[Closed] How much difference does boost make to 29er wheel strength

Draw triangles, work it out. As for being superseded, 142 already is by Boost, but do you care? You'll get 142 hubs for years to come and if 142 wheels are strong enough for you (do the math, learn from experience) then do you care?

From a white board and experience, I went past boost and bought a 157mm rear for my new 29er. Horses, courses...

I doubt that there's any noticeable improvement in stiffness . Of course there is no benefit if the wheels are built with different adapters to fit the various axle standards there will only be a benefit if they are purpose built for 148 .

In other news my 135mm 29" wheel hasn't exploded.

Don't forget kids, carbons runs and boost spacing will pulverise pulverise your skeleton JRA and you won't be able to ride in a straight line due to ask the selection from riding over bumps.

This is scientific FACT. HTH.

I'd get the boost - then you have the option of B-plus working with less fuss later on.

Don't forget kids, carbons runs and boost spacing will pulverise pulverise your skeleton JRA and you won't be able to ride in a straight line due to ask the selection from riding over bumps.

This is scientific FACT. HTH.

Bit early to be drinking innit?

marathon/ light trail 100/120mm travel. Will I tell the difference

No. Really, no. I doubt you'll notice the difference between 135xQR and 142x12 to be honest.

If you're hitting DH or Enduro trails with some steep, fast and hard turns - then yes.

Hell, I went from 142 on a 29er to 142+ on 650b and noticed eff all, and that's on enduro and DH trails.

Just buy what you want, not what the media tells you is what you need.

148 rear end has other benefits beyond increased stiffness - increased tyre and/or chainring clearance due to the wider chainline as well as potentially shorter rear end again due to the wider chainline.

However I wouldn't necessarily chose one bike over another just because one is Boost and one is 142. Fit and geometry would be my primary concern.

Cheers fellas. Bikes are trek top fuel, orbea occam ( which I am demoing at mo) and canyon lux. First two are boost canyon is 142.

As above, the rear axle would be pretty much one of the last things on my list when looking at a new bike.

Geometry, kit, warranty, service reputation, lead time and cost would all come above a rear wheel standard.

Those are XC bikes so they'll have lightweight wheels I assume.

The biggest problem I've had with 29ers is getting stiff enough wheels - even for XC riding.

If Boost spacing does help with this as claimed then I think it'd be worth having.

Forget your boost 148, carbon rims on a 29 FTW.

If previous incremental improvements are anything to go by then *** all.

Has anyone actually published any figures on relative stiffness/deflection between boost and non boost, can't be that hard to do.

The cynic in me thinks it will be about 0.34% hence the lack of any published figures.

I have no idea what boost is but my 700c wheels survive the 3 peaks cyclo cross and im a fat git

Dirtydog - it was quoted in the original ST article about Boost last year.

http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/trek-launch-boost-148-29r-specific-hub/

It does seem silly if only because 157mm will probably replace it in a couple of years

It won't - cranks are too wide. That's the point of Boost - enough benefit in terms of wheel stiffness and improved clearance around ring/chainstay/tyre (allowing shorter CS) but without messing with Q-factors. This also means that appropriate weight chain sets are available as well as double/triple options for those that want them other than heavy single ring DH cranks.

Dirtydog - it was quoted in the original ST article about Boost last year.

http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/trek-launch-boost-148-29r-specific-hub/

Thanks for that, so according to that it should bring stiffness inline with an equivalently built non boost 26".

Have to wonder why they didn't introduce this when they introduced 29, would have made things much more straightforward.

Can't decidie if they're being a bit clever or are just a bit slow.

I understand the scepticism around it, but for certain categories like FS 29ers and 29/650+ it makes loads of sense. Shame it wasn't introduced instead of 142x12 - would have avoided much gnashing of teeth.

breadcrumb - Member
In other news my 135mm 29" wheel hasn't exploded.

It won't - cranks are too wide.

They can, but the chainline is poor.

Though running a Boost chainset on it would help... 😉

Serious answer.
After pissing about fitting B+ wheels in a 29er frame with a Shimano 11 speed drivetrain the chain is propper close to the rear tyre even with a 2.8 WTB.
This alone has made me think about a boost rear end.

They can, but the chainline is poor.
Though running a Boost chainset on it would help...

I also ran the same setup on my old Bullit. Worked perfectly.

If I ran the chainring in the outer position with 11 speed on the chainline would be terrible.
It's bad enough as it is.

They can, but the chainline is poor.

Though running a Boost chainset on it would help...

The chainline for boost rear end with 'normal' cranks is about perfect for 1x setups. I would therefore imagine that the combo of 157 + boost is also bob on.

I've just built up a top fuel, the boost rear end wasn't really a factor in choosing it, but the short rear end was. Just checked with tape measure and its 10mm shorter than my parkwood, and from brief ride feels like it. Might be imagining it but the chain line seems better

Never been a wheel thrasher, but looking at the dish compared with my standard 29er wheel I can see that it would be stronger, guess as it's not adding weight I'll take that

So a new 'standard' that may actually make sense (on the other hand, it has push fit BB which I don't care how many graphs and stats are thrown around, I think it's a step back)