You can make one "standard" an actual standard

Conti Vert Pros. For everyone, no exceptions.

But - they'll be in 27.6

direct mount chainrings have about 10 different mounting patterns, how is that a standard?

*Takeaway pots and lids. One shape and size fits all.

* I store bike bits and bobs in tubs

20mm front axles on everything.

15mm should never have happened.

English (BSA) threaded BB.

That's the one that needs to be a real standardised global standard !

direct mount chainrings have about 10 different mounting patterns, how is that a standard?

One pattern, sorry if that was unclear.

It's nuts that every firm has a slightly different one.

Hub sizes leave it at boost, and if I'm allowed another;  BB not bothered which system, just have one.

Takeaway pots and lids. One shape and size fits all.

This (although I'm happy with the smaller and larger capacity ones that both take the same lid).

Bottom Brackets. Make them ALL Press Fit, on EVERY bike.

Jokes aside, one direct mount chainring fitment standard would be nice. It would certainly make trying to find an oval ring for e13 Helix cranks much easier.

Freehubs - choose either MicroSpline or xD, don't care which and then make 9, 10 and 11 speed groupsets that fit as well.

Oh and headsets - one type (no more integrated, semi integrated etc) and WITHOUT cables routing through them.

Phaser gearbox.

If it turns out it was actually shit then that's just too bad.

Freehubs – choose either MicroSpline or xD, don’t care which and then make 9, 10 and 11 speed groupsets that fit as well.

This might be a more useful shout TBF.

The chainring thing just irks me more because it feels like it could have been achievable.

All groupsets for a given speed (i.e. 10x, 11x, 12x etc) from the same manufacturer should be cross-compatible, road and MTB (and I'm looking at you here Shimano).

Just Metric. The time for Imperial measurements has gone and the world needs to love and accept metric units once and for all.

Just Metric. The time for Imperial measurements has gone and the world needs to love and accept metric units once and for all.

Agreed, metric is miles simpler.

ISO test standards.

As long as the design meets a safety spec I don't care how you get there. I'm all for design freedom and let the market decide. I accept that large companies have disproportionate influence there but the alternative is something like UCI rules.

Agreed, metric is miles simpler.

Depends which yardstick you use IMO

One pattern, sorry if that was unclear.

It’s nuts that every firm has a slightly different one.

its a good example of why there isn't always one standard. The first direct mount I'm aware of (there are probably earlier options) is the m950 xtr, which uses (glancing at it) a smaller axle than modern external BBs - so to use that. you'd have to reduce the diameter of the entire axle, reducing strength of the crankset and the lifespan of the bb bearings. Seems like a good enough reason to have a new standard.

I think I'm onboard with direct mount chainrings although I'll expand it to cranksets in general.

Pick an axle diameter and direct mount interface then stick with it.

I've got a few shimano chainrings knocking around and all my cranks are 24mm. But I do fancy giving hope 155mm cranks a go. I was all set to do it until I realised just how much extra a chainring and bottom bracket would layer on top. Suddenly gets very expensive for something I don't know if I'll like!

Why is the bike industry like this?   Why even pretend that it's a "standard"?   Why not just call it proprietary.  "Hey, this is Trek/Cannondale/Spesh/Giant launching our new bike, we've made the BB completely new and called it BB548 after the number of D20 dice rolls it took to define it's dimensions but for clarity we're calling it BB-Dave, and got SRAM/Shimano to make it but no one else will adopt it so it we may as well have called it BB-Trek".

BB's and cranks especially, so many brands have come up with so many solutions to their own problems that they've had to go full circle back to threaded BB's with 24mm  cranks.  The only one that made any sense as an upgrade was T47 because it gave frame manufacturers the larger space they needed without all the issues of press-fit.  BB30 can have a "highly commended" 2nd place because it was at least simple and cheap, even if there seems to be a minority of users for whom it just makes their frame creek. In theory it should be fine as long as the frame is machined after welding/heat treatment/painting.

At least with chainrings you can solve the problem by just going back and fitting shimano cranks like you should have done in the first place ?

All bikes should be red (or no bikes should be red). It'll make for much fairer competitive racing.

Why is the bike industry like this?   Why even pretend that it’s a “standard”?   Why not just call it proprietary.

Because a standard is a set of agreed-upon rules, specifications, or guidelines that establish requirements and characteristics for materials, products, processes, or services. These standards are designed to ensure consistency, quality, safety, and compatibility.

It never means that there can only be one version of something.

One standard? It's the global lizards taking away our freedom to choose.

The good old BS1363 plug and socket really should have been adopted by the rest of the world by now. It's solid. It's safe and just generally works better than most of the plugs and sockets used by the rest of the world.

There's already an international standard for plugs and sockets... like nearly all other "standards" it became just yet another option to confuse matters... IEC 60906-1

The good old BS1363 plug and socket really should have been adopted by the rest of the world by now. It’s solid. It’s safe and just generally works better than most of the plugs and sockets used by the rest of the world

[ROFL emojis] I’ve found US and EU plugs more comfortable to stand on when walking barefoot in dark rooms. Not that it is a hobby of course.

liking the chainring proposal. Also glad folks have created a bit of stability in the hub width for now.

All BB's need to be BSA threaded, 24mm axle bearinged and a single standard width. Don't care which width but it must work for all bikes.

Also glad folks have created a bit of stability in the hub width for now.

My last bike purchase saw me keen to try a Saracen. Until I realised they are using 157 hubs on their trail and enduro bikes. That's a nope from me! Shame, everything else was about ideal for what I wanted

Look at what happened when they attempted to have one BB to rule tham all.

ISIS arggghhhh!!!!

Lucky to last a couple of months on my commuter bike, until SKF made one that was betterer

I’ve found US and EU plugs more comfortable to stand on when walking barefoot in dark rooms. Not that it is a hobby of course.

Also, with EU plugs the ground pin is less likely to make a mess of your laptop screen if you aren't careful how you throw everything in your bag when running out the office.

Don’t care which width but it must work for all bikes.

roadies need narrower axles for optimal efficiency, dhers need wider axles for rear end clearance. Multiple lengths covers multiple needs there

20mm front axles on everything.

15mm should never have happened.

might have been a good idea 15 years ago, but given where we are now with existing products, cant we just standardise at 110x15?

make an option to have them solid in cross section for the hardcore DHers who claim they are too flexy.

Everything in the flat bar off road world will then have interchangable front wheels.

Your 20mm hubs will still work with adaptors.

Until I realised they are using 157 hubs on their trail and enduro bikes

I'm kind of curious about Pivots and Evils. Not if I need new wheels.

Freehubs – choose either MicroSpline or xD, don’t care which and then make 9, 10 and 11 speed groupsets that fit as well.

this would be great. I was annoyed at having to change to XD. But now that I have, it is by far the superior design.

My 10 speed hardtail is soon to be ni need of a new drivetrain, I would spend the money on a new freehub with a 10 speed cassette if it existed.

BreganteFull Member
All bikes should be red (or no bikes should be red). It’ll make for much fairer competitive racing

Well, you're just opening the door to paint-doping with option 1 - red frame painted over with another, UCI-compliant colour.  Undetectable and still 24% faster

might have been a good idea 15 years ago, but given where we are now with existing products, cant we just standardise at 110×15?

We have, and it's fine.

The boost axle format becoming dominant is a rare outbreak of common sense.

See also UDH.

might have been a good idea 15 years ago, but given where we are now with existing products, cant we just standardise at 110×15?

make an option to have them solid in cross section for the hardcore DHers who claim they are too flexy.

Solid axles .. a chunk of inefficient-for-stiffness gains unsprung mass added?

We need options for axle OD and spacing like we need options for BB types, headsets and other aspects of bikes imho because a summer best road bike and a DH race bike are so different.

I'm pro sensible commonality and anti waste, anti planned obsolescence (if you change something it'd better be for good reason), but areas where a fixed industry-wide spec for parts fit works .. grip/control area OD on bars, saddle rail fixings, upper steerer OD and cable entry sizes is all I can think of at the mo.

We need options for axle OD and spacing like we need options for BB types, headsets and other aspects of bikes imho because a summer best road bike and a DH race bike are so different.

Road is different (I think they are 12mm anyway).

But MTB is such a spectrum that wheels should really be interchangable.

Put trail wheels on your XC frame with Sids? Downcountry ripper.

Have a lightweight option for easier trails on your enduro bike? long travel trail bike

Wreck your DH bike wheel and want to cannibalise your enduro or vice versa? easy race day spares

Yet there is a small and vocal group that want 20mm axles back. Either rose-tinted remembering some ancient 26 inch Totems, or deciding that the reason their Fox 40 triple clamp forks feel stiffer is definitely purely down to the axle...

If we all went to 20mm 15 years ago I'd be totally happy.

But there was a time where XC was 9mm QR and DH/FR was 20mm boltthrus and the new all rounder "all mountain" bandwagon wanted to split the difference to give something palatable to both camps, and now we are stuck with it.

Freehubs – choose either MicroSpline or xD, don’t care which and then make 9, 10 and 11 speed groupsets that fit as well.

Please, please think of the singlespeeders.

Please, please think of ths singlespeeders.

You'd fit a SS sprocket to a wide freehub rear hub? Think of the aesthetics at least.. More commitment needed from you.

: )

Because a standard is a set of agreed-upon rules, specifications, or guidelines that establish requirements and characteristics for materials, products, processes, or services. These standards are designed to ensure consistency, quality, safety, and compatibility.

It never means that there can only be one version of something.

This needs to be posted every time a standards thread is raised.  What people actually are referring to is having a universally agreed sizing (that would be a standard) for a given bike part and no manufacturers can deviate from that.  It means that nothing would change or potentially improve.  We would still be on 1 inch threaded steers are that was the universal steerer type.

@jameso

We need options for axle OD and spacing like we need options for BB types, headsets and other aspects of bikes imho because a summer best road bike and a DH race bike are so different.

I’m pro sensible commonality and anti waste, anti planned obsolescence (if you change something it’d better be for good reason), but areas where a fixed industry-wide spec for parts fit works .. grip/control area OD on bars, saddle rail fixings, upper steerer OD and cable entry sizes is all I can think of at the mo.

As ever on this site, the one post of sense in the thread by someone who knows what they're talking about.

@kerley we should have settled on standardised Penny Farthings with solid tyres and avoided all this new-fangled nonsense. 😉

Anything that isn't a solid tyred Penny Farthing is just a skills compensator

Including suspension saddles.

In previous years I would have said either 73mm bottom brackets, 31.8mm bars or 148mm hubs now in the name of future proofing very expensive e-bikes I would want ebike motor mounts and battery compatiblity to be standardised across the industry so that people can chop and change to run what they want and if your motor company goes bust, discontinues your motor you can get something else.

I understand that technology changes over time but guaranteeing the same mounts for 10 years seems like a good idea.

This needs to be posted every time a standards thread is raised.

Are you trying to standardise standards threads?

You might do better to realise it's a light-hearted thought exercise, and perhaps even share something that winds you up a bit.

See also UDH.

UDH is clever and anything that tries to solve the problem of the number if different derailleur hangers is a good thing, but UDH was primarily a trojan horse for SRAM Transmission

UDH was primarily a trojan horse for SRAM Transmission

Yes, but the joke's on them because I'm never getting electric gears

Anything that isn’t a solid tyred Penny Farthing is just a skills compensator

60" ain't dead.

'I’m pro sensible commonality and anti waste, anti planned obsolescence' so

I would want ebike motor mounts and battery compatiblity to be standardised across the industry

This is a good call. Unlikely, but it should be a point of discussion in the industry. Or at least within motor/battery brands' own parts.

UDH was primarily a trojan horse for SRAM Transmission

Some truth in that for sure. UDH controls small sprocket to frame clearances so SRAMs T type 55mm chainline cranks and cassettes run properly on a 148 hub - as I understood it on other cassettes or dropout / back end designs a 55mm CL crank doesn't run so well since Boost was supposed to be for 53mm CL and that wasn't perfect on a 148 rear.

I never found keeping a couple of spare hangers in a box that difficult tbh but UDH is a good thing overall. Chances it'll stick as a design when Shimano go 13s? Place your bets.

@kramer thanks but I'm not so sure..

someone who knows what they’re talking about.

I’d quite like 20mm front axles back, but not that pretty much all front wheels are 15x110 I’m happy to stay with that. Now if they could all agree on 12x148 for rear ends that would be great.

i know deep down that motor mounts won’t standardise as companies want everything to be proprietary like in the motor industry. You don’t take the brakes of your Mercedes SLK and fit them to your Ford Fiesta (do they still make these).  But it would be nice if the bike industry did standardise mounting.

You might do better to realise it’s a light-hearted thought exercise, and perhaps even share something that winds you up a bit.

Just seems to be people whining whenever a 'standards' thread is opened, mainly because they don't really understand what a standard means.  Bit like moaning that cars have all different sizes of wheels but they are actually standard sizes in inches for diameter and width with common(ish) PCDs that have been around for a long time with some odd new standards such as metric in the early 80's.

As for winding me up, no I don't get wound up about bikes.

– as I understood it on other cassettes or dropout / back end designs a 55mm CL crank doesn’t run so well since Boost was supposed to be for 53mm CL and that wasn’t perfect on a 148 rear.

very nerdy article on Radavist about the messy history of Boost, 53mm and 55mm chainlines

sharkattack
20mm front axles on everything.

15mm should never have happened.

+1 Well said sir. All the other standards have at least some merit - the 15mm hade no sense when there was already a perfectly suitable (and better) standard available and in use on all DH forks.

ayjaydoubleyou

might have been a good idea 15 years ago, but given where we are now with existing products, cant we just standardise at 110×15?

No.   It didn't make any sense then and it makes no sense now.  Tough **** to all those companies and individuals that adopted it. You can all buy another wheel when you change fork.

@nickc that's the one, the article I was thinking of RE 148 hubs and 55mm cranks not running so well

You don’t take the brakes of your Mercedes SLK and fit them to your Ford Fiesta

you'd be surprised how often people do just this in the car modding scene. this thread has someone putting the brakes off a megane onto a fiesta -> https://www.fiestastoc.com/threads/brembo-big-brake-front-setup-mk7-or-mk8.329107/

I would've said 20mm front axles before when I had old parts to use, but since getting a bike with 15mm I don't seem to have any issues with it. Tbh I was fine with 135/142x12 on the rear too, I'm still not really sure what boost is supposed to solve but I have it now anyway. If they could stay like this now that would be great.

Oh and I'd make 26" a MTB standard again and ditch 27.5" 😉 seems to be making a bit of a comeback in the freeride scene (if it ever went away) at the minute.

richmtbFull

UDH is clever and anything that tries to solve the problem of the number if different derailleur hangers is a good thing, but UDH was primarily a trojan horse for SRAM Transmission

Fair, but like a lot of things SRAM, they made it an open standard, so lots of brands could adopt it, and make use of it, and it worked with existing mech as just fine. Sure, Transmission takes a different direction, but your frame still have the benefits of UDH and compatibility with old stuff.

If anything, UDH is the best example of how to introduce a new standard - bring an improvement, don't make anything obsolete, and pave the way for other new innovation. And it genuinely replaced lots of proprietary hangers with one universal part.

SRAM have been better at this kind of stuff historically than most - their shifter mounts are another example of them keeping stuff simple and standard (looking at you, I-Spec 1,II,II,V and EV), making new dampers compatible with old forks, etc, etc.

I’m still not really sure what boost is supposed to solve but I have it now anyway. If they could stay like this now that would be great.

Boost makes sense.

https://off.road.cc/content/feature/boost-spacing-explained-15521

Boost makes sense.

https://off.road.cc/content/feature/boost-spacing-explained-15521/blockquote >

it doesn't make sense when 150\157x12mm had been used for the previous maybe 20 years in DH - should have just used that (like 20mm for front ends)

 

Metric, please

“ Please, please think of the singlespeeders.”

Mine’s on boost hubs with an XD driver!

44, ZS44/56 and 56 head tubes can all stay, the rest can go! (44 is good for steel, 44/56 for alloy & carbon and 56 for max adjustability).

UDH is clever and anything that tries to solve the problem of the number if different derailleur hangers is a good thing, but UDH was primarily a trojan horse for SRAM Transmission

TBH I think they can have it, the benefits, backwards compatibility and creation of a universal standard for Derailleur hangers is worth it IMO. (And I don't even have a UDH frame yet).

20mm front axles on everything.

15mm should never have happened.

Meh, I would have agreed a few years ago but then TBH 15x100 was fine and originally 20x110 hub standard was generally convertible with an end cap swap.

What dismays me most is that Road/gravel is currently settled on 12x100 when there was no real reason it couldn't have been 15x100, I suspect there will be a cynical stab at introducing yet another "gravel specific" hub standard in a few years.

The forcing in of "Boost" has meant that you can't really have easily interchangeable Hubs between MTB/Gravel/road. Similar considerations apply at the rear, there was never really any convincing reason for 110/148mm other than to prevent the swapping of wheels between old/new MTBs and curly barred bikes.

Road/gravel is currently settled on 12×100 when there was no real reason it couldn’t have been 15×100

Interestingly, my road bike is 15mm front.

Think it was made just as standards were settling.

My gravel bike is 100x12 though, so I can't swap wheels between them ?

Date formats. Big endian.

You shouldn’t be allowed to parent/protect a “standard” that you introduce.  This would naturally mean that if it’s a good thing everyone migrates, but if it’s not, they won’t.  So many standards and (especially) equivalents are an attempt to avoid patents.

My gravel bike is 100×12 though, so I can’t swap wheels between them ?

Probably with a change of end caps, but your case sort of illustrates my point, why should anyone have to go looking for spare end caps or axle adapters? and why shouldn't people be able to swap hubs/wheels between MTBs and curly barred bikes? They do seem to be converging in a number of ways.

Once they moved MTB forks onto 15mm, why did they continue to piss about with hub/axle standards? (Rhetorical question, The answer is almost always sales). Boost didn't really do anything either,  apart from make sure old MTB frames became obsolete sooner and ensure parts couldn't easily be swapped with other types of bike.

Whenever bike industry standards come up I end up thinking back to this old (11 years now) chestnut:

Joe Grainey's whole exasperated, gaslighting act is beautiful. The best bit is that I don't think Santa Cruz were really big enough to be in the driving seat of that particular industry wheeze, but rather than simply say, yep its basically being imposed by the real industry big boys, there's the whole "why the resistance" (to something that ultimately means bike companies more money). 

Bottom Brackets. Make them ALL Press Fit, on EVERY bike.

Do you have a recommended standard for the accompanying ear defenders to stop all the creaking entering our  lugholes ?

Bit like moaning that cars have all different sizes of wheels but they are actually standard sizes in inches for diameter and width with common(ish) PCDs that have been around for a long time with some odd new standards such as metric in the early 80’s.

Well yes and no - the car tyre / wheel industry is in a mess. The way tyres dimensions are incremented is standard -  All the wheel and tyre size combos are 'standards' but the variety of options has got out of hand.  Tyres have become a styling tool - mid sized cars don't have mid-sized wheels and tyres the have whatever size/shape helps the designer create a distinctive outline.  The range of tyre size required for just 'mainstrem' cars is crazy. Back in the 80s 10-15 sized covered most of the cars people actually drove out of a selection of about 100 sizes in production- if you didnt drive a Roller or a Ferrari. Now to cover 90% of common cars that might drive in a garage would have to stock almost 100 size, out of a 1000 or so sizes. To stock 100 sizes of tyre, one on each corner, tyres at say three price points - a garage needs to have around 1,200 tyres on hand.

Michelin had to close its Dundee factory recently, a factory making normal tyres for normal cars - not becuase people don't buy tyres anymore but becuase they'd tooled for a bunch of common tyres sizes at certain price points and guessed it wrong.

They are still all standards though, i.e. a 15 inch wheel is 15 inch, a 15 inch tyre at n width will fit that wheel because of standards. And as you say they are lots of standards which is good otherwise stated wheels and tyres would not fit.

Living.

We need a single , practical minimum standard of living.

Then i will concern myself with why 1inch threaded headsets come in different crown race diameters.

BreganteFull Member
All bikes should be red (or no bikes should be red). It’ll make for much fairer competitive racing

“Well, you’re just opening the door to paint-doping with option 1 – red frame painted over with another, UCI-compliant colour.  Undetectable and still 24% faster”

…..and if there was only one colour allowed it would make it easier to sneak any new bike past the household financial controller therefore unilaterally increasing sales and saving the bike industry.

These "standards" that people want, what about riders who aren't "standard" - say, taller, shorter, lighter or heavier than "standard"?

Let's say we standardise on 29"/700 wheels, short-arses with long travel bikes are going to be complaining no end, and having custom smaller wheels & tyres made for the rear.

Or take away a manufacturers ability to make Clydesdale-rated or kid-sized d components.

And for all those pushing the BSA BB, when Shimano introduced the HT2 they were absolutely s***e, no end of complaints and how Square Taper was better etc.

For me, I'm happy with innovation as personally innovation got us to bikes that properly fit me with components that survive the type & amount of riding I do.

I would want ebike motor mounts and battery compatiblity to be standardised across the industry

And chargers. For a relatively modern product I (as someone who doesn't own an ebike) imagine it would be annoying having separate and expensive chargers for each brand of bike motor/battery, especially when you add in escooters, balance wheels and even electric wheelchairs/mobility scooters.

One rugged waterproof socket standard with an intelligent voltage sensing charger and in years to come you'd be able to leave yours at the office (and share with colleagues) and your other halfs at home etc etc

As previously stated on the other page, this is confusing standards with a universal standard, even if they came up with a universal standard, it has to be adopted, it doesn't stop someone creating their own, or using a previous standard, the only way you'll get universal standards is via law (like the EU have done in some cases) or if it's simpler and more profitable for companies.

On interesting component doesn't actually have any standard at all: tyre size.  Sure, the BSD has standards but there is no width or aspect ratio standard.

It probably doesn't help that people run so called 2.5" tyres on everything from 20mm to 40mm rims but there really should be a standard way of measuring the width and aspect ratio of tyres.

I don't think it's ever even been agreed whether the width measurement stated is the carcass width or the knobs.

Freehubs – choose either MicroSpline or xD, don’t care which and then make 9, 10 and 11 speed groupsets that fit as well.

But the down side is that suddenly there are 2 sorts of 9, 10 and 11 speed hubs. So an area of complete compatibility has gone.

spooky_b329
One rugged waterproof socket standard with an intelligent voltage sensing charger and in years to come you’d be able to leave yours at the office (and share with colleagues) and your other half's at home etc etc

Sounds like Nokias in the 90s - change is constant and nothing lasts forever.