I just bought a new (to me) frame that was older than my one.
Had to buy new (to me) wheels as had gone from 142×12 -> 135QR at the back and mine didn’t have changeable hubs, but now have Hope Pro 2 Evos so should be good for a while.
Also had to get a new (to me) dropper post as had gone from 31.6mm -> 30.9mm, but new one has a shim if I want to go up a size again.

And I thought I’d got away with it too!

You can move parts from one bike to another. You can replace the fork without replacing the hub. You can replace parts easily when they break and you have a wider choice of upgrades. You can sell the wheel and more people can use it. You can use more parts in your existing fork. You can swap parts between your bikes. Shops can carry less inventory, creating cost savings and improving availability for customers (without standardisation, good luck walking into a shop and buying anything you want- everyone with daft spokes in a wheel knows how this works). Manufacturers can sell more of each product creating economies of scale. Parts can be used for longer, reducing waste. It’s less likely that you get screwed because a part is discontinued, because there are alternatives.

But…..

At no point in all of that did you give any reason covering it’s actual use. More time riding, less worrying about upgrades.

And in most cases there will be someone making a widget the make whatever it is compatible anyway. In this case, a 5mm disk spacer?

Actually hang on a minute? Weren’t Marzocchi 20mm forks designed with a bigger offset to the disk? You’re all getting your knickers in a twist over something Marzocchi were doing 10+ years ago! Note the ohhh so hard to deal with extra 5mm of material.

I love new standards

As I’m still riding 26″ wheels, non boost it means a steady supply of cheap parts on eBay

thisisnotaspoon – Member

At no point in all of that did you give any reason covering it’s actual use.

Except for absolutely all of them.

At the other end of the scale I did note the manitou ”MARKHOR” is being released, apparently to satisfy the luddite market, and it’s only 2.5kg 😀

I am now tired of ranting about the various forms of cycle industry twattery and overuse of the word “innovation” to describe minor, incremental changes…

I did like this little gem though,

You know, Vernon, I was talking to Brent Foes the other day about this and you know the last time I folded a front wheel? It was 1992.

So the fella trying to flog us yet another hub/axle standard is basically saying that, for the vast majority at least, wheels were pretty much good enough ~25 years ago?

Having read the full article I think the fella trying to sell the new standard is fairly open about the fact he’s spotted a bigger brand doing it and doesn’t want to be left behind.

The myriad standards are a pita for customers but they must create a huge financial risk for smaller mtb companies.

Except for absolutely all of them.

No, they’re all about spanning, spares, costs, obsolescence.

Riding complaints would be ‘this will make front wheels too stiff’.

You know, Vernon, I was talking to Brent Foes the other day about this and you know the last time I folded a front wheel? It was 1992.

Which is why it doesn’t really matter what front hub you have, as long as you have one, it’s not something you brake every day!

thisisnotaspoon – Member

No, they’re all about spanning, spares, costs, obsolescence.

Which is all about its use. Good luck riding a broken bike or one you can’t buy the right part for, or can’t afford.

Good luck riding a broken bike or one you can’t buy the right part for, or can’t afford.

Despite the proliferation of standards recently, does anyone have a concrete example of a part that’s not available either OEM, aftermarket or on ebay?

You’re not talking about how things are today, you’re talking about making it much worse.

That aside, yes, there’s already loads, many caused by deviating from standards. Try and buy spokes for a factory wheel from a couple of years back (I can buy usable parts for my mountain bike wheels that I bought in 1991, because of standards. If I want a spoke for some wheels I bought in 2014 I need to special order them from abroad at 55 euros, because of lack of standards. It’s impossible to replace the rim) Or some mech hangers- you can’t buy hangers for one of my frames, I have to machine down a similar one to fit.

And of course you can find parts, given time- but are they the parts you want? Quite likely not. Can you find them on demand? Probably not. Walk into a bike shop and try and buy some weird specific part because your bike just broke in the middle of your holiday. “Do you have a Giant Overdrive headset and 2 spokes for a 2007 Crossmax Enduro in stock?”

I had trouble just finding a crank to fit a bloody common or garden trek, eventually found one- overpriced and low quality and not the length I wanted but just had to throw it in anyway because it was a choice of one. Nothing fitted the other parts i had so I had to get an expensive BB and ring too. All caused by lack of standards.

The proliferation of standards and the development of new standards are slightly separate issues. Many of the problems occur because we’re not moving on to new standards quickly enough, wanting to retain backwards compatibility or demanding that we can still buy parts for older equipment.

Take Boost as an example; it might have been developed to make 29er wheels stiffer, and to increase rim/tyre width, but there’s no technical reason not to use it for all 650B bikes as well. So, it makes perfect sense for manufacturers to standardise on that even if you get no advantage from building with it. It cuts down on design, manufacturing and stocking costs.

What’s I feel is most interesting is this continual “improvement” process is making selling any bikes with technology that is not completely up to date, with new wheel sizes, hub dimensions, cable routing etc etc, virtually impossible. Is it just me with my own conspiratorial thinking when I say the industry realised that to keep turning over large profits, they were going to have to somehow destroy the incredibly expanding second-hand market that flows from websites such as these? Otherwise how are we consumers going to keep buying our shiny new bikes at regular intervals if they have such fanastic second-hand options that are so easily accessible with the internet?

I now have a 27.5 bike as I didn’t want to get left behind either by the new standards and honestly buying new 26″ bikes and parts has become almost impossible anyway. My 26″ Blur LTC for sale on various forums is getting almost no attention despite it being one of the most lusted after bikes previously, albeit maybe 5 years ago. I’m beginning to get increasingly cynical about a bike industry that is bringing out new “standards” that appear to be very minor alterations to the various technologies we have used for a considerable period of time, which appear to have the added advantage to the industry of rendering incredibly good bike technology obsolete.

Are people really telling me the 5″ or 6″ travel bikes we used up until 2013 are completely outdone by 650B? Or are we all being sheeple? For what it’s worth, my Blur rides like a dream so I’m not particularly concerned about needing to get rid of it. But what about us all with our new 650B bikes in 5 years? Are we going to be left again when the industry decides only 700c is the best option? Hold on a sec, 700c. I believe some older generation bikes use those?

And there’s your problem. You have a great bike. It rides like a dream but you don’t want it anymore and you’re complaining no one else does. You could just carry on riding it. Spares and components are still available.

Or, do you actually accept that all of those developments and improvements are worth having?

The return of coils, 20mm through axles – it’s like a dream – when are Totems and Josh Bender coming back?

And there’s your problem. You have a great bike. It rides like a dream but you don’t want it anymore and you’re complaining no one else does. You could just carry on riding it. Spares and components are still available.

Or, do you actually accept that all of those developments and improvements are worth having?

I really only wanted a longer travel enduro machine. No, I do not agree all the improvements have benefited us. It’s impossible to test but I wonder if we put people on the same machines but engineered for 26″ wheels vs 27.5″ wheels, would anyone notice a real world difference? Given downhill machines were the last to move to bigger wheel sizes, it leads me to feel that for Enduro we would have been pretty much in the same place we are now but able to swap older wheels etc with each other.

I suppose of all the latest fork axle standards 20×110 “Boost” is the least problematic for someone like me, if I did want to raid the spares bin for parts, I already have a couple of “old” standard 20mm hubs, add a 5mm spacer and yep, I am golden… It is less faff TBF.

The fact that it’s taken them three iterations to work their way back round to the new “best” solution (moving the brake mount 5mm outbound on a ~20 year old existing standard) is somewhat laughable, had I bought into 15×100 or 15×110 I would be more annoyed…

Of course I can’t afford DVO forks and I’ll want the SC 5″ travel version when something affordable does turn up in this “new” flavour anyway… But still, pisstakers the lot of them!

Glad I kept my 20mm Chris King axel…

Agree completely. I’ve slowly moved over to road biking partly due to constantly been told my MTB is out of date. Which is why I no longer read any bike magazine’s. Can’t remember the last time I even took a copy of ST out of the cellophane!

Still enjoy riding the MTB. But, no intention to buy anything new until they can go for longer than 6 months without deciding to tell me that my new wheels are now in fact sh**e, as the air I’ve used to pump up the tyres isn’t enduro specific air or hubs aren’t wide enough.

The very minor upside is places like Paul’s cycles and start fitness etc. If you’re not a slave to new standards then you can get a new bike at second hand money

And it’s not just mtb……..Brand new full carbon, sub 8kg road bike for £599? Yes please… you just need to live with the horror of a straight steerer, 10 speed campagnolo and an external threaded BB.

cookeaa – Member

The fact that it’s taken them three iterations to work their way back round to the new “best” solution (moving the brake mount 5mm outbound on a ~20 year old existing standard) is somewhat laughable, had I bought into 15×100 or 15×110 I would be more annoyed…

Essentially everything to do with 15mm vs 20mm axles is laughable, this is just the latest chapter

My reaction to the article was that the new standard flows from the popularity of 29″ wheels in DH. The extra flangeness and wheel strength are probably important there. Everyone else can happily run their ordinary 20mm or 15/20mm hubs with spacers and/or adapters. Easy with a bold-on disc anyhow, may be more probby with a screw-on.

I had one of those Marzocchi forks, in the early days of 20mm through-axles there was some vagueness about where the brakes went, my Middleburn hub needed different spacres (which they supplied FOC naturally, being Middleburn). Problem was disc rotor bolts fouling the fork leg.

Prob with standards is that v1 of any standard is probably not ideal and will need updating, so waiting for v2 is always a good idea. One of the things that often isn’t nailed down initially is the amount and location of free space guaranteed by the standard. Disc caliper fouling spokes used to be an issue with some hubs as well I recall.

My reaction to the article was that the new standard flows from the popularity of 29″ wheels in DH. The extra flangeness and wheel strength are probably important there.

i think its more likely that they have moved both 29 and 27.5 over to boost so having to keep narrow hubs just for DH forks doesnt make any sense.

Standard proliferation is still a problem even if you’re Santa Cruz and you can just phone up Chris King and get them to custom build you stuff
http://reviews.mtbr.com/the-santa-cruz-syndicate-v10-29

greyspoke – Member

Prob with standards is that v1 of any standard is probably not ideal and will need updating, so waiting for v2 is always a good idea.

Even only counting mainstream standards this is v6, by my count.

As a few have said – people want developments but then moan about standardisation of the developments.

Presumably bolt through 20mm forks/hubs are better than QR 9mm forks/hubs? If so you need a standard for 20mm so everyone manufacturers to that standard and parts interact.

Stop the development and stop the new standards.

My sole bike is currently a 1991 steel track bike which is using components with standards that existed for many years so I may be the wrong person to add to any woes on this…

I ride a 26 wheeled bike with 142×12/15×100 axles and a threaded BB so don’t GAF about new standards.

I imagine Gwin would be paid to say he noticed the difference then thank the lord for the advantage it confers.

Fixed, no charge.

Stop the development and stop the new standards.

But everyone wants them frozen at a different point in time.

How many would happily go back to 1.9″ tyres (tubes, obviously), no suspension, narrow bars, long stems, 3x (limited range) gearing, no droppers, old-stool geometry? There was no “golden age” of no development.

erley – Member

As a few have said – people want developments but then moan about standardisation of the developments.

Presumably bolt through 20mm forks/hubs are fat better than QR 9mm forks/hubs? If so you need a standard for 20mm so everyone manufacturers to that standard and parts interact.

Like I said, no problem with genuine developments delivered well.

20mm axles are a great example of the problem though- 20mmx110mm was the best wheel standard at the time. it was lighter than QR15mm, stiffer, and suitable for a wider range of bikes. But Fox and Shimano pushed their competing, inferior standard, largely by using OEM seller power to take the decision out of consumer hands, and drove 20mm out of town.

And then as soon as 15mm dominated and standards settled, along came Boost- which quietly returned to the 110mm standard they’d just finished crushing and used just enough of both standards to make it largely incompatible with either.

And now comes Boost 20mm, which actually does build on previous standards, and has much better compatibility, hallmarks of a good standard… Which’d be awesome, if there was continuity but instead 20mm got stamped out first, and the interim 15mm period means that those advantages are largely wasted.

QR, 20mm, 20mm boost is a reasonable progression with improvements in each generation and minimal disruption/maximum compatibility. Instead we got QR-20mm-15mm-both at the same time-15mm-15mm boost-20mm boost. It makes the same journey with a load of extra wastage and some actual backwards steps.

Basically the problem at every step here isn’t “progress”, it’s that there was a competing line of standards which was always inferior for customers but which had industry advantages and power behind it.

Nothing had been made obsolete? yet has it?

One can still buy new or second hand parts for the bike. Whilst the new products of the ‘older’ sizes is shrinking it’s still possible to get.

Just let the marketeers get on with it, ignore them and ride your bike. That’s what it’s about isn’t it? Riding.

kayla1 – Member

I imagine Gwin would be paid to say he noticed the difference then thank the lord for the advantage it confers.

Fixed, no charge.

lol

You can set standards, but things don’t always work out the way you thought. Take 150mm rear axles. The idea was you could build a stronger rear wheel, but the hub manufacturers kept the hub flanges the same distance apart.

A prob with 20mm front axles was the flimsy bearings, which need replacing lots. No scope for putting bigger ones in because IS 6-bolt standard. In theory a 15mm axle would allow for bigger bearings, but almost all 15mm hubs I have come across use the same bearings as 20mm one, but with different end spacers.

So one does indeed end up asking what the point of 15mm front axles was (weight saved at the bottom of the forks perhaps?)