A little over two years ago, Pivot released the Switchblade, a 135mm bike designed to work with either 29” or 27.5+ wheels. A carbon frame, roomier front center, moderately slack head – the Switchblade fell right in line with a number of other do-it-all bikes that hit the market around the same time. Except for one thing – the rear wheel spacing. The Switchblade uses 157 x 12mm spacing, which was previously reserved primarily for downhill bikes, but Pivot decided to pair it with a trail bike width bottom bracket shell and cranks.
There's more to the story, though; Pivot also worked with hub manufacturers to create hubs with wider flange spacing than before in order to create a better spoke bracing angle, and a result, a stiffer, stronger wheel. The concept was called Super Boost Plus 157, a name meant to poke a little fun at the constantly changing hub standards. The claimed benefits of Super Boost include the ability to create bikes with short chainstays and plenty of tire clearance, along with the aforementioned increased wheel stiffness. Sound familiar? You're right – those are the same benefits that were touted when Boost 148, which uses a 148 x 12mm axle, was first introduced.
At first, it seemed like Super Boost was going to be a feature found solely Pivot's mountain bikes – after all, most companies had just finished making the switch to Boost 148. But then Knolly announced that they would be updating their entire lineup to 157TRAIL (their name for Super Boost), and not long after that Devinci released the new Troy, which also had 12 x 157mm spacing.
Will Boost 157 replace Boost 148? It's sill too soon to say for sure, but it does seem to be gaining some traction. Keep reading to see what a selection of key players had to say about this topic.
"Where do you see the Super Boost 157 standard going in the future? Will it become the new norm, or is it going to remain a relatively small blip on the radar?"Duncan Riffle – MTB PR and Media Coordinator, SRAM
|We aren’t in the frame business, so we can’t speak much to what is best for frame design or if it will really start to take off. We leave that to all the bike manufactures/frame-experts as they know what is best for their brand and suspension designs. Obviously if they are using SB+ on their frames, then they feel strongly it provides them something they needed to make their bike ride better. On the flip side, we are in the business of making the best full system drivetrains possible. And an integral part of that system is the crankset. So in order for SRAM to ensure people get the absolute best performance from their Eagle drivetrains systems, we need to make sure that we provide crank options that fit into all the frames that people are wanting to buy nowadays. SB+ just happens to be the newest specification that certain brands are starting to play with and use on their frames. |
Because of this, we really only had two choices. 1) Don’t make SB+ compatible cranks and force consumers to have less than ideal performance with their SRAM Eagle drivetrain by using a third party's crank. 2) Make some SB+ compatible crank options so that SRAM can fully ensure the system performance of our Eagle drivetrains. For us the choice was pretty easy. We stand by our products and our system engineering philosophy, and so in order to do that we needed to make sure we have compatible crank options available. Only time will tell if SB+ will really take off. We can’t really say for sure. But what we can say from our side is that no matter what direction the bike manufactures/frame-experts choose to go in we will do our best to keep up with those needs.
Noel Buckley – Founder, Knolly Bikes
Travis Ott – Marketing Manager, Trek Bikes
|Firstly, can we NOT call 157mm rear hub spacing Super Boost Plus (I know this name is a bit tongue in cheek)? Being one of the worst spec changes this industry has ever experienced, 148 Boost doesn't need more homage given to it. Let's call it what it was called for the past 10 year: 157mm. At Knolly we call it 157 TRAIL to identify the 73mm BB spacing differently from 83mm DH BB spacing.|
We are an engineering based company: we initially questioned why 148 Boost was introduced in the first place given that both the feature set and performance gains were so minimal compared to the widely used 142mm hub width. Word on the street is that 148 Boost was the widest spacing that could be used with - at the time - current 2 x 10 systems and would help with low cost 29" wheels detensioning under load. With the introduction of 1 x 11 the following year and ultimately 1 x 12 drivetrains a year or two later, the 2 x 10 drivetrain width constraints that were implicite in creating the 148 Boost standard were removed. Knolly's position is that the existing and widely used in the FR and DH world 157mm standard would provide the feature set (capacity for wide tires) and performance increase (significantly improved rear wheel stiffness and strength) that 148 Boost does not.
Of course, 148 Boost has now been adopted across most of the MTB industry but in my opinion this is not due to how much better it is, but due to bike brands literally freaking out about "being left behind". While consumers are right to blame bike brands for making product obsolete (148 Boost being a great example), there is an equal and opposite force at play: tremendous pressure from consumers to have the latest thing and in the year or so before the introduction of 148 Boost this was the move from 26" to 27.5" wheels. Some large companies frankly got their asses handed to them by NOT moving from 26" to 27.5" and I think that these experiences pressured bike brands to jump on the 148 Boost bandwagon whether they believed in its meager performance increases or not.
Knolly stayed its ground: we stayed with 142mm and planned close to 3 years ago to skip 148 Boost and move into what we see at the ultimate solution: 157mm. It was a huge gamble for us because until recently, OEM crankset options have been very, very limited (despite public opinion that 157mm hub options are the concern, it's really cranksets). As of recently, there is now support for the 157mm rear end from most major OEM crankset manufacturers so we know there is enough momentum with 157mm that the key component players are taking it seriously enough to offer product for this spacing. Whether the whole industry moves or not is currently a big unknown. I think that for the time being most brands will happily stay at 148 Boost due to investments into marketing, tooling and product spec: there has been enough change recently. But for those of us who want to be the vanguards of innovation, we know that 148 Boost is not the end point: it will move. It's just a matter of how long it takes and whether a larger player jumps on board or not.
Chris Cocalis – Founder, Pivot Cycles
|Trek is continuing to evaluate it. Transition pains aside, there are functional pros and cons. Pros: stiffer wheels, more clearance. Cons: wider q-factor, heel rub, hanging the rear derailleur out there more.|
It’s not as clear cut as when we made the move to Boost 148 spacing originally. So we’ll continue to engineer and evaluate this and other emerging interfaces.
Craig Richey – Director of Marketing, Race Face & Easton Cycling
|I believe It will become the new norm for trail bikes, all the way up to more gravity oriented bikes. There are more brands adapting it (both large and small). Almost every hub manufacturer is now on board with the wider flange specs. In the near future SRAM is making a strong commitment to this and is my understanding is that Shimano may be heading in this direction as well. I don’t really see Super Boost Plus as an XC standard or as a replacement for Boost in the shorter travel categories.|Peter Zawistowski – Director of Engineering, Yeti Cycles
|Super Boost 157…. The name could use some love and generally riders tend to despise the proliferation of new standards unless there is a clear performance benefit. Technically 157 is not a new standard, as it has been used on DH bikes in various configurations for years but for trail/AM bikes it does appear to have growing popularity. Boost rear wheels, with the adoption of offset rims and new 6069 alloy rim materials, not to mention new carbon technology, have given rise to incredibly durable wheels that are as stiff as most people would want. |
It seems like the biggest reason for the adoption of Super Boost 157 is the increased frame tire clearance with short chainstays that comes with wider chain line. The new Devinci Troy, which has had a very positive market response, is a Super Boost 157 bike equipped with wide Race Face 35 or 36mm internal rims mounted to Maxxis 2.5WT tires. This rim and tire combination offers increased traction performance and might have frame clearance issues on standard Boost bikes. Plus bikes offer to push the traction game even further but seem to compromise on the more traditional mountain bike feel and speed that serious riders are used to. It seems like the 35mm rim with 2.5 or 2.6 tire splits the difference well and is the current holy grail of traction and performance, and that setup likely will work best on a Super Boost 157 bike. However Super Boost is not without compromise and is going to be a weight hit and the wider chain line impacts the Q-factor of some crank manufacturers.
More traction at a small weight penalty is the tradeoff that e-bikes are happy to make all day long. Wider Super Boost 157 chain lines are a natural fit on e-bikes that have to work around a motor and the ability to run wider tires with more clearance is a good thing for those type of bikes. Therefore, I predict that Super Boost 157 will see a quick adoption in the growing aggressive e-MTB category. Furthermore, Super Boost 157 will likely continue to grow in popularity in the all-mountain bike category especially with 29” bikes that benefit the most from the wider spoke braking angle on 157 hubs. We will likely see limited adoption in the XC/trail category where bicycle weight is given greater priority.
Joe Buckley – Mountain Bike Category Manager & Jason Chamberlain – Principal Engineer, Specialized Bicycles
|As a designer, I am always after any incremental improvement possible. Second to the good-old front derailleur that finally died, real estate at the drive-side chainstay (near the tire and chainring) has always been the next largest headache. All constraints in this area are working against each other: Tire clearance, chainring capacity, chainstay length, chainstay tube cross section, tube form to minimize stress concentrations, chainstay internal routing compatibility, composite manufacturing limitations and best practices, chain guide clearance, heel clearance, optimal chainline and so on. Currently we can achieve all our geometry and kinematic goals with boost, but it is tight.|
Moving to Super Boost 157 would give us additional clearance but it would be a logistics nightmare with its current adoption among component manufacturers; both for us and the end consumer. It is also important to note that there are tradeoffs in all design decisions, and Super Boost 157 is not immune to this. Increased tire clearance and wider hub flange spacing is at the expense of increased hub weight, tighter heel clearance (or swingarm tube form), and likely a wider Q-factor (crank arms will likely remain the same, with an increase to the spindle length). The real question is: “Is Super Boost 157 the ideal solution that will survive the longest as a standard?” Time will tell.
This brings us to industry standards. Inferred by the words, you would think that industry standards were created by a consortium of brand representatives that cover all corners of the industry. I have been in the industry since the early 2000s and have yet to see or hear of such a group. Standards appear to be incremental and self-serving in many situations. As with the end-consumer, we as a frame manufacturer are at the mercy of these standards. The word “standard” has completely lost its meaning.
Poor communication and a lack of willingness to work together has created this issue. Yes, it is inevitable that a standard will one day become obsolete as the sport progresses and design goals change, but we can do better than what has become the norm. Why not form a group of those influential within the industry with various expertise to meet and discuss standard changes from both an engineering and a logistical perspective? This will allow the industry to grow in a controlled direction that best serves our customers. And that is why we are here; to do what’s best for the consumer.
|A lot of riders are pissed off by what they see as incremental changes which may or may not make their next ride significantly better, but which absolutely render their current bikes incompatible with new wheels or forks. Sometimes the pain is worth it. Sometimes it’s not. So the question for us, as riders and engineers at Specialized, is whether or not Super Boost truly brings benefits to riders that merit making a change. It’s not a crystal-clear picture for us at the moment.|
Super Boost 157 can be beneficial when you are pairing short chainstays with wide (like 3.0-inch) tires. Fair point. Things right now, however, are starting to trend towards longer stays and 2.6-2.8 tires. A clever engineer can make things work with Boost 148 and you don’t have the disadvantages of 157 (heel clearance, weight). Chainrings are pretty small these days, as well, which generally gives you enough chainring/chainstay clearance with Boost 148.
Going back to that disadvantage we mentioned a minute ago—going wider out back can raise heel clearance problems.. We hate seeing the paint rubbed off on stays from large feet, big shoes, duck-footed pedalers or some combination thereof. Your heels should never rub on your frame. 157 makes it tougher, though not impossible, to keep the stays tucked in. And then there’s this: Narrower standards also keep the derailleur tucked in a few more precious millimeters. The Demo, for instance, is still 135 because we wanted to reduce the chance of your derailleur slowing you down when it decides to grab a root or scrape the sides of a rut. We try to pick standards that offer the best rider benefits.
Crystal clear, this is not.
We realize new standards, massively beneficial or only mildly so, can suck for many riders when those standards are not quickly and widely adopted by the entire industry. So, here’s the bottom line: If it appears that riders will be sufficiently supported by the industry, we’d consider Super Boost.
For the rest... F that Shite indeed.... all new stuff... even now they try to boost (pun intended) the 29-ers and make 650b an old concept..
For me the days of spending a lot of money on parts, that I could actually use on different bikes, are over... Normally I had 3 bikes and swapped parts all the time, now I got 1 bike... and a load of parts which are mostly useless now since the 26 era...
How long before we see directional gear cable housings?
new standards? lick mah ballz..
And again, regarding "normal" boost it's just a dirty move to make us open our wallets, why couldn't they just make it 150 mm so we could use the thousands of existing rear hubs everywhere.
I have not bought a new frame for 5 years; all the changes have saved me a tonne of money!
But quess what. The rear end is so frikin wide my shoes (the usual five 10's) could hit the seatstays when clipped in (Thats with shimano pedals actually). Its not quite too wide but this stupid 157 will be. so prepare to wrap those chainstay protectors around every fckn tube on the frame or ittl look like crap in 2 rides.
Stupid nonsense. Thats a spacing for downhill bikes anyways. If you go do downhill stuff (like the things you see on wordcups) on a trailbike with 120-140mm travel youre an idiot. And you cant blame the bike when natural selection kicks in.
There ive said it. My first keyboard rage on Pinkbike.
Totally agree with this. Not the biggest deal because it doesn’t happen all the time, but again more than I’d like. That extra little bit would give little clearance between feet and chainstay.
For this reason alone I’m not falling for this new trend.
Not according to Bicycle Retailer. Sales are flat to shrinking in the mtb sector. Consumers cite standards as a prime cause.
You made the bed industry. Lie in it
Friends of mine tell me they're in the same boat with their bikes - yep, the new stuff looks nice, but it's not a must have over what they bought three or five years ago, and they'll be just fine riding that for another year or two. And then you have drivetrain, suspension and brake tech trickling into lower price points, the direct to consumer brands putting pressure on prices, and all of us being conditioned to expect better performance at lower prices in the future and thus being willing to hold off a bit.
Moral of my story is that if you try to make bikes obsolete by new standards rather than build quality, a large part of your market will eventually just say "eff it" and start taking advantage of that lifetime warranty and easy online availability of replacement parts.
I see it the complete opposite. We've got to the point that mountain bikes are so good that the only gains left are a few mm here or there. Since performance gains are minimal it means that all our bikes are already very very good. Worst case there is more confusion when a replacement is needed but we have bike shops and forums for that. Worried about not finding parts? Jenson still has multiple 26" 135qr wheel options. All this time and money spent on minor changes is a sign we're in the golden age of MTB. Angry about a new whatever? Go ride your old bike that was just scientifically proven to be awesome!
Can't we just go back / stay with 142x 12 on anything that's wants to run normal tyres i.e. Nothing bigger than Old maxxis 2.5, Schwalbe 2.35's and not 29er?
The only constant in life is change. That said, man I wish the parts from my 1969 truck fit my 2017. Stupid car industry!
I purchased a Pivot Switchblade a little while back - was concerned about the 157mm rear width when I test rode it. 'cause I hit my heels on everything! All my cranks are polished, most of my bikes have stays that are shiny aluminum, ti or no-clear-coat carbon. I have NEVER hit my heels on the stays on the Switchblade that I tested, nor the one I bought. Good frame design, that hopefully is duplicated by other builders, but Pivot nailed it. Ride one, then decide to rage or not! I was (and still am) sorta amazed...
Bunch of idiots if I ever seen 1.
The good news is the Schiit of the bike industry has arrived, it is YT.
Best vid of the year !!!!
How long before we see directional gear cable housings?
Don't be giving them more ideas will you????
I know it's a different system for trail bikes, but the point is the same- that old bike still does everything I need it to do and I can still keep up with friends on much newer 'all the bells and whistles' type machinery.
You just said it yourself, ride your 2015 bike into the ground. Who said you can't? No new product or company since the day you bought that bike told you HAVE to sell it now and upgrade. Hell, I ride with a few guys on 10 plus year old 26" bikes and they still shred. Several manufactures like Fox, Maxxis and others make new 26" components right now to keep them going. Yes, there are plenty of 'tinkerers' in this industry because that is what many who ride/race/work on bikes do....tinker with things. Are there minor improvements to go along with the major ones? Yes, that is how mechanical things like bikes evolve.
The amount of whiners on this site is staggering. Be F*cking happy we have all of this. Don't want new stuff? Great...don't buy it. Just understand what we all are.... 1st world grown up 'kids' playing on expensive toys in the woods.
I will wait for my inevitable keyboard warrior beating and down votes into oblivion. Rubber side down folks
.plus they're usually ugly and i kinda like good looking stuff
I'm still more bitter about front axle going from 20mm to 15mm. As I read recently on some forum "15mm - the second best solution to a problem that was already solved".
you can just move the chainring/chainwheel outboard without widening the crank...
you can get 73 and 83mm cranks that have narrowish q factor. ive got narrow q factor 175 length cranks on my 83/150 am/fr/dh bike right now, works great!
150mm hub with 73 still lines up fine.
I do understand Specialized on this one though. At least for well over a decade they've been running a 6mm offset rear end to pursue symmetric spoke angles. Been like that with regular 135mm axles, they're probably doing still it with their 148mm axles too. And they're not the only ones. Liteville/Syntace calls it EVO6, Cannondale calls it Ai, it is all the same thing. If Knolly and Pivot work with a symmetric rear end yet still want that gain in strength and stiffness then yeah, they're probably going to need 157. How much that gain in stiffness is needed though, I'll leave up to them to decide. I thought the industry had already moved past that.
157 would legitimately provide ample clearance for a hardtail to run 275x3.8 tires when paired with a 83mm BB. That's about the only use I see for it (for bikepacking/winter riding).
If we go back even further back in time, to 2006-2007 when 650b was gaining momentum in small circles it was nothing more but a “what if we” by Kirk Pacenti. At that time each single component of 650b, rims, frames, forks, and most importantly tyres were utter shit. There is no way in the whole world you could take one of those horrific bikes with awful geometries and components, and go “wow, that works better than Intense Spider, Santa Cruz Nomad” and rolls almost just as well as 29ers. The truth may as well be that 650b was a quick fix by utterly useless riders who were fitting these contraptions with 1.9 tyres into 26” bikes to raise their BB because they were too lame to learn to pedal and climb. A clue for that may be why so many were upwheeling Blur TR, a bike made for experts at cornering and jumping.
Sorry, You are propelling a fairytale of buyers, and scam of providers. 650B was a scam to make money. At the time they were coming out 29ers were starting to get good geometries. These days we see that 29ers can lose to smaller wheels in all disciplines, proving that human factor in mtb is dominating and small increase in wheel size, having dramatic consequences for recalibrating the whole industry, causing a chain reaction of incompatibility.
So as for these hubs, 135 and 150mm rear hubs have already been around for a good while. Actually, I think B1 (beone) even worked with 165mm on their DH and 4X fullies at the start of this century. To provide the same convenience we already knew from 110x20mm (non boost) front axles, they added 3.5mm both sides to help position the hub in the frame. Nothing bad about that and many 135mm and 150mm could easily be converted to 142mm and 157mm respectively simply using new end caps, for those who got a new frame and wanted to use their old wheels. As we can read from this article, some manufacturers see a place for the existent 157x12 axles in their trails bikes, others don't. Which is great in a way. As a customer, just pick what you feel is best for you. They didn't introduce a new standard, they chose from what was available. 148x12, 100x15, 110x15 and 110x20_boost are all new standards from the past couple of years. If there were any hate to be directed towards new standards, it would be towards these. It is a bit unfair that good ol' 157x12 takes the stick. Don't worry, neither will ever be THE standard.
BTW we (should) deadlift on a bike not squat
Rear 135/142 hubs commonly have around 52mm hub flange width (HFW) maybe you could find some wifh 56mm HFW
135/142 ss, trials, 4x hubs (with short cassettes) commonly had about 66mm symetrical HFW, much stronger.
148 hubs might have the same 52 or 56mm HFW
they can support up to about a 63mm HFW
150/157mm hubs or Dh hubs as they commonly have been called before pinkbike stupidiously repeated or publishes the phrase “super boost plus”
Can support up to approximatly 70mm HFW,
although most hubs HFW will usually measure in the low 60’s or maybe even the 50’s like hopes.
Hope would probably say their keeping even tension, but they are probably failing to accept the value of bracing angle in favor of even tensionZ really its ok but not ideal to have more tension on onw side and less on the other, where uneaven tension will really ruin a wheel is when within one side of the wheels spokes theire are variances in tension. Thanks to offset spoke holes in rims we can make up for line 6mmm center to flange difference with 3mm of rim offset.
The widest HFW has got to go to the Ethirteen intigrated short cassette dh hub though, idk what the HFW is but i bet its at least a 10% increase on the widest conventional hubs. They also have the benifit of using tall hub flanges, which can affect tension distribution and SBA (spoke brace angle)
The indystry is trying to sell snake oil and rip off the dim consumers amongst us bike collectors and riders.
Shame on you guys for pretending to show a graph of HFW’s without actually providing numerical values. Should show a variety of hubs too if you wanted to actually do a good job.
Hub dimentions are critical to a wheels strength, sales point and specification. It is so lame that many hub brands do not include this information directly on the product page like geometry chart.
Get your shit together mtb industry.
I totally understand the need for clarity when it comes to explaining the finer details of the various different hub widths, but what does an mtb industry, WITH it's shit together look like, and how will it benefit you exactly?
-Broken bent wheels stop me from going out on my bike.
-Actually my wheels have collapsed, ive beaten the life out of countless like probably 20 rims in 15 years.
-its not about new stuff, the frames and hubs just sucked to begin with, and there are few options which really stand proud of the cheap crap around them. i knew most of the options sucked when they were new.
i only have desire for what isnt yet at hand. not envy for what just came out, cause its the same shit basically.
-lots of frames and wheels actually, handle funny, cause they are flexy cheaply designed and made toys for rich boys.
a good bike industry would be more focused on helping us continue to enjoy the bikes we have, would release the best and most thoughtful products they could, wouldnt copycat the shit out of the same old bikes, wouldnt keep making bikes that have not much more different than the looks, and would instead produce a variety of daring progressive designs to provide a wide range of geometrys and characteristics. a good bike industry would be less concerned about maximising profit, and more about proliferating the best experiences they could. I would really prefer the mtb industry not make shnazzy looking bullshit, stopped trying to grow, stopped pretending to be cool, build rad bikes, build challenging trails (dont let squids find outwhere the trails are) and shut up and ride. If the mtb industry stopped endulging in stupidity and consumerist gloat, then hopefully shitty riders would stop cutting out roots, building lips where there were natural features, and not be there to violate the uphill riders right of way or stand in lines and on jump landings.
super 8's sucked, and you probably werent / arent such an adept bike handler to recognize or appreciate the nuances of a great wheel
if your 41 years old and you had a super 8, 25 years ago, as you state, then you would have been a 16 yr old boy, riding a bike that came out in 1998, in 1993( 5 years pre production, yeah right), who had already owned 8 dh bikes by then, LOL! your such a pathetic liar!
the super 8 wasnt produced till 1998. www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-US/archive/bike/super-8
i give you the benifit of the doubt thought, ill bet you got your memorys mixed up from crashing off a curb!
Instead because of the rapid changes, I just hold off buying gear, even though I have the money for it, and spend that money elsewhere.
So yeah, the old keeps on working, and choice is good, but when there are a ton of incompatible choices for little perceived benefit there might be allot of people like me who just hold off getting anything at all.
Thanks for the interchangeable dropouts Keith. ????
If I got a new frame every week, I might also start cutting pieces out of them to increase cornering grip at deep lean angles... in real live my max cornering speed is so low, and so relatively unimportant to me, that stronger wheels and a more sturdy frame, that will last not only for an entire season, but for several years is clearly worth more to me.
If you feel you suck at cornering, swallow the WTF pill, get a whatever HT with 24-26” wheels, go to a parking lot or parking garage (useful at dark and in the winter time when it snows/rains) and do pumping flat ground drill. Over and over again. At least 2 times a week all winter. If you can ride such bike to work, do S-Turns on the ways to work. Time your efforts from time to time, to see whether you are progressing, ehat gets measured gets done. Engrave hip drive pattern of movement on you brain and muscles. Once the winter is over, you will be amazed what you can do in flat and off camber corners as well as in berms.
But if we are talking personal preference, I absolutely like short chainstays in the way they make the bike handle, and to make those possible, a 157mm rear is not a bad idea. It’s no surprise that Pivot is advocating Boost+, it works very well on their bikes.
It's a very compact oxymoron, being only one word long.
99% of the riders not pushing the current standard to its limits.
its about time manufacturers and engineers start increasing reliability and durability of bicycles and components.
most riders will be happy to buy bike which will last longer without being pending of endless servicing.
"The claimed benefits of Super Boost include the ability to create bikes with short chainstays and plenty of tire clearance, along with the aforementioned increased wheel stiffness."
"Moving to Super Boost 157 would give us additional clearance"
"Super Boost 157 can be beneficial when you are pairing short chainstays with wide (like 3.0-inch) tires."
157 sb 157 dh would be rhetorical just different gimmicky names.
The bb is in front of the, swingarm brace /chainstay yoke,
The wheel is behind the chainstay yoke/ swingarm brace.
Peter of Yeti has the right idea, an industry standards commission of sorts. It worked with ISCG, so no reason it wouldnt work again. having frames & parts that ARE interchangeable would still allow for future growth. As it stands a lot of people buy 2nd hand stuff rather than new as none of the new stuff fits their 2year old frame.
So what's your f..... job Duncan ?????
The hate is because they sue people who look at them funny or use the letter S, or French words in their branding.
Yeah, the bike industry should have just skipped straight to 157 from 142 just like the Knolly guy said. But they didn't, so now we have the Great Debate which shouldn't be a debate at all really. The naysayers are either certain manufacturers playing coy (they'll switch eventually....just watch) or are riders who are sick of change in the industry, which I get, but this change seems worth it.
It must be something around 1 degree. How the f*ck does changing the spoke angle by such a small percentage add any significant stiffness. I'm not saying it doesn't make a difference, I'm saying it's a micro change. No benefit to the vast majority of riders, but it sure does sell more product.
Of course, we could have avoided ALL of this by just sticking to 26" wheels, but meh.
Just f*ck off already with all this horseshit.
It's the bare face cheek they have trying to spout that this is x% better than what we had before.
It isn't. Just stop trying to outdate my 142mm frame EVEN quicker and devalue it to worthless in no time at all.
Just make your effing minds up.
A frustrated mountain biker
Change for the sake of change . DAMMIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just bought 2 new bikes last month, after waiting for the last 5 years for this hub width 135>142 >148 crap to stop.
Next, SuperBoost SL 152mmx14mm. Prep your anus.
Use your own brain, wider will always be stronger, the problems though are obvious and clearly stated above many times, if you go too wide you start to hit your heels the chain stay, and your mech is edging mm by mm closer to danger etc etc. The benefits of wider spacing simply need to be weighed up against the negatives that comes with it, and none of those things are anything you should be worrying your silly little head over...
If you have good data can you share it?
Do some research and figure out that bracing angle on the NDS is not the weak point of a rear wheel and that other aspects are at least as important to overall wheel strength, if not more so.
Don't be a dick, a wider bracing angle will never weaken a wheel...
Anyway, carry on being rude and ignorant to your hearts content. You won't be engineering hubs anytime soon so it's not going to adversely effect me.
Makes fun of constantly changing standards, changes standards again...
I'm looking at you Trek, and your bare minimum input to this discussion that you fostered by pushing the industry towards changing hub standards 4% instead of moving to a meaningful standard.
Of course the technology will evolve. Past problems will remain into the past, but we all know that when new standards arise, the plethora of options on spare parts, over older standards, start to fade away.
The industry has to look after for the privateer. Only a very small part enjoys the benefits of sponsorship. The majority will save money in order to build a new bike. Making it hard to get parts for the “old standards” after some time, is quite unfair for the privateer…
Glad to see one of them actually thinks about a possible solution rather than riding the fickle wave of changing "standards".
I purchased a 2015 Specialized Enduro on which they had decided to make a 142+ standard. So a 142mm width hub....but with everything on the cassette side shunted over 2mm. The roval wheelset the bikes came with are pretty much unsaleable as they lack clearance for other 'standard' 142 manufactured frames. Nice one big S. The bike came with a Pressfit BB. In three years it went through seven SRAM pressfit BB's. The bike shop even gave me a spare one when I went to get them cahnged. I eventually gave in and used a threaded wheels manufacturing 24mm spindle BB and the extra cost of replacing the crankset as well for a 24mm spindle one. The heel rub on the enduro was terrible and a friend (another flat pedal rider) had worn through his chainstay on his Enduro to the point of failure.
Progress is good. Bad decisions by the manufacturers however affect the consumer and their long term brand image. It just makes me more savvy in terms of future buying decisions. No matter what the bike is if I see a pressfitt BB or b**lshit standard in the spec of the new bike I will steer well clear. These new standards will only take root if people buy in to them. As a long term chainstay rubber I can't see any advantage in having a wider rear hub.
The industry is banking on the fact that many (most?) high-end bike purchases are irrational. I respond by an irrational rejection of this new standard. After the introduction of Boost 148, pretty much everybody agreed that this Standards clusterf*ck of complete incompatibility for marginal gains went a bit too far and that it is time for things to settle down and adopt Boost 148, for better or for worse. Well well well... here comes Super Boost Plus a couple of year later.
I've been biking for a long time and I have always had a stable of bikes. I am super pissed that none of my bikes are cross-compatible anymore...and that there is no way I could get decent $$$ for any of my bikes except the one I purchased 1 month ago.
Its a good thing riding bikes is just as fun as it has always been!
True: They all are in the same basket, the Standards business.
"Innovate" the product constantly = more sales
It is funny how nobody mention chainline which is key to save energy, go fast and make the drivetrain last long time....
100's years of bicycle development dedicated on improving the chainline.... these people don't even understad it.
The "marketing research" pinpointed "Stiff"... like the average joe can benefit from a super stiff bike.... but it does help selling more saddles, grips, posts, handlebars, suspension stems etc. etc. because it is too stiff for being comfortable and people can seem to get it...
There better now than they ever where in the past but get use to it a new standard is brewing and we are definitely not done yet, but if the hub makers figure out the real estate issues & make better use of the available space this one might last a bit longer than our present hub standards
So, what the f*ck is everyone f*cking crying about???
The reason it annoys me is because I'm a tinkerer and I'm married. I like changing little bits here and there, even moreso because I can hide it from my wife. All the changes make swapping bits here and there more difficult. For example, I have a fox dhx2 shock which I would happily have on my next bike, but it won't fit because of metric. Similarly my fork with 44mm offset. I know I don't need 37mm offset, but I want it! Also I would like it if all my bikes had the same hubs to make wheel and tyre swaps easier.
My main ride is a 2014 Troy, and I can still get everything for it no problem. But if the frame breaks, or if I just want a new frame, I will likely have to get new wheels and new cranks at a minimum. Might as well get a while new bike Which pushes the cost to quite a bit. Or if I just want to upgrade my hubs, how much am I going to lay out for a set that might not play well with a new frame, when I need to get one?
While I've got the money for it, none of this seems to have much real benefit. You can get strong wheels in 142 and fit 2.8 tires, probably wider. Canfield did it. Others have too. So for those of us who only want or who can only afford one bike, it's irritating, which on the internet translates to fury.
I'm all for it, i love a new standard to stir things up.
I sell 6 or 7 bikes a year, it pays for me to know the trends simply so I can ride a bike that I’d otherwise not be able to afford. I’m not talking anything near as old as 10yrs, after a certain point everything is worthless.
You sure dude?
If ‘they’ read my comments they’d do the opposite because planned obsolescence and the second hand market is more than half the idea for people trying to make money on bikes. If they can’t find a genuine improvement then they just change it and call it an improvement. It’s what this whole comment section is about.
I’m just excersizing my right to complain about something that I find annoyingly stupid.
To be clear, you refer to it as a pain in your backside, meaning you've had some specific trouble with something in the past regarding something that is now supposedly obsolete yes? That's what your suggesting right?
What the f*ck were you trying to buy? Cottered cranks?!?!
Don't exaggerate, unless you're having trouble getting parts for a bike not relevant to this website, there is no reason for the acquisition of ANY part you might need for ANY mountain bike EVER to be a "pain i the arse", and your just writing nonsense on here for the sake of it.
Name one thing you can't get that's making your bike unusable?
Re: pain in my backside see previous comments.
You just use any 168mm QFactor SRAM crank and 0 offset chainring for BB30 (SRAM makes those along with other manufacturers).
This gives you excellent chain line on SB+ and much better cranks with an axle that's not protruding 2cm on either side like it is with Race Face Next SL G4 with it's terrible preload ring.
- Duncan Riffle, MTB PR and Moustache Coordinator, SRAM
Knolly basically said we are going to skip boost and go right to super boost and hope we don’t get killed in the mean time.
Yeti is hoping the bet to stay with regular boost doesn’t hurt them. It kind of worked out for Knolly but their customer looks a lot different from Yeti’s customer.
It’s obviously coming for ebikes since pedaling doesn’t matter (shhhh) Once it catches on there it’s going to get jammed down our throats everywhere else. Cocalis has some sort of outsized power over SRAM and Shimano (look at what he did with BB’s... and how he pushes electronic shifting) so he knows it’s coming.
The boilerplate response from Trek isn’t confidence inspiring. Sounds like the worlds of someone who’s brand new bikes are about to be obsoleted
Not worth rolling the dice and buying an obsolete bike right now.
Bring in gear boxes so we can get our Q factor back AND have a stiffer wheel
another new standard...............?
29" frame with capacity for 2.8" tires using boost, 2.6" non boost.
Thank you Banshee for working with us.
Seriously, frames can be designed for wider tires and more stiffness WITHOUT increasing hub width. This is just one more marketing ploy to sell BS and drive brand independence, not consumer convenience.
This guy talks a lot of sense about needing a proper industry consortium.
148 isn't going away anytime soon.
there are some really dim people on here, sheese
I have pedalled thousands and thousands of miles independantly on 73 and 83 bb shells and different cranks.
there is such a thing as less than ideally too narrow. there is also wider than ideal. its sort of a feet together or swinging knee ankle buckling thing on the wide side. also adding width to bikes that should fit through narrow gaps in big rocks and stumps is not a good thing. but having strong wheels is a good thing.
73mm bb 150 rear end i dont have heal rub issues. i point my feet parrallel to the direction my frame is pointed! ive never seen a duck or a pidgoen pedal a bike well. and i like my knees to work on their intended axial paths!
most of these issues are probably from people with biomechanical issues, poor technique pedaling, and or poor placment of their foot on their flat pedal (derp derp) or poor cleat setup!
waki you are being waki. you are the one making assumptions here.
you dont seem to realize ive spent years riding on "all mountain" type bikes with 150mm hubs!150 is great for everything! sure 157 is more obviously without a stronger bracing angle so f*ck 157
heelrub is ok on my patrol but was annoying on my old giant reign. I have seen pivot frames, their wide carbon chainstays and their wide hubs, no way i buy that.
This a New Boost WUt® (137.17505 mm more than wide)
Still f*cking did it though, didn't you Noel?
No, this design is the worst idea for heel rub and chain angle, unless you put out a new standard of wide crankset that will feel uncomfortable for anyone with normally sized hips.
In 2005 or so the specialized demo 9 had 150mm rear space and 73mm bottom bracket.
On a 1x9 or 1x12 driverrain your still gonna be in the bottom few gears climbing unless you live and ride somewhere lame, so it makes sense to have an invoard chainline that lines up perfectly and well in the low and mid gears, and a little more crooked (but not too bad) in the fastest gears, because you spend so much less time and put so much less torque knto that pedaling at high speed (if your mountainbiking)
The prime benifit is not short chainstays (which are not good for all but novice riders. because they destablize by shortning wheelbase and biasing your weight distribution aft too much , making for un-nutural posture to come close to putting a addiquate amount of weight fore, on the front wheel without braking, and making a rider support too much weight on their arms to ride long and hard and absorb big impacts withiut buckling, like the juniors hitting the hole in the whistler pro’s vs joes video)
Short chainstays work for novice because they are always on the brakes, so it helps them end up with enough weight on the rear wheel and front wheel while on brakes to skid less. Also makes it easier for people who cant lift the front wheel to do so. Also gives them what they think they need, which is to be timidly in the backseat, down anything even moderatly steep.
The benifit of 150/157 spacing is hubs can be produced with wider hub flanges making a better spoke bracing angle, which provides lateral stiffness to a wheel structure, and helps keep spokes under tention while experiencing lateral loads, making wheels stronger, straighter, absorb return lless energy (like springy, flexy) and less unstable. All without using a stronger heavier rim. The wieght difference between a 135 142 148 vs 150 hub is omly like 10 or 20 grams, so totally worth it, unless your a meak twig of a person who couldnt power a lightbulb if they were sprinting.