"Obviously we are taking SRAM's word for it that this reduction in diameter by 1.01mm actually has an impact on sealing and bearing durability, but only time will tell. "
Agree, but the counterpoint to that is - was either one of the existing standards bad enough that they couldn't work with it (as they have done to date)? Obviously, they think so.
Same could be said for pretty much any engineering decision that ends up with technical specifications outside existing standards - Boost, any of the above listed BB shell standards...
Do we need a bar size between 31.8mm, and 35mm? 31.8mm is so heavy, but 35mm is too stiff and not as impact resistant. Someone out there thinks 33.28mm sounds like a good compromise.
Jan. 16, 2018, noon - Cooper Quinn
"Obviously we are taking SRAM's word for it that this reduction in diameter by 1.01mm actually has an impact on sealing and bearing durability, but only time will tell. " Agree, but the counterpoint to that is - was either one of the existing standards bad enough that they couldn't work with it (as they have done to date)? Obviously, they think so. Same could be said for pretty much any engineering decision that ends up with technical specifications outside existing standards - Boost, any of the above listed BB shell standards... Do we need a bar size between 31.8mm, and 35mm? 31.8mm is so heavy, but 35mm is too stiff and not as impact resistant. Someone out there thinks 33.28mm sounds like a good compromise.