Forum menu
It's not really news though is it.
To be fair it did look like Trek were taking a flyer on it in that piece, whereas the article in the OP suggests there might be more widespread adoption.
SRAM have pushed 148 as it means using there hub/wheelsets AND chainsets
I hope it's as simple as just avoiding SRAM components then, could be a blessing in disguise if so.
What chance of the other bike manufactuers just telling them to **** off though?
I'm gonna start riding klunkers. I laugh at the bike industry! 😉
What chance of the other bike manufactuers just telling them to **** off though?
I don't know what manufacturers will say but it seems from here that the buying public would happily tell them to **** off.
I don't know what manufacturers will say but it seems from here that the buying public would happily tell them to **** off.
But in the light of the switch to 650b, it seems they don't really care what us internet warriors think.
It's not consumers that will be providing the initial demand for these new standards. A deal will be done somewhere for a bike manufacturer to use them as original equipment to set the ball rolling. Then all online retailers and bike shops that want to be seen as 'up to the grade' will feel obliged to buy in spares stock. Whether those spares are ever sold at retail price or remain on the shelves until they are obsolete and have to be cleared out for less than they were originally bought for is not the manufacturers problem.
Yes, spare a thought for your local bike shop trying to keep stock for all reasonable demands.
My bike has a 170mm rear hub, if the new standard could be that please
"Our endless surveys and relentless battering,
Left us concluding that they'll swallow anything"
I can see that possibly it does help make a stiffer wheel. But the only time I've ridden a 29er and thought "this wheel isn't very stiff" was because they'd built a not very stiff wheel. So it seems like the actual solution is to stop making shit wheels- especially because a shit wheel on a 148 hub will still be shit.
But it also seems to be drowning in psuedoscience and bullshit, which is always a good sign that they don't think they can sell it on merit.
And I can see it ending up a bit like a lot of 150mm wheels- the potential advantage of the wide flanges got completely ignored and they ended up building hubs that were functionally identical to 135mm. (and plenty of companies using 135 and 73mm, because it works absolutely fine)
The problem is it's reached a point that the standards aren't offering any benefit and infact might be doing the opposite.
Wider rotor/derailluer position might not sound too bad to trail centre riders but it's the last thing we need in BC with 'rotor wrecker' rocks every 100m on some trails. Then there is the heel clearance issue. Without going to a wider BB spacing I think people are going to start having contact issues with some frames. I rode a Lapierre a few months ago and hit my heels a number of times. The last thing bikes like that need is wider rear axles.
Then there's the blatant lies regarding wider rear axles magically allowing for wider main pivot spacing and ultimately stiffer frames. Do they really think people are that stupid?
The below hub is quite popular in the WC DH field. Note the wasted space between non-drive flange and rotor mount. Yet somehow the guys riding these are able to hit stuff a little harder than the average rider with seemingly no stiffness or strength issues.
I'm all up for genuine innovation but shit like this boils my piss. I really hope there's a backlash of some sort.
[quote=rOcKeTdOg ]My bike has a 170mm rear hub, if the new standard could be that please
See, that makes moar sense. Why stop at 148? If wider means better triangulation and more strength then take it up to 170.
Of course, that would mean a wide chainline so we'd also need wider cranks. I propose 100mm as the new standard. That will allow more splayed chainstays without heel rub too, so the chainstays could actually be wide enough to accept tyres right up to 4" width.
Could someone please point the Trek guys at this?
[img] 
[/img]
Err 170 has been superseded by 190....do keep up.
And wider cranks and Q-factor (side to side distance between the pedals) will no doubt provide a healthy boost to the sports injury and hip replacement professions.
technology advancement used to work for me - I bought a new Orange 5 (2005) because of 'technology advances'[*and it was cheap] (to replace a round tube Marin MV - cantis/elastomer fronts/basic rear spring) - I felt the suspension jump and discs were worth it, and I wanted single pivot [1 bike all year round],however since then I've seen nothing that makes enough difference to me to justify the cost of a new bike (which given my now set of incompatible bits is what I'd really have to do to move 'forward'), so I've now stockpiled with 9/1+1/8/26 bits and at 55 I reckon that's my lot ............
Ratherbeintobago back under your rock. I ride a Santa Cruz Butcher. APP Butcher/Nickels are a match for almost any bike. Bar fashion fatbikes/29'ers of course
I know it's an impossible wish, but I really wish mtb could be a little like bmx and leave the technology/standards largely the same and focus on other things.
Although this makes me sound like a Luddite, but I am happy with my standard 9mm QR's, and 26" wheels. I have not yet managed to die, and still enjoy riding.
I've have just gone to a tapered fork, as CRC were selling some nice ones cheap, and I bodged fitting them with a special bottom cup on my standard 1 1/8" headtube.
I really don't understand why anyone gets all upset when they bring new stuff out.
You don't have to buy it. If you are happy with your current bike as it is, How does it effect you?
I think that over time all the little changes add up and when the time comes for me to buy a new bike,after 5 years or so, the new bike after 5 years of development is better than the old one. I don't think to myself oh if only this new bike was as good as they were 5 years ago.
It's only if you feel you constantly need the latest thing that you could have a problem. Even then if you want the latest thing and you can afford it I don't see why you shouldn't have it.
No one is forcing this stuff on anyone. If you don't want it just don't buy it.
sonofozzz1 - Member
I really don't understand why anyone gets all upset when they bring new stuff out.
You don't have to buy it. If you are happy with your current bike as it is, How does it effect you?
I think that over time all the little changes add up and when the time comes for me to buy a ...
Not as simple as that. It becomes difficult/expensive to get parts, tyres etc in the old sizes.
What's next for pointless new standards anyway? New saddle rail standard anyone?
17.5mm thru axles?
Or maybe a new disc hose standard that doesn't fit in your old cable stops so you have to buy a new frame and forks to replace your brakes.
Sono when you spend your money then you hear 650b is the future which affects any future value of your bike/bits/future spares? 1.5 steerer forks- what happened to them? All ££-driven companies right through to ££ chasing LBS Bikeshops want new money flowing in. I joked the other day that price matching keeps me riding. Its true- I'd never buy a full RRP new frame - just couldn't agree to 1500+ for a new frame.
I really don't understand why anyone gets all upset when they bring new stuff out.
You don't have to buy it. If you are happy with your current bike as it is, How does it effect you?
I think that over time all the little changes add up and when the time comes for me to buy a new bike,after 5 years or so, the new bike after 5 years of development is better than the old one. I don't think to myself oh if only this new bike was as good as they were 5 years ago.
It's only if you feel you constantly need the latest thing that you could have a problem. Even then if you want the latest thing and you can afford it I don't see why you shouldn't have it.
No one is forcing this stuff on anyone. If you don't want it just don't buy it.
Because it's marketing, not innovation.
I really don't understand why anyone gets all upset when they bring new stuff out
Because spare parts get harder to find and we worry that they will stop being made. Last time Ii went into an lbs for tyres they hardly had any in 26. And the choice of 1 1/8 forks is already much less. When the forks on my patriot eventually die I may not be able to replace them, nd a new frame is a huge expense.
It becomes really easy to get parts and tyres on the second hand market.
Quite a few people are giving away 26" tyres for nothing.. You can pick up amazing used 26ers and parts for virtually nothing. You will always be able to keep your old bikes going if you really want to.
Unless you are caught up in the marketing why would you care about the used values of your kit. Surely you don't need to replace it until it's worn out and it is worthless.
It's a mixture of marketing and innovation. Of course the bike industry is chasing money, it's an industry. That's the idea. The companies are in competition,they need to secure their market share. If they stand still they will be left behind and fail.
This is a good thing, stuff gets gradually better.
Embrace the future
You lot are all luddites.
I've ridden the new standard and it's awesome!
It really made the trails come alive!
🙂
generally true, could also depend where you stand. New standard scramblers are one extreme, the stood-still (or appearing to be) with something that works type of brand is the other extreme. Neither extreme is a really safe place to be unless you truly know your product and market.If they stand still they will be left behind and fail.
"stuff gets gradually [s]better[/s] [b]different[/b]"
Ha ha, does anyone seriously think bikes haven't got better. A modern mountain bike is not better than a 10 year old mountain bike?????
I prefer not to buy full bikes, they're always a compromise so I buy frames and swap stuff a out, the ****ting thing is if I fancy a new bike in the next couple of years it's looking extremely likely that everything I own will be obsolete and won't fit. It's a **** on, there's nothing wrong with my hubs but I'll have to ditch 'em. I'm happy you're ok being the markets wet dream. But it ****s me off. And as above, it gets harder to get stuff, I don't particularly like buying things second hand, most of the time it's false economy and not much cheaper.
WHAT innovations? On the trail just how much better is suspension today compared to 2009?
Id argue the Fox Float X, CCDB air, and Monarch Debonair are huge inprovments over the old Fox Float and Rockshox Vivid or whatever it was in 2009.
However, its geometry, manufacturing together with tech that make the bikes in 2014 that much better than 2009. Its hard to find a bike thats really horrific in 2015, but you could in 2009. Learning from mistakes and refining all the time.
The Pike, 36 Rc2, and Elite damper are superb also.
Its evolution, not revolution.
Innovation has been described as three horizons, horizon 1 is existing technology that is refined, horizon two is new tech in the existing market and horizon three is something totally new and unheard of anywhere.
We seem to be almost 100% in horizon one.
You are a pro with semsitive measuring equipment?
One of the best bikes I ever rode was a 2007 Blur 4X. Its not innovation to the common man its buzz words, altered internals and such minimal improvents that the common man relies in the sales patter of journalists to assure him that its way better
Nope, just ridden probably as many bikes as you 😉
Totally agree though, 99% of people wont even push their bike hard enough to notice the differenxe between a 32mm fork or a 34mm fork, or a 26 and 650b wheel, or a 65 HA or a 69 HA.
And like you said, its clever marketing that makes those with cash think they need the next best thing.
Hell, im riding a single pivot 29er with 150mm of travel. Just because it works and fits all of my riding, not because someone told me about numbers or tech. A hinge and some green paint. Win.
Onzadog - MemberHey, bike industry, are you listening? I like expensive bikes and I'm in a position to buy them. However, you're not getting any more of my money unless a) you stop this shit or b) my current bike explodes.
[b](which incidentally has, 26" wheels, 1 1/8" straight steerer/headtube, threaded bb shell, 20mm axle up front, 135 x 10 thru bolt rear, 27 gears, 27.2 mm post, coil shocks front and rear, does everything I want).[/b]
Have you nicked my bike? 😀
And the choice of 1 1/8 forks is already much less. When the forks on my patriot eventually die I may not be able to replace them
IIRC Fox have indicated they will continue to make 1?" CSUs for the foreseeable; presumably this would mean that even if you can't get a full fork you can convert a tapered one. It's potentially an expensive way of doing things, and whether a choice of Fox or Fox is a good thing is a matter of taste.
Well that's good to know!
sonofozzz1 - MemberHa ha, does anyone seriously think bikes haven't got better. A modern mountain bike is not better than a 10 year old mountain bike?????
Bike have got better but it's not randomly changing standards that have done that. In fact I reckon the only 2 recent standard changes that have delivered enough benefits to justify their opportunity cost are bolt through front axles (because of good compatability and the lifespan of forks, it's not been a troublesome change) and decent 29ers (which are a big change, but with bigger benefits). Everything else since disc brakes and suspension has been expensive redecorating with diminishing benefits.
The real improvements- geometry, suspension, durability- have come about through improving the actual parts, not making them 1.5% bigger and 100% incompatible.
Both my bikes are from 2010. I'd put an inch on the top tube of one of them, maybe a degree off the head angle, and wave the magic carbon wand if I could, but it's only one step behind the times and it's still capable of fighting it out with the new hotness. The other is still unsurpassed as badass hardtails go. I've changed parts but the whole is good. And it's exactly this sort of plateauing that inspires bollocks like this.
Bolt through forks
Droppers
That's the only innovation
The rest are variations with small or negligwble benefit
Yeah, but droppers aren't a standard, they're totally backward compatible, so it's not the same thing. I imaging if Trek had been in charge of dropper posts, they'd have insisted they have to have a 32.7mm seat tube. But luckily they don't do innovation, they just do bullshit.
My guess is it will go like Giant's overdrive 2 rubbish. They will claim it is the 2nd coming of Christ and then drop it after few years.
I read this and wondered just what is left to be 'improved'? I do wonder whether the vast majority of riders would need or notice the change. I know I'm nowhere near the market for this kind of thing, being another luddite steel hardtail rider, but it does seem to be the case that the industry seem to be increasingly taking the mick out of the buying public.
My guess is it will go like Giant's overdrive 2 rubbish. They will claim it is the 2nd coming of Christ and then drop it after few years.
Overdrive 2 was a particularly weak concept; it's only due to the size of Giant that they were able to get forks...
souldrummer - MemberI read this and wondered just what is left to be 'improved'?
Oh there's tons of stuff that could be improved. But most of it is consumables and so the manufacturers have no incentive to make them last longer unless they can charge more. (Shimano will never make a really good mountain BB until the day SRAM stop making shit ones- and even then it won't be the best they can do, it'll just be a bit better than SRAM)
The clutch mech thing showed up really nicely how bike development works when there's a really new, really good idea- Shimano took it to market first but as soon as they announced it, SRAM had their "spyshots" of what were obviously final preproduction prototypes out- they'd been sitting on the tech, waiting til it either suited them to release it, or someone else forced their hand. Of course, they didn't release it for 9-speed because they wanted you to buy 10-speed.
Cleverly worded marketing bollocks.
Some will buy into & some won't.
I couldn't give a **** - my 9mm qrs are just dandy.
Moar bullshit, errr standards...
Nice to see they def won't be using the same thru axles for road and MTB, I mean why would they want to standardise stuff or make it possible that people could utilise their now obsolete old MTB hubs on their new disc brakes road bike!
Surely this is going to start make stuff really expensive/difficult to stock?
Take Revelation forks,
2 different types of spring, solo air and dual position
3 diff dampers, Rl, RLT, RCT3
2 steerers 1/18 and tapered
3 different wheel sizes
3 axle standards QR, 15mm, 15*110mm
+ several different travel options and/or offsets (for Pikes)
so thats potentially, 2*3*2*3*3 = 108 different versions of the same fork
OK, so i'm assuming every combination i available here, (which is clearly nonsense, does anyone have a 27.5 non-tapered fork!?) but it's difficult to see how stuff won't start becoming obsolete.
i blame Strava
Starting with the new MTB standard, the goal here is much simpler.
Stiffer wheels and better tire clearance.
Sure, 20mm thru axles have used 110mm spacing for years.
fantastic !!
Nope, just ridden probably as many bikes as youTotally agree though, 99% of people wont even push their bike hard enough to notice the differenxe between a 32mm fork or a 34mm fork, or a 26 and 650b wheel, or a 65 HA or a 69 HA.
And like you said, its clever marketing that makes those with cash think they need the next best thing.
Hell, im riding a single pivot 29er with 150mm of travel. Just because it works and fits all of my riding, not because someone told me about numbers or tech. A hinge and some green paint. Win.
In 2006 you could get forks with bigger stanchions than 32mm, in 2006 if your forked dive to much you could get it reshimmed, in 2006 you could get 20mm axles in stiffer forks with better tyre clearance, in 2006 you could get lightish bikes with 65 degree head angles.
Etc etc etc.
Most of what we have seen in 2014 is marketing bollocks, not actual evolution. Hopefully these new standards will die like Giants overdrive did. The guys at BTR were pissed off about these new axle standards (maybe they still are) until someone pointed out that it could drive consumers to purchase bikes from smaller manufacturers who will cater to them. At the end of the day the ballooning amount of standards is detrimental to the cycling industry.