You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Loads of people grumble about new standards, usually variations on the theme of "I don't need them, and it just makes things more complicated." See for example electronic shifting etc.
However some new standards do seem to be genuinely problematic in that they're a step backwards.
I've heard some people saying it about DUB bottom brackets.
So which current standards are actually a step backwards from current ones, don't solve the problem that they purport to, and why don't they?
Not really a standard, but internally routed brake hoses.
PF30 bb
A solution looking for a problem that didn't really seem to exist that then needed the expensive solution of a Hope BB to a problem that had been brought into being by the solution to a problem that didn't exist.
Works fine in my bike now and apologies to the industry if there was an actual problem it was seeking to and actually solved.
post mount brake calipers. IS mount are much better from an engineering point of view. Slotted bolt holes are just a bodge
post mount brake calipers.
I raise you to flat mount brake calipers. Absolutely do my nut in. Impossible to do up the fixing bolts without misaligning the caliper, and no shops seem to have the facing tool (probably because it is £500 and a PITA to use).
Not necessarily worse as opposed to just broken - brakes.
In an ideal world the standard would prescribe mount position and the accompanying rotor standard the rotor position. Instead we have a standard for the mount and nothing for the rotor so the reasons that IS didn't work great is the same reason PM falls down (albeit it's easier to adjust PM). Until someone makes a floating caliper this will always be the case.
To answer the OP though, 148mm boost. We already had 150mm which could have easily accommodated wider flange spacing and remained completely backwards and forwards compatible. But that would be too easy.
surely with both IS and post mount the disc position is standardised - its just manufacturing tolerances mean a wee bit adjustment needed
The plethora of different brake pads.
In an ideal world the standard would prescribe mount position and the accompanying rotor standard the rotor position. Instead we have a standard for the mount and nothing for the rotor so the reasons that IS didn’t work great is the same reason PM falls down (albeit it’s easier to adjust PM). Until someone makes a floating caliper this will always be the case.
I think IS mount frames and forks with post mount calipers is a good solution. No ruining lowers with a cross threaded or overly long bolt (not that I've ever done that, but I cringe when I hear about people that have). Also made removing the brake from the forks much easier (no need to realign with reinstalling)
Flat Mount. PITA particularly on steel forks. And I like steel forks, I trust them. A post / flat mount style of frame or fork interface would be fine if made space for an adapter to either FM or PM calipers, like the original Moots bolt-in mount or Peter Verdone's recent work. But if you want drop bar STI and brakes it's FM all the way and the caliper design makes no space for an adapter to a better non-carbon fork mount, and the frame/fork mount means no way to use a PM caliper without it looking stupid on a huge adapter (the rear FM>PM adapter's bearable, the front is a joke).
When FM was released it was 140-160 on the front and it took a bit of CAD time to work out how to make it go 160-180 with the same adapter, but Shimano released FM180 specs a year or so later anyway. Why wasn't that thought through at the time? Just more of this 'there's only road and MTB' thinking that limits how good other less pigeon-holed bikes could be. imho.
Also made removing the brake from the forks much easier (no need to realign with reinstalling)
You could do the same with a +20 IS mount to be fair.
surely with both IS and post mount the disc position is standardised
Nope, the caliper might be but just swapping between two hubs you'll see the rotor position has significant leeway meaning it can be pure luck getting a straight swap.
Nope, the caliper might be but just swapping between two hubs you’ll see the rotor position has significant leeway meaning it can be pure luck getting a straight swap.
Done it loads with most of the time not needed any adjustment. Must be lucky
How?
I mean from an OEM spec perspective it's pretty much drop bars = FM calipers. SRAM still offer some drop bar hydro systems with PM calipers but there are fewer options than there were and the OEM part specs influence frame and fork design.
I could swap a set of PM calipers into a road drop bar system in the garage if needed but if I'm looking at a new gravel or road f+f it'll be FM already and making a new drop bar f+f with IS or PM now would kill the sales. FM was just about aesthetics of carbon bikes, nothing more.
Yeah looks that way, was the bane of my life trying to bugger about with shims in the rain in a muddy field.
Any “new” standard that has clearly been adopted to benefit the manufacturer of carbon frames with no real advantage to the rider (in fact making things just an unnecessary extra hassle for many of them). Some prime example listed above, but there are plenty more.
To answer the OP though, 148mm boost. We already had 150mm which could have easily accommodated wider flange spacing and remained completely backwards and forwards compatible.
Would it have been? Boost also moved the brake mount spacing and you’d have needed a disk spacer if you didn’t have a new wheel, just as you did with 148 boost. All you’d have is 150 and 150 boost.
Not really a standard, but internally routed brake hoses.
Headset cable routing says "Hold my beer"
Cables I don’t really have an issue with, as you don’t need to do anything, once fitted, such as bleed a hydraulic system.
And I am pretty much done with cable operated stuff 😉
BBs.
Probably because it seems like there aren't actually any standards now and everyone does their own thing, changing it fractionally every couple of years to fix problems with the previous iteration.
148mm boost.
It's been done to death, but 150 (or even 157) weren't the answer to them problem that 148 solved.
What about 145 - the tandem standard. Nowt wrong with that but we got 142 and 148 instead
Because the the way the QRs and thru axles sit in drop outs. Yeah, the move from 135 to 142, and then the realisation that 29ers and 1 by systems needed a bit more support (for the wheels), a chain line move (to accommodate 11-12 speed cassettes) and to keep the Q-factor sensible (the reason we don't use DH standards) meant a another new hub. In hindsight it could've probably been wider, but not by using any of the existing rear hub sizes.
Flat mount was my initial choice too. Brakes should be radial, no messing about with anything other than fine tuning the alignment and adding a +20mm spacer as required. The facing is done by a standard engineering too too, costs miles less than the current ones do. Hope had the right idea on their original HB frames but dropped it for compatibility reasons.
My other choice would be presta valves. I know they're not a standard as such but with modern wide rims and tubeless Schrader valves are a much, much better engineering and user-friendly solution. Another one inherited from our roadie cousins.
IS mount are much better from an engineering point of view.
Yeah, so are press fit BBs. But I think 1. the bike industry has proved time and again that it can't sustain QA sufficiently well for these sorts of solutions that rely on manufacturing accuracy and 2. some things just aren't popular with folks.
Why do I need a 6mm Allen key for the front axle and a 5mm for the rear. Why can’t they both use the same size?
Every one of my 5 bikes has a different chainring mount standard and 3 of them are from the same manufacturer!
Metric pints. They're smaller than proper pints.
Disc brakes on road bikes.
Internally routed everything on anything.
An electronic-only top tier road groupset future (incoming).
650b wheels were pointless, worse than 26", not as good as 29".
I agree with the fiddly brake mounts. Had anyone made something to reduce the aggravation?
Micrometer mounts or something?
Hayes made their calipers with grub screws to allow accurate alignment for a while I think, amazed it wasn't adopted by everyone.
Press fit BBs are worse than threaded ones. They always creak unless you spend a fortune on them whereas a cheap HT 2 BB is simple to fit and doesn’t creak (add to that 30mm axles, etc).
35mm bars always seem to be too stiff compared to 31.8 and weigh at least the same.
and bring back 1.5” head tubes
Shimano assymetric chainrings.
Totally pointless (supposedly increases stiffness in an area that never had a problem in the first place) and halves potential ring life where you can rotate by 90 deg to even out the wear.
Disagree about 1.5 headtube, sorry. You couldn't ZS the lower cup with tapered forks, I think ZS56 top and bottom opens up for reach and angle adjust with a cleaner look, I wouldn't mind that being a new standard.
Any shimano standard of the last 20 years.
15mm through axles - nothing wrong with 20mm except it didn't play with c/l rotors.
Microspline - hg was fine if you didn't want a 10t, XD was fine if you did.
Flat mount brakes.
New bottom bracket tools for the same bracket. Just why?!?
Various xtr crank standards that are worse than ht2, ht2 is still good enough for every other crankset that shimano make, the xtr ones seem to add no thy other than extra tools and poorer implementation and durability.
Boost cranksets. Just do the rings like *everyone* else.
Asymmetric chain rings. Why?
Ispec a, there's no need, at all to have shifters you cannot mount without the accompanying brakes.
Ispec b, there is no need at all to have shifters you can't mount without the accompanying brakes that are not the same as the ones there was no need for last year.
Ispec i, etc
Ispec ii, etc
Ispec ev etc.
They used to be good at this stuff.
Oh, actually pf 86 is a vast improvement on the various other press fit standards by virtue of not giving a few mm of leeway on the spec for something which is interference fit so I'll give them that.
I’ve heard some people saying it about DUB bottom brackets.
The issue with dub is is trying to solve a problem that should never have happened. The idea is you can buy a dub crank and know it will fit your frame, you just need to buy the correct bottom bracket, rather than say, ht2 or gpx that won't fit a bb30 frame or bb30 that won't fit a of 30 frame etc etc.
The problem is in trying to solve the issue of 101 frame specifications they've run into the issue they can't make a good bottom bracket to fit half those standards (a) because half of the standards are rubbish (b) because sram can't make a decent bottom bracket - or seemingly any sort of bearing.
To add too my shimano list so it doesn't seem to one sided, torque caps,wheels with 15mm axles but with end caps that don't fit anyone else's forks or forks which despite one of the big (and valid) reasons for 142/148 being it's easy to locate your wheel, you now can't easily locate your wheel in the fork - this is incredibly annoying when using a fork fit roof mounted bike carrier.
I would disagree with that – you are pressing a bearing in and out of the frame – wear will write the frame off. with a BSA BB the wearing parts are removable
It's a headset turned 90 degs, do you worry about that wearing your frame out? Anyway press-fit BB are rubberised plastic, its not going to damage any frame. It should be the ideal solution, the carrier can deform to accommodate poor tolerance/manufacturing, still hold the bearings without the need for an additional carrier, making the whole thing simpler, lighter and easy to manufacture and the PF-96 (the Shimano standard) still has 24mm bearings, and you can have wider BB shells without extra Q-factor giving you a stiffer platform for suspension designs. From a purely engineering viewpoint press fit has so many advantages it's silly.
And anyway, standard threaded BSA cartridge BB are press fit, it's just that they're pressed into a disposable additional carrier that you then have to screw into the frame, meaning more stages on the manufacture process and tolerance issues that mean they mostly need facing, it's an inherently rubbish design that has an extra weight penalty and use extra material. But everyone's used to them and rather than use the one PF standard that actually works well - Shimano; everyone (obviously) tried to make their own. Bike makers shooting themselves in the foot. (again)
I’ve heard some people saying it about DUB bottom brackets.
😯 I've just fitted a DUB BB, what are people saying about it. Other than its stupid larger size of tool meaning you need to buy a new lockring tool. Standard park one does BB's and also Shimano rotor lockrings. Now they have decided to annoy me by so I cant tighten up the BB cups without a cap in hand to the bike shop mechanic.
People complain that they don't last as long as shimano HT2, although I've just removed one today that's done 20 months and about 5500kms, which I think is reasonable enough.
Boost cranksets. Just do the rings like *everyone* else.
I might be with shimano on this. Means the more replaced part is standard, keeps inventory down to just sizes (not offsets) in the wear part. Smash a chainring on a trip, go into a shop, as long as they have a shimano chainring it should fit your crank. You only change offset when you buy a new frame.
Would it have been? Boost also moved the brake mount spacing and you’d have needed a disk spacer if you didn’t have a new wheel, just as you did with 148 boost. All you’d have is 150 and 150 boost.
Why would you need to move the brake mount? Have you ever seen a 150mm hub?
It’s been done to death, but 150 (or even 157) weren’t the answer to them problem that 148 solved.
You'll have to explain why, 150 was dishless with the cassette and brake side equally spaced, all you had to do was move the non drive side flange out. It's literally 2mm wider than 148 with the same potential benefits. 157 just does the same with a wider flange.
I avoid frames with press fit bb's, it's a total deal breaker for me, on the flipside I can't see anybody being put off an MTB frame cos it's got a threaded BB, I also think frames that do away with headset cups are a bad idea.
You’ll have to explain why, 150 was dishless with the cassette and brake side equally spaced, all you had to do was move the non drive side flange out. It’s literally 2mm wider than 148 with the same potential benefits. 157 just does the same with a wider flange.
I may well be wrong but as I understood it, the (probably marginal) benefit of boost, is not about being dishless but by the flange spacing being wider, giving more triangulation. As you mention 157 does this as well. Either way, no trail or enduro bikes came with 150 spacing, so we are still better off (however marginally) with 148 boost than 142 or 135.
Because (mainly) boost was the answer to 11/12 speed cassette needing some extra space, and neither of those other hubs change the relative position of the centreline and cranks, also you need to redesign them to change the position of the dropout to take thru-axles anyway (because at the time of 148 development, most everything was still QR), and 157mm creates a wider Q-factor which is OK for DH bikes, but they thought not really great for pedally bikes, and makes it difficult to get a 2x crankset in the space
At the time when the Boost 148 was being thought about I think the designers still wanted it it to accommodate at least 2 chain rings and a front derailleur and I think I'm right in thinking that all the prototypes were based around that, had they known how popular 1X would become, @tjagain solution of the 145 might have been a goer, but still would've meant most folks would've had to change anyway...I think it raged people because 135 had been around for decades and then there were two changes very quickly. If they'd had a crystal ball and had realised just how popular the 1x12 long travel 29er would become, perhaps the process may have been a bit smoother.
I guess that's why when Shimano started supplying slighter wider cranks (because of clearance issues) the 'new' 55mm chainline has had such a quiet 'launch' We should count ourselves lucky; at least 157 super boost didn't catch on.
Oh, and it's not an understatement to say that without the Boost 148 design, the bikes that loads of folks ride now - Long travel 1x12 29ers with good strong wheels and good suspension designs that actually work; wouldn't have been possible.
Not all press fit BB designs are bad. BB30 where the bearings sit directly in the frame are. After a year of no noise, my Cannondale would never stay quiet, no matter how clean I got the interface. Same after bearing replacements. The Shimano one (no idea which. It’s the one with the plastic cups) on my winter hack mtb has only had one replacement in 6 years and has never made so much as a squeak. Even the similar SRAM design on my gravel bike was perfect for 4 years.
Totally agree with Flat Mount. Almost makes sense on rear where mounting space can be an issue but the forks I’ve had (and see on others) were still PM with the flat mount calliper bolts to an adaptor plate.
Metric pints. They’re smaller than proper pints. There is no such thing as a metric pint . A US pint is 16 fl oz and not the 20 fl oz however and I don't know how Stans get away with selling their sealant in US pints in the UK
But 11 and 12 speed cassettes fit on a normal hub just fine, that's nothing to do with being boost.
And you had plenty of room to move the flange on 150 for more triangulation, that was my entire point.
It’s literally 2mm wider than 148
No it's not, it's 9mm wider. A 150 hub is the same oln size as a 157 hub, the 7mm is just the end caps which slot into the frame for the purpose of making it easy to locate your wheel, which is a good thing.
(eg a hope 150 hub is only and endcap swap different from a 157sb one, same as 135/142)
Also dishless wheels are only really a paper benefit these days and have been for a very long time, it harks back to skinny hub widths with near vertical spokes on the drive side when it would have been beneficial but people still like to fapp about it. I guess probably the same people who still insist derailleurs are a dead end and we should all be in gearbox bikes.
And you had plenty of room to move the flange on 150 for more triangulation, that was my entire point.
Boost wasn't just about stronger wheels, it was mostly about tight clearance around the BB shell. Remember that at the time designers were looking at 2x chainrings, a derailleur and 2.8 tyres. Plus you'd need to re-design it for through axle anyway, and as 1X systems became the standard, the narrow Shimano cranksets (clearance issues) and backpedelling issue (chaninline issues) still needs solving, which is why there's "just" a new chainline standard - 55mm, and not a whole 'nother hub width - becasue 148 can accommodate* it.
* Of course, super-boost takes care of that with a 56mm chainline, fancy another hub 'standard'?
fancy another hub ‘standard’?
Well its not, its just 150 😉
But only deviants want 157sb so I guess they're the only ones who want 150 after all. and definitely not squirelking who definitely doesn't want 157.
There is no such thing as a metric pint .
It's quite common for a 500 ml glass to be called a pint in metric speaking countries.
It’s quite common for a 500 ml glass to be called a pint in metric speaking countries.
Really? I never ever heard anyone call it a pint, well except people trying to figure out why their banana tastes of pineapple.
After all, they got the metric system there, they wouldn't know what the heck a quarter pounder is.
I really want to buy a new Orbea Wild but can't bare to put up with the internal headset routing. Already loads of report of headset bits breaking and worn hoses.
It’s been done to death, but 150 (or even 157) weren’t the answer to them problem that 148 solved.
Please please please read something other than the Trek press release disguised as a 'technical document.'
Multiple small manufactures (who don't have a vested interest in creating a new standard) have come out and said straight up it's bullshit and the only reason they do it is because it has somehow become the accepted standard.
And as other have said, if there was a problem that for some reason Cotic, Starling, Geomotron, etc didn't have but Trek did, it could have been solved with existing 157mm DH hubs.
if there was a problem that for some reason Cotic, Starling, Geomotron, etc didn’t have but Trek did
I imagine fiat has very different problems building cars to ferrari.
That doesn't mean fiat's problems aren't real.
Multiple small manufactures (who don’t have a vested interest in creating a new standard)
Nor do trek, difference being for trek, specialized giant etc, tooling is "cheap" engineering is expensive.
Small manufacturers have a vested interest in not changing things.
Please please please read something other than the Trek press release disguised as a ‘technical document.’
Please please please do just some bloody reading yourself rather than be in a hufty because reality doesn't meet your expectations. Who else do you think other than engineers at bike components manufacturers or frame manufacturers are going to be designing or making things to fit mountain bikes?
Small manufacturers have a vested interest in not changing things.
As do consumers, unless the change is such a quantum leap in performance that buying an entirely new bike rather than changing out a single part is worth it.
Was Boost really such a quantum leap in performance? A leap that couldn't have been achieved by simply using 157mm hubs if a change was simply unavoidable?
Who else do you think other than engineers at bike components manufacturers or frame manufacturers are going to be designing or making things to fit mountain bikes?
In the case of Boost I would say the Marketing Department at bike component manufacturers.
Was Boost really such a quantum leap in performance?
Arguably, yes it was.
I would say the Marketing Department
Well then, they need sacking, because they've not done their jobs well have they? I mean the job of the marketing guy is to make everyone love the new stuff and the change from 135 to 142 and then 148 just about pissed everyone off.
Besides which Dylan Howes is the man to which you need to direct your ire. AFAIK, he's a frame engineer, and not head of marketing.
Arguably, yes it was.
If it's arguable then it wasn't a quantum leap in performance.
Disc brakes, dropper posts, wider bars (apart from people who like riding between 600mm gaps) are all examples of quantum leaps in performance and unarguable improvements.
Personally I'd put tyre inserts in the same category (front and rear, not just rear) but I see the shear amount of faff involved in fitting them is a problem when it comes to widespread acceptance.
If there was a design requirement for Boost it wasn't compelling enough to make a new standard, especially if DH hubs could have done the same thing.
If there was a design requirement for Boost it wasn’t compelling enough to make a new standard, especially if DH hubs could have done the same thing.
Well, you could read the thread and educate yourself as to why DH hubs couldn't have done the same thing, or as I know we've had the same discussion and you've had all the reasons why Boost was needed explained to you previously, I'm going to assume you're either too stupid to grasp the concept, or you're trolling. Either way, not my circus, not my monkey.
I’m going to assume you’re either too stupid to grasp the concept, or you’re trolling.
Ooh, classy. Or you could try actually giving a reason that isn't invented?
Anyway, my main issue isn't so much with the mountain bike industry, it's with the mountain bike buying public. We are the absolute worst biggest bunch of fashion led idiots in the world (apart from roadies).
My issue is that if you get to the point where you are creating a new standard, why are you stopping with something as insignificant as Boost?
Why not, instead, move the derailleur? Why not create something similar to the Lal drive or the Williams Racing Products derailleur in a box? If you have to redesign the frame anyway, why not fix one of the biggest week points and factors that limit suspension designs?
The answer is that the great mountain bike buying public will quite happily buy a bike that has no compatibility with what they have already, so long as it looks like what they have already.
And the reason we do this is because we are fundamentally idiots who will defend the most ridiculous design compromises and lack of compatibility so long as our mountain bikes still look like mountain bikes.
We buy the crap. It's our fault.
Don't really like post mount brakes, just makes it easier to mess up a frame if you're cack handed with a wrench like me 🙂 IS seemed a bit more idiot proof to me.
Still struggle to justify the cost/marginal gains of a lot of the newer standards tbh, my bikes all old stuff with adapters to fit and I haven't died yet. I do like my dropper, narrow wide and clutch mech though and wouldn't be without any of them. Wouldn't mind a wider range cassette either to make climbs a bit easier.
27.5.
Why not stick with 26 (kids, touring, jump bikes, small adults) and 29 / 700c for everything else.
It’s been done to death, but 150 (or even 157) weren’t the answer to them problem that 148 solved.
I'm still not clear on the problems Boost actually "solved". I know what the marketing teams claimed, but I think we all know that was bollox.
FM seems pointless, PM worked fine as did IS and the two combined, whilst not as aesthetically pleasing, provided all the possible mounting solutions you might actually need. There's a few road/CX/gravel frames about that predate wider adoption of FM (I happen to still own two) and PM worked just fine before 'standards' were invented to force compatibility issues...
"Small manufacturers have a vested interest in not changing things"
Meanwhile large manufacturers DO have a vested interest in changing things just for the sake of removing interchangeability, and/or make something proprietary to them
No it’s not, it’s 9mm wider. A 150 hub is the same oln size as a 157 hub, the 7mm is just the end caps which slot into the frame for the purpose of making it easy to locate your wheel, which is a good thing.
It's really not.
Boost: https://www.kstoerz.com/freespoke/hub/320
150: https://www.kstoerz.com/freespoke/hub/686
150DH: https://www.kstoerz.com/freespoke/hub/737
Why would they call it 150mm if it was 157mm all along? By your logic a 142mm hub is really 148mm since a simple end cap swap makes it so.
Compare the spacing on a 150mm and 148mm, are you honestly telling me the exact same thing couldn't have been accomplished by moving the brake side flange on a 150mm hub? You're all arguing against very basic geometry!
Squirrelking, am I misunderstanding what 150 is?
135 and 142 (let’s call that ‘classic’ because I can’t think if a better term) are the same hubshell, designed to put the cassette and rotor in the same place, just with different end caps for different ways of interfacing with frames. 141 and 148 (boost) likewise.
I’d always understood the 150/157 hubs to be the same- same hub shell, cassette and rotor in the same place, just a different axle. So a 150mm hub is 15mm wider overall than a 135 and 9mm than boost, assuming you use the same axle and therefore end cap types.
I don’t think those links you’ve out up are quite showing an apples to apples comparison or have I misunderstood?
Compare the spacing on a 150mm and 148mm
You realise the flange distances are nothing to do with the hub standard don't you, beyond how much room the standard gives?
Why would they call it 150mm if it was 157mm all along?
That's the wrong way round. A 157mm hub is 150mm long, what makes it 157mm is two 3.5mm end caps that recess into the dropout.
If you took a 150mm spaced bike and a 157mm sb bike and measured between the faces of the dropout you'd get 150mm. that's the oln size and that's the important bit.
If you measure a 135 qr it's 135 + the two small 9mm projections. A 142 hub is the same size.
A 148 is the same size as a 141mm hub.
It seems half the issue here is your don't know what the standards are so you can't reasonably support our criticise them.
Meanwhile large manufacturers DO have a vested interest in changing things just for the sake of removing interchangeability, and/or make something proprietary to them
Yet boost is a brilliant example of something which doesn't do anything of the sort. You can still buy other hubs, you can still use other wheels, you can still put specialized wheels on your Trek bike.
I prefer threaded BBs, but I've seen way more frames get wrecked from loose bottom bracket cups moving and stripping shell threads than frames getting worn out from replacing PF cups.
I did some reading and working out, yes I was wrong. I was getting confused between (135x)12mm and 142x12. Still none the ****ing wiser as to which one X12 is but as I only have a 150mm thru axle and the rest are QR I'll cross that bridge should I ever come to it.
15mm front axles are probably one of the most clearcut ones we've had? 20mm was the superior standard, the supposed merits of 15mm were made-up bullshit... it ended up being almost entirely about OEM buyers, and Fox and Shimano flexing their muscles. And it just possibly set the scene for every damn fool standard change since.
Otherwise, depends what you mean by "worse". Because a new standard that performs exactly as well as the old standard but is incompatible is worse, simply because it's new. "This is the dominant existing standard" is a gigantic performance advantage, quite often it's the biggest performance advantage we'll see for a particular part but it gets ignored, because of course for a marketing man or a novelty-seeking buyer, being new and different and incompatible is a selling point.
nickc
Full MemberBecause the the way the QRs and thru axles sit in drop outs. Yeah, the move from 135 to 142, and then the realisation that 29ers and 1 by systems needed a bit more support (for the wheels), a chain line move (to accommodate 11-12 speed cassettes) and to keep the Q-factor sensible (
See the thing I find weird about this is that you only had to ride a 142 29er with a 12 speed cassette to know this was all bobbins. I guess it's getting harder to refute now since the old standards are less common but back when they were rolling out the new standard, that sort of bike was so commonplace and we could just go, these solutions are for made up problems, because behold- today's bikes. I mean, some of it's a bit more nuanced, like all the stuff about spoke triangulation can seem totally plausible til you look closer and see that this wasn't maxxed out in 142 wheels, and that lots of boost hubs still use small flanges and don't make use of the claimed advantage (especially straightpull ones), and nobody cares. Like, I've seen people claim that they can tell Boost is stiffer but I've never seen a single person ride frinstance a DT straightpull hub and go "this is problematically flexy compared to the bigger flanges on my other wheels because of the reduced triangulation", it's just not a thing that happens except when you believe Boost is better.
(and that came as no shock, because of course we'd already done this before- there were dh 150mm hubs that were to all extents and purposes a 135 hub that was spaced out to fit the wider frame, and had the exact same flange dimensions. Some people totally believed 150mm was stronger even when their actual hubs were functionally identical. Most people though just went, meh, wheels, but some people could be sold on it. And of course there were plenty of 135 and 142 dh bikes that just ignored the whole fiasco)
there were dh 150mm hubs that were to all extents and purposes a 135 hub that was spaced out to fit the wider frame, and had the exact same flange dimensions.
Yeah there were/are . . .
Isn't the advantage of that design that the rear wheel isn't dished at all? That may be more important than more triangulation, especially on smaller wheel sizes
The difference between 157mm DH and 157mm superboost is how far out the left hand flange is afaik
27.5.
C'mon let's call it what it actually is, 27...