Boost hubs. Here to stay?

[Calvin27]

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.

I'm intereseted to hear which parts of boost make sense? We've already gone through the supposed benefits here and they are either not there or could be better by going to a DH standard that already exists.
- Stiffer wheels due to bracing angle: Higher flanges and/or move to wider DH standard
- More tyre clearance: That's a furfy - you can get pretty wide tyres with the 1x systems in normal hub spacing. or DH standard again.
- Q factor - come on we are talking a few millimeters here and no one ever complained of DH standard.
- Chainline - easily adjustable without specific cranks (flip the chainring like hack job 1x9 systems lol) and/or spacers - no need for new cranks - also DH standard works for more chainline clearance from tyres.

As you can see DH standard should have been the one to adopt.

I think bike companies are well aware of the risks of pissing off customers, however the current situation is that it is at a growth stage and there are more new folks than old folks (or the new folks have more money to spend). They can afford to piss off existing customers if they have new customers that spend more.

 

[Calvin27]

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.

You forgot then going back to qr skewers in a boost spacing. True lunacy.

 

[Oddjob]

You forgot then going back to qr skewers in a boost spacing. True lunacy.

You mean like maxle skewers or true skinny 5mm jobbies? I haven't got a problem with Maxle just the different f!@king thread pitches for x12 axles. Why!?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Calvin27]

You mean like maxle skewers or true skinny 5mm jobbies? I haven't got a problem with Maxle just the different f!@king thread pitches for x12 axles. Why!?

Oh my you haven't been acquianted yet. Check out the marin pine mountain, trek roscoe or norco fluid rear end.

All the mtb marketing folks sell boost qr on cost - so you mean to tell me you've bee tossing off on all thisstiffness and it's too expensive (or you're too shit) to align two holes on a frame for a thru axle?

 

[pink poodle]

So much faster too...

 

[EsPeGe]

I'm intereseted to hear which parts of boost make sense?

I'm referring to the articles I linked. I can't see what doesn't make sense there. I can't really speak to why Boost vs the DH standard was adopted but from what I read in those articles there is nothing obvious to me that is bullshit.

- Mathematically and from an engineering standpoint (from what limited knowledge I have of both) wider hubs do provide stiffer wheels. Given you are suggesting an even wider hub I would assume you agree with this.

- I don't agree that more tyre clearance is a furphy. I agree you can get "pretty wide tyres" with the other hub widths you mentioned but that doesn't mean that boost won't. That said my Evil has the WORST tyre clearance of any bike I've owned and it's boost.

- Q factor, totally agree, it's so small a change as to be insignificant IMHO.

- The shorter chain stays as a result provide a stiffer and generally more manoeuvrable back end. I'm actually not sure WHY this is but I've read it in multiple places and have an example, my Evil Wreckoning. It's a beast with one of the shortest chainstays on the market for a 29" 160mm travel bike or it was when I bought it a year ago. The back end of that bike is STIFF and I love it. It's also a very flickable bike.

- Chainline - easily adjustable without specific cranks (flip the chainring like hack job 1x9 systems lol) and/or spacers - no need for new cranks - also DH standard works for more chainline clearance from tyres.

I don't know enough about this to argue either way.

It would seem to me that the main argument here is the industry should've just adapted the DH standard instead of creating a new one which on the face of it I agree with. That said I do believe boost does what it set out to do and I do not believe that bike companies are out there trying to work out new ways to dick riders around so deliberately create these new standards. Again it might be naive of me but I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are genuinely trying to create the best possible product. Give me one example anywhere in the industry where a company has deliberately gone fuck it, we know this is shit and won't work but we'll put it out there anyway because we don't give a shit and we will get the sales anyway. I'm just not buying it.

 

[SummitFever]

...Give me one example anywhere in the industry where a company has deliberately gone fuck it, we know this is shit and won't work but we'll put it out there anyway because we don't give a shit and we will get the sales anyway...

Too many examples over the years but the 15mm front axle is a standout example. 20mm existed and was/still is better in every regard except a very minor weight penalty.

 

[Oddjob]

Give me one example anywhere in the industry where a company has deliberately gone fuck it, we know this is shit and won't work but we'll put it out there anyway because we don't give a shit and we will get the sales anyway. I'm just not buying it.

Leaded fuel
Every GM car ever
Sherman tank
7.62 Nato
F-35 Lightning II
VHS
NTSC
....





Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[99_FGT]

continuing oddjobs list
Ford pinto...
Australian submarines
Australian naval vessels in general

 

[EsPeGe]

Too many examples over the years but the 15mm front axle is a standout example. 20mm existed and was/still is better in every regard except a very minor weight penalty.

Surely then everyone would be bitching about the extra weight from the slightly bigger diameter axle, the extra weight in the bottom of their forks from making everything slightly bigger and the slightly bigger bearings???? You are kidding yourself if you think that wouldn't be the first thing everyone would've bitched about. Everyone (including myself on occasion) is always bitching about one thing or another, it seems some folks are happiest on their soap box. As I mentioned earlier I genuinely feel the bike manufacturers are trying to put out the best possible products. Are there some false starts every now and then? Maybe, but I fucking love all of my bikes. They all provide me with different experiences and rides and I enjoy getting out on all of them These bikes wouldn't exist if it wasn't for companies experimenting and progressing.

And just saying it's an example, with all due respect is not actually factual but an opinion. I actually have no issue with 15mm. I have it on my short travel lighter bikes and it's fine. I've got 20mm on my DH rig and it's fine too. I look at it as the right tool for the job.

 

[EsPeGe]

Ok Oddjob and 99_FGT, well played, I suppose I should've qualified that with "in the MTB industry". Thank you for the correction and I'd like to add the Camry to your lists. I fucking hate those things!!!!

Although I question the F-35 at this point. I have been a big critic of the thing up until recently but having spoken with a few guys I know who fly them I'm not convinced it's as crap as I first thought.. Jury's out on that one is all I'm sayin.....

 

[SummitFever]

I'm the ultimate weight weenie but from an engineering perpective its possible make a lighter and stiffer part in a larger diameter than a smaller diameter particularly when using alu or carbon fibre. If you built a dedicated 20mm XC fork it could be just as light aa a 15mm fork. I think my reba 20mm lowers are within 10g of the 15mm. The boost lowers have actually put on more weight...

 

[SummitFever]

Also, I have no problem with the stiffness of 15mm but was completely unnecessary when 20mm already existed.

 

[Calvin27]

Also, I have no problem with the stiffness of 15mm but was completely unnecessary when 20mm already existed.

They could stuff about and fool the consumer with the rear end and all sorts of stuff about q factor, clearance and chainline etc. But giveaway that this was planned obsolesence is the front where there are no excuses. They should have gone 20mm straight up.

The secondary flow on effect is purely value. Bike shops can no longer stock all the parts so they suffer. Component and frame makers have to keep retooling so all that costs more. The entire supply chain ends up having a lot more inventory which makes it more expensive.

Finally the constant changes mean a real change in quality. Why will consumers buy more high quality stuff like Chris king hubs if they have no idea how long that will last before obsolescence.

 

[Oddjob]

Ok Oddjob and 99_FGT, well played, I suppose I should've qualified that with "in the MTB industry". Thank you for the correction and I'd like to add the Camry to your lists. I fucking hate those things!!!!

Although I question the F-35 at this point. I have been a big critic of the thing up until recently but having spoken with a few guys I know who fly them I'm not convinced it's as crap as I first thought.. Jury's out on that one is all I'm sayin.....

The original Boxxers were pure trash and RS knew it and still sold them. The early ti and alu frames were also garbage. Nylon bushings on Mavic freehubs, wtf? Easton must have known how soft the alloy in their hubs were, they specialised in alloy in baseball bats before making frame tubing, handle bars etc. Chris Kings hubs and headsets being out of tolerance. Cannondale frames and lefty forks. Trek y frames that pedalled like shit because they moved the urt pivot to avoid patent. The list is long and illustrious.

The F-35 will never be as good as the F-22 and will probably end up being more expensive overall. F@$k you Lockheed.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Mywifesirrational]

Too many examples over the years but the 15mm front axle is a standout example. 20mm existed and was/still is better in every regard except a very minor weight penalty.

20mm is actually lighter is it not? I weight a 15mm and 20mm maxle ages ago, 20mm lighter by a few grams. The hub also has a larger hole, my idiot logic suggests what would also make the hub slightly lighter?

 

[EsPeGe]

The original Boxxers were pure trash and RS knew it and still sold them. The early ti and alu frames were also garbage. Nylon bushings on Mavic freehubs, wtf? Easton must have known how soft the alloy in their hubs were, they specialised in alloy in baseball bats before making frame tubing, handle bars etc. Chris Kings hubs and headsets being out of tolerance. Cannondale frames and lefty forks. Trek y frames that pedalled like shit because they moved the urt pivot to avoid patent. The list is long and illustrious.

Whilst all those references are good examples of shit tech I'm not sure I buy the fact that all those companies consciously went fuck it, she'll be right.

The F-35 will never be as good as the F-22 and will probably end up being more expensive overall. F@$k you Lockheed. Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Apples and oranges mate and some of the kit in the F35 leaves the 22 looking positively archaic.

 

[pink poodle]

The end of 1 1/8 steerer forks...suddenly you need a new fork, new frame, new headset, new wheel, new drive, new crank, and on and on...may as well get a whole new bike.

Press fit bottom brackets.

 

[SummitFever]

20mm is actually lighter is it not? I weight a 15mm and 20mm maxle ages ago, 20mm lighter by a few grams. The hub also has a larger hole, my idiot logic suggests what would also make the hub slightly lighter?

You may well be right. I seem to remember the 20mm Reba lowers being slightly heavier but it was a long time ago that I compared them. The hubs may end up slightly heavier because the bearings need to be bigger (and they are the major weight limiting factor in how light you can go when designing a front hub).

 

[pink poodle]

Perhaps the axle.is lighter but the fork body is heavier?