You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If you were in charge, what "standard" bike industry "standards" would you keep and which would you ditch
Hate boost ? Pine of the old inch and eighth threaded steerer?
Personally I'd be happy if they made a choice between metric and imperial, and stuck to it....
The 130mm dropouts, symmetrical flanges and radial brake caliper on the back of the Hope HB.160 should be on every MTB.
threaded bottom bracket.
I've no particular emotional fondness for BSA or T47 so either would be fine.
Hubs should be standard.
Boost is an absolute piss take.
100 x 15mm front
142 x 12mm rear.
Done
27.5" wheels/tyres... Just say no!
Various tweaks on the tapered front headtube dimensions... Why?
Valve types... Presta ftw \o/
Why did they change from Rear Disc Spaced front fat hubs to Front Disc Spaced? 😆
35mm stem clamps... Really needed?
Accessory clamp diameter difference between mtb and road bars... WTH?
Not fussed.
To take the hub example above, it wouldn't accommodate 4"+ tyres.
I don't know why cyclists (MTBers) in particular are so fussed about this. Rigid adherence to standards stifles innovation. We really can't expect one standard to suit all use cases. No one cares that every car has a different type of windscreen wiper or that there are multiple wheel sizes or that you can't take a gearbox off one car and just fit it to any other.
Why can't all seat posts be 31.6. Do we really need 30.9 as well. And nobody other than Liteville uses the oversize one any more do they? So keep 27.2 for road and adopt 31.9 for MTB. End of.
And all BBs should be threaded BSA.
Threaded BBs.
One of the current headtube dimensions, I don't really care which.
31.6mm seat tubes.
31.8mm bar clamps.
And let's just stick with boost now we've got it, eh?
Threaded BBs. 44/56 head tubes. 34.9mm seat tubes for bikes with dropper posts.
I don’t know why cyclists (MTBers) in particular are so fussed about this. Rigid adherence to standards stifles innovation.
I get what you mean Scotroutes, I just think there's genuine innovation and then anticompetitive wasteful tinkering.
The current case of the apple iphone charge is a good one. Apple can make a case why its better from a pure electronic engineering point of view. Does it offer any advantage or utility to the end user? No. But it does help drive a market for apple in OEM accessories and help lock people into that ecosystem. Yes. Not to mention the downsides for sustainability, waste.
A lot of bike innovations don't actually solve any end user problems. They create waste and drive sales of slightly different but the same parts. It also erects barriers to entry for smaller outfits in retail and manufacturering.
For me, threaded BBs, hub (142x12 11x15), freehun, bars, steerers, headset, seat post diamters would benefit from some standards. 27.5 can GTF as well.
Through Axle thread pitch and, depth, seating. What a ****ing nightmare. 12*142 should not need an Turing Machine to figure out the right combination. It's impossible for a bike shop to stock all of the various combinations.
Hub Standards:
142*12 and 12*100 for road/cx/gravel.
148*12 and 110*15 for MTN
Both of these standards allow for 7-12s cassettes with various freehubs.
Through axles make sense and it leads to less variability in brake spacing/touching over QR.
Done any "gains" from other "standards" are minute and should not be included in mainstream bikes.
The current case of the apple iphone charge is a good one. Apple can make a case why its better from a pure electronic engineering point of view. Does it offer any advantage or utility to the end user? No. But it does help drive a market for apple in OEM accessories and help lock people into that ecosystem. Yes. Not to mention the downsides for sustainability, waste.
That's a bad example actually. The lightning connector does have a number of end user advantages over USB C as the propensity for dust/dirt to erode the connectors and block the port is fa less. It also has a disadvantage in that i's a live cable with visible and touchable contacts, so you do get small electric shocks from it.
I think the boost ship has sailed, and for lightweight rims on 29ers 135/142 just doesn't give you enough spoke tension. So I'd happily see road bikes adopt it or an offset 135/142. For the front hub it never made any sense though. They could have achieved exactly the same with 5mm thicker dropouts.
Axles, why are they all different? just pick a standard overall length, thread length and pitch. If someone want's to make a steel frame with thin dropouts, just supply it with a couple of washers.
Headtubes should have been 44mm for headset cups, or integrated, nothing else makes enough sense to justify a different standard.
Threaded BB's. I've got a working BB30, which kinda made sense for lightweight aluminum frames, which is probably why cannondale did it, but for carbon when you're not restricted by each tube having to be the same size or smaller than the ones it's welded to why?
Seatubes should be redesigned for dropper posts. Just come up with a way of integrating the dropper that means you don't need a structural seatube and seatpost lower.
12x142 rear should always have a captive nut in the frame not a removable serrated thing not that I dropped mine in the weeds honest.
All frames should have bosses available for mudguards and/or racks. You don't have to use them.
All BBs threaded.
Every derailleur should have a split cable adjuster fitted and a means of getting the cable off without cutting the crimp off.
Nothing should be Torex.
Headsets just get it sorted.
No one cares that every car has a different type of windscreen wiper or that there are multiple wheel sizes or that you can’t take a gearbox off one car and just fit it to any other
Good point and tend to agree although that is probably because most people don't change car wheels (or any other components) that often but if they did it would be much better if all wheels were same bolt pattern, number of bolts and offset wouldn't it?
That’s a bad example actually. The lightning connector does have a number of end user advantages over USB C
If the comparison in question is Lightning vs USB-C then the main reason it's a bad example is because Lightning appeared two years before USB-C did. You can hardly blame Apple for not using something that didn't exist.
Can the bike industry please pick a hanger design and a brake pad shape please
The current case of the apple iphone charge is a good one. Apple can make a case why its better from a pure electronic engineering point of view. Does it offer any advantage or utility to the end user?
I don't understand the fuss about Apples connector. They're both USB, the only potential 'waste' is the cable, not the charger, and they have a finite life anyway. USB-C on both my laptop and as charger for headphones, while infinitely better than previous USB connectors (how many tries has it needed to get this right - ffs - I have far fewer redundant Apple cables around than I do earlier versions of USB), still seems to have more trouble making a reliable connection than Lightning
Torx bolts
Great in theory, but in practice I find them harder to 'read' the right size than Hex and seem no less likely to actually round off. The unholy mix of Torx and Hex used by some manufacturers is worst of all.
radial brake caliper on the back of the Hope HB.160 should be on every MTB.
this seemed really smart but haven't hope dropped it from the next version of the bike?
-Boost (110/148), superboost and other permutations can die a death
-34.9 post, gives more space for the dropper guts
-Post mount is fairly sorted
-Thread BB or pressfit, but one of each please, it isn't necessary for the myriad of others.
-Disc sizes, 220 203 180 160 140
-Headsets should be standard sized bearings top and bottom, then either internal or external cups, nothing else.
If standards were standards we'd still be on 1" quill stems. What folk are asking for/suggesting is to freeze development at some "golden age" that confirms to their particular ideal.
None of them. Standards are for testing and process or auditing not limitation of engineering and design.
The companies that get a bad result, fail to support them or use if for inbuilt obsolescence? Don't buy from them in future.
Threaded BB
20mm front axle
142x12 rear
31.8 bars
31.6 seatpost with a 34.9 clamp
And let's pick one ****ing headtube standard and be done with it
What folk are asking for/suggesting is to freeze development at some “golden age” that confirms to their particular ideal.
Exactly. The bike industry has just made a poor job of all this in the last few years from a customer's pov so no way would we want to freeze it on what's around right now.
scotroutes
Member
If standards were standards we’d still be on 1″ quill stems. What folk are asking for/suggesting is to freeze development at some “golden age” that confirms to their particular ideal.
I don't think people have an issue with genuine progress - but 15mm was a step backwards from 20mm, as shown by torque caps and other halfway house attempts to improve stiffness since. All the assorted pressfit standards are backward steps from threadded BBs, which benefit manufacturing and production lines, not riders. Boost is largely pointless, mainly benefits EBikes and plus bikes only, we could have managed fine without those theoretical benefits.
IF there's real progress that justifies a change, fair enough.
Boost is largely pointless, mainly benefits EBikes and plus bikes only, we could have managed fine without those theoretical benefits.
So you want at least two "standards" for rear hubs? Why not just use Boost for everything?
Boost can absolutely GTF. Mainly because it's making me pigeon toed when I walk.
Cobblers
As in - maybe see a cobbler to get corrective footwear.
ill go with no standards. Im happy that things are changing. Yes some of it isnt great (press fit bb's) but some of it is.
keep on going bike industry
Most tweaks have some sort of benefit.
The multitude of nearly identical headset bearing sizes can go bum themselves sideways with a 12 foot barge pole though.
Sod it
Bring back 12x150 and 83mm bb for proper mud clearance
I'd personally like to see larger stantioned forks ie a newer (27.5+29) version of the rockshox totem air with its 40mm legs and 20mm axles
I'd also like to see something like a larger/stronger version of the tapered system to accommodate the bigger forks.. Something like 1 1/8th top tapered out to 2" at the csu end.
Tyres.
Just one standard tread. It would put an end to all the what tyre threads...
If standards were standards we’d still be on 1″ quill stems. What folk are asking for/suggesting is to freeze development at some “golden age” that confirms to their particular ideal.
Exactly. Where do we freeze development? Rod brakes with leather blocks on steel rims? Wicker baskets for bikepacking? Dandy horses with no pedals?
That said, the current array of slightly different hub, BB, headset and bar clamp standards is annoyingly complicated. Alas, that's the price of progress and only some 'standards' will prevail.
Tyres.
Just one standard tread. It would put an end to all the what tyre threads…
What tyre (compound)?
The last ten years have been a piss-take.
Tapered steerers, not one but four new axle standards, a multitude of BB standards and a collective shrugging of shoulders from the industry when challenged by angry customers. There are certain brands that I actively avoid because they've foisted new and expensive standards upon us with very little in the way of evidence to support claims of improvement. Despite many requests, neither Fox nor SRAM can explain why a tapered steerer is better than the existing 1.5" headtube standard, or why all forks cannot simply be 110mm x 20mm, why a BB cannot simply be 83mm wide with a threaded interface and why we have a grand total of four different rear axle widths that vary by as little as 2mm.
If genuine progress does indeed mean a new standard, then it would be good to see some actual supporting data instead of marketing hyperbole. Progress is a good thing, merely forcing obsolescence onto a marketplace and ratcheting up prices isn't.
What folk are asking for/suggesting is to freeze development at some “golden age” that confirms to their particular ideal.
That's one interpretation of the OP, but I was taking it as picking out the best of the current plethora of "standards".
The only one that gets me is up there^
Discs are 140 160 180 200 220mm....NOT QUITE!!!! Where did 203 come from????
A standard ability to understand what is on your bike should be mandatory so you don't get people complaining about why the thing they just bought over the internet doesn't fit.
What folk are asking for/suggesting is to freeze development at some “golden age” that confirms to their particular ideal.
Exactly. The bike industry has just made a poor job of all this in the last few years from a customer’s pov so no way would we want to freeze it on what’s around right now.
Agreed, I like everyone else get cheesed off when my 'perfect' bike is slightly less perfect because something new has come along an made it 'obsolete' over-night and anyway, the new thing is worse, or maybe just the same, bloody money grabbing bastards.
Sadly though, it's not true, it's easy to think that "Yeah, new bikes are better, but they could still be better without all those new stupid standards", well actually some riders think perfection was discovered at some arbitrary point in history which aligns with the year their favourite bike was made, but it's not true.
The problem isn't the new standards, or the bike makers, or even the evil 'Marketing Dept' it's the Americans, or rather the fact that the North American market is so huge and the Industry largely based there.
Boost, Super Boost, Metric Shock, DUB, Eagle etc etc etc. These are all marketing terms designed to excite the Bold, Brash American market, big on impact, low on detail it's like music to their ears.
We don't like stuff like that, we don't generally trust anything told to use by sales or marketing and a flash graphic / name is only going to have us searching through the small print to work out exactly what it means and finding, as usual with these sorts of things, the marketing is making a bigger deal of stuff that it really deserves which only goes to prove it's all nonsense.
I think that's why we've adapted to new frame geometry so gladly whilst bemoaning other stuff, it's harder to bullshit, you get a graph with some angles and lengths and whilst few of us really understand stuff like that, we trust it 'because engineering'.
I've been buying MTBs for 15 years now, not long compared to a lot of people, but still long enough. I've had daft stuff like ISIS BBs, 1.5" Headtubes, 150mm rear hubs and 35mm bars, but even with those Standardised cul de sacs I've never been left with a broken bike that I cannot find parts for.
lister
The only one that gets me is up there^
Discs are 140 160 180 200 220mm….NOT QUITE!!!! Where did 203 come from????
203mm is 8" - and there are very few 200mm discs out there, 203 is the norm.
I can understand the need for different diameter brake discs, not all of us are 65Kg and not all of us ride XC bikes. The mounting interface for the discs is one of two standards - either six bolt or centre lock. To Shimano's credit, their preferred brake disc interface isn't foisted upon us, they make their discs and hubs in both of the standards, as it should be.
collective shrugging of shoulders from the industry when challenged by angry customers.
?
The Industry = dozens of competing companies, or at least the few most influential and competitive? I'm frustrated by it but it's less a shrug from anyone and more about acceptance that it happens. No hope of standardising anything, there's no reason to. Why accept a loss of competitive advantage in a fast moving sports-fashion industry? As long as there's competition and riders think that new=better we'll have a lack of compatibility, change + obsolescence.
If standards were standards we’d still be on 1″ quill stems. What folk are asking for/suggesting is to freeze development at some “golden age” that confirms to their particular ideal.
It's not so much the progress that anyone objects to, it's the obsolescence of perfectly good (expensive) kit for debatable benefits.
Boost - could have done that with offset. But it's here now and offset would only really have helped those of us re-using hubs. As for the front hub, fox obsolesced the 110x20mm standard, that was actually lighter than 100x15 because you need much thinner walls.
Giant "overdrive" headtubes, no one wants a 1.1/4 stem/headset interface. If it has any advantage at all it's incredibly small, so why bother making kit that won't fit anything else or be upgradeable without replacing multiple parts (headset, stem and fork)?
Stuff like brake pad shapes, or shock lengths are neither hear nor there, worst case your choice ends up a bit limited or you have to phone up a tuner/shop and ask for something a little bit custom.
No hope of standardising anything, there’s no reason to. Why accept a loss of competitive advantage in a fast moving sports-fashion industry?
While this is a useful inside perspective, I think some brands have moved towards making things more user-friendly with threaded BB shells, external cable routing and stuff that makes like easier for the home mechanic/privateer racer.
And I think some of them earn brand loyalty as a result of that. But perhaps not enough to make an overwhelming business case for such things.
Anyway, does external cable routing count as a standard? Would it be possible to make internal routing illegal, apart from for droppers?
Just stop using the term 'standard'.....
Pedal axles are the last untouched country
It will be glorious.
lister
The only one that gets me is up there^
Discs are 140 160 180 200 220mm….NOT QUITE!!!! Where did 203 come from????
203mm is 8″ – and there are very few 200mm discs out there, 203 is the norm.
WTF difference does that make? why not 178mm for 7" and 153mm for 6"
(I seem to remember Hope used to sell 165 and 185mm, and at some point pretty sure I had a 183mm disc as well)
Even the Americans have accepted metric measurements for shocks, lets just have all disc sizes metric. Also radial disc mounts to avoid the nonsense of some adaptors not working on some forks...
No standards.
Encourage innovation. The cycle industry has been stuck in a self-imposed rut for too long.
Pedal axles are the last untouched country
It will be glorious.
i've got no problem with lots of different options - as long as there is one place where you can look up a single name that defines what you have so you can buy an appropriate replacement. So, if you can define the hub you need by a measurement of spacing and axle type then fine. If you can define the freehub you need from something you can see externally without having to know that xxxx hub uses yyyyy freehub then I'm completely fine with that. You get the idea
The word "standard" and the term "new standard" should both be standardised to mean a detail or technical specification that bears no similarity to any other available component designed to do the same job.
I think some brands have moved towards making things more user-friendly with threaded BB shells, external cable routing and stuff that makes like easier for the home mechanic/privateer racer.
And I think some of them earn brand loyalty as a result of that. But perhaps not enough to make an overwhelming business case for such things.
I can happily say I've never specced a PF BB. Evans mechanics like Pinnacle a bit more for that, so avoidance as marketing does work. Man shouting at cloud image aside, in reality customers do win in the end if we vote with our wallets, just has a 3-5 year cycle to take effect either way.
Anyway, does external cable routing count as a standard? Would it be possible to make internal routing illegal, apart from for droppers?
Please do if you can. It's faff for fashion and holes in frames are just best avoided.
as long as there is one place where you can look up a single name that defines what you have so you can buy an appropriate replacement.
Yes. I know a very good, diligent guy who's working through a big project like that right now. Quality of info from many companies isn't up to standards (sorry).
20mm front axles. It was the first example of complete horseshit standardisation I came across when i got back into riding- 20mm maxles were lighter than QR15 as well as stiffer, and most front hubs that were convertible could do all 3 so there was no weight saving there either. But OEM buying power and a constant stream of lazy journalism helped 15mm to win out. (I remember a brilliant MBR grouptest that said "15mm is lighter" and had a picture under it of a 20mm and 15mm axle on scales... and the 20mm one was lighter. It's not like it ever reduced the number of standards since not even Fox did a dh fork with 15mm (and in the same year that Rockshox finally gave up on 20mm, Fox put out a convertible 20/15mm 36 fork, which unsurprisingly was lighter and stiffer in 20mm mode)
Boost is obviously bollocks of course.
I'd say 31.8mm bars except I'm scared to draw attention to bars in case someone at Trek realises that they've not yet randomly changed the diameter of the outer part of the bars. 23.3mm PLUSBOOSTDOUBLEGOOD grips ftw!
simons_nicolai-uk
WTF difference does that make? why not 178mm for 7″ and 153mm for 6″
(I seem to remember Hope used to sell 165 and 185mm, and at some point pretty sure I had a 183mm disc as well)
Next to none, it's 1.5mm radius, a washer more or less. Big Shimano rotors are 203mm, SRAM are 200. Hope recently added both 200 and 180 to the range, they still make 203, 183 and 160. Not many better examples of a lack of standardisation.
These corporate power struggles can be quite distasteful eh! My current bikes are SRAM free zones. Not that I think Shimano group brands are any better when they have the whip hand over the OEM market.
Hey and what's wrong with quill stems? I love them. No spacers, can move bars to whatever height you like when you like.
Apart from being too skinny to stay pointed in a straight line, that is.
Hope recently added both 200 and 180 to the range, they still make 203, 183 and 160. Not many better examples of a lack of standardisation.
I think Hope have always been a follower on disc sizes and the nature of their manufacture means it's easy for them to make a lot of sizes - you can get a Hope rotor to fit your existing brakes. They originally went with 165 and 185mm from memory but when the big guys went for 160/180 they altered their range.
There are some oddities - IIRC I bought a Hope 200mm disc and adaptor to fit the front of my Fox 36s and it didn't work. Could have bodged with washers but exchanged for different adaptor and 203mm disc.
Still got some XT 170mm disc rotors in the spares box. Perfect middle ground size to reintroduce? 🙂
20mm front axle. 135 mm vertical dropout qr rear axle. 1 1/8 straight steerers. BSA threaded BBs. IS mount brakes. 26" wheels whatever normal skinny bars are. Everything interchangeable
this is the correct standards. Every other one can get in the sea. The only MTB I have owned that was not this is my fatty
I miss IS brake mounts, taking the brake off n back on again without re-centering the caliper.
20mm axle is the correct size, just a shame they didn't make it boost the first time, so now we have two versions of 15mm & 20mm.
And what was wrong with the pre existing 150mm rear standard instead of boost.
Threaded bb is king and should never disappear.
Pick a headtube and seattube standard and stick to it.
And I'd lock up the person responsible for press fit bottom brackets.
they’ve not yet randomly changed the diameter of the outer part of the bars
Smaller grips without having to resort to thinner grips? Sounds like an idea… someone must have already tried…
I’m with you on 20mm axles though.
Scotroutes for King of the World!
Don't stifle progress - even if it takes the occasional wrong evolutionary dead end.
The wonderful thing about standards: there's so many of them!
Yep, you could have 1,000 standards just to cover hub specifications. The problem is if you have picked the standard that nobody bothered following and you can only buy one hub and then only after hours of searching and it isn't really a nice hub and it is overpriced.
I am lucky in that I only ride track bikes and they are stuck in the past. It makes it a lot easier to know that I can pick any track hub, any track crank/BB, any cog and they will all fit as axle size/width and BB are all the same as they were 40 years ago.
Only thing that has changed is headset but they are typically all 1 1/8 still.
Headset is actually okay as is, 3 common sizes with decent enough availability.
BB - BSA thread, width as necessary, Shimano mtb shells should be road compatible, single tool.
Hubs - 100/110mm conventional front, 135/142mm conventional and 150mm DH rear.
Brakes - post mount
I think some brands have moved towards making things more user-friendly with threaded BB shells, external cable routing and stuff that makes like easier for the home mechanic/privateer racer.
Moved... ...towards??
I miss IS brake mounts, taking the brake off n back on again without re-centering the caliper.
Bit of a faff with spacers if you swap for a wheel with different alignment though.
On rotor sizes, original Hope sizing was 145, 165, 185, 205 and 225*. This was then rounded down (and I'm pretty sure 220 never happened) when the Mono series was introduced and then 183 and 203 introduced for cross compatibility (I think) when they adopted Post Mount. Fairs fair though, they stick by their kit and I think they will still make you a 4 or 5 bolt rotor if you ask for one.
*IIRC this was a special order to work with the original Fox 40 mounts and the adaptor, by the time the Mono came out I think they had adopted IS fixings)
None of them are really a "Standard", more a dimensional thing that at least one manufacturer has, for the time being, adopted due to some perceived performance or manufacturing benefit.
I dont know why the bike community has this feeling that everything should work with every bike though its most likely because thats how it was generally for many years. Before that is, the recent rapid evolution gave us the ripsnorting bikes we have today, which of course none of us wanted or enjoy........
Pedal axles are the last untouched country
It will be glorious.
0.5" chain pitch