12 mm x 142 mm Axle Standard Explained

Jul 21, 2010 at 0:55
Jul 21, 2010
by Mike Levy  
 
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login

As 2011 bikes start to show up there's been some noise made about the new 12 x 142 mm rear axle spacing that many seem to be sporting, even the short travel XC bikes! There has been some confusion as to how we ended up with those numbers, as well as if the system makes any sense at all. Inside we take a closer look at the 'in between' standard and separate the wheat from the chaff to figure out if it makes any sense. Watch the video, read the facts, and then decide for yourself.

Read on...

The new 12 x 142 mm axle size that has been popping up on the back of more and more bikes lately has been causing quite a furor among riders. Although the forum chatter hasn't quite reached the levels that the release of 15 mm fork thru-axles caused (and still does, but we won't even go there), it is clear that many of you are a bit tired of new "standards", many with funny sounding acronyms, that seem to be thrust upon us. I've heard of all sorts of theories, ranging from some people claiming that it is obviously a conspiracy to force you to buy new and expensive parts for your bike, or even that the engineers responsible for all these new features that improve our bikes genuinely wanting to make their brand of bike better than the competition - GASP! It's all about progress, and these days our bikes are quite far along from an evolutionary standpoint, meaning that the performance gains that we see now will usually be far smaller than what we were getting excited about years ago.


Watch the video to learn about 12 x 142

Views: 55,779    Faves: 8    Comments: 6



So, is the new 12 x 142 axle size massively stiffer than a 12 x 135 thru-axle setup? Nope. Surely it must be lighter then, right? Doubtful. Is it easier to use? It sure seems like it. What it looks to be is a combination of a standard quick release's convenience and hub locating abilities with the stiffness and security of a 12 mm thru-axle. How ever you feel about it, there is a chance that the next cross-country or all-mountain bike that you buy down the road will be sporting the new standard. Trek, Lapierre, Rocky Mountain, Yeti, and many more manufacturers all offering 12 x 142 mm rear ends for the upcoming 2011 season.


12 x 142 mm Axle Details

  • The goal of a 12 x 142 mm axle standard is to make thru-axles as quick and easy to use as a quick release system

  • Stiffness of a 12 mm thru-axle, but with a quick release's wheel self centering feature

  • 12 mm is the axle diameter, 142 mm refers to overall shoulder to shoulder width of hub (end cap to end cap)

  • Cassette and disc rotor are in the exact same relation to the hub's centerline as a standard 135 mm QR hub

  • Wheel dish remains the same as a 135 mm quick release wheel

  • Frame dropout's have 3.5 mm of inset per side that hub endcaps fit into - just as with a 10 x 135 mm QR wheel

  • There is not enough room on the driveside of a 12 x 135 mm thru-axle hub to build in the same hub locating ability, the extra 7 mm of overall width was required for the system to work

  • Whereas 150 mm rear hub spacing requires the use of an 83 mm bottom bracket shell for proper chainline, 12 x 142 mm produces the same chainline as a standard QR rear wheel and works perfectly with any variation of B.B. that you'll find on modern XC or AM bikes

  • Most hub manufacturers will simply make slightly different hub end caps to work with the new 12 x 142 mm spacing - no need to panic about having to buy a new rear hub or wheel


Certain designs should lend themselves to using 12 x 142 easier than others. The 2011 Trek lineup that you've been reading about over the last few days all use their ABP system that already requires the use of a long quick release skewer that needs to be completely removed in order for the wheel to be removed from the frame. Adapting ABP to accept a 12 x 142 mm Maxle was a relatively simple job that only requires Trek to use slightly different shaped ABP pivot hardware. It's worth noting that all of their bikes will also ship with the necessary hardware in order to use a standard 135 mm quick release wheel as well. Likewise, I can see most hub manufacturers keeping it very simple by making only different and interchangeable hub end caps that won't require you to buy a new hub or rear wheel.


Trek's bikes can accept both a standard 135 QR wheel and the new 12 x 142 mm size<br /> - but how many other companies will be as flexible?
Trek's bikes can accept both a standard 135 QR wheel and the new 12 x 142 mm size
- but how many other companies will be as flexible?


The goal of the 12 x 142 is not to make a stiffer rear end, although it will be inherently stiffer than the equally convenient 135 quick release system that we're all used to, but to combine the best of both a quick release and a thru-axle design. Yes, we can all manage to install a thru-axle rear wheel on our current bikes without much hassle, but after playing with the new 12 x 142 layout I can honestly admit that it was even more effortless to use. The system's auto wheel centering feature meant that I didn't have to flip the bike over or struggle to line up the hub opening with the axle before pushing it through - just drop the wheel in and slid the axle home. I'm not saying that I'm all for it, but I think it's important to remember that a bike is the sum of it's parts and that if bikes never evolved, even if only in small steps that we're seeing now, we'd still all be using threaded loose ball headsets and cup and cone bottom brackets on our bikes. When it comes down to it, no one needs the new 12 x 142 axle size, but there are benefits to it that are worth looking at.


Now that you know the facts tell us how what you think about 12 x 142 mm below!
Must Read This Week









153 Comments

  • + 17
 I don't know about other people but I've never struggled getting my wheel on with a 150mm axle.
  • + 1
 hah me neither
  • - 1
 Yea, I was thinking that too. but if it sells, more power to them.. god bless the free market.
  • + 2
 Agreed, See my comment 3 above....
Smile

... we Work on our bikes, We are not retarded.
[Reply]
  • + 12
 +1 it combines the best of QR with the best of 12mm through axle properties
-1 it will require new rear triangle for the Mojo SL
-1 it will require new dropouts for the Jedi F1
-4 it will require reworking all of my rear hubs
-2 it will require buying a new axle for each bike
+4 it will standardize all of my wheelsets to be completely interchangeable between bikes

Seems like a good thing at first glance but the numbers just don't add up. I'm not changing until I have to yet, let's see if it catches. The jury is still out on the tapered headset "standard" this might take a while to be accepted as well.
  • - 5
 I hope you're not trying to pass that off as a objective "review."
  • + 15
 Did I say "review" or "objective" anywhere? No, I didn't. Just putting my 2c out there on a subject that will almost certainly bring hot debate.
All I did was state simple facts about what this new standard would require me to do to convert my current rides and wheels.
Simply put; unless you are a top eschelon professional rider I don't think the cost is worth the expense to convert current bikes. When a new bike is purchased that has the new standard, then it makes perfect sense to convert the wheels, not before.
  • - 8
 Whoa Francis.... Calm down before your head explodes.
  • + 2
 No need to, never got excited. If this is accepted by the public, which it probably will be, it will be a good change simply because it will allow us to use the same wheels on several bikes at the same time. Interchangeability is always a good thing in my mind.
  • + 8
 erm correct me if im wrong, but if all ur bikes have 135mm QR wheel, or even 150x12mm then u can still interchange wheels between them all, just the same, this new axle doesn't add any extra interchangeability over any other axle size. and if u want extra stiffness whats wrong with a 135x12mm wheel, at least then u can convert ur Qr wheel and not buy a new wheel.
  • + 4
 Maglor,I couldn't agree more... For me personally it's one of the most poiuntless innovations in last few years.
  • + 3
 Because a 135mm wouldnt set in the groove.
  • + 17
 THIS ISNT ABOUT STIFFNESS!!! if you actually read the article and watched the movie you would realize its not about stiffness. this is about convenience of just popping your thru axle wheel in with no fuss.
  • + 3
 He is right. Did you ever here him talk much about stiffness? No. He did say how easy it was though about 5 or 6 times. Do you not see the point? Not worth spending the extra money on right now but could be something in a few years.
  • + 6
 I fail to see how its difficult at all to allign my hub and axle, when I'r removing my rear wheel ( on a trail ) it's cause I have a flat, which means I've flipped my bike over to remove the wheel... Who here Changes a flat With their bike rubber side down ?

IF it Does become a True Accepted "standard" THEN maybe Its a good thing.
  • + 1
 Just an idea... but why would you worry about this on your Canfield frame? THIS IS AN AM SETUP. IE... why on earth would you EVER run this on a downhill bike. 150mm is the dh standard, and will be for some time. This new size is not meant to replace that either. It is meant to replace the 150mm standard for xc/fr/am rigs that utilize the big hubs, and also the bikes that utilize 135mm in the rear.
  • + 1
 Simple; I would then be able to use the same wheelsets on both bikes for rough trail riding. It is the same axle diameter currently on the 12 x 150, so why not use the same system across all disciplines? The weight savings for using pidly 9mm QR teeny hubs is useless for us mere mortal riders, I much prefer the lateral stiffness of the 12 mm axle/frame interface than the 9QR setup.
[Reply]
  • + 12
 My view hasn't changed on this at all, is it really too hard to hold a wheel while you put the axle through? They haven't improved wheel stiffness at all despite having a wider dropouts. It's just another standard for people to get confused over, companies should have stuck to 135x12 in my view.
  • + 5
 With got a straight thinkin' man up here!! Smile
[Reply]
  • + 11
 I'm sorry if it's already been said, but i skipped down to the bottom, got tired of reading the same stupid thing over and over. This is a convenience addition, it will not affect the ride. You will be able to use the same 12*135mm hubs we've ever used, change the spacers. is it necessary... i forget that everyone is a pro race mechanic, and changed so many wheels, they can do it blindfolded. but what about that one guy who just purchased a new bike, his first ever, and doesn't even know what a derailleur (or mech) is? he pulls the wheels off to put it in the trunk of his cavalier, gets home from the shop excited for his first ride, spends 3 hours trying to get his wheels back on, gives up, and the next day we see a brand new Trek, Rocky Mountain, or whatever here on Pinkbike. Or he has something that makes his life a little easier, has an awesome time, and becomes an avid biker. Think about it before you knock it, step in some one elses shoes. this is a new standard that is not really for any one reading this, its for the other guy.
  • + 3
 If you aren't willing or able to learn basic skills like putting your wheel back in (or adjusting a derailleur, centering your brake calipers or adjusting your headset) you should choose a different sport that doen't involve a lot of wrenching.

Of course convinience is important but it should not be a reason to change axle standards for the ...th time if it has no performance benefits.
[Reply]
  • + 5
 Who the hell puts their wheels in with the bike the right way round anyway(unless its in a work stand)? This is a very pointless bit on new technology especially as the actual hub is just a 135mm with slightly longer end caps on it. No doubt you won't have to actually change your hubs if this becomes a standard provided you use 135mm already cos some manufacturer will bring end caps out to convert the 135mm to 142mm.
Still a waste of time and money as far as i'm concerned.
[Reply]
  • + 7
 I'm all for anything that directly, or as a by-product, makes the real wheel on my AM/trail bike STIFFER to match up with the stiffness provided by the 20mm fork!!!!
  • + 2
 I think its an awesome idea.
  • + 2
 I like it.
  • + 23
 its been done to keep the money flowing.
  • + 3
 That actually makes alot of sense, cause not only is it easier to install, but you have the stiffness of the axle AND the frame! I didn't like this 'new' standard before reading this!
  • + 3
 completely disagree. its a positive step in design strength rigidity, its just the way forward.
  • + 28
 12x142mm axle explained: Lets bring out something which will let us squeeze a tonne of cash out of the publics pockets and into ours when they have to replace all their previous hubs, and call it 'innovation'... Then in 20 years time lets re-introduce whatever products were phased out in the process (QR axles) as a solution to the 'problems' which arise with the new product so that we can make a tonne of cash off that old technology too in exactly the same way...

Hey look, its a lot like Chub Hubs 'new' large diameter hubs *cough* Seismic *cough*.

And maybe in a few years we will see some 'new' 8-speed derrailers which offer lighter weight cassette options...

Facepalm
  • + 17
 Biking was easier and cheaper in the early 2000's.
  • + 3
 I'm just thinking that if the wheel dish is the same as a 12x135 and 12x135 is stronger and lighter why wouldn't you just go for a 12x135 axle size, because with a wider wheel dish you can build a stonger wheel but the 12x142 dosen't have one. And the shorter somthing is the stiffer it will be if made with the same material. The only advantage is convinence and i'll take stiffness over convinence any day of the week!
  • + 5
 if Hope Tech ruled the bike industry none of these changes would be happening - when they make a change to their parts it actually improves something. another example is center-lock disk brakes from shimano - it does exactly the same thing as the previous design, but its not compatible so requires another purchase
  • + 2
 never there was a note that "some" hubs can be converted into 142mm from 135mm.. now lets see what companies will do this.. hope has a 15mm adapter too.. so IF i could rebuild my wheel into a 142 from a 135mm hope pro 2 hub.. i could find a little peace with it..
still all my other wheels will be a total write off.. Frown
if i would even/ever buy a frame with a 142mm rear end,, . thats point 2 Evil
  • + 2
 i guess it might reduce the price of 'retro' 135mm QR frames
  • + 1
 so its pretty much like the fox 20mm forks with the flanges that stick out but its in the rear end..
  • + 6
 now you have a 142mm QR .. basicly the same only thicker axle insert.. from 9mm to 12mm..
ill be damned.. what an invention lol
  • - 1
 AAaaaaah! I get it now! Before seing this vid I was like, fuuuck another stupid standard? But it's actually a pretty intelligent standard, because for whoever has a tru-axle or even a maxle in the back understand how much of a pain in the ass it is to put the wheel on!
  • + 3
 why not just give us 135 bolt through 12mm?
  • + 1
 Reread =)

"There is not enough room on the driveside of a 12 x 135 mm thru-axle hub to build in the same hub locating ability, the extra 7 mm of overall width was required for the system to work"
  • + 1
 Its on the frame so if you don't have a frame that runs the 142mm then why would you care. Say you pick up a new bike that runs it, the 142 comes on the bike so you don't have to buy anything more. It still runs a 135mm hub you just have to buy some spacers I'm sure there cheap. I think its lame what you can't hold your wheel up and put it into your frame? I haven't taken my rear wheel off forever. Its made for XC riders that drive Toyota Prius's and need a new bike to buy to brag to there 4 internet friends about who spends more, not about who rides more. Trying to reinvent the wheel I guess. Or a easy way to hold your wheel while you fubble for your cell phone.
  • + 3
 soon there will be a company that pops up and all they make is adapters
  • + 4
 its a good idea but you would think they could have thought of this when they first came out with thru axels in the rear.
  • - 2
 Love it. Like you say ratherberidin, would be nice if this happened initially, but meh, we'll survive.
  • + 1
 its not like putting a wheel on in the back a little easier is worth a new standard, its basically an oversized QR, with little guides
  • + 1
 indeed .. they could have redesigned the drop out aswel.. thicker pads.. and bigger 12mm axle space.. in it.. but eey.. this was way easier i suppose Razz
[Reply]
  • + 4
 I find this no more convenient than without the groove. It may save me a grand total of a second(I am being literal about the one second thing). I don't really believe this is as big of an innovation as they are making it to be purely as it only fixes a very minor problem that wasn't really an issue in the first place.
[Reply]
  • + 3
 Just one Question: Is this similiar to the Syntace X-12 Axle-System?

I only see one more or less important advantage: Easier Installment of the Rearwheel, thats all!
Would this be same easy when you do that with Spacingcups? I guess no: I have Cups on my Frontwheel (Hub is changeable from QR 9 to 20mm Thruaxle) which is a Pain to built it in my Lyrik, which has also Guides to get proper Setup. Lighter? Stiffer? No! You need Cups for your recent Hub, how should this increase Stiffness and decrease Weight?
Its a nice little detail, but I donĀ“t need it necessarily ...
  • + 1
 it is the syntace x 12 system but everyone seems to have forgotton its called that lol
[Reply]
  • + 3
 personally i think this is pointless, its really not that hard to line ur wheel up and its definably not worth having to buy a new wheel if u buy a new frame with this axle, its a real pain when u have the change all your kit just to match up with the frame, especially when the only advantage is its a bit easier to put back in, don't know about u but i don't take my wheel on and off all that often. i guess its ok if it come as a full bike the, although another standard to add to 135 and 150 is just a pain.
  • + 1
 There was a time when another standard 165mm was tested by the Da Bomb cycles...
I'm pretty sure that stifness offered by the 135x12 is equall to this new standrad.
I was using that standard on my Stab Supreme and never had any problem with installing my rear wheel and any problems with the rear triangle stiffness.

Another innovation after front QR15 axle which is set to make people pay more and more for the bike parts.

And generally I don't get Trek...
First they killed Klein,then Gary Fisher and now this... :/
  • - 2
 you are biased against trek. too bad for you.
  • + 3
 and you ride a kona. that sucks....
  • + 2
 HAHAHA.. I wish trek would kill kona.
  • + 3
 Gary fisher killed gary fisher...
[Reply]
  • + 3
 video is quite annoying explaining everything twice just for the sake of making a longer video is not cool. a 1 min video would do just the same. The new standard makes sense though it would be annoying to hold the wheel in place with the cassette and disk and then trying to slide a axle threw. I want this on my next xc fully to go along with my QR15 upfront
  • + 8
 i like the video because of that reason. if you read these comments it seems like he may need to repeat himself 3 times bc some ppl just dont understand.
[Reply]
  • + 3
 The purpose of the wider 150mm standard was to be able to build a stronger, less dished wheel as the hub flanges could be spaced more evenly from the center point of the hub. It had nothing to do with the convenience or ease of use. This new 142 hub has no beneficial effect on the overall strength of the wheel and attempts to address an entirely different problem...that of rider/mechanical incompetence. It has Always been my professional opinion that the average consumer/rider is incapable of safely using quick-release skewers of any kind.
  • + 1
 I am with you.

I am doing all the servicing for my bikes myself, never destroyed anything. I am bloody careful and precise, I never overtorqued a single bolt nor made it so it got loose while riding (ok once with the pedal without any bigger consequences - I learned my lesson).

Now yesterday I found a piece of the thread on my MAXLE on my Lyrik felling off, even though I always greased it and was super careful when taking the wheel on/off which is quite rare as i use UST system.

So screw MAXLE - it is as stupid as Microsoft Word autofill. I can't imagine doing that crap with my rear wheel...

plus as I wrote smwhr above: RS forks use like max 1.5mm offsetted metal piece to hold the wheel in place before sliding the axle in, so why on earth they need 3,5mm on each side?! 1.5mm is more than enough for the system to work, and more than enough for the 12mm axle hubs to support themselves on the frame.
[Reply]
  • + 3
 If you're too reetard to put on a wheel with a standard 12mm axle, you shouldn't be biking, period.

I understand it's a plus for this specific frame since the axle goes through the upper link of the back frame, lower link of the back frame AND hub and it's got to be more "labour intensive" to hold all these 3 things to slide the axle in, but that's all.

I don't think it's really much of a progress.
  • + 2
 1. there are plenty of stupid people out there that bike, period. 2...but its still progress. 3. the lower pivot that is concentric about the axle holds the chainstay and seatstay so the only moveable part is the hub. you dont have to hold 3 things together when installing a wheel
  • + 3
 Solution to a non-problem to me.
  • + 0
 word! the only benefit for trek is in my humble opinion to have a way to let people spend more money on their bikes.
  • + 3
 how is it spending more money on your bike?
lets say you were gonna buy a bike with the new 142 axle. its not costing you anymore money than if you were buying that bike without. all its doing is making it easier for you. and you dont need special hubs or wheels so i don't see why not.
[Reply]
  • + 6
 I pity the sexual partners of guys that need an easier way to insert a rear wheel.
  • + 1
 Elegant and to the point. Reminds me of the part in all the infomercials where someone is struggling to perform a simple task, usually in black and white. Then the saviour product is introduced. lol
[Reply]
  • + 3
 i think its so crazy that trek is trying to make it easier to use for the end consumer and there are many people that think that trek is trying to steal their money because now you have to buy new hubs. put away your conspiracy theories and open your eyes. trek sells little as far as frames. almost all of trek sales are complete bikes. i know this because i work at a trek dealer. many hub manuf. will also have the adapters. so quit your belly achin
[Reply]
  • + 3
 sigh...allright - listen up kiddies...

Do Trek's 142mm frames make it harder to use your old 135mm hub? NOOOOOOO!!!!
Do Trek's 142mm frames allow for a better wheel insert, given you have a 142mm hub? YESSSSS!!!

I see an advantage without ANY disadvantages, which means BENEFIT (at least for those who think before they shout).

Everything's been said here - 142mm has come to stay, as does the 15mm fork, as does the disc brake, as does tubeless...with or without some of you.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 Why not just put your rear wheel on upside down? I bet this guy's rear disc rubs like a mofo after doing that. And he probably damaged one of the pads. I'm unfortunate in that I have to take my wheels off so I can take my bike up to my apartment (narrow stairs) every day (i cycle to work) and putting the wheels on upside down is easiest. It takes seconds, line up the rotor, hook the chain and let gravity do the work.
  • + 2
 Yup, and you prolly have never Accidentally Pressed your lever on your brake While doing that ( something i see happening easilly if you do it the way the video suggests ) Causing you to back off the pads with a flathead screwdriver because now they've pinced together and your disc wont fit in.... Personally, Even With this new innovation, I would still flip the bike over.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 - First of all i havent read the whole article(watchd movie), it`s the Syntace X-12 System , what is an open standard and Liteville (what is Syntace too in fact) , made this Standard as far as i know,and how it stands on their homepage.
- Liteville uses this standard since long time , and it is really good.
- Nice to have it explained, but i don`t like that there is no mention of Syntace who did the job and do share it whit other manufacturers for FREE!
Thanks! and have a nice day!
[Reply]
  • + 2
 seems a lot of people still haven't gotten it...no disadvantages at all...I have King hubs, and used them this year already on my Scratch with the adapters. I'm sure King will provide different axles/end caps one day, and then rear wheel insertion will be even more a piece of cake.

This is just another standard that makes bicycles better bit by bit, and the smooth transition with the adapters is a great concept. Thumbs up!!!
  • + 2
 finally someone who understands
[Reply]
  • + 2
 Nice idea. But I still don't see why it could not be made to work with a standard 135mm hub. Instead of using 3.5mm recesses like the 142mm standard, why not just use 1.5mm recess. Then any clearance issues would be reduced and not be an issue. Or even just a small semi-circular 'tab' on the dropouts.

I can't argue with the logic behind the idea, but there's a scepticism in me that thinks the increased axle width is purely to generate a new standard and the associated repeat purchases and licencing fees associated with it?

In fact, I'm just going to cut a washer in half and super glue each half to my dropouts. Job done! Thanks for the idea!
  • + 1
 totaly with you man! the additional stuff over drop outs helping to hold the front wheel on my Lyrik are less than 2mm AND THEY WORK PERFECTLY. I think people should read a very good article about STANDARDS by my favourite Joe Graney on Santa Cruz Bicycles website...

seems like some wheel manufacturers got bored with making hubs lighter to make them more expensive so they need a new standard...

BTW I HATE MAXLE! it is as stupid as Microsoft Word autofill. Helps once per 10 times and pisses you off big time on other 9. What's wrong with carrying a 5mm allen key FFS?!
  • + 2
 sounds like operator error.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 Can't wait for the 144mm rear hub. The frequency I remove my rear wheel is ... well .. NOT often. If I do, its not "on the fly" in a race, where I suppose this new standard "might" be of some use. If its just easy to add spacers or adaptors ... great, I like it. But if its not and all bike and hub manufacturers don't get on board, then it will be about as effective as the 80's Beta vs VHS tape scenario (sorry for the 80's reference) :-)
  • + 0
 what about a long xc race (like over 6 hours) if its on rough terain then the through axle will be a blessing and the ease of getting it in and out the frame will also be vry useful for teh inevitable punctures.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 I have a 135x12mm setup on my 2stage, I keep wanting to reply to all these comments, but I'm going to be objective. I have always been frustrated with the wheel alignment (I have a braking arm to boot, and a spacer that won't sit on the hub by itself because it's so tight on space). When I first read about the 142mm in Dirt, it struck me as a sensible solution to the issue, in a why-wasn't-this-always-the-way manner. So what if it's another standard, at least it's a standard that is adding something USEFUL.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 I think there is a little overreacting going on here.

Just think of 15mm front axels... Has anyone had an issues getting the traditional 9mm or 20mm spec fork? No
Or what about tapered head tubes and getting non tapered forks? Nope, no problems what so ever.

Just because Trek is making something their new standard does not mean everything else is going the way of the dinosaurs.
[Reply]
  • + 4
 i mean obviously this makes it easier but really, is it actually THAT difficult in the first place to justify changing? seems a little pointless to me really
[Reply]
  • + 2
 cant help think that sram missed a great opportunity at world domination. if they got their 12mm QR maxel rear standard doing this a few years back it could have been a similar 12mm thru bolt upfront instead of the 15mm.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 HPC says that there electric motors will NOT fit these 142 x 12mm e THRU ' s via a 2011 diamondback mission 3 Why feed the postman. Anyone that knows of a electric motor that fits PLEASE tell me ? at mikepeine@yahoo.com or perpetualmotion100 Thx.
[Reply]
  • + 3
 Making things complicated is easy... making the complicated simple is what's difficult. 142x 12 is another lame standard even if they try to say it isnt.
  • + 1
 so its the same stiffness. used with the same BB. you can use the same hub. but its easier to put the axle in. maybe 12X135 is the lame standard. ever thought of that?
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Does it matter what any of us think? The video says they have a new 142mm standard for 2011frames. Time will tell if it's easier or will prevail. There are plenty of old "Standards" that have come and gone. Many more will be created. The good ones will stick. The crappy ones will fall of the wall into the pile of bad ideas. Getting you to want the latest greatest thing is what marketing guys make their living at. I'm personally not running out to buy a new frame for the new standard.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 have to admit though, that the guy in the video should have explained the adapters, which come with the bike/frame. Those will convert every 142frame to a standard 135mm rear spacing frame.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 It's expensive because there is simply far less demand than say in the automotive industry. Just the way it is otherwise bike companies will not make sufficient profit to keep running.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 I like it. I wish the had thought of this when designing the 150mm ta. Not something that you need to immediately go out and upgrade to, but will probably be on my next am bike.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 ^^^ I was about to post the (upper) link, now I don't have to to.

This is exactly how the front thru axle forks are, my older manitou 20mm's don't have these 'guides', while my friends totem does, and it most definitely makes putting the front wheel back on easier. Yeah, you can do it without, but why? It also seems like most of the 12x135 hubs out there already run end caps, so majority of the current 12x135 wheelsets/hubs are easily convertible to this standard.

Also, this isn't exactly a "new" standard, its been on Cube bikes since I think MY 2009.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 yay, yet another rear thru axle "standard"". Seriously, I thought we figured this one out about 6years ago. 130 on the road bikes, 135 on most everything mountain, and 150. While we're at it, why not bring back the 160, the 145, the 165, the 15mm and 18mm thru axles and all of the other useless crap when everyone did their own thing. They can all "engineering" all they want. Simple fact remains that the end user will not profit from this. Its a step backwards. Its like the ISIS drive allover again. Good idea, but in execution...
  • + 1
 Yeah, I have to agree. How can it be a standard when there are 5 different versions! It's getting a little ridiculous how there are what, 5 different head tube "standards", a bunch of BB standards, several chainguide standards, front axles standards, blah blah blah. It just makes buying the components you want a lot more complicated and confusing, and it's harder to get the brand you want. It also makes the industry waaayy more intimidating for a newbie that wants to get into biking. And I don't want to use crappy little "cups" to make my damn hubs work with this new stuff! 135 and 150 with 20mm up front for me...
  • + 1
 Whats wrong with ISIS?
  • + 1
 how is making something easier to use a step backwards?
  • + 1
 because it seems like everything was standardized there for a bit. Now there is 3-5 new headset types, another axle type (after I thought all of this bs was done), a couple new bb types etc etc. I mean is this really an improvement over the 12x135? Is it a significant enough improvement to declare it superior? I really don't think so. People go on and on with their engineering buzz words and marketing BS (look at the "new" E-13 crank if you need an example) so that they can just make another buck off a market that for the most part has no clue and is easily swayed.

And ISIS was a good idea on paper for the most part, but very poor in execution. I can't tell you how many people I end up replacing their bb every year at the shop. The X-type is better, but its more of a go around than anything. Its just funny that the MFG's will create all these new standard and components but will not address fundamental shortcomings in the design of the standard BB. Its just stupid and aggravating to a certain degree. Some times I wish I was an ME instead of a bike mechanic so I could affect more change, but then again its not necessarily about change so much as its about the bottom line.
  • + 1
 My ISIS had worked well for me in the past and is still working for me . I havent beat the $H!t out of it tho.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 oh my god people are being so thick about this, its basically just a 135 thru axle but with the ability to locate the wheel in the frame more easily, so you get the benefits of both systems and seeing as it will only effect people who are buying new bikes and frames next year i dont see many peoples problems with it, it just seems to be complaining for complainings sake as it is the first new standard that has genuine benefits for a couple of years now, now if only more companies would start using bb30 bottom bracket shells and 1.5 head tubes...
  • + 1
 also how are people so sure its going to be awful without riding it and when its had no time at all to be proved in the real world. you could argue that 'why get an adjustable seat post when you can stop and lower it?' why have any kind of quick release axles when a nutted axle is good enough' why get an unthreaded steerer and stem?' because its progress! and the only way that anything gets done in the bike industry is by changing everything at once look how many ridiculous standards there were in the 90's!
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Another idea that has sucked some people in. Lets all change our wheels, so that we can save 3 seconds putting the wheel in. I put my wheel in with the bike upside down so I can see my brake alignment is correct. Having a 6 point and a Sunday I use 150mm on both bikes and 83mm BB's so no need for such a change for me. My pal has Maxle lite as shown in the video and they will break hope hubs, don't know about other manufacturers.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Hmm... not sold on that at all. It's not exactly hard to fit a 135mm hub and align it with the axle. I don't know how much stiffer it will make it, but it just seems to me to be unnecessary and over designed. There realistically isn't a problem with the existing 135mm and 150mm at all.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 More stiffness to match my 20mm maxle? Yes.
Awesome, my 2011 bike will probably have this & hope will no doubt release a conversion kit of sorts. Seems fine by me.
If the old QR up front was enough then why did everybody change to 15-20mm?
Just seems logical to me.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Well, as long as it doesn't force people to buy new hubs, then I suppose it can't hurt. However, I would be interested in knowing more about how the "recessed" area of the drop-out is beefed up to handle the stresses and wear in that area.
  • + 1
 the drop out has shoulders on it. the shoulders shouldnt take any stress if you have your axle tight. the recess just guides the hub while no axle is in it.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 I personally don't see a problem with the 12x142 standard. I just bought a bike with the new standard and don't have ANY wheels lying around that are 12x135. Most people are like, "Oh no! My old 135s won't work." I'm like, "Uhm... I don't have any 135s only 142s"

So, as long as they keep supporting this standard I'm all for it (cause that's all I got).
[Reply]
  • + 1
 That's another one hell of a stupid standard such as the 15 mm front axle... If sb wants a stiff rear wheel he can take a 135x12 hub... Also when I put back my wheel I have no problems like the ones given in the video - I just know the right position on my wheel and so do every serios rider... Absolutely needless for me...
  • + 1
 needless for you. needless for me. but we arnt everybody...
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Hi KP650b,

a quick direct answer to your question:
Please don't confuse the Trek 142 x 12 mm standard with Syntace X-12. Syntace X-12 was presented long before TREK started using the 142x12 "standard". The Syntace X-12 has uses the 142x12 dimentions and was the first system to present these to the industry as a new standard, Treks design uses the same two measurement, but Treks design does not have all the features X-12 offers. What Trek has done, is taken a small part of the Syntace X-12 system, and implemented this on their bikes. In short, a 142 x 12 system (such as trek) is not necesarily a Syntace X-12 system, Syntace X-12 however was the inventor of, and uses these dimentions. Trek's design offers simplified use. Syntace X-12 offers simplified use AND reduced weight AND increased stiffness. Hope thats good for a short answer.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Trek have done a very strange thing here. If you research the full details of Syntace x-12 on their website, you see that it is designed to be as light and convenient as a qr, but as stiff as a bolt-up 12mm through axle. I see this as a win-win; advantages of both systems and disadvantages of neither. Bear in mind that this standard does not affect those who already have an existing frame, it is only relevant to those purchasing new bikes. Many hub manufacturers (dt, hope, sun, and others) are on board with this sizing so availability and interchange will not be a problem. However, as trek have used a maxle instead of the Syntace system, they have missed out on the extra stiffness on offer from a full x-12 setup (from direct comparison it is much stiffer than a maxle, and probably lighter). I am a fan of full x-12, but this halfway method is what seems rather pointless to me. Fwiw.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Diamondback Mission 3 HUBS = Rear 32h MX260HD sealed bearing, 10mm thru axle, cassette w/CNC Disc mount. Just in case someone is in need of the info. Taken from DB's info page.
[Reply]
  • + 4
 Still stupid, pointless and lame.
  • + 14
 your comment is stupid, pointless, and lame.

"1. add additional on topic info to the article that other users will find useful
2. add props and support/encouragement for the video/photo/article/product/story
3. add and explain constructive criticism for the video/photo/article/product/story"
  • + 1
 My opinion, which they asked for, is that it still is stupid pointless and lame. It is yet another dumb standard brought to you by trek. I also hate E2 and 15mm front axles. If it ain't broke why fix it? The only people who are going to notice any positive from this are xc riders that don't ride hard enough to need it anyway.
  • + 2
 man, another unfortunate rider biased against trek...
if it aint broke why fix it? well would you just like to ride a beach cruiser with knobby tires? cause that was the begging of mt. biking. do you like cantilever brakes? because thats what you would have. if there was no innovation in biking. and
"The only people who are going to notice any positive from this are xc riders that don't ride hard enough to need it anyway." -That makes no sense.
[Reply]
  • + 0
 Almost everytime I need to mount the rear wheel, it is after a puncture. Punctures are supposed to be a thing of the past due to a (relatively) new thing called 'tubeless'.

Either 'tubeless' cancels '142 x 12' or 'tubeless' was a waste of time.

Therefore, since 'tubeless' DOES reduce punctures, '142 x 12' IS a waste of time since the only advantage is when mounting the rear wheel. There is no advantage to fix a problem that rarely occurs these days (punctures).
  • + 1
 tubeless doesnt resolve puntures.........its pinch flats....and if you live in the desert where theres a ton of thornbushes and rocks you will be taking your wheels off often.
[Reply]
  • + 0
 its just a way to make more money. i can buy brake pads for my truck cheaper than for my bike.. thats pretty bull shit.. there is no reason all this shit has to be so goddamn expensive! just my opinion.. i'll still never stop riding
  • + 1
 you have a shitty truck...
  • + 2
 and ur a bitch
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Hope adapters cost $50 and to convert your DT wheel it will be around $100!! A little to pricy to solve a problem that never existed in the first place. No thanks.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 WHY SO MUCH HATE?!?!?!?! It's happening whether you like it or not. Ride your bike and save your breath for the long, steep, ascents.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 i guess i will buy another 135mm rear hub befor it's all changed to 142mm, cause i don't want to buy a new frame...............
  • + 2
 there will always be 135 hubs on the market. look at the regular quick release. it was invented by tulio campagnolo 90 years ago. guess what. almost every hub manufacture except for BMX still makes a QR hub. even though 20mm is so much better. unless you havent been born yet the 135 hub will be around far longer than we will.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Now you can get a 15m front hub and a 12x142 rear hub! If nobody sees you riding your special sizes do you still feel special?
  • + 1
 yea. cause i can put on my rear wheel faster. (maybe...)
[Reply]
  • + 1
 i see no problem with this, easier to get the rear wheel on. think if you are on-trail and you get a flat... you want it to be easy and fast.
[Reply]
  • + 2
 I have been waiting for this for years. That is all.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 wow that article explained nothing so well. So in summary, theres a pointless new standard coming out?
[Reply]
  • + 1
 just what we need, another "standard" to confuse people and make things not compatible
  • + 1
 Yeah.

Remember when ISIS was the final word in BBs?
  • + 1
 this is happening because of companies trying to one- up other companies, but in the process making their products less appealing to people who have finally gotten used to the 135/150mm width in axles
[Reply]
  • + 2
 I have 142mm axle in my Cube, it works quite well
[Reply]
  • + 2
 I see 15mm rear axles in the near future
[Reply]
  • + 1
 Aww man. Now I'll have to buy some shims to use my 1999 Shimano STX rear hubs on my 2011 Trek Carbon Frame.
[Reply]
  • + 1
 companies want more and more money. Just any thing will be done to make us droll so that we can shed hard earned money.
[Reply]
  • + 0
 This is probably the dumbest idea I have seen yet. Worse than the 15mm front hub. Good god people.
[Reply]
  • - 1
 I think what they meant to say was that they need to sell more frames, hubs/ wheelsets. So they change the "standard" to force people to buy new stuff. Yaaaahh!
[Reply]
  • + 1
 verry good think .... :-)
[Reply]
  • + 1
 waste of time tbh, shud of jus kept to the 150mm or 135mm.
[Reply]
  • - 1
 Anyone who hates this standard is lame. Think about how much stiffer this will make the frame overall by tying the most rearward part of it together.
[Reply]
  • - 1
 agh!! another new size to work with? i hope no one ever brings that into the shop D=
  • + 5
 why? are you afraid of not being able to recognize it? i work at a shop. i think its a great idea. have you ever seen someone try to put in a 12X135 wheel that doesnt know what they are doing? looks like a monkey fu$&ing a football.
  • + 1
 well performance wise, it might just be pretty good. but there's just so many sizes for every part on the bike, nothing stays standardized, and for the people who work at shops, who actually have to do all the work, you should know what it feels like to be looking all over the shop for some odd sized part that some guys wants for his bike. i mean, it might actually be some great new idea, but im just saying that it's another item were gonna have to keep track of
[Reply]
  • + 0
 Couldn't agree with dutchflick more!
[Reply]
  • + 1
 This has nothing to do with making mountain bikes better, and everything to do with making more money. The bike manufactures are having a bad time of things right now because the economy is in the tanks and many can't find work. A perfect time to bring in planned obsolescence. Just like Srams new 30 speed triple or double if you believe that. More gears the same space mean less material and less durability.
If bike manufactures want to be on the cutting edge of making mountain bikes better they would make a dropper seat that works. The best dropper seat out there, is made by a tool and die maker, the Black Momba this is the only bike part they make.

About RASE

RASE (Rapid Adjust Seatpost Equipment) is a ProDev, Inc. company. Incorporated in 1999, ProDev is a multifaceted product development company that offers a unique blend of engineering, manufacturing and marketing expertise, ranging from Computer Aided Design & Manufacturing to Strategic Market Analysis & Planning.

ProDev specializes in the design and manufacturing of various custom equipment and tooling for industries such as Electronics, Automotive, Medical, Marine and Recreational. For many years, ProDev has also been assisting its customers by improving the design and manufacturability of products that they currently have and by working collaboratively to develop their new product ideas from concept to prototype to effective market introduction.

These guy's see a need and fill it. The only reason I can see for bike manufactures not making these is it will make the cost of their bikes too high for most customers.???

Bring on the RockShox Reverb Height Adjust Seatpost. It should be out any day now a Real improvement. If it works???

PS It will be a shame when you can't buy 9 speed replacement stuff. Just like the 8 speed.
  • + 1
 I like the idea.

What is unclear to me is whether the entire 142 x 12 concept is Syntace's Intellectual Property, or is just their axle design? Does anyone know?

In other words, can a company build a 142 x 12 compatible rear end, use a different axle and not violate any IP law? d have a hard time believing Trek would pay them to license the design...
[Reply]
  • + 0
 im thinking they should just stay 135 and 150mm spacing ...
[Reply]
  • + 1
 i really like this...
[Reply]
  • - 2
 so could u use a 135mm hub?
  • + 0
 @ Sullybomb
for most of the current hubs there is a conversion kit available now to voncert from 135mm to 142 x 12. So check with your manufacturer, chances are you only need the conversion kit which in many cases is simply two different end caps.
  • + 1
 As there seems to be some confusion between Syntace X-12 and the 142 x 12 standard, I would strongly recommend reading the full explanation of the original 142x12 mm standard, X-12 introduced by Syntace. It offers severl additional functions over other rear axle standards and the 12 x 142 "in between system" explained by TREK above.

To read the full all the way 142 x 12 System go to www.syntace.com/index.cfm?pid=3&pk=1668

or read

the explanation from NORCO www.pinkbike.com/news/syntace-142mm-12-norco-2011.html
[Reply]

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2014. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv16 0.050086
Mobile Version of Website