[Closed] Moar standards!

'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, 12x142 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 148x12 '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 12x142 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 142x12 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 12x150 but it was too stuff, so I swapped to 12x142 but it was too noodley. I opted for 12x148 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 12x150 but it was too stuff, so I swapped to 12x142 but it was too noodley. I opted for 12x148 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, 142x12 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, 1x10 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

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.

[quote=dvatcmark ]Surprised nobody has mentioned the 650b+ size that's mentioned as that's a new one to me. 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.

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.

This is really annoying me now. In fact, I'm beyond annoyed, I'm angry.

If manufacturers want wider hubs then fine, we already have a standard there for DH bikes and it's 150mm. Done.

If manufacturers want a fork axle, we've already got a great standard there too - 20mm.

The never-ending minor fiddling of standards to induce obsolescence in the short term and drive up aftermarket prices in the longer term is killing it for me, I think we consumers need to organise a mass boycott.

What with MTB-ing being the new Golf there are plenty of middle aged men with a disposable income to feed the industry.

MTBing is most definitely not the new golf, as it's in a period of not being terribly cool. Road cycling, in the other hand, is, as witnessed by eg. that shop on Deansgate. End result is that the pool of MTBers is not all that big, and if my social circle is anything to go by, is riding round on a Kona they bought in 2004. Clearly, if this forum is anything to go by, there are people who change their bikes multiple times a year. Like Hora, for example.

FWIW I can see [i]some[/i] sense in 148x12; for 11-speed and bigger wheels the wider flange spacing should make for stiffer wheels compared with 142mm, and without being quite as wide as 157mm. It also looks like less of a hack than Spesh's 142+ from a couple of years ago.

Having said all this, I won't be buying as I've not long bought a 29er with a 135mm QR back wheel...

It's not really news though is it. I reported on it from the launch here in June along with an explanation as to why the current 150 DH standard isn't really an option due to it being 157mm in reality. http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/trek-launch-boost-148-29r-specific-hub/

It's Marks fault..............BURN HIM!!!

I'M SORRY!

OK?!

JEEZ!

🙂

It's not really news though is it.

To be fair it did look like Trek were taking a flyer on it in that piece, whereas the article in the OP suggests there might be more widespread adoption.

SRAM have pushed 148 as it means using there hub/wheelsets AND chainsets

I hope it's as simple as just avoiding SRAM components then, could be a blessing in disguise if so.

What chance of the other bike manufactuers just telling them to **** off though?

I'm gonna start riding klunkers. I laugh at the bike industry! 😉

What chance of the other bike manufactuers just telling them to **** off though?

I don't know what manufacturers will say but it seems from here that the buying public would happily tell them to **** off.

I don't know what manufacturers will say but it seems from here that the buying public would happily tell them to **** off.

But in the light of the switch to 650b, it seems they don't really care what us internet warriors think.

It's not consumers that will be providing the initial demand for these new standards. A deal will be done somewhere for a bike manufacturer to use them as original equipment to set the ball rolling. Then all online retailers and bike shops that want to be seen as 'up to the grade' will feel obliged to buy in spares stock. Whether those spares are ever sold at retail price or remain on the shelves until they are obsolete and have to be cleared out for less than they were originally bought for is not the manufacturers problem.

Yes, spare a thought for your local bike shop trying to keep stock for all reasonable demands.

My bike has a 170mm rear hub, if the new standard could be that please

"Our endless surveys and relentless battering,
Left us concluding that they'll swallow anything"

I can see that possibly it does help make a stiffer wheel. But the only time I've ridden a 29er and thought "this wheel isn't very stiff" was because they'd built a not very stiff wheel. So it seems like the actual solution is to stop making shit wheels- especially because a shit wheel on a 148 hub will still be shit.

But it also seems to be drowning in psuedoscience and bullshit, which is always a good sign that they don't think they can sell it on merit.

And I can see it ending up a bit like a lot of 150mm wheels- the potential advantage of the wide flanges got completely ignored and they ended up building hubs that were functionally identical to 135mm. (and plenty of companies using 135 and 73mm, because it works absolutely fine)

The problem is it's reached a point that the standards aren't offering any benefit and infact might be doing the opposite.

Wider rotor/derailluer position might not sound too bad to trail centre riders but it's the last thing we need in BC with 'rotor wrecker' rocks every 100m on some trails. Then there is the heel clearance issue. Without going to a wider BB spacing I think people are going to start having contact issues with some frames. I rode a Lapierre a few months ago and hit my heels a number of times. The last thing bikes like that need is wider rear axles.

Then there's the blatant lies regarding wider rear axles magically allowing for wider main pivot spacing and ultimately stiffer frames. Do they really think people are that stupid?

The below hub is quite popular in the WC DH field. Note the wasted space between non-drive flange and rotor mount. Yet somehow the guys riding these are able to hit stuff a little harder than the average rider with seemingly no stiffness or strength issues.

I'm all up for genuine innovation but shit like this boils my piss. I really hope there's a backlash of some sort.

[quote=rOcKeTdOg ]My bike has a 170mm rear hub, if the new standard could be that please
See, that makes moar sense. Why stop at 148? If wider means better triangulation and more strength then take it up to 170.

Of course, that would mean a wide chainline so we'd also need wider cranks. I propose 100mm as the new standard. That will allow more splayed chainstays without heel rub too, so the chainstays could actually be wide enough to accept tyres right up to 4" width.

Could someone please point the Trek guys at this?

[img] [/img]

Err 170 has been superseded by 190....do keep up.

And wider cranks and Q-factor (side to side distance between the pedals) will no doubt provide a healthy boost to the sports injury and hip replacement professions.

technology advancement used to work for me - I bought a new Orange 5 (2005) because of 'technology advances'[*and it was cheap] (to replace a round tube Marin MV - cantis/elastomer fronts/basic rear spring) - I felt the suspension jump and discs were worth it, and I wanted single pivot [1 bike all year round],however since then I've seen nothing that makes enough difference to me to justify the cost of a new bike (which given my now set of incompatible bits is what I'd really have to do to move 'forward'), so I've now stockpiled with 9/1+1/8/26 bits and at 55 I reckon that's my lot ............

Ratherbeintobago back under your rock. I ride a Santa Cruz Butcher. APP Butcher/Nickels are a match for almost any bike. Bar fashion fatbikes/29'ers of course

I know it's an impossible wish, but I really wish mtb could be a little like bmx and leave the technology/standards largely the same and focus on other things.

Although this makes me sound like a Luddite, but I am happy with my standard 9mm QR's, and 26" wheels. I have not yet managed to die, and still enjoy riding.

I've have just gone to a tapered fork, as CRC were selling some nice ones cheap, and I bodged fitting them with a special bottom cup on my standard 1 1/8" headtube.

I really don't understand why anyone gets all upset when they bring new stuff out.
You don't have to buy it. If you are happy with your current bike as it is, How does it effect you?
I think that over time all the little changes add up and when the time comes for me to buy a new bike,after 5 years or so, the new bike after 5 years of development is better than the old one. I don't think to myself oh if only this new bike was as good as they were 5 years ago.
It's only if you feel you constantly need the latest thing that you could have a problem. Even then if you want the latest thing and you can afford it I don't see why you shouldn't have it.
No one is forcing this stuff on anyone. If you don't want it just don't buy it.

sonofozzz1 - Member
I really don't understand why anyone gets all upset when they bring new stuff out.
You don't have to buy it. If you are happy with your current bike as it is, How does it effect you?
I think that over time all the little changes add up and when the time comes for me to buy a ...

Not as simple as that. It becomes difficult/expensive to get parts, tyres etc in the old sizes.

What's next for pointless new standards anyway? New saddle rail standard anyone?
17.5mm thru axles?
Or maybe a new disc hose standard that doesn't fit in your old cable stops so you have to buy a new frame and forks to replace your brakes.

Sono when you spend your money then you hear 650b is the future which affects any future value of your bike/bits/future spares? 1.5 steerer forks- what happened to them? All ££-driven companies right through to ££ chasing LBS Bikeshops want new money flowing in. I joked the other day that price matching keeps me riding. Its true- I'd never buy a full RRP new frame - just couldn't agree to 1500+ for a new frame.

I really don't understand why anyone gets all upset when they bring new stuff out.
You don't have to buy it. If you are happy with your current bike as it is, How does it effect you?
I think that over time all the little changes add up and when the time comes for me to buy a new bike,after 5 years or so, the new bike after 5 years of development is better than the old one. I don't think to myself oh if only this new bike was as good as they were 5 years ago.
It's only if you feel you constantly need the latest thing that you could have a problem. Even then if you want the latest thing and you can afford it I don't see why you shouldn't have it.
No one is forcing this stuff on anyone. If you don't want it just don't buy it.

Because it's marketing, not innovation.

I really don't understand why anyone gets all upset when they bring new stuff out

Because spare parts get harder to find and we worry that they will stop being made. Last time Ii went into an lbs for tyres they hardly had any in 26. And the choice of 1 1/8 forks is already much less. When the forks on my patriot eventually die I may not be able to replace them, nd a new frame is a huge expense.

It becomes really easy to get parts and tyres on the second hand market.
Quite a few people are giving away 26" tyres for nothing.. You can pick up amazing used 26ers and parts for virtually nothing. You will always be able to keep your old bikes going if you really want to.
Unless you are caught up in the marketing why would you care about the used values of your kit. Surely you don't need to replace it until it's worn out and it is worthless.
It's a mixture of marketing and innovation. Of course the bike industry is chasing money, it's an industry. That's the idea. The companies are in competition,they need to secure their market share. If they stand still they will be left behind and fail.
This is a good thing, stuff gets gradually better.
Embrace the future

You lot are all luddites.

I've ridden the new standard and it's awesome!

It really made the trails come alive!

🙂

If they stand still they will be left behind and fail.

"stuff gets gradually [s]better[/s] [b]different[/b]"

Ha ha, does anyone seriously think bikes haven't got better. A modern mountain bike is not better than a 10 year old mountain bike?????

I prefer not to buy full bikes, they're always a compromise so I buy frames and swap stuff a out, the ****ting thing is if I fancy a new bike in the next couple of years it's looking extremely likely that everything I own will be obsolete and won't fit. It's a **** on, there's nothing wrong with my hubs but I'll have to ditch 'em. I'm happy you're ok being the markets wet dream. But it ****s me off. And as above, it gets harder to get stuff, I don't particularly like buying things second hand, most of the time it's false economy and not much cheaper.

WHAT innovations? On the trail just how much better is suspension today compared to 2009?

Id argue the Fox Float X, CCDB air, and Monarch Debonair are huge inprovments over the old Fox Float and Rockshox Vivid or whatever it was in 2009.

However, its geometry, manufacturing together with tech that make the bikes in 2014 that much better than 2009. Its hard to find a bike thats really horrific in 2015, but you could in 2009. Learning from mistakes and refining all the time.

The Pike, 36 Rc2, and Elite damper are superb also.

Its evolution, not revolution.

Innovation has been described as three horizons, horizon 1 is existing technology that is refined, horizon two is new tech in the existing market and horizon three is something totally new and unheard of anywhere.

We seem to be almost 100% in horizon one.

You are a pro with semsitive measuring equipment?

One of the best bikes I ever rode was a 2007 Blur 4X. Its not innovation to the common man its buzz words, altered internals and such minimal improvents that the common man relies in the sales patter of journalists to assure him that its way better

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.

Onzadog - Member

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.

[b](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).[/b]

Have you nicked my bike? 😀

And the choice of 1 1/8 forks is already much less. When the forks on my patriot eventually die I may not be able to replace them

IIRC Fox have indicated they will continue to make 1?" CSUs for the foreseeable; presumably this would mean that even if you can't get a full fork you can convert a tapered one. It's potentially an expensive way of doing things, and whether a choice of Fox or Fox is a good thing is a matter of taste.

Well that's good to know!

sonofozzz1 - Member

Ha ha, does anyone seriously think bikes haven't got better. A modern mountain bike is not better than a 10 year old mountain bike?????

Bike have got better but it's not randomly changing standards that have done that. In fact I reckon the only 2 recent standard changes that have delivered enough benefits to justify their opportunity cost are bolt through front axles (because of good compatability and the lifespan of forks, it's not been a troublesome change) and decent 29ers (which are a big change, but with bigger benefits). Everything else since disc brakes and suspension has been expensive redecorating with diminishing benefits.

The real improvements- geometry, suspension, durability- have come about through improving the actual parts, not making them 1.5% bigger and 100% incompatible.

Both my bikes are from 2010. I'd put an inch on the top tube of one of them, maybe a degree off the head angle, and wave the magic carbon wand if I could, but it's only one step behind the times and it's still capable of fighting it out with the new hotness. The other is still unsurpassed as badass hardtails go. I've changed parts but the whole is good. And it's exactly this sort of plateauing that inspires bollocks like this.

Bolt through forks
Droppers

That's the only innovation

The rest are variations with small or negligwble benefit