I’m going to buy a Cotic Soul with a boost rear but the forks on Merlin are a lot cheaper for the non-boost ones, any problem with mixing (can’t think of any but STW is always a good gross error checker). Cheers.

Exactly what I’m running, for exactly the same reasons. I haven’t died yet!

I don’t even get what on earth difference you can detect with boost anyway.

Only issue I can see is if you wanted to buy a factory wheelset as if the rear was boost then I guess the front will be also (148/110 – I think). Buy them individually or get a set from a wheel builder then you can get what you want.

There was an old lady who ran boost rear and normal forks.
She’s dead, of course.

Doesn’t quite scan, I’m running boost forks with 142×12 rear and so far healthy, apart from a cough but I don’t think it’s related.

^ 😆

No reason at all. If anyone can actually tell the difference I’ll show my bum in Fenwick’s window.

I can tell the difference because I couldn’t fit a 45mm rim and 3″ tyre in the non boost forks. Arse Fenwick picture with today’s paper please.

😆

It’s what I am running…still alive

It’ll be a bollocks to sell the wheels, should you ever wish to. But if you’re saving enough now, who cares?

I run this combo and fell off my bike the other week on wet roots. I broke my brake lever because of this. I blame my lack of boost forks and front wheel completely. If I had matched boost front end to the rear end of my bike I would of been able to manual over.

I even just upgraded my fork to another non boost variety.

Cheers all, thought it was the case but didn’t want to miss something really obvious (only getting the boost rear to future proof, I think the whole concept is sketchy at best).

I’m running the same and can’t see how boost front would make much difference tbh.

I’m running boost front but 12×142 on the back.

I’m just a kwazy guy….

Dont see a problem really 😀

All YT Jeffsys (Jeffsies?) come like that, and my Trek Stache did too. No fireballs yet.

I can’t see why non + bikes are running boost back ends anyway?

If you accept the fact that + bikes benefit from the added tyre clearance and then add in the small supposed benefit of stiffer wheels that a wider hub offers, then it makes sense for the industry to adopt one standard that’ll take both wider and narrower tyres.

core – Member

I can’t see why non + bikes are running boost back ends anyway?

7% better heel clipping

Running it too. Although I willy buy a Boost fork and hub spacer at some point down the line.

Same here, boost rear on my Travers, but non boost front so I could run a dynamo hub, which at the time was not available in a boost option.

My Segment boost rear non boost front , spec ed this way .

Converting non boost to boost front is not straight forward though, all the spacer kits just put 10mm on the drive side, offsetting the hub to keep the disc in the right place, necessitating re-dishing the wheel to get the rim centered in the fork.

Better off getting two 5mm hub spacers made together with a 5mm disc spacer and using longer bolts. At least that way the wheel could still be used in a 100mm wide fork.

My impression of Boost was that it was basically a fix for the minor issues thrown up by a bunch of other innovations of late, some of which are more popularly accepted than others… As a result it may or may not be a standard you wanted to ignore.

As I understood things, the slightly wider hub gave back some of the strength lost by making wheels bigger than 26″, made it easier to accommodate B+ tyres *and* not saw through their already fragile sidewalls with your chain and helped with any chainline issues anyone believed were inflicted on them as a result of being forced to use the whole damn cassette by 1x transmissions. Don’t think I’ve missed anything there, but bodging with spacers is guaranteed to make sure that none of these fixes work. So far as the front is concerned, I think matching hubs, slightly stronger wheel and wider tyres is all there is 🙂

Yes but TBH It’s still all a bit

“innovations” or not…

Front boost is absolute 100% stone cold bullshit. The only reason standard forks struggle with clearance is the shape of the fork arch and that’s also the only thing that’s meaningfully different on the boost forks when it comes to tyres. The axle’s not really connected in any way.

Wheel stiffness isn’t total bullshit but the marketing of it is. You can do the same thing with taller flanges- but in fact a lot of popular wheels have gone with smaller flanges over the last few years, especially straightpulls, which reduces triangulation, exactly the oppposite of what we’re now told is important. When did anyone ever go “these flanges are too small, it’s hurting wheel stiffness?” And flange offset varied from wheel to wheel, and hardly anyone ever did offset rims. Chub or E13 tried pretty hard to push big flanges as a bonus but nobody cared. And you’ll get bikes with “boost for more stiffness” but 28 spoke wheels, little tiny flanges, or just plain old cheap badly made wheels, because the marketable part will change but not the other bits. So, it’s marketing. There might be a point to it if the limits of the old design had been being pushed or even considered.

Rear boost actually isn’t total bollocks. Except for the bit where they could have used the existing 150mm standard

I thought they did different things? Rear boost was made to allow stiffer builds for bigger wheels,

Front boost was a clearence thing?

Hey, what do I know, I’m only a consumer, do as I’m told me.

My bike is a rear boost & normal front.

Literally can’t tell the difference over 142×12. Seems pointless to me.

Front boost, standard rear. Can’t tell the difference (mostly because the wheels haven’t arrived yet). Forks I wanted were cheapest as boost so I bought them, made getting wheels a bit harder but not too much.