However as a british bike co. we'll take that 3mm on our FS bikes to improve drive side mud clearance! It all adds up.All that said, its not a bad thing. Its basically just someone asking how big can we go before things like heel rub get too annoying. 148 (for whatever reason) was the number settled on, and so that became boost. It actually makes sense in many engineering ways in relation to being able to widen pivots etc.
And for the "bog standard" HT?
A widened rear axle and broader pivot arrangements might benefit a pricey FS bike, but all that extra 6mm means for a HT is a new rear hub is required...
For those of us luddites not seeking plus tyre clearance all we're really being lumbered with by the marketeers is additional cost and reduced heel clearance.
I'm still far from convinced most HTs ever needed a bolt through axle rather than a 135mm QR but nevertheless 12x142mm became a defacto standard only a handful of years ago and it's OK for the job... Now it's "obsolete".
I get the "incremental changes leading to accumulated benefits" over time arguments, but really boost is a forced incompatibility change purely so the bigger manufacturers can maintain turnover by making it less of a ballache to just buy a whole new bike every couple of years.
Let's not pretend the mechanical benefit is what really drives such choices, If Trek/specialized/giant give it the nod and it helps their sales it's going to happen...
benpinnick - MemberI can honestly say that boost is offering not a lot, with the exception of providing extra tyre clearance.
And even that is more or less coincidental- axle width doesn't dictate tyre clearance, a non-boost fork can offer exactly the same clearance just by broadening its stance or even in a lot of cases just improving the arch design.
If you accept the fact that Boost has benefits in some cases - and no disadvantage in the rest - then it makes sense to change everything to the one standard. It reduces manufacturing costs, stocking cost, testing cost and means your shop and distributor have fewer options competing for shelf space.
And for the "bog standard" HT?A widened rear axle and broader pivot arrangements might benefit a pricey FS bike, but all that extra 6mm means for a HT is a new rear hub is required...
For those of us luddites not seeking plus tyre clearance all we're really being lumbered with by the marketeers is additional cost and reduced heel clearance.
I'm still far from convinced most HTs ever needed a bolt through axle rather than a 135mm QR but nevertheless 12x142mm became a defacto standard only a handful of years ago and it's OK for the job... Now it's "obsolete".
For me, cross-compatibility is a factor in the decisions made on HTs. It's a toss up between compatibility with your other or current FS bike or your older / other posher / spare wheelset, and the perception of future-proofing. tbh it can depend on what you make bikes for, your customers or brand position etc - I think backward compatibility is under-rated and jumping on new stuff asap is an easier but not 'always right for all' decision. For 2018 onwards the balance is tipping towards boost spec but I'd also agree that it's not needed, just helps add a bit of tyre space and wheel compatibility with more new bikes. It's self-fulfilling really - herd-speccing (not meant as a criticism, just how it is).
Obselete is a scare term though as you'll be able to get 135 or 142 rear hubs for years yet. Maybe not wheelsets, but there's another good reason for std wheel builds.
And even that is more or less coincidental- axle width doesn't dictate tyre clearance, a non-boost fork can offer exactly the same clearance just by broadening its stance or even in a lot of cases just improving the arch design.
I should have been more clear. Boost offers 3mm extra tyre clearance on the rear drive side. Nothing else unless you're really determined to make the biggest tyre you can fit into your fork, then you [i]might[/i] want that extra 10mm, but up to now, it is the arch design that has been the constraint as you say.
I'm going non boost for new fork to match rear of frame and my other two bikes.
All three will take the same wheels. Unprecedented since the days of 26in and qr.
scotroutes - MemberÂ
If you accept the fact that Boost has benefits in some cases - and no disadvantage in the rest - then it makes sense to change everything to the one standard. It reduces manufacturing costs, stocking cost, testing cost and means your shop and distributor have fewer options competing for shelf space.
Until everyone then has that standard and perfectly good bike and they need a new reason to sell new stuff. Then we get Boost Plus 😀 (probably 152, just to ensure it's not DH wheel compatible again 😉 ).
Though probably not as it is pushing it to unpractical levels. Instead, introduce another new standard for something else. What hasn't been messed with for some time and is perfectly fine for the job? 😉
BenPinnick speaks a lot of sense but ultimately OldTalent has my vote
oldtalent - Member
Boost can F right off.
and the industry that's generating all this S*** can join it.
and the industry that's generating all this S*** can join it.
Disregarding the supposed marginal gains, the fact that half the industry was doing a facepalm as the other half pushed Boost through shows that some bike designers and companies are out of touch with normal riders - who just wanted stability after the wheelsize debacle.
