Loads of people grumble about new standards, usually variations on the theme of "I don't need them, and it just makes things more complicated." See for example electronic shifting etc.
However some new standards do seem to be genuinely problematic in that they're a step backwards.
I've heard some people saying it about DUB bottom brackets.
So which current standards are actually a step backwards from current ones, don't solve the problem that they purport to, and why don't they?
Not really a standard, but internally routed brake hoses.
PF30 bb
A solution looking for a problem that didn't really seem to exist that then needed the expensive solution of a Hope BB to a problem that had been brought into being by the solution to a problem that didn't exist.
Works fine in my bike now and apologies to the industry if there was an actual problem it was seeking to and actually solved.
post mount brake calipers. IS mount are much better from an engineering point of view. Slotted bolt holes are just a bodge
post mount brake calipers.
I raise you to flat mount brake calipers. Absolutely do my nut in. Impossible to do up the fixing bolts without misaligning the caliper, and no shops seem to have the facing tool (probably because it is £500 and a PITA to use).
Not necessarily worse as opposed to just broken - brakes.
In an ideal world the standard would prescribe mount position and the accompanying rotor standard the rotor position. Instead we have a standard for the mount and nothing for the rotor so the reasons that IS didn't work great is the same reason PM falls down (albeit it's easier to adjust PM). Until someone makes a floating caliper this will always be the case.
To answer the OP though, 148mm boost. We already had 150mm which could have easily accommodated wider flange spacing and remained completely backwards and forwards compatible. But that would be too easy.
surely with both IS and post mount the disc position is standardised - its just manufacturing tolerances mean a wee bit adjustment needed
The plethora of different brake pads.
In an ideal world the standard would prescribe mount position and the accompanying rotor standard the rotor position. Instead we have a standard for the mount and nothing for the rotor so the reasons that IS didn’t work great is the same reason PM falls down (albeit it’s easier to adjust PM). Until someone makes a floating caliper this will always be the case.
I think IS mount frames and forks with post mount calipers is a good solution. No ruining lowers with a cross threaded or overly long bolt (not that I've ever done that, but I cringe when I hear about people that have). Also made removing the brake from the forks much easier (no need to realign with reinstalling)
Flat Mount. PITA particularly on steel forks. And I like steel forks, I trust them. A post / flat mount style of frame or fork interface would be fine if made space for an adapter to either FM or PM calipers, like the original Moots bolt-in mount or Peter Verdone's recent work. But if you want drop bar STI and brakes it's FM all the way and the caliper design makes no space for an adapter to a better non-carbon fork mount, and the frame/fork mount means no way to use a PM caliper without it looking stupid on a huge adapter (the rear FM>PM adapter's bearable, the front is a joke).
When FM was released it was 140-160 on the front and it took a bit of CAD time to work out how to make it go 160-180 with the same adapter, but Shimano released FM180 specs a year or so later anyway. Why wasn't that thought through at the time? Just more of this 'there's only road and MTB' thinking that limits how good other less pigeon-holed bikes could be. imho.
Also made removing the brake from the forks much easier (no need to realign with reinstalling)
You could do the same with a +20 IS mount to be fair.
surely with both IS and post mount the disc position is standardised
Nope, the caliper might be but just swapping between two hubs you'll see the rotor position has significant leeway meaning it can be pure luck getting a straight swap.
Nope, the caliper might be but just swapping between two hubs you’ll see the rotor position has significant leeway meaning it can be pure luck getting a straight swap.
Done it loads with most of the time not needed any adjustment. Must be lucky
How?
I mean from an OEM spec perspective it's pretty much drop bars = FM calipers. SRAM still offer some drop bar hydro systems with PM calipers but there are fewer options than there were and the OEM part specs influence frame and fork design.
I could swap a set of PM calipers into a road drop bar system in the garage if needed but if I'm looking at a new gravel or road f+f it'll be FM already and making a new drop bar f+f with IS or PM now would kill the sales. FM was just about aesthetics of carbon bikes, nothing more.
Yeah looks that way, was the bane of my life trying to bugger about with shims in the rain in a muddy field.
Any “new” standard that has clearly been adopted to benefit the manufacturer of carbon frames with no real advantage to the rider (in fact making things just an unnecessary extra hassle for many of them). Some prime example listed above, but there are plenty more.
To answer the OP though, 148mm boost. We already had 150mm which could have easily accommodated wider flange spacing and remained completely backwards and forwards compatible.
Would it have been? Boost also moved the brake mount spacing and you’d have needed a disk spacer if you didn’t have a new wheel, just as you did with 148 boost. All you’d have is 150 and 150 boost.
Not really a standard, but internally routed brake hoses.
Headset cable routing says "Hold my beer"
Cables I don’t really have an issue with, as you don’t need to do anything, once fitted, such as bleed a hydraulic system.
And I am pretty much done with cable operated stuff 😉
BBs.
Probably because it seems like there aren't actually any standards now and everyone does their own thing, changing it fractionally every couple of years to fix problems with the previous iteration.
148mm boost.
It's been done to death, but 150 (or even 157) weren't the answer to them problem that 148 solved.
What about 145 - the tandem standard. Nowt wrong with that but we got 142 and 148 instead
Because the the way the QRs and thru axles sit in drop outs. Yeah, the move from 135 to 142, and then the realisation that 29ers and 1 by systems needed a bit more support (for the wheels), a chain line move (to accommodate 11-12 speed cassettes) and to keep the Q-factor sensible (the reason we don't use DH standards) meant a another new hub. In hindsight it could've probably been wider, but not by using any of the existing rear hub sizes.
Flat mount was my initial choice too. Brakes should be radial, no messing about with anything other than fine tuning the alignment and adding a +20mm spacer as required. The facing is done by a standard engineering too too, costs miles less than the current ones do. Hope had the right idea on their original HB frames but dropped it for compatibility reasons.
My other choice would be presta valves. I know they're not a standard as such but with modern wide rims and tubeless Schrader valves are a much, much better engineering and user-friendly solution. Another one inherited from our roadie cousins.
IS mount are much better from an engineering point of view.
Yeah, so are press fit BBs. But I think 1. the bike industry has proved time and again that it can't sustain QA sufficiently well for these sorts of solutions that rely on manufacturing accuracy and 2. some things just aren't popular with folks.
Why do I need a 6mm Allen key for the front axle and a 5mm for the rear. Why can’t they both use the same size?
Every one of my 5 bikes has a different chainring mount standard and 3 of them are from the same manufacturer!
Metric pints. They're smaller than proper pints.
Disc brakes on road bikes.
Internally routed everything on anything.
An electronic-only top tier road groupset future (incoming).
650b wheels were pointless, worse than 26", not as good as 29".
I agree with the fiddly brake mounts. Had anyone made something to reduce the aggravation?
Micrometer mounts or something?
Hayes made their calipers with grub screws to allow accurate alignment for a while I think, amazed it wasn't adopted by everyone.
Press fit BBs are worse than threaded ones. They always creak unless you spend a fortune on them whereas a cheap HT 2 BB is simple to fit and doesn’t creak (add to that 30mm axles, etc).
35mm bars always seem to be too stiff compared to 31.8 and weigh at least the same.
and bring back 1.5” head tubes
Shimano assymetric chainrings.
Totally pointless (supposedly increases stiffness in an area that never had a problem in the first place) and halves potential ring life where you can rotate by 90 deg to even out the wear.
Disagree about 1.5 headtube, sorry. You couldn't ZS the lower cup with tapered forks, I think ZS56 top and bottom opens up for reach and angle adjust with a cleaner look, I wouldn't mind that being a new standard.
Any shimano standard of the last 20 years.
15mm through axles - nothing wrong with 20mm except it didn't play with c/l rotors.
Microspline - hg was fine if you didn't want a 10t, XD was fine if you did.
Flat mount brakes.
New bottom bracket tools for the same bracket. Just why?!?
Various xtr crank standards that are worse than ht2, ht2 is still good enough for every other crankset that shimano make, the xtr ones seem to add no thy other than extra tools and poorer implementation and durability.
Boost cranksets. Just do the rings like *everyone* else.
Asymmetric chain rings. Why?
Ispec a, there's no need, at all to have shifters you cannot mount without the accompanying brakes.
Ispec b, there is no need at all to have shifters you can't mount without the accompanying brakes that are not the same as the ones there was no need for last year.
Ispec i, etc
Ispec ii, etc
Ispec ev etc.
They used to be good at this stuff.
Oh, actually pf 86 is a vast improvement on the various other press fit standards by virtue of not giving a few mm of leeway on the spec for something which is interference fit so I'll give them that.
I’ve heard some people saying it about DUB bottom brackets.
The issue with dub is is trying to solve a problem that should never have happened. The idea is you can buy a dub crank and know it will fit your frame, you just need to buy the correct bottom bracket, rather than say, ht2 or gpx that won't fit a bb30 frame or bb30 that won't fit a of 30 frame etc etc.
The problem is in trying to solve the issue of 101 frame specifications they've run into the issue they can't make a good bottom bracket to fit half those standards (a) because half of the standards are rubbish (b) because sram can't make a decent bottom bracket - or seemingly any sort of bearing.
To add too my shimano list so it doesn't seem to one sided, torque caps,wheels with 15mm axles but with end caps that don't fit anyone else's forks or forks which despite one of the big (and valid) reasons for 142/148 being it's easy to locate your wheel, you now can't easily locate your wheel in the fork - this is incredibly annoying when using a fork fit roof mounted bike carrier.
I would disagree with that – you are pressing a bearing in and out of the frame – wear will write the frame off. with a BSA BB the wearing parts are removable
It's a headset turned 90 degs, do you worry about that wearing your frame out? Anyway press-fit BB are rubberised plastic, its not going to damage any frame. It should be the ideal solution, the carrier can deform to accommodate poor tolerance/manufacturing, still hold the bearings without the need for an additional carrier, making the whole thing simpler, lighter and easy to manufacture and the PF-96 (the Shimano standard) still has 24mm bearings, and you can have wider BB shells without extra Q-factor giving you a stiffer platform for suspension designs. From a purely engineering viewpoint press fit has so many advantages it's silly.
And anyway, standard threaded BSA cartridge BB are press fit, it's just that they're pressed into a disposable additional carrier that you then have to screw into the frame, meaning more stages on the manufacture process and tolerance issues that mean they mostly need facing, it's an inherently rubbish design that has an extra weight penalty and use extra material. But everyone's used to them and rather than use the one PF standard that actually works well - Shimano; everyone (obviously) tried to make their own. Bike makers shooting themselves in the foot. (again)
I’ve heard some people saying it about DUB bottom brackets.
😯 I've just fitted a DUB BB, what are people saying about it. Other than its stupid larger size of tool meaning you need to buy a new lockring tool. Standard park one does BB's and also Shimano rotor lockrings. Now they have decided to annoy me by so I cant tighten up the BB cups without a cap in hand to the bike shop mechanic.
People complain that they don't last as long as shimano HT2, although I've just removed one today that's done 20 months and about 5500kms, which I think is reasonable enough.
Boost cranksets. Just do the rings like *everyone* else.
I might be with shimano on this. Means the more replaced part is standard, keeps inventory down to just sizes (not offsets) in the wear part. Smash a chainring on a trip, go into a shop, as long as they have a shimano chainring it should fit your crank. You only change offset when you buy a new frame.
Would it have been? Boost also moved the brake mount spacing and you’d have needed a disk spacer if you didn’t have a new wheel, just as you did with 148 boost. All you’d have is 150 and 150 boost.
Why would you need to move the brake mount? Have you ever seen a 150mm hub?
It’s been done to death, but 150 (or even 157) weren’t the answer to them problem that 148 solved.
You'll have to explain why, 150 was dishless with the cassette and brake side equally spaced, all you had to do was move the non drive side flange out. It's literally 2mm wider than 148 with the same potential benefits. 157 just does the same with a wider flange.
