Knolly Moves Entire Lineup to 157mm Spacing

Jan 17, 2018
by Knolly Bikes  
bigquotesKnolly isn't the first bike brand to question whether Boost 148 was the best approach to stiffening wheels and improving tire clearance. Like Pivot, Knolly contends that going with 157-millimeter spacing offers up even more potential for designers (though Knolly are calling their take on it "157TRAIL" (as opposed to Pivot's piss-taking "Super Boost Plus 157"). The bike industry is never in short supply of new names...—Vernon Felton


PRESS RELEASE: Knolly Bikes

Knolly 157Trail

bigquotesWe don’t buy into hype - we design bikes that have amazing ride qualities and our focus is on no-compromise high end product—Noel Buckley, Knolly CEO

Let’s face it, the appetite for another “industry standard” is at an all-time low.

For the past few years we have witnessed larger forces in the bike industry push what they call advancements onto the market but sometimes it is the smaller companies, the ones with engineers at the heart of them that create a product that offers something more substantial.

But before we go forward, let’s look back a few years. When Boost 148 was launched, we chose to remain on the sidelines because we were not convinced it was right. At Knolly our design philosophy demands that any performance feature change needs to be supported by a valid engineering position and proven rider performance benefits. And we think we were right to wait. Boost was designed to help fix a problem with 29er wheelsets and it was marketed as "a huge improvement in stiffness". When in actual fact it was simply the widest possible hub width that could be implemented while maintaining normal Q-factors of existing 2 x 10 speed drivetrains and it was limited by certain suspension designs rear stays. Boost 148 was then adopted as a solution by the "plus size" tire community because it gave another 3mm of tire clearance per side. Unfortunately, it did not solve all the tire size issues, and it resulted in unfavourable geometry when switching between 27.5” and 29” tires.

After creating a list of “must have” features to ensure our new line up of bikes can do everything we want, we decided that the only option is to move our entire lineup to the existing 12 x 157 rear spacing. We are calling it 157TRAIL because our Four by 4 suspension allows us to use the wide flange 157 hubs with 73mm BB shells on all our new trail models. The first models to launch will be the upcoming Fugitive 120mm travel 29er and Fugitive 135mm travel 29er. We made this choice because our design priorities are rooted in rider functionality, not in industry trends or marketing.

bigquotesWe have significant experience running trailbike drivetrains on wide chain-lines. We don’t claim to be the first to bring this back to the market, but our “Trail” version of the 157 spacing allows us to achieve incredible design innovations in our new 2018 frames. We only incorporate design changes when there are legitimate benefits to the ride experience.

If the current wave of 1x drive-train technology existed, the wider spacing revolution would have skipped right over 148mm and landed on 157mm. By using 157TRAIL, our new bikes give consumers the widest range of features possible.—Noel Buckley, Knolly CEO

So why 157?

TIRE SIZE: 157TRAIL allows us to eliminate tire width and focus on tire diameter. Riders can pick their wheel and tire combination based on intended purpose: be it a razor-sharp handling rocket ship, or a rock crawling monster truck (or anywhere between). The Fugitive is built around 29” wheels but it can also run 27.5” x 3.0” wheels/tires without compromise to the BB height.

Knolly 157Trail
The Fugitive with 29" wheels and 2.25 tire

Knolly 157Trail
The Fugitive with 27.5" x 3.0" wheels / tires



Q-FACTOR: 157mm hub spacing can be implemented using a flipped chain ring to maintain existing Q factors on XC / lightweight cranksets such as XTR, XO1 and Race Face Next SL.

Knolly 157Trail
Our new Fugitive can easily run one of the narrowest Q factor cranks on the market: the Raceface Next SL.



STIFFNESS: 157mm has a massive increase in stiffness over 142mm and even Boost 148. In fact, the increase in stiffness between 142mm and 157mm is almost three times of that between 142mm to 148mm Boost.

Knolly 157Trail

TIRE CLEARANCE: 157TRAIL provides the most options for tire size across all models. All Knolly 157TRAIL frames will easily clear tire widths up to 3.25".

Knolly 157Trail
Fugitive model shown with 29x2.6" tire illustrates the massive tire clearance on our new frames.


FRAME CLEARANCE: We have re-designed the entire rear-end area to keep things as tight as possible. The 157TRAIL spacing increases rear axle width by 15mm (7.5mm per side), and yet heel clearance of our new designs has only moved outward by 1.5mm per side! Our new 157TRAIL rear-end remains the same or in some cases narrower than existing Boost 148 bikes currently on the market.

Knolly 157Trail
Current model rear spacing (BLUE) compared to the Fugitive shows how the rear stays are only slightly wider and that we can continue to run a 73mm wide threaded BB shell. The new downtube cross section is also significantly larger for greater stiffness and BB support.


CHAINSTAY LENGTH: Due to our Four By 4 Linkage and Konlly’s forward mounted seat tube we do not need to extend chainstay lengths to accommodate larger wheel sizes, including standard sized 29" tires and high volume 27.5 Plus tires. Four By 4 also allows us to use 73mm bottom brackets shells and is front derailleur compatible.

Knolly 157Trail
The Fugitive 29er sports 430.5mm / 16.95" chainstays. BB height in slack is 325.5mm / 12.8". Our forward mounted seat tube conveniently leaves enough space to store a spare tube and CO2 cartridge.



CHAINRING SIZE: Chainring clearance remains huge: at 36T for 29" models and 38T for 27.5" models

Knolly 157Trail

• Frame shown with 38 tooth front chainring. (36t max on the 29er)
• 2x drivetrains are still an option for those who don't want to give up their front derailleur.
• E-type standard is maintained for easy mounting of upper chain guides.

COMPATABILITY CHECK LIST:
• 29” wheels up to 2.6” tires.
• 27.5” wheels up to 3.2” tires.
• Adjustable geometry.
• Fits wide rims & wide tires (or narrow rims and narrow tires if that is how you roll).
• Multiple shock stroke length options on same frame.
• Front derailleur.
• 12mm axle compatible with existing and upcoming freehubs and cassettes.
• ISCG 05 Chainguide.
• 26t-36t chainring sizes.
• Threaded bottom bracket.
• LIFETIME warranty.
• Buy online and still support IBD’s
• Company does NOT make E-bikes.


Knolly 157Trail

We have a reputation for producing bikes that last and we are known for not jumping on the latest trends. We have thousands of loyal riders that, year after year, have ridden our brand because of the performance of our suspension, the longevity of the product and the customer service we provide. So when it came time to overhaul our entire model lineup, we knew we have to live up to the expectations of our riders. Our move to 157TRAIL enabled us to design, build and deliver the highest performing mountain bikes in the industry. Again.

For more information visit knollybikes.com

@KNOLLYBIKES


Posted In:
Press Releases Knolly


Author Info:
KNOLLYBIKES avatar

Member since May 7, 2008
76 articles
Report
Must Read This Week
Pole Bicycles Has Filed for Bankruptcy
63027 views
Kona Bicycles' Parent Company Appoints New CFO, Intends to Sell Brand
62651 views
Randoms Round 3: Dario's Treasures
41877 views
Downhill Bikes of Sea Otter - Part 1
38972 views
Pinkbike's DH Fantasy League: Get Your Team On The Line - Fort William is in TWO WEEKS!
37727 views
Brian's Randoms from Sea Otter 2024
37269 views
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Araxá XC World Cup 2024
37017 views
Randoms Round 1 - Sea Otter 2024
36992 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

488 Comments
  • 615 9
 If this thing catches on, Boost will be dead before Sam Pilgrim needs to charge his battery again.
  • 11 1
 Hahahahaha
  • 14 12
 Lolled out loud.
  • 40 0
 @cunning-linguist: LOLOLed?
  • 28 1
 He will be with Honda by then
  • 6 1
 @Franziskaner: you get me!
  • 37 13
 This new standard is pitifully half arsed. Let us go all the way and make away with all contemptible compromises!
Behold the standard to end all standards, the 29 inch hub spacing!
The Final Rigidity (c) of the Spherical Wheel (tm) cannot be surpassed!
  • 66 1
 Sam is ahead of his time, he’s got 157mm spacing on his smile.
  • 2 2
 wheel stiffness is important but stretching everything out that much you either increase frame flex or frame weight. pick one.
  • 5 1
 @Konyp: but will it be 29 hub for 29 wheels only, or for 26 wheels too? Because if I'd need 26 hub for my 26 wheels then it wouldn't be a universal standard which makes me slightly concerned.
  • 24 1
 you do realize that 157 hub spacing is not a new standard....it is the old 150mm dh standard with 3.5mm slots in the frame for locating the rear wheel.
  • 7 0
 @mtbman1980:

"We don’t claim to be the first to bring this back to the market, but our “Trail” version of the 157 spacing allows us to achieve incredible design innovations in our new 2018 frames."
  • 2 0
 @Slabrung:

"Knolly Moves Entire Lineup to 157mm Spacing".
  • 6 0
 @Konyp: It's not a new standard": "We (Knolly) don’t claim to be the first to bring this back to the market..."
  • 18 1
 @CaptainSnappy: this 157 standard is so several hours ago. I'm already preparing for the next standard.
  • 6 1
 Holy Knolly!
  • 29 3
 With the wider hubs supposedly being necessary for adequate stiffness on trail bikes, how is it possible that Bruno wins World's DH on a bike with 135 mm spacing?

Just beef up your swingarm and pivots a little instead of creating a new standard. I hit my ankles and heels on the swingarm enough already with with 135, so Knolly or boost isn't appealing.

Also, the narrower spacing gives your derailleur a little more clearance from rocks, which makes a difference in derailleur survival in rock gardens.
  • 3 0
 @CaptainSnappy: I know I did read the article. My post was directed at the people bitching about a new standard...
  • 45 3
 to all the people bitching about stds - stop for a second and think about an engineer who built a bike company out of his passion for bikes and riding and who doesnt want to stop trying to build a better bike even after 10 yrs. Then think how much he has invested in this business / brand and think for another second whether he is trying to pull the piss or just said ...."Fck it...I believe its better...gotta do it man"

I think its pretty admirable if a small independent bike company is willing to do something it believes in.
  • 11 1
 @Flowcheckers: I believe those 135mm dh bikes have offset rear triangles to allow dishless or at least more evenly dished rear wheels. Essentially theyre trying to get more even spoke tension, similar to 157.
  • 7 0
 @BryceBorlick: nope. It's just an evenly spaced 135 x 12 rear hub! And as @flowcheckers said the rear derailleur is tucked out of the way.
  • 11 1
 @mutton: this x1000. If you've ever met/spoken to Noel about his bikes you will quickly understand this. He's not doing something because of industry trends, saving costs, making it easier to manufacture, etc. I can't tell you how many times I've heard/read that people weren't going to buy a Knolly over the past couple years because they weren't 148. They didn't go becaus they aren't interested in chasing sales via a standard that didn't make any sense. Amazing that people who were so adamantly against 148 have now settled in on it and think things are going to stay there forever so they can feel good about being up to date.
  • 7 1
 @Catch22: I don't believe people settled on 148 as much as that's what their new bike came with!
I am personally fine with 142, good luck finding a new bike with that!
  • 14 1
 Boost - die an early death. The pragmatic/157 DH hub standard being used has probably been around longer than most Pinkbikers have been alive. Its an old standard being used in a new application. I stuck with a 142 Knolly, waiting for someone to apply an existing DH hub standard to a trail bike. What could be better... turns out Knolly did it !!!
  • 4 1
 @Flowcheckers:

See Flowcheck gets it..... why the hell cant everyone else?
  • 14 0
 @mutton: Couldn't agree more. Knolly doesn't change things without a very good reason. If you haven't ridden a Knolly bike, do yourself a favor and try one to if you get the chance.
  • 3 1
 Chocolate Knolly, Cherry Knolly, Feela Knolly, Pink Knolly, red hot red hot red hot hot....
  • 1 0
 Burn!! LOL
  • 2 2
 @Flowcheckers: one race run doesn't prove it's the best, just that it's enough. swingarm and pivots upgrades would make the rear end stiffer, not the wheel, it'd actually cause more wheel flex
  • 2 0
 call me old fashioned but too much tech the past 5 years is making me dizzy. i wish it was 2012 again.
  • 229 8
 Thanks Knolly. This has convinced me to stick with my current 142 x 12 frame for at least a couple more years.
  • 26 2
 With you on that.
  • 8 1
 @Minikeum: Me too!
  • 40 0
 specialzed made their first enduro 29er with 142mm spacing and still had 29er wheels, good tire clearance, a short 430mm chainstay length, and supported legacy 2x10 drivetrains, all way back in 2013!
  • 20 3
 for sure man, I try not to jump on bandwagons, but I like to get new bikes as often as possible and sell the old one while it still has plenty of life and reasonable used market value. I have a 2 year old rocky mountain altitude rally edition with 142 spacing and 5 year old king hubs I converted from 135 spacing. The bike is still very much relevant and I feel its not impeding my capabilities by any means. I saw the 148 spaced altitude come out and the resale value on 142 bikes took a noticeable hit. I've decided to just hold onto it until something truly beneficial to my riding enjoyment comes out. Hub spacing certainly isn't one of them.

Future bikes, I'm thinking Pole / Nicolai influenced geoemetry with steep seat tube angles, increased reach, and slacker front ends (to an extent). Once this becomes more refined and proven by EWS and local hero's, I may consider jumping on the next bandwagon.
  • 3 1
 @BoneDog: I'm with you on this.
  • 12 0
 Dame straight brother. I am all for forward progress but the industry has actually done it in a rather chaotic way. I'm sitting on my 142mm non-boost bike for a while. Good time to get a sweet deal actually. Save ur money folks and sit tight as long as you can. If we keep buying this stuff as soon as it comes out WE are actually the ones perpetuating this incremental and chaotic progression. Half steppin' our way to the "new better" is too expensive.
  • 4 1
 Damn, first 27.5 dies an ignoble death, and now boost. Not a good time to be a new standard.
  • 8 1
 135 for life!
  • 3 0
 @Goomba: same here with very current bikes and no boost yet.
Long live boostinator if my preferred frame makers make the switch . #fu*kthe6mm
  • 1 0
 Ill cheers you on that
  • 26 0
 Agreed, this is the size they should have gone to in the first place instead of Trek/SRAMs half baked 148. Dont waste your money on hopefully-soon-to-be-dead boost 148.

Next big revelation: 15x100 front spacing was also stupid and we shouldve kept 110x20 for everything other than xc racing.
  • 1 0
 100%.
  • 3 1
 @TucsonDon: I think the standard we will see is bikes that are compatible with both (275 x 2.8") & (29" x 2.5") builds. Sorta the two birds with one stone marketing i.e. one frame mold.
  • 1 0
 @mtbschrader: count me in as well! What a joke!
  • 1 0
 @BoneDog: that would be truly awful. So then when the next standard arrives I'll have two obsolete wheelsets.
  • 1 0
 @Goomba: Yup, just picked up an "outdated" carbon Patrol with 142 rear spacing for $3700.
  • 2 0
 @TucsonDon: I would say that 27.5 has died in the racing scene, but I would still pick a 27.5 over a 29 almost every time just because they ride my local terrain so much better
  • 1 0
 @BoneDog: gearbox is for you
Visit Effigear.com!!!
  • 156 23
 For a company which claims to be avoiding marketing BS, there certainly is a lot of marketing BS in this...
  • 47 6
 I think the audience has been vocal about not wanting marketing BS so the marketeers jumped into that and now market their standpoint of not creating marketing BS. I think this way of marketing is getting boring real quick so I expect we'll soon have to deal with marketeers who market the company standpoint of not marketing their avoidance of creating marketing BS. I think once we've reached that point the PB audience will be tied in a knot discussing what level of marketing BS they just read.
  • 47 0
 Not so wrong. But you have to love the pie chart.
  • 11 1
 @EnduroManiac: Legit. If the whole article had just been that pie chart and none of the preceding paragraphs, I would be completely convinced.
  • 17 12
 Yeah, fuck off already, so many bullshit marketing news lately about new standars, just fuck off
  • 4 1
 @EnduroManiac: love the pie, not so much into the chart aspect though.
  • 4 6
 With all of that mumbo-jumbo, I still don't see a clear explanation, other than "cuz it's better."
  • 3 1
 In the end it's like when Transition made fun of other companies overusing acronyms of any sort (Trek is probably the king of it) to finally come up with their own ones, nevermind of funny they were. SBG is not funny btw (oops, acronym, sorry Wink )
Looks like you can't get out of acronym and BS marketing.
  • 6 1
 @vinay: Friend of mine does marketing for a non-profit; every time she meets someone who tells her they're in marketing as well, she enthusiastically responds with "Great, so you lie for a living, too!" Makes for a great way for her to sort people she meets into the 'want to talk to' vs. 'waste of time' pile based on their reactions...
  • 7 0
 Nobody can craft an eloquent argument like the English @stefanfresh
  • 3 1
 @jitenshakun: Thanks mate, Im a spaniard though!
  • 10 3
 Where's the BS exactly? Enlighten us.
  • 4 0
 The plainly explain that it is stiffer, there is even a graph for those too lazy to read.
  • 11 5
 The problem with marketing bullsht is that if a press release has one picture with one line:“This is our bike, buy it or go away” people will still think it’s marketing bullsht
  • 8 1
 @EnduroManiac: About the pie chart -- I think they needed to devote a bigger slice to armchair engineers who will dispute the numbers.
  • 7 8
 @CaptainSnappy: the bullshit is not the fact that the product is stiffer itself, of course it is. if you make it 158 even stiffer, and 159 even more... The whole point is that when there was 135 and 150 the industry came up with 142 something intermediate which made sort of sense, but then they made 148, having 150 and 157 now?... BS. And now another new standard... that is the bullshit.And we are talking about milimeters here!!! For bikes that most people couldn't push hard enough even in 135. there are also other ways top make something stiffer without making it wider ( new lyric for example)... I could go on for a while but honestly can't be bothered. Plus there the fact that they have to give it a name, why not just call it 157? Instead of trying to find a catchy name like boost or 157trail?
  • 3 0
 @CaptainSnappy: Also, I just thought it's good. Almost everyone wants a cheaper reliable bike which wont go out of date in one year... and guess what, barely no companies are doing that!
  • 26 3
 @stefanfresh: 135 and 142 have the same flange width and if you have different hub end caps, can be used interchangeably. Same goes for 150 and 157 spacing. The extra 7mm (3.5mm on either side) allows for small slots on either side of your frame for easy wheel installation.

This is is not a new standard.
  • 15 1
 This is not BS. This is an improvement. Its too bad that dumb crap like 148 has soured us to good innovation. Heres a little more info:

nsmb.com/articles/super-boost-plus-better
  • 9 0
 @stefanfresh: 135 and 142 are the same. 150 and 157 are also the same. There is no BS here. Just the smarts to design with, and take advantage of sizes that have been available for DECADES.
  • 3 1
 @KNOLLYBIKES: I thought the article and graph said 157 wide flange hubs... what does that mean then? Do you run 157 hubs, or 150 with spacers? I aplogise for the attitude, don't have anything personal against Knolly bikes, loved your bikes, videos and riders for years... Stuff like this seems hard to evaluate though. The proof is you have someone answering comments to defend your move, which should be welcomed? Truth is it's your bet, and consumers can decide if it makes sense.
  • 3 0
 Yeah, like the classic trick of starting the chart at 0.6 so that 1.3 seems almost "twice as big", plus stating "almost three times the benefit over 148", which, while technically correct is an utterly useless metric. I mean, hey, at least it's an existing standard, just don't claim you're saving the world with it.
  • 5 3
 Marketing bs jokes aside I would never whine on Knolly. Sorry to sound condescending but I think some of you should learn about the term “benefit of doubt”, actually increases the quality of your life. Makes you look for good things around you and seeing good things makes you happy. Some people call it naive and their world sucks, all they see around is cheaters and liers. I’d rather kill myself.
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: You are right Waki, totally right. In Spain they say, the just pay for the ones who sin... if that makes sense!
  • 16 1
 @stefanfresh: Yes, the graph measurements are done with the 157 wide flange hubs that were introduced when Pivot introduced 157 Super Boost. There are benefits of increased stiffness when using 157Trail (aka 157 Super Boost) over traditional 150 /157DH hubs (150 and 157 DH hubs have the same flange width) of the past because of wider flange spacing. You can choose to run the traditional spacing rear hub but will not see the increase in stiffness in the way we have shown.

Thanks for the kind words and appreciation for the brand. We really appreciate it on days like today when we hang out in the crazy place called "the Pinkbike comments section".
  • 22 1
 @KNOLLYBIKES: You seem like really cool guys and there’s an “authentic vibe about what you are doing. Unfortunately I have never ridden any of your bikes and there’s little chance I ever will. I feel for you because this standard mess draws majority of the attention towards a fkng rear axle, as if there was no bike attached to it. Love the fact that it accepts 2.8 tyres and that your suspension design is so unique. One look at the bike: oh it’s Knolly.

All the best of luck! I wish you good business, but mostly lots of riding time and no injuries Wink

Cheers!
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: "The problem with marketing bullsht is that if a press release has one picture with one line:“This is our bike, buy it or go away” people will still think it’s marketing bullsht" --- One of your best comments in a while sir. Kudos
  • 7 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: Here's some more love. My best friend has been ranting about his endorphin and now delirium for over a year. I have been waiting for your new bikes and am actually really excited about this new move. He and I both agree that your engineering first approach leads to longevity I haven't gotten from many brands. As long as the seat tube isn't super slack and the rest looks pretty modern, you have a new customer. Keep up the good work! Although I got two other friends to get my same bike, so maybe that will convert to 3 for you, who knows?
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: if you ever are in the UK feel free to jump on my Chili, still 26" but it's a bike and a lot of fun
  • 4 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: So when are these bikes launching. You had me at threaded bb. I have things to sell.
  • 3 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: Understood! So it's great then it can take 150 dh wheels!!! And 157 will eventually become widesrpead it seems. Thanks!
  • 3 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: Come on, it's PinkBike- let the uninformed rant on.
  • 6 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Thank you. We try to not serve up fluff because getting eaten by the pinkbike masses is never fun. I agree that it is a hard win for us to convince somebody like yourself on the other side of the world to buy a bike unseen. We've got a really great and dedicated loyal customer base that like @tuskaloosa , offers up their personal bikes to strangers to try out. It's cool to see but we hope that we can eventually do it ourselves.

@andrewfif : Thanks dude! The effective seat tube angle on the Fugitive will be steeper than previous models.

@raditude : The first one will be May. There are other projects in the works but making a bike properly takes a couple of years from inception to delivery. We rather take our time and deliver solid bikes that stand the test of time instead of having to change it for the next season.
  • 87 1
 I will not touch a bike until it is 161mm spacing, should be around April I imagine.
  • 54 0
 161mm... what? oh, you mean Extra Mega-Terra Boosty Boost Boost++
  • 32 2
 @jammf: I'll wait for boostie Mctrailface!
  • 7 0
 @jammf: OMG.. how awesome that would look printed on a seat stay!!!!!
  • 5 0
 Just spat my lunch all over the workshop laughing at this. good job mate.
  • 33 0
 160.99.
  • 14 1
 Don’t worry all of you that bought Boost will get a refund, I read that refunds are a new industry standard as well.
  • 3 2
 We all know everybody will be on board when 169mm cums out.
  • 2 0
 Sam Hill won’t like this...neither will Hope.
  • 69 11
 Just f'ing stop! I want to lock the CEOs of all the main bike manufacturers in a room and keep punching them until they agree to stop f'ing around with stupid standards. I see more flex in rear swing arms on loads of bikes than i see flex in the rear wheels. Sort that sh!t out first! PS Sram, i would start by hitting you first. Twenty nine point nine nine times.
  • 17 3
 "PS Sram, i would start by hitting you first. Twenty nine point nine nine times" I just laughed so hard that everyone at work looked over to make sure I was alright
  • 10 0
 Ooooooookay Mr. Orange Pie guy.
  • 3 0
 @karatechris

Strength, weight, cost: pick two because you can't have the 3rd.
  • 4 0
 Ummm. These are not new standards. They have been around for many years.....
  • 1 0
 All well and good but the second you let them out Trek or Specialized will insist on bumping everything they've agreed upon up by .03mm.
  • 2 1
 @CaptainSnappy: why can't we because you say so. I dont see where a few grams of material is gonna cost so much more lmao. Bike companys are just turning into con artists now a days
  • 1 0
 Forget swingarm flex. There is nothing more ridiculous than my 14 giant trance coming with a fox 32 and tapered head tube. RIGHT it's the head tube that has too much flex
  • 1 2
 @mhoshal:

"why can't we because you say so". Ah, you don't understand. Let me help with some examples.

1. If you want low weight and high strength (carbon, Ti, etc.), you can't have low cost. Eg. Santa Cruz V10 CC, Chromag Surface Ti are expensive bikes.

2. If you want "high" strength and low cost, you get high(er) weight. Eg. any low end bike with cheap frame, wheels and components that are always comparatively heavy compared to high end models.

3. If you want low weight and low cost, you are left with low strength. Eg. cheap Chinese rip off products which easily break/fail.

If you could get a 20 lb, carbon fibre, Santa Cruz CC anything for $500, buying ANY bike would not be an issue for anyone.

Clear?
  • 1 0
 @CaptainSnappy: less materials= more money ya that makes total sense lmao. Think about it If you are using less carbon material to make it lighter then why are you charging more money for the type of material technically a 7 lb carbon frame should be more money then a 6 lb frame because there is a poind more material they had to use. Make sense?
  • 57 0
 We need a new standard where I can put my cyclo cross, road, moto cross , 27.5, bmx, fat & 29 tyres all onto the same bike. Cannondale need to make a lefty rear triangle.
  • 6 0
 erm, ive got a bike that has 26x4 tyres on one wheelset but 29x2.4 on another, with 32x700c ice spike cx tyres and 42c touring tyres as options, and with a 3rd wheelset would be able to take 3.2 650bs. the only place im struggling is the mx tyres lol
  • 1 0
 They did on a DH bike many moons ago! May have done it on others too...
  • 4 0
 Needs to be a righty, doesn't it?
  • 3 0
 @inked-up-metalhead:

Pics please, genuinely interested
  • 1 0
 @wildedge586: gotta be 135mm OLD
  • 53 1
 No PF 28.99??? Lame. This bike is so outdated
  • 6 0
 Now you can have 1X15 drive drivetrain with the extra real estate on the axle.
  • 37 1
 The new standard is no standards
  • 1 0
 You're so right! :-)
  • 5 0
 From my perspective the new standard should be that everyone likes pie. I love pie. But I am often not allowed to have it and have to sneak it from under the table during holidays. That pie chart is a lie.
  • 2 2
 @Chuberiot - Groundbreaking approach
  • 1 1
 Its the same with females
  • 1 1
 this is exactly why everything in the cycling industry is so expensive, because every few years the "standards" change..
  • 2 0
 @TylerG96: This is not a new standard though. It is using an existing hub size that many companies already make and have in stock.
  • 35 5
 150mm DH rear spacing was bad enough for rubbing your heels on the stays and knackering your knees with the silly wide bottom bracket. Suppose you will be able to spot a 157trail rider once he has parked his bike, as he will be hobbling around like John Wayne
  • 16 0
 157 doesn´t really take up more space than 150 and works perfectly fine with 73mm BB, I have ridden a Banshee with that setup for years and have not come across any problems.
  • 7 5
 @feeblesmith: would it not be exactly 7mm more?
  • 14 0
 @robhill: no, because the extra 7mm is on the hub, not the frame. 157 has slots in the frame the hub slides into, while 150 does not.
  • 1 0
 @dthomp325: interesting (y)
  • 1 1
 @robhill: same as 135/142. Same frame same hub, just swap end caps.

Shouldn't make it wider than 150mm
  • 15 3
 @robhill agreed that 83mm are too wide for all day pedals! Our BB's remain 73mm and threaded.
  • 12 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: cut the crap. Where is the dh bike ?
  • 2 0
 Not all rear ends are equal, how the seat and chain stays are designed makes a huge difference, the worse bike I've ever had for hitting heals on seat stays was a 142mm frame (Meta V4), never had a heal hitting problem on other bikes I've had including 135, different 142, 148 and 157. I think it all should have settled on 142 for everything 650b except DH bikes and 157 for everything 29er & DH.
  • 5 1
 @Lagr1980: You didn't see it in the article... Look again!
  • 1 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: Some info about when to expect that would be super.
  • 1 0
 @Uuno: but then if you are using a 135mm or 142 mm hub with end caps to fit a 157 dropout, it totally defeats the point! Because the whole reason for the wider hub is to have wider hub flanges and therefore a stiffer wheel!
  • 1 0
 @robhill: What I meant : 157 is to 150 what 142 is to 135.

150(157) is larger than 135(142).
  • 1 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: Some of us would be happy with 83mm...no more long spindles or giant pedals
  • 1 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: yes I saw that sketch . We want dates and pictures in the flesh !
  • 28 1
 I’m confused, I’m on the pie chart twice.
I like pie and I like to ride awsome bikes.
What does that do to tyre widths and q factors?
  • 21 1
 Its like warm apple pie. You can be on it as many times as you want.
  • 4 0
 Really should have been a Venn diagram as I too like pie and to ride awesome bikes...
  • 5 0
 No, you're reading it all wrong, "only" 3mm less heel clearance this year is a good thing, kind of like how american children "only" got 1% more obese every two years for thirty consecutive years
  • 3 0
 @rclugnut: totally with you on the Venn as I show up three times on this chart (armchair engineer)!

And, when talking pie charts nothing can top robslink.com/SAS/democd91/pyramid_pie.png
  • 12 0
 @T-Bot Haven't you ever had more than one slice of pie at a time? If you like pie and riding bikes then you are living your life properly.

The wider rear end allows for any size tire to be run on the frame from 2.1-3.2. The goal was to provide options to riders so they can build it however they want.

Q-Factors remain the same. By running a ring without an offset (or flipping the ring in some circumstances), it moves the chain line out far enough to be able to run narrow q-factory cranks.
  • 25 0
 Trek are the ones deserving all of the negative props. When those idiots forced boost on the industry. They argued that they had to stop at 148mm to not force cranks to be wider. Cough (bull$#*t) cough. Two extra mm to not land at 150 DH spec that has existed since the late 90's. 157 is not a new standard. It's old school!
  • 2 0
 You are absolutely right!
  • 24 4
 Nice move, but the BOOST 148 is now so ubiquitous, that going 157 is really doing against your customers.
I am also very glad that your new bike has a proper one-piece mid-upper link (just like a Warden carbon). Pity it took you so much time to invent how to do this properly.
  • 23 6
 And pity they've carved out room for 3" tires after everyone who actually rides bikes has realized tires over 2.6" ride like crap...
  • 5 4
 @Veloscente: Depending on where you ride there may be places where 3" makes sense. But people also buy bikes depending on where they live and probably accept that bikes can be different. It strikes me thought that with all that width out back they didn't take the extra step to just shift the hub off center to create equal flange spacing (like Syntace did with regular boost to create EVO6). Maybe you won't be able to fit 3" tires anymore but it should get you a stronger wheel return.
  • 18 0
 @Veloscente: 2.6 I had rode like slugs, went back to good old 2.4/2.3 tires. My head hurts from all BS in the industry these days.
  • 1 0
 @Veloscente: Just because you can, doesn't mean you must 24/7/365.
  • 11 1
 @Veloscente: Really good point and applicable for some but not everybody. We have all settled on between 2.3-2.4WT rear tires on this bike for our day-to-day riding BUT the decision to allow such wide tires was done because it could be done without any negative performance traits. There are riders out there who like the tires or situations where the big meaty tires are more appropriate. The 157Trail rear end allows for them to use these tires but it also allows others to run a standard tire size.
  • 3 1
 @KNOLLYBIKES: couch engineer here: why not just offset the 142 or 148 drop outs to the driveside?
  • 7 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Offsetting a rear wheel requires a proprietary wheels while 157 allows for the use of a stock wheel. Additionally, remaining with a 142 or 148 width drop out limits the max size of tire clearance which we found to be approx 2.8 size tires.
  • 3 3
 @KNOLLYBIKES: What's proprietary about offsetting a rim? Anyone can lace a wheel like that, just change the setting in the spoke length calculator and dish the wheel accordingly. Agreed it will reduce tire clearance but as you intend to use 157trail on all your (new) frames, I suppose there may be models which benefit more from a stronger wheel than from wider tires.
  • 21 1
 The more I read the hype, the more convinced I become that we've reached (and surpassed) the point of diminishing returns with regard to "stiffness". You can point to the numbers all you want and say "oh, look how stiff I am (heh heh)" but what does that actually mean to the rider on the trail? Sure, the numbers support the claim, but I challenge the presence of a tangible benefit to the rider.
  • 5 6
 It means jack shit. They just hoped their 29er big bike would save them. They realized it wouldnt and that it needs something special. So they did this...
  • 5 3
 Totally agree with you. I’m very near the upper end of height and weight for a rider and I’ve never had an issue with a well built 12x142 rear wheel.

I have no doubt that this increases wheel stiffness but it is absolutely not needed. Poor move Knolly.
  • 5 1
 If manufacturers are going wider (Boost), I would guess Knolly said, 'nah, we're going wider all over for stronger wheels, more clearance for wider tires if people want to run them, and we'll just do it across the line for simplicity sake and economies of scale.'

@bogey Just because we have had no issues with 142x12, doesn't mean others have not. Individual riding style and weight are massive factors in this. Additionally, a 157 axle allows for lighter wheel builds, wider tires but a stronger structure over 142. Do I need that for my weight and riding style? No, but it may allow Knolly more flexibility in future designs. The point is ultimately allowing their business to grow especially in a time of longer, lower & slacker and the resurgence and improvement of LT 29"ers.
  • 7 2
 @Chadimac22 : Bang on. This is why we didn't think that going to 148 provided an increase in stiffness substantial enough for most riders to notice or need. The graph shows that the jump to 157 is much greater and enough riders will be able to benefit to warrant the decision.

@chillrider199: All of our bikes already have something special, Knolly's patented Fourby4 suspension. The Fugitive isn't actually our big 29'er. Our big 29'er is a 2019 project. This 29'er comes stock with 120mm rear travel or in a long travel version with 135mm.
  • 5 5
 @KNOLLYBIKES: show me the research that details the "need" for increased stiffness. This is must marketing spew if you can't prove it.
Most rims manufacturers are trying to soften up the feel of their rims so you're going on the wrong direction IMO.
  • 10 1
 @bogey: show me the research that details the "need" for a bike. I guess bikes are marketing spew.
  • 8 2
 @bogey: If you think there is no difference in lateral stiffness (wheels tracking straight through chop and hard corners) that Knolly is referring to and vertical stiffness (compliance) that wheel manufacturers are working on, no amount of research is going to help you understand.
  • 2 1
 Agreed, I put huge dents in rims these days but never buckle a wheel.
  • 1 0
 @Catch22: pay attention to the industry and you’ll realize that they’re trying to do both.
  • 2 0
 chadimac22 the decision to do this was less about stiffness and more about options. The tangible benefits to the rider are that we can offer a bike with a number of options which allows each rider to build the bike they way they want. Our new frames are backwards and forwards compatible and they will have the legendary Knolly durability.
  • 19 0
 Using an exiting proven (and better) standard, threaded BB, multiple travel/shock options, lifetime warranty, ISCG05 tabs, loads of tire clearance, and NO f*ckING E-BIKES. Basically a future proof bike that should check all the boxes yet the minions still come out in droves to complain, go figure. Well done Knolly!
  • 20 5
 For all the people that can't read: "...we decided that the only option is to move our entire lineup to the existing 12 x 157 rear spacing."

It's not a new standard, the 'special' thing with 157TRAIL ist that they can move the flanges further out and generate a stiffer wheel. All the other specs are the same and thus it's compatible with 157mm DH hubs and most 150mm DH hubs with adapters, you just won't have that sweet sweet stiffness increase, but apparently nobody cares about that anyways.
  • 11 5
 ...or they could just use Boost 148 so the existing trail bike crowd can use the already sizeable portion of wheels that are boost while also still being able to use 142 trail wheels with a rotor spacer and a couple washers. I don't think people are really complaining about wheel stiffness of 142 let alone 148.
  • 10 1
 @RoboDuck: Until next year when all those 148 boost brands bail on that standard and go to 157 as well. Knolly did its customers a huge service by not going to 148 on the Endorphin and Warden and then skipping 148 altogether for the new models. Don't hold it against them because they stuck with what actually worked vs trying to manipulate everyone into thinking they needed 148.
  • 3 2
 @RoboDuck Well said. 3.0 is still applicable on most 148 spaced frames. Adopting the 157 spacing for trail bikes only to accommodate a 3.25 tire is just ridiculous. But now everyone is talking about Knolly which is what they wanted..shame that it's about this.
  • 14 0
 Use a dh hub in a trail bike. Gottcha. Nothing new no need to flap and moan.
I'm with knolly 100% 148 is bs 142 or 157 I'm happy either way tbh both get the job done for any bike I'm gonna ride as I'm not going past 2.5 anyway. It just gets fat and slow and flexy at the tire so what's the point of a mega stiff wheel and back end if the big are rubber tires just gonna flex all over the shop anyway.
  • 23 6
 Bravo Knolly.
  • 6 0
 Hey @KNOLLYBIKES: When will the Fugitive be available for purchase?
  • 6 0
 @kwapik: The Fugitive is slated to release in May
  • 4 0
 @kwapik: what @mtb505 said.We're due in May.
  • 2 0
 @mtb505 & @KNOLLYBIKES Thank you.
  • 15 0
 I don´t get the negativity, it´s just 150 DH done right and not really new in any way? Only logical I would say.
  • 12 1
 LOVE THIS!!! finally a company producing a bike that is 157!! this opens up a whole bunch of opportunities for people who have expensive DH carbon wheel sets and a trail bike and don't wanna drop the money on another set of wheels for trail riding!! The majority of new DH bikes and even ones over the last few years since about 2012 have all adopted 157 hub spacing. I dont understand why people are so against it.. its nothing new, its just a company moving their DH bike standards across all bikes they produce! Awesome Knolly !!
  • 10 0
 One increment at the time... My old (still rocking 26') DH bike has to 157mm spacing.. just need to wait for the 26' wheels to come back and my bike will be as good as new hahahha
  • 6 0
 Industry Nine Grade 300's are available with 157 spacing in 26". There you go, you can now update your bike with the best wheels known to mankind.
  • 13 1
 Having skipped 2017, 2018 will be known as "Industry Standards Revenge"
  • 6 0
 The ISO Strikes Back.
  • 3 1
 @L0rdTom: A New Boost
  • 2 0
 @L0rdTom: the last 142 mm
  • 5 0
 A new Hope hub end cap.
  • 2 0
 @L0rdTom: This gives us chills.
  • 1 0
 150 Standard 2: The cloned hub wars.
  • 8 0
 Just because the Race Face Next SL crank will fit doesn't mean that the riders heel won't be smashing into the chain stay (or seat stay which looks wider on these bikes) every rotation.

Also an actual narrow q-factor crank is something like the XTR M9000 at 158mm. 168mm is pretty much just normal for any high end crank set.
  • 4 0
 Due to my goofy stance, my heels are rubing my rear end even on my 142x12 add "ONLY" 1.5mm to that and I would have to cut of a part of my shoes.
  • 5 0
 What's wrong with rubbing the rear end from time to time?
I wouldn't use my heels though
  • 1 0
 I have a 157mm rear end and no problems whatsoever with shoe size 11.
  • 2 0
 I have the stance of a duck, and ride a 157mm rear end. Heel rub is no different than any other bike.
  • 8 0
 After measuring numerous 148 rear hub spacing bikes in the marketplace, we found that the chain stay width is no wider on our 157mm bike than most 148 rear end bikes. No clunky pivots, custom hardware, hydro-formed tubes, and a good engineer allowed us to do this.
  • 1 0
 With well designed stays it really shouldn't be an issue. Size 13s here and have no issues with heel rub on my Endorphin setup with Next SLs with either flats or clips.
  • 2 1
 @KNOLLYBIKES: It is good that you have worked at making sure this isn't worse than most boost rear triangles but as someone who had to be careful picking a bike even back with 135/142 spacing to avoid significant heel rub this is all just a step in the wrong direction for me.
  • 21 11
 If ever there was an admission of it all being bollocks, it’s starting your bar chart of stiffness at a non zero value.

Guess I won’t be buying a Knolly any time soon.
  • 10 3
 Yeah, and no units on the y-axis?? What exactly are they measuring?
  • 5 4
 I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices chart manipulation.
  • 7 0
 It's a normalised diagram. So take the stiffness of 142, whatever it is. Say 150 squazzipuddings. Divide through all the numbers by 150, and you get "1" for 142, because that's what it is, and you get the appropriate factoral increases for the other bars.
  • 1 0
 @skelldify @Woododo : Crazy idea, I know, but why don't you ask them instead of whining about it?

@KNOLLYBIKES
  • 4 0
 Its comparing the RELATIVE stiffness 148 and 157 to 142x12.... which is set to a value of 1. Which makes perfect sense.

@piesforyou is correct, and the y-axis SHOULD be unitless, @skelldify.

Math.
  • 2 1
 @cooperquinn-wy: No, according to the title, the chart shows the "Percentage Increase in Stiffness," which they use silly little arrows to show. I see no mention of "relative." Even if it that's what it is, the y-axis should still be labeled.
  • 10 0
 @skelldify: So, math. Take the stiffness measurement that they've measured (it doesn't matter what they're measuring) of a 142x12 wheel. Do the same measurement on a 148x12, and a 157x12 wheel.

Then, divide each of those 3 measurements by the 142x12 measurement. The for the 142x12 wheel, it'll be 1. For the other two, using the numbers from the graph, the 148x12 wheel came out to 1.12, and the 157x12 wheel came out to 1.31.

You can then calculate the percentage, which they've done.

1.12/1 is 12%

1.31/1 is 31%

If you desperately want a label on the y-axis, it could be something to the effect of "Stiffness relative to 142x12" or "stiffness normalized to 142". The title could be more explicit, but its not wrong per say.
  • 8 0
 @cooperquinn-wy: Cooper's explanation is correct. Thank you!
  • 8 0
 Like many bikers Knolly wisely saw no utility in ditching 142 for 148. For years I've been waiting for a 150/157 spaced trail bike. Going from 142 right to 157 is progress, and not just a minor, albeit expensive, adjustment. 150/157 hub spacing has been around a long time on our DH bikes. It is an old standard, now being cleverly used in a new applications. That Knolly has done this makes absolute sense if you know the company and have ridden their bikes. The Knolly I built up last season is the best bike I've ridden in well over 20 years of mountain biking. Their philosophy and bike design work incredibly well. Read up on them and ride one of their bikes and you'll understand.
  • 9 0
 Hi @KNOLLYBIKES I need some education on this one. Simply put: Can I juste slam my 157 DH wheelset on the back of your frame?
  • 3 0
 Yes, disc and cassette spacing are the same, they just widened the flanges which gives you a stiffer wheel.
  • 9 1
 No, only the rear wheel will fit properly. The front wheel will rattle around as it's designed for a wider through bolt and a narrower spacing :/
  • 2 1
 @L0rdTom: Depends on the fork used, we're talking about the frame.
  • 4 0
 @NickBosshard: me too.
  • 3 0
 @L0rdTom: Oh shut up lol
  • 6 0
 @freebikeur Yes, you are correct. This is one of the reasons why we chose to go to 157Trail. If you have an existing 157 hub, or a 150mm hub where 157 adapter caps are available, your existing hub or wheel can fit into these bikes.
  • 3 0
 @NickBosshard: Correct. Although with only Industry Nine and DT Swiss currently making 157Trail rear hubs, we know that some people will want to run a 157 hub they already own or to use something available on the market that suits their tastes. We think most people will like the benefits of the wider flange but we've made sure that existing width hubs work also.
  • 2 0
 I'm on a Switchblade, and running a P321 DH hub, with no worries. That's one of the advantages to 157, its backwards compatible.
  • 5 0
 @kelownakona: We are looking for a new UK distributor. Until then, e-mail our International Sales contact, Cavan Brady cavan@knollybikes.com

We can ship from Canada to anywhere in the world.
  • 3 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: That's really good news. I owned first a 2012 and then a 2015 Podium, sweet bikes. I've recently replaced a 2015 kona process 153 with a new SC Nomad 4 which I think will cover my DH needs at my 40's y/o... but men, very sad to let the podium go... anyways the 29 short travel sounds like a deal to cover my local xc/trail spectrum with loads of fun, so I'll keep my DT 240 157mm rear hub there waiting for the new frames to come. Keep doing mtbiking better. ;-)
  • 13 1
 I need a new hobby
  • 6 0
 Make a pie chart about possible new hobbies. Maybe that will help u decide....
  • 3 0
 create standard.
  • 5 0
 Check out bmx. Hardly any irrational changes for 50yrs. Bikes are fun, bomb proof, and cost $500-$1000 complete.
  • 1 0
 @speed10: In the market for two new bikes, one 20" racing bmx and one enduro mtb. I am seriously shifting my focus as well as my budget more towards the BMX bike. I think I will go with a top tier BMX and a used enduro or downhill bike from the PB buy/sell section at this point. Being sick of moving target "standards" in the mtb world is a huge factor in this decision.
  • 2 1
 @speed10: Oh man there are belt drives, disc brakes and $500 crank arms. BMX is going full on MTB.
  • 6 1
 Got to shake my head a bit at everyone complaining about Knolly's marketing machine or them ushering in a new wheel spec. That's not what's going on here. My bet is that Noel was up nights when he realized 142 wouldn't cut it for his new bikes. So he spent months re-drawing the rear triangles of all his bikes so they could use one standard. If you guys look at the history, Knolly has always tried to keep their standards to minimum. I bet they hate going to 157 as much as you all hate hearing about it. But when you're a small fish in a see of sharks you gotta swim fast. Congrats to Knolly for trying to be leaders in this pack. I hope it works out for you guys and I look forward to seeing the new bikes.
  • 5 1
 How about a MTB Standard kite mark. Fix a load of the standards, then allow companies that build bikes that sit within those standards to use the kite mark. If a company wants to do something different, then fine, but they won't be able to use the kite mark. In this way consumers get to search for bikes that fit standards. The justifications for changes will have to be significant to casue consumers to stray. We need to get ot the point where changinf standards affects companies sales, unless there really is a genuine improvement.
  • 5 0
 No problem with heel rub on my Switchblade, nor did I note it in any reviews before I bought it. That won’t stop people who have never ridden 157 spacing from complaining about heel rub with it though.
  • 2 0
 20 years ago guys were bitching about Q factor left and right, stating that pushing your legs straight down versus out then down was considerably more efficient and better for your body long term. Is there any validity to that, and do you worry you are losing power whilst damaging your body? Is there potential drawback to widening Q factor and hub spacing that although, benefits seems to have no end on paper, damage the other half of the machine we don’t often look at, ourselves?
  • 8 0
 Well this seems to be going very well Knolly.
What do you think?
  • 34 0
 Honestly, it's kinda going how we had expected it to go. Although we forgot to add a part to the pie chart that says, "I didn't read the article and came directly to the comments to complain about a new standard that isn't actually a new standard."
  • 5 1
 I've always been partial to Knolly due to their philosophy of building strong, purpose built bikes, and going to 157 isn't going to detract from a new bike purchase anymore than going to 27.5 did. 27.5 proved to be a good upgrade, and if 157 means stronger wheels, then I have no issues with that. Being able to swap between 29 and 27.5 is also cool. I'm already running 157 on my DH bike, so this is not a new standard. Plus, it's not like I have a pile of 142/148 27.5" or 29" wheelsets laying around, looking for a purpose. Those wheels sizes are so new, I only have one bike that uses them. I have plenty of 26" wheelsets laying around, but that ship has sailed.
  • 2 0
 It will detract from a new bike purchase from those, like me, who have high end wheels in 142 and 148. I have no desire to add another hub standard to my bike fleet. I already have a set of Torch I9's with a boost converstion on a Kona Hei Hei. Those wheels aren't even three years old. If I'm out shopping for bikes and I see something with 150 or 157 hub spacing, I now have to factor in a new wheelset into the price (because bike companies seem to love to sell their bikes which flexy and crappy boat anchor wheels). I tell you, that isn't going to go into the "pro" side of the pro/con list of features and benefits.
  • 1 1
 @rmerrill: Just wait a couple more years and then you'll want to change your wheelset anyway.... Plus you can get I9 wheels with your Knolly if you ask! Wink
  • 2 0
 @Timo82: If I pay for it, sure, I bet I can get anything I want. But, I've already paid for aftermarket wheels and they are as good today as they were when I bought them. Why would I want to change a wheelset when it works unless I'm forced to because of changing standards that seem to change almost yearly? It's beyond dumb and really turns me off buying any new bike that is sporting some new "standard." In fact, what it makes me want to do is just stick with the much less expensive used market that keeps getting filled up with all these barely ridden wheels, hubs, frames that people are ditching in favor of the newest thing.

I'll agree, the move to boost 148 was dumb, but that's the way the industry giants went and now we are stuck with it.
  • 3 0
 @rmerrill: I think you are missing the forest through the trees. I get the frustration with expensive parts you can't use, but I think Knolly bikes perform and look good enough to overlook that corner case. If you aren't in the market for a new bike, then why care what Knolly's new rear wheel spacing standard is? If you are in the market for a new bike, and you were really interested in a Knolly, will parts that you can probably sell to fund your new bike purchase really detract from the purchase? Seems a bit like complaining just for the sake of complaining. These bikes tend to create converts and speak for themselves. Also, the current Spank offerings that Knolly sold with his Delirium, for example, have kept me happily descending some of the gnarliest trails and bike parks that BC has to offer, without missing a beat. 2 years going, and still roll perfectly, and remain true without maintenance. Finally, my garage has 12 bikes in it, so I'm not new to piles of used parts. I'm still looking for a great 26" frame to put my blinged out aftermarket 26" wheelset on, with my barely used 1.5" steer tube 170mm fork, and that's not easy to do these days, but I don't blame Knolly for that.
  • 1 0
 @rmerrill: I understand as I also bought an I9 wheelset 2 years ago and did want a Knolly frame but my 148mm wouldn't fit in their 142mm frame... First time I have a really good and expensive wheelset like that so I just kept my actual bike. Simple as that.

If I fall in love with the 135 or 145mm 29er, I may just sell my I9 wheelset and buy a new one, which is cheaper with Knolly than if you were to buy it from your LBS/internet at full price.
  • 4 1
 As an actual Engineer, rather than an armchair one (albeit a Civil Engineer), I definitely see the manufacturing benefit of harmonising standards across different models. For big hitting enduro or park bikes it definitely makes sense to share DH wheelset standards, however, for a 120mm travel 29er do you really need the supposed extra strength / stiffness? I'd like to ride this new setup to see what it feels like, to see if the average rider can really tell the difference.

I'm not convinced by the maths though, I just can't see how a frame designed to take a 3.2" tyre, with a hub 7mm wider either side but still running a 73mm BB shell only results in an increase of 1.5mm width on the chainstay by your foot...
  • 1 0
 Did you see the image where they superimposed the frame over the current model? That should show you everything you need to know. the widest point on the current models is right at the chainstay pivot and that is where they have shifted things inboard the most to allow for similar clearance on the outside.
  • 7 1
 Thanks for noticing some of the positives! Stiffness wasn't the single overlying decision to introduce 157 spacing on our bikes although it was a benefit that became available when solving other design hurdles such as limited tire clearance. The stiffness might be more welcome on the harder hitting models where they are being aggressively ridden and where 3.0 tires aren't suitable due to tire roll in corners. The 157 spacing on the 120 bikes might provide extra stiffness but we think riders will appreciate the ability to have more tire/ rim options before they take advantage of the stiffness.

We looked for a solution that allowed us to use one hub size that would be suitable on all of our bikes instead of different standards and solutions for each model. Moving to 157 was the only option that ticked all of the boxes for us.

We had to re-design the chain stay, seat stay, and the interface between both parts. It wasn't easy but we made some parts to have a lower profile than previous editions and re-tooled for our chainstay tubing.
  • 1 0
 Agree
  • 2 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: I like the idea of tire size options. Narrower tires when it's dry for speed & cornering, bigger meat in the wet to keep me out of the ER.
  • 3 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: Thanks for taking the time to reply and for explaining the design process. If it was tyre clearance you were aiming for then that does make a lot of sense and as i said harmonising standards across the range is a big plus.

The idea of a short travel 29er with aggressive geometry, plenty of mud clearance and the ability to run wide tyres is very appealing to me as a UK rider! When the Fugitive 29er is available in the UK i will be arranging a demo as it sounds like the perfect bike for me and the trails i ride!
  • 8 1
 Those computer models are cool as tits.
  • 2 0
 Send all the tits my way.
  • 9 2
 I doubt this will work, possibly too stiff! Couldn't they go 155.99?
  • 13 0
 Seriously though, who are the people begging for stiffer bikes nowadays?

We ride off road, not in the velodrome, I want a bit of flex when I'm riding a rough corner or bumpy section.
  • 11 7
 in my life, i've seen maybe 1-2 knollys in the wild. this isn't going to make any difference. knolly can take chances on stuff like this because they really have nothing to lose
  • 11 1
 I see Knollys all the time, even if you don't count my garage. You need to get out more.
  • 4 0
 Except bankruptcy, like every other brand.
  • 4 0
 you must ride cross country. I see a number of Knollys at the jump parks and DH oriented trails.
  • 4 0
 you must not ride the shore
  • 3 1
 @crysvb: fair enough, i live in asheville nc. i don't think knolly has a dealer here. a mechanic at one of the shops (that went out of business) here, had one- and i saw one at bennet gap once. i guess they have a bigger presence in the pnw. as far as bankruptcy-one of the advantages of being a smaller company, is that taking risks is easier. no, i don't ride cross-country, not anymore anyway. but, i've only been to the local bike park (beech mtn) twice. didn't mean to offend anyone. happy trails
  • 4 0
 @upchuckyeager: i don't think anyone was offended! it was more so just that they're pretty big in BC at least, I personally know 10+ people currently riding knolly and the boyfriend has owned 4, two chilcotins, a podium and now a delirium
  • 2 0
 @upchuckyeager: There are Knollys all over Asheville, its starting to become the pisgah bike.
  • 1 0
 @LaXcarp: i guess i need to look harder
  • 1 0
 @upchuckyeager: I've never seen a Knolly either, but I live and ride in the midwest...and no, I don't ride "the shore" either. I don't live there, why would I ride there. It seems to me Knolly's presence is mainly those areas. Lots of Niners, Treks, Secialized, Santa Cruz, Konas, but not one Knolly.
  • 2 0
 @rmerrill: You should ride the shore. I don't live there either but I guarantee it's worth the trip. Plus Squamish is right around the corner. Maybe demo a Knolly while you're there....lol
  • 3 0
 As a Pivot Switchblade owner, this is good news because more hubs might become available. Last time I checked six or so months ago, DT was not selling 157 versions of the DT350 except to Pivot. I had to buy a whole used factory wheelset to get those hubs (which is fine, since the wheels are decent).
  • 2 0
 But you can run any 150mm DH hub, so, really, there's lots of hub options...
  • 5 0
 Have the guys who did the pie chart even visited Pink Bike? There needs to be a much bigger slice for the armchair engineers!
  • 4 1
 It’s funny the first response to anything different and new is rage and dismissal. Then you start thinking about it and lettting it soak in. 157 means you can share wheelsets between trail bikes and DH Bikes. It’s not a new standard, it is elimination of old and recent standards. It is the ONE standard that if every other company would adopt it would make a universal hub width for all mtb. Not sure if it will catch on or help or hurt Knolly sales, but it is actually the one size that makes the most sense ever. All the douche bags on here saying that this is a bad thing are the same douche bags that hated 148mm until it started to be the one that all mfg were designing around. I don’t even think or know if there is a performance advantage that translates to performance to using 157mm, but where it makes sense is that you could use your wheelsets across disciplines if the industry adopted it. It’s the elimination of multiple standards not creation of a new one.
  • 2 0
 Why isn’t anyone offering a conversation kit for the different sizings?
I mean just a washer on the left and a washer on the right and tada.
Oh wait
www.last-bikes-shop.com/epages/62262325.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/62262325/Products/127
www.last-bikes-shop.com/epages/62262325.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/62262325/Products/001786
  • 4 0
 It's not about the width of the chainstay, but about the angle of the spokes. Wider hub allows for a stronger wheel. However, in turn, a stiffer wheel will transmit more force into the chainstay and enact more twist along the chainstay axis. So the next problem is going to be flexural problems in the chainstay reacted by the bearings in the suspension pivots. As mentioned above, a case of diminishing returns and possibly opening cans of worms elsewhere on the bikes.
  • 1 0
 People do offer plenty of 142-to-148 conversion because it's just 3mm per side. The bummer about 157 is you can't take a 148 hub, slap on some washers and a rotor spacer and put it in the new Fugitive. Likewise, 157 is a pretty specific hub size and unlikely you'll be able to use on anything else aside from a DH bike in the garage, a Banshee, or a Chumba Ursa. Part of why I was ok with Boost 148 was because I can still run wheels between 135, 142 and 148.
  • 1 0
 @handynzl: So you're saying we SHOULD use the adapter kits!
  • 3 0
 Do what Banshee does and have a choice of rear dropouts as with their banshee prime
- choice of 142 / 148 rear drop outw

--be cool to have drop outs for 135/142/148/150/157 even 130qr so you can put on road wheel
  • 3 1
 This is lame. 142 provides plenty of stiffness. I have put 142 spaced 29ers through the ringer on both aluminum and carbon rims, and they all perform great and have plenty lateral stiffness. Boost 148 provides a little more stiffness according to the data, but when out riding, I personally don't notice a difference. 142 and 148 are stiff enough. No more standard changes. This is getting ridiculous.
  • 1 0
 Read the article; not a new standard.
  • 2 0
 I’d be happy if the whole industry followed suit. Being able to switch wheel sets back and forth between my dh bike and trail bike would be great. Boost hubs are a joke. The industry should have gone with the 150/157 hub spacing from the start.
  • 7 0
 FFS
  • 4 0
 Serious question, is 157TRAIL and 157 Super Boost the same standard by a different name? Or are there subtle differences with them again? @KNOLLYBIKES
  • 3 0
 It's the same, you can even put DH 157mm hubs in a 157 Super Boost or 157Trail frame. The only difference to DH 157 is the brake side spoke flange which is closer to the disc mount than on the DH hubs. Disc and cassette spacing are the same.
  • 1 0
 It is the same as DH 157. Flange spacing is either widest possible or dish-less depending on what kind of wheel building philosophy the designer has. Any other left side flange position is just manufacturing optimization so you can use the same hub shell blanks as your 135 hubs.
  • 1 0
 So basically DH 157 for symmetric lacing, Super Boost 157 for wider flanges but asymmetric lacing? Is 157Trail an exact copy of either or something else entirely?

Handy image I'm trying to understand: www.pinkbike.com/photo/13538807
  • 5 0
 @Zaff Correct.
  • 5 0
 I've been using 150mm dropouts on my Spitfire for years m8! I call it 150trail.
  • 8 2
 My size 13US foot + this 157 BS = Heel Rub City
  • 5 2
 Size 12.5 here. I'm good to go although I find my heel always rubs more on flats when compared to clips.
  • 3 1
 @KNOLLYBIKES: So why ruin bikes for flat pedal riders? 12x142 worked great.
  • 2 0
 @casman86: because apparently people want to run 3"+ tires. That's their theory anyway
  • 1 2
 @friendlyfoe: So what kind of bike/tires you want to run? Knolly could get you a custom made bike for your liking.... Apparently your theory is that everybody must love the same thing as you so give them your ideas so we can have THE perfect bike! Smile
  • 2 0
 So if something were to happen to my Warden frame (which is only 9 months old), I would have to buy a new rear wheel/hub or an adapter (that currently does not exist for my hub) to be able to replace my frame?
I love my Warden and its been pretty bulletproof so far. Hopefully they will keep replacement triangles for past 12x142 models in stock so that we can have the option of not going to the new hub size.
  • 10 0
 We like to keep stock on older frame models after we stop making them for these exact reasons but we eventually have to move fully into a new product line. For example, it's been about four years since we produced a run of Chilcotin or Endorphin 26' frames but we still have rear ends and most front triangles in stock to service them.
  • 1 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: You provided me with a replacement chainstay last year for my Chilcotin. Thank you very much!
  • 2 0
 "The Fugitive is built around 29” wheels but it can also run 27.5” x 3.0” wheels/tires without compromise to the BB height."

No, it's definitely going to be lower in 27x3. The un-sagged wheel radius is close, though 27x3 is still a bit smaller for most tires. However, when you add in the tire sag, since the plus tires are going to be run with much less pressure, you're looking at 5-10mm less effective wheel radius and hence a lower BB, depending on tire & pressure preferences.

It's small, but it's not "without compromise". Any frame "designed" for two different wheel sizes is inherently a compromise. I feel the same way about the Pivot Switchblade, SC Hightower, and any other bike with flip-chips and/or headset spacers to make 27+ & 29 wheels "work".

I think Ibis has it right with the idea that tire sag makes 27x2.3 to 27x2.8 effective wheel radius very comparable (1-2mm difference after tire sag due to pressure differences)
  • 3 0
 I wouldn't mind owning one kick ass wheelset in 157x12 that I could run on my DH bike and my trail bike with just a cassette swap. That could be very practical... Obviously that won't catch on.
  • 3 0
 I like the idea of this for a DH and Enduro bike... so you can throw on your dh rims and tires for nasty days but keep a nice light and smooth rolling set for trail rides.
  • 2 0
 @CONomad: that's what I'm thinking. Plus when I destroy a wheel I'm not down to one bike to ride.
  • 2 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES,

Guys stop talking about the non-story of 157... Customers want to know if Fugitive will be available from the start in carbon and alloy. And when you will submit your ideas of color ways for approval to Knation!
  • 4 0
 "Company does NOT make E-bikes"

Never considered a Knolly before, but this point is becoming a very important one in my shopping. Will consider a Knolly next time.
  • 3 0
 Sour grapes - for all those who fell for Boost instead of just staying 142 until real progress occurred by going 150/157 on a trail bike. Knolly is the real deal. You'd know if you've ridden one.
  • 2 0
 I like reliability. Toughness. I use DH spank rims on my trail bike. Why??? Because I get tired of having to build wheels. I’m not going for KOMs and PRs every time I ride. I just want the stuff to take a beating. So... using an existing DH standard hub spacing on your trail bike makes sense to me. Especially if you’ve got the Q factor and foot clearance spacing dialed in. Why the hell not? Wider triangle, equals stiffer wheel for resisting lateral forces. Simple physics. Now... if only they would make a 26” model. Then you’re talking stiff.
  • 4 0
 I want to question the data on people who love pie I feel the chart is and under representation
  • 5 0
 next 83trail bottom brackets
  • 11 6
 Welp, there goes Knolly off my frames to buy list.
  • 5 0
 but but but........i just bought boost Frown ((
  • 7 3
 Bar charts, pie charts, CAD drawings - this things got the lot!
Some serious science (cough, bollocks) going on there
  • 1 0
 Calling "BS" is pointless, if there is no reason behind it.
  • 7 2
 And when they go under, they will blame the market.
  • 2 1
 Oh no! Does that mean I can’t have fun on my Boost 148? All that benefit from 157 boost will it translate into me being able to compete in the EWS? Thank God I was waiting for that one manufacturing miracle that would make up for a riders lack of skill. Get me some carbon mag wheels, a 29.88 crank, and boost 157 spacing and look out RedBull Hardline.
  • 3 0
 What about heel clearance from the derailleur? I already come close to kicking my derailleur on a 148 bike. Spacing it out will definitely not help.
  • 3 0
 I still don't notice any difference from my 135 Trail bike to 150 DH Bike...26 wheels are much stiffer than the bigger wheels!
  • 4 0
 So no other bike maker has worked out that DH spacing is also good on trail bikes?
  • 1 0
 Banshee frames do. Santa Cruz did on their bullet years ago.
  • 4 0
 Because my downhill speeds are just about a bit more of my uphill speeds, wheel flex is not a problem. 135 is ok for me.
  • 5 0
 12x142 4life!


(only because I can't afford another bike)
  • 1 0
 Got 3 bikes with 12x142 & not changing anytime soon.
  • 2 0
 26" and 12x142 until my current frame cracks.
  • 4 0
 Well shoot. Maybe Pivot wasn't out of it's mind to pull that super-boost BS with the Switchblade after all.
  • 4 0
 How many times must it be restated?
Stiffness ≠ Real-world performance gains
  • 1 0
 To all the people that kept using the 73mm BB as an excuse to hate on me for asking why Boost 148 came to existence, when we already had 150.... buy an impact ratchet....screw you! Smile

P.S. I still don't get why they don't just use the 150mm standard. Again, do not argue against my statement with Hope hubs, because they are 135mm hubs with a long neck. There are manufacturers who actually develop hubs with 150mm flanges.
  • 1 0
 But they are using the 150 standard as you can fit and run a 150 hub in a 157 frame, the only difference is the (good to have but not necessary) locator tabs...and HOPE 150 hub shells are not 135, they are dishless and indeed 150/157 specific.
  • 1 0
 "the current wave of 1x drive-train technology existed, the wider spacing revolution would have skipped right over 148mm and landed on 157mm"

I call bullshit on that statement.....

you know what I wish we all stuck with 26" wheels....all these constant changes drives me insane. The manufacturers just want to force you to replace your bike asap to get all your money.

my 26" wheeled bike has none of this crap and I still pass plenty of 29ers without me having boost or super boost standards...people have been riding harder than most of us without all these constant "improvements" stuffs getting crazy.

I said this would happen. For all you " I don't see why anyone complains....nobody is forcing you to buy this" people your the ones to blame for this. If the manufacturers think they can get away with it they will and guess what worse things are to follow.
  • 1 0
 I wonder what tomorrow's new standard will be on pinkbike......did that 35mm bar thing catch on as well as intended....man I laughed at vibracore being used as the new bar diameter created too much buzz so they filled it with foam to make it better......lol sensible people just stuck with 31.8.
  • 4 1
 why not make the 148 a 150 and I can fit my dh wheels in my enduro bike. But I guess I wouldn't buy 3 pair of wheels then^^
  • 11 0
 Many 150 hubs will convert to 157 with the proper adapters. It's the same difference as 135x12 to 142x12. It just allows a slot for the hubs to sit in the frame when putting an axle back in so the guess work is taken out of the game (i.e. you don't have to wonder if your frame dropouts, hub axle and frame axle are all aligned (which isn't hard, but when it's wet and cold out and you hate flat tires...)).

Oh and besides, Knolly has been doing 157x12 on their DH bikes for a couple years at least.

Stoked. Been running 150x12 on my Banshee Rune for years. Glad Knolly did the right thing and just converted to DH size.
  • 1 3
 @MrBaker87: Except if they go the way Pivot did with their superboost, which is 157mm wide, but not compatible without quite a few modifications with "regular" 150/157 DH spacing ...
  • 2 1
 @Ploutre:
Yeah, they made a point of calling it 'trail version' 157 hub spacing.
Looks to me like we're now gonna have THREE different 157mm hub 'standards', which will get my vote for the most ridiculous new 'standard' yet.
  • 3 0
 @Ploutre:

Accorrding to Hope, DT Swiss, Onyx, I9 it's fully compatible in terms of hub fit. Only thing that requires changes are cranks, unless you want to run DH q-factor.
  • 4 0
 @YoKev:
If you had a look at 157 hubs from various brands you would know that they're quite different. Yet fit the same spacing. Here is the same case. Just flanges distance changes. Everything stays the same.
  • 3 0
 @Ploutre: I am riding my Pivot with normal DH Hubs, no problem at all, totally compatible.
  • 4 0
 @Ploutre: Why? Has worked quite well so far and I've built quite a few Pivot Switchblades in the last year. Built wheels with Hope, Chris King, Onyx and other DH 157 hubs and none of them had any problems.
  • 1 0
 @YoKev: I took the trail bit to signify the use of a regular BB width not DH, the hubs normal DH?
  • 3 0
 Can it be used with wide tyres on narrow rims or narrow tyres on wide rims? Not every rim/tyre combo is binary.
  • 5 2
 The first rule of new standards is to complain about any new standard...

"This new standard is excrement"
  • 5 1
 I'm shite so it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to me
  • 3 0
 The industry had so many standards the standards created their own cottage industry.
  • 6 2
 Yea. Can we just not do this.
  • 3 0
 That "arm chair engineers who will dispute the numbers" section in the pie chart is WAY TOO SMALL!
  • 2 0
 Arm chair engineers who didn't read the article, don't understand common bike standards, and likely have never worked on their own bikes is strong with this group. Blows my mind how little people understand about common axle sizes, how spacing works, slotted vs non slotted dropouts, etc. yet show up in full force in the comments to put their ignorance on display. Most this stuff is remedial level bike mechanic stuff.
  • 6 1
 26 for life Smile
  • 1 0
 Shit, I've only been mountain biking for like 5 years and have witnessed it going from 142 to 148 and now 157. You have got to be kidding me, biking industry. I mean...yer f*cking joking, right?
  • 4 2
 Read carefully. 157mm isn't new, and has been around longer than you have been mountain biking!

Smile
  • 2 0
 @cooperquinn-wy: for downhillers maybe. Last time I checked, not one of the hundred or so riders I personally know ride a downhill bike or have wheels with 157 hubs. Unless Trek takes up this standard, it will be a niche...and since they are heavily invested in 148, I'm going to place a bet that 148 sticks around.
  • 2 1
 The whole industry isn't going 157 either. Just Knolly Gutsy move if you ask me. Hope it works out.
  • 1 1
 @mightyted: Pivot released a 157 bike last year. I would expect to see more popping up.
  • 2 1
 I’m hoping this is some sort of prank/joke.
I’m still running 10x135, with 19mm internal rims and 2.4 tires.
No problems with that, why do I need 157TRAIL and 2.8 tires will that allow me to ride down cliffs?
  • 2 0
 I still don't understand why designers feel the need to always use a 73mm BB. I love the feel of the wider 100mm BB on my fat bike.
  • 3 0
 jesus, this has to end! It's still a mountainbike and not a microwave with 10 different heat levels.
  • 1 1
 The biggest deterrent for me is that knolly is a Canadian company that sells their bikes in USD. Seems kind of greedy to me. They seem committed to the independent bike dealer model which is weird because they are pretty uncommon in shops. They seem like a logical candidate to go properly consumer direct (with actual reduced pricing) along with other smaller Canadian brands like banshee which are also rare in the shops.
  • 6 0
 @jfyfe We sell our bikes online in USD because of the limitations in our online store and because customers around the world economy is based on the US Dollar. So if you bought a Fugitive in USD in California, your price would be similar if you purchased it in Canadian pesos in Vancouver.

If you are a Knolly customer in Canada and want to buy something from us, send an e-mail to sales@knollybikes.com or call us at the office and well handle everything in Canadian currency.
  • 4 0
 Banshee be like "whelp, time to manufacture some new dropouts ".
  • 1 0
 @NickBosshard

"The first models to launch will be the upcoming Fugitive 120mm travel 29er and Fugitive 135mm travel 29er"...aren't these going to be both 29 / 27.5+ switchable bikes?
  • 2 0
 Is it just me or does than chainring/frame clearance look really tight? I wonder if this will be a problem with manufacturing tolerances and frame flex?
  • 4 0
 We have shown the photo here in the "worse case scenario" with the largest possible chain ring. Most riders using a 30-34t ring will have tones of clearance.
  • 1 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: Makes sense. Thanks!
  • 2 0
 I learned at least 2 things from this story. 1. I might not ever have to have a Boost bike and skip right on up to 157. 2. Knolly has the best pie chart ever.
  • 3 0
 You know what works awesome, and lets you design low profile rear triangles? 12x142mm. No reason to ever stray from that.
  • 3 1
 Front derailleur compatible with super boost plus 157? What an age we live in!!
  • 3 0
 So, is it the same as 157DH or not ?
  • 3 1
 Yes, besides the flange spacing it's all the same.
  • 1 0
 @NickBosshard:
Had a NOX hub with actual 150mm spacing, the same was with the 157mm one. So it is simply 157 DH Smile
  • 5 1
 Well done Knolly!
  • 7 6
 I think they couldn't find a worst time to release this (same time as Sram crap). Vote with your money guys, don't buy it and they will understand
  • 3 2
 late to the party and being a dick about it. Industry spoke and boost is good enough, there ain't a "no marketing we promise" answer for 157 at this point
  • 3 0
 @bvwilliams: Hahaha, until the industry tells you that you have to move to 157 next year when they start switching everything over. I'm amazed people are now standing up for 148 like it wasn't some stepping stone Trek settled on for a couple of years only to move on when everyone else catches up and sales stagnate.
  • 3 0
 @bvwilliams: 142 was already good enough
  • 2 0
 135 mm travel? I think I just found my next bike!
  • 1 1
 @Catch22: Agree for sure, the real reason for boost was that they had to move the chainring outboard to get legally mandated chain-to-tire clearance on plus tires. So we can thank for plus for that. But for 29ers I think the stiffness helps. Do we need it more stiff yet? No (see world cup dh). Do we need yet more tire clearance than boost? No. Do we need yet more compatibility issues? No. So since boost already happened, which is given, 157 is pointless. God help us if everyone else goes 157 in two years.
  • 2 1
 It will work with with an adapter is like saying hold my beer while I fix your cars suspension with duct tape. It will work....
  • 6 2
 Where is the Podium?
  • 4 0
 Possibly on the corkboard in the background of the first photo?
  • 8 0
 @MorboMcN: GEE THIS TOTALLY WASNT INTENTIONAL AT ALL.
  • 2 1
 Tire clearance....wheel clearance....yadda yadda...
What about derailleur clearance?!

It's all a conspiracy so SRAM/Shimano an sell more derailleurs!
  • 1 0
 I'm interested in how this effects the wheel overall.. I talked to some people that felt boost 148 was making 27.5 wheels too stiff in the turns...
  • 10 11
 f*ck this shit so hard. f*ck you bike industry. Pretty much seals the deal for me. Just gonna sell all my bikes and buy a super basic hard tail, ride it til it breaks, and repeat. f*ck you for killing the used bike market. f*ck you for making bikes too expensive for the average consumer. f*ck you for trying to become like Apple and work off the concept of manufactured obsolescence. This. Is. Bullshit. You’re shooting yourselves in the foot. This is why the bike industry is declining. High bar for entry, zero resale, ever changing standards that to the average person mean nothing other than their super hot bike they saved for is now obsolete. Guarantee that almost no one other than pros and people who should be pros will truly notice the performance gains of this shit. The fastest dudes I know are fast on anything. A little more stiffness from the rear triangle isn’t going to make you a minute faster on a decent. This is just trying to exploit the obvious gear-head tech-centric nature of mountain bike enthusiasts. I’m out.
  • 1 2
 Why get mad at the entire industry here? This is about one bike company in Canada staying ahead of the curve.....i hope.
  • 2 1
 @mightyted: because this is how it starts. It’s like this every 3 years pretty consistently. That’s a shitty half life. You think they did this because they wanted to be the only ones? No. It’s because it’s already something that is on the way and they are trying to get out in front of it. They wouldn’t make it if there weren’t going to be enough parts for OEM.
  • 2 0
 @mightyted: people don’t realize that lots of companies do actually get together with manufacturers and talk. Lots of companies have people who investigate patent filings to determine product trends. Just because Knolly isn’t trek or specialized doesn’t mean those guys won’t also be doing this very soon.
  • 2 0
 @bicimane: totally fair comment. thanks. My only counter-comment is that Knolly has historically moved slowlon these things, case in point their first 29er is just on its way, and they only have 1 carbon model. I really don't know what's going on over there, but I think I could be right that Noel would rather not be changing all his frames right now. I agree in part that they are getting out ahead of a new trend. But I do think this is the right move. Allowing for so many wheel options on a single frameset is a good idea for a small brand.
  • 5 0
 @bicimane: @mightyted We've been working on this for almost a year and a half. When we started, there weren't many 157 options and the marketing machines elsewhere were in the thick of the 148 push. It's always a big decision when going against industry trends to do something that one one person has done before. This choice caused a lot of internal debate. In the end though, we let our engineering first philosophy decide our direction.

We are thankful and grateful that @pivotcycles who introduced the Switchblade before us and to DT and I9 for getting behind their project to produce a 157trail (aka 157 Super Boost) spacing hubs. The advantage to our design is that there is more than a decade of rear hubs in the market place in the form of 150/157 DH hubs that will work on our bike. Finding a hub/ wheel will be easy.
  • 3 0
 150 / 157 hubs have been around for years. The only difference between the two measurements is an end cap on the hubs and slots in the dropout for the 157 width. These hubs started out having flange widths that were similar to a standard 135 or 142 hub, and while some manufacturers have stayed with that flange width many have widened their flanges in an effort to make a more durable wheel. If we look at the dedicated Super Boost plus hubs they typically have a non-drive-side hub flange distance of 41mm and a drive side distance of 28. We noticed that many manufacturers have progressed with their hub design and even though they don't call them Super Boost plus they have the same flange width.  So this means there are already numerous hubs and wheels available from some great companies. Heck, you might even have a set in your garage already!
  • 2 0
 This is awesome! Great to see Knolly didn’t jump on the 148 bandwagon but why wait so long before going 157 on all bikes?
  • 3 2
 Good things come to those who wait.
  • 2 0
 Taking a page from Team Robot's book with the sarcastic pie chart? Bold move, Cotton.
  • 4 0
 If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
  • 3 1
 Total bullshit... Loving pie is not mutually exclusive to any of those other option. Fake News!
  • 2 0
 I would develop a new hub spacing called gammaboost 158, but I’m too busy riding my friggin bike ????
  • 2 0
 Why dont you make swingarm with spacer in middle so riders can switch to ANY size they want....
  • 1 0
 Looking at the frame drawings it appears there are cables guides on the seat stays, surprised the routing would not be a bit more slick on the new generation of frames
  • 3 0
 Fuck stiffness get loose
  • 3 0
 Made my day! Big Grin

P.S. When was the last time anyone complained about stiffness? If anything, I just hate that even when I spend used Audi RS4 money for a Trek, I still break the frame 13 times a week.
  • 1 0
 I'll stick with my baby Yeti sb5.5! My brain is so small, you lost me at "Knolly moves entèò++.--.ùùò++''ììì,,--
  • 3 0
 The standard is change..
  • 4 2
 Running a chainring the wrong way round did I read that right?
  • 6 1
 if it works, why don't do it? Alternatively you could get an aftermarked chainring with the proper offset for it until crank manufacturers start producing theyr own which you don't have to flip around.
  • 2 2
 @NickBosshard: just forcing another new standard somewhere else!
  • 2 2
 @bigbluebike: But you can mount it to your existing cranks, so where's the problem?
  • 3 1
 eagle rings are directional
  • 2 1
 So, there is 135mm, 142mm, 148mm, 150mm & 157mm rear hub spacing out there ? am I misssing any ?
  • 3 0
 170, 178, 192 and all the QR and thru axle sizes to boot....
  • 3 1
 Hope with their special 130mm on their own bike
  • 1 0
 I've got a 190x12 on my fatbike. Had to get creative with endcaps because most are 197x12. There's also 170x12 and 177x12 and QR versions of all those too. But really, 170 is the same as 177 with swapable endcaps and the same with 190 and 197.
  • 2 0
 What kind of pie is on offer @pinkbikeaudience
  • 3 1
 *Buys stock in whatever companies make wheel hub adapters*
  • 2 0
 Does this mean Knolly has a long travel 29er on the way?
  • 5 0
 yes.
  • 1 0
 There are two Fugitive models coming out?

"Fugitive 120mm travel 29er and Fugitive 135mm travel 29er"
  • 2 0
 Sounds like it. They have been hinting they would drop 2 29ers. But it also says that the new frames can accept shocks with different stroke lengths, so it could possibly be the same frame with different shock. I’m still hoping they drop a Chilcotin 29 w/ 150-160
  • 2 0
 @mtb505: I must've missed the accepting different stroke shocks. Very interesting. I also am holding out for the Chilcotin 29....
  • 4 0
 @mtb505: Wouldn't that be sick!?
  • 1 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: You guys are legendary. Got my Warden from Grassroots last month, that bike rips! Salivating over here waiting to pick up a 29er! Can't wait to see how capable a 29 4x4 is! Climb EVERYTHING!
  • 1 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: oooh! I detect a clue....keep up the good work Noel and co.
  • 1 0
 1-3-5 for life. Wait.... 1-4-2 for life....until the end of the life of my bike...
  • 3 1
 would have preferred 156.9
  • 1 0
 Skimmed through and didnt see anything about maintaining a proper chain line. Hopefully this wasnt over looked.
  • 4 1
 VERY important to us. Flip the chain ring or run a different offset chain ring and you will have a good chain line.
  • 1 0
 Hey Noel, is the Fugitive going to be as capable on rough trails as the Warden, or is it more similar to the Endo?
  • 3 0
 The Fugitive is more of a trail bike. Kinda like the Endorphin but in a 29'er.
  • 1 0
 Jesus. Someone please buy these guys a seat of Keyshot rendering software...
  • 2 0
 They will be the first to come out with 32inch wheels lol ????????????
  • 2 0
 Well, I think it's time to dig larger singletracks Smile ).
  • 2 0
 The first rule about standards are there is no standards.
  • 4 3
 We also don’t buy into hype, and buy bikes we can find wheels for.
  • 2 1
 That is good that you don't buy into the hype. And you will be glad to know that there are lots of wheels and hubs that will fit our new bikes. For more info check out our blog:
www.knollybikes.com/single-post/2018/01/17/Knolly-widens-the-gap
  • 2 0
 #26aintdead
  • 1 0
 I feel like this was the starting point for all this craziness, it just became unfashionable to defend them as the new is better brigade were all to happy to chuck away what served as well for all those years. Im not against choice but I guessed they would drop 26 asap to promote there new products. I will keep my 26er as long as poss.
  • 2 1
 What Bike is in the top right corner in the first Picture?
  • 5 5
 So their solution for chainring clearance is to run the chainring backwards?

Wow.
  • 5 2
 And it won't work with eagle chain rings as they're directional
  • 2 0
 @DC1988: that's a good thing
  • 4 3
 2019, Ellsworth work on 800mm spacing using a pair of renthals
  • 3 1
 Most useful chart in pb
  • 3 2
 Slightly shorter seat tube for size L, pls
  • 6 1
 roger. 170mm droppers should be standard for all size large customers on this bike. Most should be able to fit a 200mm.

Calling all seat post manufacturers, can we please have some more 200mm post options?
  • 1 0
 Shorter than like 18''????
  • 1 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: Oh hell yes please. In fact, I could squeeze another 40-50mm over my current 200mm drop....
  • 3 1
 I do love pie!
  • 2 0
 Sticking with Boost.
  • 2 0
 2018-sell sell sell 148 stuff
  • 2 1
 I love pie! Wow Knolly totally gets me as a consumer!
  • 4 1
 Unless you like Pecan pie... Pecan pie lovers can stick to 148.
  • 2 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: Selling my Knollys now.
  • 4 0
 @Legbacon: Is that because you like Pecan pie and we offended you or is it to pick up new Knolly's?
  • 1 0
 @KNOLLYBIKES: Love pecan pie and my Knollys. Want pecan and FugitiveFrown
  • 1 0
 @Legbacon: Rules are made to be broken. You go work on that pecan pie and we'll work on making those Fugitives.
  • 1 0
 Will this allow for a dishless rear wheel?
  • 2 0
 bring it on..
  • 1 0
 What f I fall into all categories on the pie chart?
  • 3 0
 eat the whole pie.
  • 1 0
 Is it compatible with the new sram stuff?
  • 2 0
 STOP THE PRESS
  • 1 1
 A Q168 crank width is pretty wide. This isn't a great success by any measure.
  • 1 0
 Are you a roadie?
  • 1 0
 @dugglesthemuddled:

I'm a cyclist. We need to pedal.
  • 1 0
 @pvd666: You might have a hard time riding mountain bikes, considering 95% of MTB cranks would be too wide for your preferences. Including XTR, XX1 Eagle and Next SL
  • 4 3
 FUCK YOU. That's all I have to say about that.
  • 1 0
 and then we have the 17x130 from Hb211
  • 1 0
 28.99 + 157, What will comes next?
  • 1 0
 185,99
  • 1 1
 Pivot had it right...now knolly too. Get on board mtb industry...bye bye 148
  • 1 0
 HEY WHERES MY 26 PODIUM???
  • 1 0
 What if I want to eat pie and ride awesome bikes?!?
  • 1 0
 Whatever... This might as well happen.
  • 1 0
 Will 5.10 follow with strenghened-heels shoes?
  • 1 0
 I love this shit!!!! hahahaha
  • 1 0
 Does the Demo really have a 135mm spacing? Anyone own one?
  • 1 0
 Any plans to release a new Podium? I’ve always longed for one of those.
  • 1 0
 The drawing is in the background in one of the pics in the article.
  • 1 0
 I to like Pie, and 157mm rear hub makes a ton of sense. Well done guys!
  • 1 0
 Noel Buckely sold me a pile of garbage in 2013 #MeToo
  • 2 2
 The new standard for 2018 LOL
  • 5 5
 Please... PLEASE STOP ALL THIS BULLSHIT
  • 3 4
 Didn't SRAM start this whole Boost thing? And now they're gone and created another spindle standard. What a balls up.
  • 1 0
 Why not 160? Why?!
  • 2 0
 Don't you mean 156.99
  • 3 4
 Wheres the roll eyes emoticon. A bike I'll never buy so shouldn't care but the industry is fucked.
  • 1 0
 Hmmmst’ve
  • 1 0
 Because reasons.
  • 1 0
 No carbon?
  • 4 6
 I barely build up a new set of wheels and now this. Wtf
  • 4 6
 Here we go again!
  • 3 6
 And yet, another standard! Welcome to 2018!!!
  • 2 0
 Not new for 2018...where ya been?
  • 3 6
 ASYMMETRIC RIMS/FRAMES

NOT NEW FRAME STANDARDS OR SPACINGS
  • 3 6
 28.99 Revolution!
  • 4 7
 Not cool Knolly
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.099251
Mobile Version of Website