| Knolly 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 | We 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.
| We 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.
The Fugitive with 29" wheels and 2.25 tire
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
• 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.
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
Behold the standard to end all standards, the 29 inch hub spacing!
The Final Rigidity (c) of the Spherical Wheel (tm) cannot be surpassed!
"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."
"Knolly Moves Entire Lineup to 157mm 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.
I think its pretty admirable if a small independent bike company is willing to do something it believes in.
I am personally fine with 142, good luck finding a new bike with that!
See Flowcheck gets it..... why the hell cant everyone else?
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.
Long live boostinator if my preferred frame makers make the switch . #fu*kthe6mm
Next big revelation: 15x100 front spacing was also stupid and we shouldve kept 110x20 for everything other than xc racing.
Visit Effigear.com!!!
Looks like you can't get out of acronym and BS marketing.
This is is not a new standard.
nsmb.com/articles/super-boost-plus-better
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".
All the best of luck! I wish you good business, but mostly lots of riding time and no injuries
Cheers!
@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.
Strength, weight, cost: pick two because you can't have the 3rd.
"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?
Pics please, genuinely interested
Shouldn't make it wider than 150mm
150(157) is larger than 135(142).
I like pie and I like to ride awsome bikes.
What does that do to tyre widths and q factors?
And, when talking pie charts nothing can top robslink.com/SAS/democd91/pyramid_pie.png
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.
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.
I have no doubt that this increases wheel stiffness but it is absolutely not needed. Poor move Knolly.
@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.
@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.
Most rims manufacturers are trying to soften up the feel of their rims so you're going on the wrong direction IMO.
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't use my heels though
Guess I won’t be buying a Knolly any time soon.
@KNOLLYBIKES
@piesforyou is correct, and the y-axis SHOULD be unitless, @skelldify.
Math.
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.
We can ship from Canada to anywhere in the world.
What do you think?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
We ride off road, not in the velodrome, I want a bit of flex when I'm riding a rough corner or bumpy section.
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
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.
- 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
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!
Never considered a Knolly before, but this point is becoming a very important one in my shopping. Will consider a Knolly next time.
Handy image I'm trying to understand: www.pinkbike.com/photo/13538807
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)
Some serious science (cough, bollocks) going on there
(only because I can't afford another bike)
Stiffness ≠ Real-world performance gains
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"This new standard is excrement"
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.
"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?
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.
Had a NOX hub with actual 150mm spacing, the same was with the 157mm one. So it is simply 157 DH
What about derailleur clearance?!
It's all a conspiracy so SRAM/Shimano an sell more derailleurs!
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.
"Fugitive 120mm travel 29er and Fugitive 135mm travel 29er"
Wow.
www.knollybikes.com/single-post/2018/01/17/Knolly-widens-the-gap
Calling all seat post manufacturers, can we please have some more 200mm post options?
I'm a cyclist. We need to pedal.
NOT NEW FRAME STANDARDS OR SPACINGS
Not sure why you would want to.
The stupid things people get mad about. I'm glad you are more hardcore than anyone else out there and can only buy from non E-companies. Clearly you were concerned about that before when you bought bikes from one of the largest and a mid-sized bike company. Stick it to the man!