QR 141/110…. WTF!

I was just looking at the New Sonder Bikes[/url] linked on the front page, and was quite liking the look of the ‘Frontier’ Frameset and then I spotted:

…with Boost 110/141 QR spacing …

What!??!!? Surely a mistake? Right?… Nope, apparently not.

“QR Boost 141mm” and “QR 110mm” rigid forks? these are both real things…

When did this all happen? Google tells me I should have known about it ~a year ago…

WTF indeed.

141mm must bring massive advantages over the existing 142mm standard.

😆

OMG, ~25 years old! 😯
… I feel old now 👿

I’m bordering on Furious, Quick release wheels, basic, bogo, standard 135/100mm axled QR wheels why did that need messing with, moreover why would I bother to buy that Frameset now? I’d have to buy new Hubs, plus a few other bits… I might as well look at the whole bike (Which isn’t a bad price either TBF) But FFS!!!! ARRRRGHHH “Standards”!

Not seen a QR implementation of boost before but am guessing it’s like the difference between 135 TA and 142 TA – effectively same hubs as 148 boost but with QR adaptors instead of TA?

Blame Marin. The Pine Mountain has this new variation.

Clearly we didn’t have enough standards with QR, Thru and Boost combined with 6 wheel sizes – obviously need more to ensure no compatibility between parts from bike to bike.

I was looking at this the other day. Thinking I’ll either go for a Pinnacle Ramin Plus or (more likely) the Genesis Longitude.

As above, it’s just a way of using the now standard Boost hubs with a QR axle.

I was looking at the frame thinking “Hmmm nice, £300, Raid the spares bin and I can have a light-ish 29er that’ll take a 2.5″ tyre” but the axles throw that plan out…

QR axles on a rigid bike make plenty of sense to me, changing the OLN dimension does not…

I have the Pine Mountain, and was wondering about trying it with 29″ wheels as Plus is supposed to be rubbish in mud, then looked at my hubs and thought what is the narrowest tyre you can get on a 40mm rim instead
Turns out Plus is fine in my local mud. Your mud may vary of course…

Not seen a QR implementation of boost before but am guessing it’s like the difference between 135 TA and 142 TA – effectively same hubs as 148 boost but with QR adaptors instead of TA?

+1

Presumably it’s just so you can swap wheels with other boost bikes (after swapping end-caps) once they’ve all migrated to that standard.

Someone was saying of the Rooster that it only just works with 100/135mm hubs and 3″ tyres, so it seems logical to spec boost hubs, and for a hardtail I don’t see a disadvantage of a QR at the back (the front I’d have gone bolt-through though, I’ve had a QR wheel pulled landing a jump badly).

[edit] just checked,the 2016 Marin Pine Mountain 1 was 100/135 and has 2.8″ tyres, the 2017 is 110/141 and has 3.0″ tyres, so there you go.

I guess you’ve just got the question of “why not bolt-through”? While it might not be needed, what downside makes it worth coming up with a new axle variation?

what downside makes it worth coming up with a new axle variation?

Cheaper, simpler, lighter?

Is it though? A one-piece machined axle vs at least 7 pieces for a QR. Is a QR hub not heavier than a bolt-through too?

A one-piece machined axle vs at least 7 pieces for a QR.

The hubs are the same just different end caps, then you’ve got to go out and buy an axle form shimano, syntace, fox, Rock-Shox etc (whic isn’t one piece, it’s probably more bits than a QR!). The dropouts need threads machining into them too, the Marin’s dropouts on the other hand look like simple cut steel.

Is a QR hub not heavier than a bolt-through too?

I’d have thought the hubs were practically identical, just change the end caps, then the bolt through axle would add weight.

Ah yes – dropouts. You certainly need something for the axle to thread into but this can be a knurled nut with a retainer or a threaded mech hanger. complex.

I was thinking Maxle Stealth/Kabolt idea.

Ok – that’s 3 pieces max.

It’s still a £35 part Vs a £5 one (at aftermarket prices, obviously they pay less), and you then end up with a rear wheel that needs a tool to remove, which won’t be popular.

Is a QR hub not heavier than a bolt-through too?

Cotic did something about that- linky

edit- realise I’m not talking about the hub but thought it might be of interest

Cotic did something about that- linky
edit- realise I’m not talking about the hub but thought it might be of interest
[/quote]Great link – thanks.

Sorry I should have clarified, I’m only really half looking for a rigid frame/fork that takes existing QR hubs as I have some (135/100) knocking about in the garage already ideally something that let’s me run 29×2.3 – 2.5″ tyres…

If I do just give in and adopt boost then it’s probably simpler to just buy a whole new bike (obviously what “the industry wants)…

There’s just not much benefit to be had from bolt through axles for a fully rigid bike IMO, it does no harm, but as there’s no suspension system to try and stiffen, so why not make the frame nice and simple and backwards compatible?

thisisnotaspoon – Member

what downside makes it worth coming up with a new axle variation?

Cheaper, simpler, lighter?[/quote]

I don’t see any of these benefits to “QR boost 141/110” mechanically it’s no different to 135/100, so neither cheaper to produce or simpler, weight wise it’s either going to be the same or marginally more… Yeah OK if you buy the spoke triangulation and chainring justifications, but it’s hardly a compelling enough reason for me to bin perfectly good hubs…

It’s a shame because otherwise I rather liked the look of the frame/fork.

Maybe this is just something I will have to learn to accept, bike Companies are going to **** about with hub standards and do their best to force you to buy a whole bike rather than a frame/frameset…

Longitude might be a goer, but another £100 and being steel will weigh a shade more, but offset the cost of new hubs and it’s more easily singlspeedable… Hmmm.