Newly Released Bikes General

HamboCairns said:
$10k and they put in a 150mm dropper?
Click to expand...
Super Boost is the real evil here, such a stupid "standard".

'Yeah, it's so there's more tyre clearance and stiffness in the rear end...' (Proceeds to bend chainstays and seatstays like bananas to create heel clearance)
2021-Pivot-Trail-429-Pack-Shots-07109-768x512.jpg
 
beeb said:
Super Boost is the real evil here, such a stupid "standard".

'Yeah, it's so there's more tyre clearance and stiffness in the rear end...' (Proceeds to bend chainstays and seatstays like bananas to create heel clearance)
2021-Pivot-Trail-429-Pack-Shots-07109-768x512.jpg
Click to expand...
I see you don't hang out in enough bro forums. Everything there needs to be superboost cus of the mad tyre rub I'm getting from my 2.4s on the stays due to my mad roost flex in every corner including the car park test.
 
It's always been a bike that is caught inbetween. Maybe this iteration could finally nail things.
Although all of the above mentioned things :rolleyes:
 
beeb said:
Super Boost is the real evil here, such a stupid "standard".

'Yeah, it's so there's more tyre clearance and stiffness in the rear end...' (Proceeds to bend chainstays and seatstays like bananas to create heel clearance)
Click to expand...

157 is not a new standard...was around before boost 148. Superboost is just 157 pretty much. Also, the previous version of this bike (with superboost rear) made other similar bikes iv'e owned and ridden like the camber, scott spark, stumpjumper st feel like wet noodles. How much of that is down to the rear hub spacing I'm not sure.

Yea overall I feel Boost 148 is the stupid standard that never should have happened.
 
beeb said:
I don't think Boost 148 was worthwhile either, but FFS we just got to the point where nearly everything had settled on boost and now the industry is trying to push a new standard again.
Click to expand...

Originally Chris Cocalis said that's where we would end up without increasing BB width and went straight there, Divinci and knolly joined him, now Evil is at 157mm.
In a couple of years, they will all be on the bandwagon.

I really wanted a set of I9 Hydras but (a bit covid related too) went DT350 with a cheap microspline freehub. Didn't want another set of $1000 hubs going the same as my 135/142 Chris Kings.
 
ozzybmx said:
Originally Chris Cocalis said that's where we would end up without increasing BB width and went straight there, Divinci and knolly joined him, now Evil is at 157mm.
In a couple of years, they will all be on the bandwagon.

I really wanted a set of I9 Hydras but (a bit covid related too) went DT350 with a cheap microspline freehub. Didn't want another set of $1000 hubs going the same as my 135/142 Chris Kings.
Click to expand...

Chris still insists press fit is better than a threaded BB. It does have some benefits from an engineering perspective but the ease of use of a threaded BB cannot be beat.

Not owned a boost bike but my 142 seems plenty stiff to me.
 
shiny said:
Chris still insists press fit is better than a threaded BB. It does have some benefits from an engineering perspective but the ease of use of a threaded BB cannot be beat.

Not owned a boost bike but my 142 seems plenty stiff to me.
Click to expand...

First time you get a creak on a bike with a PF BB... Arrrgghhhh fckn BB, regardless of what it actually is :D

I've noticed no real difference, my Santa Cruz and current HT were/are both 148, no different than the bikes before them.
 
ozzybmx said:
First time you get a creak on a bike with a PF BB... Arrrgghhhh fckn BB, regardless of what it actually is :D

I've noticed no real difference, my Santa Cruz and current HT were/are both 148, no different than the bikes before them.
Click to expand...

i think the biggest benefit was going from the spindly quick release to bolt up rears. That made a big difference then it’s just been tiny changes since. Still miffed at the loss of 20mm front fork axles....
 
caad9 said:
It's always been a bike that is caught inbetween. Maybe this iteration could finally nail things.
Although all of the above mentioned things :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Only time will tell. Not like it wasn't mentioned before for previous 'standards'.

I get the hub conversion / problem solvers folks are clapping like crazy.
 
shiny said:
i think the biggest benefit was going from the spindly quick release to bolt up rears. That made a big difference then it’s just been tiny changes since. Still miffed at the loss of 20mm front fork axles....
Click to expand...

Wasn’t that Shimano and Fox ganging up on SRAM? Now aren’t Fox going to 20mm
Even my first Salsa had a solid front end with 20mm axle without a tapered head tube and all that jazz.
 
ozzybmx said:
Originally Chris Cocalis said that's where we would end up without increasing BB width and went straight there, Divinci and knolly joined him, now Evil is at 157mm.
In a couple of years, they will all be on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...
All respect to Cocalis but I reckon if Superboost was the thing, we'd be there by now. Not enough manufacturers have embraced it. By contrast 148 went from a Trek curiosity to the default in less than 2 years.

At the moment it's just a frustrating middle ground imo - the new Wreckoning would probably be top of the list for my next bike (mate has one and loves it), but I've already got a set of hubs I want to use...

To resolve the packaging issues @beeb mentioned, we'd need to see a wider bb / crank standard (and some kind of associated q factor thingy).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top