X-12: The New Hub Standard

PB Forum :: Bikes, Parts, and Gear
X-12: The New Hub Standard
  • Previous Page
Author Message
flag signorvince2
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 0:10 Quote
This is a brief overview of the new 12x142mm hub that is being offered. Syntace is leading the push for this and it is being increasingly popular in the high-end trail bike niche. Essentially, it is the QR15 for the rear. It is as stiff as a 12x150mm thru-axle hub, but since it is smaller, it weighs less. It is also stiffer and stronger than a conventional QR hub, but without adding much weight.

One of the best parts about this is that many hubs can be retrofitted to work with bikes using the X-12 standard. You replace the end caps of the 135mm hub with wider ones (3.5 mm per side) and the resulting width is 142 mm.

http://www.syntace.com/index.cfm?pid=1&pk=1314
flag jonlake
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 0:25 Quote
whats wrong with maxle? They've had/ have differnt standards before (santa cruz, foes etc) and to me it seems like it's just a major inconvenience. Don't get me wrong I'm all for change and pushing new standards (E2) but to me it just falls short of really worthwhile change, too many standard just becomes a pain in the ass.
flag rialb
O+
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 0:26 Quote
I was skeptical about qr15 when it first came out, and called its failure. Now it's starting to catch on.. Therefore I'm not going to pass my judgment on this just yet, although the ability to use the different hubs they're saying does sound promising. I'm going to wait a bit on this one..
flag signorvince2
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 0:41 Quote
franktherabbit wrote:
whats wrong with maxle? They've had/ have differnt standards before (santa cruz, foes etc) and to me it seems like it's just a major inconvenience. Don't get me wrong I'm all for change and pushing new standards (E2) but to me it just falls short of really worthwhile change, too many standard just becomes a pain in the ass.

I feel the same way about it. I just wrote up the OP to inform people of it, since I was just learning of it myself.

Seems more like a substandard. You won't see so many 142mm hubs, but frames. I guess if there are more and more frames, then you'll see more and more hubs. The hub modification makes it a little tricky. And I still don't see the advantages over 12x135.
flag stryke
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 1:14 Quote
yes just what the mountain bike industry needs right now, more shitty standards, thanks sytance!!
flag AqueousBeef
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 2:53 Quote
stryke wrote:
yes just what the mountain bike industry needs right now, more shitty standards, thanks sytance!!
flag sherbet
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 7:22 Quote
Any frames jumping aboard yet?
flag crs-one
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 7:26 Quote
That I know of, the new Trek Scratch, maybe the Remedy and I'm just confused. I don't see the point myself.
flag sherbet
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 7:30 Quote
8mm shorter than 150 seems sorta silly.
flag ezekiel
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 8:46 Quote
I'm lost on the toe/camber part.

Toe is the measurement of the leading edge of tires on the same axle, my bicycle only has one wheel in the back so how does one measure the "toe"? The benefits of toe are seen by making the two tires work against each other, with a single tire you'd just be dragging it sideways and creating unnecessary rolling resistance. Cambering the wheel one way or the other would give you improved steering response one way and inversely give you bad steering response the other way. Toe and camber adjustments are excellent in the automotive world but make no sense in this application. If you "toed out" the wheel, wouldn't that also affect chain tension and chain line?

They would've been so much better of just introducing the product as opposed to coming out with the bold statement of it being a new standard. Now they have so much more to prove and frankly it looks like its just another product that's trying to solve "big problems" with that are really nothing more than minor inconveniences that the average thru axle user gets used to over time.
flag dh-pete
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 11:19 Quote
Syntace need to quit with the reinventing standards (135 x 12 says GTFO 142 x 12 by the way). And get back to that 8 inch remote telescopic seatpost they were promising more than a year ago.
flag signorvince2
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 12:34 Quote
Does anyone see an advantage over 12x135?
flag Hummeroid
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 12:43 Quote
signorvince2 wrote:
Does anyone see an advantage over 12x135?

Soooooo minimally. I could model it in a finite element program, but I dont even need to. Lots of frame designs will have more flex in other places, that arent going to be affected much by axle choice.
flag rideonjon
Posted: Dec 7, 2010 at 20:20 Quote
soo.... back to this toe/camber adjustments why would a bicycle need these adjustments?
flag leverfingers
O+
Posted: Dec 7, 2010 at 20:24 Quote
They shoulda kept their mouths shut about the eccentric bit. It's a replaceable sleeve in case you strip the threads.
  • Previous Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.011397
Mobile Version of Website