Axle Standards - Pinkbike Poll
When it comes to new products, there likely isn't anything that stirs the pot as much as a "new" axle standard. Maybe it is something about consumers feeling as if it is being forced upon them whether they like it or not, or perhaps there is a sense of recently purchased inadequacy: "But I just bought a new fork!", both being very valid points. Either way, bringing up 15mm fork axles on a forum or at the trailhead is a surefire way to discover who isn't afraid to speak their mind, with opinion on the subject usually standing
starkly against the impending change in dimensions. And while there always seems to be resistance on the matter, the manufacturers, who are working on products two and three years down the road, seem to be unfazed by the opposition. Needless to say, 15mm axle forks are here to stay... until something that makes more sense comes along, that is. Where do you stand on subject? Are you all for the 15mm axle so long as it spells the demise of the quick-release, or would you like to see every fork utilize a 20mm system?
Levy's Take on Axle Standards:
 | While there is still grumbling from consumers about 15mm axle forks and 12 x 142mm rear ends, it is fair to say that both are not going anywhere anytime soon, and that is a good thing in my books. Bike design marches on in the same way that mountain biking itself evolves, with new so-called standards that do eventually become established norms, so long as they actually make sense. The 15mm thru-axles axles that came up against so much hostility from many riders were never meant to take the place of the larger 20mm diameter setups found on long-travel forks, but rather be a successor to the quick-releases (which originated on the road bike and were never intended for off-road use) found on many mid and short-travel forks of a few years ago. The demise of the quick-release was long over due, not just from a rigidity point of view, but also when taking into account the forces applied by our modern and exceptionally powerful disc brakes. But why not just utilize a 20mm axle on every fork, big travel or small, you ask? Good question, and the answer boils down to counting grams. While the axle itself may only be 5mm larger in diameter and weigh within a few grams of a 15mm unit, it is actually the parts associated with the 20mm setup that add the most weight, albeit a still relatively small amount. The bigger axles requires larger hub bearings and more material at the fork's axle clamping area, two points that may only add as much weight as the mud that collects in your fork's arch on a wet day, but still enough to put suspension manufacturers off when they are designing their lightweight trail and cross-country sliders. Would I be happy with 20mm axles on everything, short travel forks included? Oh hell yes, but I'm more than happy to use a 15mm setup on my shorter travel forks if that means that I never have to deal with a quick-release again. And what about 12 x 142mm rear ends that are swiftly taking the place of both quick-release and thru-axle 135mm setups on the majority of new bikes?  Does the success of your ride depend on if your bike uses quick-release or some type of thru-axle system? Definitely not. It may seem as if much of the axle quandaries over the past few years have been more marketing driven than performance based, but the reality of both 15mm front axles and 12 x 142mm rear ends is that we end up with a blend of stiffer, lighter, and easier to use designs that simply make more sense. That is, after all, the whole idea behind a standard, isn't it? - Mike Levy |
Follow Mike Levy on Twitter: MikeLevyPB
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
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.
Just double checked, if you have a current version, you can.
www.mavic.com/en/product/wheels/accessories/wheels/Front-Axle-Adapter%C2%A0#129827
iamamodel - I have Hope on my other bike. There are plenty of manufacturers who provide hubs fitting all standards.
I was joking lately that Hope, CK, I9 and few others should form Hype-killers coalition, they would make front hubs with 30mm inner dimater on bearings, that will fit all possible axles that Shimano and Fox can throw at us
DEFINITELY NO
If you see something new that has no obvious new features, would you sell your perfect toy to buy this new one?
NO
But if they change size of something and add some bells and whistles, if you add something really NEW which no one actualy had a chance of trying before - would you think at least thinkg of buying it?
YES
Now if a lot of people told you this new thing is great, and heard the argument: so many people can't be wrong - wouldn't you REALLY like to test it, probably buy it ASAP?
DEFINIETELY YES
The idea has been developed at the break of 1920s and 30s, as a mean of saving economy. Same thing happened in october 2001 - go buy more, your country needs cash flow to survive! yhm... check who said such crap and consider whether generating waste and spending money foolishly (usualy on foreign capital) actualy makes the world a better place.
Mark my words, in five years, Saint, Zee, X0 DH will all be using a 7 or 8 speed cassette with current ten speed spacing (keeps it narrower than previous 7 or 8 speeds) and the DH bikes will be reverting to 142 back ends and 73mm BB shells. I forsee 142 being the universal standard for MTB, with the number of cogs and wheel dish varying depending on riding type.
Actually haven`t read anything from him other than ''jewls'' compared to average comments.
@Snfoilhat: Finally somebody tells me! Thanks man!
Oh and if you guys hate 15mm axles in Fox 32 forks but love their action and you'd kill for 20mm axle - you can do a Frankenstein of a fork with a bit of cash. Apparently RS and Fox forks with 32 stanchions fit each other. So for 100-120 Fox, go for Argyle lowers, and for 140 Fox go for PIKe. Those two I know for sure to work, but Sector and Rev should work as well.
Cheers!
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.
with that said, someone who works in a higher end bike shop once told me 'standard?! what are you talking about, there is no such thing as a standards in the bike world'.. and i have to kinda sorta agree (although there are some.. like 20mm for DH, etc), i just wish every bike that isnt a dh bike could use the same rear axle size, IMO we dont need three diff sizes for something that can get the job done with one 'standard'
There have been some new and old standards I am very happy with.
20mm front axle. Been around since 97ish
Tapered steer tubes(stiffer stronger),
Post mount brakes/frames(simpler lighter),
142x12 rear (stiffer stronger,
BB30 ( larger BB shell allows for larger bearings and aluminum crank spindle, longer bearing life, stiffer lighter).
ISCG ’05, no real need for any other design.
New proposed standards I am not so sure about.
35mm handle bars.
too many BB standards to list.
15mm front axles.
Giants Over Drive II, 1 1/4 top 1 1/2 bottom headset bearing.
Gary Fishers G2 front ends.
I am all for progress and change, but not for no reason.
BB30 has been a disaster because you rely on very exact tolerances and precise fitment, with many riders (both road and mtn) reporting constant creaking, premature bearing wear and crank axle wear
a problem for the high-end market is that these frames are made from aluminium-alloys and carbon fibre, which are much softer than the tool steel / stainless steel that many bearings are made from; in a press-fit (mid or spanish) BMX frame made from cromoly steel the BB shell has a similar hardness to the bearings
confusion over what should be used to fit the BB30 bearings into the frame, with many reporting blue loctite, red loctite or bearing grease (the true solution is Shimano Anti-Seize)
PF30 has addressed this to some degree, using the same BB30 bearing, but isolated in a Delrin (nylon) BB cup shell, then press fitted into the frame
this isolates the steel bearing from the frame itself, removing the noise and direct wear
however, we have seen the issue of tolerance and fitment rear its head again on PF30, with bearings seizing, bearings tightening when installed due to poor diameter tolerance, or cups moving (rotating), and chewing into the carbon or aluminium BB shell.
I have sent frames for warranty and the manufacturer has "bonded" the PF30 nylon cups with epoxy into the CF BB frame / shell and returned it...
I would say that the press-fit "Mid Size" and "Spanish" bottom brackets used on BMX have been a fantastic improvement on the older USA system (which had no tolerance specification meaning loose fitting, tight fitting, etc.)
and definitely a big improvement over the short lived Euro ISO threaded unit that was tried on BMX, which could not accomodate a large enough bearing package in conjunction with the oversized 19mm or 22mm crank axles used on BMX cranks (same problem ISIS had on mountain bikes)
PF30 works good as long as its installed properly into a frame with good tolerances, and you keep an eye on the bearings from time to time (if those bearing seize they can rotate in the nylon cups and cause problems)
the big advantage by using PF30 in terms of frame design with carbon fibre is the ability to create a massively stiff yet lighter bottom bracket area which also applies to 30mm crank axle systems, makes for a rock solid platform to pedal the bike from - check out my Stumpjumper picture here to see what I mean: gp1.pinkbike.org/p4pb8367935/p4pb8367935.jpg
Whilst I may think it a little unnecessary, I realise 15mm seems to be here to stay. That doesn't mean I like it, and I do think we could use 20mm for everything. Moreover, I agree 'anything is better than QR', but I also like the advent of 142/157. Some bikes, rear through axle mostly, can be a real sod to get the back wheel properly aligned and the axle in when the wheel's just floating around between your dropouts.
So basically I'm option-two part-one, with a smattering of option-one. Cheers for thinking it through before posting and wanting to get genuine useful feedback from your quite-well-informed-not-all-drivelling-Intarnet-webtard user-base.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_product
As Mike Levy says, 15mm is fine as it should be replacing qr not replacing 20mm.
I'm pretty sure that in the product design process two things were reverbing: 1. Give them performance through major stiffness increase and minimal weight increase 2. It must maintain the spirit of XC-ish, racy lightweight looking stuff by making something evidently new. Give them the sense of belonging in the same peer group. And there's more of such crap made with such logic like tapered headtubes - 1.5 all the way up and tapered steerer if you must.
There is no way this came down from DH- it is gravityfilic, pseudo XC-racers that triggered that pish.
On a side note, the encroachment of 15mm into 140mm+ forks is really annoying. Rockshox perfected the 140 fork with the Pike nearly a decade ago now, since then there seems to have been a rush to make 32mm forks a light and noodly as possible, skinny crowns, skinnier thru-axles. But the kicker is that they're nearly all using hubs that can take 20mm, so any weight saving is in the head of the marketing man. Gah!
142x12 fine, 15mm crap
xc forks could use thinner walled (lighter) axles if it's really that important (it's not) and there's no need for any other standard but the 20mm up front, the rest should be phased out on mtb's.
maybe an addition of a 30mm+ standard to enable better stiffness in usd forks if it can't be circumvented any other way but this makes 6 bolt rotors unusable...
I think the big problem here that people are running naff wheels and should be running hope- 10 quid to swop some cups over in the rear hub and the jobs a goodun. No full hub axle change, no new wheel laced...It seems frame manufacturers are coming up with good things, just need the rest of the industry to catch up and start producing forward compatible bits!
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
142 still has a 135 spacing between the frame, it just adds lips to the drop outs allowing easier location of the wheel in the frame.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_standard
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.
And this discussion is soooo '2009'. Can't we argue about the next fad, whatever that may be?
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.
Why 1.4? Isn't introducing a new st...- oh I see where you are going, there is a big market demand for anglesets these days, and if you want to make one for 1.5" bottom cup, the whole thing becomes too big and heavy. We also want to avoid introducing a new standard of frame head tube as we know that buying a new headset is cheaper than new frame - we at Shmox always strive to provide convenient and creative solutions. So decreasing lower diameter of steerer tube, not only makes it easier for our partners to design a good angleset but also reduces weight of the whole system. This is particularly IMPORTANT for flushed headsets which are VERY sought after when designing bikes with MODERN wheel sizes like 650B or 29"
We are always looking forward to hear what do you think about our products and see you guys on the trail!
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.
Great if oil could be replaced with something like water and soap - be possible to attach a waterhose to the top and flush the crud out before it eats the bearing stanchion and guides. Something like an open waterbath.
Look, wouldn't race bikes work with bushings only? You know, DH and even XC races are relatively short so you could run away with - it isn't it? No bearings in wheels, pivots - only bushes. That would drop at least 0,5kg off the bike!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_bronze
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.
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
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.
You can't help customers doing stupid things and it should be let to their responsibilities. You can also go downhilling with an XC helmet... your problem.
So, does industry adjusts their stuff to extremes, not average rider - the majority of the market?
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!!!
i need to research this more!
Thanks for the info guys.
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?
My only concern is that we are calling them new standards but the more we introduce the less standard things become. It used to be we had qr front and qr rear which were standard and then some extra sizes available (early days of 20mm bolt through) for special applications (DH racing). I know times have changed and there are now more applications, xc, dh, freeride, all mountain etc etc but as a result there no longer seems to be a "standard" just a lot of options.
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
For XC, the 15mm will be fine. For trail and more aggressive riding, 20mm is where it should be. I think it's a shame to put a 15mm fork on 140mm of travel. Especially for 29ers. Shame on you Fox!
Seriously, what problems with QR axles should I be keeping an eye out for?
That having been said, I've never had a problem with 135x10mm dropouts, but I've always used bolt-on hubs and things.
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
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.
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.
A 15 mm axle is not better than a 20 mm, a 142 mm rear end is not better than 150 mm, a conventional fork is not better than an inverted fork, & a cluster f*ck of cogs & derailleurs is not better than a gearbox. If things weren't made to fail at some point, then the companies that make the garbage would put themselves out've business. It's why the car industry does it. The bicycle is a much easier machine to keep alive due to its simplicity, so change for the sake of change keeps the cash flowing.
The mountain bike industry is so f*cking dumb that it can't even standardize something as simple as a f*cking seatpost, while introducing more sizes ("standards") for everything else. The only groups of idiots I know of that are proven to be dumber are religious sheeple & racist factions. For those of you in the industry that know better, but go along with this stupid shit anyway, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
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.
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!
Best combo id say is 20mm & 12x142mm
F U "lawyer tabs" and disc rotor rub.
Pinion ain't cheap either, and difficult to swap between frames. I would be perfectly happy with a 5 speed hub, or hammerschmidt equivalent if it covers 400%+ range.