walk in the bark, a tickle of the ol' twig and berries, a downright doddle. Maintenance? What is difficult about that? Oh sure, since they're generally quite a bit bigger than ISIS, Octalink, or other systems bearings, square taper BB bearings tend to last longer (or have the potential to). So is it a problem to have long bearing life?

Two piece cranksets offer no real substantive improvement. Sure they're stiff, but when will stiff be stiff enough? I haven't seen Boonen weeping lately about how noodly his square taper BBs are. And I've heard tell that youngin' can pump out some wattage.

Your reasoning is akin to those that say, "Software build X.5 is much better than X.4 because it's 0.1 more." Uh huh.

Next.

First off, I have Campagnolo on both of my road bikes (Centaur 10 on my lugged steel frame and Athena 8 on my aluminum "beater/commuter") so I'm not ragging on Campy.

But I have Bontrager (nee Truvative) 2-piece cranks on both. I can r&r crankset and bb in ten minutes, a feat I have never come close to with either a square taper or splined system. The tools - an 8mm allen and the bb cup tool.

Secondly, you make my argument for me. The weak link of the splined systems is the "crowding out" of bearing space in the bb shell due to the larger diameter spindle. Just look at how crappy the first generation of DuraAce octalinks were. Some Italian manufacturers attempted to remedy this (and make it stiffer for the likes of Pettachi) with the M.O.S.T. system - nothing more than a larger diameter bb shell. Just what the world needs - another "non-standard" dimension for bicycle frames.

The larger bearings in the external cups should be more durable for precisely the reasons you mentioned, plus they are further "outboard".

Add in the fact that nobody but nobody makes better bearings than Campy, and you'll have the best crank/bb interface on the market.

P.S.

I work in the bike business.

Richard

But I have Bontrager (nee Truvative) 2-piece cranks on both. I can r&r crankset and bb in ten minutes, a feat I have never come close to with either a square taper or splined system. The tools - an 8mm allen and the bb cup tool.

Ok, so IF a person highly values being able to "r&r a crankset and bb in 10 minutes", assuming that's true across the board for all 2 piece cranks, then such cranks might be better for said person. For the rest of the world, that's not a winning argument or one that proves anything.

Secondly, you make my argument for me. The weak link of the splined systems is the "crowding out" of bearing space in the bb shell due to the larger diameter spindle. Just look at how crappy the first generation of DuraAce octalinks were. Some Italian manufacturers attempted to remedy this (and make it stiffer for the likes of Pettachi) with the M.O.S.T. system - nothing more than a larger diameter bb shell. Just what the world needs - another "non-standard" dimension for bicycle frames.

Well, I did not make your argument for you, rather you chose to misread what I wrote and read into things you shouldn't have. While ISIS and Octalink do have smaller bearings, that doesn't mean they aren't serviceable, adequate systems. They're certainly stiff, if that's someone's over-riding concern. Octalink is terminal because Shimano moved to a different system. ISIS is not so terminal given that it's open source and so many manufacturers still use it. LIkewise, square taper is not terminal because it has no real weakness when compared to integrated crank/BB systems. Maintenance is equally easy and stiffness is more than equal for 99.5% of the population. Also, square taper systems are in general on par with integrated BB systems. If chainline adjustment is a priority or necessary, a person prolly isn't going to get that ability w/ integrated BB.

Overall, it is definitely not a given that integrated BB is better than anything else. It may push ISIS and square taper out of a large part of the market share, but market share isn't an indication of technical superiority. It's an indication of effective marketing.

The larger bearings in the external cups should be more durable for precisely the reasons you mentioned, plus they are further "outboard".

Maybe as durable as square taper BBs, but whether they're more durable remains to be seen.

Add in the fact that nobody but nobody makes better bearings than Campy, and you'll have the best crank/bb interface on the market.

I'm a Campy user, too, but your statement doesn't wash. You can't make such absolute statements. It can be your opinion, but that doesn't make it an absolute fact.

I work in the bike business.

No offense intended, but working in the bike business really has no bearing on objectivity or technical knowledge. There are more than enough LBS workers, industry people (technical, marketing, etc), and team wrenches that buy or subscribe to ideas that aren't fact or are just legacy ideas that persist. You can witness that firsthand here or at any BBS as you read from bike biz people that parrot industry ads as proof of something, quote white papers, or refuse to look at something because it's new or old tech.

FWIW, I don't have any square taper BBs anymore. I have an Octalink BB, now, and a crankset, both of which are going to be consigned to the trash when my new integrated BB crankset gets here from der motherland.

The forum at slowtwitch.com has talk about a 2 piece crankset/BB much like the specialized that joins in the middle. Sounds like outboard bearings too - which actually I'd rather see a larger BB shell (ala Pinarella) housing the bearings inside so the cranks don't stick out so far at the BB area (ala Shimano) such that my shoes rub them all over (not to be confused with Q factor out at the pedal juncture). If this is true I'd venture it's an alloy axle part thus also very, very light.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=720094#720094

Ok, so IF a person highly values being able to "r&r a crankset and bb in 10 minutes", assuming that's true across the board for all 2 piece cranks, then such cranks might be better for said person. For the rest of the world, that's not a winning argument or one that proves anything.



Well, I did not make your argument for you, rather you chose to misread what I wrote and read into things you shouldn't have. While ISIS and Octalink do have smaller bearings, that doesn't mean they aren't serviceable, adequate systems. They're certainly stiff, if that's someone's over-riding concern. Octalink is terminal because Shimano moved to a different system. ISIS is not so terminal given that it's open source and so many manufacturers still use it. LIkewise, square taper is not terminal because it has no real weakness when compared to integrated crank/BB systems. Maintenance is equally easy and stiffness is more than equal for 99.5% of the population. Also, square taper systems are in general on par with integrated BB systems. If chainline adjustment is a priority or necessary, a person prolly isn't going to get that ability w/ integrated BB.

Overall, it is definitely not a given that integrated BB is better than anything else. It may push ISIS and square taper out of a large part of the market share, but market share isn't an indication of technical superiority. It's an indication of effective marketing.



Maybe as durable as square taper BBs, but whether they're more durable remains to be seen.



I'm a Campy user, too, but your statement doesn't wash. You can't make such absolute statements. It can be your opinion, but that doesn't make it an absolute fact.



No offense intended, but working in the bike business really has no bearing on objectivity or technical knowledge. There are more than enough LBS workers, industry people (technical, marketing, etc), and team wrenches that buy or subscribe to ideas that aren't fact or are just legacy ideas that persist. You can witness that firsthand here or at any BBS as you read from bike biz people that parrot industry ads as proof of something, quote white papers, or refuse to look at something because it's new or old tech.

FWIW, I don't have any square taper BBs anymore. I have an Octalink BB, now, and a crankset, both of which are going to be consigned to the trash when my new integrated BB crankset gets here from der motherland.

While I did not mean to imply that everybody who has a square taper BB should "upgrade" to a 2-piece BB, if one were to follow your way of thinking, we'd all be riding cottered cranks.

As far as marketing is concerned, why are Honda and Toyota kicking GM and Ford's butts? It is because they are offering the public a better product!

i don't think the diffrence will be all that noticable on a road bike. DH and singlespeeds are a diffrent story. I'm using an old 600 crank with bb and it spins like it was new. Not even a fancy BB. But offroad use is far more damaging to the crank/bb. Using square taper on my singlespeed i was burning through BBs in weeks. Played the ISIS game and didn't crush any bearings (using truevative gigapipe) but the damm thing was noisy. the conncetion points would wear with dirt and i'd clean it often. Just resolved to haveing a noisy BB. Pertty much same story with a lot of my one geared off road friends. the spin on a road bike is so much more finesse, i doubt many will notice the diffrence. But outboard larger bearings = stronger...
I'm just not willing to shell out that dough yet...