>>1470980The sales mantra in the bike industry for the last 30 years has been: (((Stiffer))) This has been most showcased in BB and crankset developments. As usual for this small industry that cannot really afford engineering talent, this is mostly misguided and overblown arm-waving. As with other such idiotic pseudo-progress such as (((12-speeds))), internal cable routing, electronic shifting, dropper posts, and disk brakes for road bikes.
The bottom bracket soap opera is prime example of the poverty of good ideas in the bike industry. A brief history:
>1995>square taper and threaded BB shell has been a standard for decades>Bike industry kikes think that the system has to be (((stiffer))). Although the system has been stiff enough for track monsters who can crank out 9001 watts>A thicker spindle is needed, hence Octalink and ISIS>By making the spindle bigger, the bearings have to be smaller, reducing bearing life>move the bearings outboard to fix the bearing problem>bearings are now outside of the frame exposed to dirt and water >change crankarm shapes resulting in a worse Q-factor and more heel rub>make the BB hole in the frame larger to fit the larger spindle and bearings>generate a chaotic proliferation of new (((standards)))>lock you into proprietary BBs and cranksets>lock you to your shop, because it is impossible now for a home hobbyist to service any of thisWhich was the objective of all of this right from the start. For the big manufacturers to lock you into a proprietary standard.
