Burning Question: Is Super Boost 157 Spacing Going to Become the New Standard?

Aug 28, 2018
by Mike Kazimer  



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.

Super Boost


"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

bigquotesWe 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.




Knolly's new Fugitive, and all of their bikes going forward, use 12 x 157mm spacing.

Noel Buckley – Founder, Knolly Bikes

bigquotesFirstly, 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.



Travis Ott – Marketing Manager, Trek Bikes


bigquotesTrek 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. 



Pivot
A 120mm 29er with 157mm spacing? That's what Pivot created with their new Trail 429.

Chris Cocalis – Founder, Pivot Cycles


bigquotesI 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.


Craig Richey – Director of Marketing, Race Face & Easton Cycling

bigquotesSuper 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.


Yeti SB100
There's no Super Boost to be seen here - the Yeti SB100 uses Boost 148 spacing.


Peter Zawistowski – Director of Engineering, Yeti Cycles
bigquotesAs 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.



Joe Buckley – Mountain Bike Category Manager & Jason Chamberlain – Principal Engineer, Specialized Bicycles

bigquotesA 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. 



427 Comments

  • + 336
 You know, this whole bullshit is a prime example why I am so relaxed atm. I don‘t need to worry about new bikes, because I am not interested in all those changing standards with minimal compatability and only marginal gains in performance (if at all). I am just sitting here thinking: eff that shite. In the past it was a new bike/frame every 2 years at least. Not anymore...
  • + 155
 Yes, same here. I was on a new bike or frame every 18month and upgraded every 6 months, now I'm like: yeah, have fun with your marketing bs, I keep my bike clean and shiny since 2015 and my money is for traveling, yeah, have fun....
  • + 78
 As the rear end gets bigger I Will shrink my feet to accommodate any new standard. Toes are optional.
  • + 26
 In Europe, e-bikes are taking off, and the rate of tech changes is incredible. The days of buying a bike and upgrading parts year by year are over. Half of us will just keep riding what we got, and the dentist$ will just buy something new every year.
  • + 65
 Feeling exactly the same. I don’t care anymore. I’m actually considering trying to find a 2012 Nukeproof Mega that isn’t battered. It was a great bike. Then batter it.
  • + 36
 Same here... bought the last Capra with normal spacing at the rear... old wheels will still fit... Great!
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... Frown
  • + 66
 MTB is the new audiophillia , marginal (imagined) performance gains for huge capital outlay.

How long before we see directional gear cable housings?

new standards? lick mah ballz..

happy trails!
  • + 25
 Anything branded Super Boost Plus has to be freaking awesome. I mean they say it's Super, and will give you a Boost, then Plus????? There is more, please stop before you kill me. Wait I thought this was about a new male enhancement product.
  • + 19
 Wasn't it great when all your wheels were 20*110, and 135*12, 26"? You could just switch wheels when you wanted to change tyres. Much simpler. Now the only wheels I can switch are my road bike 700c rear into my nomad... but the disc is not the same size. I am out of buying too. I might get some hope brakes though. I think they will stand the test of time and be swappable onto my next bike... unless some bright spark decides to change the handlebar diameter to 24.0mm "metric" or the caliper mounting holes to flat mount or some shit. Neither of which would surprise me.
  • + 89
 Literally a whole long very serious article about a few millimetres difference in rear axle spacing that a bunch of marketing knob-tards have given stupid names to.... This is why the industry is starting to really suck
  • + 21
 All my bikes lasted more than 5 years. They all ran well!! In 2018, until june, i was still with 26" wheels, 135mm spacing & 10speed... MTB was still fun.
  • + 15
 @fracasnoxteam: I spent the money on a new car instead. Until the standards settle down I'll stick with 142 x 12 thanks.
  • + 15
 Feeling exactly the same, I have no intentions to swap out my 2016 patrol for a number of years
  • - 10
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:19) (Below Threshold)
 @iffy: Word bro
  • + 20
 The purpose of new standards is to keep sales flowing. However, in what concerns me, it's having the opposite effect. If the standards were the same I could think about a new frame every now and then. Since changing frame means, changing other parts like hubs or buying adapters, or new crank set or even new shock, etc, I just keep using my stuff and making small upgrades here and there. I mean, the big expense of a new frame is postponed to a more distant future.
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.
  • + 9
 Still running a 2002 darkcyles scarab frame with its avalanche shock. Just back from another 2 weeks in morzine and will be going again next year. It just works and is playfull on the jumpy blue lines like a big slop bike. Has lots of newer parts on it and have stockpiled shorty tyres when on sale just incase they stop making them in 26
  • + 31
 Agreed. All these changes in standards has stopped me from having any interest in buying a new bike.
  • + 16
 Couldn't agree more.
I have not bought a new frame for 5 years; all the changes have saved me a tonne of money!
  • + 13
 I'm still riding a 27.5 wheel bike with 142 spacing: No complaints about wheel flex. The problem is 29 inch wheels.
  • + 3
 @mokydot: That's a gem!
  • + 5
 @GVArider: don't forget the skilled tradesmen! We buy something new every other year!
  • + 9
 Surprise Surprise, no one at a major bike or component company wants to say "what a bunch of crap" then look like a fool down the road when 157 becomes the main standard regardless of whether it's beneficial or not. I'd love to hear what these guys really think off the record.
  • + 4
 @fracasnoxteam: yup still on my 2010,but looking at a 2015 that's got my fancy... next year is super boost plus, 159mm and 200$more
  • + 20
 Know what. Im going to tell yall a secret. Ive got this full susser from 2016 lying around with 148 spacin yea.
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.
  • + 1
 @fracasnoxteam: That and there are still companies that will make you wheels. (Hope still makes them with dropouts i believe)
  • + 10
 I still ride my 26" 2013 Reign (though mostly cuz' my ex-boss was paying his Tesla with the money of my work...)
  • + 3
 seems this site is full of commenters who have not bought a new bike for ten years or so, meanwhile, out there, in the real world, the sale of bikes keeps increasing every year mainly due to the new standards, so things will stay the same in the coming years. you'll have to wait a bit longer
  • + 18
 Die superboost, die... Keep your plus tires, keep your fatbike wide q-factor crank spindles, keep your shoe scuffed extra wide chainstays. Just die...
  • + 2
 @mokydot: very that video is brilliant. every time i see it i die laughing.
  • + 3
 @axleworthington: 29" is not a problem
  • + 2
 @RecklessJack:

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.
  • + 4
 @Benito-Camelas: Not quite the case. My frame has 2 years. At the present time I would like to try a bigger and slacker frame but since it implies buying other parts due to the standards, which will increase the price of the experiment, I retract from doing it and wait more time :-).
  • + 3
 its ridicolous, i've got my Reign 0 2012, have kept it pristine and every time I bring it into a shop, they say, yeah that's when they used to make good bikes, thats a keeper!!
  • + 2
 @GVArider: and refinery workers too!
  • + 2
 @carlitouk: Almost agreed. I can't buy new bikes as well. But it will get more and more difficult to buy frames that have the 142 x 12 standard as time progresses. That is what truly bums me out. Especially since I ride XL frames and the choices are so much less. I guess there is still Turner. They have stuck with 142 x 12 thankfully.
  • + 1
 @projectnortheast: superboost should have been the 1st step(uses dh oarts already out), not boost. Industry(sram) wasted out time/$ with boost.
  • + 3
 I know I'm not going as fast as pros could make bikes go in 2015... why would i need more than my 2015 mtb.....
  • + 5
 I hope "f that shite" shows up a lot more in the comments section after this
  • + 27
 @Benito-Camelas: "the sale of bikes keeps increasing every year".

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
  • + 1
 @GVArider: ebikes are for lazzy fukks, they’re everywhere here as well
  • + 1
 @panchocampbell: If bikes were wine :-D....a 2, 4 year bike in these days is considered vintage. Wine industry eat your heart out :-P
  • + 2
 @ArturoBandini - in fairness though, part of why you're not upgrading bikes/frames every two years anymore is that there's just not that much exciting improvement to really nudge that way. Bikes from one generation ago aren't obsolete the way they used to be, especially since the widespread adoption of more forward geometry in about 2013/2014. Example -yes, my Process 111 is outdated and hasn't even been made for two years now - but when I demo bikes that are sort of natural successors to it (like the new Smuggler, or other current short- to mid-travel aggressive 29ers), I'm finding that I'll happily wait another generation of bikes before I buy another. Yep, my seat is slammed all the way foward and I wish I could go further that way. Yep, those new bikes manage to have the same playfulness with a bit more travel and cushiness that my middle-aged knees and hips would appreciate. But the difference is rather incremental. So give it another two years - and then my bike will be replaced not just because the new stuff is somewhat better (more so than today, as there'll be another iteration of development), but also because mine is getting older and that's sort of the sweet spot where it's still got a little bit of resale value (and long after the initial depreciation hit).

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.
  • + 5
 @Trailstunter: Except 26er bikes (and the parts to keep them running for years and years) are awesome for young riders. My 13 year old has a 2009 Stumpy we picked up for (given its pristine condition and decent parts spec) ridiculously little money. Drivetrain and brakes are readily available; if he needs new tires, there are sales on 26" Minions all over the place (same is true of rims...); I just saw some crazy deal on new-in-box Fox 36 forks from a few years ago that will fit (guess those 26" forks don't fly off the shelves...).
  • + 0
 Not that agree with the move but 157 super boost plus gluten free, sugarless, with flax seeds, whatever... WILL be the next "standard"
  • + 3
 For 4 years straight I bought at least 1 brand new bike per year. I'd usually switch up some of the base components like wheels and shocks, with the intent of putting the brand new stock parts back on my bike when it came time to sell, and transferring my preferred bits over to my new bike. Unfortunately in 3 years I was never able to use my back wheel on the new bike I had my eyes on, nor did the shock ever fit, so that plan never quite worked out as intended, and I ended up with a stockpile of like 3 rear wheels and 2 shocks. So here we are today, when I'm more financially capable of buying a brand new bike than I've ever been in my life, but my trail bike just hit it's two year anniversary (and it will 100% be making it to it's third as well), and I'm riding a 3-year old carbon Aurum that I bought used for $2200. The big bonus is that the back wheels on both bikes use the same hub spacing, so if I blow up on a wheel on a trip I just need to switch up cassettes.

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.
  • + 4
 "Literally a whole long very serious article about a few millimetres difference in rear axle spacing that a bunch of marketing knob-tards have given stupid names to.... This is why the industry is starting to really suck"

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!
  • + 5
 Totally agree with this comment. After reading this article why would anyone consider buying a new bike this year or a new set of wheels just to have them be worthless next year? I think these bike companies have too much money to play with...
  • + 6
 @tremeer023: 142 x 12 was a good standard, just a change of end caps on your old hub, nice stiff through axle, plenty of room for 11 speed, able to build perfectly strong 650b wheels, plenty of tyre clearance for 2.35 even with short stays and a single ring up front, nice narrow rear end so no heel rub or mashed rear mechs.

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?
  • + 1
 the industry is starting to cry while reading this. xD . but i am completly on your side
  • + 3
 @g-42: ^^ Positive outlook. Fox, Maxxis, DT Swiss and a few others STILL make new 2019 26" coponents. I can find 135,142,148 etc hubs from most major players (and numerous OEM) right now. Nothing is holding anyone back from keeping their current bikes going for quite some time. Will they be able to buy XYZ parts for their frame in 10 years? Probably not. However, name any frame that is the case for.

The only constant in life is change. That said, man I wish the parts from my 1969 truck fit my 2017. Stupid car industry! Big Grin
  • + 4
 @RecklessJack:
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...
  • + 1
 @ShempHoward: I think toes are on the wrong side of your foot to rub on your rear triangle. Maybe remove your heels instead? Just throwing ideas out there.
  • + 2
 Yeah been riding my 2015 patrol for 2 years and have no reason to upgrade just yet, I'll probably ride the bike until it dies.
  • + 1
 @GVArider: I do not think that there are that many dentist ride bikes, but there will be some, but most companies do not design bikes that I really want too buy, always seems to be something I would change for the better given the chance, so really just hear for the comments!
  • + 2
 @butters1996: Better hope it doesn't last as long as my Spesh Pitch Wink
  • + 4
 Hello bike industry, can you hear us? We don't like all this continually changing standards nonsense.
  • + 1
 @iffy: don't give them ideas!
  • + 6
 As a small frame manufacturer this really hurts R&D on new frames. We started business around 2014 when 650 was becoming an option but frames were still 135/142mm and 150mm. 650B is an admitted marketing ploy, and at the time made everyone on 26" feel like they were obsolete. You really have to take everything 'new' that the bike parts industry throws at us with a grain of salt. I think what's happening is bikes/parts are lasting longer than they were 10/15 years ago and the industry needs new ways to get consumers to buy components. I'm all for technological improvements with braking, suspension, shifting, even wider spoke flange spacing to increase wheel strength. Constant (yearly it seems) changes to hub spacing standards are a crock and I proudly give a big middle finger to bike industry marketing!
  • + 3
 ^^ hear hear!
  • + 3
 @ATBScott: same experience: I purchased a Trail429. Even with size 13 shoes I don't hit the chainstays.
  • + 1
 @spunkmtb: ther ewill be spacer converters so you will be able to use 142 wheels
  • + 1
 @fluffyreddragon: Hahahaha , I meant removal of toes whole allow me to shift foot up on the pedals. The new standards are more important, jokes for my blokes.
  • + 2
 @iffy: Ha! Don't get me started on 'audiophiles'. Trying to extol the virtues of digital media, directional cables, ceramic cable risers, cryo treated cables, etc... LoL

Bunch of idiots if I ever seen 1.
  • + 1
 @m1dg3t: Now that's funny and not too many people know of these audiophiles. I have a friend that has speaker cables that could buy 3-5 top notch bikes, yes on the ceramic tripods. Honestly if I had to guess I would say the stereo, components, projecter, sound studio foam etc , would say it has to be pushing upwards of 80-90k. I know it's obscene, also find it a compensator of who knows or cares. Give me a $1200 set up, 4 bikes and a jacked up truck. Oh that's why he stay listening to the purset music while we rip trails open.
  • + 2
 @iffy: The benefit of directional housing is only relized if you have cable housing dampers to keep the housing the optimal distance from the frame centerline.

The good news is the Schiit of the bike industry has arrived, it is YT.
  • + 1
 @carym: There is a benefit, your wallet inside out.
  • + 1
 Jumped onto BOOST F/R with a MOJO G16 frame. Figure with the geo numbers the frame has I'm at least a half decade and a half dozen product cycles ahead of the big three.
  • + 3
 @mokydot: That needs to be posted on the home page of PB hahaha
  • + 2
 @mokydot: i laughed so hard that my abs actually ripened up

Best vid of the year !!!!
  • + 2
 @iffy
How long before we see directional gear cable housings?

Don't be giving them more ideas will you????
  • + 2
 @mokydot: this one got me in tears from laughing and crying
  • + 2
 @mokydot: This is great, and painfully accurate.
  • + 2
 I am splitting my bike time between a 26" hardtail and 26" DH (2014 with 2011 88Cool right now. Haven't had as much fun in years, especially with the HT. I don't care what the industry comes up with.
  • + 1
 Please suck less bike industry. Listen to Noel.
  • + 2
 @Muckal: Both my bikes are 27.5 and I am having just as much fun on them as my previous 26 (still have a 26 Dirt Jumper). Nothing prevents you or anyone from having fun on 26 or anyone else or 27.5 or 29. I don't recal anyone in the bike industry or pro ever saying anyone has to stop riding any wheel size or telling anyone their specific wheel size not longer rolls. Ride you bikes till the paint falls off or buy a new bike every year and sell your previous one on Pinkbike. Just ride people.
  • + 1
 Same here. Still running my 2012 Trek session. 26" wheels and.... you guessed it.... 157mm rear hub.
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.
  • + 1
 @luis-beri: YOU DON'T SAY! Is it still funny without 11 speeds? :-O
  • + 2
 I'll go ahead and pitch in another vote for this being appalling, greedy nonsense. If cash flow is this big of a problem for bicycle companies, then maybe they have simply outdone themselves since 650b and 142x12. We are all friggin' exhausted by this endless wallet gouging and attempts at forced upgrades. I'm going to ride my 2015 bike until death at this point because this sport is being ruined by obsessive tinkerers and gadget hounds with apparently far too much coin.
  • + 5
 @discombob: No one is forcing upgrades. If the bike companies didn't sell anything or make $$, they would be gone, this website and all it's coverage would be gone and we be cobbling together scrap yard sh*t to keep our 30 year-old bikes going.

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
  • + 1
 @coyotecycleworks: Very well put on one point I would ask where it was admitted that it was a market ploy because people have been calling me a tin hat wearing conspiracy theorist for years. My older position was that 29er needed more development and that it would be good for some riders not all probably not even a majority(I rarely trust the this is good for every rider mentality) when 27.5 came around I saw no real benefits when you count the limitations that it imposed. More so I saw the con of eliminating the ability to reuse most of the parts already built as an environmental disaster as well as only increasing efficiency by a small percent also at the cost of maneuverability and possibly design limits.
  • + 1
 I don't scuff my shoes because I'm 198 cm tall. The numbers are big but the math is pretty easy. @projectnortheast:
  • + 1
 same. I still love riding my 2014 Norco Sight. So many new standards have come out since, but I don't NEED them to still have fun on this bike.
  • + 2
 @mokydot: golden this is haha.
  • + 2
 It’s been great to be able to keep bikes/parts for the last while. I’m gonna chill
  • + 2
 @mokydot: I just laughed my ass off. I have tears in my eyes, too!
  • + 1
 I just got some Boost Plus Mega underwear to give that extra room I need.
  • + 0
 @tuumbaq: well some do turn down the power down and actually climb the extra weight up. Its just a different deal. I haven't even tried one cuz im scared ill like it and be ruined..ha
.plus they're usually ugly and i kinda like good looking stuff
  • + 1
 @tremeer023: You don't expect you're car to have the same standards forever though, do you? You expect them to incrementally improve all the time, bike industry is the same.
  • + 2
 What I really need is charcoal filtered underwear so I can't let them rip on a first date.
  • + 1
 I wonder - couldn't we get the same incremental benefits by changing the materials, not the sizing? What about stronger alloys for spokes, hubs, etc? Better carbon fiber? Or does that interfere with the plan to force riders to upgrade their entire bike every few years?
  • + 1
 @jrocksdh: Wrong thread - sounds like you are talking ebikes not super boost? I had this happen a few weeks back, post in one thread reply appears in another, weird.
  • + 2
 @MrMatt1970: of course you're right. My car just happened to be older than my bike frame. The up side to this marginal tinkering is that it proves that most current bikes have got to a point where they are all either good or very good (bit like cars).
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".
  • + 70
 157 rear spacing, because Q-Factors on most bikes aren’t wide enough already and chain lines get solved by a fairy called “Dave from Marketing”. After reading this, it seems that guys at Specialized are the most keep it real folks out there at the moment. I wish Pinkbike would ask Cesar Rojo What he thinks about this Smile he is not Happy that’s for sure
  • + 72
 This is super painful to admit, but Waki and ... Specialized ... nailed it.
  • + 8
 Yes, the Spaz guy sounds like his head is on straight. The smaller guys are searching for a hook to market their bikes by and 157 SBP fits the bill.
  • - 11
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:15) (Below Threshold)
 chainline gets solved by using some basic measurments, compatible equipment and or chainwheel or chainring spacers and some mechanical skill. the final solution for standards, is there is no standard. like moto's its just what it is.
  • + 8
 @getsomesy: boost improved the chainline for non-plus xc/am/enduro bikes with single ring setups as long as you kept the non boost crankset since it placed the chain in the place where it best serves the most commonly used cogs which is taller cogs. Ironically 150/157 makes for a worse chainline for dh bikes since in the era of 6 speed cassette blocks (and Dh hubs like Hope 4 DH), the cogs that are used most often are the ones at the bottom. Now 157 for xc/am/en requires chainline that is almost 60. With that in mind you need wider q factor which is not good for cranking out miles.
  • - 7
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:40) (Below Threshold)
 @WAKIdesigns: i made a comment to this affect somewhere here. the 6 speed cassette on the 11spd body is stupid. ethirteens hub is better.

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.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I'm running the reverse short cassette hub efs 150mm single speed. Have a 73mm direct mount crank with a flat chainring to give me a straight chainline. It measures up like normal 83mm crank with chainring on the normal middle mount.
  • + 2
 @schofell84: exactly! We are moving in the wrong direction. Give me a 127 rear hub and I'll be a lot more interested than a 157. My knees will be too.
  • - 10
flag FuzzyL (Aug 28, 2018 at 6:18) (Below Threshold)
 Yeah, Specialized, with their obsolete FSR Suspension are really afraid of change, and of the small companies that bring it on, and rightfully so Wink
  • + 16
 @FuzzyL: You mean the obsolete suspension design that is one of the most widely used suspension design on the market at the moment since the patent expired? FSR (Future Shock Rear) is just a horst-link 4 bar design, which is also implemented by YT, Nicolai, Cube, Rose, Whyte, Canyon to name a few.
  • + 5
 Peter from Yeti nailed it for me. Companies introduce new standards without (seemingly) proper communication creating so much confusion and requiring other component companies to deliver a million versions of the same product. 100x15mm front axles between Fox and Shimano a good while ago, this new cassette interface from Shimano recently, deluxe shock mounts... Not always though. I think ISCG05 was actually developed between different companies under guidance of Dave Weagle (to deal with those outboard bb bearings) and Cane Creek also brought some order in all those headset bearings. The is 157 axle width (basically a Syntace'd 150mm axle) wouldn't bother me too much if it was common already. Just because it is now being used on a different bike doesn't make it a different standard, right?

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.
  • - 2
 @vinay: maybe we will be faced with 32” wheels for xc bikes soon... that will require wider spacing.
  • + 3
 @WAKIdesigns: That will turn XC into a clown show. By the way, was Batty not on a 650b bike this weekend?
  • - 4
flag WAKIdesigns (Aug 28, 2018 at 8:54) (Below Threshold)
 @headshot: i don't know but I can imagine how 650B would suit her considering she lost some weight. She also spent lots of time in Livigno this year. High altitude FTW. Disclaimer: I am not stalking on her!!!
  • + 4
 @vinay: Not just that, but they've continually said that the 148 would provide more tire clearance, then they don't give us anymore tire clearance. Then they say it'll shorten chainstays...and everybody is complaining chainstays are now too short.

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).
  • - 1
 @PHeller: the problem is that plus bikes and bikepacking bikes are a niche. Extremely little niche, possibly smaller than very niche DH. Yet it was brought as the frontline solution messing up the whole industry. EXACTLY like 650B and almost as destructively. When DH bikes suddenly required 83mm BB shells and 150 spacing nobody made it a standard for everyone. No suspension company suddenly decides to make all their line fit fatbike front hubs, even though such exist and they provide better stiffness to weight ratio than boost.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: 650b was bought to market because it provided slightly better rollover and contact patch but still fit most 26" frames. People seem to have forgotten that a 650B frame or fork could have fit 26" fine. Same for 29" frames and B+. With hubs, the difference is that these setups are not backwards compatible, and with 150/157, even the 148 crowd will be left out. That is of course unless someone wants to make 9mm rear hub axle conversion kits (with 9mm rotor/caliper spacers.)
  • + 1
 @PHeller: no it didn’t fit most frames nor forks. It did if you went for 2.1 tyres on a fe selected frames or forks. It did not fit any rockshox or Marzocchi, it fit Foxes and Manitous. Barely. Most frames of all kinds back in 2007-2012 had poor tyre clearance even for 2.5” Minions. The roll over and Contact patch arguments were false entirely. In 2012 when 650b was made mainstream the average width of the rim was between 21 and 25mm. Schwalbe and Liteville/Syntace were the only mainstream companies that were advocating even further lowering of tyre pressures to enhance the effect of tyre conforming to the surface as a mean of lowering the rolling resistance and increasing grip. That proved to be true, yet nobody spoke of it at the time were 650b take over was conceived.

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.
  • + 4
 Alright, first of let's remember this is Pinkbike. Standards are a nice subject for discussion, so we're getting an article about THE new standard. In mountainbiking, there is no such thing as THE standard. There are many standards and every now and then we're getting a new one. It doesn't mean the old ones are going away. Early May I received my new 26" hardtail frame, 142mm axle. Sure, this was a custom job. But you can get just as old fashioned with a series product from Cotic. And as long as Liteville builds their smaller frames for 26" wheels, Syntace is going to make high end 26" wheels. And as Syntace cooperated with Schwalbe on the Procore system, I expect we'll find their tires in 26" for a long time to come. Both Schwalbe and Continental tires at least aren't really holding back with their new 26" offerings.

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.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I’d never want to get into a debate with you sir over the historical arcana of our sport or the developmental motives of what drives the industry. That’s for certain. I’m of the belief that the whole 29” thing developed out of road cyclists wanting to try off roading, or of the bike industry wanting to bring them in. I think small wheels may have made them uncomfortable. 29” is basically the diameter of a road bike wheel which put things more in a lot of people’s comfort zone who were used to riding bikes on asphalt. I could be all wet with that one but it’s just my thought.
  • + 4
 @fattyheadshok: it could just be that 29s are faster over a lot of the normal conditions that most people ride...
  • + 3
 BSA 83mm bottom bracket width is the future for trail bikes. You don't squat with you're legs together so why do you ride with your legs together? @WAKIdesigns
  • + 2
 @Loamhuck: read up on why! He is not making this up.
  • + 1
 I if there is something different with my anatomy, but I ride with a 73mm bb and usually still end up pushing down on the outer edges of my pedals when pedaling longer bits (standing up). Still comfortable enough, but having both pedals move out 5mm each end wouldn't hurt. I don't know what my q-factor would be. I ride with 165mm Truvativ Ruktion cranks on a Howitzer BB and Catalyst pedals. I don't rub my chainstay. When riding with more short punches, ratchets and when I frequently take the foot off the pedal I'm not too careful where I put it back on which causes some wear on the cranks. But I wouldn't put that down to a high q factor. I had a 68mm bottom bracket previously with a Shimano octalink bb and still wore the anodization off the cranks.
  • - 2
 @Loamhuck: then do 2000 BW squats a day. It is hard to argue that huge portion of people who complain on knee pain simply lack hip and back stability which causes all sorts of issues for the knees exposed to repetitive unilateral movements like running or cycling. After all very few train on the gym, even fewer reach any base levels of strength and even fewer worry about stabilizing the hip. You can squat 1RM 2xBW deadlift 1RM 3xBW and still have shitty hip stability. A dude on my gym asked me in awe, 12 pistol squats wow, I can’t do 5. That’s because maybe your hips suck, you waste 50% of your energy to stabilize the knee. I deadlift 150kg 1xRm he does 180. But... I talked to people who do have good hip stability and tgey still have issues with wide QFs. So as much as I am always like: how are your hips before you masturbate your mind away with QFactors, some people do have issues with it.

BTW we (should) deadlift on a bike not squat Smile
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: why do people down vote you so much? Some of your comments are great
  • + 1
 Is the Demo still a 135x10 rear axle?
  • + 2
 @gonecoastal: 135mm x 12mm
  • + 5
 @WAKIdesigns: The Q factor on the new Knolly Fugitive is the same as all of our bikes.
  • + 1
 @Unless you are big and want the extra width.
  • + 44
 The trouble with the whole “gotta go boost cause stronger wheels” argument is that a lot of the companya producing hubs were not maximizing the hub flange width to begin with, and still arent with their boost hubs. Even some 150/157 hubs do not have wider hub flanges, like for instance hope hubs.

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.
  • - 10
flag deadmeat25 (Aug 28, 2018 at 1:24) (Below Threshold)
 Dude, that's all very clever and knowledgable, but none of it stops you from going out on your bike, none of your old wheels collapsed under the weight of all the new standards piling up on them, none of your old bikes started to handle funny when new standards came out, all hub spacing options and associated parts are still readily available and serviceable, and whilst this continues, the only difference it makes to you is that you have a bit more choice when it comes to buying a new thing.

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?
  • + 16
 I'm with you 100% guy. The more I build wheelsets the more I realize the axle game is a complete sham because they dont move the flanges.
  • + 7
 Ya was riding 150mm hubs 25 years ago on my Super 8. Don't feel like that added width did anything to give the bike more stability or increase wheel fortitude.
  • - 7
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:10) (Below Threshold)
 @deadmeat25:

-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.
  • - 14
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:12) (Below Threshold)
 @ShempHoward:

super 8's sucked, and you probably werent / arent such an adept bike handler to recognize or appreciate the nuances of a great wheel
  • + 11
 @getsomesy: You can read right,, it was 25 years ago and I was on my 8-9th DH bike, were you still in diapers back then or still are probably. See how ignorant it is to make assumptions. For all you know I was better 25 years ago than you will ever be.
  • - 11
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:48) (Below Threshold)
 @ShempHoward:

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!
  • + 4
 @getsomesy: Don't mess your diapers up just because I was going bigger than you are now before you were born little guy.
  • + 2
 @deadmeat25: what it stops me from doing is buying new components, or at least more expensive ones, until things settle down. Everything on my trail bike is ok, but at 5 years it's showing its age. Every once in a while, I think about upgrading the wheels, or maybe when getting a new frame. But I don't feel like laying down the money for the wheels since I want some high end hubs and while they make them, they likely wouldn't go on my next frame without adapters (and they certainly wouldn't take advantage of the rain for the frames new width. I've also though about a new frame, as I have all the spare parts sitting around. But none of the longer lower travel segment will work with my spare set of wheels. So I'd have to get new wheels at which point I might as well buy a whole new bike.

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.
  • - 7
flag makripper (Aug 28, 2018 at 7:14) (Below Threshold)
 @ShempHoward: you must have had a time machine lol. the super 8 came out in 98 www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-US/archive/bike/super-8
  • + 2
 @makripper: Yes I do have a time machine ironically purchase 25 years ago.
  • - 7
flag makripper (Aug 28, 2018 at 7:43) (Below Threshold)
 @ShempHoward: then how did you get a 1998 bike in 1993?
  • + 1
 @ShempHoward: The one thing that will help is moving the BB standards for trail / Enduro bikes to BSA83 bottom bracket width.
  • + 1
 @Loamhuck: I already started an account at deucebigelow.com, now shaving my bean bags and getting ready for the calls.
  • + 31
 Ride a Banshee, zero care. I’ll buy some new dropouts if it really becomes an issue in the future.

Thanks for the interchangeable dropouts Keith. ????
  • + 5
 I don’t think they’re gonna dropout this one easily.
  • + 10
 I also really want a Banshee. Probably the closest you can get to saying ‘f*ck it all’ and just ride the thing instead of worrying about obsolescence.
  • + 6
 Absolutely agree.. love my Banshee for this and so much more. Good work Keith!
  • + 9
 Are they selling actual Banshee branded products in england now? I think it was Mystic or something a few years back. Queen Harry or one of those idiots thought the frame was going to turn into a GGGGGGGGGHOST!!!!!!!!!!!
  • + 2
 @iqbal-achieve: I have a banshee and also I fu*ked the industry by putting a boost wheel on my canfield balance ! suck it up boost-god !
  • + 3
 Riding 2016 spitfire with 26" wheels because I can and have damn lot of fun doing so, upgrading would cost money but not improve much, if any, of fun factor. Tnx banshee
  • + 4
 My scream is on it's 18th season. Still 135mm with 26" wheels. Still rollin!
  • + 1
 @ShempHoward: Halfords abandoned the Banshee name years ago, it's been Banshee bikes over here for some time now. If I still had it my Mythic Scirocco would have been a nice little trivia piece.
  • + 1
 @Fix-the-Spade: Mythic, thank you. You had to have been around MTB awhile to remember the name change because of those pain in the ass real life banshees. Glad to hear they accepted the real name, or in Halfords full of real Banshees,, hooooooooo????
  • + 16
 They told us 29er wheels need to be much stiffer and have us boost spacing and carbon rims. Nowadays these ignorant pro riders go back to alloy rims and their stupid mechanics lower spoke tension for more grip and wheels that are more forgiving. Don't they understand the concept of the industry or didn't they listen at all? Or maybe the whole concept is just bs.
  • + 2
 Not to mention rear triangle flex for straight-lining the rough stuff!
  • + 1
 @jpcars10s: not to mention that it makes sense what Cesar Rojo says about lateral flex being good for grip in corners.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: not to mention the WC DH success of a floppy alu 29er
  • + 2
 In all fairness, I think there is quite a difference between what works for pros and what is good for everyone else (like the old Specialized Demo, that was loved in bike parks around the world, but that had riders like Sam Hill and Gwinn really struggling on WC tracks).

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.
  • + 0
 @FuzzyL: If you want a genuinely sturdy wheel with rather good price and properties, look no further than Spank Spoon32 rim on Hope hubs and dt comps. If you want lighter rims and can spend a bit more, go for DT Ex511.

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.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I definitely suck at cornering, when compared to WC speed, not in general (I hope). So if something is good for a WC rider, it is not necessarily for me, that was my point.

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.
  • + 3
 @FuzzyL: there is no idea. 150 was made because dh bikes in early 2000s needed 83 bb shells for decent tyre/ linkage/ chain guide clearance with good chainline for the full width cassette - It’s that simple. 157 is just an easier to mount version of it. These days DH bikes have non full width cassettes and advancements in manufacturing tech of aluminium but mainly carbon swingarms, as well as BB92 standard, render 83mm BB shells obsolete. As a result so does 157DH become obsolete. Wheel strength was never the objective of 150, it was a slight byproduct. DH/ Enduro wheel will always rely on rim strength. Asymmetrically mounted 142 hubs solve all the problems. All of them. 148-157!should be gone all together.
  • + 12
 The great thing about "standards" is that there are so many to choose from.

It's a very compact oxymoron, being only one word long.
  • + 10
 My old Iron Horse 6point and 7point both had 150mm rear hubs and 83mm BB... I thought it made perfect sense almost 10 years ago. On the flip side, my current bike, a Canfield Balance, has a 142mm rear hub with a 73mm BB, super short chainstays and room for 2.8x27.5 tires. Somehow Lance Canfield figured out how to make a 2.8 tire fit with a 142mm hub. I'm currently running 2.6x27.5 on 35mm internal width aluminum rims. Love the Balance and a new hub standard is not going to make me purchase a replacement.
  • + 5
 There are unfortunately less and less companies like Canfield, Banshee... designing bikes for riders. People are marketing suckers that's why big brands are getting bigger with their wallet draining strategies.
  • + 9
 we had enough, totally unnecessary.
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.
  • + 7
 Super Boost Plus 157 should have been the 1st standard! I thought the whole point of 157 DH when it came out was to widen the spoke stance for a stiffer wheel, yet they forgot to move the hub flange with the disc brake mount.
  • + 13
 No thanks. I don't want or need super wide tires and I definitely don't need any more threats to my rear derailleur being ripped off my bike. 157 DH and 157 SB+ can both die.
  • - 11
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:13) (Below Threshold)
 @ka-brap: its not about wider tires dufus
  • + 13
 @getsomesy: Hey dufus - Getting more tire clearance is one of the reasons for moving to 157 DH and 157 SB+. Here are some quotes from the actual article you didn't bother to read:

"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."
  • - 10
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 4:36) (Below Threshold)
 @ka-brap: just cause some marketing guys said so the article said so doesnt neccisarily make it true. the benifit of the 150/157 hub is flange width. thats about it.

157 sb 157 dh would be rhetorical just different gimmicky names.
  • + 1
 @ka-brap: we need narrower hubs, not wider
  • + 2
 @getsomesy: You don't get it, do you? If you want wide ass tires, then you need to get the chainring further away from the chainstay, and hence a wider BB shell. But if you have a wider BB and don't also put the cassette out wider, then your chainline will be messed up. This is the reason why 157 SB+ helps with tire clearance- it allows for a proper chainline when you have super wide tires.
  • + 1
 @ka-brap: 157SB+ is dumbest of them all, it is bad engineering. Period. It pushes the imbalance between drive side and non drive side caused by flange center offset even further resulting in too much ds tension and not enough nds tension. What solves all the problems is assymetric 142 like cannondale has. 148, 150 and 157 should be gone all together from non plus bikes. Antidote Dark Matter presents perfectly how 142 spacing with shallow shimano freehub, like Hope Pro 4 DH is the best solution for downhill bikes. It places 6 cog cassette on perfect chainline for 83mm BB
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Yes I know. I'm not arguing in favor of SB+ but the opposite- I said SB+ should die. I don't use wide ass tires and I don't want my derailleur more exposed than it already is. Getsomesy said SB+ had nothing to do with wide tires and I'm just showing him that it does have something to do with super wide tires. That's all.
  • - 2
 @ka-brap: ah yes sorry. That is my conspiracy theory too. Nobody made boost for the sake of wheel stiffness. And defo not for chainring/tyre clearance since Trek used wishbone CS/BB interface on Stache from day one, and wishbone would make it work for desired CS length with 142 anyways. They did it for chain/tyre clearance. The rest is a more or less productive whiplash effect
  • + 0
 @ka-brap:

The bb is in front of the, swingarm brace /chainstay yoke,
The wheel is behind the chainstay yoke/ swingarm brace.
  • + 3
 @WAKIdesigns: I agree that low spoke tension on the non drive side with wide flange spacing is still a weak wheel. Take a 142 hub use a converter to 148...now we have even spoke tension and a strong wheel. I am spacing my 15 x 100 to 110mm boost and re-dishing 5mm...stronger wheel.
  • + 1
 @xtcphil: I am also doing this
  • + 6
 The mountain bike industry went the wrong direction. it should have gone dishless back wheel with equal spoke tension (as Hope has done).

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.
  • + 4
 Well as far as I understand, you can take a SB+157 frame and put a regular dishless DH hub in it, which to me seems like the ideal solution really. I don't know why they had to mess with the flange distances, dishless wheels are way more appealing to me. I'd really like to see a stiffness comparison of dishless 157 vs SB+157.
  • + 1
 @Pedro404: I agree
  • + 6
 And my 26 wheeled steel hardtail with some M-zocci coil-spring fork from yr 2012 still holds its beating. I'll wait till 2020 to buy a new bike. I'm not the fastest guy on local trails, but I can have the best fun/invested money ratio.
  • + 6
 Well a friend of mine still rides Nukeproof Scalp, runs 26" wheels and won podium in local urban downhill race. Sure, it's pretty much troublesome to find 26" tires and rims, but somewhat after all these years he always knows how to get those rims and tires.
  • + 9
 I'm not having any trouble at all finding 26" tyres and rims, if you're shopping for them at Tesco, that might be a problem...
  • + 5
 Got 157 spacing on my Pivot Swtichblade and man that real wheel is stiff and straight all day long. Whenever I can't get that whip back around again that wheel stays straight as an arrow every time regardless of my lack of skills. And I NEVER get heel rub. Ever. Don't know what Specialized guy is talking about. Or Trek. It's just not a problem. And the short chainstays are worth the change. By a mile. My Switchblade is run as a 29er and it feels like my 27.5 bike.....easy to manual, huck, it's playful and loves to rail tight corners. I don't see any drawbacks whatsoever. And I've had every standard there's been because I've been riding since the early '90's. And the der. argument just doesn't fly. By that argument we should have just stayed with 135mm spacing. And the weight gain argument? Are you serious? Just don't.

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.
  • + 4
 Going to be wildly entertaining to come back and read this article again in 3 or 4 years when the naysayer brands have switched over and the riders have realized the benefits.
  • + 5
 I really don't get the hate on for Specialized. I'm sure every other company has had similar bad PR. Either I drank the cool-aid or they seem to have the riders interests at the forefront. Same reason they were slow to the 27.5 party. Their 29ers were already good. *disclaimer, I don't own a specialized.
  • + 6
 Specialized go back and forth with good and bad ideas. 142+ was great (same hub spacing as boost in a 142x12 hub), but then they went all in on PF30, they were early on tapered forks instead of 1.5, but they use stupid shock mounts that turn the shock into a direct load bearing part of the linkage, they make great carbon cranks, but they're spaced to fit Specialized bikes only. It's really pot luck whether or not Spesh are going to have a good day or a bad one.
.
The hate is because they sue people who look at them funny or use the letter S, or French words in their branding.
  • + 5
 "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."

So what's your f..... job Duncan ?????
  • + 10
 "we aren't building bikes you know, our goal is just to make parts with random new standards and force the bike companies to follow our "standards" so that the consumer can't just buy a new frame but have to buy a complete new bike or shitloads of adapters every few years." SRAM
  • + 4
 The obvious answer is no. There are no standards in the bike industry and this one will only last as long as its ability to be a talking point for marketing and sales people just like everything else. Rather than buying into any of this bullshit take some riding clinics and coaching. That money will actually improve your riding skills, ability and fun.
  • + 4
 Hope HB160 like other bikes (Liteville,Zerode,Cannondale) made a custom asymmetric rear triangle using a regular hub but same size spokes(or really close) in both sides. Hope go very far by taking the 130x17 mm spacing hub and deleting all the empty spaces (the talk about that in the bike release video). Zerode put a 142x12 hub near same result. Cannondale made it in multiple flavors like 135 and 148x12 with 3 or 6 mm offset. My bike is a 2018 Jekyll with Ai rear wheel,the wheel is way more solid,the spoke tension is more equal. I broke 6 spokes one time and the wheel managed to stay true. If you can do the same thing with less,for me is a win. In my new bike(148x12), my heels never ever touch the chain stays,but in any of my older bikes I have that issue maybe is something related to the overall design of the bike not only the rear hub spacing.
  • + 4
 I would love to know exactly how much extra stiffness this provides. Or at least someone to do the maths on the angle change of the spoke between 135, 142, 148, 157 and now 157+?
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.
  • + 3
 Tracy Moseley found that the 29er's were noodley as hell for racing and asked Trek to come up with a solution. The change made 29ers as stiff as 26" wheel (www.pinkbike.com/news/sram-announces-new-hub-standards-boost-148-and-110-2015.html). This opened the door for all these long travel 29ers you see today, so it kinda needed to happen.

Of course, we could have avoided ALL of this by just sticking to 26" wheels, but meh.
  • + 4
 Based on the incredible amount of increased heel rub my size 13 feet cause on boost 148 frames, I'm only a few mm away from not being able to pedal without bowing out my heels like a G.D. pigeon.
  • + 3
 THIS S#!T HAS GOT TO STOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
  • + 6
 Who likes riding 2.8 tires???? Even 2.6 is mega bulky for trail riding. Maxxis please don't stop making 2.3 tires.
  • + 3
 In 2005, you could get an XT class full suspension bike for 2500$. The similar class bike has now tripled in price when the inflation has increased by 30% for the same time period. New standards sinks the resale value of your bikes and makes them obsolete and non upgradable and drive this non sustainable cost increase of bikes. If you want MTB to be your family sport these days, 4 XT class bikes will cost you 25K CAD which is half the disposable income of the average families in Canada. I'm not too sure where the bike industry is going, but having new standards every month is not helping democratizing the sport. In the aerospace business, we drive our supply chain to follow inflation....or less. What the bike industry need is a good kick in the ...beeep.... Their creativity should be focused on cost reduction instead and getting the right design out the first time. We don't redesign an airplane every 2 years for crying out loud. It simply will not survive in the long run. And I haven't spoken about suspension manufacturers recommending 100+$ overhaul on forks, shocks and droppers every season. Makes it times 4 for the 4 family bikes mentioned above! I don't remember the last time I had to change shock oil and seals on my car's shocks! This is one of the biggest unspoke scam in the industry and somehow no one seems to complain about this. It is a sad thing, it is such a nice sport.
  • + 3
 The bike industry hates you. Just accept that they are going to continually ream you with new "standards", justified by iffy science and imaginary benefits that have little to no real word affect on 95% of the riding community.

Next, SuperBoost SL 152mmx14mm. Prep your anus.
  • + 3
 Dear Bike Industry:

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.

Your sincerely,

A frustrated mountain biker
  • + 3
 I feel like geometry has settled down enough in the last 2 years (barring the most recent switches toward genuinely steep seat tubes) that standard changes are less likely to obsolete your frame in the way that 26 dying and boost axles did. It just hopefully means new bikes will feel like slightly better versions of the thoroughly sorted trail bikes a lot of us ride now in 27.5 and 29. I'm generally not as worried as I was before my last bike purchase and hope the bike I bought 18 months ago stays as relevant for as long as my asr5 did before it and puts me in a 4-5 year cycle and allows me to keep my nice wheels etc and take them to my next frame
  • + 7
 Suck it bike industry.
  • - 2
 Haha, I was brought up to believe products are of poor quality. But bicycles are great. I figure, "OMG my bike broke, at least I wasn't walking". Also I had a 550$ Norco as a child, that was absolutely amazing, no complaints here!
  • + 2
 f*ck, not another new rear hub standard! the bike industry needs to maintain a set of core consistent standards for hubs & BBs not unlike 1 1/8" threadless for headsets. otherwise shops will need to buy new tools, consumers will have to buy new wheels, & this then becomes the next shit parade of unnecessary mechanical complexity. KISS, people - keep it simple stupid.
  • + 2
 Time for industry leaders to put their big boy pants on and create a set of standards - across all cycling disciplines. It's time for the industry to mature and show some coherence.

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.
  • + 2
 I'm riding a 2013 Specialized Stumpjumper carbon comp that I've heavily upgraded with shorter stems, wider rims (30mm) and tires (2.6"), 1x, etc, etc. It's reach matches the 2019 reach (or there abouts). It sports short chain stays. It runs 142mm spacing, and sure, this makes it a tight fit for the 2.6" tires, but it works well. But every time I get close to thinking that I need to upgrade, somebody in the industry shifts something, leaving me to think "f*$k that guy", I'm hanging on to what I've got and just learning to ride it better. It's interesting too, given my professional background, that many of these designers of "new standards" seem to be engaging in some sort of mental masturbation over what is good for the bike in one small area. Rarely do they think about it from a rider first perspective. Great, 157 leads to a stiffer wheel. But what does that mean for the rider having issues with a wider Q-factor, clipping their heels, and bashing their derailleur through the rocks? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
  • + 2
 Can someone explain to me why rear hub spacing has anything to do with tire clearance? The widest part of the tire is about 14 inches away from the axle. Max tire width seems to be limited by either chainring/chainstay or crank/chainstay interference. Going aft, chainstays have to flare out once they get past the crankarm radius in order to accomodate the rear hub. Whether they flare out to 142, 148, or 157 mm spacing seem irrelevant to the issue of tire clearance.
Thanks.
  • + 2
 Because chainline. Wider tire necessitates wider chainstay. Wider chainstay necessitates moving the chainring further out. If your chainring moves further out, so should your cassette.
  • + 2
 The rear hub width determines where the cassette sits in space. The chainring to cassette alignment is specified by drivetrain companies. Thus, if you move the cassette outboard, it moves the chainring outboard, which makes more tire clearance between the chainring, chainstay, and tire.
  • + 2
 Switchblade has been out for a while. Guys know what the extra stiffness is and it's not all that great for everyone. That lack of flex can lead to wheels chattering instead of gripping. Even the bike Bible guys talked about not really loving it. Not sure why we are pushing so hard for that. Carbon asymmetrical 32h rims on boost are more than stiff enough. This is getting silly.
  • + 4
 Because of all this BS my next frame is going to be a banshee with 142x12 rear. I have both carbon and alloy wheelsets in that spacing.
  • + 3
 And 142mm spacing is actually still plenty stiff. Burn the new standards to the ground.
  • + 2
 the bicycle industry selling solutions to problems that dont exist. Nobody was really destroying rear wheels on the reg at 142. Sure 29er's really benefited from 148 boost, but are you guys still blowing up rear wheels!?!?
  • + 2
 Dear Super Boost Plus, Please die! - Everybody I was in the market for a new bike a couple of months ago. I was interested by the Devinci Spartan, but I wanted to see the new Troy 2019 before buying. As soon as it came out, I realized it was Super Boost 157 and I ordered the Spartan without the slightest hesitation.
  • + 1
 You do realize you can just use a standard 157DH hub, right? There are a ton of hub options. Crank options as well, any Raceface cinch crank works fine with the correct spindle, along with many options from SRAM (not sure on Shimano yet).
  • + 2
 @freerider11: Yes I do realize that.

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. Smile 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. Frown

Its a good thing riding bikes is just as fun as it has always been!
  • + 4
 @AProulx: Agreed! And I welcome 157 spacing more than I did 148, simply because I can now use my 6 year old DH hub on my new boost 157 bike if I want. My previous boost 148 bike was a different story though...
  • + 3
 I could care less what new standard comes out. When my old bike needs replacement I buy a new one at that time. You don't need to buy a new bike every year....new bikes last a long while ...just go peddle
  • + 2
 I'm terrified of 157 rear spacing on 73mm BB bikes. I have size 51 wide feet and ride heel-in on my rearward foot. I already hit my stays enough with my heels, and any more I think I might get bucked off the pedal during suspension action. Please no super boost
  • + 3
 How about just getting in better shape? Or just buy a dirt bike, as you'l get all kinds of performance gains AND they are cheaper. These mountain bike illuminate are a bunch of c*nts.
  • + 2
 I hope the bike companies are reading these comments. Not only do people not want it, there seems to be a general contempt for it. Maybe they should concentrate their efforts on making quality value priced bikes. Make it easier for people to get into the sport, creating new customers.
  • + 4
 "Super Boost Plus 157, a name meant to poke a little fun at the constantly changing hub standards."
Makes fun of constantly changing standards, changes standards again...
  • + 3
 The basis of Transition bikes entire marketing strategy.
  • + 2
 Pretty crazy how blind transition fanbois are. This reads exactly like a transition punchline
  • + 2
 I've read from wheelbuilders that the best wheel strength is from having equil spoke lengths. That's why the 157DH is as it is. With 157 boost you are actually weakening the wheel. I use a efs rear hub which designed like that.
  • + 4
 (I think) this is why Hope went with 130mm for their rear on the HB160
  • - 8
flag deadmeat25 (Aug 28, 2018 at 1:33) (Below Threshold)
 Sorry, but you've read that from stupid wheel builders that on that day simply had nothing better to write, and simply fell firmly into the 'had something to say / had to say something' conundrum that plagues many an idiot.

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...
  • + 12
 Pinkbike should start doing infomercials at 4a.m. to push the latest and greatest new fads.
  • + 1
 @deadmeat25: so hopes wrong too, their hubs with the raised flanges to equil spoke angles on the DH hubs is just rubbish then.. dames as reverse with the efs hub I have. Also rear wheels had to be dished this way too on a lot of 135 rear frames. There was testing done too to back this up, will try n dig it up but was few years ago.. it also said wider is not better, the is a sweet spot for each wheel size for maximum strength..
  • + 3
 @deadmeat25: wider is not always stronger, because forces are not only applied in one direction.
  • - 1
 @deadmeat25: Harsh but 100% true. I'm not surprised the meat heads here are downvoting.
  • + 3
 I remember reading the article on the HB160 an the theory was that, hope had found that equal flange spacing (equal spoke tension) was more important to overall strength of the wheel than wide but, un-equal. An they could make a wheel just as strong as boost with a 130mm hub
or something
  • + 2
 @deadmeat25: Well... I'm a big fan of bracing angle but... There are tradeoffs in play. Symmetric let's both sides have optimal spoke tension. Dish gets asymptotically worse as it decreases, so was real problem on road bikes, MTB it's not a bracing angle crisis, under tensioned spokes seem to be a real problem though.

If you have good data can you share it?
  • + 0
 @deadmeat25: If you use your brain, maybe all the downvotes will tell you that the wheel builder isn’t quite as big an idiot as you seem to be.

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.
  • + 1
 @Tim2: Yeah coz this is the holy grail of knowledge bases lol...

Don't be a dick, a wider bracing angle will never weaken a wheel...
  • + 1
 @deadmeat25: I think you will find, that that is not entirely true. I think it's something about wider flanges increase the lateral strength, but reduce radial strength. Something along those lines. Don't quote me on that though.
  • + 0
 @deadmeat25: It may not be the holy grail of knowledge but when you're arguing the case for what seems obvious on the surface but once you look closer isn't such a great idea, shouldn't the 'ignorant masses' be on your side?

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.
  • + 2
 Just an FYI, Super Boost cranks/chainrings use the same offset (0mm) as Specialized often uses in their PF30 frames...so there isn’t a “new” standard chainring offset that is mentioned. Still just 3 chainring offsets, 6mm (135mm/142mm frames), 3mm (Boost 148mm frames), 0mm (PF30 frames + Super Boost 157mm frames).
  • + 1
 Specialized keep 135mm on the Demo to help us not destroy derailleurs ? How nice, what about offering a gearbox bike which will completely solve the problem ? Ye now that's a real solution, not a slight incremental improvement ...
  • + 9
 it just does not work. Gear boxes work well with motors, not with leg powered bicycles.
  • + 3
 @zede: Yes I would agree, so far enduro GB bikes haven't really proved to be good as pedal efficiency isn' great. For DH purpose though it's not the same, GB enhance suspension efficiency giving more grip which is way more important as demonstrated by many successful chainless runs at WC level. As such GB gives you a better CG, free-up the rear suspension and also allows to change gear without pedaling which would be a usefull feature. let alone the rut/stumps clearance. Who cares about pedaling seriously ? DH all the way.
  • + 1
 The superboost stuff just plain feels like the epitome of "A solution looking for a problem." I just don't see anyone with a new bike begging for more stiffness that can't be had already. It also seems like a lot of over the counter wheels all use only 28h rim/hubs when for only a few extra grams and you could easily have 32h wheel set, which if I'm not mistaken makes said wheels stiffer and more durable. Like who really needs superboost? Is everyone's bike such a noodle out back?
  • + 1
 No one needs it. Switchblade has 428mm stays, 135mm travel, and will fit a 29/2.5" or 27/3.25". Firebird 29 has 429mm stays, 162mm travel, and will fit a 29/2.6". Problem: people want more travel, larger tires, better mud clearance, and longer bearing life. Solution: 157mm spacing. It's significant progress for 29er; don't buy one without it. Spoke tension and extrusion/layup make wheel stiffness, the first of which is adjustable.
  • + 1
 @ceecee: eh? I have chainstays that are 7mm longer than the firebird. That's a quarter in longer. Plenty of room for 2.6in in the back (but really who wants 2.6 out back other than crappy Rekons that can't hang). Mud clearance is the same here in pnw as on a switchblade. Mud will be there regardless so I have protection. Bike is 155mm/170mm travel 29er boost with asymmetrical carbon hoops. I have literally none of the problems you are talking about. I just think a lot of people buy flawed bikes like Carbon Smuggler with zero tire clearance and act like the issue is hub spacing instead of dumb design choice. And to ignore that super boost doesn't have issues is not smart. My heels rub on the Switchblade and the backend is really stiff with the Reynolds. I didnt care for it. Plus ultra short stays are dumb (I like they short) as I'm a taller guy and like the stability at speed. Either way a 1/4in in chainstay length isn't going to change the world for my ride so Def no need for this silly super boost.
  • + 2
 @Svinyard: Glad you're happy with yr existing bike. I don't want 2.6 either. But I'll eat my hat if we don't see many more long-travel 29ers with 157mm spacing in the next couple of years. Knolly and Devinci are already on board, and Giant is prototyping it for DH, no doubt 29". People are just bent that there's something better, even if it only substantially helps racers and bike sales.

www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/super-boost-mtb-axle-standard-what-it-is-and-where-it-is-going-51686

nsmb.com/articles/super-boost-plus-better
  • + 1
 @Svinyard: P.s. I've two 135 x 10 hardtail 29s with asymmetric stays and rims and a 5010.2, so I'm not speaking as proud owner of 157mm.
  • + 3
 This is just preparing us for the new wheel size that is coming: 30.99". Then the "Gods" will have to create "Super Boost Plus Extra f*ckya".
  • + 1
 As people get fatter, is only gonna get wider to accommodate more gears and claim more stiffness! That’s a fact! These bike Co. are killing the sport with high prices! They cut down their cost, but don’t pass on any benefits to the consumers!
  • + 1
 Wider Q Factor = The Suck. 157SB+ is just the next increment as bike makers struggle to find a way to differentiate themselves. Let them go. There will always be makers differentiating themselves by making bikes the majority of us want.
  • + 1
 Ohh standards. You've cost me a hell of a lot of money and I'm tired of it.

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.
  • + 1
 Peter Z+10 seems to be the only"statesman" in the group.....recommending some industry leaders get together and actually standardize some of these so-called "we better do this or we'll lose market share" mods that drive everyone crazy. Oh wait.....that's what free enterprise is all about: Eat or get eaten!

Glad to see one of them actually thinks about a possible solution rather than riding the fickle wave of changing "standards".
  • + 3
 Your bike fine. The industry conspires against us! Save all of your very hard earned cash for a 2 week trip to Whistler instead.
  • + 1
 Has there been any sort of controlled experiment done to observe wheel stiffness using different spoke flange widths? If not then some resourceful pinkbiker ought to do it and post it! Also, can any rider on here confidently say that they can tell a difference with stiffness? I know that is not the only reason for boost spacing but I am just curious.
  • + 1
 The most sensible suggestion is a cross company industry consortium to discuss (and publicly publish) the notes from such meetings. It would be good for the industry and for consumers to understand these changes rather than second guessing what each engineer is thinking...
  • + 1
 How about Yeti's response; finally some logic and direction.. I'm all for the sport progressing but clean the shit up guys!! I'm a bike freak so I can keep up but when talking with bike shops / online retailers and its clear that a lot of them are completely lost and clueless with todays standards, you got a problem!!
  • + 2
 Do it for 29DH. Makes sense there. But thats it. All we need is 15x110 and 12x148 for trail, XC, and AM. DH and Enduro stuff is relatively interchangeable so go with 20x110 and 12x157 for that.
  • + 1
 Yes! Listen to this guy.
  • + 1
 Business school 101:
"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...
  • + 2
 "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."
True: They all are in the same basket, the Standards business.
  • + 3
 Nope it will not be the new standard, word has it that Renthal are currently working on a 35mm diameter 800mm long through axle that will be backwards compatible
  • + 2
 Why stop at 157...why not just move to 177 ? It already exists as a fat bike standard, and riders are obviously willing to put up with the Q-factor of cranks on those since they far outsell downhill bikes.
  • + 1
 It’s about time the industry has to settle over some standard… standards! The new “standards” are popping around with an increasing frequency, making it difficult even to follow the now numbers.

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.

So
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…
  • + 1
 Of course it’s gonna happen, 29” Wheels need the extra angle on the spokes.

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
  • + 2
 I do not get it why they not give the freewheel more spacing now. With all those gears at the cassette piling up the drivetrain is already ridiculously sensible even to the tiniest dent in the derailleur or its hanger.
  • + 1
 I keep asking this. 12 speeds are a pain to dial in because the gears are so close together. It only makes sense to widen the cassette. Where they chose to make incremental changes is so arbitrary. That's what really drives me crazy.
  • + 3
 I was popping off the pedals on my bike yesterday, I realised that pedals are about the only things that haven't changed. Not that I want to encourage them...
  • + 1
 The rear spacing fashion show has led to a change in bike purchase strategy for me. Used to be the old adage was to buy the best frame possible and then upgrade components when possible. Now, my strategy is to look for the cheapest frame and get better components. Shimano's product cycle is about four years so it's a better bet that the components won't be obsolete sooner than the frame.
  • + 1
 Unfortunately.....the large majority of the buying bike community are suckers, will buy anything they’re told too. So it wouldn’t surprise me the least. The modern bike industry offers no choices in new products, you but what they offer or too bad. You must settle on something else.
FAIL!
  • + 3
 As I yell wtf the silent monster in my head says I must have super boost. I am the problem.
  • + 0
 I really don't see the problem. I currently i have one bike with a 135 x 10 axle, another with 135 x 12, another with 150 x 12 and 2 with 148 x 12, i can get parts for all of them, hubs are still available in all of those sizes, none of my frames have suddenly fallen over put their legs in the air and died when a new 'standard' has come out, they all get along well, i've never heard any of my bikes arguing with each other in the shed at night time, i've experienced no hub spacing type racism out on the trail and i've lost precisely zero sleep over any of it..

So, what the f*ck is everyone f*cking crying about???
  • - 2
 I agree it isnt really as big an issue as it seems reading the comments. For me though it is a pain as I rely heavily on resale to keep me in a half decent bike. It does devalue bikes with ‘older’ standards as everyone wants the new stuff.
  • + 4
 @iqbal-achieve: Does it actually devalue your bike? How can you tell it wouldn't be equally worthless over the same amount of time without new standards? I might sell my 2009 Canfield Jedi, it's f*cking beautiful, but will the price be determined by the 150mm rear spacing, the 26" wheels or simply the fact that it's nigh on ten years old and a million other bikes have come out since then?
  • + 2
 @deadmeat25 Exactly. Five years ago my main whip had a 135 x10 thru-axle and was great. Then up until last year my bike had a 12 x 142 and it was great too. I now have a bike with 12 x 148 and one 12 x142. They both are a blast. I think that if you really want a certain bike you just go with whatever standard is on the rear and don't worry too much about compatibility and certainly not performance gains. The later will be negligible for most. Ride on.
  • + 2
 @deadmeat25: That is all true!
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.
  • + 2
 It's probably people who have one bike for all of their riding that are complaining.

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.
  • + 2
 @deadmeat25: i think there's a lot of riders out there who THINK they need to have the latest and greatest kit so they don't get laughed at in the bike parks, when in actual fact no one gives a shit.
I'm all for it, i love a new standard to stir things up.
  • + 1
 @deadmeat25: it’s not as simple as I made it sound but it is 100% a factor. There are actually times when it works the other way...at first people didn’t want boost frames etc so you could actually see a better return on an older 142 frame.
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.
  • + 1
 @jaame: I'm sure you would like all your wheels to fit all your bikes, but can you do that on cars? Can you take parts from one remote control helicopter and put them straight on another? Are all space rocket parts interchangeable? What about shopping trolleys? Do you want bikes to be designed and built for a specific purpose or do you want them all to be completely the f*cking same? My Brooklyn uses a 135 x 12mm axle but the wheel has to be dished for 150 spacing, try putting that wheel on a different bike! I say just get the f*ck on with it, the ONLY difference i can see with all these 'standards' flying around is more choice not less, more scope for frame designers to get funky and whole load of shit for morons to get angry about...
  • + 1
 @pcmxa: Nope, just sell your old parts, and out that towards a whole new bike if that's your choice, or find a second hand replacement frame the same as your old one, you're simply stating worst case scenario to make a weak point, you always have more options than just buying a whole new bike.
  • + 1
 @iqbal-achieve: Ok so you're a frame designer, you have this great idea that you are sure will give a performance benefit, you've spoken to the relevant component manufactures and they can supply what you need, but then someone says 'No, you can't do that because it i will affect the second hand price of peoples old components", and you'd just say, "Oh alright then, i won't".

You sure dude?
  • + 2
 @deadmeat25: lol I’m not suggesting they change anything because of me. I’m just saying it’s a pain in my backside is all
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.
  • + 1
 @deadmeat25: nice one. I've only got one car so I'm not about to change wheels on it! Having said that, the wheels off my old escort would have fitted my focus, had I wanted them to!
  • + 1
 @iqbal-achieve: Planned obsolescence? Reeeeaaaallly??? Not everything is the lightbulb conspiracy mate come on..

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?
  • + 2
 @deadmeat25: not sure why you’ve got your knickers in a twist mate. Planned obsolescence is going on all around you, it’s no conspiracy or secret.
Re: pain in my backside see previous comments.
  • + 3
 Ohhh a discussion on Industry Standards... I got my popcorn, screw the content, I'm going in on the comments section
  • + 2
 Ditch the >10speed cassette and go back to 135/142
Bring in gear boxes so we can get our Q factor back AND have a stiffer wheel
  • + 1
 +1 to this, gearboxes are the future
  • + 0
 This is actually good news - If the best thing the bike companies can come up with in terms of new innovation is minor hub-spacing changes, I think we're approaching peak mtb innovation, meaning it's a good time to buy a good bike that won't outdate itself anytime soon. I think we've settled on the big things like wheel size, tire width, frame geometry, suspension travel, gears, so now it's just about tweaking for minor gains. It also helps that the industry has a brand new market to chase with ebikes so hopefully some of the pressure to constantly push something new to the same audience is easing somewhat.
  • + 1
 Super boost plus is the single reason i didnt buy a seitchblade last year. I have a $2500 wheelset and i intend to bring it from one bike to the next. A good hub is worth more to me than the latest trend.
  • + 2
 Oh and I forgot, you can use proper bearings in GXP BB and not tiny undersized balls that are needed when using 30mm axle in BB86/92 frames.
  • - 7
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:52) (Below Threshold)
 assumng that was at me you could just not use a 30mm spindle 24 instead i actually should have said BB392EVO thats where id put my money.
  • + 3
 Superman, superboots, superboobs, superdick, supersaiya, whatelse dude? Com'on?
  • + 3
 "For us the choice was pretty easy: moustache"

- Duncan Riffle, MTB PR and Moustache Coordinator, SRAM
  • + 1
 I hope not, but I think it'll be unless everyone votes with their wallets, it's gonna happen. I'm still on an HD3 with 142 and I have a Ripley with 148. Can't tell the difference, Ripley is easier to pedal, that's all.
  • + 0
 Interesting how SRAM themselves don't know they have SB 157mm compatible cranks...

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.
  • + 1
 Yeah, non compatible parts are the future. Still on my 2014 Devinci Troy. And still happy. Innovation is one thing, but we the buyers cannot handle it. The pockets are empty. Happy to hear many people agree with this.
  • + 4
 Well, that's enough internet for today..
  • + 1
 Anyone else irritated by the number 157? How about making it an even number? Why not 160mm? This is proof to me that the whole thing is invented my marketing and not by proper, trustworthy, OCD engineers. It's a prime FFS!!!
  • + 1
 No.
  • + 1
 Well they need ROOM for the NEXT fucked up standards...think...they use marketing tactics just like SMARTphone industries. Sickening, specially to someone riding for more than 20years.
  • + 2
 @MrLski: for someone riding over 20 years surely you can appreciate that bikes are good now and 20 years ago were utter piles of shit.
  • + 1
 I wonder why Cannondale is not featured here. They achieve basically the same thing just with some offset of the rear hub towards the drive side. A much more sensible approach imho.
  • + 0
 Sounds like Specialzed feels burned by their years of proprietary stuff.

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.
  • + 3
 Yup, Knolly definitely made the right call there. Well done!
  • + 0
 Hey if manufacturers want to give my future $500 carbon hardtail 275x3.8 and 29x2.8 tire clearance with short chainstays, I'll gladly go 157, but since I'm not planning on running those wheel/tire setups on my 140mm bike, I'm good with 148.
  • + 1
 So pathetic this industry. Should have been 157 to begin with instead of making a new standard. Same with 27.5, should have gone straight to 29er. New standards for no reason that are gone within a few years.
  • + 6
 Big, dumb 29ers are the whole reason this problem exists: flexy, weak-ass 29 inch wheels.
  • + 0
 @dooganmcdoogan: The only we are talking about this is because of 29ers. There was no need for wider hub spacing until people who want mountain biking to be easy started riding flexy 29 inch wheels. If you want mountain biking to be easy, buy an e-bike!
  • + 1
 @axleworthington: if you want to stay slow. stick to 26" bro.
  • + 1
 I rub my right foot on my chainstays enough already. My spoke tension is JUST fine, and I can pedal up 5000 foot alpine climbs with 1x11. Leave it alone.
  • + 2
 To the industry: you can take all your new standards and shove them up your arse , one milimeter at the time.
  • + 1
 Peter Zawistowski – Director of Engineering, Yeti Cycles

This guy talks a lot of sense about needing a proper industry consortium.
  • + 2
 No idea about all of this. I still run a 135 QR rear. It’s worked great since 2003.
  • + 3
 The bike industry is shit. However, riding mountain bikes is very fun.
  • + 3
 I'm done .... the bike co's think we are all morons
  • + 1
 Yes, you’re one of the few who’ve woke up.
  • + 0
 Since all bikes now are boosed to 148, Marketing peeps thought of another way to increase profit. There's no technical advantage or purpose for super boost. The only thing that's boosting is their pockets.
  • + 1
 142 was better than QR. Boost was dumb. 157 May (maybe, might, but we’re not really sure) solve some problem for someone. But whatever we do, we need Boost to die.
  • + 1
 Stupid we dont need bikes changing ever f*cking year, by a bike thats 5 thousand and its outdated wtf is going on. I come from bmx racing jusy f*cking ride
  • + 4
 FUCK OFF!
  • + 2
 Not sure this new standard will work with my V brakes, i guess i could space 'em out a bit.
  • + 2
 They just try to find something to sell bikes, that is the industry and it is the goal of a proper company.
  • + 2
 No the new standard after the new standard. Will become the new standard. Welcome to bike marketing 101.
  • + 2
 All these standards are nightmare for the second hand market. Better buy new wheels because you cant find an used set...
  • + 3
 158.. cause its far superior to 157. Wait for it.
  • + 3
 THE new standard
or
another new standard...............?
  • + 3
 My question is: when does super mega boost (163mm) come out?
  • + 1
 foes had 165 on the dhs, 15 years ago
  • + 1
 @pointe: So did Nicolai on the M-pire, with a 100mm BB. Now that was a beast !
  • - 1
 177mm fat bike spacing will be stiffer, stronger, and wider than 157mm spacing. Let's all just go straight to fat bike spacing. Will it become an XC standard? Probably not. Trail standard? Oh yeeaah.

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.
  • + 1
 bansheebikes.com/prime

29" frame with capacity for 2.8" tires using boost, 2.6" non boost.

Thank you Banshee for working with us.
  • + 2
 I can't go buy a pack of smokes without running into 10 guys who don't need super boost.
  • + 1
 Need help from the ancient : when they introduced 157DH, why didn't they use all the space to widen the flanges ? lots of unused space next to the disc.
  • + 2
 And that Sram seven speed dh cassette! Haha haha haha!
  • + 1
 @jaame: In fairness look at Reverse, doing the 7 speed the right way and probably having a better dish balance than supermegaultraboost. Having equal lenght flanges is actually more beneficial to wheel strength rather than wider unequal flanges.
  • + 2
 @Balgaroth: yeah I know. I saw a proto hub years ago on a mate's bike which had a shorter freezing body, seven cogs off a nine speed cassette, equally spaced flanges and the benefit of a nine speed chain that not even Chris Hoy could snap... yet still we get fed this twelve speed crap for downhill with only seven gears, uneven flanges and literally 14mm of wasted space!
  • + 2
 I'd stick with 142 if I could. I definitely like more clearance from roots, rocks, and other destructive objects.
  • + 3
 Obligatory XKCD comic regarding standards...

xkcd.com/927
  • - 1
 "we initially questioned why 148 Boost was introduced in the first place given that both the feature set and performance gains were so minimal"
Still f*cking did it though, didn't you Noel?
  • - 2
 Yeah FFS Noel. Buckled like an effing belt.
  • + 3
 No, because Knolly skipped boost altogether with all of their bikes you twat. Did you even read the whole statement?
  • + 1
 @Artikay13: skipped boost? They're making SUPERBOOST ffs, the worse of them all.
  • + 2
 ultimate extreme uber boost plus spacer extendables, 157mm to 210mm
  • + 1
 This is hilarious. What company up there will have the balls to admit the error of their ways with this bullshit?
  • + 1
 Seems like super boost plus is best for short chain stays. But isn’t the trend towards longer chainstays?
  • + 3
 fnck you Industry!
  • + 1
 Go ahead and say it. FUCK you bike industry and your bullshit. Do some blind testing to prove any of this bullshit actually does anything in the real world.
  • + 1
 Well I just got myself 2014 Transition TR500, it feels good. I could careless about the new standard in bike industries...
  • + 1
 Yes, bring it on, there is a way to convert a regulat 148 hub to super boost and it gives almost perfect spoke tension.
  • + 1
 This is not a new standard, but only a reminder that there are no standards.
  • + 2
 Be like SRAM, 156.99 is the magic number.
  • + 2
 ultra boost 175mm in 2020!
  • + 2
 Ultra super dooper boost?
  • + 3
 @willaasss: yes, in 2022, 190mm spacing, moto wheels compatible
  • + 1
 I’m holding out for Max Super Boost 169 plus BFG, coming sooner than you think.
  • + 1
 WUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT?
This a New Boost WUt® (137.17505 mm more than wide)
  • + 0
 Why don't we just jump straight to 200mm spacing and be done with this changes of a couple of mm at a time with someone saying "wider is better"?
  • + 2
 For the love of everything, no more axle standards!
  • + 1
 Why not just leave normal bikes one standard, and use motorbike standards for all this enduro downhill crap
  • + 3
 Ffs
  • + 1
 Really? No thank you! Just had the issue of somehow update my Thule outrider to boost front hub...
  • - 2
 Like it or not, ideas like this drive this industry forward and its what has led us to what we have now. 157 isn't going to get adopted any time in the next 4-5 years. and even if it does, almost EVERY hub manufacturer is still offering 135 &142.
148 isn't going away anytime soon.
  • + 6
 That is what they said about 26 too... but if the industry want you to move on, they just only produce the new parts and size.. simple.. And I hate product minded industries... that worked with the T-Ford and the black color, but nowadays that should not be the way to treat your customers
  • + 1
 148 is going away real soon because it's useless. Heel rubs like a 157 without the benefits of the 157. Unless the trend of stupid short chain stays goes away, 142 will stay best for people that pedal and that have normally sized feet while 157 best for DH. I feel sorry for anyone that have feet size over 42 because soon no pedal bike will be good for you anymore
  • - 2
 @zede: not sure whether short chainstays are a stupid trend. For a 29” bike for amateurs it’s a Godsend. I would never personally ride a 29er with stays longer than 440, preferably 430
  • - 8
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:18) (Below Threshold)
 150/157 is already adopted by multiple companies in trail bikes and has been used in most dh bikes in the last 12 years, its really nothing new! infact i think part of the reason 148 happened is cause sram probably didnt want a bunch of us just using our dh wheels on frame up buuilds and wheel swapping instead of buying their new CRAP.

there are some really dim people on here, sheese
  • - 1
 @getsomesy: you assume 157 is great for trail bikes, I assume it isn’t. 157 isn’t even good for DH bikes now.
  • - 9
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:27) (Below Threshold)
 @zede: I wear size 46 12 or 11 US. I run the narrowest cranks (q factor) that i can get my hands on.
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!
  • - 16
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:30) (Below Threshold)
 @zede: 157 is dumb. 150 is sensible, strong but not etranious width . if you dont want wide bikes lets get rid of the 7mm wheel dropout guides, there only there for people who suck really bad at puttin wheels in dropouts anyways. also lets just get rid of rear derrailuers, they're the real problem (besides your lack bike handling skills running into shit) ok ok we can just move the hanger in and use more sleek dropouts.
  • - 14
flag getsomesy (Aug 28, 2018 at 3:34) (Below Threshold)
 @WAKIdesigns: I dont assume or think 157 is great, its unneccisarily wide. 150 is sensible for heavy duty mtb's.
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
  • - 1
 @getsomesy: there is a group of people who think QF 156 vs 168 makes difference in performance or that it can ruin your knees. Screw them. But 176 of old Saints is fkng wide. And this is exactly what you need for Boost 157. As to installing wheels, what? That is the only thing that is good about wider standards. Those people who can’t install wheels, oh really, it’s only 99.999999999999999% of bike popoulation save a few hard men like you, meaning, how about we can not care about those tough mdr fkrs and do something that suits 99.9999999999999% of people.
  • + 0
 @zede: Well, Yeti just released there new bikes and there's no super boost to be found.. Same with 2019 santa cruz
  • + 2
 @zede: who the hell wears a 42? What is that like size 8.5 merican?
  • + 2
 @pargolf8: the label in my 5.10 says 42 and 9 US. anyways, i'm 177cm and i'm guessing everyone taller than me has longer feet.
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.
  • + 2
 @zede: im wearing a 44 on my patrol and experience no rub at all. clips and flats. god i love that bike
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Doesn't your Antidote have stays that are 440mm static and 450mm at sag Waki?
  • - 1
 @Fix-the-Spade: yes that is longest I can take. For 27,5. For 29 I prefer shorter due to more bb drop and increased wheel inertia
  • + 1
 I’ve gone full circle, I’m back to 26” 10,135. That’s what a midlife crisis does to you.
  • + 1
 I run a 2015 Banshee Rune 26 PLUS! On Maxxis 2.8 DHR, DHF, so sick, so fast, so grippy! So fun!
  • + 1
 I'll enjoy hitting my heels on 142 chainstays while I wait for the bike industry to figure out its shit. #murmaider
  • + 1
 Why everyone obeessed with standard, buy best bike that fits you, and risde shit out of it! Then consider next purchase
  • + 2
 It is all about the $$$ and you're the ass for buying new every 1-2 years!
  • + 1
 No thanks, Zero dish 12x150 is all you will ever need on a downhill bike. Stop hurting your customers, we do not need it!
  • + 2
 super boost your face hole
  • + 1
 SRAM! you only had one job and that was to answer either yes or no. Don’t shove that marketing bull about dub on us.
  • + 1
 Beware word on the street is that next year Super Duper Boost ++ x2 is coming out....
  • + 1
 Im sittin on the toilet just got the info that i will lose my job in 1 month, and now seeing this!
F*** that!
  • + 2
 I still run 9x100mm front and 9x135mm rear lol
  • + 1
 I up grade every year or two to feed my addiction....I just can't say no to another mnb hit! I need help
  • + 1
 Super Boost=John Wayne Q-factor
  • + 1
 Noel Buckley... This is how all manufacturers should be thinking
  • + 1
 Boost 148 should have never happened. It’s such a waste of time
  • + 1
 Bike industry has lost all respect! Go get fucked money grubbing elitists!
  • + 1
 Of course It is, until they invent a new one. Bullshit, bulshit, bullshit
  • + 2
 I quit.
  • + 1
 More Horse sh£$e...No thx
  • + 2
 ugh stop it.
  • + 1
 I just want to be able to use my 12x150 hope pro II wheelset again Frown
  • + 2
 Oxymoron New standard.
  • - 3
 "Super Boost 157 can be beneficial when you are pairing short chainstays with wide (like 3.0-inch) tires" Specialized genius guy

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.
  • + 3
 That's exactly his point though. While it CAN be beneficial, but it has a slew of negative points, like making the rear end way too wide. He definitely wasn't excited about SB+
  • + 2
 @ka-brap: but his example of beneficial use is just wrong. People who need a stiffer rear end are the ones that go fast. And nobody that rides 3inch wide tyres corners fast enough to bend their wheel…
  • + 1
 Or you could just ride 27.5 wheels and not flexy-ass 29ers.
  • + 2
 ...or 26 where there was NEVER any of these bullshit issues. 27.5 and 29 will forever be the answers to the question no one was asking!
  • + 1
 I don't have this experience but I have 29" 32h asymmetrical carbon rims on a nice 2018 RM frame. I think its more of a wheelbuild issue or some goofy frame linkage that is the issue. Not a new hub/flange spacing that comes with its own slew of issues. No one seems to talk about that tho.
  • + 1
 After 14 years I finally sold my hadley hub noooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
  • + 1
 Raise your hand if you don't care
  • + 1
 I dont even know what that is...and wanna keep it that way
  • + 1
 So much bs in one article
  • + 2
 barf
  • + 1
 i just hope there gonna do the super duper boot hoots soon.
  • + 1
 157 with standard trail bb widths = bruised ankles
  • + 1
 Hmmm, Instinct or Troy 29? Yes.
  • + 1
 On my way to buy more lube...
  • + 1
 How about this, Who cares....
  • + 1
 so my old dh 150x12mm spacing hub will be the future of trail/enduro bike?
  • + 1
 AH IT BURNS! OH GOD IT BURNS! SOMEONE MAKE IT STOP!
  • + 1
 The clap
  • - 1
 yup. triangles. done. and id rather a wider Qfactor. we arnt on road bikes. wider platform is nicer.
  • + 1
 It is to go down, for DH use for exemple, but if you have to pedal and have sensitive knees wider is far from nicer.
  • + 1
 fuck you bike industry!
  • + 1
 No (maybe).
  • + 1
 FFS My Giant is 158
  • + 1
 E-boost. Perfect!
  • + 1
 Is it 29+ compatible?
  • + 1
 Jog On!
  • - 1
 So.. shitty flexy niner wheels is the main cause?
  • + 6
 Na their stiff enough, it's just usual bike industry nonsense!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv14 0.131133
Mobile Version of Website