Moar standards!

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 – Member

I 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…

2016 Axle Standards, Part 2: Mountain bikes get 15×110 – Road gets 12mm thru axles

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 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.

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.

Ha ha… Quality rant but in reality all of this is a bit of a non issue, eh?
Only seems to affect that certain type of rider who believes all of a sudden for some inexplicable reason we’d need discs fitted to our roadbikes or a completely new mountain bike to ride the latest discipline (#Enduro anyone?) on exactly the same hills their old pikey mate’s been happily riding a wee 8spd, 1&1/8 steerer, 25.4 bar, 100mm hardtail with bald tyres up and down for the last 20 years unphased 😉
I’ve known Roadies, MTBers and even BMXers who have been happy to part with wads of cash just to have a completely new up to date bike and kit every year since as long as I can remember. Either go full pikey and just enjoy your riding rather than the shiny or suck it up fas#ion queens and princesses 😆

Happy 2015 🙂

Ha ha… Quality rant but in reality all of this is a bit of a non issue, eh?
Only seems to affect that certain type of rider who believes all of a sudden for some inexplicable reason we’d need discs fitted to our roadbikes or a completely new mountain bike to ride the latest discipline (#Enduro anyone?) on exactly the same hills their old pikey mate’s been happily riding a wee 8spd, 1&1/8 steerer, 25.4 bar, 100mm hardtail with bald tyres up and down for the last 20 years unphased

No what it means is somebody who just purchased a new bike has lost a big chunk of its resale value.

you lose around 40% off RRP the second you ride any new bike.

how much extra will you lose for each new standard that’s introduced?

I’ve never once bought a bike based on its resale value. But then I’m not a serial swapper. My FS still has 26″ wheels, rear QR, threaded BB shell and straight headtube. It’ll be run till it breaks or I’m too old.

100 x 12 for road bikes. So, not only has the bike industry put me off upgrading my mountain bikes for fear of buying into a “standard” that won’t be supported in a few years time but they’ve also put me off buying a new road bike for exactly the same reason.

Combine this with Derbyshire County council’s love of tarmaccing trails and motorists behaving like cyclists are disposable and irrelevant and I’m starting to wonder if 2015 might need a new pastime.

Irrespective of all this angst and hand wringing about the horror of all these new standards, there are some seriously flawed statements about the calamitous effects on second hand markets. Granted it might make ‘old tech’ a bit harder to sell, but second hand values of used mtbs are crap anyway.

The only way the depreciation from new standards theory could be correct would be if you were serial bike swappers and fashion victims, turning bikes over within the year and barely riding them to ensure they were in shop condition for resale when the new colour way came out.. It strikes me that if the conspiracy theorists on this thread are right, they’re exactly the target market for the devious manufacturers ploys to screw them for cash.

I’ll keep assessing things on merit and accepting incremental gains when I need or want a new bike thanks.

but second hand values of used mtbs are crap anyway.

Actual market value of many new ones vs planned RRP is pretty crap too, particularly FS bikes. A full market, emphasis on having to have the perfect spec ticks? That’ll only get more pronounced in a cross-over period between standards.

so thats potentially, 2*3*2*3*3 = 108 different versions of the same fork

Nah. A few different crowns, and the dampers and springs will be modular. No biggie.

scotroutes – Member

I’ve never once bought a bike based on its resale value

Me neither but every bike I buy is based on the resale value of what went before it, because that’s a chunk of what I can spend. And I do consider the value of a part when buying it, because the difference between new and resale cost is the actual price of the item in the long term.

Scienceofficer – Member

there are some seriously flawed statements about the calamitous effects on second hand markets.

Very much disagree tbh. If I just take a look at my wheels… My old crossmaxes, probably worth £150 a year ago, not worth posting today. Had to sell my Controls for £100 when I’d have got over twice that last year and my DT Swiss set for the price of the hubs. Probably keeping my Fulcrums because I’ll get peanuts for them. That’s a lot of money gone up in smoke for no good reason, and it’s all money I’d have spent on bike tat I don’t need. So it’s bad for me and bad for the bike shops I’d have spunked it in.

Irrespective of all this angst and hand wringing about the horror of all these new standards, there are some seriously flawed statements about the calamitous effects on second hand markets. Granted it might make ‘old tech’ a bit harder to sell, but second hand values of used mtbs are crap anyway.

The only way the depreciation from new standards theory could be correct would be if you were serial bike swappers and fashion victims, turning bikes over within the year and barely riding them to ensure they were in shop condition for resale when the new colour way came out.. It strikes me that if the conspiracy theorists on this thread are right, they’re exactly the target market for the devious manufacturers ploys to screw them for cash.

I’ll keep assessing things on merit and accepting incremental gains when I need or want a new bike thanks.

It is causing small boutique companies serious headaches though, as they can’t keep up with the costs of adapting frames to new standards all the time.

It’s a win for big corporations and potentially a blow for small bike manufacturers and diversity/choice, this is made harder to swallow by the fact that the new standards are ridiculous (ie going back to 110mm axle spacing when we already had it previously). Don’t get me started on 148 boost as well, no one will notice the increase in stiffness. Very few hub manufacturers will actually bother to increase the flange spacing anyway and to use it, you will need a new set of cranks. Great.

http://www.bikemag.com/gear/trek-boost-148-bike-magazine-exclusive-blueprint-story-new-hub-spacing/

What about carbon rims? Aren’t they stiff enough? Sure, high-end 29ers with ultra-expensive carbon hoops are wicked stiff, but they’re too pricey for most people to experience the benefit. Boost 148 is about engineering strength and stiffness into the design rather than relying on advanced materials to get the job done. The SRAM Roam 40 wheels on the pre-production test bike that we’ve been riding retail for about $375 and they’re impressively stiff.

Sooo, having to buy a new frame and wheelset is cheaper than a set of LB/Superstar carbon rims?

The only way the depreciation from new standards theory could be correct would be if you were serial bike swappers and fashion victims

Lively troll but complete bollocks as was most of your post.

Serial bike swappers have moved to the new standard obviously though they may have done it , like you , for incremental gains which really bring the troll alive.

I’ve only ever sold.one bike (in 1994) and one frame just now.

I can’t get too worked up about businesses behaving like businesses, that’s to be expected, but I am starting to wonder whether mountain bikers are a uniquely stupid demographic.

northwind

Very much disagree tbh. If I just take a look at my wheels… My old crossmaxes, probably worth £150 a year ago, not worth posting today. Had to sell my Controls for £100 when I’d have got over twice that last year and my DT Swiss set for the price of the hubs. Probably keeping my Fulcrums because I’ll get peanuts for them. That’s a lot of money gone up in smoke for no good reason, and it’s all money I’d have spent on bike tat I don’t need. So it’s bad for me and bad for the bike shops I’d have spunked it in.

Just buy a set of hopes and swap the axle ends if you need to change frame or fork?

Just buy a set of hopes and swap the axle ends if you need to change frame or fork?

Which is what everyone will do and the only people who will make true 148 boost hubs will be SRAM.

Negating most of the point in doing it, unless of course 650b+ takes off then it may gain some traction.

Haven’t Specialized gone back to 135mm on their DH bikes to reduce the chance of rock strikes to the rear derailleur?

Just buy a set of hopes and swap the axle ends if you need to change frame or fork?

Which is what I imagine most hub manufacturers will do which makes 110 x 15 pretty pointless from an engineering point of view so it must be marketing bs.

No doubt they’ll move the disc flange over a bit so end caps won’t be enough 🙄

Eh? No issues using hopes when go between 20mm/110mm and 15mm/100mm.

Sram would have to modify the forks to bring the caliper mounts further over, wouldn’t they? Besides I reckon some genius would just end up inventing offset disks.

But that’s the point. Why should they? Hope can make one hub shell that will suit all “standards” with cheap interchangeable end caps. I’d wager that will be more popular with the buying public.

clubby – Member

Just buy a set of hopes and swap the axle ends if you need to change frame or fork?

Which axle ends is it that change the wheel size?

New stupid hub standards will probably be changable with spacers, and as above, that makes the entire thing pointless.

My spare rear wheel is 135×10 QR standard, my normal wheels are 142×12. I just have different frame dropouts for each. ’tis the work of but a moment to change them over.

new ‘standards’ aren’t that scary.

nickc – Member

My spare rear wheel is 135×10 QR standard, my normal wheels are 142×12. I just have different frame dropouts for each. ’tis the work of but a moment to change them over.

Yup- but not all wheels can do that even now. And when the first 12mm axles and maxles came along, lots of wheels couldn’t deal with it at all. The reason it doesn’t seem like a big deal now, is that it was a big deal in the past but all the changes required have already happened.