Moar standards!

2016 Axle Standards, Part 1: Rear 148mm Thru Axle Coming Fast & It’s About More Than Just Better Wheels

Well then, it seems the bike industry will succeed in alienating me completely, if I ever buy another bike this’ll probably mean I’ll have to buy a full bike as every single part on my current full susser will be obsolete. Awesomez.

‘Moar’ marketing shite.

A solution to a problem no one has.

Ive never heard anyone say their 12x142mm is not stiff enough.

Totally and utterly pointless.

Qr15 makes sense, 12×142 makes sense, taper makes sense.

There is some real innovation in the industry, but some seem happy to just create a problem and push a new standard that means a whole new product line.

Companies should think about their customer needs first, not their product roadmap and sales targets.

The 148×12 ‘standard’ I can (kind of) see the need for. It’s the new front hub widths in Part 2 that worry me.

Give me three reasons why 148 needs to replace 142.

WTF is wrong with them?
Fully sick of this shite.

I kind of read through it and maybe I missed this but:

1. why not make the freehub a bit wider so you can get a nice 12 speed cassette on there or some sort of small sprockets built into the freehub etc?

2. why not just tweak the 150mm rear hub design so that it’s still backwards compatible? there is a huge amount of wasted space between the brake rotor tabs and the spoke flange on a 150 hub. I guess moving the flange out would change the dishing but is that a bad thing? Could you not just make the back end of the frame asymmetric and make the dishing more symmetric if needed?

I love riding my bike and getting out in the great outdoors and that’s all that matters really.

Really can’t stand the constant marketing drivel from the big guys and I know my next bike (if / when my current full sus breaks) will either be a custom steel hardtail frame from a local framebuilder or something ‘Boutique’ like a Stanton, Breadwinner or Canfield.

1) Offset rim drilling is soooo hard to do
2) Bigger hub flanges is just crazy talk
3) We’re going all-in for 29ers, including DH, and that’s why 29er wheels have to be utterly bombproof rigid; it’d not be a big deal for 650 but we’ll be ditching that shit for 2016 too

??

I think everyone should screw up the bike industry for 2015 by buying 26″ bikes and wheels and demanding straight 1 1/8th steerer forks.

Total BS. 15mm was bad enough. 20mm was lighter, stiffer.

My 12×142 on my Alpine Five is ridden pretty hard by some guys i ride with. They have zero problems with stiffness or bombproofing.

Do DH racers complain of 142×12 stiffness?

So far,

650b
Pressfit BB
QR15 (over 20mm)
Giant’s Overdrive steerer
29+
35mm stem and bar

Errr I got lost around 135mm and quick releases…there’s not going to be much room for size 12’s and short chainstays…

Going wider in the back also has other advantages. Following the basic engineering principle of triangulation, the wider you can make the triangle’s base, the stiffer it will be, all other things remaining constant. Imagine if engineers had another 6mm of axle width for the main pivots. Same triangulation principle, just at the pivots, which puts less torsion on the bearings and gives the pivot more leverage over perpendicular rotational torque (aka rear end frame flex).

Total and utter rubbish.

I think everyone should screw up the bike industry for 2015 by buying 26″ bikes and wheels and demanding straight 1 1/8th steerer forks.

Which is what I (& my mates) have been perfectly happy with for 23 years. Now I’ve got a FS with tapered this & 15mm that but I’m actuallly no happier. Still happy but I’m not thinking, ‘OMG, how did we manage!’

Loada bollox all this crap.

Give me three reasons why 148 needs to replace 142.

i) Enduro
ii) Enduro
iii) look, the question doesn’t matter, its just Enduro, OK!

I like the wider front hub idea in general, should have simply kept 20 x 110 though.

I started on 12×150 but it was too stuff, so I swapped to 12×142 but it was too noodley. I opted for 12×148 for the perfect blend. The -2mm/+8mm really adds another dimension of subtleness.

Giant’s Overdrive steerer

Overdrive is just tapered. It was Overdrive 2 that had the pointless 1.25″ top diameter.

IIRC Giant have given up on this one.

cokie – Member
I started on 12×150 but it was too stuff, so I swapped to 12×142 but it was too noodley. I opted for 12×148 for the perfect blend. The -2mm/+8mm really adds another dimension of subtleness.

Love it.

….i reckon this exact line will feature in a magazine review of the new standard soon…you should copyright it!

(Do you work in marketing?!)

Hey, 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.

(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).

which were all new standards at one point 😉

It’s getting beyond stupid now. All of those who “futureproofed” by getting tapered, 650b, 15mm, 142×12 etc etc could find their new stuff with a major redundant standard within a year or if being a brand new model. We’re not talking any major kind of improvement at all, like a wheelsize, disc brakes, 1×10 etc. it’s a flipping axle.
It’s not just stupid, it’s disgusting. There must be a consumer backlash soon.

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.

(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).

Obviously you dont like *buying* them 😉

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.
(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).

Obviosuly you dont like *buying* them

I love buying them, when the old stuff fails me or there’s a clear advantage to be had from the new stuff.

Would I notice 142 x 12 being better than 135 x 10? Quite probably. Would I notice 148 x 12 over 142 x 12? Only in the ball ache of compatibility and being force to buy new kit.

dirtyrider – Member
which were all new standards at one point

We’re they though?

My mountain bikes have always had 26″ wheels. Mountain bikes were “invented” with 26″ wheels simply because they were available at the time.
27.2 seat post? Been available as long as I’ve been riding bikes.
threaded bottom brackets have also been on every bike I’ve ever owned.
Okay, number of cogs at the back have changed but I don’t remember triple chainsets ever being revolutionary.
Some of the others were revolutionary rather than evolutionary and were more backwards compatible.

As someone mostly on the sidelines of MTB, I do find it amusing – the bikes I deal with are still 135mm axles, 26″ or 700c wheels (if they’re big wheels at all), 1 1/8″ headsets, 68mm bottom bracket shells, etc.

It seems that the old model, where you buy a bike and upgrade it for a while, wasn’t working for manufacturers – they’d prefer you buy a completely new bike more often. It’s the kind of corporate marketing thing that you ecpect from the likes of Apple – not sure the bike industry can get away with it.

I’m getting a lovely new frame jig in the spring – first frame out of it is going to be a frame for me. What annoys me is I want to build something that I can still get parts for in 5-10 years, and not sure at the moment what that’ll be (or even if it’s possible).

I’m still riding a steel 26 inch hardtail because I’m too confused what to buy next.

Okay, I’m not really confused, but I am annoyed by all these changing standards, and it IS definitely slowing down the purchase of my next mountain bike.

Surprised nobody has mentioned the 650b+ size that’s mentioned as that’s a new one to me.

Or am I just not keeping up with the industry?

MTBs were 130mm rear ends once, all that changed just to add another cog.

Some is genuine evolution, some is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence some is a mix of both.

I want to build something that I can still get parts for in 5-10 years, and not sure at the moment what that’ll be

What sort of bike Ben? I have a bike like that already, it’s got some odd stuff on it as far as axles and headset stds go but I’m confident that there will always be one or two high-end, quality options for it and those parts last 5-10 years anyway. 1 1/8 and 135/100mm QR will always be available from brands like Chris King and if you’re avoiding suspension there’s no reason not to use these fittings imo? It’s when sus products come in and it all needs stiffening up and the products change every year that it gets tricky.

Surely Trek can’t be gaining sales with this constant churn of silly proprietry sizings and “standards”?

Seems more like product designers attempting to justify their position with dubious “improvements” than anything else.

Just makes me even less likely to buy a new MTB from any of the big brands, when there are smaller, cheaper firms offering frames that still take external BBs and stick with the “standards” that actually make sense.

Funny thing is, I want a B+ frame. I was just getting to the point of finalising what I wanted and then this longer axle stuff comes along. Whether 148 is right or wrong, that makes me pause and reconsider, delaying any purchase. If lots of folk do that, net sales will decrease.

What with MTB-ing being the new Golf there are plenty of middle aged men with a disposable income to feed the industry.
If they genuinely wanted a stiffer rear axle then DH axles of 150mm would seem the obvious choice…but that is an existing standard with readily available parts so it just won’t do….a new standard is required to milk the consumer for everything they can get.

Who is going to notice the difference between a 142 and a 148 axle?!?!….and if stiffness really was the reason for this ‘innovation’ why stop at 2mm short of the DH standard?!

Moo Moo….bend over this won’t hurt….

It is getting daft now…… I think it may go full circle and my 94 kilauea will become the “new” standard again….

Some road bikes are adopting the 142 x 12 rear axle. Maybe that just makes some mountain bike designers feel it’s not gnarr enough. Imagine how awful it would be to have the same standard on road and mountain bikes.

Some road bikes are adopting the 142 x 12 rear axle. Maybe that just makes some mountain bike designers feel it’s not gnarr enough. Imagine how awful it would be to have the same standard on road and mountain bikes.

: )
Maybe .. They were all on 135 or 130mm + 100mm QR for long enough. I rode harder, faster and bigger on my QR bike ‘BITD’ than I probably could on any boosted 148 FS now. Doesn’t mean that wider thru-axles aren’t worth bothering with but I don’t always see enough benefit to having these systems that means I’d feel the need for a new bike.

i bet the next big thing will be gear boxes, essentially negating the need for wider back ends.. back to 135.

So 150mm DH bikes use 83mm bottom brackets
Therefore 148mm bikes can also get their own special bb width? Oh I really hope so!

This is actually about SRAM and Shimano squaring off against each other over the OE market.
If you can get a proprietary standard introduced by a manufacturer it ties the use of your parts/groupset (and you get anyone else who wants to use the standard to pay you royally for the privilege).
Shimano were smarting from the X1x11 thing and so introduced the side swing front mech.
SRAM have pushed 148 as it means using there hub/wheelsets AND chainsets (Shimano don’t do removable spiders) and I assume front mechs(if you use them at all) with built in offset.