Quantcast

What will happen w/ + Spacing Standards?

manhattanprjkt83

Rusty Trombone
Jul 10, 2003
9,644
1,214
Nilbog
I posed this question to some of my 'Industry Friends' the other day but would like to get the almighty monkey's opinion here. What do we think will happen with the + spacing standards? Do we think the 100/142 will slowely disappear in favor of boost stuff? It seems that it would make sense to create forks/frames that are useable by almost all tire sizes.

Just for the record, I wish we didnt need to have this conversation, but it's here.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,558
24,181
media blackout
it's gonna be another shit show like bottom brackets. pretty soon we'll need a chart like the one below for hub / frame / drivetrain standards

 

manhattanprjkt83

Rusty Trombone
Jul 10, 2003
9,644
1,214
Nilbog
You really think so? I mean what is the point of 100/142 anymore? I am about to grab a PIKE and honestly have no clue if i should just grab the boots version or not.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,558
24,181
media blackout
The Industry™ got what, a good 5 years out of 142? it's all horseshit dude. why 148 and not 150? because fuck us and fuck our wallets that's why.
 

maxyedor

<b>TOOL PRO</b>
Oct 20, 2005
5,496
3,140
In the bathroom, fighting a battle
I think we'll get to the point where wheels/hubs are specific to each brand, or at least all the major brands will use some sort or proprietary set-up, and the little guys will pick somebody elses standard, and likely get sued for using it (I'm looking at you Derpalized) For 95% of the mountain biking public, that's no big deal, they'll never move a wheelset or hubs from one frame to the next, and they'll never been in search of a replacement wheel halfway through a riding trip. For those of us with a longer history or riding, and who like to buy high end parts due to their longevity, that's a PITA.

If the hub can be changed to make a part actually function better, (RS1, Foes 30mm, Ohlins 30mm) then I'm all for it. If you're spending that kind of cash on a new pro-level fork, why should they compromise design just to save the consumer $150 on a hub?

On the contrary, an average rider like myself should be able to pick a good set of hubs, to run with my decent, but not spectacular frame and fork, and carry them over to the next frame and fork. I don't want cutting edge performance, I want reliable, long term performance. Before I plunk down the cash for another set of Kings or Hadleys, I want to be sure I'll get a decade of use out of them, since I'm hard on frames and easy on hubs, that means I want to carry them through 3-4 frames, not sell them and lose my ass after 3 years.

When standards change just for the sake of change, that's when it gets really stupid. 100x15 is just dumb. Boost 148, when we already have like 9 150mm-ish hub standards, also highly dumb. Why can't I have a trail bike that I can use my 110x20mm & 150x12mm Hadleys on rather than buying new 100x15 and 148x12mm hubs?
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,558
24,181
media blackout
I think we'll get to the point where wheels/hubs are specific to each brand, or at least all the major brands will use some sort or proprietary set-up
see the BB chart i posted above.

all this new standard BS immediately ruled a lot of stuff out when i was looking for a new frame. The industry is starting to cater more and more to people who buy a brand new complete bike every year. i get that they need to cater to their business base, but downstream it's fucking everything up in the used market. (you either need to buy/sell complete, or it's a PITA pulling together the parts & adapters to make the parts you have with the frame you want, and ultimately you'll wind up spending more than you originally wanted to). eventually this may bite companies in the ass, because a lot of people who buy used are gonna start avoiding certain brands because of this (I am already doing this).
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,558
24,181
media blackout
I think we'll get to the point where wheels/hubs are specific to each brand, or at least all the major brands will use some sort or proprietary set-up, and the little guys will pick somebody elses standard, and likely get sued for using it (I'm looking at you Derpalized) For 95% of the mountain biking public, that's no big deal, they'll never move a wheelset or hubs from one frame to the next, and they'll never been in search of a replacement wheel halfway through a riding trip. For those of us with a longer history or riding, and who like to buy high end parts due to their longevity, that's a PITA.

If the hub can be changed to make a part actually function better, (RS1, Foes 30mm, Ohlins 30mm) then I'm all for it. If you're spending that kind of cash on a new pro-level fork, why should they compromise design just to save the consumer $150 on a hub?

On the contrary, an average rider like myself should be able to pick a good set of hubs, to run with my decent, but not spectacular frame and fork, and carry them over to the next frame and fork. I don't want cutting edge performance, I want reliable, long term performance. Before I plunk down the cash for another set of Kings or Hadleys, I want to be sure I'll get a decade of use out of them, since I'm hard on frames and easy on hubs, that means I want to carry them through 3-4 frames, not sell them and lose my ass after 3 years.

When standards change just for the sake of change, that's when it gets really stupid. 100x15 is just dumb. Boost 148, when we already have like 9 150mm-ish hub standards, also highly dumb. Why can't I have a trail bike that I can use my 110x20mm & 150x12mm Hadleys on rather than buying new 100x15 and 148x12mm hubs?
also did you have a chance to take a look at your hadley?
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,030
5,918
borcester rhymes
Despite jonkranked's tin-foil hat powered hate campaign, I think 100/142 is going to stick. Boost is a trek thing, and most other big manufacturers aren't going for it unless they're using it on their half-fat advanced dentist bikes. I think boost will die in the water, but 110x15 front is going to stick. It's retarded and offers minimum improvement, but it shouldn't be impossible to shim the wheel on both sides plus a caliper spacer, and once fox puts their creaky weight behind something, it's pretty much done. 148 requires quite a bit more- new cranks, new ring, new hub and therefore wheel....I think a lot of manufacturers don't want to swap over. I think most people are pretty negative on trek for foisting boost on them, and that's OK.

As for the BBs, that diagram is a lot simpler than it initially appears. There are basically three standards now...24mm BSA, 24mm Pressfit, and 30mm pressfit. Then it's just the width of your BB shell, and whether you can actually manufacture things to tolerance with a press in bearing (BB30) or just SRAM it in there with a plastic shell (PF30).
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,558
24,181
media blackout
I hope you are correct.
part of the issue is how long it takes aftermarket component makers to catch up. if 142 were to be killed now that most (if not all) aftermarket hub makers are on board, it would make them think twice about committing time/resources to developing parts for yet another new standard without any sort of guarantee that it's going to be around long enough to gain a ROI. which could effectively kill a new standard if it's pigeonholed into a proprietary state.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,558
24,181
media blackout
Despite jonkranked's tin-foil hat powered hate campaign, I think 100/142 is going to stick.
have you actually read what i've posted, shitlord?

As for the BBs, that diagram is a lot simpler than it initially appears. There are basically three standards now...24mm BSA, 24mm Pressfit, and 30mm pressfit. Then it's just the width of your BB shell, and whether you can actually manufacture things to tolerance with a press in bearing (BB30) or just SRAM it in there with a plastic shell (PF30).
... and spindle diameter. which adds a much bigger layer of fuckery to compatibility to the equation. hence that matrix is as large as it is.
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,030
5,918
borcester rhymes
have you actually read what i've posted, shitlord?



... and spindle diameter. which adds a much bigger layer of fuckery to compatibility to the equation. hence that matrix is as large as it is.
you better stop these microaggressions, or I will update my tumblr so help mxe god

24/30mm are the spindle diameters. and then it's just the shell (86/90/92). Nobody gives a fuck about bbright or 386evo, those are as dead as DRCV shocks in weird sizes.
 

manhattanprjkt83

Rusty Trombone
Jul 10, 2003
9,644
1,214
Nilbog
Well I guess by prompting this I was wondering what everyone thought about the future of the + size. I know everyone is up in arms about this boost stuff but do you think we will all be on a 'fatter' tire as the years move on? I actually just got done testing a + size bike for an article, it was kinda fun, but I don't want to own one at this point.

Wouldn't it make sense for manufacturers to widen spacing on all bikes so they are more adaptable to multiple wheel preferences?
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,030
5,918
borcester rhymes
I owned a krampus for a little while. It was a neat bike. The tires are like velcro going straight and up. They cornered only fairly and braking traction was zero. No bike I've owned has braked as poorly. My conclusion from that little experiment was that there is an ideal tire size, one that gives you the best traction. Then comfort can be isolated by this really neat oil processing technology called damping. A good suspension system to kill bumps and tires that perform well without being excessive is a better package than just slapping fatter tires on a hardtail and saying "rad". I'd take one again, probably, and I do want to try the stache with it's super short chainstays, but I honestly felt like suspension does a better job of accomplishing the same thing.

As for wider spacing, yes and no. It would make sense if people actually want to try the 2x+ thing, but I think most people are going to go "ZOMG THIS IS GREAT", and then that niche will be filled and the hype will settle down. I think a lot of people neglect the whole Q factor thing with mountain bikes, and wider spacing usually means wider q factor, which makes for awkward pedaling for a lot of people. Personally, I'd stick with 2.3-2.5 tires, 4-6" of travel, really good dampers, and slightly wider ID rims. I do not think we're going back to 2.7s on normal bikes. The 10mm of extra clearance they say they're giving you could easily be accomplished with different fork castings that have better clearance.
 

slimshady

¡Mira, una ardilla!
If anything, I believe 12x142 and 15x100 are going down in no time, since I just laced a rear hub with that standard for my new bike.

Now regarding the extra wide spacing, :stupid:. I do believe Q factor will go down the drain with those stupid wide BBs and cranks. Can't we go back to 110F,150R but with properly dished wheels?
 
Last edited:

marshalolson

Turbo Monkey
May 25, 2006
1,770
519
tin foil hat theory:

In the same way the ZS headsets and PF bottom brackets are not about increasing performance, they are about shaving a few grams and monies, the push to boost 110x15 and 148x12 standard is all about saving a few bucks by the manufacturers.

IMO "wider bracing angles" does not actually help riding performance, at least compared to a well built, evenly tensioed, high end wheel. but my theory is that "wider bracing angles" will help make a striaght wheel come out of the factory with less reliance on even spoke tension and quality assembly. sure just like PF30, the wheel might suck more on trail, and be harder to maintain, but its straight from the box, and its a few bucks cheaper, and after you ride it a bit, the maintenance is on the rider, not the manufacturer.

so suck it, bike riders, big brands can now save $1-2each on millions of bikes, and you get to pay to adopt something that is no better, and likely worse, than what you currently use.


edit- and pretty sure that the BOOST cranks are just GXP offset arms assembled with BB30 +5mm spiders. could be wrong though.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,558
24,181
media blackout
PF bottom brackets are not about increasing performance, they are about shaving a few grams and monies,
a little birdie told me PF BB's are to save a manufacturing step - ie no more tap and die to thread the BB. But just ask any bike shop mechanic how much they love this.

the push to boost 110x15 and 148x12 standard is all about saving a few bucks by the manufacturers.
how exactly?
 

tomasis7

stroganoff
Nov 5, 2014
623
65
Electronic bong-shed LEGAL
I bet Plus size will be popular in Pinkbike and will let the users overcompensate their own riding skills. If a majority (lets say idiots) buy that kind of bike, then they establish new standard to stay below the Biggest, Moar (29er, Fat tire etc.) as we see that 27.5" got accepted quickly, I expect the same of the Plus tires. Everyone gonna say 26, 2,35 are so tiny and are suited for kid's bike.

To replace a new hubs, not biggie. But being forced to buy a fork or frame because a shitty standard , then im annoyed. I want to see a dishless wheel, a hub with 7speed casette 150mm then it'd be perfect.
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,030
5,918
borcester rhymes
I bet Plus size will be popular in Pinkbike and will let the users overcompensate their own riding skills. If a majority (lets say idiots) buy that kind of bike, then they establish new standard to stay below the Biggest, Moar (29er, Fat tire etc.) as we see that 27.5" got accepted quickly, I expect the same of the Plus tires. Everyone gonna say 26, 2,35 are so tiny and are suited for kid's bike.

To replace a new hubs, not biggie. But being forced to buy a fork or frame because a shitty standard , then im annoyed. I want to see a dishless wheel, a hub with 7speed casette 150mm then it'd be perfect.

plus size is already huge on MTBR. I wouldn't expect much press on pinkbike until RC gets to test one, then it will be the best thing since pivot.

I don't see why we can't have a 73mm/135mm seven speed setup, dishless and offset, for good pedaling, good strength, and more rox clearance. isn't that what specialized did for a bit with the demo? instead we get a seven speed group with 3 cogs used up by an aluminum spacer, and this is better.

the whole standards thing has gotten absolutely nuts, but the aftermarket for these things will be dead in the water, people won't be able to keep up. so, trek will either successfully push this bullshit and kill off every small hub maker out there, or it won't fly and the aftermarket will dictate the success of the complete bikes.
 

big-ted

Danced with A, attacked by C, fired by D.
Sep 27, 2005
1,400
47
Vancouver, BC
The big manufacturers have a vested interest in killing aftermarket sales, as it allows riders to keep bikes current by upgrading parts. Giant pushed their stupid headset standards, Specialized pushed the pressfit BB thing, and now Trek are pushing retarded axle standards.


I actually sympathize with Trek re: the comparisons between Boost 148 and 150mm spacings. It isn't the same thing. 148 is halfway between 142 and 157 in that it incorporates the locating properties of the wider spacings that 150mm does not. That still doesn't excuse the fact that Boost 148 achieves NOTHING that a 36 spoke wheel on a 142mm hub wouldn't, and for that, the "engineers" at Trek need a punch to the nutsack.
 

tomasis7

stroganoff
Nov 5, 2014
623
65
Electronic bong-shed LEGAL
plus size is already huge on MTBR. I wouldn't expect much press on pinkbike until RC gets to test one, then it will be the best thing since pivot.

I don't see why we can't have a 73mm/135mm seven speed setup, dishless and offset, for good pedaling, good strength, and more rox clearance. isn't that what specialized did for a bit with the demo? instead we get a seven speed group with 3 cogs used up by an aluminum spacer, and this is better.

the whole standards thing has gotten absolutely nuts, but the aftermarket for these things will be dead in the water, people won't be able to keep up. so, trek will either successfully push this bullshit and kill off every small hub maker out there, or it won't fly and the aftermarket will dictate the success of the complete bikes.
I don't mind of 7spd setup in 135/73 too. I like 142x12 and I'd take the opportunity to build a dishless wheel. The narrower setup (73mm) like Demo, would be sweet on a dh frame and i see no reason of keeping 150/157. At the moment my (enduro) frame can take both 142 and 150 which means that I could share the same wheelset with the dh bike.

Trek is not big enough to push the standard, i hope. The problem is the majority of consumers who buy complete bikes, something builders-riders cannot influence. But Ebay might dictate the success of standards. Who wants buy a Giant frame with weird standard of headset even if its wellbuilt?
 

marshalolson

Turbo Monkey
May 25, 2006
1,770
519
a little birdie told me PF BB's are to save a manufacturing step - ie no more tap and die to thread the BB. But just ask any bike shop mechanic how much they love this.
same for the ZS headsets, less machinging/facing required.

how exactly?
my internet enginerding theory is that the "wider bracing angles" they keep talking about -> wheel build is less reliant on spoke tension and evenness -> faster wheel builds = less machinery/labor = costs less monies.