Boost hubs. Here to stay?

[Flow-Rider]

Sorry mate I don’t think that’s the point here. I know from my own experience that I am significantly faster on both the bigger wheel sizes than I was on a 26. I’ve got years of times to prove it. Ok some of that will be me improving as I raced more but I don’t believe anyone can argue that the bigger wheels don’t provide significant benefits. Would you be even quicker on bigger wheels? It’s imaterial as you choose to ride 26 but I don’t think you can use it as an arguement because you on 26” wheels are quicker than others in 27.5” wheels.

I also find it mildly ironic that people (and I’m not saying you specifically here mate) argue there are too many standards but now 26” is slowly but surely disappearing from main stream because the standard has changed those same folks then say we need to keep the old standard too. Isn’t that a double standard???? See what I did there???


True but why does that mean I should be limited in what I can buy? I can afford to buy and pimp out my bikes. I do shitloads of research and work out exactly what I want and build it. Just because I’m not pro level doesn’t mean I should be limited. Now I know what you’ll say here, that it’s hypocritical to say what I did above in regards a standard dying out and then say “but hey I should be able to buy what I want” so let me qualify that. I should be able to buy the same gear as a pro if I want to. That doesn’t mean that the manufacturers should cater to my every whim, there has to be some common sense applied.
I just see this as basic economics. I don’t agree that 26 is no good but I do believe that mtbing has moved on. I don’t think if I owned a shop I’d be stocking it either. That’s my opinion of course and I’m not trying to crank up debate.

I own 26" and 27" in the same variance of bikes and it's delusional to think that there are big gains in speeds, it's only marginal to which an average rider wouldn't even notice. I actually have some of the fastest top end speeds over people that are riding at competition level and shop sponsored with the latest bikes on 29 and I'm 45 years old and more than 10kgs over weight, there's no doubt there's a big difference between a 26 and 29 over the rough and choppy stuff and even when you climb you get less hangups but as for acceleration and speed through tight corners the 26 wins hands down and they're more agile when you move the bike around underneath you.

I'm not telling anyone not to buy or not to sell what pro riders are on, I see with bike sales where people are pushed onto the wrong sort of bike because they get told they will be faster on it or it rides better, to which normally to their dismay it's the opposite. It's mainly just Australian LBS telling people there's no parts for 26 and quickly to push them onto a new bike sale and then they wonder why nobody wants to buy from them. There's still a ton of parts for 26 overseas and still a few here.

 

[rowdyflat]

Agree chicken and egg with bigger wheels, longer wheel bases , wider handlebars ,more pedal clearance = wider,faster,flowy tracks ,bermed, machine made tracks . OF COURSE it is faster.
where i live there are 20 x as many riders as 20 years ago but the skill level of the average rider is low, they worry about getting injured and so the tracks reflect this .
I have 3 x 26 inch bikes perfect for handbuilt tracks + tight machine made and rocky technical eg Thunderbolt at Falls .
I went to Cyclestation recently and found only one pair of 26 inch tubeless tyres.

 

[redbruce]

I own both 26 and 29 (as well as 24" BMX race bike, 531 Cromo roady, and too many others).

While slow to the 29 party (early bikes didn't have geom dialed), they are now and as a, ahem (cough) a larger rider, I really like like them (XC and trail).

Takes a bit to wind up but once there rolls over everything. My 29'er AC wheels are 1600gm and almost as lively as the DT 1450 26" wheels on my Yeti. They are also 30mm id (as opposed to 19 on DT) so get more out of a given tyre size (an aside). 29 for a given width also has noticeably more grip, for free.

27.5 feels like 26 to me to ride. I just don't get that at all, it shouldn't have happened, simply marketing.

For the vast majority boost is an answer to a problem that didn't exist. For the plus tyre pundits, maybe some value (but then my new Salsa Timberjack can take up to 29x2.6 on standard crank Q factor).

Boost forks allow wider than 2.5 tyres. Just waiting for someone to say "15mm axles were so great on non boost forks, but we now need 20mm to make up for the loss of rigidity due to 10mm longer axle."

 

[Nambra]

Boost rear allows wider rear tyres as you say @redbruce, so it is as valid for rear spacing as it is for forks. That said, why didn't/couldn't the old 150/157mm rear axle 'standard' fulfill that need? Marketing BS as you say, and lets not start on DUB either.

I get that all you long time riders gripe about change for sake of change - I'm a relative noob having only started riding in my 40's and wishing/acting like I am 20 years younger. Being late to the game also informs my own limited take on wheel size:
- in the beginning there was only 26, which is why the purists still love them
- 29 inch evolved from experimentation in the early 2000's, and seemed to be more useful in XC as they rolled up and down stuff faster
- as such, early 29" bikes were XC jackrabbits intended for straight line speed and while they rolled all day they weren't as nimble as 26ers
- to 'solve' this 'problem', 27.5 came along (was around in 2007 originally?) - the best of both worlds, more nimble but still rolled over stuff well
- current longer travel 29" bikes have finally got close to nailing the 29er geometry and are now far more agile than even 2 or 3 years ago, meaning 27.5 is not as relevant anymore?

Being over 6' I hover between L and XL frame sizes and I couldn't imagine what an XL 26" bike might feel like. An XL 29 looks 'in proportion' as a bike, and feels that way too; taller folk usually have longer arms and legs and can chuck a larger bike around the same way a shorter person would on a 26 or 27.5. But a longer wheelbase is just that, so tight technical tracks will be more challenging on a bigger bike - no argument there.

Back to boost - for people like me taking up the sport more recently, it is the status quo so not really an issue. People standardise on Shimano or Sram brakes or drivetrains for consistency across bikes, surely boost is just another choice along those lines? Whether it was ever necessary is another matter - larger tyre size is perhaps the only legitimate excuse.

 

[Calvin27]

Yep. American Classic (AC) wheels have run high flange designs for years to improve bracing angle

Haha that was the first thing I thought of when all the boost arguments said they wanted to make a stiffer wheel!

Boost rear allows wider rear tyres as you say @redbruce, so it is as valid for rear spacing as it is for forks. That said, why didn't/couldn't the old 150/157mm rear axle 'standard' fulfill that need?

Apparently it would stuff Q factor. But then the industry proceeded to make fat bikes lol. Then they said oh nah, lets do downhill standard again. Q factor what's that, you'll be fine. Knees? Oh I have an ebike for you!

 

[Mywifesirrational]

I saw that bike when I had a looksey around Pushys in Fyshwick, I'm not a fanboi but gotta say that the attention to detail on that was unreal- I spent about 20mins just looking at it- staff must have thought I was well up on the spectrum.

What was the local price on it - I will sitting down for the answer.

Edit: also about the dumbing down of trails as poodle astutely elaborated on, strava has to also be somewhat to blame here, so many wannabes head down out of control staring at their little idiot box, seat jammed up their arse, nose heavy over every drop... strava has turned every track into a race track, features that are great fun just slow people down. For instance, boulder trail at Youies has a decent technical rock obsticle in the first 50 meters... the stava segments starts 10m after this feature... you know because having to walk it ruins ones strava time.

 

[wkkie]

Those that are saying boost is a solution for larger tyres, no, it isn't.

Years ago there were no problems running 2.8 tyres with 135mm rear spacing and 26 inch wheels. Marketing bs, that's all.

 

[Boom King]

Edit: also about the dumbing down of trails as poodle astutely elaborated on, strava has to also be somewhat to blame here, so many wannabes head down out of control staring at their little idiot box, seat jammed up their arse, nose heavy over every drop... strava has turned every track into a race track, features that are great fun just slow people down. For instance, boulder trail at Youies has a decent technical rock obsticle in the first 50 meters... the stava segments starts 10m after this feature... you know because having to walk it ruins ones strava time.

Strava isn't to blame. As the sport gets more popular it appeals to a broader range of society. As a result, a greater number of people start riding MTB with a smaller skill set, which leads to more sanctioned trails being built with less technicality. It's catch 22, particularly in locations close to major population centers, or areas that have struggled to embrace MTB as a legitimate use of public land.

Tasmania, as an example, have chosen to embrace MTB as a legitimate outdoor activity, one that is also very lucrative to the State. Nobody is complaining about the lack of technicality or difficulty of trails being built there, all of which are ridden by Strava/Trailforks users.

If you want a Boulder segment to include the rock berm, just make it yourself. It's not difficult to do.

 

[pink poodle]

Those that are saying boost is a solution for larger tyres, no, it isn't.

Years ago there were no problems running 2.8 tyres with 135mm rear spacing and 26 inch wheels. Marketing bs, that's all.

Sun double wide rims and 3 inch tyres...those were the days! Make freeride great again. Having been one of those "make it fatter!" dh tyre riders back in the old days and having given them up a while in favour of not riding a 3kg tyre, I do often have a bit of a chuckle about all this plus size tyre stuff on trail bikes.

 

[nzhumpy]

What was the local price on it - I will sitting down for the answer.

Wasn't as bad as I was expecting, just north of 10.5k, but that was with 11 speed SRAM.

 

[SummitFever]

For the true "consumer" none of this really matters. They change bikes every couple of years to the latest and greatest factory stock build with its mediocre selection of components (particularly the wheels). They like the fact that everything is new and incompatible because it provides the platform to wax lyrical about how awesome their new wonder bike is. These bikes will not be ridden to the limits of their performance or their owners' endurance so none of it really matters anyway.

What craps me off is having several thousand dollars worth of high end hubs and wheels which will now not properly work with a new frame in circumstances where I have never felt the old non-boost hubs were the performance limiting factor.

 

[pink poodle]

For the true "consumer" none of this really matters. They change bikes every couple of years to the latest and greatest factory stock build with its mediocre selection of components (particularly the wheels). They like the fact that everything is new and incompatible because it provides the platform to wax lyrical about how awesome their new wonder bike is. These bikes will not be ridden to the limits of their performance or their owners' endurance so none of it really matters anyway.

What craps me off is having several thousand dollars worth of high end hubs and wheels which will now not properly work with a new frame in circumstances where I have never felt the old non-boost hubs were the performance limiting factor.

Come on...we've all wanted to throw around more stiffer and more inches.

I do agree with your parting sentiment - you have invested a hefty sum in something and it is now obsolete, but has never felt that way to you. Or many others among us.

 

[Calvin27]

Come on...we've all wanted to throw around more stiffer and more inches.

I do agree with your parting sentiment - you have invested a hefty sum in something and it is now obsolete, but has never felt that way to you. Or many others among us.

My sentiment is I would love to be spending a bit more on MTB stuff, but why bother? It will just get obsolete overnight.

I was pretty critical of the UCI and their heel dragging of disc brakes, but I rekon some UCI love would help the situation here as bad as that sounds. I mean they have an interest to ensure costs don't escalate to windsurfing proportions.

 

[Kerplunk]

1) this the chicken vs egg...I don't know which is diving what, but as wheels got bigger the trails I ride regularly (and don't build) have changed. They have more straight lines, more obtuse corners, flatter berms, less rocks/logs/chunder, jumps are vanishing or are flat and small, sharp transitions and g-outs are gone, b-lines + straight lines through corners...and fuckwits that ride up gravity trails are all around us. The connection I see are less skilled riders, a focus on speed/time as the only measure of good riding, and older style trails not suiting the bigger (especially biggest) wheels as much as newer. An easy example there being that a short steep angled 26 inch bike like my 4x bike will be able to smoothly transition through a sharper switch back than a long slack 29er. I may have built a legal trail in a sanctioned fashion on private land a long time ago that featured a variety of obstacles tightly packed (eg drop to sharp berm to roll over to chunder to sharp berm to big jump) to challenge riders into really controlling their bikes. This trail was continually vandalised by riders who were unable to link it all up so that it was more open and flowed faster. It rides nice either way. The local general use dirt jumps are a great example. I assisted at the sanctioned trail building days constructing/repairing them and...well fuck it, they aren't really jumps are they? Apparently you can't make them too steep, too big, too technical, too dirt jump...cooperating melts my brain. Too many middle aged men on wagon wheels like to ride along the jumps like they are just big rolling bumps.

2) while I probably more resemble the squishy rider (I've got abs underneath!!!) it passes me off when people want to change existing trails to suit their riding style. Be it squishy or be it pedal fast, if the trail doesn't suit your desires...build your own fresh one, don't steal it.

3) sadly I see as much of this from Lycra clad whippets, grumpy old men, lawyers who brought a fuck off expensive bike but no brains, cunts with overly powerful lights, cx bike riders, xc bike riders, and the ever growing cunt-fest that is e-bikers. I think it's the way of modern people and I eagerly await it's demise. Surely short of crashing and getting fucked up, the worst a day on the trail could possibly be is good?

4) these arseholes...is it just here, or everywhere else too that these arseholes are the kind of guys that never turn up to a build day? I'm sure that if they ever bothered to lift a shovel they would have a lot more respect for the berms.

5) super capable is a matter of perspective. As is all my ranting. It's the joy of being a grumpy old man...

I can’t be assed digging out specfic quotes, but what you say all makes sense to a degree. But remember newbies don’t have a choice in wheel size, they buy what the shop sells them. Shit riders on long wheelbases and big wheels.
I have all bikes in all three wheelsizes and I reckon, as regular punter rider, when gravity is on your side wheelsize doesn’t really matter that much at all. For example bombing down Hero trail at Bright.. I think it is a bit of wasted debate unless your racing..
But when it comes to undulating trails, with chudder, logs, roots etc. 29ers have a real and measurable advantage.
Re attitude, the hardcore xc guys have always been arseholes, nothing new there. Some wantabe Enduro bro with his bluetooth speaker blaring fucking Post Malone in the middle of the bush pisses me off more than some lycra bandit who can’t spare 1 sec to say gday because it will stuff his strava run up..

 

[Mr Crudley]

I was pretty critical of the UCI and their heel dragging of disc brakes, but I rekon some UCI love would help the situation here as bad as that sounds. I mean they have an interest to ensure costs don't escalate to windsurfing proportions.

I was thinking the same as much as I loathe those cycling organisations.

The present MTB manufacturer standard mode of operation looks to be to make something incompatible with previous frames / forks / whatevers for dubious reasons. We usually hear the old chestnut 'rigidity' for just about anything.

It ends up being cheaper and easier to buy a new bike.

Try something that can be seen as innovative and throw it into the market and see if it sticks. When it doesn't then try a similar formula again.

There doesn't seem to be any grand plan and just small gains hyped as the second coming of the messiah.

Meanwhile the consumer that now has an outdated $6k wunderbyke with last year's hub spacing gets pissed and is reluctant to spend again.

The hub sizes where 135 and 150 should have been a sensible way forward. Wider hubs standard were already available. Not like a new 14n size was really needed. Sure a 135 to 150 will mean changes but just do it once instead of this incremental stupidity.

Having a iron fist external body like the UCI to help guide this unfolding mess would have to help in some ways since the present way eats large bags of fried dicks.

I see the MTB market also in decline as buyers get jaded and they still seem to have some idea that it should be in its heyday peak. Take the stickers off and many look like they rolled out of the same manufacturer.

I still don't get why a CF frame should be so expensive given that there doesn't seem to be huge differences across the all. The reasons don't convince me yet.

When it is almost cheaper to buy a Ti frame then it makes me wonder. Seeing CF SC's with $5k+ for a frame that who knows how long it will be a current standard is tough to get your head around.

CF is a simpler method of construction right?!? compared to metalworking tubing and welder etc.

BMX went the same path and flatland saved it for a while then the MTB bandwagon left town and all manufacturers jumped on. Fatbikes, 29ers, e-bikes and all I suppose were hoped to get those sales up to big peak levels again. Interesting to see what the US magazines bang the can as the 'next big thing' since they have vested interests and know well who feeds them.

Also the quality of components mid range and up is quite good. You don't really 'need' to upgrade as much since the innovation curve has truly flattened out. Everyone likes shiny and new but you sure don't need it to keep yourself happy.


Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk

 

[Kerplunk]

Mr Crudley, I wonder what % of the mtb market consists of frame buyers that build up with parts vs complete bike buyers?
I reckon the majority buy complete bikes hence why the industry doesn’t care about changing standards..

 

[Calvin27]

Mr Crudley, I wonder what % of the mtb market consists of frame buyers that build up with parts vs complete bike buyers?
I reckon the majority buy complete bikes hence why the industry doesn’t care about changing standards..

I rekon it's because they chase high end sales over frequent riders. You can see the same thing on high end road bikes where permitted. This is bad for the regular rider but great for the type that frequently drop big coin upgrading their top of the line trek year on year. What does this mean? We end up like wind surfing.

Another interesting thing I've noted is the more extreme drops in used my prices. For example I was came across a used Norco for real cheap and wondered what was wrong with it. Turns out a lot of this model are generally cheaper than competitors. Well turns out it ran 15mm boost front and boost qr at the back. Why would you jerk each other off about stiffness then go backwards to a qr?

 

[EsPeGe]

I see the MTB market also in decline as buyers get jaded and they still seem to have some idea that it should be in its heyday peak.

I'm not sure where you get this impression mate. A cursory google search came up with the following : -

https://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/fragment/mountain-bike-australia-announces-membership-growth

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-08/mountain-bike-boom-a-boon-for-country-towns/9153572

https://www.outdooraustralia.com/articles/Mountain-biking-05831

All from the last few years, these articles would indicate completely the opposite. Christ, I was at Thredbo early in the new year and the number of people out riding bikes was massive and certainly bigger than when I was there last year in my opinion.


But back on topic re Boost. So I've been reading up on boost, a couple of examples are below. So what are they saying that is bullshit??? Everything there from my limited understanding seems logical and makes sense. I'm honestly asking here given the level of ire this thread has seemed to raise. I can't see why folks think it's because there is some sinister mtb illuminati cabal out there somewhere trying to work out how to next screw the consumer over. That just doesn't make sense to me. Bike companies can't afford to piss customers off, even the big ones, especially in this day and age. Am I naive???? Maybe but I'm just not buying it. The companies are out there competing with each other for your dollars which gives US the power. If you don't like something don't buy it. It would seem enough consumers and companies believe boost to be a solution that they have adopted it which to me would indicate that in general folks are happy with it. Again, Am I naive?????

https://www.artscyclery.com/science...nd-stiffer-but-necessary-boost-148-explained/

https://enduro-mtb.com/en/tech-talk-whats-the-boost-standard-all-about/

 

[Mywifesirrational]

. I'm honestly asking here given the level of ire this thread has seemed to raise. I can't see why folks think it's because there is some sinister mtb illuminati cabal out there somewhere trying to work out how to next screw the consumer over. That just doesn't make sense to me. Bike companies can't afford to piss customers off, even the big ones, especially in this day and age. Am I naive???? Maybe but I'm just not buying it.

My take on this, is if you are on this forum discussing MTB, along with any other international forums, you are not a regular rider, but a bicycle enthusiast. The average rider, most likely doesn't read indepth into the pro's and con's of boost, or anything else for that mater, probably just marketing jargon at the LBS and a chat with mates. Aftermarket sales for high end parts are a tiny segment of the market, therefore the bike industry can indeed piss us off. A few brands that held out on boost - most likely lost out on sales.

Not a boost fan, but I do like that I can back pedal in the largest cogs on the back and not have the chain fall off those cogs, and thats the only benefit from boost I have noticed.

I also could not find a non boost frame with the exact sizing and geo I wanted.

 

[Oddjob]

But back on topic re Boost. So I've been reading up on boost, a couple of examples are below. So what are they saying that is bullshit??? Everything there from my limited understanding seems logical and makes sense. I'm honestly asking here given the level of ire this thread has seemed to raise. I can't see why folks think it's because there is some sinister mtb illuminati cabal out there somewhere trying to work out how to next screw the consumer over. That just doesn't make sense to me. Bike companies can't afford to piss customers off, even the big ones, especially in this day and age. Am I naive???? Maybe but I'm just not buying it. The companies are out there competing with each other for your dollars which gives US the power. If you don't like something don't buy it. It would seem enough consumers and companies believe boost to be a solution that they have adopted it which to me would indicate that in general folks are happy with it. Again, Am I naive?????

https://www.artscyclery.com/science...nd-stiffer-but-necessary-boost-148-explained/

https://enduro-mtb.com/en/tech-talk-whats-the-boost-standard-all-about/

There's nothing wrong with boost per se but we already had the 20x110mm and 12x150mm dh standard. Why not just use that? You don't need to be a cynic to conclude that planned obsolescence is the reason.

20x110mm to 15x100 then to 15x110 then to torque caps still strikes me as the dumbest change is standards.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk