All

@primoz, Not sure why I can't directly reply. Maybe there's a limit to the number of replies? Anyway, totally 100% agree that contamination is what kills bearings for bikes 98% of the time.

While true for bb86/92, BSA as mentioned can fit the standard 6806 bearing no problem. The bearings are fully outboard the frame. Every BSA30 bottom bracket uses 6806 bearings (except for BBInfinite "ultralight", which is dumb), there is zero reason for a DUB BSA bottom bracket to use a smaller bearing. The ID of a BSA shell is 1.37", or roughly 35mm. It's the reason bearings went outboard in the first place.

Sorry, that's incorrect. From SKF: Filling slot bearings have a higher radial load carrying capacity than bearings without filling slots, but their axial load carrying capacity is limited. They are also unable to operate at the same high speeds as bearings without filling slots. From SMB Bearings: "Full complement ball bearings use a filling slot machined into the inner and outer rings. Under axial load, this slot can interfere with ball rotation so full complement bearings are not recommended for axial loads." It appears Enduro are the only ones that think Max type bearings are good for axial loads. Can't...

If it's anything like their other "game changing" products like angular contact bearings, Zero ceramic, XD15, etc etc, it actually will be worse than what's out there. They constantly hype greater load capacity, side load handling, among other traits, when the fact is that bottom brackets see little side loading (a radial bearing can take some side load, except for MAX full complement types) and that sealing is by far the biggest issue. The only time I ever see bearings with load damage is when there's an underlying alignment issue.

All that SRAM talk about going down to a 29mm spindle to give more room for bearings and seals, and they actually shrank the bearing size, even when there is plenty of room for the old larger bearing. They're now 30x40, old ones were 6806 which are 30x42. Makes no sense.