The first hint that a new hub spacing standard was on the way occurred early last summer when
Trek released the details of their new Remedy. The bike had 12x148mm rear spacing, a development that came about through a collaboration with SRAM and given the name Boost 148. But despite the fact that Trek was the first company to roll out bikes with Boost 148, this isn't a proprietary design. Instead, it's an open standard that can be used by any bike manufacturer, and by the looks of things, a number of companies will be hopping on board in the very near future.
To go along with the Boost 148 rear, SRAM has now officially announced Boost 110, which uses a 15x110mm thru axle (as opposed to the current 15x100mm spacing). Like Boost 148, which moves the rear hub flanges 3mm outboard on each side in order to improve the spoke bracing angle and increase wheel stiffness, Boost 110 moves the front hub flanges out by 5mm on each side to accomplish this same goal for the front wheel.
Going to a hub with 110mm spacing also means that fork legs need to be widened slightly, a move that has the added benefit of
increasing tire clearance. This means that a 29” Boost 110 fork will also work with 27.5+ wheels, which use a 27.5 x 3.0” tire. Confused yet? Hopefully not, but it is a lot to digest, especially when you add in the fact that Boost 148 requires a slight drivetrain change, in the form of a chainring spider that's offset by three millimeters to accompany change in cassette position. To help clarify things, here are the Boost basics in list form:
Boost 110• 15x110 front hub spacing
• Hub flanges move outboard by 5mm
• The increased distance between fork legs lets 29” Boost forks work with 27.5 x 3.0” tires
• A 29” wheel built with a 15x110 Boost hub is claimed to be as stiff as a 26" wheel built with a standard 15x100 hub.
Boost 148• 12x148mm rear spacing
• Hub flanges move outboard by 3mm
• Improved bracing angle is claimed to put the stiffness of a 29” wheel on par with that of a 27.5” wheel on a 142mm hub.
• Requires chainline to be adjusted 3mm outboard via a different chainring spider. This does not affect the crank's Q factor.
SRAM's Boost Components
Since SRAM is the driving force behind the Boost standard, it's not surprising that they have a growing line of components to go along with it. Boost versions of their Roam 40 wheelset will be offered in 27.5” and 29” options, and there will also be Boost X0 hubs. There is also a MTH 700 Boost hub, which uses the same internals as SRAM's X9 hubs.
Regarding suspension forks, Boost 110 version of the RockShox SID and Reba will be released this June that will work with 29” or 27.5+ wheels, and later in the summer two different Boost versions of the Pike will be available, one for 27.5” wheels, and one for 29” or 27.5+ wheels.
End Cap Swaps?
The short answer to the question, “Can't I just swap out my hub end caps in order to use my existing wheels on a frame designed for Boost 148?” is 'No.' This is due to the widening of the hub flange width. Hub axle end cap swaps were possible with 15x100 or 12x142mm spacing because the actual hub width didn't change with either of those standard – both were based off of the existing quick release hub dimensions. With Boost, the hubs are actually wider, which moves the position of the disc brake rotor further outboard as well. Granted, armed with a handful of spacers it may be possible to rig something up, but taking the MacGyver route has the potential for severely compromising strength, whether that's at the disc rotor or the axle, and neither is a good spot for failure.
What's Next?Changes are certainly afoot in the mountain bike industry, but there's still something missing. All of these Boost components need somewhere to go, and except for Trek, no other major player has released a Boost 148 bike, and no large manufacturer has announced a production 27.5+ bike. Boost 148 allows for more tire clearance, and also creates room for wider suspension pivots, shorter chainstays, and additional room for a front chain ring, all of which have been limiting factors for bicycle frame design in the past. There's no doubt that bikes that take advantage of the new standard will be revealed in the near future – the fact that both SRAM and FOX have announced Boost 110 forks is a clear sign the accompanying bikes are on the way. The Taipei Cycle Show takes place this week, followed by Crankworx Rotorura and then the Sea Otter Classic soon after, all of which are likely places for the next generation of mountain bikes to start appearing.
Pinkbike's Take: | Whenever a new standard is introduced, a certain amount of resistance is to be expected. After all, who wants to find out that the bike that they purchased last week already has technology on it that's no longer the latest and greatest? Look back in the archives to 2008 when the 15x100 thru axle was introduced, or 2011 when 12x142 came about and you'll see the same arguments against change as there are today. At the same time, if the industry didn't move forward (granted, it does sometimes go sideways, and even backwards), we'd still be riding with cantilever brakes and toe clips. Wider tires and stiffer wheels combined with the frame design potential that Boost allows certainly sound like good things, but plenty of questions still remain, and until we have actual trail time on these new products the jury is still out, although by all indications Boost is here to stay... at least until the next new standard pops up a few years down the line. - Mike Kazimer |
I'm sure my next bike will be a fox / shimano / raceface / easton build.
Porsche-level engineers
My aurum has a 157 mm rear axle width and it's so frustrating to find hubs with the right spacing.
Bet your money on it. It will happen.
@Wayneparsons... Have you ever built wheels yourself or know the science behind them? I'm guessing you haven't otherwise you'd know there's a limit to how big you can make a hub flange before you run into a series of diminishing returns, not the least of which is the added weight needed to properly support them and
the limitations it puts on the number of spoke crossings and thus how strong the wheel ends up being for dealing with torque loads. And as to the old DH tires of the 90s and fat bikes, if you haven't ridden such tires or bikes then you shouldn't be trying to make comparisons as you clearly don't know the difference between myths and reality.
I doubt you will see 27.5x3 tires on the EWS or in WC, because you know rolling resistance and acceleration are key. Is this not for the new 'Bike Packing" genre?
Feeding the pigs at the trough, you know, middle aged, mid to high income segment, that don't REALLY know what the NEED, other than what they WANT is something NEW. It's hilarious in a sad sort of way, but what do you expect, that's where the big profits are made!
Thank you SRAM!
I will say it again: moto has it figured it out and mtb should take heed. The standards are ironed out and everybody is happy. If you dont have money for new, you can buy a reasonable used moto that isnt obsolete because of this ridiculous standards hopping. This whole BS is hurting new riders because the reality is there to drop $5k on a bike that is relatively obsolete in two or three years and has near zero for resale. It is sad when moto--as in bikes with a motor-- is more affordable than mtb.
- 135 QR with rear disc offset (used for front and rear depending on brand)
- 135 QR with front disc offset (front)
- 135 x 15 with front disc offset (front)
- 142 x 15 with front disc offset (front)
- 150 x 15 with front disc offset
- 170 QR (rear)
- 177x12 (rear)
- 190 QR (rear)
- 190x12 (rear)
- 197x12 (rear)
Not to mention I still wonder why 150x12 means we have to use 83mm bb's acording to 90% of the industry yet 148mm rear is ok with 73mm bb's?
If you didn't know any better you'd think that 15x100 was prior to 20x110. Taking a step backwards didn't make sense.
Just like now, they could have not addressed the shortfalls of a Q/R axle by introducing a 15mm thru-axle, but instead using an existing, better, standard and made it better.
As to your second smaller question, it gets the longer answer.. This also keeps being mentioned by other folks who know in the comments above and below this (theminsta was up to a half dozen attempts last time i counted)... 150x12 isn't simply 2mm wider than Boost 148 because of how the hub end caps work on the Boost (and 142) hubs in that they sit partially inside the dropouts. You need to be comparing 150 to a virtual 141 hub, or 148 to a 157 x 12. The 150 and 157 hubs needed 83mm BB shell widths to have the chainlines work out properly because at the time the standards were changed in DH, no crank makers were willing to offer models with the spider of the crank re-positioned to correct the chainline for the wider hub spacing. So to keep using the same crank compatibilities the bottom brackets had to get bigger to move the rings over. That's not the case today as SRAM being part of this development is also producing crank arms compatible with frames which use the Boost 148 standard.
For the 2nd part - So to cut it short it's not a problem because sram also makes cranks that will work with the new standards? Or is the cassete positioning in relation to front crank cog the same as in 148?
Correct, and shimano, FSA, RaceFace and others will also similarly offer Boost 148 chainline compatible cranks. The cassette position for 148 is 3mm wider outboard than for 142 (which is itself positioned the same as 135). 135mm and 150mm the hub end caps fit flush to the inside face of the dropouts (like how front hubs do to the fork dropouts) but 142, 148 and 157 the end caps fit into grooves in the dropouts and so lie partially inside the space of the dropout.
I get your point that people jumped all over this thing like white on rice, without knowing really what it was (myself included), but that doesn't change the fact that it answers a question that no one was asking.
To the point of the many options for rear wheel spacing of the fat bikes: the reason this seems to exist is that it's such a new market that everyone is searching for the most appropriate answer (and it may never get answered since it is such a small market). You want to talk about comparing apples to apples...
You can run whatever tire you wish with a 20x110 hub and have lots of clearance for mud etc. The Boxxer has a lot of clearance for a 2.7 tire, not to mention that I run a Kenda Telonix 2.6 on my 05 Dirt Jam Pro SL when it gets weird outside and clearance is still pretty much OK. It would have been much better for the sport/technology to make the 20x110 a better system if possible and that is it. Now you basically take a 20x110 hub and put 15mm caps on it and done, which is not really development in my book. Nonsense!
@deeeight I see what you are saying, but I disagree about the ease with which it would be to "fix" standards, as opposed to creating new ones. I would also just continue to argue that they are trying to fix something that was never an issue to begin with.
I'm all for new "standards" or whatever they want to call them, as long as they make sense. I used to be a mechanic and salesperson at a bike shop, and I pushed just about every new piece of tech that came out; and probably, if this had come out back then, I'd have been all over it too. I've come to realize that there are differences between companies developing real innovations, and those that are just marketing gimmicks. I believe this falls into the latter category, particularly since it answers a question no one was really asking.
We shall have to agree to disagree!
www.wovenprecision.com
@Kubaner How about looking at it another way. Everyone keeps clamouring "why didn't they just use 20x110". Answer... same weaker wheel problem as before (remember the goal isn't the hub stiffness or the fork stiffness, but the physics of the actual wheel and its spokes, yes SRAM is making their hubs and forks further compatible with each other but that's a bonus to their parts only). Others keep asking why they didn't just change 20x110 hubs with wider flanges...great idea but then you just eliminated a whole slew of replacement part options for owners of forks built around the older 20mm design because manufacturers are unlikely to bother producing TWO versions of a so-called standard.
@theminsta If you're worried about prices then you're in the wrong sport. But knowing people who alpine ski and hell even people into fishing.. they'd think we're getting off easy.
How much time have you spent on 650b+? I've heard from people who have that your comment above is rather inaccurate.
26"
3x9
Straight steerer
10x135
Threaded BB
Even my cables are exposed!!
All old standards now!
- Sorry but you are out of touch. Ok a small shop can order for a customer a part he needs but sometimes a customer needs a part fast. Hell a ton of people just want stuff ASAP and they will go somewhere else if they have to wait. It's a problem for a small shopowner. Hell it's a big problem for shops in bike spots. They get 99% of their sales from "I need this part fast".
You can have an acount but that doesn't slove the problem of lost customers
Always a good thing, I guess.
Step 1: Chose a component
Step 2: Make it bigger
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit
Then repeat previous steps.
Step 100000000000: Do tests to see if changes to design resulted in actual, appreciable improvements.
Step 100000000001: Show your would-be customers actual data and information on how well it improves upon the previous.
But obvious Sram stopped at 4. The company, with the size/power/resources to do great things, seems to deliver less than halfway.
Step 6 more profit
Step 1: Steal underwear
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsolete
How about this one; obtuse. Go look that one up while you are at it.
From the Remedy 9.9 review:
"As far as actual wheel stiffness goes, I can't say that I noticed any drastic increase. The bike does track very well in corners, but the rear end didn't feel any stiffer than other 29ers I've spent time on recently. "
I appreciate your professional response. And my nausea is doing just fine – I just went out and looked in my garage and I realized I'm perfectly happy with what I have and don't have to spend any money on what you guys try to sell us. Have a great day! :-)
Either way, I'll be able to run my 20x110mm front wheels on those new forks with a slight modification, so thank you.
edit; and since the fork will probably have a post-mount 160mm brake mount, I'm sure someone sensible would make adapters for 160-180mm so that we can run our 15x100mm wheels centered, while the brake caliper moves inboard the extra 5mm.
But how can you explain Boost 15x110mm? They say it will have flange spacing wider than most 20x110mm, but it sounds like they could have simply optimized designs around the 20x110mm axle standard. The standard having the same width as this new size. If you can't come up with a fast answer, it's just another BS size that the industry will have to adapt to. One more end cap, to add to that long, unnecessary list. Besides, one could have argued that the 20mm axle was a much better way forward with 29ers and 27.5+.
The flanges of a Hope front hub for example are currently offset 20 and 33 mm from the center. Re-spacing the hub 10 mm to the left and re-dishing the wheel 5 mm to the right you'd end up with 25 and 28 mm, which would improve stiffness on the weaker left side. When building a new hub, then offsetting the right flange further (what SRAM does if i get it correctly) sure wouldn't hurt, but it just adds stiffness to the already stronger side.
The question is, what is the ultimate goal here? Are we going to make our riding more enjoyable? Faster? Probably not. Are we responding to this TREND of super wide tires? Again, super stiff doesn't necessarily translate into more speed, nor a more enjoyable ride. I would like some real data on why taller flanges/shorter spokes in combination with current spacing standards would not be as stiff as what SRAM is proposing.
I use this an example of how this industry likes to manufacture (lol pun) a problem that doesn't exist, and convince us that the old stuff was inferior.
Don't get me wrong, mostly every advancement goes into making riding more enjoyable. I remember questioning the decision to develop 15x100mm hubs/axles and saying that 20x110 was much much better in every category. Many people (like Deeeight) were saying embrace it because its so much better, technological advancement, blah blah blah... yet it seems that this standard may be on the cutting block. Lack of foresight much?
But whatever, it's not as bad as it can be. At least bikes aren't still be sold with QR front axles.
how long have 29" wheels been out? A while right?
How long has 15x100 been out? Not that long now.
142? It's young.
So what stopped them from finding the benefits of 148 and 110 back then? Two were very close to existing standards already in place. In the upheaval of standards back then, 148 should have been seen as so beneficial if the benefits are obvious. The Q factor tripe is moot since it's debatable on it's own.
Right.....
These incremental changes that drastically alter the frame is "how standards proliferate" to the tee.
And since we're on the subject, let's have a back to back clocking of how fast one is compared to the other on varying types of trails.
Yes, frames can be too stiff. Yes, wheels can be too stiff. Yes, tires can be too wide.
@jclnv you are totally correct.
Good things get positive comments, but too much of the latest "innovations" leave people's wallets empty for zero gain.
Now I see 26" tires and rims drop from companies selections as I attempt to build new wheels and replace worn tires with exactly what I want that was available before. That gets me real fired up about any new standard, optional or not.
I built a different set of hoops from last year and from my seated 'feeling' is that and they are not only a little flexier but grippier. Its a bit early in the year to come to that conclusion but I feel there may be some truth to it.
Anyways, I even want the 150mm hubs to disappear, in favor for every rear hub to be 142mm.
When will they concentrate on stuff that matters and makes a difference. - internal gearbox, better durability on parts, BB's that dont die when run through a puddle, etc etc
All standard changes do, now we have gotten rid of the stuff inherited from road bikes, is shaft the consumer.
It devalues the bikes we own
It decreases the availability of spares
Companies like Hope that offer aftermarket product have to develop for a billion standards which means they have to charge more
For absolutely EFF all gain for us. Bell ends!
And pinkbike don't wind us up, by calling us Luddites, when we criticize this stuff. There are so many issues out there with their existing products that if they focused on that stuff instead of pissing about with this kind of guff we would all be better off.
The question remains, as a journalist should be asking, is how is this better, and who is demanding it? And, of course, the broader question is do the consumers need yet another unnecessary standard when there are so many holes in mtb technology that are not being addressed?
Maybe a double blind study would be the best way to review it.
I'd much rather see a company like SRAM invest into the development of an 11-40t cassette, something in which many, many people want.
I personally could not give a less fk if SRAM introduced 152mm in September saying it's better than 148mm... I missed slack&low, short&wide, 650B, now Enduro geometry and I realized that I am alive enough Off course I think half of it is sht and I took half of it on board, but... I am just looking forward to sunday ride. Thank God and Science that waves generated by release of new products and stuff people think about them is not going to interrupt it. I may do a few drawings that will make me giggle though
Ride your bike and quit bitching.
There are already so many "standards" out there for various components which only last a few years until they are replaced as it is. It was awesome only having a few dropout standards! There is 0 performance gain to be had with these new sizes.
Why even bother with 148x12mm when 150x12 already exists & places your hub flanges an entire 1mm wider on each side!
Same for the 110x15mm front; 110x20mm already exists & provides you with a stiffer front end. Don't drink the Koolaid that these companies try & feed you.
I thought the bike industry prided itself on being more environmentally friendly than many other industries by creating human powered machines. As long as more redundant standards keep coming out we're just killing the earth even more. The number of resources required to develop, produce, distribute, market & sell these "standards" is not ethically worth it for an extra 3mm of hub flange width.
The MATH:
142x12mm hub with 24mm hub flange offset on the drive-side using 290mm spokes.
The angle of the spoke from the rim is approx 4.75 degrees.
148x12mm hub with 27mm hub flange offset on the drive-side using 290mm spokes.
The angle of the spoke from the rim is approx 5.34 degrees.
150x12mm hub with 28mm hub flange offset on the drive-side using 290mm spokes.
The angle of the spoke from the rim is approx 5.54 degrees.
5.34 - 4.75 = .59 degree difference from 142x12mm
5.54 - 5.34 = .20 degree difference from 150x12mm
How many people are going to notice a slightly stiffer wheel with an extra .59 degree difference?
I wanted to say this yesterday too, but I was so screwd about this standards I couldn't think a way to say it in English :-D.
On the other side, going from 559 to 622 rims (26 to 29") decreased stiffness up to 28% (in reality less, since flange and rim height are the same).
In the end it's a good thing IMHO, but they should have done directly when going 29"/27.5 route, not incrementally.
there are WAY to many "standards" out there, and absolutly NO ONE needs that new version.
Dear consumer:
Please just dont buy that bullshit. Go riding and wait for them to come up with something new mich MAYBE makes sense.
What does standard means in the bike industry?
This is purely a way to make our bikes obsolete every year just to make us feel we need to buy a new one. PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT!!!
I'm sure the next move will be a 26,75 inch wheel or a 26,86 inch wheel.
New standard?? It's a huge mess now!!!!
Again the industry trying to force a useless change that serves no purpose other than to sell "new stuff" no one
needs or ever ask for!
But still the unknowing masses will buy into it.
Cannondale developed the Ai Drivetrain, which actually makes some sense, especially solving the issue of the asymetrical wheel reducing stiffness: support.cannondale.com/hc/en-us/articles/203326837-Ai-Drivetrain
But that Boost 148 only means using the market power of the SRAM-RockShox-Truvativ-Zipp-Avid enterprise to sell us bullshit. New hubs, new frame, new cranks, new forks, new whatsoever without backwards compatibility.
F*** that shit!
I must be some kind of messiah or something.
You hear that, bicycle industry? Obey your Messiah and stop this nonesense!
- Are there? What are they? Tell us. - Do they hurt?
F**K YOU
Just like the 'XX1' revolution. I absolutely believe it's a great product, but won't buy it.
I applaud Shimano who thinks of better and cheaper ways to improve on existing standards!
Surely one day one person will think of all the money they are missing out on at sram?
is there a word to describe the amount of money they have spent to push customers away? Like inverse customer acquisition...
In these modern days where small businesses are creating an industry around their product to become successful, why are the main competitors in the bicycle industry destroying themselves? And even making an industry to others who offer workarounds...
Is your current hub working well? Yes. Are there gonna be spare hubs for your frame until you sell or destroy it? Yes. Is somebody forcing you to buy this thingy? No.
YAAY!
Instead of reading about how these new hubs are so and so much stiffer, I'd like to hear: Who is noticing it? Who was complaining? The answer is probably no one, but let's face it, this isn't stuff designed to fix a major problem. These are simply new tools to sell more bikes. Understandable. It's an industry fed by people like us who will piss and moan about this stuff until we get on it and convince ourselves that it's so much better than what we already have.
There is a reason why companies like this are still in business. In spite of any protests, there are still guys who are buying this new stuff every year, because they've been convinced that without it, they're not going to be able to keep up with their buddies or win next weekends race. Or they're just fools and piss money away.
All that being said, I'm still riding 26" wheels and shockingly I still have fun. I just try not to complain too much, because I know that's just my inner consumer getting upset that his shiny toy isn't as shiny as the new toys... a thought process I'm trying to slowly rid myself of.
adjective: STANDARD - used or accepted as normal or average. ie "the standard rate of income tax"
synonyms: normal, usual, typical, stock, common, ordinary, customary, conventional, habitual, accustomed, expected, wonted, everyday, regular, routine, day-to-day, daily, established, settled, set, fixed, traditional, quotidian, prevailing
Since when did bringing out yet another hub size every 2 weeks make it a standard ????
You know if you, SCAM, a drivetrain company, put the transmission in a gearbox where it belongs, there'd be a shit ton of free space to widen hub flanges while nearly bombproofing the most fragile & obsolete part of the off-road bicycle. I know you know this already though. :/
Complaining is boring. Don't get me wrong, "revolutionary advances" like SRAM's new hub standards are laughably cynical but all the swirl actually benefits SRAM. This is hype. Hype sells.
Tech changes do not become the standard until the majority of the industry gets on board. If you don't buy it, other manufacturers won't sell it. On the other hand, if you've written a complaint above and end up buying this product from SRAM this year, you're part of the problem
I'm all for technology but it sure is expensive to keep up with. Not to mention you become limited in your component setup..
135
142
150
158 kona?
now 148?
next will be 152.625...
The rear Boost 148 hub designed to give the 29” rear wheel more support lacks muscle though, with an amount of flex that many will not want. Punching into hard packed berms or diving into compressions there was an unnerving amount of give at times particularly in the front wheel. At first I believed the movement to be the tyre but now firmly believe this to be the wheel flexing as well as the tyre rolling slightly.
So f*ck new standard...
www.pinkbike.com/photo/12021467
Boost this (grabs nutsack)
so so far i see bikes were using crappy frame geo from old road bikes with there super short top tubes but massive stems (apperantly this was only recently rectified - ha ha nope) and now we should get these new hub standards.....i am begining to dislike mtb manufacturers with there nonsense claims. But whatever let all the rich people hate on comments like this because there totally fine with a million and one standards that make buying spares a friggin nightmare....future proof..non existant. like others before me have said whats up with these overnight standards. Dumbest one of seen so far though is INTEGRATED A-STEM on LOOK bikes for example so glad that one hasnt caught on though i am suprised.....maybe cos sram didnt cover it.
Time to turn turn off your computer (i.imgur.com/YO9YFgc.gif) and just enjoy the ride on your trusty steed.
How do these new standards make people want to buy a new bike?
Surely potential new standards will just make people delay buying?
Like we all needed MORE axle sizes..
How many people really had an actual issue (not perceived, or what an article told you) with older hub sizes? I've been through a couple of different "standard sizes" now and I can't say I've noticed any difference, nor have the size changes solved any perceived problems.
Also, a 3 mm different chainline for this standard? Last time I checked, 3 mm doesn't matter for chainline. I'll bet you that people won't need to swap spiders.
I certainly hope no other frame makers get on board for this (well, go ahead Scott, Gary Fisher, make some slightly slimmer fat bikes...), but I can't believe the benefits of this are that significant. Better to spend your money on higher quality wheels.
This smacks of "making a new standard just to make more money" more than 27.5" wheels, a 142 mm rear, or the proprietary nature of the latest drivetrains. I'm surprised chains are still universal for the # of speeds.
If you're going to innovate, innovate. Don't half-ass it.
The 6mm-shift (introducing the SIK-SHIFT or wait Spesh and many other have done this before) on the other hand allows for 14% more lateral force than a standard 26!
Well done Trek & SRAM!
again a new standard? Again, the driver kidding?
b... s....
Just kidding, I really don't give a $hit
Front Wheel: 10mm axle spacer on non disc side, dish wheel over 5mm.
DONE!!!!
Do we really need a new size for everything every 5 minutes just to enjoy riding our bikes up and down hills?
It's this kind of crap that made me stop riding mtb and just stick to riding BMX.
This is Giant's hideously obsolete and pointless "Overdrive 2" again. Abandon ship!!!!!
what a huge piece of horsecrap this is... 148 my ass! theres 150. same goes for the front hub!
Glad to be on 26" still.
lol
"Trek says that this wider spacing has allowed them to move the hub's spoke flanges out farther, which then gives the spokes a better bracing angle to make for a laterally stiffer wheel. How much stiffer? They told us that it's enough to bring the average priced 29er wheel into the same range as a 26'' or 27.5'' wheel, although exact figures on specific wheel model comparisons weren't presented to us. Moving the cassette outwards by a few millimeters does upset the bike's chain line, though, so all Boost 148 equipped bikes will come with a slightly different crank spider that compensates by also moving the 'ring outwards slightly to match the change at the rear of the bike "
so based on this statement i am left to think that they drop 26" wheels telling us we dont need them and there not that good and then a year or two later they offer up new hub standards to tray and match the old 26" wheels in stiffness......go figure.
so anyone who moaned at people like me who didnt like the idea of 26" wheels dying off must be happy with these new hub standards :-) thanks for all you too eager to change for the latest stuff types. Your the ones to blame for all these changes. Dont get me wrong some changes are good and needed but some are just not worth the hassle.
First they created the 27.5 and noticed the flaws and now they come out with new amendments and standards to bring them closer to a 26. Why not just ride a 26? Problem solved. Lol
Seriously. New Cranksets for this hub "standard"? Totally worth it....