There's an editors note (Ed.) saying that in the piece and it's also definitely a reason that Chris @ Pivot gave for the Affect spec: 24mm spindle, easy direct mount Boost and Super Boost compatibility.
Unlike PF30, which at best doesn't give bike designers any extra space to play with, I understand the engineering reasons behind PF92\. For example look at Trek's Stache. The bike couldn't be made as is with a BSA or PF30 BB.
My personal experience with 30mm axles in PF92 frames has been that bearing life is not as good as 24mm axles in PF92 frames which I'd attribute to the smaller bearings. Race Face - and others - have attempted to gain space by building the bearings into their PF92/30mm BBs but I'd still stand by my experience.
Your mileage may vary. There are lots of companies that spec 30mm spindle cranks in frames with PF 92 BB shells and it would be easy & cheap not to spec this arrangement (for example SRAM still offers all their cranks as 30mm or 24/22mm) if they were seeing a lot of complaints.
All things (carbon materials, engineering, etc) being equal the combo of PF92 and 30mm aluminum spindle is going to build the stiffest and lightest platform so it's easy to understand why it's popular.
The last time I can think of when bike companies (plural) and part manufacturers truly collaborated on a industry wide standard was Manitou, Rocky Mountain, Cannondale and Intense working to bring out 1.5" steer tubes as an open standard in what 2003?
PF92 was originally a Pivot thing (?), Boost was Trek as were Tapered steerers. Cannondale brought 30mm spindles and BB-30 shells and Etc.
July 18, 2017, 8:32 a.m. - Andrew Major
There's an editors note (Ed.) saying that in the piece and it's also definitely a reason that Chris @ Pivot gave for the Affect spec: 24mm spindle, easy direct mount Boost and Super Boost compatibility. Unlike PF30, which at best doesn't give bike designers any extra space to play with, I understand the engineering reasons behind PF92\. For example look at Trek's Stache. The bike couldn't be made as is with a BSA or PF30 BB. My personal experience with 30mm axles in PF92 frames has been that bearing life is not as good as 24mm axles in PF92 frames which I'd attribute to the smaller bearings. Race Face - and others - have attempted to gain space by building the bearings into their PF92/30mm BBs but I'd still stand by my experience. Your mileage may vary. There are lots of companies that spec 30mm spindle cranks in frames with PF 92 BB shells and it would be easy & cheap not to spec this arrangement (for example SRAM still offers all their cranks as 30mm or 24/22mm) if they were seeing a lot of complaints. All things (carbon materials, engineering, etc) being equal the combo of PF92 and 30mm aluminum spindle is going to build the stiffest and lightest platform so it's easy to understand why it's popular. The last time I can think of when bike companies (plural) and part manufacturers truly collaborated on a industry wide standard was Manitou, Rocky Mountain, Cannondale and Intense working to bring out 1.5" steer tubes as an open standard in what 2003? PF92 was originally a Pivot thing (?), Boost was Trek as were Tapered steerers. Cannondale brought 30mm spindles and BB-30 shells and Etc.