I thought a standard was supposed to be where all the major players in the industry would thrash out and eventually agree on one set of common parameters and stick to this for a few years, then all the little players would follow suit.

But increasingly there appear to be far to many standards, or standards which are not applied across the whole industry. At what point are there so many standards for a particular component that there is in fact just variance rather than a standard.

Examples:

The 145mm Surley standard, which isn’t really a standard at all it is a clever solution to there already being too many axle standards. We already had 135mm, 142mm, 150mm, 157mm, and 142mm. Was it really necessary to introduce 148mm as well?

Or the Wolf Tooth CAMO standard, which isn’t a standard it is just Wolf Tooth deciding to create yet another chainring BCD for not much reason other than to sell more stuff. To be fair, Shimano were already getting a bit silly with their BCD’s.

My beef is that increased incompatibilities between different components, means increased headaches, expense and storage space requirements for the consumer. What do you think, are people getting a bit carried away with standards or not?

What do you think, are people getting a bit carried away

Yes, I think you probably are. They’re toys for grown ups, relax.

I thought

*sucks teeth*

There’s your problem…

Looking to buy a new crank for my fat bike. FFS – so many differing ” standards ” .
This looks good, oh won’t fit. This looks good, oh, I can only get chain rings from one place.
This looks good, oh, I have to use a specific Bb which no one sells.

And people slated ISIS. ( the BB, not the terror organisation )

Well you have standards and you have de-facto standards, they don’t always align. An example would be date formats: the international standard (ISO 8601) is four digit year, month, day. The American “standard” is month, day, year.

Sometimes a de-facto standard becomes so prevalent or useful that it becomes a national or international standard and there’s a document to describe “the standard”. What we see in the bike industry are a lot of companies trying to get their “standard” to become accepted by everyone else so that it becomes “the standard”.

Unfortunately we, the customer, don’t have anywhere to stand.

It genuinely isn’t bothering me.

Wheelsize has been fun to experiment with. I’m currently on 650b, but the next bike on order is a 29er with Boost 148mm spacing. I’m buying it complete, so that’s no problem. I’ve had a few years out of the existing 650b bits, and I dare say I’ll get a little bit back on them. Boost makes perfectly good sense, although so much so that I think we’ll be heading to even larger spacing in a few years.

I’ve managed to escape bottom bracket shenanigans so far – they’ve all been 73mm externals for years. But it doesn’t really matter, just buy spares before you need them.

Chainring splines are LOL. I’ve just had to buy a new tool to change my chainring on an E-13 crank. It is absurd that it doesn’t use a Shimano BB tool, but again, it’s hardly the end of the world, and you don’t change your cranks very often. Ditto BCD. It’s annoying, and you need to concentrate. But chainrings aren’t something that wears out very fast, especially on 1x

Who knows what’s happening with headsets? It’s impossible to care. I leave spec’ing it to a shop, after carefully showing them the frame and fork they’re dealing with.

Bar diameter doesn’t matter. You just need to know which one you have, and possibly buy different headlamp brackets…

As I’ve opined before, there’s a lot to be said for buying complete bikes. Or complete groupsets. The stuff that does work together is just marvellous.

🙂

The Surly thing is a bit of a joke TBH, relying on bending of the chain/seatstays, can only wonder how drivetrain and disc alignment copes with that!

The hope bike was interesting: http://www.hopetech.com/hb-211/ Would of like to have seen the shock running on bearings, but all of the new ‘standards’ made sense and fixed problems which exist.

Syntace’s standards are well thought out, the offset rear hub a good example: http://www.liteville.com/en/40/technology/#technology_evo6

There does seem to be a lack of cohesion between all the manufacturers, you would hope they all sit round a table and come to one solution, but alas, its far easier for each of them to come up with their own variant.

Sir HC – Member
The Surly thing is a bit of a joke TBH, relying on bending of the chain/seatstays, can only wonder how drivetrain and disc alignment copes with that!

As was pointed out on the Surly thread, this isn’t a new approach, some bikes have been like that for years. And they don’t have issues with chain or disk alignment.

But if you create a standard that new standards must meet, you might find old standards don’t meet the new standards standard, and then we need a new standard which meets the standards standard to replace the old standard.

scotroutes
As was pointed out on the Surly thread, this isn’t a new approach, some bikes have been like that for years. And they don’t have issues with chain or disk alignment.

Just because its been done like that before, doesn’t mean its correct. The axle end caps will not sit flat against the dropouts for a start, wonder if they have done the calculations and assessment of what effect that has on the axle and hub bearings?

The Surly thing is a bit of a joke TBH, relying on bending of the chain/seatstays, can only wonder how drivetrain and disc alignment copes with that!

It is only 3mm/2%, anybody who’s jammed a 135mm hub inside a 130mm spaced bike knows it should work 🙂

Having done several thousand miles on a bike with 132.5mm dropouts I can confirm that you are completely overthinking this.

Just because its been done like that before, doesn’t mean its correct. The axle end caps will not sit flat against the dropouts for a start, wonder if they have done the calculations and assessment of what effect that has on the axle and hub bearings?

There will be a 0.4 deg variance in dropout face angle between the narrowest and widest hub standard…

Having done several thousand miles on a bike with 132.5mm dropouts I can confirm that you are completely overthinking this.

+1, on an already old bike

This isn’t about standards, but more about the use of – and understanding – of the word standard. The bike industry uses it as a term to describe a common way of solving an engineering problem. As there is plenty of latitude in how to engineer something on a bike, and because ‘the bike industry’ isn’t a homogeneous organisation, then we can’t expect much from the term beyond ‘some manufacturers doing the same thing the same way some of the time’.

We’re far more used to understanding the word as a set of minimum requirements, or a rigid set of specifications that has almost legal levels of adherence. But we can’t apply this in a world of constantly innovating engineering with bikes. I find compatibility issues as annoying as the next person, but on balance it might be a price worth paying for the improvements in bike technology that we benefit from?

Just because its been done like that before, doesn’t mean its correct. The axle end caps will not sit flat against the dropouts for a start, wonder if they have done the calculations and assessment of what effect that has on the axle and hub bearings?

It’s 1.25mm on each side, on a normal bike that’s less than 0.3% of the chainstsay length, over a 12mm axle it’s 34 microns, as a comparison, paint is ~100-180microns.

Most frames are probably out by that much anyway, especially after a few years of use!

145mm isn’t a new standard for bike hubs, it’s been around for years on tandems. Here’s an article from 1996…

http://www.gtgtandems.com/tech/wheandhub.html

There will be a 0.4 deg variance in dropout face angle between the narrowest and widest hub standard…

Assuming the frame has been built straight to start with and there is an equal bending of each side of the frame.

It’s 1.25mm on each side, on a normal bike that’s less than 0.3% of the chainstsay length, over a 12mm axle it’s 34 microns, as a comparison, paint is ~100-180microns.
Most frames are probably out by that much anyway, especially after a few years of use!

The Surly Karate Monkey is a £500 frame, which is a fair amount of money for a steel frame, for that I would expect an engineering solution which is well thought out, robust and correct.

Yes there are tolerances (which frame/bike companies don’t divulge, can only wonder why…) and so you can expect to see small variations in rear frame spacing (on the flip my forks are perfect and so are the hubs, imagine having to bend fork dropouts and the associated performance/bushing issues).

There’s standards that genuinely move the goalposts and provide tangible benefits for longevity and ease of use. 20mm bolt through was and is ace, likewise the 1.5″ headtube standard which worked with any fork you wanted. I grudgingly acknowledge why 142 rear hubs are a good idea too.

However, all too often it’s been about designed in obsolescence and new standards driven by marketing departments and this problem seems to be more prevalent lately. We need a consumer group with industry lobbying power, actively involved in a consultation process before any new standard is foisted upon the marketplace.

As marketing starts to run out of ideas for swatting the competition, they take on creativity rather than changing colour to devise new ways of selling the same stuff to the same people again. Usually this is change the shape/size/fabric etc. creating a standard for their idea is all a part of the ‘sales energy’. Else we would all be riding a rigid steel bike.

The Surly Karate Monkey is a £500 frame, which is a fair amount of money for a steel frame, for that I would expect an engineering solution which is well thought out, robust and correct.

So what’s your actual complaint about surly spacing their dropouts 145mm?

Look at the inside of any dropout, particularly any that have had shimano hubs in them or any with bolt up axles (track bikes etc), the inside face is all knurled up, worn away, and generally a lot more uneven than the ~35microns you’re getting worked up over.

As marketing starts to run out of ideas for swatting the competition, they take on creativity rather than changing colour to devise new ways of selling the same stuff to the same people again. Usually this is change the shape/size/fabric etc. creating a standard for their idea is all a part of the ‘sales energy’. Else we would all be riding a rigid steel bike.

Could always sell it cheaper, although you wonder if there is a cartel at work…

The pace at which these things are being introduced do seem to be getting silly – it feels worse probably because things were relatively settled for a long time.

I’m also sure by this point that ‘improvements’ being introduced are hardly noticeable given how good things are at the moment. They’ll keep doing it too whilst people buy it. It’s the only way to generate sales / interest in a mature market.

Here is a perfect case in point, how can this be anything other than marketing and greed, sorry shareholder value? (And Trek/SRAM are involved too which is always a given when innovation through BS happens)

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/sram-announces-new-hub-standards-boost-148-and-110-2015.html

I call it enabling change. Without Boost, my current bike of choice simply couldn’t exist.

LOL!

I call it enabling change. Without Boost, my current bike of choice simply couldn’t exist.

Did you really need it? Would it not have worked with ‘standard’ *snigger* hub sizes? Has it made you faster/better/stronger?

The Surly Karate Monkey is a £500 frame, which is a fair amount of money for a steel frame, for that I would expect an engineering solution which is well thought out, robust and correct.

If the manufactures had a round table discussion about standards then they could have set out in advance that they were going to have 142mm and 148mm hubs, and then they could have agreed to fit them all properly in 145mm frames, e.g. they could have had wedge shaped dropouts and wedged shaped axle ends so the hub can only be fitted in one orientation, then everything could be lined up with a 0.4deg angle put on the faces of the axle ends so everything lines up perfectly.

I’ll take my toungue back out of my cheek now.

Dare I say the Roadies are being a lot more sensible!
They’re picking up disk brakes now and they’ve pretty quickly settled on a flat mount and 12mm through axle standard. It really is a standard because it is pretty consistent and industry wide.

There being so many different wheel sizes, tyre clearances, axle sizes, BCDs etc to think about for MTB is a bit frustrating.

But my real beef is when people are coming up with a propriety system and then calling it ‘standard’, propriety is the exact opposite of standard.

But my real beef is when people are coming up with a propriety system and then calling it ‘standard’, propriety is the exact opposite of standard.

You’ll get a lot less riled up about this if you mentally insert ‘potential’ every time you read about someone introducing a new (potential) standard. Once it gains traction and widespread adoption (like boost arguably now has, at least with new bikes), it becomes a standard.

It frustrates me, but the only way you’re likely to see improvements beyond a certain point is if these things happen from time to time. Things are going a bit mental at the moment but I suppose there’s a chance they might settle down.

Take boost- while it annoys me, it’s a perfectly valid engineering solution to the problem of making stiffer wheels. Rather than spend loads on carbon rims or make heavy hubs with massive flanges, add a small ring of aluminium to the centre of the hub and be done with it. As a bonus the increased chainline has opened up more options for plus tyres.

It’s really annoying and yet good.

Annoying when quality bits become obselete/don’t work

Good in that unfortunately it took this to ensure I’m not riding a cotter pin crank, rod brake, sturmey archer blah blah.

Cycling survival of the fittest best marketing

On the other hand the proliferation of different crankset BCDs is just getting ridiculous.

I suppose what I’m saying is- introducing new (potential) standards isn’t necessarily a bad thing but I wish some manufacturers would spend a bit longer thinking about if they really need to do it.

Sir HC – Member

The Surly Karate Monkey is a £500 frame, which is a fair amount of money for a steel frame, for that I would expect an engineering solution which is well thought out, robust and correct.

I think it’s a brilliant solution – covers three standards with one dropout and a couple of washers.

Plenty bikes are built without pivots and rely on the natural flex of the frame. A small bend in a steel frame I don’t see as an issue (also have a roadray with a 135mm hub in it)

1.5mm per side is nothing. ANd I suspect the kind of person who buys a steel frame from Surly will on the whole agree.

swanny853 – Member
On the other hand the proliferation of different crankset BCDs is just getting ridiculous.

I suppose what I’m saying is- introducing new (potential) standards isn’t necessarily a bad thing but I wish some manufacturers would spend a bit longer thinking about if they really need to do it.

On the other hand I was looking at those Last Fastforward frames again the other day.

‘Boost’ chainline, with a 135mm QR hub.

‘Boost’ chainline, basically means my old XT triple chain set will work perfectly with the single ring in the outside position, which neatens up the looks a bit.

Boost front hub can be sorted with a spacer (to get plus tyres, if not all the stiffness).

Despite being a very ‘new’ frame, they’ve made it pretty straightforward to build it with bits you already have. Which is nice, and that frame probably appeals to the kind of people who want to keep old stuff anyway.

On the other hand, if you want to blow £2.5+ (or £3k+, or £4k+, or £5k+) on the latest FS bikes, you probably want everything and the cherry on top. You won’t want to use your old bars because they’re 20mm too narrow, your old cranks are scuffed and let the whole ascetics down, the frame is designed for wider rims and tyres too so you want new wheels. In short, even if you bought a new FS frame only, you’re probably not the kind of person who is particularly fussed that your old Hope XC hubs won’t fit.

Some people want a Specialized Enduro with 650b+ wheels and dripping in exotic parts, and want it new. Some people want to build up the Last (or even the ‘new’ Cotic 26″ BeFe) with their old bits. The market for backward compatible £3k frames, or ‘current standard’ £400 hardtail frames, is probably a fraction of it. No one want’s a On-One 45650B with a press fit BB and boost spacing.

I suppose what I’m saying is- introducing new (potential) standards isn’t necessarily a bad thing but I wish some manufacturers would spend a bit longer thinking about if they really need to do it.

I suspect manufacturers think it won’t look good if they just use a competitors axle width/BCD/widget. Its the N+1 scenario in action – 142 was good ergo 148 must be betterer. Doubt Shimano would use a SRAM ‘standard’ and vice versa.

thisisnotaspoon – Member
swanny853 – Member

Despite being a very ‘new’ frame, they’ve made it pretty straightforward to build it with bits you already have. Which is nice, and that frame probably appeals to the kind of people who want to keep old stuff anyway.

That was exactly my plan but the upgrade fairy stepped in and made me buy new wheels and cranks

Doubt Shimano would use a SRAM ‘standard’ and vice versa.

Shimano are doing boost stuff now aren’t they? And Sram do flat mount calipers, which is shimano isn’t it? It doesn’t happen fast, but it does/can happen.

On the other hand I was looking at those Last Fastforward frames again the other day.

‘Boost’ chainline, with a 135mm QR hub.

I’d not seen that. It’s the same as some of the Pygas and Cannondale did something like that too, didn’t they?

I’ll be honest and say I’m not that much of a fan- for me, that setup is just as much a new ‘standard’ as boost is, in that I can’t readily swap those wheels back forth between that frame and (for example) my solaris. The hubs may work but the wheels would need re-truing. You can re-use old hubs, granted, but that’s about it. Like boost- an engineering improvement at a compatibility cost.

At the moment I really like the look of the new salsa alternator dropouts. Use your current wheels until they don’t work, then swap in the boost dropouts on the same frame.

breatheeasy – Member

I suspect manufacturers think it won’t look good if they just use a competitors axle width/BCD/widget. Its the N+1 scenario in action – 142 was good ergo 148 must be betterer. Doubt Shimano would use a SRAM ‘standard’ and vice versa.

142 was a genuine move forward though, and it was broadly compatible with older hubs, just with a change of end cap. Although they did manage to introduce three different axle types with different threads….

104 BCD limited size – so it did need a new standard -but blood hell, it nded up a mess – a DM standard or a new BCD standard could have solved that, but instead we have 95 and 96 (and I think Shimano have a different fitment for XTR versus the rest of their range) plus Cinch, SRAM, E13 and Hope variations on direct mount. (And Cannondale?)

Shimano could have used the SRAM BCD, and any of the others could have matched SRAMs direct mount standard – but then you’re probably into licensing and paying out cash.

I’d not seen that. It’s the same as some of the Pygas and Cannondale did something like that too, didn’t they?

I’ll be honest and say I’m not that much of a fan- for me, that setup is just as much a new ‘standard’ as boost is

Specialized/Merrida have been doing it for a very long time too. My first proper MTB in about 2002 was a Carrera (when they were re-badged Merrida frames) had the dropouts offset by about 5mm to centre the rim over the flanges better.