You couldn’t make this up.

Funny how Stooge, Charge and others have no problem running B+ in 135xQR rear.

Depends how restricted you want to be in tyre, rim and drive chain selection.

Tbh maintaining a QR version of any new wider standard is a good idea for less hardcore bikes that don’t need a big stiff bolt up axle as people are less likely to lose a QR than an axle you have to remove.

How many people have lost extortionately priced axles by leaving them on the car roof or on the ground when loading the car? Never happened with QRs.

If all the main hub makers can just swap in their existing qr endcaps then given that boost has already happened I don’t really see this as a bad thing- cotic had that email a while back describing why they prefer them for the hardtails. Here it is, in fact. Basically cheaper, lighter and no performance difference.

It might hasten boost being the ‘standard’ on everything if you can stick them on cheap bikes too and then I suppose we can all dream that things might settle down for a bit.

I’m interested in those mounting holes below the brake mount on the marin chainstay- are they rohloff related?

scotroutes- The Marin Pine Mountain for ’15 came with 40mm inner rim, 135xQR & 2.8 tyres. The Marine Pine Mountain for ’16 will come with 40mm inner rim, 141xQR & 3.0 tyres. The Charge runs 40mm inner rims with 2.8 TBs & Stooge can take 40mm inner rim with 3.0 tyres. Lots of other examples were 135xQR works just fine.

I’m a big fan of the QR. I think it works well for a certain market- mainly the XC bikes and HT trail bikes. My gripe is with QR shifting from 135mm spacing to 141mm spacing. Forcing a new standard that isn’t required. Riders won’t be able to buy a new frame in future without buying a new wheelset, and vice versa.

Like I said –

Depends how restricted you want to be in tyre, rim and drive chain selection.

Notice how the Pine Mountain is going Boost Open for 3.0″?

Like I said –
Depends how restricted you want to be in tyre, rim and drive chain selection.

I suppose I’m annoyed at the fact that the Marin has adopted the new standard but haven’t decided to run a wider rim or (possibly) a larger tyre. The 2.8 Kenda might even measure up bigger than the 3.0 Nobby.

I would love to meet the guy who keeps dreaming up these standards.

It would have been easier for Marin to simply go with the (admittedly unwelcome) Boost 148 and fit a bolt through axle, however to go to the trouble of engineering a completely new standard just because they won’t spec a 12mm axle is an act of premier league bastardry.

For some years, I’ve been dropping certain manufacturers from my potential purchase list because of their enthusiasm for pointless standards.

Dont have a problem with boost, makes sense for 29ers, stupid on 27.5(-). Boost open, again fine on 29er, its same hub just open ends, so no different to boost bolt through in new frame/wheel requirements.

What really ticks me off is road 12mm front. They could have just accepted 15mm was too big and went with 10mm bolt through, meaning wheels would then fit open or closed dropouts by using a 10mm axle.

This isn’t really a new standard though in the grand scheme of things. It’s opening up boost to other frame designs, so it should be possible to have a nice cheap hardtail using this and a swanky full susser with a bolt through and be able to swap wheels easily (just endcaps) for example. Otherwise the hardtail would be more expensive and/or heavier with a bolt through or using non-boost and incompatible. How important that is to you may vary!

The merits of boost aside, this I can’t really see as anything other than a good thing.

Front axle standards are a whole can of worms unto themselves.

I’ve whinged before, so I’ll whinge again…The new Boost standard (110x15mm) is identical in dropout width to the old 110x20mm but with the 15mm axle. I’m baffled as to why Rockshox went down this route with the Pike, Yari and Lyrik, given the remit of enduro forks, a 20mm axle would make much more sense without having to reinvent a new standard. If you’re buying a fork, you potentially have four mainstream options, 9mm QR, 15x100mm, 15x110mm, 20x110mm.

I daresay that such standard knobbery is proving confusing for consumers who are new to mountain biking and the constantly moving goalposts are putting people off from buying bikes until it all settles down.

I may often criticise Fox, but at least someone in their design team had the sense to say “Screw it, let’s make the new 36 able to take any axle” and to go to the trouble of supplying the adaptors in the box.

It comes as no surprise to see the twattery start to happen with road bikes. These decisions aren’t taken by engineers, but by marketing types who really, really need the proverbial hoof in the slats.

Forks really are a bit of a mess.

If you’re buying a fork, you potentially have four mainstream options,
9mm QR, 15x100mm, 15x110mm, 20x110mm.

And they aren’t even the same 110 spacing, the brake positioning on the fork is different.

Realistically though, 9mm, 15×100 and 20×110 were subunits of the ‘old’ hub spacing in the same way 135qr, 135×12 and 142×12 were on the rear.

The best I can hope for is that we settle down with boost. It is quite a neat solution to making wheels stiffer, it’s just a massive pain.

A year on, what 141 Boost QR hubs are now available, other than the Alpkit wheelsets?

Serendipitous
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/help-with-boost-frames-please-sonder-frame

Ah, somebody else who’s looking at those Frontier framesets!

I’ll post it here rather than other thread as its hub specific.

If you are running standard threaded axle hubs, like shimano, you can get longer axles for use in tandems (often 145mm dropouts). Stock shimano axles are 141mm to outside, so 7mm longer than 135mm, so youd want around 148mm. SJS list a 146mm and a 155mm. Could be an option. Would need redishing and rotor spacer as per a normal boost conversion.

Ah, somebody else who’s looking at those Frontier framesets!

Yup, and frankly, the hub sizing is enough to put me off.