Yet another BB query.

[Yellow Saddle]

Thanks, that makes sense. So what is the best way of trying to avoid the noise? Would PTFE tape on the threads of the BB cups be worth trying to avoid the ingress of contaminants?

The first thing to do is to make sure the BB Shell is properly faced with a facing tool. It's a bike shop job. All paint must be scraped off and the ends of the shell must be squared off wrt the shell's longitudinal side. That's imperative but most bike shops just fit the BB cups onto a painted shell.
Secondly, I believe the PTFE tape is better than grease. Reason being is grease absorbs water when manipulated or "pumped" in t he presence of water. The water readily emulsifies with the grease and that it evident whenever you find milky grease. That look is emulsion.

Emulsions eventually dry out and leave behind the silica, therefore, waterproofing is best done with PTFE rather than grease.

Then, those cups, as soon as they start to creak, must be removed, cleaned and refitted.

That's the only way. It isn't perfect or hassle-free.

I may also be worth noting that there is no such thing as waterproof grease. It doesn't exist, other than in name on the tub.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

All the advantages appear to accrue to the manufacturers, not the owner who buys the thing. Cheaper and easier manufacturing, especially in the case of carbon fibre frames. I'm sticking to threaded cup & cone bearings, and square taper or cottered axles. They can keep all the other inferior rubbish.

That's a cynical view and not in sync with reality.

Consumers demand lighter and lighter bikes and manufacturers have to give them lighter and lighter bikes or go out of business. That's the baseline. You can use reductio ad absurdum to prove the point. And that BTW, goes for most consumer trends.

Then, to get lighter bikes they have to use lighter materials - hence carbon frames. Carbon BB shells cannot be threaded, hence press-fit.
Before the days of carbon, consumers also used to weigh BBs and that's why we have Hollowtech BBs today, for that, and no other reason.
Blame the consumer, not the manufacturer.

Square taper is an improvement on cotter pins.

 

[Blue Hills]

That's a cynical view and not in sync with reality.

Consumers demand lighter and lighter bikes and manufacturers have to give them lighter and lighter bikes or go out of business. That's the baseline. You can use reductio ad absurdum to prove the point. And that BTW, goes for most consumer trends.

Then, to get lighter bikes they have to use lighter materials - hence carbon frames. Carbon BB shells cannot be threaded, hence press-fit.
Before the days of carbon, consumers also used to weigh BBs and that's why we have Hollowtech BBs today, for that, and no other reason.
Blame the consumer, not the manufacturer.

Square taper is an improvement on cotter pins.

Not wanting to take from the OP's post, and need for advice (nicely given on here as is usual) that seems like a very strong argument in favour of the traditional approach for those not chasing weight loss in the bike. I know what you mean about the weight of ST BBs. On buying a new one (very infrequent but I tinker with lots of bikes) I am always amazed by the weight of something so small. But having a Paddington Bear approach to value for money I find this reassuring.

As for the relative importance of consumers/manufacturers in pushing the weight reduction, I think it's a bit more complex. Long history of consumers very cleverly being persuaded to demand something by those only too willing to then pander to this demand.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

As for the relative importance of consumers/manufacturers in pushing the weight reduction, I think it's a bit more complex. Long history of consumers very cleverly being persuaded to demand something by those only too willing to then pander to this demand.

The bicycle is a mature product, and so can't be marketed simply on the basis of revolutionary advances. We had that over 100 years ago when the Rover Safety appeared along with pneumatic tyres, Renold roller chains, and Sturmey Archer hub gears. Along the way we've had 531 manganese alloy steel for the weekend clubmen, and much later on the idiot-proofing of indexed derailleur gears.
All the manufacturers can do now is to focus on nit-picking details such as small weight savings, in order to try and differentiate a product that in many cases is almost identical to it's competitors and may well have actually originated in the same factory but with different branding.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Cut cut cut cut
....

As for the relative importance of consumers/manufacturers in pushing the weight reduction, I think it's a bit more complex. Long history of consumers very cleverly being persuaded to demand something by those only too willing to then pander to this demand.

Hmmmm.

Are you in control of your own mind/conclusions/desires/practicality/thoughs or not? By "you" I of course mean, the consumer.

One can believe "the industry" or reason. There is a choice. This goes for the food pyramid, global warming, ozone holes, cannibis oil or whatever the latest fad is. Do you believe what they say? Why do you believe that?

But let me tell you this, somewhere in the Bible (don't ask me where) it is written that it is immoral not to take a gullible person's money. If I spin a story and someone is willing to pay money to buy into that story, who am I to deny them that pleasure?

 

[Gravity Aided]

And why is there money in the hand of the fool to buy wisdom, when he has no understanding?

 

[Chet Spiker]

A quick update and confirmation sought; Following advice above I put the bike in the stand, removed wheels chain and pedals and put my ear to the top tube while giving the cranks a firm whizz. My tinnitus might have been deceiving me but I'd say that's definitely a SSSSHHHHH sound not a GGRRRRRR sound. Furthermore, turning the cranks slowly with the lightest possible touch I could not detect any flat spots or notchiness so the bearings seem to be good. I would like to remove the bearing cups to re-grease as recommended but after removing the end-cap I thought it wise to check with wiser heads. As you see in the attached - the end cap is removed and it seems to me all I need to do now is use the outer part of my Park Tool CWP 7 (the part that measures 7/8" across the flats) - and turn it into the drive-side crank so it pushes against the splined end of the spindle you can see glinting in the photo. This should ease the drive side crank off, shouldn't it?

Thanks in advance.