Question about 142×12 rear axle for hardtrail frame.
Hi guys,Posted 4 years ago
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 ?angeldustSubscriber
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.Posted 4 years ago
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/Posted 4 years ago
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. 🙂CrellMember
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.Posted 4 years agoSuperficialMember
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.Posted 4 years agojairajSubscriber
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.Posted 4 years agoandylMember
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.Posted 4 years agobruceandlaurenMember
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.Posted 4 years agomikewsmithSubscriber
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.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Question about 142×12 rear axle for hardtrail frame.’ is closed to new replies.