Boost fork 110 x 15 , largest tire size .

trickbooter

Likes Dirt
It is nothing to do with boost. Largest tyre size depends on the clearance of the frame at the point that the tyre sweeps the chain stays and seat stays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

SideFX

Likes Bikes and Dirt
It is nothing to do with boost. Largest tyre size depends on the clearance of the frame at the point that the tyre sweeps the chain stays and seat stays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought chain stay and seat stays were at the back of the bike , Im pretty new to this stuff sorry if im wrong
 

SideFX

Likes Bikes and Dirt
There is around 3.6" clearance on my boost fox 34. So a 3.0" tyre should fit comfortably.
Ivan , thanks for the reply . Dose boost and Fatty be the same ? . Im getting a new bike it comes with a boost 110x 15 . I dont want to crazy fatty on the front but Im assuming larger trail/enduro tires are in the pipe line ? 2.6 maybe
 

SideFX

Likes Bikes and Dirt
It is nothing to do with boost. Largest tyre size depends on the clearance of the frame at the point that the tyre sweeps the chain stays and seat stays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually lets see how clever you are , Why is the industry going to 148 hub spacing
 

Ivan

Eats Squid
Ivan , thanks for the reply . Dose boost and Fatty be the same ? . Im getting a new bike it comes with a boost 110x 15 . I dont want to crazy fatty on the front but Im assuming larger trail/enduro tires are in the pipe line ? 2.6 maybe

I'm not 100% on whether the boost fork and the fattie fork are exactly the same, but I expect if they aren't they'd be pretty close. I have a 29" boost fork which is where i got the measurement, and those schematics are for the fatty.
 

trickbooter

Likes Dirt
Ha. Apologies. Yes chain and seat stays are at the back. Didn't read your post well enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

thatsnotme

Likes Dirt
I'm not 100% on whether the boost fork and the fattie fork are exactly the same, but I expect if they aren't they'd be pretty close. I have a 29" boost fork which is where i got the measurement, and those schematics are for the fatty.
Guessing when you're talking fattie, you're talking the Specialized Stumpy 6fattie? And btw, fuck Spesh for calling something that's not a fat bike a fattie - way to confuse everyone you arse hats!

If so, then the 6fattie has a 110mm hub, same as the boost. Runs 3" wheels as standard too, front and back.
 

Ivan

Eats Squid
Guessing when you're talking fattie, you're talking the Specialized Stumpy 6fattie? And btw, fuck Spesh for calling something that's not a fat bike a fattie - way to confuse everyone you arse hats!

If so, then the 6fattie has a 110mm hub, same as the boost. Runs 3" wheels as standard too, front and back.

Nah i was just referring to 27.5+ in general. I'd prefer to call it "plus"or "chubby", rather than fatty. My fork is a plain old 29er boost fork.
 

thatsnotme

Likes Dirt
Nah i was just referring to 27.5+ in general. I'd prefer to call it "plus"or "chubby", rather than fatty. My fork is a plain old 29er boost fork.
Ahh no probs. And yeah, anything aside from fatty has got to be a better term. All the different specs are confusing enough as it is, without manufacturer's bike names making it even worse.
 

redbruce

Eats Squid
Actually lets see how clever you are , Why is the industry going to 148 hub spacing
Marketing, Bill Shooks (American Classic) interpretation:

"Bill didn't seem to be a fan of the new Boost standard, and says he only produced these hubs to give his customers the option. He feels that the industry isn't thinking outside of the box, and suggests the main reason for Boost is to move the chain line further outboard, to give clearance for wider tyres and shorter chainstays, not to create wider hub and stronger wheel. He's a fan of Cannondale's F-Si cross-country race machine which uses an offset rear end to achieve the same effect. The F-Si has some of the shortest 29er chainstays on market with suitable rear wheel clearance and chain line. "We didn't need the Boost standard in this ever-changing industry, and could have simply used non-symmetrical rear ends to achieve the same results" - http://www.pinkbike.com/news/american-classic-taipei-show-2015.html
 
Last edited:

SideFX

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Marketing, Bill Shooks (American Classic) interpretation:

"Bill didn't seem to be a fan of the new Boost standard, and says he only produced these hubs to give his customers the option. He feels that the industry isn't thinking outside of the box, and suggests the main reason for Boost is to move the chain line further outboard, to give clearance for wider tyres and shorter chainstays, not to create wider hub and stronger wheel. He's a fan of Cannondale's F-Si cross-country race machine which uses an offset rear end to achieve the same effect. The F-Si has some of the shortest 29er chainstays on market with suitable rear wheel clearance and chain line. "We didn't need the Boost standard in this ever-changing industry, and could have simply used non-symmetrical rear ends to achieve the same results" - http://www.pinkbike.com/news/american-classic-taipei-show-2015.html
Oh , you again . The bloody school teacher . Just give me a minute to punch myself in the face before i reply .
 

Ivan

Eats Squid
Marketing, Bill Shooks (American Classic) interpretation:

"Bill didn't seem to be a fan of the new Boost standard, and says he only produced these hubs to give his customers the option. He feels that the industry isn't thinking outside of the box, and suggests the main reason for Boost is to move the chain line further outboard, to give clearance for wider tyres and shorter chainstays, not to create wider hub and stronger wheel. He's a fan of Cannondale's F-Si cross-country race machine which uses an offset rear end to achieve the same effect. The F-Si has some of the shortest 29er chainstays on market with suitable rear wheel clearance and chain line. "We didn't need the Boost standard in this ever-changing industry, and could have simply used non-symmetrical rear ends to achieve the same results" - http://www.pinkbike.com/news/american-classic-taipei-show-2015.html

It would be interesting for someone who understands the math (not me) to work out the the strength of the two scenarios to see if Bill is right. Is a wheel with symmetrical spoke bracing angles stronger than one with an assymetrical but wider angle?
 

redbruce

Eats Squid
It would be interesting for someone who understands the math (not me) to work out the the strength of the two scenarios to see if Bill is right. Is a wheel with symmetrical spoke bracing angles stronger than one with an assymetrical but wider angle?
Indeed.

Bill Shooks is a trained mech engineer with a long history of design experience in the bicycle industry and in particular, wheels.

Thinking outside the box for solutions seems to be a hallmark of his designs.

He appears well qualified to comment and I am assuming has the evidence to back his view.
 
Last edited:
Top