Zanconato

[corko]

Removed .......

[Shinomaster]

Mike, I want an aluminum road bike.

[zank]

Mike, I want an aluminum road bike.

Me too. Someday....

[riceburner]

Mike,

HI, interested in hearing your thoughts on some of the up and coming "technologies/features" in frames- are they gimmicks, merely aesthetics or do they have tangible benefits and do you plan on integrating any of them or others into any of your frames?

1. Integrated seat mast versus conventional seatpost

2. Larger 1.5" lower headset bearing versus coventional 1" or 1-1/8"

3. Press in/fit bottom brackets versus standard cups/cartridges

Thanks!

[zank]

Mike,

HI, interested in hearing your thoughts on some of the up and coming "technologies/features" in frames- are they gimmicks, merely aesthetics or do they have tangible benefits and do you plan on integrating any of them or others into any of your frames?

1. Integrated seat mast versus conventional seatpost

2. Larger 1.5" lower headset bearing versus coventional 1" or 1-1/8"

3. Press in/fit bottom brackets versus standard cups/cartridges

Thanks!

Good question! Let me start by saying this. Different frame materials are different enough that some design elements work in some materials and maybe aren't as beneficial in others. The real question I ask myself is "are we taking advantage of the potential these new design elements allow for?". I think all three of the designs you mention have the potential for tangible benefit. Some manufacturers have already taken advantage. Take BB30. I think one real benefit is the narrower profile. My heels wear cranksets right at the spider, especially in cross. It's just the way I pedal. Would I want a narrower U factor? You bet. What puzzles me is why some crank manufacturers would design a BB30 crank with the same U factor as their regular crank.

I'm getting off track. Let's look at the 1.125/1.5" tapered steerer. Do I think it's a good idea? Sure. There has got to be potential there for a greater stiffness/weight ratio. But at the moment, I would not use that design. In a steel frame, it would be serious overkill (not to mention heavy!). Could I see using it in the future? It depends on what materials and fabrication techniques I become proficient with.

There's lots of stuff going on with BBs at the moment. I think BB30 is here to stay, at least for the next ten years or so. There are certainly manufacturing efficiencies associated with a non-threaded shell. The question is will PF30 become the standard. It's nice that the grooves are no longer necessary, but it's an even larger shell. Hey, that could actually be an advantage for aluminum or carbon, but it makes for an even more expensive titanium BB shell. So as I mentioned at the beginning of the post, these designs work for some materials and probably aren't the best for others.

Phew...I'm rambling and straying today. I better go back to work.

[zank]

Removed .......

Oh come on...you removed it before I could respond. I was going to! You made me laugh.