You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I really dont see the advantage (of bolt-through axles) on a Cotic, On One, Stanton
I've had a QR back wheel go squiff in a DH race, possibly user stupidity, but through axles take that chance away. I like the idea that my wheels can't drop out of my frame or forks if my bike's in the air 🙂 (Stanton Switchback)
I’m keen to know why the best research and development minds in cycling have taken 20 years to move from 7 cogs to 12 cogs by tentatively adding one cog at a time.
Yeah, one of the competitors should've gone at one point "Ok, ha! here you go 25 speed cassette you idiots!"
Press fit BB’s, with a special mention to BB30.
And me putting 160mm forks on my PC jack Flash. Completely messed up the bike.
Press fit BB’s, with a special mention to BB30.
With you there. I would never buy another bike with this shite system.
The trend toward ever longer, slacker, lower geometry "trail" bikes is also getting out of hand. I wanted something with a decent amount of travel to replace my 2015 Enduro, but now it's hard to find something that isn't the length of a barge with the front wheel out of sight.
“I wanted something with a decent amount of travel to replace my 2015 Enduro, but now it’s hard to find something that isn’t the length of a barge with the front wheel out of sight.”
If it bothers you that much, put a long dropper post in a size or two down and use a reversed angleset for the headset. Or keep riding your old bike if there’s nothing wrong with it?
If it bothers you that much, put a long dropper post in a size or two down and use a reversed angleset for the headset. Or keep riding your old bike if there’s nothing wrong with it?
I found something suitable in the end with a bit less travel. One of the reasons for ditching my Enduro was the f****** press fit BB. Now it feels like a revelation to have a threaded BB again!
Flippy flappy brake/gear levers and press fit bottom brackets. Both really not particularly good ideas.
Ooo. Flex stems. They were gawd awful
Ooo. Flex stems. They were gawd awful
They were way better than rigid forks on bumpy downhills!
I really dont see the advantage on a Cotic, On One, Stanton etc.
At least Stanton have swapouts, I changed my Switchback to 135mm QR from 142 bolt through.
Gary Fisher was the first proponent [of 29ers] iirc and it was purely about tire availability.
Diamondback (I think) put out a 29er in the early 90s - Axis? Apex? Never caught on, for reasons listed above.
Anyone remember GT using 700D? I did the sdw on a 700d tandem couldn't see the point in a new wheelsize that made it incompatible with everything else.
Internal cable routing, the bane of my bike builds.
Press fit because it benefitted manufacturers and not owners.
I like 29ers as bikes now 'fit' my tall frame but I will not be going mullet!
Observation. Frame only sales (with subsequent transfer of existing parts) seems to be a very UK thing. most large markets (USA and Germany) tend to buy whole bikes every few years or so. The wheel size, rear axle spacing, etc makes less of a difference in that respect so changes like 650b aren't necessarily seen as bad things, just different things. I think my current bike is Boost, I genuinely wouldn't be able to tell you. I even got on OK with press fit BB. The only thing I can think of that I dislike about my current bike, is that the SWAT box isn't waterproofed, it seems such an obviously short sighted mistake.
Must be easily pleased I guess.
650B
35mm is the next 1.5.
My beef is with every new "standard". Boost (either in wheel or crankset), wheels, bars etc. Who the hell thought 147mm was better than just using "DH" 150mm? For the sake of 3mm. Shimano Hollowtech BB tool fittings (oh you need a new tool now). It just seems like an extremely cynical way of seperating a fool from their money and we (as a collective) are falling for it every damn time. "Consumers are demanding it" - really? Because I don't remember ANYONE ever saying that a DH hub would be better of it was just 3mm narrower, that 31.8 bars needed to be bigger, that 26" wheels could stand to be a fraction bigger. These are all marketing driven decisions as opposed to market driven. We all like to pretend how green and environmentally responsible we are but at the end of the say it's just a greenwashed version of the same consumer bullshit we like to sneer at the rest of the world for chasing. How many carbon bikes have been recycled, ever? What ever happened to just enjoying something for what it is (the hobby) rather than chasing the latest must-have tat?
Don't get me wrong, I get where certain evolutions come from, tapered steerers for single crown forks was a good idea, what wasn't was continually pushing the limits of travel and the angle of the fork beyond where dual crowns would have been a better idea. Don't want creaky forks? Maybe try tightening the angle and dropping the length or accept that the fork has to get beefier somewhere. 29" wheels were also acceptably different enough to give them a purpose.
my pet hate is post mount forks
Delicate threads in alloy castings that are easily stripped, slotted calipers. IS mount is so much better IMO but forks with IS mount have virtually disappeared. This to me is all about making manufacturing easier not improving things for the rider and of course post mount is heavier for big discs as you need an adapter and extra bolts
Delicate threads in alloy castings that are easily stripped
They aren't really any more susceptible to stripping than other threads on a bike.
1. First thread the bolt in by hand without the caliper to check that it isn't too long and will bottom in the hole.
2. Fit the caliper and thread the bolt in by hand to ensure it isn't cross-threaded.
3. Use good quality tools and tighten to an appropriate torque.
My beef is with every new “standard”. Boost (either in wheel or crankset), wheels, bars etc. Who the hell thought 147mm was better than just using “DH” 150mm? For the sake of 3mm. Shimano Hollowtech BB tool fittings (oh you need a new tool now). It just seems like an extremely cynical way of seperating a fool from their money and we (as a collective) are falling for it every damn time. “Consumers are demanding it” – really? Because I don’t remember ANYONE ever saying that a DH hub would be better of it was just 3mm narrower, that 31.8 bars needed to be bigger, that 26″ wheels could stand to be a fraction bigger. These are all marketing driven decisions as opposed to market driven. We all like to pretend how green and environmentally responsible we are but at the end of the say it’s just a greenwashed version of the same consumer bullshit we like to sneer at the rest of the world for chasing. How many carbon bikes have been recycled, ever? What ever happened to just enjoying something for what it is (the hobby) rather than chasing the latest must-have tat?
Nicely put 😀
Who the hell thought 147mm was better
Literally nobody. Boost is 148mm 😉
Delicate threads in alloy castings that are easily stripped, slotted calipers. IS mount is so much better IMO but forks with IS mount have virtually disappeared. This to me is all about making manufacturing easier not improving things for the rider and of course post mount is heavier for big discs as you need an adapter and extra bolts
Only if you're ham fisted.
IS mount is fiddly to space out accurately, requiring multiple fine tolerance shims. In theory, post mount should resist torsional forces better, reducing caliper deflection under heavy braking. It's also much cleaner looking. So it's easier to manufacture and better.
Who the hell thought 147mm was better than just using “DH” 150mm? For the sake of 3mm.
I thought 150mm hubs were just 135mm hubs with a bit of extra axle width, no? IE the offset and dish on a 150 is the same as a 135 so while you might have a stiffer axle, the wheel itself isn't any stronger at all. Whereas 148 boost has wider flanges so the offset can be decreased making for a stronger wheel as well as a stiffer axle.
“Consumers are demanding it” – really? .....These are all marketing driven decisions as opposed to market driven.
I'm really not sure thats true. As a crowd of people who seem to moan about every new geegaw being pointless theres a lot of thread-space dedicated to buying new stuff. If people buy a new bike its difficult to feel they're justifying the money they're spending if, to all intents and purposes, its just like their old bike. They want their new bike to feel new, offer something new, be some sort of progression from their old one.
Even people who bemoan the new standards are only doing so because it threatens their buying plans - that the compatible wheels, forks or whatever, that they buy in future might not blingy as other peoples options
Literally nobody. Boost is 148mm 😉
Haha I realised that later, didn't take long 🙂
I thought 150mm hubs were just 135mm hubs with a bit of extra axle width, no? IE the offset and dish on a 150 is the same as a 135 so while you might have a stiffer axle, the wheel itself isn’t any stronger at all. Whereas 148 boost has wider flanges so the offset can be decreased making for a stronger wheel as well as a stiffer axle.
The hub body was longer to accommodate a dishless build but there is no reason why it couldn't have been adopted to give a standard dished build with wider flanges. Having said that you could probably use a 148mm hub in a 150mm dropout by using a 2mm offset on the rotor but again, why should you have to?
Even people who bemoan the new standards are only doing so because it threatens their buying plans – that the compatible wheels, forks or whatever, that they buy in future might not blingy as other peoples options
That's a bold statement. I personally couldn't care less how blingy my bike is, I grew out that nonsense a long time ago. (my newest bike is almost 10 years old). What pisses me off is the constantly shifting goalposts that make it more and more difficult to keep an older bike running thanks to cynical marketing and unquestioning consumption. So no, I'm not jealous of your new bike.
That’s a bold statement.
its an observation - from reading this forum.
What pisses me off is the constantly shifting goalposts that make it more and more difficult to keep an older bike running
my 20 year old bike is still running. I can still buy 7 speed parts for it if I wanted to put the gears back on. I can still buy a new model, 1/8 steerer, v-brake compatible fork, better than anything that would have been standard at the time to fit it if need be.
I'm not saying it's impossible but your choices are considerably restricted. Try finding a decent choice of heavy use 26" rims or a well specced straight steerer fork designed for the same use.
I suppose it depends what end of the market you are coming from as well.
Rapid rise shifting wasn't very good .
the addition of one extra cog on a cassette is probably due to manufacturing quality required to make the cassettes, chains, shifters, derailleurs all work accurately enough and robust enough
29 was a good idea because it offered an alternative - 650 didn't because the 8mm difference between it and 26in at rim size could easily be outweighed by tyre choice. but ultimately the frame dimension and angle changes make way more difference than wheel.
the flexstem was truly a daft idea.
my newest bike is almost 10 years old
Personally I think mtbs have a come a long way in that time scale. I'm not saying your bike is obsolete and any less fun to ride than it was 10 years ago, but I reckon a new "equivalent" bike would be a fair bit better overall.
It might be frustrating that standards keep on changing and evolving every few years, but if you did freeze them in time (like they more or less were for a very long period in the 80s/90s) then it becomes ever more restrictive for designers to make genuine progress. For the most part, changes have been for the better (excepting press fit BBs of course!).
In another 10 years I'm sure the game will have moved on again, but bikes are starting to get pretty refined these days. I bought my first serious high end full suss mtb in 2004 and eventually replaced it in 2015 (after numerous upgrades along the way) with an equivalent kind of bike at the time, which was night and day better in every respect apart from the crappy press fit BB! I've just replaced that bike with a 2019 model, which is incrementally better again in almost every respect (even has a threaded BB!), but it's not such a massive revelation compared to my 2015 bike. So I think we are probably seeing a flattening improvement curve as you might expect.
Anyway, I certainly wouldn't want to restrict all future bike designs to the standards of today. As long as I can service my current bike for a minimum of 5 years then I'm happy to move on.
Tough one this, most bad improvements have been poorly executed steps in a generally good direction.
Wheel size wise I would say 650 was a retrograde step. 29 was available and better.
Press fit bottom brackets - not great but did allow for 30mm axles. DUB I don’t understand!
Shimano microspline fine but limited release of the rights was short sighted.
Boost can increase the strength or stiffness of a wheel but does cause more twisting into a potentially flexible suspension rear triangle.
I don't understand the hate for 27.5 at all. 26ers are awesome and 27.5 is almost identical. why would anyone want it to be significantly different :o)
Small changes have led to very awesomes bikes yah. Apart from internal rear brake routing though :o)
“Having said that you could probably use a 148mm hub in a 150mm dropout by using a 2mm offset on the rotor but again, why should you have to?“
But isn’t 150 missing the bits that go into the frame to make installation easier, it’s actually 157 if you have them? So 135 pairs with 142, 141 with 148, 150 with 157 (flush fit to frame vs with 3.5mm stub axle).
Saying that I still think Boost was a poor change, led more by sales than performance.
I dunno, 150mm was the dropout width and all 150mm hubs were thru axle.
I don’t understand the hate for 27.5 at all. 26ers are awesome and 27.5 is almost identical. why would anyone want it to be significantly different :o)
So by that logic why did it need changing at all?
The correct answer is Boost. SuperBoost also applies.
thisisnotaspoon
Subscriber
It is a shame that the more niche brands abandoned 135mm QR. I really dont see the advantage on a Cotic, On One, Stanton etc. Last proved it was perfectly possible to make a modern hardtail with a qr rear hub.
I can't find the post, but IIRC Cy is on record that he'd not have done it, except that it's basically necessary if you want to actually sell bikes.
And to be fair, there is an advantage- greater wheel/standardisation. Oh no wait, I mean there was an advantage- but as soon as the industry actually stabilised on 142 and we started to actually see that benefit, it got thrown in the bin because wheel standardisation didn't help them sell bikes or wheels or hubs.
(142 is actually a really good standard. There's nothing about the number itself that's magical, but it had good backwards compatiblity, it had actual improvements over both QR and 135 maxle, and it was highly intercompatible too- there's few quality hubs that couldn't be set up as 142, 135 and QR as long as the manufacturers bothered to support it. With hindsight, it was doomed)
@squirrelking
Need? Not sure that I could justify need but why not change the wheel size? Why not have an ever so slightly bigger wheel adding some extra stability without dulling the ride significantly \29ers i'm looking at youse\?
Minor change gives minor improvement, just how it should be. The industry makes enough money to survive, people keep jobs and bikes get betterer.
Minor change gives minor improvement, just how it should be. The industry makes enough money to survive, people keep jobs and bikes get betterer.
Sadly I feel you've posted many of the negatives of "minor changes", just from the other end of the telescope.
"Minor change gives minor improvement" - So does the 'improvement' justify the costs that punters will eventually have to swallow, when the prior standards are poorly supported and they have to 'upgrade'?
"The industry makes enough money to survive etc" - But that shouldn't be off the back of minor changes that (likely) give improvements that many punters won't even notice. Genuine leaps forward in technology is one thing, tinkering with tiny wheel/hub size changes seemingly largely to drive sales is quite another.
I think you have that the wrong way round :o)
Yes the minor improvements most definitely justify the minor costs. What sort of genuine costs are you talking about over what sort of time frame?
The industry needs to survive off minor changes not the big leaps forward. That's the model and always has been, how do you pay wages while working on project 3000?
Incremental small improvements at a reasonable cost is what we have and is working very well on the bikes I ride, well, apart from internal rear brake routing, absolute madness that one :o)
So what improvements did 27.5 bring over 26? Tangible, real improvements, not wishy washy "trails come alive" nonsense.
Like you said:
Need? Not sure that I could justify need
So what improvements did 27.5 bring over 26? Tangible, real improvements, not wishy washy “trails come alive” nonsense.
they look nicer. 🙂
Seriously - cycling's a fashion business and while there may be no imperical / performance based reason to replace on size with another very similar one 27.5 sits better visually on the chunkier, slacker bikes everyone is riding now. Bikes with 26" wheels look old now, even if you'd have to have a good eye to spot whether a bike is indeed 27.5 or 26.
The industry makes enough money to survive etc” – But that shouldn’t be off the back of minor changes that (likely) give improvements that many punters won’t even notice. Genuine leaps forward in technology is one thing, tinkering with tiny wheel/hub size changes seemingly largely to drive sales is quite another.
I was having this discussion the other day about bike geo.
There are a couple of companys out there that have built bikes with proper geo that works but are viewed to be a bit "out there" or "gone too far"
But every year all the other companys edge closer a little tiny bit at a time but proclaim it to be new and cutting edge geo...
Is the reality that they're just stretching it out half a degree here and 10mm there to make sure they can have a new cutting edge model next year that's still 2 degrees and 30mm out?
😵
I have a few of these, accepted as compromises on the bikes I wanted to buy/build up... I've tried to avoid including things which I was a bit annoyed as I had to buy new parts but on reflection are decent improvements.
- 10, 11, 12 speeds on any non-road bike
- 11, 12 speeds on a road bike
- 1x anything (many on 'gravel' bikes realising now that a sub-compact 2x with a more compact cassette is preferable - has been possible for decades using square taper triples). And thus also 10t cogs and requisite freehubs.
- Thru axles on the rear of any non-mountain bike.
- Press-fit BBs
- Integrated (i.e. drop-in directly to frame) headsets.
- Tapered steerer tubes on about 75% of bikes that have them.
- 1 1/8th steerer tubes on steel road bikes (seriously - a 1 inch threadless/ahead set up rides beautifully - benefits of modern stems and bars with compliant ride). Current obsessions with wide tyres on road bikes might not be so prevalent without overly stiff frames/forks.
- Steep seat tube angles on any bike not a TT bike.
- Short chain stays (for the type of bike) on any bike.
- Flat mount on 'gravel' bikes.
- Flat whites.
Internal cable routing
This gets my vote. No practical advantage, only aesthetic. Makes working on your bike much harder. Usually results in a rattle or two which can be a nightmare to eliminate. Hides cable rub until it causes frame failure or rubs a hole clean through the frame.
Honourable mention for press-fit BB's.
Yes - how did I miss this one!
Honorable exception maybe to internally routed rear brake cable in top tube on a road bike where full cable outer is used. Although even then I'm questioning the point - full cable outer would be used maybe for a winter bike - where you probably wouldn't want extra holes in your frame.
What this thread is highlighting is that people who don’t see the benefit of an idea are happy to tell those who do that they’re wrong.
Isn't that the point?
I think it's just that some people do recognise the supposed benefits, but either through a. trying the product or b. considering the possible benefit versus affordability & hassle, are of the opinion that it's not a good idea. That lots of people want to talk about it maybe says something about a culture of must-have/upgrading present on the internet (much less present in real life I reckon).
But every year all the other companys edge closer a little tiny bit at a time but proclaim it to be new and cutting edge geo…
Is the reality that they’re just stretching it out half a degree here and 10mm there to make sure they can have a new cutting edge model next year that’s still 2 degrees and 30mm out?
Probably more likely that their typical customers are more conservative and averse to sudden change. Plus not everyone actually wants a 63 deg head angle with a 550 mm reach!
There's a growing list, especially now that some arsehole has decided that we need another head tube standard.
The one that deserves the most derision is the outfit who think that £50 is a reasonable price to charge for a front mudguard.
A friend has a bike he bought as a teenager in 1974 which has a press fit bottom bracket.
Apparently the bearings did eventually give up after a couple of decades. He's now on his second set of bearings.
I've always felt that Hollowtech II (and other external types) bottom brackets were a retrograde step. Octalink just worked and I've consistently failed to ever wear one out. As I understand it, HTII was meant to offer the same size axle/stiffness as Octalink with the same bearing to axle ratio as square taper; consequently they were pushed as 'longer lasting'.
Initially folk seemed to wear HTIIs out after a few rides. Things have improved markedly (BB facing seems to help too) but they still don't seem to be anything like as durable as Octalink.
The cynic in me suspects that HTII have lasted so long as a standard due to the fact that they wear out more quickly than Octalink and consequently Shimano sell more. It's interesting to note that as HTII longevity has increased some of Shimano's newer HTII BBs (XTBB800?) have been redesigned with smaller bearings. Apparently this is ostensibly due to the fact that they spin up more quickly but again the cynic in me suspects that it's so they'll wear out a bit more rapidly (built in obsolescence).
I think most HTII wore out quickly initially because people prel-oaded them too much.
HTII was meant to offer the same size axle/stiffness as Octalink
HTII is supposedly much stiffer, as you could increase the axle diameter (to 24mm) and it's lighter as well and the wider spaced bearings make the whole thing much more rigid, and replacing bearings that have worn out is a piece of piss as well. and for once because it used the existing BB threads, completely backwards compatible which is mostly what people seem to complain about in threads like these.
I think TBH you make a case for everything to be "worse" than it was in the past, but I think you'd have to have particularly opaque rose tinted specs to zero in on octolink.
This 8s a valid point ..I know of a bike having done over 20k on a square taper..but considered htll for my cross(potential to upgrade to 10 speed more easily..)..but have concerns of the longeverty ..
Is it THAT bad?...
but have concerns of the longeverty .. [sic]
It depends do you think that 20K square taper is exceptional or normal. Cause if you think it's the latter, pretty much everything you use is probably going to disappoint.
Octalink just worked and I’ve consistently failed to ever wear one out.
Octalink was awful. I trashed one in a single ride once, fortunately the LBS manager had fitted it and was with me on the ride. Got a deal on a HT2 setup shortly afterwards.
No I'm aware that that BB is finally rumbling but know that's a long time to keep going and is quite exceptional.. it's all dry weather miles ..but I'm curious if the difference is comparable ..my sqr tpr is already looking pretty gritty ..and I'm at only 2700 miles...im to be precise asking in terms of overall performance and lifespan is htll compatible to using all year on a commuter with a conventional sqr tpr but be equally easy to service(quick and simple to realistically swap bearings without any to much hassle) and if the upgradablitiy is actually worth any minor difficulties with making them fit?
Octalink was bad. My last two M800 (XT) bottom brackets both lasted 11 months/3000-3500km. I've resigned myself to accepting the reduced lifespan compared to square taper in return for easier installation and removal, and the knowledge I won't be angle grinding any more cranks off.
I'm still on a 26er but pretty relaxed about most new standards etc when it comes time to buy a new bike. However, internal cable routing (on a hardtail) and press fit bottom brackets would rule out a frame for me - no real benefits, just hassle.
now that some arsehole has decided that we need another head tube standard.
Wait, what?
Oh well, I must have been lucky with Octalink (never tried ISIS which I believe was really bad). Good to know that HTII is up to scratch as I've finally recently got around to changing.