Introducing SRAM DUB Cranks and Bottom Brackets

Yes. It requires no new FRAME (or, what we're really talking about it bottom bracket shell) standards. If you add that qualifier to all instances above, I agree. But standards cover more than frames?!?

Standards cover bar/stem interfaces. Standards cover shifter housing sizes. Standards cover freehub dimensions and interfaces.

An incomplete list current Bottom Bracket shell standards I'm aware of:

• Conventional threaded   

• BB90/BB95    

• PF86/92    

• BB30    

• BB30A    

• PF30    

• BBright    

• BB386 EVO    

• T47 (which is kind of a funny one, but I'm counting it as separate.)  

• and now, DUB   

Some of the above bottom bracket shell standards were built around 30mm spindles (ok, if we want to really split hairs, they likely started with a standard bearing size conveniently one standard size up from what they were using for 24mm, not a spindle ), but can accept 24mm with adapters. But to counter-act the convenience of adapters, many of frames come in different shell widths for various reasons, and end up needing different SKUs. Conventional threaded is even worse; there's probably 10 or more spindle sizes, shell widths, and crank interfaces.

To one of your points above, 30mm was absolutely a new standard - it was a new, now common, spindle size. A 30mm spindle now should still fit the standard dimensions and specifications set out in the original technical specs. 

Sure some of the above BB shells are kind of irrelevant, were short lived, and/or combination-hybrid systems, but then pile on the extra widths, a few spindle diameters, and the need to stock parts, replacement bearings, etc, at various pricepoints, and I'd be surprised to find a shop that's super stoked to carry 4 more bottom brackets to overcome one (PF92) shortcoming?

Is it actually proprietary? I only see that word in the comments. Because that's even worse, and will mean shops will have to carry the SRAM BBs specifically, instead of most of the above listed standards which have multiple manufacturers. 

Do shops have to carry additional SKUs? If yes, its not actually backwards compatible.

And just because a standard wasn't long-lived or common doesn't mean it wasn't a standard - it just wasn't long lived. Or common. 

Honest question: if you're talking FRAME standards, Boost front axles aren't a new standard. Do you consider 110mm front axles a new standard?

How are 110mm axles (I assume you mean 110 x 115) anything like this Cooper? Before 15mm there were two sizes and they were meant for different things entirely - certainly a standard. Then there was 15mm which was new indeed and meant for nothing actually. And a new standard for which there was no justification. It may have been weaker than 20mm but at least it was heavier. Boost front axles at least had a weak justification, but it was certainly a new standard because there was a standard it was replacing rather than the all over the shop scenario you describe below for BBs. And the bottom brackets you list don't all accept the same spindle diameter. Some accept both 30 and 24, some accept one or the other, while some accept some 24mm spindles but not others. Dub is BB30, PF30, PF86/92 and BSA so there is no reason to split it out from the others. But most importantly the sizes you provide are frame sizes not spindle sizes.

I can't reply farther down, so will do so here. 

Lets take a step back. 

Define what you mean when you stay "a standard", Cam

Here's a reasonable definition I agree with:

"Engineering standards are documents that specify characteristics and technical details that must be met by the products, systems and processes that the standards cover. The purpose of developing and adhering to standards is to ensure minimum performance, meet safety requirements, make sure that the product/system/process is consistent and repeatable, and provide for interfacing with other standard-compliant equipment (ensure compatibility)."

Pretty much every single component on a bicycle adheres to standards, from handlebar outside diameter (to ensure cockpit items like grips and shifters mount in a consistent fashion), to crank spindles (to ensure they're compatible with the bottom bracket and bearings within). 

There can be many standards for one component or dimension. Like bottom brackets, or BCD.

There is sometimes one standard that becomes common, or colloquially, "standard".

As I said Cooper: the bottom brackets you list don't all accept the same spindle diameter. Some accept both 30 and 24, some accept one or the other, while some accept certain 24mm spindles but not others. Dub is BB30, PF30, PF86/92 and BSA so there is no reason to split it out from the others. But most importantly the sizes you provide are frame sizes not spindle sizes. That doesn't sound very standardized to me. 

And if we look at the legitimate complaints about new standards what are they? I could only think of four. 

• They make replacement parts difficult to get. i.e. 27.5 wheels making 26 hard to find. That doesn't apply here.

• They make frames obsolete. Ie Boost. Doesn't apply.

• They are forced down our throats and the previous options disappear. 15mm axles is a perfect example. Doesn't apply. Shimano will continue to make 24mm spindles along with other manufacturers. Opting out is easy. 

• They address a problem that doesn't exist. 15mm axles again - replacing 20mm axles which were stronger and can be made lighter. There are certainly issues with plastic cups for press fit bottom brackets and PF92 BBs paired with 30mm spindles. 

SRAM will continue to make BBs for existing cranks and they are compatible with products from other manufacturers anyway. Backward compatibility of existing products won't be affected in the short term at least. 

So if I acquiesce and say this is a new standard, despite thinking this isn't clear cut, why the anger? What about this will force you to spend money? What about this will make it difficult to find parts? What about this will make your current frame obsolete? Riddle me that Batboy!

Responding to Cam's 1:32PM posting...

I think you and Cooper are both saying the same thing, you just have different thresholds of acceptance.  As you point out, Cam, this is a new standard, but it's not affecting the frame, so it's a little bit easier to swallow.  I don't know about your 4th point though.  This is always the argument with a new standard.  "Hey, we're going to keep making the old standard.  Nobody is forcing you to buy the new one."  Until they don't, and you are.  In this case, people will be left with a bunch of GXP cranks and limited BB choices, so it's not as big of a deal.  I always cross my fingers and assume something is not going to fit every time I buy a new BB.  If it does work out, I consider myself to have been lucky.

I guess you are talking about my third point Dave rather than my fourth? I agree that with some standards this has happened even when it wasn't expected, but there is no hint of talk about Shimano (for example) ending production on 24mm spindled cranks. Same with RF and others and 30mm cranks. And GXP shouldn't be hard. Hope makes the same BB for Shimano and GXP but the GXP version uses spacers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NufgDt2zwXk

I guess it's possible that manufacturers will follow SRAM's lead into 28.99 mm spindles but that seems highly unlikely. Companies could also be pursuing another diameter that isn't 24, 30 or 28.99 (because Shimano will never follow SRAM). For this to become a problem in the near term, new crank standards will have to already be in the late design phase or production. 

I am currently riding a SRAM GX Eagle 30mm (I think) spindled crank with a PF92 BB. Which I can't see as an option on SRAM's website. That could certainly disappear before too long but RF, Rotor, e13 etc. make BBs that should work (I'm not certain of this because I didn't install it). I need to pull it shortly to check out how it's weathered thus far though. 

Beyond that aftermarket BB options abound. Enduro Fork Seals is doing some interesting stuff and they have virtually every option you can imagine. They also make a PF92 BB that uses angular contact or double row bearings. Test product is on the way. http://www.enduroforkseals.com/id258.html

Cam, I think your comment sort of reinforces the point I was attempting to convey.  That is...unless you're building up a bike from scratch, do you even really care/know what shell/axle standard you have?  It's really only an issue when you need to replace your BB, or if you're upgrading cranks.  And when that time comes around, it's already pretty much a crapshoot as to whether or not anybody is going to have what you need.  This does throw another variable into the mix and it does raise some risk for GXP people.  But all that being said, I don't think it really matters one way or another.  So, pulling from Cooper...it is a new standard that might be a potential headache for shops and certain others...pulling from you...it might simplify things moving forward and it doesn't have any impact on frames.  I actually really only started to give a shit once I saw how wound up people were getting and I figured I should probably figure out what I'm missing.

I mean...I think that was the point I was making.  Who can even tell, these days?

Who said you didn't need a new BB? Or maybe you were responding to a different comment?

No i don't because i honestly don't care. If you're so concerned about the few added grams then just take a shit before you head out on your ride. You'll save more weight than the difference between a 24mm and 30mm spindle.

I agree completely.