[Closed] 'Standards' in MTB boil my pi55....

2.2/10

piss poor rant really....

Surely it only effects you if you actually buy them?

Which means that in theory the new Boost forks I've just bought will over time become obsolete. 20mm axles were always better (IMO) so they've brought them back only you'll have to shim your rotor (bodge) this time as they're using yet ANOTHER standard.

I think it's about time we stopped calling everything a "Standard" that way we can more easily accept gradual changes and evolution of the products we use

While your forks will not become obsolete I understand the frustration :0)

I gave up on buying anything new a little while ago until things settle down a bit. Got a dj I like because it's like bmx and skateboarding in the way that very little changes substantially over time, just small improvements.

I'll probably ride my 26", straight steerer, qr rear mtb frame with 2x9 and just replace parts as I go until it's death

So, when I moved from my 26" 110x20 fork to my 659b 100x15 it was actually a backwards step?

How do your hubs stop working with your forks? Do your axles get wider?

No, I'm obviously referring to when I want to change the wheels, or have a second set of wheels with different tyres, or want to swap wheels between bikes. But as per normal you seem to contradict everything I post about so crack on...

In the interest of balance, I've got over my frustration about this. I have a 4 year old bike with 26" wheels, a double chainring and my dropper post isn't even stealth (shock horror). I love my bike more than ever. It *used* to be frustrating when my bike was new and obsolete but now it's old and obsolete I've got over myself 😆

I've just bought some new 27.5 wheels for the new build, and as they came with a choice of axle sizes, I went with 20mm as my new 36s can take that size (just need to pop the 15mm clamp adapters out and use the other shims).

So now my new bike has the same 20mm front axle system as my old 2009 hardtail with marzocchi 55s....

Have I gone back in time, or forwards ?

Well to be honest think about it, if all the world makes is 20mm hubs will you just plug in the 15 adaptors like people currently do? There are some standards that have changed and make things tough but this isn't one of them, it's a tiny little change that will probably have no impact on you at all.

Well to be honest think about it, if all the world makes is 20mm hubs will you just plug in the 15 adaptors like people currently do?

Yes, but I'll be doing it with my angry face on...

I get what you're saying and in part agree - historically it hasn't bothered me but yet another new standard (although minor) is the last straw for me. I wanted to buy a new frame and move all my old parts across but that's looking to be a right mission at the moment. The easy answer to all of this is stop buying stuff.....

I've just bought a bike with 'new' standards, 142 rear and 15mm front. These are obviously old standards now and out of date but I'm coming from QR rear and 20mm front so I'm getting moderner.
First bike with tapered head tube as well, will I notice?

I bet they come out with something like bikes with electric motors next. Or something. I won't buy one of those neither.

Which means that in theory the new Boost forks I've just bought will over time become obsolete

Everything you own now, or owned in the past, or will own again will at some point become obsolete.

I to have felt the rage of my new shiny thing becoming obsolete, almost immediately, I bought a very nice 26" one September, a few weeks later the new ones arrived, all 650b, I bought 10sp just before 11 arrived, I’ve owned straight steerer tubed forks and even once a 1.5” straight steerer fork. My current bike, which I need to keep for at least another 3 years is only a year old, but it’s non-boost so ‘old’.
I ranted and raved at every new ‘standard’, I blame SRAM usually, more often than not I see their innovations as a way to screw with Shimano and Fox and of dubious advantage – but really, after more than a few years of this, the thing I’ve learned is none of it matters.

You can be riding a 3x7 V-Braked hardtail from 15 years ago and it’s still serviceable – if there is something that’s going to kill it, it’ll be suspension fork service items, and that’s nothing to do with standards, that’s just age.

This idea that we’re going to be forced to scrap our bikes because they don’t make old standard bits anymore just hasn’t come to pass – if you can still buy 24” tyres for the rear of your 2002 Spesh Big Hit, I’m sure you’ll still be able to get Boost, but not new-boost hubs for a long while yet. As for resale value, does it really matter – 650b was and unpleasant watershed moment for some, but the expensive stuff is still expensive and the cheap stuff still cheap, the massive value drop ‘over night’ didn’t really come to pass.

I've just bought a bike with 'new' standards, 142 rear and 15mm front. These are obviously old standards now and out of date but I'm coming from QR rear and 20mm front so I'm getting moderner.
First bike with tapered head tube as well, will I notice?

Yeah, it's not even Boost. What were you thinking 🙂

They have helpfully made the outside of the headtube tapered too though so you should notice. Blowed if I could feel a difference though.

Just to add, I can still get the new Mk3 Stans Arch Rims in 26", Hope and DT are still selling regular non boost hubs, I can still get 26" forks or run 650b ones in there if I need to. Things are changing but not being dropped.

I realised the other day that I have zero idea what 'standards' I have on my Alpine 160. Bought the bike as I loved the way it rode etc with absolute blissful ignorance about bottom brackets, front and rear hub spacing, axle sizes, headsets etc etc.

I just ride it.

For me it's the press folk at fault for not challenging the need for change, and also just reporting press releases about such and such a 'standard' when it clearly isn't.

I get what people are saying about legacy items being available, but this constant change of 'specs' is just putting me off mtbing and I know I'm not the only one.

My steel 26 inch hardtail still rides great. Fortunately it has a 44mm head tube so when my Revelations finally die I can pop some tapered forks in there.
Probably the bike I'll never sell. Not worth much anyway.

I do laugh at all the new 'standards' 3mm wider here and different thru axles there. Not worth worrying about though.
I imagine Gwin would notice the difference. Most of us (well me at least)...not so much.

[quote=dragon ] this constant change of 'specs' is just putting me off mtbing and I know I'm not the only one.It just doesn't affect me like that. I get a bike, ride it, it doesn't get "worse" in any way. When I decide to change, I change it. Some of the new "standards", I've been very grateful for. Fatbikes, Boost, even I can notice the difference in a through-axle compared to a QR and I'm a mincer.

Move from 9.m qr to some form of through axel = improvement
Love between slight variations=. No improvement, but less chance you could swap parts easily with another bike / mate borrow a wheel, buy that quick replacement wheel while on a trip as a small shop probably doesn't carry every. Combination.

[img] [/img]

Yeah, it's not even Boost. What were you thinking

How will I dare show my face at the cafe at Llandegla? 😉

The huge raft of 'new' standards has saved me a fortune!

If things were still 26", 142 and 20mm front axles I'd have bought a new frame, probably some carbon wheels too. But because of the industry I've sat quite happily with my 26" bouncer. I'd need to spend >£3k to get something slightly better and that's hard to justify.

The thing that worries me is if something major breaks, I'll have to spend money on an already obsolete replacement component, or sell my 26" stuff for next to nothing and buy a whole new bike

For those to frothy to read the article, the 20 mm BOOST standard differs from the old 20x110 axles in that they've moved the brake mounts outboard by 5 mm so that they can increase the hub flange spacing.

I've got two cars on the drive and I can't even swap the wheels between them. Damn standards.

[I]*smugly thinks of the 26", straight-steerer forked, QR, 3*9, tubed, hardtail sitting in the garage at home that works perfectly fine*[/I]

I didn't read the entire link, but I guess the summary is that the new 110mmx20mm is a bit like the old 110mmx20mm just sufficiently different to warrant new hubs, new forks and probably something else.

Or have I read that wrong?

[ninja edit]

For those to frothy to read the article, the 20 mm BOOST standard differs from the old 20x110 axles in that they've moved the brake mounts outboard by 5 mm so that they can increase the hub flange spacing.

Ah. Pitchforks at the ready, people.

P-Jay - Member

Everything you own now, or owned in the past, or will own again will at some point become obsolete.

Yep and I'm fine with that when it has benefits that outweigh the downside. 135x12 to 142x12 has real world benefits, frinstance, and was relatively backwards compatible (not all hubs are adaptable but all hubs could be, if the manufacturers bothered).

When it's obviously change for its own sake, that can **** off. The change most noticable from boost hubs is more people clipping their heels on the frame. There's a noticable benefit for any nichemongers wanting to run dual ring on a 3 inch back tyre. For everyone else it's snake oil. Oh the wheels are .1% stiffer? That'd be worth changing parts for, if we'd exhausted other ways to make wheels stiffer but when manufacturers who happily sold their bikes with flexy wheels suddenly tell us that you need new hubs for stiffness (which will probably still be badly built with flexy wheels...)

Everyone that rejected bigger hub flanges but now recommends Boost can get to **** too, they're enemies of the people

This one seems a wise change… you can use old hubs/wheels, or you can fit hubs with a wider flange spacing for stronger wheels. No complaints from me.

I'll consider each new option on its merits. For me, compatibility of existing parts is key.

I still don't know if Boost 15x110 and Boost148 were wise moves as regards improvements vs compatibility headaches, but that ship has long since sailed. I don't think further options/changes should be tarred by the merits or not of that one.

The thing that irks is that these aren't gradual evolutionary progressions. None of it is based on new technology or engineering revelations. We have known the limitations of hub spacing, dishing rec for decades.

jI've got two cars on the drive and I can't even swap the wheels between them. Damn standards.

I don't see the relavence. Argument seems to be about creating needless competing standards. You cite a completely different more complicated product with a very different history of development

I think the way to avoid the stress of this is to buy a bike and run it as is, and replace parts like with like when they break/wear. As someone pointed out above, 26" parts are still very easy to find and cheap too.

The proliferation of standards is most annoying if you're the kind of person who likes to build up bikes or share wheels or upgrade/customize a build etc.

It definitely causes faster depreciation than would otherwise happen.

Just avoid anything too exotic, I've had bad experiences with FSA cranksets where it was cheaper and easier to buy a whole Shimano cransket and BB than source the FSA-specific BB when it wore out.

I don't see the relavence. Argument seems to be about creating needless competing standards. You cite a completely different more complicated product with a very different history of development

OK, try seeing it the other way around, why do you care that the hub for a rockshox fork even fits in a Fox fork? Especially when the hub often costs less than 5% of the fork?

The reason we had standards/interchangeability was because it made things cheap whilst the sport was small. Now if a company want's to built an entire bike in house they can do (I'm thinking Specialized and the old Enduro SL, Cannondale, etc) and make it even cheaper or better.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

OK, try seeing it the other way around, why do you care that the hub for a rockshox fork even fits in a Fox fork?

You can move parts from one bike to another. You can replace the fork without replacing the hub. You can replace parts easily when they break and you have a wider choice of upgrades. You can sell the wheel and more people can use it. You can use more parts in your existing fork. You can swap parts between your bikes. Shops can carry less inventory, creating cost savings and improving availability for customers (without standardisation, good luck walking into a shop and buying anything you want- everyone with daft spokes in a wheel knows how this works). Manufacturers can sell more of each product creating economies of scale. Parts can be used for longer, reducing waste. It's less likely that you get screwed because a part is discontinued, because there are alternatives.

Am I missing something in your question? These seem too obvious.

You can move parts from one bike to another. You can replace the fork without replacing the hub. You can replace parts easily when they break and you have a wider choice of upgrades. You can sell the wheel and more people can use it. You can use more parts in your existing fork. You can swap parts between your bikes. Shops can carry less inventory, creating cost savings and improving availability for customers (without standardisation, good luck walking into a shop and buying anything you want- everyone with daft spokes in a wheel knows how this works). Manufacturers can sell more of each product creating economies of scale. Parts can be used for longer, reducing waste. It's less likely that you get screwed because a part is discontinued, because there are alternatives.

This +1

So they have developed a Boost DH hub, how many of you have DH bikes?

All the standards is why I've elected to stick with the bike I have. It won't fit any of the standards of today and it makes '...the trails appear perfectly alive thank you for asking'on a 26" not fat, straight head tubed, non electric, 9-speed, QR, alu tubed, externally routed, screwed in bottom bracket, non-uppy-downy seat-posted triple-ringed type monstrosity.
When the industrial magic bull-pooh roundabout slows down a bit we might go shopping, until then no thanks.

STATO - Member

So they have developed a Boost DH hub, how many of you have DH bikes?

Both of mine took 135 rear wheels, it was great

I just bought a new (to me) frame that was older than my one.
Had to buy new (to me) wheels as had gone from 142x12 -> 135QR at the back and mine didn't have changeable hubs, but now have Hope Pro 2 Evos so should be good for a while.
Also had to get a new (to me) dropper post as had gone from 31.6mm -> 30.9mm, but new one has a shim if I want to go up a size again.

And I thought I'd got away with it too!

You can move parts from one bike to another. You can replace the fork without replacing the hub. You can replace parts easily when they break and you have a wider choice of upgrades. You can sell the wheel and more people can use it. You can use more parts in your existing fork. You can swap parts between your bikes. Shops can carry less inventory, creating cost savings and improving availability for customers (without standardisation, good luck walking into a shop and buying anything you want- everyone with daft spokes in a wheel knows how this works). Manufacturers can sell more of each product creating economies of scale. Parts can be used for longer, reducing waste. It's less likely that you get screwed because a part is discontinued, because there are alternatives.

But.....

At no point in all of that did you give any reason covering it's actual use. More time riding, less worrying about upgrades.

And in most cases there will be someone making a widget the make whatever it is compatible anyway. In this case, a 5mm disk spacer?

Actually hang on a minute? Weren't Marzocchi 20mm forks designed with a bigger offset to the disk? You're all getting your knickers in a twist over something Marzocchi were doing 10+ years ago! Note the ohhh so hard to deal with extra 5mm of material.

[img] [/img]

I love new standards

As I'm still riding 26" wheels, non boost it means a steady supply of cheap parts on eBay

thisisnotaspoon - Member

At no point in all of that did you give any reason covering it's actual use.

Except for absolutely all of them.

At the other end of the scale I did note the manitou [url= http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/sea-otter-2017-answermanitou-and-the-new-forks/ ]"MARKHOR"[/url] is being released, apparently to satisfy the luddite market, and it's only 2.5kg 😀

I am now tired of ranting about the various forms of cycle industry ****tery and overuse of the word "innovation" to describe minor, incremental changes...

I did like this little gem though,

You know, Vernon, I was talking to Brent Foes the other day about this and you know the last time I folded a front wheel? It was 1992.

So the fella trying to flog us yet another hub/axle standard is basically saying that, for the vast majority at least, wheels were pretty much good enough ~25 years ago?

Having read the full article I think the fella trying to sell the new standard is fairly open about the fact he's spotted a bigger brand doing it and doesn't want to be left behind.

The myriad standards are a pita for customers but they must create a huge financial risk for smaller mtb companies.

Except for absolutely all of them.

No, they're all about spanning, spares, costs, obsolescence.

Riding complaints would be 'this will make front wheels too stiff'.

You know, Vernon, I was talking to Brent Foes the other day about this and you know the last time I folded a front wheel? It was 1992.

Which is why it doesn't really matter what front hub you have, as long as you have one, it's not something you brake every day!

thisisnotaspoon - Member

No, they're all about spanning, spares, costs, obsolescence.

Which is all about its use. Good luck riding a broken bike or one you can't buy the right part for, or can't afford.

Good luck riding a broken bike or one you can't buy the right part for, or can't afford.

Despite the proliferation of standards recently, does anyone have a concrete example of a part that's not available either OEM, aftermarket or on ebay?

You're not talking about how things are today, you're talking about making it much worse.

That aside, yes, there's already loads, many caused by deviating from standards. Try and buy spokes for a factory wheel from a couple of years back (I can buy usable parts for my mountain bike wheels that I bought in 1991, because of standards. If I want a spoke for some wheels I bought in 2014 I need to special order them from abroad at 55 euros, because of lack of standards. It's impossible to replace the rim) Or some mech hangers- you can't buy hangers for one of my frames, I have to machine down a similar one to fit.

And of course you can find parts, given time- but are they the parts you want? Quite likely not. Can you find them on demand? Probably not. Walk into a bike shop and try and buy some weird specific part because your bike just broke in the middle of your holiday. "Do you have a Giant Overdrive headset and 2 spokes for a 2007 Crossmax Enduro in stock?"

I had trouble just finding a crank to fit a bloody common or garden trek, eventually found one- overpriced and low quality and not the length I wanted but just had to throw it in anyway because it was a choice of one. Nothing fitted the other parts i had so I had to get an expensive BB and ring too. All caused by lack of standards.

[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]Despite the proliferation of standards recently, does anyone have a concrete example of a part that's not available either OEM, aftermarket or on ebay?
The proliferation of standards and the development of new standards are slightly separate issues. Many of the problems occur because we're not moving on to new standards quickly enough, wanting to retain backwards compatibility or demanding that we can still buy parts for older equipment.

Take Boost as an example; it might have been developed to make 29er wheels stiffer, and to increase rim/tyre width, but there's no technical reason not to use it for all 650B bikes as well. So, it makes perfect sense for manufacturers to standardise on that [i]even if you get no advantage from building with it[/i]. It cuts down on design, manufacturing and stocking costs.

What's I feel is most interesting is this continual "improvement" process is making selling any bikes with technology that is not completely up to date, with new wheel sizes, hub dimensions, cable routing etc etc, virtually impossible. Is it just me with my own conspiratorial thinking when I say the industry realised that to keep turning over large profits, they were going to have to somehow destroy the incredibly expanding second-hand market that flows from websites such as these? Otherwise how are we consumers going to keep buying our shiny new bikes at regular intervals if they have such fanastic second-hand options that are so easily accessible with the internet?

I now have a 27.5 bike as I didn't want to get left behind either by the new standards and honestly buying new 26" bikes and parts has become almost impossible anyway. My 26" Blur LTC for sale on various forums is getting almost no attention despite it being one of the most lusted after bikes previously, albeit maybe 5 years ago. I'm beginning to get increasingly cynical about a bike industry that is bringing out new "standards" that appear to be very minor alterations to the various technologies we have used for a considerable period of time, which appear to have the added advantage to the industry of rendering incredibly good bike technology obsolete.

Are people really telling me the 5" or 6" travel bikes we used up until 2013 are completely outdone by 650B? Or are we all being sheeple? For what it's worth, my Blur rides like a dream so I'm not particularly concerned about needing to get rid of it. But what about us all with our new 650B bikes in 5 years? Are we going to be left again when the industry decides only 700c is the best option? Hold on a sec, 700c. I believe some older generation bikes use those?

[quote=speedstar ]I now have a 27.5 bike as I didn't want to get left behind either by the new standards and honestly buying new 26" bikes and parts has become almost impossible anyway. My 26" Blur LTC for sale on various forums is getting almost no attention despite it being one of the most lusted after bikes previously, albeit maybe 5 years ago.

For what it's worth, my Blur rides like a dream so I'm not particularly concerned about needing to get rid of it.

And there's your problem. You have a great bike. It rides like a dream but you don't want it anymore and you're complaining no one else does. You could just carry on riding it. Spares and components are still available.

Or, do you actually accept that all of those developments and improvements are worth having?

The return of coils, 20mm through axles - it's like a dream - when are Totems and Josh Bender coming back?

And there's your problem. You have a great bike. It rides like a dream but you don't want it anymore and you're complaining no one else does. You could just carry on riding it. Spares and components are still available.

Or, do you actually accept that all of those developments and improvements are worth having?

I really only wanted a longer travel enduro machine. No, I do not agree all the improvements have benefited us. It's impossible to test but I wonder if we put people on the same machines but engineered for 26" wheels vs 27.5" wheels, would anyone notice a real world difference? Given downhill machines were the last to move to bigger wheel sizes, it leads me to feel that for Enduro we would have been pretty much in the same place we are now but able to swap older wheels etc with each other.

I suppose of all the latest fork axle standards 20x110 "Boost" is the least problematic for someone like me, if I did want to raid the spares bin for parts, I already have a couple of "old" standard 20mm hubs, add a 5mm spacer and yep, I am golden... It is less faff TBF.

The fact that it's taken them three iterations to work their way back round to the new "best" solution (moving the brake mount 5mm outbound on a ~20 year old existing standard) is somewhat laughable, had I bought into 15x100 or 15x110 I would be more annoyed...

Of course I can't afford DVO forks and I'll want the SC 5" travel version when something affordable does turn up in this "new" flavour anyway... But still, pisstakers the lot of them!

Glad I kept my 20mm Chris King axel...

Agree completely. I've slowly moved over to road biking partly due to constantly been told my MTB is out of date. Which is why I no longer read any bike magazine's. Can't remember the last time I even took a copy of ST out of the cellophane!

Still enjoy riding the MTB. But, no intention to buy anything new until they can go for longer than 6 months without deciding to tell me that my new wheels are now in fact sh**e, as the air I've used to pump up the tyres isn't enduro specific air or hubs aren't wide enough.

The very minor upside is places like Paul's cycles and start fitness etc. If you're not a slave to new standards then you can get a new bike at second hand money

And it's not just mtb........Brand new full carbon, sub 8kg road bike for £599? Yes please... you just need to live with the horror of a straight steerer, 10 speed campagnolo and an external threaded BB.

cookeaa - Member

The fact that it's taken them three iterations to work their way back round to the new "best" solution (moving the brake mount 5mm outbound on a ~20 year old existing standard) is somewhat laughable, had I bought into 15x100 or 15x110 I would be more annoyed...

Essentially everything to do with 15mm vs 20mm axles is laughable, this is just the latest chapter

My reaction to the article was that the new standard flows from the popularity of 29" wheels in DH. The extra flangeness and wheel strength are probably important there. Everyone else can happily run their ordinary 20mm or 15/20mm hubs with spacers and/or adapters. Easy with a bold-on disc anyhow, may be more probby with a screw-on.

I had one of those Marzocchi forks, in the early days of 20mm through-axles there was some vagueness about where the brakes went, my Middleburn hub needed different spacres (which they supplied FOC naturally, being Middleburn). Problem was disc rotor bolts fouling the fork leg.

Prob with standards is that v1 of any standard is probably not ideal and will need updating, so waiting for v2 is always a good idea. One of the things that often isn't nailed down initially is the amount and location of free space guaranteed by the standard. Disc caliper fouling spokes used to be an issue with some hubs as well I recall.

My reaction to the article was that the new standard flows from the popularity of 29" wheels in DH. The extra flangeness and wheel strength are probably important there.

i think its more likely that they have moved both 29 and 27.5 over to boost so having to keep narrow hubs just for DH forks doesnt make any sense.

Standard proliferation is still a problem even if you're Santa Cruz and you can just phone up Chris King and get them to custom build you stuff
http://reviews.mtbr.com/the-santa-cruz-syndicate-v10-29

greyspoke - Member

Prob with standards is that v1 of any standard is probably not ideal and will need updating, so waiting for v2 is always a good idea.

Even only counting mainstream standards this is v6, by my count.

As a few have said - people want developments but then moan about standardisation of the developments.

Presumably bolt through 20mm forks/hubs are better than QR 9mm forks/hubs? If so you need a standard for 20mm so everyone manufacturers to that standard and parts interact.

Stop the development and stop the new standards.

My sole bike is currently a 1991 steel track bike which is using components with standards that existed for many years so I may be the wrong person to add to any woes on this...

I ride a 26 wheeled bike with 142x12/15x100 axles and a threaded BB so don't GAF about new standards.

I imagine Gwin would be paid to say he noticed the difference then thank the lord for the advantage it confers.

Fixed, no charge.

Stop the development and stop the new standards.

How many would happily go back to 1.9" tyres (tubes, obviously), no suspension, narrow bars, long stems, 3x (limited range) gearing, no droppers, old-stool geometry? There was no "golden age" of no development.

erley - Member

As a few have said - people want developments but then moan about standardisation of the developments.

Presumably bolt through 20mm forks/hubs are fat better than QR 9mm forks/hubs? If so you need a standard for 20mm so everyone manufacturers to that standard and parts interact.

Like I said, no problem with genuine developments delivered well.

20mm axles are a great example of the problem though- 20mmx110mm was the best wheel standard at the time. it was lighter than QR15mm, stiffer, and suitable for a wider range of bikes. But Fox and Shimano pushed their competing, inferior standard, largely by using OEM seller power to take the decision out of consumer hands, and drove 20mm out of town.

And then as soon as 15mm dominated and standards settled, along came Boost- which quietly returned to the 110mm standard they'd just finished crushing and used just enough of both standards to make it largely incompatible with either.

And now comes Boost 20mm, which actually does build on previous standards, and has much better compatibility, hallmarks of a good standard... Which'd be awesome, if there was continuity but instead 20mm got stamped out first, and the interim 15mm period means that those advantages are largely wasted.

QR, 20mm, 20mm boost is a reasonable progression with improvements in each generation and minimal disruption/maximum compatibility. Instead we got QR-20mm-15mm-both at the same time-15mm-15mm boost-20mm boost. It makes the same journey with a load of extra wastage and some actual backwards steps.

Basically the problem at every step here isn't "progress", it's that there was a competing line of standards which was always inferior for customers but which had industry advantages and power behind it.

Nothing had been made obsolete? yet has it?

One can still buy new or second hand parts for the bike. Whilst the new products of the 'older' sizes is shrinking it's still possible to get.

Just let the marketeers get on with it, ignore them and ride your bike. That's what it's about isn't it? Riding.

kayla1 - Member

I imagine Gwin would be paid to say he noticed the difference then thank the lord for the advantage it confers.

Fixed, no charge.

You can set standards, but things don't always work out the way you thought. Take 150mm rear axles. The idea was you could build a stronger rear wheel, but the hub manufacturers kept the hub flanges the same distance apart.

A prob with 20mm front axles was the flimsy bearings, which need replacing lots. No scope for putting bigger ones in because IS 6-bolt standard. In theory a 15mm axle would allow for bigger bearings, but almost all 15mm hubs I have come across use the same bearings as 20mm one, but with different end spacers.

So one does indeed end up asking what the point of 15mm front axles was (weight saved at the bottom of the forks perhaps?)