Hi guys,
I have read some info about the new 142×12 rear axle standart on the web.
I am wondering will it make any difference on steel hardtrail frame, or it will be the same stiffness as qr ? I do not see how the axle will affect the stiffness of the rear triangle ( evenmore it is steel one ), but maybe I am wrong. Anyone with experience on this topic ?

I have a carbon Kona HT with 142×12 rear axle. I doubt most people could tell the difference in stiffness between it and a QR. There are so many other factors that make two bikes feel different, that I doubt the rear axle has a major influence. I like the 142×12 simply because it fits more easily and securely than a QR.

I am asking, because I am looking for steel frame upgrade for my second hardtrail bike. I have hope hubs, which can be converted to 142×12, but I can not find any steel hardtrail frame supporting 142×12. I am looking at these suppliers: http://www.cotic.co.uk/ and http://www.on-one.co.uk/
So I am wondering should I continue to search something steel, which is supporting the “latest and greatest” or I can just go for what is available. Or maybe there are no steel hardtrail frames supporting 142×12 at all ? Cotic have made their fullsuspention bike 142×12, but the hardtrails are not. 🙂

You don’t need it. It may be the latest, it’s not necessarily the greatest. It helps with torsional flex on a full suss rear.

The presence of a 142 rear axle on a HT would not be a key criteria for me, primarily as a more agressive HT frame (like my Evil) just doesn’t suffer from rear flex, and it’s overkill on a lightweight race bike.

Thanks. My thoughts were also in this direction, but I needed another opinions.

I guess it is more important on FS bikes – there’s a greater potential for lateral flex with pivots etc and it definitely makes a difference on my Yeti ASR5.

On a hardtail I suppose it is less important – I have a standard axle on my hardtail (Cotic BFe) and I’m not about to change. Having said that, 142×12 is a good technology. It’s more convenient, more secure, easier to use, stiffer and potentially lighter. It would never be a deal-breaker when changing frames but it’s nice to have.

Yep agree with Crell, new standard is mostly for torsional flex which is less of an issue with hardtail frames.

I’ve ridden a few hardtail frames all with QR and the back end has felt plenty stiff, even when doing DH or riding very rocky lake district trails. There are other ways to make the backend stiff other than a through axle.

Having said that, 142×12 is a good technology. It’s more convenient, more secure, easier to use, stiffer and potentially lighter.

How this can happen 12 mm axle to be lighter than qr ? This is 12 mm steel, compared to 5 mm ?

This is 12 mm steel

More likely alu, thinish wall, hollow shaft.

I run a 10mm Pro 2 on a Blue Pig. Can’t imagine it really makes any difference, but I don’t worry about locking the frame and front wheel in town if I bimble into town on the ‘Pig.

How this can happen 12 mm axle to be lighter than qr ? This is 12 mm steel, compared to 5 mm ?

It’s basically a 12mm hollow cap head screw only quite long

Ah I see. Looks quite advanced system.
However my frame is already purchased with standart dropouts. Hope the new 12×142 system will not completely replace the qr-s in future, so people like me will have options if qr/hub damages.
Future will show.

If you want a more secure connection than a QR then a 10mm DT-Swiss RWS thru-bolt will work with a standard dropout and then do up with a lot more torsion that a QR, including the SS 10mm QRs.

How this can happen 12 mm axle to be lighter than qr ? This is 12 mm steel, compared to 5 mm ?

You still have a 10mm diameter axle in the hub that the 5mm QR has to go through.

I’m probably wrong but in a QR there is tensile and bending forces on the little 5mm steel (or titanium) skewer when the frame is twisted.

BTR Fabrications are using a 142×12 on their new ranger design i’ve noticed.

I can not find any steel hardtrail frame supporting 142×12.

El Mar, but the 12mm dropouts seem to cost about 25% of the frame price, and (so far as I know) you can’t just order one with the maxle dropouts on.

Kona Honzo also 12mm.

Hm really the Honzo is the first steel frame with 12 mm axle, I see. 🙂 Very interesting how the manufacturers decide on which ht frame to put 12 mm axle and on which not. It looks random. At least on first glance.

Ritchey p29 with custom 142×12 thru axle dropouts from Paragon Machine Works. I have two sets, one for running SS and one for geared. The attraction of the thru axle was that I could share wheels with my Salsa Horserhief fill suss, without lots of faffing, changing hub axle sizes.

However my frame is already purchased with standart dropouts. Hope the new 12×142 system will not completely replace the qr-s in future, so people like me will have options if qr/hub damages.

It’s really easy to reduce the diameter of something ie 12mm down but near on impossible to increase the diameter of something upwards without breaking it. Look at something like the ProII Evo hub that takes all the current standards by simply using end caps. It’s probably fair to say that there is much more choice available now than before.

Does the Kona Explosif have 142×12? I know the ti version does. Speaking of which I have seen one built up with black RD SIDS and it is on my bucket buy list!

When retrofitting a maxle how dya go on with nut end of the kit ?,hoe do you fix & sort that ?.

Does the Kona Explosif have 142×12?

Kona website says it does.

When retrofitting a maxle how dya go on with nut end of the kit ?,hoe do you fix & sort that ?.

How do you mean?

I can not find any steel hardtrail frame supporting 142×12

Niner SIR.9

Niner ROS.9