Standards… is there a greater oxymoron in the cycling industry? As soon as news comes around that manufacturer X has brought about change Y to make component Z stiffer/lighter/stronger/more attractive, our comments section and Facebook page explodes.
“It’s not a standard if only one person is doing it!” “My 26” Gary Fisher from 1996 works completely fine!” “Help, I can’t deal with change!”
We’ve heard it all and really, we get it. There’s nothing more frustrating than buying a new ride only to discover that a much-loved component from a previous bike is no longer compatible.
While it’s probably just a false sense of security, things seem to have settled down for the time being, but boy-oh-boy, have there been some peaches down the line.
For me, there seems to be no area of the bike as prone to frustrating and needless faffing than the humble bottom bracket.
It’s astonishing that something so simple — a few bearings that allow your cranks to spin in a circle — has been subject to so much grievous abuse by engineers.
We’ve gone from good old threaded square taper bottom brackets, to Shimano’s flopped Octalink, to a brief interlude with ISIS, to the actually-quite-good Hollowtech-II and GXP, and now, of course, the absolute plethora of press-fit standards — and all the problems that come with them.
So, over to you — what standard really gets your goat? What unexpected change in standards has held you up in the past? Leave your thoughts in the comments below and remember that you can now share images! Keep it clean and try not to froth at the mouth too much.