Another Axle "Standard" - really? Why? - Now Called "Boost" by SRAM

[Isildur]

Well, just when you though that there were enough axle "standards" with 135mm (QR, 10mm), 142x12 (really just an extension of the previous one for convenience), 150x12 and 157x12 (again, much the same), and the the Specialized 142+ getup...

Along comes another one care of Trek! Enter the 148mm Axle Standard!

http://www.bikerumor.com/2014/12/19...-fast-its-about-more-than-just-better-wheels/

I've read the article, still doesn't make sense as to why not go with 150/157, other than marketing crap to make old frames non-compatible!

EDIT 19th March 2015:
Well, it seems that SRAM is now on board with this new "standard", calling it, along with the 110 front wheel spacing that Fox launched recently, "Boost".

http://flowmountainbike.com/post-all/sram-backs-new-boost-148-standards/

Ah well, I guess there's no hope left for my 26er now, I'll just have to succumb and purchase a new bike But seriously, I'm riding mine into the ground before they make me upgrade!

 

[moorey]

Well, trek can't have everyone ditching their garish bonty wheels for hoops, can they...

 

[JTmofo]

Well, trek can't have everyone ditching their garish bonty wheels for hoops, can they...

Very good point... and I always thought you were quite a simpleton.... but again... you have surprised me for the better!

 

[Warp]

It is pretty much idiotic, but I said the same about the 15mm and 142mm axles I am riding currently. Not the new stadard per se, but the dismissal of current standards that are already around. Seriously a 150mm could not be adopted? 20mm as opposed to 15mm?

What I did is to buy a rather cheaper bike and think about replacing it every 2-3yrs as standards come and go, instead of spending big bucks on a bike that will get its standards superseded in that period and be stuck with it or sell it for peanuts (like mi Nicolai).

It sucks.

 

[cramhobart]

Lipstick for a pig.

 

[hifiandmtb]

I guess I've been running the "wide-flange-separation" solution for a while then ;-)

But now I'm sick of it (lack of speeds, existence of front derailleur) & will move to "skinny flange separation" & ten speeds out back.

I obviously need to sell my TBc & get a Trek...

 

[Yarrahappinni]

The Giant Overdrive2 designer has moved to Trek, and he has produced another brilliant standard (that we all don't need). :smash:

 

[hifiandmtb]

Yep.

And I'm not a fan of yet wider Q-factor cranks! MTBs already feel like riding a horse compared with road bikes...

 

[John U]

Sounds pointless in every way apart from marketing. My faith in humanity is restored when a pointless new standard is rejected. A little piece of me dies when a pointless new standard is adopted. The waste that is laid to all those perfectly good bikes.

 

[billymtb]

I can definitely see how it's a kick in the balls when another standard comes out especially when it's forced onto people by cutting supply of previous standards.

But what if this standard actually is better. If you compare a 2005 bike to a 2015 one, it isn't one big change that makes the 2015 one so much more capable. It is a long list of things. Of course not all the points are a standard, but this is how mountain bikes evolve. I can't afford much at the moment but I do enjoy reading about new technology coming out or the techy side of things.

 

[merc-blue]

The 148 is actually a Sram/industry standard which was adopted (maybe prematurely) by trek, notice all 148 bikes run sram wheels instead of Bontranger.

also it on current 2015 bikes

Essentially its 142mm that makes no sense. its wider than 135 but doesn't use that axle width for an advantage because of its cassette/rotor position standards, while the 148mm increases flange width making a stiffer wheel. it also should allow for more even spoke tension further strengthening the wheel

 

[mitchy_]

The 148 is actually a Sram/industry standard which was adopted (maybe prematurely) by trek, notice all 148 bikes run sram wheels instead of Bontranger.

also it on current 2015 bikes

Essentially its 142mm that makes no sense. its wider than 135 but doesn't use that axle width for an advantage because of its cassette/rotor position standards, while the 148mm increases flange width making a stiffer wheel. it also should allow for more even spoke tension further strengthening the wheel

142 gives you notches to sit the wheel in the frame. With a QR the little nipples locate the hub, but 135 through axle has no way of locating the wheel in the frame for ease of fitment, etc. much the same as 157 does.

 

[merc-blue]

142 gives you notches to sit the wheel in the frame. With a QR the little nipples locate the hub, but 135 through axle has no way of locating the wheel in the frame for ease of fitment, etc. much the same as 157 does.

Yeah it engages the wheel (hub) better the wheel design itself is no stiffer.
some would argue that a proper 135x10mm boltup rear hub eliminates the need for 142 as the clamping of the wheel in the frame is sufficient that the wheel itself then become the main point of flex.

 

[Duane]

This reminds me of my difficulty sourcing a '15 Glory derailleur hanger bracket, why the fuck are there 4835 different hanger brackets? Surely they could design bikes around just a few.

 

[rowdyflat]

Unfortunately this is all marketing to make parts as unique to the brand as possible so that they cant be changed around.
The only way I see to discourage it, is to not buy them.
That means avoid them where possible.
Some standards are slight improvements but very few.
ie the move from square 94/58 BCD to Hollowtec 104/64 BCD was an improvement but labourious + along the way there was the ISIS debacle.
Next it is press fits that are the debacle.
Most of my bikes have still got square axles though and 25.4 diam handlebars.
one advantage is lower gears, easy to run a 20T front without needing the new expensive
10/11-40/42 rear cassette or 10/11 speed standards .
just my opinion.

 

[pharmaboy]

Unfortunately this is all marketing to make parts as unique to the brand as possible so that they cant be changed around.
The only way I see to discourage it, is to not buy them.
That means avoid them where possible.
Some standards are slight improvements but very few.
ie the move from square 94/58 BCD to Hollowtec 104/64 BCD was an improvement but labourious + along the way there was the ISIS debacle.
Next it is press fits that are the debacle.
Most of my bikes have still got square axles though and 25.4 diam handlebars.
one advantage is lower gears, easy to run a 20T front without needing the new expensive
10/11-40/42 rear cassette or 10/11 speed standards .
just my opinion.

ISIS was really killed by a new BB developed at 1/3 the weight - you can't really predict that shit.

Not convinced there is a big need for a new wider axle - reason being stronger wheels can be done now with a carbon rim, and really it's front wheels that I most often see destroyed - despite the weight on the rear, it just doesn't land sideways like the front can and so only tends to go out of true.

 

[MARKL]

Yeah it engages the wheel (hub) better the wheel design itself is no stiffer.
some would argue that a proper 135x10mm boltup rear hub eliminates the need for 142 as the clamping of the wheel in the frame is sufficient that the wheel itself then become the main point of flex.

At the end of the day 142/157 are just variations of 135 and 150. The advantage of 142/157 is that it aligns the wheel easier when installing and in the case if 142 you have the through axle. Agreed that the wheel is no stiffer but is that really an issue? Agreed, stiffer is good but is there a need for an incremental standard between 135 and 150?

 

[SummitFever]

This new axle "standard" just seems like another cynical marketing ploy to make previous stuff obsolete. Clearly the sales guys don't like the idea you could just change end caps and swap wheels from 135mm QR, to 10mm thru to 142mm thru axle.

If it was all about laterally stiffer wheels, then rims with a 5mm offset spoke bed (easily done in this day and age of wide rims) would result in the same change to bracing angle as the 147mm toss-fest and everyone would still be able to keep the same hubs etc. while not having heel rub issues and stupidly wide Q-factor cranks. As it is, lateral wheel stiffness does not seem to be a real issue unless you're a seriously heavy guy who's riding hard. Even then...

Truly a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Calvin27]

I am so tired of this rubbish, why can't bike manufacturers just stick to innovation *cough marketing* the traditional way. Bike manufacturers should just stick to non detrimental stuff like triple triangle, brain suspension and G2.

I was really liking a few years back when trek pretty much stuck 15/142 on their mid to high end 29ers. The mechanical fastening imo was a good upgrade. But this is is just crap. I hope they lose a crap load of sales because of this. It would be interesting to see (not that it will ever happen) the sales impact of giant for their OD2 stunt- and that was a somewhat more workable problem.

It's really hard to see the enthusiast bike market keep up with this many standards. I think about 3 standards is where the industry can handle and currently we already have that.

- BBs are converging slowly to BB30 86/92 or threaded. Three is managable.
- Wheel sizes are at 3 as well which is probably as much as it can handle and also logical to suit rider size.
- Headset standards are 1 1/8, tapered and 1.5. We all saw what happened to OD2.
- Headset - 3 standards with various in betweens - ext, internal and semi.
- Brake mounts - there are only 2 standards
- Rotors - 2 standards also

OMG there are onyl 2 standards for rotors and brake mounts - PLS DON'T LET THE MANUFACTURERS KNOW!

 

[MARKL]

OMG there are onyl 2 standards for rotors and brake mounts - PLS DON'T LET THE MANUFACTURERS KNOW!

It's ok, one of them already offers an imperceptible advantage...

And you missed this solution in search of a problem beyond its own creation http://clee-cycles.co.uk/esite/P1212/product