This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.


The bike market can be a confusing place – bike and parts littered with marketing names for different manufacturers’ technology – but all doing essentially the same thing. Windwave’s Dan Jones tries to make sense of it all…

IF THESE parts are all doing the same thing, why are they all so different and why doesn’t that manufacturer’s part fit that manufacturer’s bike?

As a supplier of parts and accessories we

often get asked for replacement bottom brackets or headsets that are unusual or different to the norm. Usually the dealer has gone to the bike manufacturer first to try to identify it, however when this sometimes draws

internal or external bearings, press in cups or direct fit and straight or tapered. This narrows the window down enough to get in to the right area, and then take some headtube internal dimensions and then we can identify the correct solution for you. Although there are less bottom bracket

standards, this can be more tricky to find as you have to take in to account the chainset as well. You have MTB or Road, threaded or press fit,

“The first thing a bike designer should think about is the consumer and how they will look after their bike in years to come...”

a blank they give us a call. Currently there are over 26 main head tube designs and over seven for bottom brackets, so with this complexity in mind, you can start to see the size of the problem?

Identification is the first hurdle. In our

experience the best method is to take some measurements of what you have, from here you can follow some easy steps to find what you need. For headsets we follow the route of


cartridge of direct fit then take the bottom bracket internal dimensions along with the chainset axle diameter. To help dealers identify these standards we

recently produced a bottom bracket and head tube poster (that was a free insert in BikeBiz for your workshop), and it was only after doing so it dawned on me just how crazy the situation had become. Head tubes that differed by 1mm on the lower bearing was one of my favourites, and

Dan Jones, marketing manager at Windwave

I have to ask why bother doing this? What conceivable advantage can it give to a bike or the rider from going from 55mm to 55.95mm, it’s just crazy.

I would ask that before introducing a new headset or bottom bracket size, the first thing a bike designer should think about is the customer and how the customer will look after their bike in the years to come. Of course it makes complete sense to follow the latest guidelines from the major component manufactures, but it makes no sense to completely redesign an existing standard and to make it proprietary for your bike, this helps nobody, especially the customer.

My question would be what if the part breaks, how will the consumer repair his bike and get back on the road? Will the local dealer stock the part, will the dealer be able to order the part or will they even be able to correctly identify the part? Before you redesign an existing market

standard I would suggest that you must either gain universal industry backing or have something that offers a clear advantage over the system it replaces, thus forcing industry backing. This can be a fine line to tread, and I am certainly not suggesting that we stifle innovation. Real innovation helps to drive the market forward and improve the machines we ride. Changing something for the sake of changing, because it blends better with a tube or that it is 50 cents cheaper to manufacture should not be a reason to produce yet another obscure standard. Currently the market (especially for mountain bikes) is very fragile, with purchasing decisions being carefully considered. We, as a collective industry need to be more aware of the end user, put ourselves in their shoes and ask how would we cope if we need to find a replacement part? Greater clarification and standardization can

only help the industry; if we all pull in the same direction it can only help earn back consumer confidence.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93