Pinkbike standards podcast

Home Forum Bike Forum Pinkbike standards podcast

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Pinkbike standards podcast
  • Premier Icon jam bo
    Subscriber

    should cover it..

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Except at the moment some of the standards are not competing, some are restricting progress and others are just not very good. If the splined freehub is perfection then I will eat my hat. I agree with problems of fast roll outs and then dropping them but there needs to be some way forward that helps us get away from a slightly modified road bike.
    Also innovative companies seem to manage to make a core product that works across a range (hope etc.)

    thepodge
    Member

    Interesting listen but I don’t think anything will come of it.

    Except at the moment some of the standards are not competing, some are restricting progress and others are just not very good. If the splined freehub is perfection then I will eat my hat.

    It might not be perfect but it’s a standard that works, until SRAM told everyone they couldn’t possibly be without a 10t sprocket despite roadies still being skeptical about 12t let alone 11t.

    Hopes new enduro bike is a good example of what happens if standards aren’t needed because it’s all in-house. And the answer is; not much. Rear hub is a bit narrower, brake calipers are radial mount and non adjustable, BB looks like it’s just a BB30 set of Hope cranks but the frame’s been optimised around them, freehub is a kinda hybrid shimano/XD for some reason. I wouldn’t have thought that would be considered that revolutionary, so the standards aren’t restrictive really. It’d be less headline grabbing but I doubt a ‘standard’ HB160 would be significantly inferior with post mount callipers, a 135mm hub and an XD cassette.

    Premier Icon chakaping
    Subscriber

    Having two popular and widely available freehub standards is the least of the issues.

    Chainring mounting patterns, hub widths, even rim/tyre widths are more of a PITA to me.

    Andy_K
    Member

    Axle sizes!

    Axle sizes!

    I’m sticking with my FatBike (with an ‘obsolete’ 170mm rear hub). At some point around 2026 I reckon SuperBoost+++ will catch up with it.

    Premier Icon chakaping
    Subscriber

    Axle sizes!

    Diameter or length?

    😉

    MTB Rob
    Member

    thisisnotaspoon, the main reason that hope went to a narrower hub/back end was so the rear wheel was dish-less, ie making a strong and less flexing wheel!

    Which is how “boost” came about to try and make 29″ wheel less flexy by reducing dish and making the “base” of the spoke distance wider. (29″ flex, which was the biggest draw back I could see when 29″ first came out all those years ago and happened from the start of 29″ development, so I am really surprised it taken them so long to sort it out/come up with something better!!) and why they didn’t go straight to DH/150 spacing I don’t know.

    Out of the 2 I would say Hope is better as it is Narrower so better heel clarance/Q factor

    dragon
    Member

    Out of the 2 I would say Hope is better as it is Narrower so better heel clarance/Q factor

    Q-factor isn’t supposed to change on SRAM Boost.

    On the standards issue, it’s interesting because the majority exist to help with the holy grail of increased stiffness and also strength / weight. Look at Boost it was there to strengthen 29er wheels for more aggressive riding. Originally the 29er was a XC machine and as such had ‘normal’ hub spacing and QR’s. As people realised they were super capable bikes, they used them for more aggressive riding and people found the existing components came up short, hence, need for new stronger components. Hence, new ‘standards’ were invented. The main problem is SRAM, Shimano & Fox aren’t going to give up their competitive advantage easily, as they need to make money and recoup their R&D and manufacturing costs. So the issue is less the new improved parts and more the marketing bods using the word standard, for something that clearly isn’t in a lot of cases.

    thisisnotaspoon, the main reason that hope went to a narrower hub/back end was so the rear wheel was dish-less, ie making a strong and less flexing wheel!

    Which is how “boost” came about to try and make 29″ wheel less flexy by reducing dish and making the “base” of the spoke distance wider. (29″ flex, which was the biggest draw back I could see when 29″ first came out all those years ago and happened from the start of 29″ development, so I am really surprised it taken them so long to sort it out/come up with something better!!) and why they didn’t go straight to DH/150 spacing I don’t know.

    Out of the 2 I would say Hope is better as it is Narrower so better heel clarance/Q factor

    I don’t think that’s entirely the right story.

    The Last Fastforward is 135mm and dishless for example, the HB160 is a similar concept, they’ve just combined it with eliminating the tolerances on the disk side (there has to be room between the calliper and spokes, and the calliper has to have a few mm of adjustment, neither of which are defined by any standard).

    Specialized do (or did) this too, their bikes came with wheels dished a few mm off center to center the rim closer over the flanges.

    Boost also pushes the cassette out past 650b+ tyres, no idea if that was the reason or if 29ers were the driving force.

    Equally, Hope’s 130mm shows 141mm hubs aren’t actually necessary to make a stiff wheel.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    revealing podcast, thanks for sharing.

    I think the bike industry has itself to blame for this, and you can hear the manufacturers and bike shop owners making that comment in the podcast. To my mind the issue starts with the change in wheel size, I genuinely think that without someone as influential as Fisher pushing 29ers, we’d still all be riding 26 inch wheels, with standard 135, 100mm hubs. Largely because for most folk they were “good enough”

    29ers are responsible for (in no particular order) different wheel sizes, different hub sizes, the development and wide adoption of single rings, flush bottom brackets, and different fork offsets. Whether you think any or all of those are benefits or drawbacks is mostly personal opinion, but I don’t think the issue is going to go anywhere until the industry settles on a wheel size, and that isn’t going to happen.

    dragon
    Member

    Maybe as a compromise the industry could settle on a set of standards per wheel size.

    The plus of that is that it would help kill off the nonsense of bike designed for both 27+ / 29.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    yeah, that’s a pretty good place to start, dragon.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.