I’ve spent most of December idly browsing various currently available HT frames, and re-familiarising myself with current axle ‘standards’…

‘Boost’ seems like it’s creeping in for both the front and rear on ‘plus’ bikes, fair enough I suppose.

But it has me wondering is it all that likely that 142 rear/15×100 front will be maintained as a set of “standards” by manufacturers (at least for MTBs) going forward or is it all heading towards boosty 148/110 spacings?

As someone who no longer switches frames all that often I’m concerned that my next frame/bike could end up sticking me with yet another ‘obsolete’ pile of bits.

Is there something to be gained from being an early adopter their time round?

If, like me, you keep a frame for ten years, it doesn’t matter. Everything will be obsolete anyway.

It’s always tough when new standards are emerging. At least this one has (other than backwards compatibility) no downsides that I can see. The truth is that most folk just don’t care. They buy a bike, ride it for ever/a long time and when they want to upgrade, they buy a new bike. Component/running upgrades are actually the preserve of a small minority of bike riders – don’t let the STW demographic fool you into thinking otherwise.

Yes, it seems they are.

Unless you already have a swanky fork or wheels in 100mm/142mm, I’d go Boost now.

Boost is definitely coming.

How long they will remain ‘the future’ though is a different story. For that you’ll need a crystal ball.

Some of it depend on whether or not a tyre size becomes more prevalent than others….

I saw this year’s Nukeproof Mega getting slagged off in one of the future mags for being “outdated”. Still one of the most progressive production bikes in the world but a run-of-the-mill conservative setup Santa Cruz will be more On Trend because it’s got the right axles.

The 2 things that really bug me… One is the timing, bringing this change along immediately after the whole 650b thing so as soon as the new standard settled they instantly upset it again and all those new wheels, forks and bikes are outdated, I’d be raging if I’d just got a new bike.

But the other is, it’s a load of shite. You don’t need Plus to fit a 3 inch tyre as they claim, I had 3 inch tyres in my Remedy without any fuss and there was plenty of room to tweak the design for more space. And besides, we’re pulling back from 3 inch, 2.8 or 2.6 is the New Hotness because the bike industry loves nothing so much as a pointless middle ground. Plus tyres caught on because you don’t need a new bike for it so it’s only natural that they’ve flexed their creative muscle to convince everyone otherwise…

And stiffness? Bigger flanges could have delivered much the same benefit at any time in the last 20 years but nobody ever did that because you couldn’t sell a new bike with it. And quality wheels make more of a difference in stiffness anyway- so you’ve got companies- ****s- like Orange selling you 10% more stiffs but they’ll still be putting cheap, adequately made wheels in them anyway which are less stiff than a quality 135 wheel would have been. And it’s not like stiff is even quantitavely better anyway! It’s just easy to sell.

WQUIJOKDFJKJBN!1!!

My heels rub my chainstays as it is, hope all frames don’t end up boosted

2x ?
We? Not me.

scotroutes – Member

2x ?

Yep, one at the front and one at the back. HA! HA!

Oh OK. No, 1x. But there’s other ways to achieve the chain clearance without changing hub standards, and besides, tons of the bikes that are being marketed as benefitting from Plus, are 1x specific anyway, because they’ve crossed the marketing streams.

There are genuine benefits of course, for a small subset. But that’s not the reason that the entire bike industry is switching to a new, incompatible standard immediately after bottoming out their last switch to a new, incompatible standard.

Nope. It’s medium term at best. Whatever will replace it is sat on someone’s 3D printer in Taiwan now waiting for model year 2019/20. Model year 2023/24’s amazing new solution is being worked up on CAD just now.

Boost is just a half way house. SRAM have already said as much, in that it’s an intermediate step. Give it a few years and we’ll be up to 150 rear and 135 front.

Yes it’s a PITA but just pick a bike and enjoy it.
I enjoy my ’94 cannondale with 50mm travel and outdated qr’s as much as any other bike.

Boost has 2 benefits: greater clearance for bigger tyres and a stronger wheel build. If you have the need for any of those two things then Boost has a benefit for you, if not then carry on as normal. I think the two standards will be here to stay. I personally am not a wheel breaker so will stick with normal hubs and use the spacing kits if I ever get a new frame or forks that have boost spacing. Not really worth worrying about.

So my new frame is boost, it’s a bloody annoyance if I’m honest. I had a brand new set of wheels 142×12. I fitted a boostinator and the set up is sound. The new boost standards did make me think twice about ordering. The 10mm extra clearance is a nice touch but even then i doubt my new frame would have clearance for 2.8 tyres. Not that I would want it too to be fair

I’ve just had a similar internal debate to the OP…

I had the option of a 2016 bike with 30% off, with a better spec (for me) than the 2017 version, BUT the 2017 version is now boost – same with all the other 2017 possible options. So my question was “is boost worth 1k?”

Sounds stupid now I write it down, but I understand the worry about buying something already “obsolete” – power of marketing I guess.

I could always get some nice strong 142 wheels with the change 😉

The 10mm extra clearance is a nice touch…

Only at the front – and that’s a fork, not frame issue. 3mm extra each side at the back, that’s all.

Most Banshees have swappable dropouts to handle different axles and wheel sizes, and give geometry adjustment. So my 2014 bike which has 12×142 can also be fitted with 150 bolt or 135 QR dropouts and 12×148 are soon to be released. The 2017 frames use a smaller lighter two position dropout with the choice of 12×142 or 12×148 ‘boost’.

They’re great bikes anyway but it’s nice to see a manufacturer giving customers the choice rather than forcing them into accepting expensive new standards for marginal gains.

I’ve had the Spitfire 3 years and thanks to progressive geometry and flexible design it doesn’t feel the least bit dated. I’ve always run it 1x but it could have a front mech. I used to have an externally routed Gravity Dropper, now it’s an internal 170mm Reverb. It used to have longer chainstays but I changed to the shorter 26″ dropouts, which still fits a 27.5×2.3 tyre plus mud just fine, so now they’re 431mm. And thanks to a Works headset it now has a 64-65 deg head angle rather than 66-67 deg (adjustable in half degree increments) – these fit many modern bikes, apart from some proprietary pointless headset ‘standards’…

Does boost mean that the rear wheel will always sit off-set in the drop-outs, or can it be spaced as you like? I have a B+ bike with boost width and was a bit surprised to see the wheel spaced over to the driveside, so clearance on that side is a little tight. Was wondering if this was the boost standard, or just this particular frame.

A proper Boost frame/wheel will be perfectly centered. Is yours a Specialized?

It’s a sonder transmitter, scotroutes. I’ve not ridden anything like this before so just assumed the rear clearance would be massive, but it’s actually quite fine for a 2.8 tyre [actually doesn’t take a 3.0].

Isn’t there there a boost plus ? Or something similar.

I don’t necessarily object to new standards, just the worry that is an intermediate step as mentioned above.

That wheel should be centred. I’d check that the tyre is on evenly.

Also, bear in mind that fitting 3″ tyres in short chainstays is a bit constrictive. It may be that the drive side chainstay is closer because that’s the only way they could get it all to fit (though I thought the Sonder was all fine).

Brant. Brant. Brant.

Cliche alert …

Blokes and let’s face it most of the market for MTBs are blokes. Like technical stuff, angles/geometry, rebound, tweaking, blah blah. We should not be surprised that the bike industry uses that to market to us with a bit for forced obsolescence thrown in for good measure.

The more I read about this from those in the know here the happier I am still riding straight steerer 26″ bikes.

There’s an inevitability to things these days, few things come along and die off again – 1.5 inch steerer forks spring to mind, but not much else.

If you want future proof, boost, plus sized tyres and probably an electric motor. Take as many new standards as you can find – most manufacturers seem more than keen to jump on the latest bandwagon – oh don’t forget a ‘metric’ shock too if you want a FS.

Perhaps years of sales and marketing has made me cynical but I think e-bikes are going to be the norm soon – there’s a pattern – year 1, here’s a new thing, mags say ‘here’s a new thing, choice is good, it’ll be great for some riders’ year 2 ‘hey don’t knock it till you try it’ it’s better than the old thing without downsides. Year 3 the new thing is now only ever referred to as the norm, the old thing is obsolete. Sat between massive double page ads for the new thing.

Nah. Lot’s of “new things” happen regardless of the mags/media. Fatbikes are a classic example, and if it hadn’t been for folk ignoring the mags, then riding them in “inappropriate” places, Plus would likely never have happened either.

This wasn’t intended as another “Bike industry whinge” thread, they’re scheming gits, but we knew that.

To put it in a bit of context I am still riding a bike with QR rear and 20mm front axles so the current ‘standard’ (142×12/100×15) has already passed me by and appears to be getting implemented on CX bikes.

I am really just wondering if my reading between the lines, and assuming that Boost will become the defacto standard for most MTBs is correct and if it makes buying a new bike within the next year, actually quite a bad idea.

cookeaa – Member

I am really just wondering if my reading between the lines, and assuming that Boost will become the defacto standard for most MTBs is correct

It is- in fact we’re already getting there. I mentioned up the page but 2017 bikes with 142 rears are being criticised in the press as being outdated, the assumption is already that anything expensive will be 142.5 or whatever it is.

Only at the front – and that’s a fork, not frame issue. 3mm extra each side at the back, that’s all.

No on my new Orange Five it has almost exactly (as much as a metal rule can tell me) more clearance than my old frame. This is the latest version vs the previous incarnation of the five.

I see the Cotic Soul is now available as boost rear, I can’t understand why, other than “everyone’s doing it”.

The soul is supposed to be a lively, light, no fuss hardtail. It’s still just 650b as far as I’m aware, not plus anything. With boost, which seems completely pointless, it’s now a £600 frame.

On the geek section of the website there’s still an article about why Cy didn’t think 12×142 axles were necessary.

Having said all that, I’m about to I think buy two cotic hardtail frames with qr rears that should last years and I already have wheels and forks for. And rather than build another ‘big bike’ from bits, next time I’ll just buy a complete bike together with whatever next best thing standards it has.

Isn’t boost to allow short stays and fat tyres?

On my plus bike which is boost and has very short stays (for a plus bike), the chain only just clears the rear tyre in the largest sprocket though admittedly I’m not running a boost specific crank.

I don’t belive that it’s made any significant difference to wheel stiffness though.

Surely any self-respecting bike tinkerer can re-lace their wheels onto new boost hubs when they upgrade their frame and/or fork.

Well, yes, that’s what I did but it meant new spokes and hubs which was annoying.

Am I right in thinking that boost hubs need a boost compatible now crankset, whereas 142mm hubs don’t?

With a boost hub the chain line is arguably better with a non-boost crank – and you certainly don’t need a boost crank (except if you want to run 2x and fat tyres on certain frames).

Not necessarily. There’s not much difference in chainline and you can always adjust it a little by moving the BB spacer. A Boost crankset will provide extra clearance for 3″ tyres though.

Pretty certain my santa cruz vp free from over a decade ago had a 150mm rear hub…..Nothing special really. I noticed no difference moving to a 135mm nomad. Completely pointless and just aimed at selling kit to numpties

Isn’t there there a boost plus ? Or something similar.

Yes, Super Boost Plus! Which annoying makes more sense than Boost. Yay moar standards!

http://nsmb.com/super-boost-plus-better/

I’ll be actively avoiding it, or buying something that’s also compatable with 9mm and thus 99% of world’s bicycles.

But, I’ll only buy something else if the current 9mm, 26 inch bike gets stolen or becomes unfixable.

Trying to give the shysters as little cash as possible these days of post truth marketing.
However, have bought 2 new bikes between us this year, but they’re both 9mm and one is 26″.
That’ll teach ’em.
🙂

Well my good old Hope’s will do
9mm/15mm/20mm and Boost the rear will do 135/142/148
http://www.wolftoothcomponents.com/products/boostinator
Whats not to like 😉

im a stay rubber, so I’m not impressed with the wholesale application of boost. What I find really irritating is boost rear spacing on bikes speced with a standard chainset. Why wouldn’t a manufacturer take full advantage of the system?

I hate all this ‘will they won’t they’ standards stuff.

I’ve got a decent FS bike with a 142×12 rear axle and good wheels. I’m now looking at a new hardtail and can’t decide if I’m better off buying one with the same rear spacing so I can swap kit if needed or going boost so I’m not buying stuff that’s ‘out of date’. Yay for the bike industry! B@statds.

I have a 26’er Soul with old std hubs.

I have just ordered a new Anthem with Boost hubs.

I don’t plan to swop bits between them and I very much doubt I will notice the difference in hub width.

So in my case, it really doesn’t matter 😀