I avoid frames with press fit bb's, it's a total deal breaker for me, on the flipside I can't see anybody being put off an MTB frame cos it's got a threaded BB, I also think frames that do away with headset cups are a bad idea.
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.
I may well be wrong but as I understood it, the (probably marginal) benefit of boost, is not about being dishless but by the flange spacing being wider, giving more triangulation. As you mention 157 does this as well. Either way, no trail or enduro bikes came with 150 spacing, so we are still better off (however marginally) with 148 boost than 142 or 135.
Because (mainly) boost was the answer to 11/12 speed cassette needing some extra space, and neither of those other hubs change the relative position of the centreline and cranks, also you need to redesign them to change the position of the dropout to take thru-axles anyway (because at the time of 148 development, most everything was still QR), and 157mm creates a wider Q-factor which is OK for DH bikes, but they thought not really great for pedally bikes, and makes it difficult to get a 2x crankset in the space
At the time when the Boost 148 was being thought about I think the designers still wanted it it to accommodate at least 2 chain rings and a front derailleur and I think I'm right in thinking that all the prototypes were based around that, had they known how popular 1X would become, @tjagain solution of the 145 might have been a goer, but still would've meant most folks would've had to change anyway...I think it raged people because 135 had been around for decades and then there were two changes very quickly. If they'd had a crystal ball and had realised just how popular the 1x12 long travel 29er would become, perhaps the process may have been a bit smoother.
I guess that's why when Shimano started supplying slighter wider cranks (because of clearance issues) the 'new' 55mm chainline has had such a quiet 'launch' We should count ourselves lucky; at least 157 super boost didn't catch on.
Oh, and it's not an understatement to say that without the Boost 148 design, the bikes that loads of folks ride now - Long travel 1x12 29ers with good strong wheels and good suspension designs that actually work; wouldn't have been possible.
Not all press fit BB designs are bad. BB30 where the bearings sit directly in the frame are. After a year of no noise, my Cannondale would never stay quiet, no matter how clean I got the interface. Same after bearing replacements. The Shimano one (no idea which. It’s the one with the plastic cups) on my winter hack mtb has only had one replacement in 6 years and has never made so much as a squeak. Even the similar SRAM design on my gravel bike was perfect for 4 years.
Totally agree with Flat Mount. Almost makes sense on rear where mounting space can be an issue but the forks I’ve had (and see on others) were still PM with the flat mount calliper bolts to an adaptor plate.
Metric pints. They’re smaller than proper pints. There is no such thing as a metric pint . A US pint is 16 fl oz and not the 20 fl oz however and I don't know how Stans get away with selling their sealant in US pints in the UK
But 11 and 12 speed cassettes fit on a normal hub just fine, that's nothing to do with being boost.
And you had plenty of room to move the flange on 150 for more triangulation, that was my entire point.
It’s literally 2mm wider than 148
No it's not, it's 9mm wider. A 150 hub is the same oln size as a 157 hub, the 7mm is just the end caps which slot into the frame for the purpose of making it easy to locate your wheel, which is a good thing.
(eg a hope 150 hub is only and endcap swap different from a 157sb one, same as 135/142)
Also dishless wheels are only really a paper benefit these days and have been for a very long time, it harks back to skinny hub widths with near vertical spokes on the drive side when it would have been beneficial but people still like to fapp about it. I guess probably the same people who still insist derailleurs are a dead end and we should all be in gearbox bikes.
And you had plenty of room to move the flange on 150 for more triangulation, that was my entire point.
Boost wasn't just about stronger wheels, it was mostly about tight clearance around the BB shell. Remember that at the time designers were looking at 2x chainrings, a derailleur and 2.8 tyres. Plus you'd need to re-design it for through axle anyway, and as 1X systems became the standard, the narrow Shimano cranksets (clearance issues) and backpedelling issue (chaninline issues) still needs solving, which is why there's "just" a new chainline standard - 55mm, and not a whole 'nother hub width - becasue 148 can accommodate* it.
* Of course, super-boost takes care of that with a 56mm chainline, fancy another hub 'standard'?
fancy another hub ‘standard’?
Well its not, its just 150 😉
But only deviants want 157sb so I guess they're the only ones who want 150 after all. and definitely not squirelking who definitely doesn't want 157.
There is no such thing as a metric pint .
It's quite common for a 500 ml glass to be called a pint in metric speaking countries.
It’s quite common for a 500 ml glass to be called a pint in metric speaking countries.
Really? I never ever heard anyone call it a pint, well except people trying to figure out why their banana tastes of pineapple.
After all, they got the metric system there, they wouldn't know what the heck a quarter pounder is.
I really want to buy a new Orbea Wild but can't bare to put up with the internal headset routing. Already loads of report of headset bits breaking and worn hoses.
It’s been done to death, but 150 (or even 157) weren’t the answer to them problem that 148 solved.
Please please please read something other than the Trek press release disguised as a 'technical document.'
Multiple small manufactures (who don't have a vested interest in creating a new standard) have come out and said straight up it's bullshit and the only reason they do it is because it has somehow become the accepted standard.
And as other have said, if there was a problem that for some reason Cotic, Starling, Geomotron, etc didn't have but Trek did, it could have been solved with existing 157mm DH hubs.
if there was a problem that for some reason Cotic, Starling, Geomotron, etc didn’t have but Trek did
I imagine fiat has very different problems building cars to ferrari.
That doesn't mean fiat's problems aren't real.
Multiple small manufactures (who don’t have a vested interest in creating a new standard)
Nor do trek, difference being for trek, specialized giant etc, tooling is "cheap" engineering is expensive.
Small manufacturers have a vested interest in not changing things.
Please please please read something other than the Trek press release disguised as a ‘technical document.’
Please please please do just some bloody reading yourself rather than be in a hufty because reality doesn't meet your expectations. Who else do you think other than engineers at bike components manufacturers or frame manufacturers are going to be designing or making things to fit mountain bikes?
Small manufacturers have a vested interest in not changing things.
As do consumers, unless the change is such a quantum leap in performance that buying an entirely new bike rather than changing out a single part is worth it.
Was Boost really such a quantum leap in performance? A leap that couldn't have been achieved by simply using 157mm hubs if a change was simply unavoidable?
Who else do you think other than engineers at bike components manufacturers or frame manufacturers are going to be designing or making things to fit mountain bikes?
In the case of Boost I would say the Marketing Department at bike component manufacturers.
Was Boost really such a quantum leap in performance?
Arguably, yes it was.
I would say the Marketing Department
Well then, they need sacking, because they've not done their jobs well have they? I mean the job of the marketing guy is to make everyone love the new stuff and the change from 135 to 142 and then 148 just about pissed everyone off.
Besides which Dylan Howes is the man to which you need to direct your ire. AFAIK, he's a frame engineer, and not head of marketing.
Arguably, yes it was.
If it's arguable then it wasn't a quantum leap in performance.
Disc brakes, dropper posts, wider bars (apart from people who like riding between 600mm gaps) are all examples of quantum leaps in performance and unarguable improvements.
Personally I'd put tyre inserts in the same category (front and rear, not just rear) but I see the shear amount of faff involved in fitting them is a problem when it comes to widespread acceptance.
If there was a design requirement for Boost it wasn't compelling enough to make a new standard, especially if DH hubs could have done the same thing.
If there was a design requirement for Boost it wasn’t compelling enough to make a new standard, especially if DH hubs could have done the same thing.
Well, you could read the thread and educate yourself as to why DH hubs couldn't have done the same thing, or as I know we've had the same discussion and you've had all the reasons why Boost was needed explained to you previously, I'm going to assume you're either too stupid to grasp the concept, or you're trolling. Either way, not my circus, not my monkey.
I’m going to assume you’re either too stupid to grasp the concept, or you’re trolling.
Ooh, classy. Or you could try actually giving a reason that isn't invented?
Anyway, my main issue isn't so much with the mountain bike industry, it's with the mountain bike buying public. We are the absolute worst biggest bunch of fashion led idiots in the world (apart from roadies).
My issue is that if you get to the point where you are creating a new standard, why are you stopping with something as insignificant as Boost?
Why not, instead, move the derailleur? Why not create something similar to the Lal drive or the Williams Racing Products derailleur in a box? If you have to redesign the frame anyway, why not fix one of the biggest week points and factors that limit suspension designs?
The answer is that the great mountain bike buying public will quite happily buy a bike that has no compatibility with what they have already, so long as it looks like what they have already.
And the reason we do this is because we are fundamentally idiots who will defend the most ridiculous design compromises and lack of compatibility so long as our mountain bikes still look like mountain bikes.
We buy the crap. It's our fault.
Don't really like post mount brakes, just makes it easier to mess up a frame if you're cack handed with a wrench like me 🙂 IS seemed a bit more idiot proof to me.
Still struggle to justify the cost/marginal gains of a lot of the newer standards tbh, my bikes all old stuff with adapters to fit and I haven't died yet. I do like my dropper, narrow wide and clutch mech though and wouldn't be without any of them. Wouldn't mind a wider range cassette either to make climbs a bit easier.
27.5.
Why not stick with 26 (kids, touring, jump bikes, small adults) and 29 / 700c for everything else.
It’s been done to death, but 150 (or even 157) weren’t the answer to them problem that 148 solved.
I'm still not clear on the problems Boost actually "solved". I know what the marketing teams claimed, but I think we all know that was bollox.
FM seems pointless, PM worked fine as did IS and the two combined, whilst not as aesthetically pleasing, provided all the possible mounting solutions you might actually need. There's a few road/CX/gravel frames about that predate wider adoption of FM (I happen to still own two) and PM worked just fine before 'standards' were invented to force compatibility issues...
"Small manufacturers have a vested interest in not changing things"
Meanwhile large manufacturers DO have a vested interest in changing things just for the sake of removing interchangeability, and/or make something proprietary to them
No it’s not, it’s 9mm wider. A 150 hub is the same oln size as a 157 hub, the 7mm is just the end caps which slot into the frame for the purpose of making it easy to locate your wheel, which is a good thing.
It's really not.
Boost: https://www.kstoerz.com/freespoke/hub/320
150: https://www.kstoerz.com/freespoke/hub/686
150DH: https://www.kstoerz.com/freespoke/hub/737
Why would they call it 150mm if it was 157mm all along? By your logic a 142mm hub is really 148mm since a simple end cap swap makes it so.
Compare the spacing on a 150mm and 148mm, are you honestly telling me the exact same thing couldn't have been accomplished by moving the brake side flange on a 150mm hub? You're all arguing against very basic geometry!
Squirrelking, am I misunderstanding what 150 is?
135 and 142 (let’s call that ‘classic’ because I can’t think if a better term) are the same hubshell, designed to put the cassette and rotor in the same place, just with different end caps for different ways of interfacing with frames. 141 and 148 (boost) likewise.
I’d always understood the 150/157 hubs to be the same- same hub shell, cassette and rotor in the same place, just a different axle. So a 150mm hub is 15mm wider overall than a 135 and 9mm than boost, assuming you use the same axle and therefore end cap types.
I don’t think those links you’ve out up are quite showing an apples to apples comparison or have I misunderstood?
Compare the spacing on a 150mm and 148mm
You realise the flange distances are nothing to do with the hub standard don't you, beyond how much room the standard gives?
Why would they call it 150mm if it was 157mm all along?
That's the wrong way round. A 157mm hub is 150mm long, what makes it 157mm is two 3.5mm end caps that recess into the dropout.
If you took a 150mm spaced bike and a 157mm sb bike and measured between the faces of the dropout you'd get 150mm. that's the oln size and that's the important bit.
If you measure a 135 qr it's 135 + the two small 9mm projections. A 142 hub is the same size.
A 148 is the same size as a 141mm hub.
It seems half the issue here is your don't know what the standards are so you can't reasonably support our criticise them.
Meanwhile large manufacturers DO have a vested interest in changing things just for the sake of removing interchangeability, and/or make something proprietary to them
Yet boost is a brilliant example of something which doesn't do anything of the sort. You can still buy other hubs, you can still use other wheels, you can still put specialized wheels on your Trek bike.
I prefer threaded BBs, but I've seen way more frames get wrecked from loose bottom bracket cups moving and stripping shell threads than frames getting worn out from replacing PF cups.
I did some reading and working out, yes I was wrong. I was getting confused between (135x)12mm and 142x12. Still none the ****ing wiser as to which one X12 is but as I only have a 150mm thru axle and the rest are QR I'll cross that bridge should I ever come to it.
15mm front axles are probably one of the most clearcut ones we've had? 20mm was the superior standard, the supposed merits of 15mm were made-up bullshit... it ended up being almost entirely about OEM buyers, and Fox and Shimano flexing their muscles. And it just possibly set the scene for every damn fool standard change since.
Otherwise, depends what you mean by "worse". Because a new standard that performs exactly as well as the old standard but is incompatible is worse, simply because it's new. "This is the dominant existing standard" is a gigantic performance advantage, quite often it's the biggest performance advantage we'll see for a particular part but it gets ignored, because of course for a marketing man or a novelty-seeking buyer, being new and different and incompatible is a selling point.
nickc
Full MemberBecause 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 (
See the thing I find weird about this is that you only had to ride a 142 29er with a 12 speed cassette to know this was all bobbins. I guess it's getting harder to refute now since the old standards are less common but back when they were rolling out the new standard, that sort of bike was so commonplace and we could just go, these solutions are for made up problems, because behold- today's bikes. I mean, some of it's a bit more nuanced, like all the stuff about spoke triangulation can seem totally plausible til you look closer and see that this wasn't maxxed out in 142 wheels, and that lots of boost hubs still use small flanges and don't make use of the claimed advantage (especially straightpull ones), and nobody cares. Like, I've seen people claim that they can tell Boost is stiffer but I've never seen a single person ride frinstance a DT straightpull hub and go "this is problematically flexy compared to the bigger flanges on my other wheels because of the reduced triangulation", it's just not a thing that happens except when you believe Boost is better.
(and that came as no shock, because of course we'd already done this before- there were dh 150mm hubs that were to all extents and purposes a 135 hub that was spaced out to fit the wider frame, and had the exact same flange dimensions. Some people totally believed 150mm was stronger even when their actual hubs were functionally identical. Most people though just went, meh, wheels, but some people could be sold on it. And of course there were plenty of 135 and 142 dh bikes that just ignored the whole fiasco)
there were dh 150mm hubs that were to all extents and purposes a 135 hub that was spaced out to fit the wider frame, and had the exact same flange dimensions.
Yeah there were/are . . .
Isn't the advantage of that design that the rear wheel isn't dished at all? That may be more important than more triangulation, especially on smaller wheel sizes
The difference between 157mm DH and 157mm superboost is how far out the left hand flange is afaik
27.5.
C'mon let's call it what it actually is, 27...
Isn’t the advantage of that design that the rear wheel isn’t dished at all?
I believe that was the thinking behind DH hubs. 32 equally tensioned spokes are always going to be stronger than 16 highly tensioned spokes and 16 that are there to stop the wheel flopping over, no matter how wide you make the triangulation.
I thought boost, at least on the rear, was driven by the need for more space in the bb area given the trend to bigger diameter wider tyres, particularly with fs bikes and carbon construction, and notwithstanding the ditching of the front mech? The chainline change then required something be done at the rear to meet shifting standards.
Internal headset cable routing and/or PF BB would (and have done) stop me buying that particular model.
Why on earth did anyone think routing cables thru the headset was a good idea?!
Why on earth did anyone think routing cables thru the headset was a good idea?!
Because it looks good on Instagram.
Because it looks good on Instagram
Depressingly that is a remarkably valid reason of you're actually selling anything these days.
All this talk of boost being needed for wheel strength and clearance
I still can't understand why my (142mm) Pipedream Sirius fits a 29 x 2.6" in the rear with ~435mm chainstays
Nor why a lot of DT Swiss 29er Enduro rims and even Mavic Deemax 29er DH wheels are only 28 spoke
In response to the OP, I don't think this makes boost worse, just unnecessary (I'm sure it's marginally better)
The answer is that the great mountain bike buying public will quite happily buy a bike that has no compatibility with what they have already, so long as it looks like what they have already.
Totally agree, this is the depressing thing
(Even worse when a similar attitude dictates politics)
It's funny how the arguments against, say, internal gear hubs, include the simply impermissable addition of rear axle weight, yet there seems to be (almost?) no one complaining that Sram electronic mechs have added ~200g over the cable versions (nearly the weight of DT 350 rear hub!)
It’s funny how the arguments against, say, internal gear hubs, include the simply impermissable addition of rear axle weight
I think the main argument against them is how much lighter they make your wallet. Racers won't use them because they are less efficient. The rear axle weight is just another disadvantage, not the main one.
My thinking is more that if you have changed the cassette standard and you are now thinking about changing the axle spacing and brake mounting, does there not come a point where you would logically say, 'Well, since we're changing everything anyway, why don't we do it properly and move the dangly bit next to the main pivot.'
There is no logical reason not to and the development wouldn't be anymore fraught than say, Sram's new direct mount.
The issue is that it would no longer look like what people know. And so people wouldn't buy it.
They would have apparently legitimate concerns about 'compatibility' but that ignores the fact that everything on their new bike is a new and incompatible standard anyway.
does there not come a point where you would logically say, ‘Well, since we’re changing everything anyway, why don’t we do it properly and move the dangly bit next to the main pivot.’
That's what Shimano did with the B-link derailleurs, the pivot is moved to a more optimal position. Derailleurs have to be placed under the cassette because they need to guide the chain onto the correct sprocket. Of course, you could just run a singlespeed hub and multiple rings on the front, but you won't be able to fit 12 chainrings in there and the shifting will never be as good as a rear derailler, plus you'd still need a tensioner under the chainstay. The only practical place to put the derailleur is where it is now.
Gearboxes (whether they are in the rear hub or frame mounted) will always be more expensive to manufacture than a derailleur system and will have more friction.
