Axle Standards - Pinkbike Poll

 It is simple: if we are to buy a new complete bike then there is absolutely nothing to talk about. Problems appear when something gets broken on that bike, let's say a hub or fork, thread on maxle? Oh they are everwyhere right?

Problem nr1. LBS must have such hub, and more "standards" there are, less likely it is they have them in stock. So off you go to buy it in online store, if you live in a big country, then maybe you have a "native" one - fine. Local vs National vs Gobal economy - I leave it here. Whatever happens more of different means, more trouble for my buddy in LBS.

Problem nr 2. What if I have it a bit tight with money? You hit Buy&sell on Pinkbike or something like that. I buy used stuff since 6 years or so and maybe it is just me, but it gets harder and harder to find something fitting my bike. there's more! but of different!

Problem nr3. You can't swap things easily between old and new bikes - you need to buy more of stuff to have complete bikes - As simple as that.

Sorry saying that they are here to stay - really? I tell you one thing Mike, if few companies throw in 17x105mm axles then they will also be here to stay, there is no relation whether their perserverence on the market and the sense of their existence.
142x12 - I get it, it should kill 135x12 and 10, as it is more convenient - but 15mm? instead of 20mm for dropping 50g?! There is tons of more performance to be gained by simple thigns like hydrating yourself regularly during a ride.

 Dear Pinkbike

Why would you have a poll and not list all the options? Bias poll is bias.
Doing a poll the way you have would lead me to believe you wanted us to say we liked 15mm.
As you can see most riders prefer 20mm front and 142 x 12 rear.

 15mm wasn't meant to take the place of 20mm... but in the mindless race to lose weight with each passing model year, it has. spec enduro, norco range - 6" bikes are getting spec'd with smaller forks to remain competitive on the scale, at the expense of performance where it actually matters: on the trail

 What I want is a 17.5mm front axle and a 138.5mm rear end. I like the way the smaller options corner, and they feel more fun when I ride, but the bigger alternatives give me less rolling resistance although at times the bike feels a bit sterile. Any manufacturers interested in bridging the gap?

 Add one answer to the poll:

142x12 fine, 15mm crap

 I love the smoothness of 20mm's and the stiffness from rear 142mm ends, but really all that matters to me is how not having quick release makes it harder to steal my wheels

 I do not like the standards man I do not like him Sam I am I do not like his standards plus I want to roll him under bus But in a car or in a train I do think he has a brain If he rides its not a bike So there really isn't much to like I bought a bike and now I'm poor Standards Man he takes more So shove the 15 and the 10 And maybe I will like him then

 Flawed poll. 20mm axle and 1x142 is not a bad idea. Its annoying bigger and bigger forks are running 15mm axles. I will not buy a 6x6 bike with 15mm. Xc bike yes, but over 120mm I think it should be 20mm. A worth while standard change I think would be wider axles spacing for 29ers. They need stiffer wheels. Thats my biggest issue with the 29ers I have ridden. That and the wheels are heavier and weaker. No bueno around here. To much stop and go tech riding to make them worth it.

 stand·ard [stan-derd]
noun
1.something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
2.an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards.
3.a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment: They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.
4.an average or normal requirement, quality, quantity, level, grade, etc.: His work this week hasn't been up to his usual standard.
5.standards, those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable: He tried to live up to his father's standards.
"Standard" is not the correct term. Platform would be closer.
It's not like locating a wheel in a 135 dropout was a problem. We could have went to 135 thru 10mm, and everybody would have been happy. Rear end flexing? Great, you know how to corner, now check your spoke tension, if that's not it get a stiffer frame or rim/tire combo. 142 hubs are just 135 hubs with a wider cap. HOW is that stiffer than a 135? It defies logic that 's how. If there is more stiffness, it's because the axle is now 12mm, not because of the extra width. Now if they spread the spoke flanges out, it would be a stiffer hub system, but then everybody would have to buy a new brake adapter. gyearrrgh.. Rant concluded

 The problem most people have with it is by adding another standard, it makes it that much harder to swap/upgrade frames. I understand the benefits but the inconvenience of having yet another standard outweighs the few grams of weight savings and something more secure than a QR (which in reality really isn't that much of a problem)

 It's a dumb poll. 142x12 makes a whole lot more sense than 15mm ever did. Bunching them together makes for an impossible response. 142x12 improves upon the 135x12mm interface by introducing guides/recesses for properly fitting the rear wheel before inserting the throughaxle. The 15mm? It came after a 20mm standard, which was already accepted, it's weaker and introduces NOTHING other than fitting into a QR bearing. Pointless.

 Its time a lot of people woke up and realised that these new axle and wheel sizes are nothing more than a scam to make money out of them. Ive seen this happen so many times in our sport, with hundreds of people buying the new 'must have' kit only to discover that it was really just an uneccessary waste of money and that crap about it being the new best ever was nothing but marketing hype.

Instead of doing research, bike companies are telling us that things have to change and that we have to change with them, hoping that thier new product will stick.. But tell me, why 15mm over 20mm? why 157mm over 150mm, or vice versa? Theres no real weight saving and the extra stiffness wont even be noticed by 99% of riders out there. Sure, 20mm is better than 15mm if youre tearing down world cup DH trails at 50mph, but at anything less the difference is negligible. it might inspire you to ride faster and harder, knowing that you have a more stable platform, but you wont be able to tell the difference. This is the equivalent of kids on here telling you that the new ****** is crap before theyve even rode one because they've got sucked into all the marketing bullshit and become unpaid spokespersons for a particular brand. how many times have you read this:

'Oh, the new Dorado is shit. it flexes under heavy braking and doesnt have the same small bump absorbtion qualities at high speed as a fox 40'

Do you think that the writer has tested both at thier limits? has he hell, but thats what he heard so he becomes an expert and an unwitting champion of a fork he's never ridden. Same goes for the new axle standards. Whats changed? Nothing at all. the trails are the same and the forks are too. the manufacturers are counting on there being enough insecure people who just have to have the latest kit to make these pointless changes work. Dont be one of them.

 I wouldn't have a problem with multiple standards as long as the manufacturers come up with adapters so we dont have to buy new hubs / wheels every time we want to try a different frame / fork combo .

 I run a 142 by 12mm rear wheelset and I have to say its brilliant, but man alive was it a faff sorting it out. I ended up custom building and using a special set of cups made by hope. There nothing wrong with the 135, I see no advantage

 This poll doesn't cater to people that like 15mm front axles AND 135mm rear axles.

And this discussion is soooo '2009'. Can't we argue about the next fad, whatever that may be?

 I have a total of 7 bikes in my house, 3 bikes are mine. The good thing I have is all the rear wheels are compatible, I can use a DH or XC wheel in any of the bikes, no matter what. With the front one, I can use the DH wheels in all bikes except the XC ones, that is great for me.

Now, I cannot and I will not buy any of the new bikes with 15mm front, 142/150mm rear axles, because it will mean I cannot use my old wheels nor the front ones.

All new frames should/must come with rear axle options/adapters and 15mm should not be a standard.

 Mike asks if the success of your ride depends on whether you have QR or through axles or whatever. No. But whether the ride happens at all. There are more than twice as many "standards" as he mentions in the article, and the chance that the shop doesn't have what you need is greater than ever. And you can't even swap something in from another one of your bikes as they all take different stuff. If a marzocci fork is 20mm and so is a rockshox, why can't I use the axle of one to hold the wheel into the other. Even the standards are not consistent or standard. Even from one RS fork to another there can be issues. Standard Fail.

 Hey DVO Suspension here, so we are in the midst of defining our new Enduro fork and we are interested in hearing from everyone regarding axle size, 15mm or 20mm? For pure performance, we fill 20mm offers the best performance with a marginal gain in weight. The argument to coming out with only a 20mm is that 15mm wheels are "considered" the industry standard now and lots of people already do have them. So let us know your opinion on what you guys want, we are listening to everyone and your words matters to us! Hit us on up our Face Book page or this post, we appreciate your involvement. DVO!

 For me, as long as the companies are supporting whatever "standard" then i'm ok with whatever. however, here's my opinion:

leave the QR 9mm stuff on the bikes from Walmart/Target/Sports Authority/etc. If you're buying a bike from there you likely don't care and it'll probably save some money.

I've been on a 142/12 bike, a 135/QR, and a 135/10 bolt. I couldn't tell a difference. If you're buying used, all the parts are available already, if you're buying new, why not benefit from the stronger rear end. Bikes are so expensive these days that if you're buying new, you probably either a) have the money for a new wheelset or b) have the money to buy a new hub and everything else to get your old wheels relaced.

As far as forks go, for the most part, the axle size choice is pretty clear. 15mm for the XC crowds and 20mm for the gravity folks. The waters get murky when you look at the AM category. This category is pretty murky anyway. But from looking at the manufacturers, it seems that they're all offering two variations of the AM bike. The shorter travel more pedal friendly AM bike (eg Spec Stumpjumper) and the longer travel more gravity friendly AM bike (eg Spec Enduro). I think the gravity side is pretty clearly better served with the 20mm. However, the pedal friendly AM bikes can go either way. Thankfully, its up to the individual for what they want. At this point in time, its all available out there so choose what you want.

FWIW, on my 09 bottlerocket, I've got a 20mm front and a QR rear. Seems to ride fine for me. Though, I wouldn't mind trying a 10mm bolt through (or something like DT Swiss through axle for 135mm).

I'm waiting for PB to start a poll on the Fork Stanchion size. 32mm vs 34mm vs 35mm vs 36mm vs 40mm :S

 I had a Trek Fuel EX 8 with QR front and back. The front wheel faired fine other than flexing and causing brake rub going hard into corners. The rear was another story. The amount of flex going on back there destroyed the wheel bearings as well as the ABP bearings and chain stays. Trek replaced the frame with an EX9 which came with adapters for both QR & 12x142. I upgraded to a 15mm Fox fork and XT trail wheels and it has been amazing. Very stiff and stout yet still light. Would a 20mm fork be better? Probably, but not necessary for a bike like mine and would more than likely overkill.

 This poll is awful. It asks if we are in favor of 15mm/142mm, and the best positive answer is "Yes, because anything is better than a quick-release." That doesn't sound like a very compelling argument for companies to continue with this standard. What was the point of this poll? It proves nothing...even if the answers were more definitively swayed in one direction.

 i am happy with what i have got, sick of changing, sick of having to pay more and more money for something that is a 10 grams lighter and saves 10 seconds to put a wheel on. waste of cash that I could spend going away riding

 The stronger the better

 Dear Mike Levy, Glad to see you you'd be happy with 20mm thru axles on all forks! Common sense prevails. It seems to be the consensus here. Go tell that to the industry! They won't listen of course because they have their own sweet agenda that's dominated by the Marketing Department.

 I like 142mm rear ends but prefer 20mm axles... you should make that an option in your poll!

 I like 20mm axles for the front. IMO the 15mm is okay as compared to the old QR. But likely all we should have required is 20mm and perhaps a 20mm light. Is the jury still out on whether a 15mm axle saves any weight over a maxle light?

On the back I have run 12 x 150 for FR/DH bikes, like what it offers, my new FR bike is 12 x 142 and seems to be just fine as well. I do like how easy the rear wheel slots in, definite plus on the 142x12. My trail bike has typically been 135, but I try to run a 10mm through axle where possible, Hope with DT Swiss RWS, but still have a QR rear wheel that I use for a lighter setup.

Also still run qr wheels on my commuter without issues (never had a wheel fall off), then again I make sure my wheels are properly secured to the bike.

 20/12 is good. Why not 30/30/135?

Cantilevered front/rearends would be quite a bit stiffer with large diameter hollow hubs in double threaded bosses with Al stub- threads.You could get rid of the axle altogether and a well enigneered hub housing does the load and hold work.

 I don't really see much wrong with how things are right now. It makes sense to have multiple standards designed for particular uses. Mountain bikes are lumped together sometimes but we all know there is a huge difference between a cx bike and a dh bike in terms of... well, everything. Maybe the 9mm QR doesn't seem like it should go on a mountain bike but maybe it has its place in the ultra-weight-weenie world of 3" xc race bikes. 20mm shouldn't be replaced by 15mm stuff entirely as it has become dominant in DJ, slope, 4X, DH, and FR applications. 15mm stuff does make sense for weight conscious AM, trail, and enduro applications. The same argument can be made for rear end standards, each has its own purpose. I think its a good thing that there are so many choices, just like with all the choices in drivetrain setups, suspension travel, suspension type, wheel size, etc. The only people who really seem disadvantaged by all these choices are those who want to switch from one standard to another and those who are not as well informed about all mountain bike tech stuff. The uninformed should go to a LBS or jump on a forum and those stuck with a standard are SOL.

 I recently switched from a RockShox Revelation with 20mm Maxle to DT Swiss EXM (QR version) running a Hadley 9mm thru-axle. Luckily I already had a Hope front hub, so just switched the axle convertors.

I can't say I've noticed any difference in stability or steering control between the two setups. This could be due to the DT Swiss fork being stiffer than the Rev, and compensating for the difference between 20mm and 9mm axles ? But it's shown me that for AM/rocky trail riding with a 130mm travel bike, my current setup is enough. I'm much better off learning better technique and getting fitter/stronger if I want rough downhills to become easier.

If I do buy another fork, I will go for a 15 or 20 thru-axle, but I'm not in any hurry - my bike runs damn fine as it is. I think people are believing the hype a bit too much. And of course, a QR will make you look like a roadie/XC wimp and no-one's going to get 'stoked' on that are they

 Not one positive comment about 15mm front axles here. Who is buying these forks? For me, weight comes after strength every time. I like the 142mm rear axle because its as strong as 150mm, but allows for narrower rear ends.

 Bought a 15mm Easton Havoc set up for a trail bike, and when I wanted to go to a 6" frame... oooo looks like I'll have to stick with something with a 15mm axle now... everything should be 20mm up front. They already had 135x12mm rear maxles... and yet we have a new standard coming in... when will it end? never, obviously, but that doesn't mean I have to like it!

 You guys never had problems with 135 qr rears? Am I the only one that went to 203 rotors and had to re tighten my rear wheel every other ride? Besides that, I had to fix the problem rather aggressively and got those super heavy duty pull a trailer qr levers and cranked down hard on the frame. Through axle rear in any size is beautiful

 I just don't like to exchange my wheels / hub's each time for a new bike build or fork swap.

 I was happy with bolt up clamp and axle 20mm front, and 135bolt up rear, or 150mm.
I wouldn't mind a dishless front 20mm standard. That'd be better than 15mm. Especially with the new big wheel craze. Or is steeper/tighter spokes better for braking?

 Has anyone here ever worked on a car? Standards (aka options) aren't exclusive to the bicycle industry. I'm so sorry you're inconvenienced. Good grief. Get some perspective.
Time and technology marches on folks.
This whole thread is as tired as the guys who still, even after 15 years still write in to Mountain Bike Action to ask "should I get clipless pedals?"

www.amish.com

 Many years ago DT bought out a carbon fork with a 20mm through-axle. They had warrenty issues when freeriders busted their fork. The DT guys says "This fork was not meant for hucking." but the consumers said "We bought it because it is a DH fork. Look - it has a 20mm thru-axle!"

DT were one of the first to bring out a 15mm fork because it differentiated between DH and AM/XC.

My quotes are paraphrases of long and involved conversations, but the story is essentially true.

 Having just picked up a 15QR fork and wheel, I have to say that I'm impressed with the relative stiffness increase over 9mm dropouts. I would not try and use such a standard for, say, DJ/street or any freeride or DH, but other than that, I would prefer it over a QR- Especially, since from an engineering standpoint, it's easier to manufacture a hub/fork axle combo that is stronger and lighter than a QR fork/hub.

That having been said, I've never had a problem with 135x10mm dropouts, but I've always used bolt-on hubs and things.

 The only standard in my stable is 26" wheels. Frames are 135QR + 150x12, forks are either 9mm or 20mm, and wheels will manage 9mm,15mm,20mm, 135QR, 135x10,142x12,150x12, and 157x12. Made this possible with only one set of wheels not mounted on a bike. Just plan ahead. Love my mavics.

Speaking of planning ahead, I voice my 26" preference with spending. Keep buying, and they'll keep making. LBS take note, I'd spend more locally if they simply stocked what I buy. I don't mind supporting local at all, but there's no way in hell I'm going to buy something there if I don't need/want it.

 "Needless to say, 15mm axle forks are here to stay... until something that makes more sense comes along, that is."

Oh, you mean like 20mm axles?!!!!! There is only one reason that all these new "standards" come along, which do nothing more than de-standardize something that has already been "standardized" & that reason is this:

A bicycle is a bicycle is a bicycle!!!! I know all these companies like to make everyone think that there's so much advanced engineering & technology involved here & that it's all super high tech crazy mojo kinda shit going on, but it's not. It's a f*cking bicycle!!!! This is the place that all the wannabe "engineers" end up who couldn't work in the aerospace or automotive industries because they probably weren't smart enough. The few that actually love bikes are the ones that probably resist all the dumb changes made for no other reason than to keep people paying.

I used to be a "tech weenie" & I knew all about the tech specs on every fork, every shock & every component available back in the 90's. Now, this is the first I've heard of 142 mm f*cking axles!!!! WTF? Is that to accommodate some "new" extra number of gears or something? 10 cogs now, or is it up to 11? Real innovative there guys, add yet another cog to the cluster f*ck already attached to the rear hub of a mountain bike. What a brilliant industry we have here.

 My favorite standards:

20mm front.
1.5" straight steerer (with Orbit E ZS headset in 49mm front) - 1.5" stems are no heavier.
postmounts front and rear, front for 180mm without an adapter.
BB92 bottom bracket. (Spanish on BMX)
142mmx12 rear axle does make sense, but 135x12 is just fine as well.
I grew up to like 10sp, due to 11-36 cassette option. Would be even better if it was 11-38. Not sure about the new 11sp thing, but 10-42 is not the worst idea in the world.
31.6 seatposts.
bottom pull direct mount (to chainstay) front derailleur.

 142mm x 12mm rear 20mm front

 I have a Norco 2006 team DH on which I stripped the rear axle thread in the frame last year. The axle itself had also had it. I had a hard time trying to find the right axle and in the end had to tap out the frame and helicoil it after my LBS told me it couldn't be done. Of course I'm lucky one if my riding buddies is a metal worker by trade! Darn standards.

 Im sorry, my bike has a 20mm front end and a QR rear and well, it goes uphills, it goes down Innerliethen, Fort William, it goes up and down Glentress, it goes along a bit, it goes over jumpy jump jumps and it smashes into rocks a bit. And still the horribly weak and flexy qr does not seem to budge or have any impact whatsoever. Christ sake! its meant to be a piece of crap! Die already!

 Most 135 x 12mm wheels can be adapted to 142 x 12mm, so the hub width, disc to cassette, is the same, so what is the advantage of the 3.5mm spacer on each side? Not seen a 142mm in real life up close yet.
I agree that QR needs to die, every time I ride a bike with a front QR I can feel the flex under hard braking and tracking through rocks. I can see that if a 15mm allows the weight to be xc light (we don't care about 20g, but they do) then it will speed up the rate of QR's demise. QR components are still easy to get hold of so my old QR bike isn't going to need new forks. The main thing that pisses me off is when it's not written clearly on the product description.
Surely if it was more common to see QR wheels sold with the 15mm adaptor (since if a QR was on the job in the first place a 20mm will just be like the 150mm rear end, and only used for our real bikes) then the uptake would be easier. Those wheels make it out in the world, and the upgrade from QR to 15mm fork wouldn't be so cost prohibitive.
I suppose these 15mm axles will become the next tapered head tube. Most real hardcore bikers don't see the point but they are on half the bikes sold today.
Thinking out loud!!!

 IDK y all this new things are coming and going y is all that uncertainness is this 15 or that 20 mm good bad, all of them are good but the purpose is more important,so for extreme Dh are you gonna go 10mm couse it's more light or 12 or 15, sry nope i will stick to the standard 20mm, I don't want my wheel to bend or axle to break!

 What no one has addressed is why the 15QR is worse then the 20mm. They both are plenty stiff. So can someone please tell my why my stumpy evo should have a 20mm and not the 15QR that I absolutely love and have no problem with.

 "so long as they actually make sense" is the bone of contention. I am fine with the axles. other stuff has to prove itself still. I am glad of Giant's 1.25 steerer got scorned. The outrageous claims of improvement made my head spin. But the through-axles make sense.

 Other than for the fact it would be harder to steal your wheels without quick release, WHAT WAS WRONG WITH QR SETUPS? I've been pounding the piss out of my mountain bikes since the mid 90's all on QR axles and never lost a wheel or had a failure. I'm sure when I get my next dream bike I'll be stepping up to a bike with one of the new standards, but if I had to settle for another bike equipped with QR's I don't think I'd cry about it.

Seriously, what problems with QR axles should I be keeping an eye out for?

 Between me and my wife we have three bikes with fox talas 32 150's 15mm, my new bike also has a 142 12mm rear. I would have prefered to go 20mm in the front but Fox would have none of that. The 32 only comes with 15mm

 135mmx12 and 20mm is what I try to run. The reason is that I can use 135x12 rear wheel on a few QR frames and SS frames I have with a stepdown bolt on axel - from Azonic. Can't do that with 142x12.

 Have a pair of Fox 32 Float on my 4X bike for the last 3 years, still working perfectly and haven't yet serviced them. The 15mm axle seems just the right size and makes my 20mm look chunky and outdated.

 wrong question!!! yes forever and always 12x142 is better. As far as the 15 vs 20 thing its tough, a standard 20 would be awesome but it is true that no xc bike needs more than 15.

 People need to spend less time figuring out what size axle, wheel, hub, cassette, rotor, handlebar, headset, and water bottle they should buy, and spend more time learning to ride better.

 Honestly all I care about is a wheel that works and won't break off. I have a 12x142 and it works fine. I have had no problems with both in the past though. I believe that it is almost preference.

 nothing wrong with 135mm, 150mm/ 10mm and 12mm plus 20mm, and qr axles. I admit the other "in between" axles offer SLIGHT advantages HERE AND THERE, but I honestly dont see anything worth the extra cost and trouble.

 standards started gettin silly with all the axles but really took the biscuit when headsets & BBs got involved. heres the scenario in LBS: staff- good morning customer- i need a new BB please staff- what type? customer- standard staff- errrrrr do you have the bike with you? C- no but i just want a standard BB S- what bike is it? C- a Trek. S- model & year? C- why do you need to know that??? S- because there is no standard BB. or headset. or front hub. or rear hub. story ends with an irate customer who has to check model & year of their bike, go back to LBS who dont have the part & cannot order it in time for weekend. customer goes mental. if an experianced member of staff can get confused with BB standards then what chance does joe public have? iv managed to keep the front of most of my bikes interchangeable (20mm thru, 6bolt rotor mount, IS calliper mount & 26 inch. see how much there is just on the front wheel!!) wich has saved my ride a few times. but at the back its impossible. a standard needs to be set so we can ride more. thats how you get faster aint it?

 Standards are created by manufacturers to make our equipment obsolete and thus renew as often as possible.Consumer society thank you!

 Lets make it so FOX has to build 10,000 15 MM and 9,000 20MM 32 forks. Instead of a bigger batch and cutting production costs. You know what there is a reason that MTB will never have the cost's in check. Pick a BB, Headset and rear spacing size. Quit changing it every other year my GOD>

 20mm front end, 12x142mm rear for me

 Iv got a 20mm qt on the front and a 12x150mm Alan key rear axel on the back. I don't realy see the argument to be honest, if your wheels don't fall off or come loose when your riding what's the problem

 weight saving between 20mm and 15mm is minimal, and 135 rear i find fine, i've never had a problem myself, so don't really see a need to change?!

 Buy pro 2 hubs.. Change the axle type and boom!

 Having to define standard in an article is worrying!

 Always had either normal qr or 9mm Specialized QR, Getting other stuff than QR in The Netherlands for cheap is pretty much impossible.

 who the bloody hell is this Wakidesigns pinkbike addict! And bloody get rid of bloody 15mmm it's devaluing my old QR wheels!!!

 20mm front rules hugely over 15mm.
Best combo id say is 20mm & 12x142mm

 You should have had more poll responce catogries like 20mm front 142m rear

 I say 20mm on all fronts. and thru axles on all the back ends, whether it be 135x12 like my jamis dakar amt. or 142 or 150 x 12 no more open dropouts on mountain bikes

 can i make my 150mm chris king hubs to fit 157mm?!? if so can someone please post me a link, as CK said they are not producing any spacers

 what i want to know is how 4 different seat clamp standards came in to place? The marketing must be as good as Apples!

 definatly 20mm front on every bike
and for trails 142 is better than 135 because the wheels have more equal dish and spoke tension for a stronger and stiffer wheel
and for downhill 157 is better than 150 just like the 142; more equal dish and spoke tension = stronger and stiffer wheel
THAT'S WHY THEY MADE THE NEW STANDARD!

 A 15mm axle isn't going to change weight much, but the hub it mates to can be smaller and lighter, with smaller bearings, smaller hub body, and flanges where appropriate.

 Lend me the shovel and I'll pile another foot of the dirt on the place where the front QR was laid to rest.

F U "lawyer tabs" and disc rotor rub.

 im running my stok fuel ex 9 from 08, and I LOVE IT!!! the rims are a bit shaky becuase they are bontrager XC's where I use them for am and dh... I wouldnt mind upgrading to a qr15 or a 20mm, but I would have to upgrade my: fork, hubs. and thats alot of money for me currently... Im fine with the setup or upgrade as long as it is FOX!!!

 Thank god for discerning, intelligent and rational pinkbikers. You guys are awesome. Personally I'm stocking up on 9sp.

 I'll stick with my 20mm axle.....I still ride a 6 yr old 9x135 frame. but a more up to date frame would be nice.

 There should be a 20mm axle front and rear!!!! lol But seriously - stop messing around with wheel sizes and axle sizes!

 Waki dont forget the light dhers...they will need an 18mm axle...

 if its practical let it stay if it has no place let it die 20mm stay -strong for real biking 15mm stay -light for xc any qr dies -shit for anything 135x10 dies -just pointless 135x12 dies -pain in the ass compared to 142 142x12 stay -well thought out 150 dies - not as easy as 157 157 stay -same situation as 142

 i love the 15mm and 12x145mm set up on my remedy 8 some thing a little lighter than the bigger set up on my stinky

 My arse end is 157 x 12.........not many new wheelsets in the that size i'm guessing?!!

 Hello, I know this is a bit off subject, but what about Shimano Saint rear derailleurs and their clutch rub (especially on FSR links)? Plus, what happened to the Saint 9 speed version for 2013?

 Trek session is 157x12 also.

 planned obsolescence is the way of the world unfortunately

 20mm front, 12mm rear it's the way to go. 15mm don't make much sense since the weight saving over the 20mm is minimal

 I ride XC, why isn't there the "stincking to QR" option at the poll?

 Just choose one and stick with it

 The amount of adapters needed on a bike is TOO DAMN HIGH!

 She said bigger is better!