Another new standard (or not).

Isn’t it exactly the same as the existing 150mm DH standard, but with locating tabs?

Yes, that’s exactly what it is, but with a new name so it’s Moar Betterer!

Isn’t it exactly the same as the existing 157mm DH standard, but with locating tabs?

DH bikes went up 7mm a few years ago too.

I think their point was that a lot of DH hubs have quite narrow flanges to get even spoke tension as the hub sits centrally in the frame. To adapt that for bigger ‘XC’ wheels they’ve moved the flanges back out to where they would be relative to the frame and I presume they’ve dished it so that the cassette sticks out past a bigger tyre.

Someone on here had a Pact hardtail built up with a 150mm hub for similar reasons? May have been before ‘boost’ was a thing.

Thanks for the clarification TINAS.

I’m very relaxed about new stuff if it takes advantage of existing standards, in so many ways this makes much more sense than Boost 148.

I just wish manufacturers felt the same way.

I’m a standard proliferation h8er but they make their points very well… It’s not a new standard at all, arguably it’s an old standard that makes more sense than Boost (Boost of course being mostly bullshit; the classic new standard of being a big enough change to not be too scary or difficult to add to existing designs, and to require a load of new parts, and to sell as new and exciting… but not really big enough to achieve much)

But, it still amounts to yet another bit of destandardisation. It’s kind of like with dh bikes… Orange and Scott and Last and a few others said “150mm doesn’t really make any sense, the flanges are often no wider and it adds weight and bulk, let’s stick with 135mm”. And they were absolutely right, and it worked great, but few people followed them so it ended up creating embuggeration for owners.

It looks like the one change Pivot are making is widening the flanges while maintaining the same OLD. I suppose if they’re going to go with 157×12 that makes sense?

I was talking about this (to a chap on a green Trans Am 27.5) yesterday – I think the bike industry want us all to buy a new bike, then run it into the ground without replacing/upgrading parts. The new ‘Dale BotE is a case in point – I don’t think there’s anything on it which is a mainstream standard…

197 fat bike hubs would beg to differ

I was talking about this (to a chap on a green Trans Am 27.5) yesterday – I think the bike industry want us all to buy a new bike, then run it into the ground without replacing/upgrading parts. The new ‘Dale BotE is a case in point – I don’t think there’s anything on it which is a mainstream standard…

To an extent it’s how most other industries work.

You don’t go to buy a new car, and complain that the nearly new clutch you just had fitted to your BMW won’t be compatible with the Audi.

It’s fine, and arguably should lead to better bikes, as long as there’s parts backup.

Deliberately silly tounge in cheek name?

Looks like a great use of existing standards to me.

It’s fine, and arguably should lead to better bikes, as long as there’s parts backup.

Wherein lies the rub.

To an extent it’s how most other industries work

Depends what you pick if i have a computer any monitor works with it
My tin opener still opens tins despite being given it by my Gran 30 ish years ago
It depends on what you choose whether your example works and cars never had interchangeable parts between models but bikes did.
Its clear they are not doing it for our benefit but whilst it remains the new golf it will work as a model

Once the trendies move on to the new cycling it will be interesting to see what happens

It’s fine, and arguably should lead to better bikes, as long as there’s parts backup.

Why should it lead to better bikes? we wont get the same range of parts as no manufacturer will support all standards – see 26 ” straight steerer forks for example.

Why should it lead to better bikes?

2 examples spring to mind.

1) This pivot, better bike by not accepting any off the shelf hubs.
2) Cannondale Fat bike, uses some proprietory chainset parts to get a significantly lower Q-factor.

On point 2 there’s an even better example. Race face Cinch, a one size fits all chainset, but to achieve that the Q-factor is huge, 20mm bigger than the equivalent SRAM cranks, as you’ve found some 190mm frames even fit the 170mm version of the cranks.

So there’s now 3 options:
Ok- Race face and any frame should fit
Better – SRAM, but you need to design the frame carefully
Best – Cannondale Si cranks

This pivot, better bike by not accepting any off the shelf hubs.

that is not even a point its tautological. Its better because its new and new is better – personally i think tried and tested trumps new more times than it does not. In what sense is a Hope hub off the shelf worse than an entirely new designed hub never before used on a bikes?

I dont get at all what your point is with point 2- can you rephrase please. It seems to say, and you cannot mean, its better because we have some cranks that are shit and dont fit all bikes?

TBH i Have switched off staying up to date with change so i dont even know what the standard is these days for cranks as I am still on external BB and run only 26 ers
I did know what Q factor meant as that is an old measure 😉

that is not even a point its tautological. Its better because its new and new is better – personally i think tried and tested trumps new more times than it does not. In what sense is a Hope hub off the shelf worse than an entirely new designed hub never before used on a bikes?

Well a wider hub is going to be stiffer, especially on a 29er. So by coming up with a new hub with flanges 15mm further apart the bike will (probably, no ones ridden it) be better.

I dont get at all what your point is with point 2- can you rephrase please. It seems to say, and you cannot mean, its better because we have some cranks that are shit and dont fit all bikes?

Basically Cannondale have their own chainset, no other chainset will fit that bike. As a result it’s considerably narrower than most other (fatbike) chainsets.

SRAM make their chainsets in 100mm and 120mm BB shell versions, they’re not much wider than the cannondale. But the chainline’s fine and the Q-factor is relatively narrow.

Race face make 1 size of crank arm, then about 20 BB spindles. As a result the cranks are a bit of a bodge and fit all bikes, and as a result they’re about 20mm wider than the equivalent SRAM.

The Race face is the one size fits all approach with a ‘standard’ crank and suffers as a result.
The SRAM is a halfway house, they make a compete chainset that works most of the time (they don’t fit all frames).
The cannondale uses a bespoke part which does the job best.

thisisnotaspoon – Member

Well a wider hub is going to be stiffer, especially on a 29er.

All other things being equal it’ll be marginally stiffer, by an amount you probably won’t notice. But that could equally have been achieved with taller flanges. Hardly anyone ever did that and practically nobody ever thought it was worth spending money for, but suddenly getting the same marginal benefit by a different method is exciting

Also, a good proportion of the people who think it’s valuable now, didn’t bother to have very stiff wheels in the past, when they could have done with better parts or build. Likewise manufacturers, who’ll sell you STIFFER BOOST WHEELS but still have half-assed builds, I’m looking at you here Orange.

Most people who think their new boost wheels are giving them a stiffness benefit, will have less stiff wheels than my 100/135mm wheels- less stiff wheels than they could have had already.

(me, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass, I have flexy wheels and stiff wheels, as long as they point in pretty much the right direction I don’t care. Some people actually dislike stiffer parts. But it’s a measurable in a world of subjectives, same as weightweenying (*), you can’t sell “Rides 11% nicer”)

(* and for the record; I am totally a weightweenie, so I’m not taking the high moral ground here; I’m saying we’re mostly idiots that deserve every shit the bike industry takes on our heads)

1) This pivot, better bike by not accepting any off the shelf hubs.

Except, of course, that it takes any off the shelf 157×12 DH hub?

To an extent it’s how most other industries work.

You don’t go to buy a new car, and complain that the nearly new clutch you just had fitted to your BMW won’t be compatible with the Audi.

It’s fine, and arguably should lead to better bikes, as long as there’s parts backup.

Except that mountain biking doesn’t really equate to standard road use with cars and motos. Both road going cars and motos are designed with huge mileage lives in comparison to mountain bikes – simply because parts can be heavy enough to last that long.

In mountain biking, like motocross and track racing – parts are built lighter and to higher tolerances, requiring more frequent servicing and replacement. Privateer level motocross bikes won’t be changed for a new model each season, but will often go through a series of evolutionary changes throughout the chassis racing life with suspension, brake, wheel and engine upgrades. There is also a massive industry for race cars, based around replacing off the shelf parts with better kit.

So unless the MTB industry can build me a 4lb fork with 1000 hour service intervals, no thanks. Unfortunately, SRAM stuff comes specced on most prebuilt bikes as well – and Sram stuff is utter garbage.

You mentioned Cannondale as a good example of in-house standards, this is the same company that gave us the DYAD shock, which was utter – utter garbage of the highest order. If I couldn’t replace the fork on my current bike (a pike), I would be stuck with a fork that continually blows it’s compression valving and get’s stuck down in it’s travel because of a blocked air port.

How would that be good for us, the consumer?

You bunch of short sighted lemmings.

Well a wider hub is going to be stiffer, especially on a 29er. So by coming up with a new hub with flanges 15mm further apart the bike will (probably, no ones ridden it) be better

so the new standard we made is too tall to be strong so we made it wider to be strong and not this is a selling point…. I thought you were telling me how it was better to not go with “off the shelf stuff” Does this not suggest they test the design in the field and found 29 er to be “weak”. HOw will they find this new design ?

Still not getting the crank thing you just seem to be saying we have so many standards you can longer just get one crank for all bikes- and if you can its crap. How does that prove multiple standards is a good thing when with even square taper any crank fitted and did the job.

so the new standard we made is too tall to be strong so we made it wider to be strong and not this is a selling point…. I thought you were telling me how it was better to not go with “off the shelf stuff” Does this not suggest they test the design in the field and found 29 er to be “weak”. HOw will they find this new design ?

You could say it like that.

Or say that 29ers were an improvement over 26ers (let it die, enough kittens gave their lives already), but exposed the limitations of existing 135mm QR hubs. If you were designing a 29er from the ground up with no reliance on exiting standards (like Pivot), then a bigger hub make sense.

Still not getting the crank thing you just seem to be saying we have so many standards you can longer just get one crank for all bikes- and if you can its crap. How does that prove multiple standards is a good thing when with even square taper any crank fitted and did the job.

In even fewer words:

Race face cinch cranks and axle for 190mm rear ends – 220mm Q-factor
SRAM cranks for 190mm rear ends – 200mm Q-factor
Cannondale Si cranks – even less

Race Face’s system is an evolution of the square taper idea, 1 set of cranks, multiple axle lengths. And as a result it’s got issues as the same crank has to clear the chainstays of a 68mm BB/135mm rear end, and a 120mm BB/190mm hub. Whereas SRAM and Cannondale made the arms straighter and moved the chainring out to make cranks that actually fit fat bikes. Cannondale took it to an extreme and made a chainset that fits that frame and that frame only.

In mountain biking, like motocross and track racing – parts are built lighter and to higher tolerances, requiring more frequent servicing and replacement. Privateer level motocross bikes won’t be changed for a new model each season, but will often go through a series of evolutionary changes throughout the chassis racing life with suspension, brake, wheel and engine upgrades. There is also a massive industry for race cars, based around replacing off the shelf parts with better kit.

That is exactly my point, I don’t buy a CRF450 and expect a YZF450 engine to fit. I accept that I’m beholden to Honda for engines (and probably rear hubs, swingarm bushings and a lot of other stuff). And as a result I probably get a better bike, Honda will have made sure the gearbox output is in the right place relative to the swingarm pivot so wont squat too badly under power. The COG will be right. If the engine is a stressed member then it will do it’s job and give me a lighter bike overall, etc, etc.

And MX engine service intervals make Fox’s 20hour lowers of a few years back seem almost reasonable!

Crazy people can and do swap engines between manufacturers. But other than an engine, you will find KTM’s with full Ohlins, WP or Showa setups. Different brakes, different bars, different wheels, new gearboxes…..new just about everything….except the engine….which can be kept going for donkeys years given correct servicing…and you never run out of spares.

A small company like cannondale that could go under, making a bike with a set of cranks that are incompatible with anything else means that you are screwed if you can never get that part.

You never run out of spares with Hondas or Yamahas, you do in the bicycle world.

Cannondale are very good at keeping old spares. I can still get service parts for my 94 Cannondale Delta V headshock and headset.
Fox don’t even supply Fit bladders from a few years ago.

A small company like cannondale that could go under,

Where would you get Maxi Cosi car seat spares, then? 😮

If you were designing a 29er from the ground up with no reliance on exiting standards (like Pivot), then a bigger hub make sense.

Ok got you makes sense

Ok got it on the cranks

So basically a set of specific cranks for each frame spacing/ rear wheel

We got there in the end.
Cheers for your patience.

thisisnotaspoon – Member

Race face cinch cranks and axle for 190mm rear ends – 220mm Q-factor
SRAM cranks for 190mm rear ends – 200mm Q-factor
Cannondale Si cranks – even less

Race Face’s system is an evolution of the square taper idea, 1 set of cranks, multiple axle lengths. And as a result it’s got issues as the same crank has to clear the chainstays of a 68mm BB/135mm rear end, and a 120mm BB/190mm hub. Whereas SRAM and Cannondale made the arms straighter and moved the chainring out to make cranks that actually fit fat bikes. Cannondale took it to an extreme and made a chainset that fits that frame and that frame only.

Sorry but this is all wrong- you’ve just misunderstood Raceface’s categories and range basically.

First and most important, they do make 200mm q-factor cranks using the same arms, I use one in my bike. Direct equivalent of the SRAM version you mentioned, and usable in much the same places, including my 197mm-rear fatbike. So your idea that the modular crank design prevents this is demonstrably wrong.

Their 197mm terminology is ver confusing, to be fair. Those monster 220, 230mm q-factor cranks are advertised as for 197mm rear but it essentially means “bikes that make full use of the 197”. Of course, not all 197mm rear bikes are actually very wide. And in fact the rear axle really doesn’t dictate this, it’s tyre room and tube profile that does. Mine will only take a 4.8 tyre maximum, which is why it doesn’t need a big wide crank. But those “197” cranks will work with wider tyres, wider stays, etc. Your Quirang BBBs and whatever else comes along next. They have a wider Q factor simply because they’re wider cranks- at the pedal and at the BB too

Essentially Raceface offer a wider range of choice but you only seem to have noticed their biggest, widest offerings. DO wish they’d explain this stuff better though. In fact they seem to have just taken some of the useful info off their website 😕