Pinkbike Poll: Which Mountain Bike Standards Should Stick Around?

Dec 4, 2020
by Mike Kazimer  
Pivot
Super Boost and Centerlock - you can tick those squares off on your standards bingo card.

2020 was actually a fairly quiet year when it comes to standards in the mountain bike world. There weren't any new axle widths, no new bottom bracket types or crank spindle diameters, and other than a few forks popping up with 1.8” tapered steerer tubes there actually weren't that many standards-related reasons to angrily hammer away at the keyboard.

I'm sure someone out there is currently scribbling away on plans for a new pedal spindle design that's lighter, stiffer, stronger, and of course, not backwards compatible, but until that sees the light of day it's worth taking a moment to appreciate the fact that things seemed to have settled down slightly. There's nothing wrong with new standards when they make sense – I don't have any desire to ever go back to quick release skewers – but I can also understand the frustration that results when changes are made that seem like they were made just to add inconvenience rather than delivering a substantial performance benefit.

Now, just because we didn't see that many new standard pop up doesn't mean there aren't already too many in existence, which was the inspiration for this week's poll. Imagine you're designing your dream bike from scratch. What standards would you go with? A threaded bottom bracket or pressfit? A 148mm rear axle, or maybe 135mm for a little extra clearance? And up front, do you miss the days of forks with 20mm thru-axles, or is 15mm good enough?


What's your preferred rear axle spacing?



What's your ideal front axle size?



Eurobike 2019

What would your ideal headtube standard be?







SRAM



What's your preferred rotor mounting standard?



What's your preferred freehub standard?






555 Comments

  • 501 2
 I feel like the answers are going to be skewed based on what each person currently owns...
  • 67 8
 Or do people own what they own because that is the standard they prefer? I know I have a little laundry list of standards/requirements I look at when shopping for a frame.
  • 44 6
 I own boost and super boost and wish superboost would die, although I think it might get pushed as the new standard, probably right after I buy some expensive wheels
  • 29 9
 Only thing I voted for that isn't on my bike is freehub standard. XD is probably the best that's been created at this point. I'm stuck on Shimano HG.
  • 11 5
 100% hell I didn't know how to answer a couple of them. 12 x 150 for dh and 20 x 110 for dh. 15 x 110 for Enduro and 12 x 142 for rear. Some are easy though.
  • 28 0
 Actually, I ride a pre-boost bike, but voted for the boost options because I realize the advantages it provides, and it's now a very well-established standard.
  • 7 19
flag AJ420 (Dec 4, 2020 at 12:25) (Below Threshold)
 @pixelguru: boost for fork. 142 for rear I like nimble. If I went 29er probably boost both too keep them from wobbling too much.
  • 32 1
 I agree although some standards do put me off some brands. Pivot for example. I like the look of them but their use of press fit BB’s just makes them a non starter.
  • 13 2
 I’ve owned most standards but boost, big crank axles, bsa threaded and 30.9 is the best combo so far
  • 11 0
 Possibly but I answered against my current MTB on a few things.
  • 17 2
 I have superboost, but voted for boost.
  • 10 2
 @GregorFuk: This is the exact reason I don't ride a Switchblade. I really enjoyed riding it, but I didn't want press-fit. I have a Ripmo instead.
  • 17 2
 Except BSA threaded BB. I bet >80% wish their current bike did have, but have to put up with press fit....
  • 11 2
 @toad321: The "Bike Gods" have a line with my bank, as soon as I spend some money on a "Standard" item they immediately change that standard and make mine obsolete.
  • 11 2
 Exactly. I suggested 1.5 straight steer tube. I'm sure there are only a handful of bikes out there (if any) that use it, but it would give the flexibility of longer travel single crowns, stiffer dual crowns and little to no difference in weight. If we're going for consistency with a standard, pick one that's the most adaptable for different uses. Same goes for the super boost, although I have a bike with that "standard". Threaded BB although I'm currently stuck with a PF bb that makes pulling the bearings for a flush and re-grease nearly impossible without damaging the bearing so I leave them in the frame and flush from the outside.
  • 18 4
 Unpopular opinion here from someone who currently rides Boost rear spacing... Last bike was SuperBoost and it was pretty fantastic. I'm not someone who builds up bikes and swaps wheelsets, etc., so I get that it's sh*t for those folks. Just wanted to say SuperBoost on a trail bike felt really, really good IMO
  • 3 0
 @toad321: " probably right after I buy some expensive wheels"
That's always the way, right?
  • 20 1
 I was mostly with the current trends but I don't feel the 35mm bars are necessary. I have them on a new bike and don't think the world needed thicker ones. Just makes mounting headlights harder. I do want to try the OneUp bars at some point though as they're suppose to give the feel of 31.8.
  • 6 17
flag SunsPSD (Dec 4, 2020 at 13:26) (Below Threshold)
 @toad321: Since short chainstays suck and that's becoming more obvious, Superboost will likely go away as that was all it accomplished.

That said, short CS's do make sense on small bicycles.
  • 4 0
 @toad321: I bought some 157mm 26" wheels about 6 years ago then replaced the bike soon after. I'm about to use them again as standards are catching up. ????
  • 46 1
 @AJ420: Why not 12x150 and 20x110 for everything? It worked fine years ago and still works fine today. The weight savings of a 15mm axle are negligible so why have a different standard for enduro and dh?
  • 1 0
 Of course they will be. Just like most people's favourite bike is the one they own!
  • 1 0
 Yeah, no kidding...and MOST people own what should be the standard! Smile
  • 25 2
 @Chris-Brown23: I won't buy a frame that doesn't use BSA threaded BBs.
  • 7 2
 @mountzlu: My current bike has 157mm rear hub spacing. It rides great, and made the bike designer's life easier. I bought wheels that fit the frame and sold my old ones with my old bike. My future frames will also be 157, so wheels will be interchangeable.
  • 8 0
 @bikelust: 1.5 also make it easier to use reach adjust headsets for those riders that are slightly between frame sizes
  • 2 0
 @Rig: yeah, same here - just in my case, the firt position is: the frame is within my price range.
  • 34 0
 Mostly yes, but I did vote for 34.9 mm seatpost diameter despite all my bikes running 31.6 mm. It just makes plane sense to run as large a diameter as possible with dropper posts rather than sticking with dimensions that were standardised long before droppers became a thing.
  • 4 0
 @pixelguru: Take my upvote you beautiful, reasonable bastard.
  • 3 0
 I voted for what I want the standard to be, not what I'm using to schlep myself up and down the mountain.
  • 3 0
 @mountzlu: I currently have super boost and don't mind it. New bike = new wheels, so wheel interchangeability didn't matter to me. I didn't buy the bike for super boost, but didn't pass it up because of it. My current bike checked all the other boxes for me and I can't tell a difference... I mean really, get a ruler and look at 9mm (148 vs 157) or 1cm (100 vs 110). The actual angular difference on a 29" wheel is pretty minimal. Now threaded BB's for ease of service, I'll support that all day long.
  • 4 3
 agree completely. This is a bogus survey. But pinkbike will still get paid for it.
  • 10 3
 My BB answer was based on the wisdom of Hambini.
  • 4 1
 @GregorFuk: Wheels Manufacturing makes a pretty nice threaded BB insert that goes into a PF92 shell. You can then just replace the sealed Enduro bearings as needed (easy and quick - and inexpensive if you stick with the standard Enduro steel bearings, but you can go to the higher-end Enduro bearings as well). I ran that on a Kona with a Shimano Hollowtech crankset, and it was completely trouble and creak free. I am currently running the stock SRAM Dub crankset/BB on my new Kona, and it's starting to get a little creaky - so it's time to replace that with the same Wheels Mfg BB/Shimano crankset combo.

I very much would prefer my frame to come with threaded BB standard - but the Wheels Mfg solution is good enough to where I can happily live with that.
  • 2 0
 @SunsPSD: Or on large bikes ridden by people who like the way short CS makes the bike handle. That said, I'm long of torso/short of leg (think ape rather than gazelle...), so it's not like seated I end up way too far back, and standing, a short CS with a long front center seems to really fit very naturally. I'd think for long-legged folks, especially those looking for speed rather than playfulness, yep, I can see what you're getting at.
  • 4 0
 @NRZ: One Up bars are very good. Not a good enough reason to go 35mm but if you have a 35mm stem and need new bars, definitely worth looking at.
  • 3 0
 Same same, totally useless poll.
  • 9 0
 I voted against the PF30, which I have. I shouldn't have to epoxy my BB to my frame...
  • 1 0
 Totally- I think the freehub one especially. I do think the microspline might be the best but for compatibility sake kinda wish everything would just fit on a classic Shimano. That freehub is always the hold up and currently have one bike with microspline and one with xd. Pain in the ass to not be able to merge parts more.
  • 5 0
 I just picked what makes the most sense, not necessarily what I own
  • 7 0
 This is the way.
  • 4 3
 @Chris-Brown23: BS Pressfit works fine! I have it, but I vote T47 for more options on cranks spindles and better BB life
  • 1 0
 I own non boost spacing bike but agree boost spacing makes a better stronger wheel especially with larger diameter wheels.
  • 3 1
 @GregorFuk: Expensive frame with a garbage BB. Why? Why cheap out on the BB? My buddy has a Firebird and nothing but problems with the PF BB. Creak.... Creak...Creak.
  • 10 1
 @Jvhowube: You're genuinely better off with HG. The XD freehub is the most painful to work with of all available standards with cassettes seizing, stripping and generally being annoying to work with even if they work as intended. Microspline would be my pick but only because it fits 10t cog, there's nothing wrong with HG.
  • 3 0
 @Skooks: I’m usually forced to buy bikes with dated, crappy, BSA.
  • 5 1
 @CaP: Nothing to do with pressfit and everything to do with shit manufacturing tolerances.
  • 1 2
 @jclnv: What ever....Hambini;-)
  • 1 0
 I feel like the comments are going to be skewed based on what each person currently owns...
  • 1 0
 standard pbmb reply
  • 4 0
 It seems to be an industry hell bent on coming up solutions to problems that don't actually exist in the real world, but then marketing the "solution" as life-changing. Then again, which modern industry doesn't act like this?
  • 2 0
 @Jvhowube: I’d take microspline over xd
  • 6 5
 Bike shop mechanics- The idiots that put 6 bolt over CL should be hung for their crimes! Absurd. CL is stronger and easier to change out.
  • 3 0
 Nope. I bought a bike with a pressfit BB, but would much rather have a threaded BB. Same with the handlebars, I have 35mm, but would be happy with 31.8 as it's easier to find and usually cheaper.
  • 2 0
 @MrDuck: HG is so nice. My road, gravel and commuter bike all rock this standard. Makes it super easy to swap cassettes around and mount to a direct mount trainer. #f*ckcampy lol
  • 2 0
 I voted for the largest seatpost diameter although I own two bikes with 30.9mm. Bigger tubes help make long droppers more reliable.
  • 2 0
 @NRZ: I have the 35mm OneUp bars. They do NOT make 35mm like 31.8. They feel like ebike hand me down tech. I miss my 31.8 renthal
  • 1 0
 @pixelguru: my pre-boost bike took the boost wheel without complaining. she is a champ ! haha.
  • 3 0
 @Rig: my first requirement is 27.5 because of my 2 wheelsets that would outlive me, at least the hubs (I hope).. dont care about wheelsize, I stick to my parts.
  • 1 0
 @Spark24: skateboards, bmx, ski and snowboards. Form follows function much more in those industries because the focus and selling point is much more about riding and expression.. because there aren’t as many poseurs, imo. Cutting-edge manufacturing processes, exotic material, and arguably useless accessories sell in mtb because there are too many people that just want to buy into an identity and a blinged out bike for instant gratification because it’s more about the bike (and maybe fitness) than the ride.
  • 3 0
 Didn't see 9MM skewed as an option...
  • 1 0
 Should just convert boost 12x148 to 12x150. We won’t notice 2mm and Gives the smaller cog on the cassette more room. Make bikes with higher BB heights, like 345mm.
  • 1 0
 @GregorFuk: agreed. I’m looking at new bikes, but pushing anything with press-fit BB down the list.
  • 1 0
 @GregorFuk: I struggle to see any massive benefits of any ‘standards’ over another but would discount pretty much anything that wasn’t a threaded BB no matter how much I liked the look of a bike
  • 1 0
 Another way of looking at this survey is what should die
  • 1 0
 Yup, that's how I based my answers except for handle bars being 31.8. Having my stuff match the current standard makes selling it later easier. Plus I can keep swaping gucci bits to different bikes as my quiver evolves.

Change is bad, baaaaddd. Except when it's good. ????
  • 1 0
 It's a tough subject, companies push new designs and need to sell to stay alive. Consumers may or may not care about new standards. Is longevity more important to a standard or a companies bottom line. I like my shit to last years.
  • 1 0
 @Levelheadsteve: Me too. I also have microspline on all my bikes but voted XD
  • 1 0
 @emptybe-er: while the basic binding/boot interface is standardized in skiing, that's more a result of those being a safety device with carefully calibrated release mechanisms. I'd say that other than that, there's plenty of blinged out posing happening on ski slopes (and of course for apres at the open air bar...)
  • 2 0
 I agree. But, I have. Press fit BB, but would way prefer threaded! And voted for threaded. It was one of the couple setbacks to my Jeffsy. But just a small compromise
  • 8 4
 Hey Pinkbike, can we get a engineer to educate the masses on the shitness of BSA BB’s. How they compromise frame design by narrowing main pivot widths. How they add weight. How they mask manufacturing intolerance by tightening everything down misaligned causing short bearing life. How BSA is already a small, pressed bearing inside a threaded cup rather than a large bearing in a pressed cup.

This stuff shouldn’t be dictated by clueless reviewers, consumers, and shit mechanics.
  • 1 0
 Yep my same line of thinking when i bought my superboost bike. Now if everyone else would just come out with their superboost frames ;-).@Skooks:
  • 2 0
 Mostly, except I wish the bike had a 34.9 instead of 31.6 seat post. More options for more travel and make sense given what a dropper does. Also prefer 20 mm front axles. 15 mm is largely bullshit with little to no weight savings.
  • 1 0
 @g-42: I agree as I too have had a similar good experience with the Wheels Manufacturing bb on my carbon Scott Genius. It probably weighs a bit more than a standard press fit bb, but it gives me peace of mind. I personally don't really mind press fit bottom brackets tho. If they are installed correctly with high quality parts and checked occasionally, they can be fine. However it sure is nice having a threaded bb when possible.
  • 3 0
 @Jvhowube: Microspline is HG on steroids, much better than XD. XD forces the cassette to be one part, which doesn't really have an upside. Expensive, not repairable, additional weight, etc.
  • 1 0
 @Zach2: Not necessarily additional weight. The XX1 and X01 (both 11 and 12 speed) are the lighter than the corresponding XTR cassette and except for the largest cog doesn’t use softer metals like titanium and aluminium to get there.
  • 1 0
 @Skooks: Neither will I... I still have 1x press fit bike (Trek Top Fuel) that I fixed with a 'Wheels manufacturing' BB, but damn I wish it was BSA threaded.
  • 1 0
 They are skewed based on what the current most common industry standard is, because people are sick of a new standard every four years.
  • 1 0
 @emptybe-er: you are spot on. The bike industry has gotten so infested with poseurs.
  • 1 0
 Agreed.
  • 1 0
 @Rig: Like not 29 specific
  • 1 1
 @Bigwill13: 30mm spindles don't work in BSA shells
  • 126 29
 26"
  • 59 24
 Wave good bye towards the ocean, that ship has sailed.
  • 18 32
flag Neale78 (Dec 4, 2020 at 12:07) (Below Threshold)
 @yinyang: Only if you reside in a bubble.
  • 17 0
 The big brands will continue to make 26" tires, rims and inserts. Fork offsets have shrunk recently so that a "27.5 specific" fork is perfect for a 26" frame. I held my wheel with 26x2.4" tire next to someones wheel with 27.5x2.25" on. Difference was next to nothing. So basically a trail bike that's compatible with 26x2.2" tires should be just fine with 26x2.4. In other words, they still make loads of 26" specific bikes, they just no longer call them as such.
  • 14 4
 @yinyang: ever heard of a dirt jumper?
  • 11 4
 @Neale78:
I must live a big ass bubble.
  • 9 7
 @Fox002: I don't think he has, Im sure he has 1 bike and its a 29er, 1x12 with 35mm bars. All the latest bling, to keep up with "standards"
  • 2 1
 @Fox002: Or kids bikes.
  • 20 15
 @Fox002: y’all are being some pedantic motherfukcers. The existence of the tiny niche of dirt jumpers doesn’t change the fact that you’re actual 26” wheeled real mountain bikes are no longer being designed, manufactured or sold. Nor is any meaningful part of the culture asking for it to be otherwise.
  • 14 5
 I believe 26 rear mullets will catch on
  • 12 12
 @BrambleLee: Just cause it isn't being produced, don't mean its dead. I like to switch it up and get a wild on a 26er because its easier to throw around, not to mention more nimble. I could've sold my 26er years ago, but i kept it for the once in while rides.

Also No need to be rude about it, everybody has their own opinions, when we get all barbaric like you, its gives Mtbers a bad name

Also calling Dirt Jumpers "Tiny, Niche" probably means, you've never ridden one. Too bad, your missing out on all the fun.

Your probably one of those Mtbers who takes everything seriously and never sees the fun in the sport
  • 7 1
 @BrambleLee: My 26" specific mountainbike frame (no dirtjump bike) was built in 2018. When Schwalbe and Continental release new tires, they release them in 26" too. I may not pay enough attention to Maxxis but I think the same goes for them. Not for newcomers like Goodyear maybe, but still for the big brands like these mentioned. As for rims, DT Swiss EX471, some Stans rims, Spank... Sure there may be stuff that isn't available in 26" but so what? Complaining about that would be like the Apple snobs complaining when a piece of soft- or hardware isn't compatible with their macintosh computer. Point is, there is enough stuff being made to keep these bikes rolling as intended.
  • 4 1
 @Fox002: Slope and trials too.
  • 4 16
flag ermoldaker (Dec 4, 2020 at 13:33) (Below Threshold)
 @vinay: yup, 27.5" was a joke of an idea and next to no difference to 26". 29er or nothing.
  • 3 2
 @Fox002: ...or kids?
  • 5 5
 @BrambleLee: I would guess that in a global manufacturing view 26 is still the predominant tire size still. That in fact 27.5 and 29 are still the niche.
  • 10 0
 @fabwizard: I have definitely heard about shops having a hard time keeping 26" stuff in stock with everyone dusting off their old 26" MTB during Covid this year. Even if they aren't selling new bikes in 26" people still need tires and tubes, and the sheer number of old bikes out there has to outnumber modern 29ers etc.
  • 6 1
 @jwestenhoff: well said, many old bikes and cheaper bikes are usually 26ers. Many used bikes people buy from facebook, offerup, and local markets are 26ers. 26er will always be there, even if it isn't produced by big companies
  • 4 3
 @BrambleLee: see Rune, Spitfire v3. Also youth and fatbike. DHRII 2.4s are widely available. Get your facts straight before attempting to join us pedantic mofos
  • 4 4
 @sunringlerider: you live in an ass bubble? Gross!
  • 2 1
 @sunringlerider: in a hot tub.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: good point. how about ATC? I just bought a 100mm, 26”, 1 1/8 straight steerer with canti posts Rock shox recon to replace a RST with 25mm of elastomer travel because I no longer trust it from failing since it’s original spec on my ‘96 iron horse which I still take out from time to time.

Haven’t installed the new fork yet but hoping the extended ATC won’t make it too wonky. Good thing I like slack bikes. It will have super short reach but it’s just a banger bike for fun. But I wonder if a shorter travel 27.5 would offer better ATC if I could find one with straight steer and brake posts.
  • 2 1
 @fabwizard: hard to find 26" squish kids bikes in stock. Vapor ware.
  • 1 0
 @fruitsd79: lbs had reapers up to a week ago.
  • 1 0
 @J-Gordon: tell that to my banshee darkside, silently waiting for it
  • 1 0
 While 26” probably won’t be a “standard” for mtb from here on, I’m hoping it’s still supported and produced by various companies. There are still far more 26” bikes being ridden worldwide than 27.5 and 29ers, and there are also those like me who love riding, maintaining, and restoring older bikes (although I’m happy to swap the handlebars out for wider ones... even I don’t miss narrow bars).

I just did a fork swap on a ‘95 Cannondale F700, as the original Headshok suspension was no longer repairable. Only fork I could find to put on it was a RockShox Recon Silver, as it had both disc brake and v-brake posts, and I wanted to keep using a set of XTR V-brakes on it (for reasons of nostalgia and weight savings). After modifying a headset adapter with a hacksaw and a bit of sweat, everything turned out awesome, and the bike performs better than it ever did in its quarter century existence.
  • 2 0
 @MB3: good to hear. I haven’t installed my recon yet but looking forward to trying out a fresh fork on the old steed.
  • 1 0
 @BrambleLee: except for zip on tires!
  • 2 0
 I still ride a 26" bike and it works just fine... In fact, upgrading parts is very inexpensive and there's lots of available gear still around.
  • 3 0
 @billreilly: Yeah, real inexpensive, because majority no longer use 26ers, hence the lower cost. Its demand is rather low as well, but with the ongoing pandemic, everybody has decided to take out their old bikes and repair them, hence the raised prices
  • 1 1
 @billreilly:

So I’m a bike whore. I have 4 26” bikes at the moment. There’s a few 29ers in there too. If you can find 26 forks easily let me know I’d buy two if I could find them. Shit finding non boost stuff is becoming a pain in the ass. It’s still fun to go play with my old 26” stuff but there is honestly zero comparison between them and my modern 29ers, I guess I shouldn’t say zero, they both are squishy and have knobby tires.
  • 1 0
 @sunringlerider: Unfortunately some of us can only afford to have one bike and mine is my 2013 Scott Spark 26"... I bought it in 2014 as a frameset and then purchased the fork (RockShox SID) for a song and it progressed from there... Wheels, tires, you name it there are still plenty available for 26".
  • 2 0
 @billreilly:

Two of the 26” bikes I’ve had for close to 20 years. And will have them for as far in the future I can see. The others I’ve had less time. The one 96 steel specialized bike rockhopper was my first “nice” bike I saved up and bought. All of my bikes have came from my own hard work. I’d love to find a 2000 Sid XC to put on that bike. But finding a rim brake qr fork is damn near impossible.
  • 2 0
 @sunringlerider: I found a Rockshox Recon TK 26 with rim and disc brake mounts on Amazon just a few weeks ago but it appears to be sold out everywhere right now. Modern Bike expects them back in stock January 1 according to the website. www.modernbike.com/rockshox-recon-silver-tk-fork-26-100mm-travel-solo-air-9mm-qr-crown-lockout-1-1-8-alum-steerer-disc-and-rim-brake-black-c1

Good luck hunting!
  • 74 7
 This poll is basically „what do you have on your bike right now“. Asking someone what his favorite crank spindle diameter is is like asking what someone’s favorite door knob diameter is. There’s a few exceptions of course (like threaded vs pressfit) but this does seem a bit like a filler article.
  • 20 0
 Not for all. I have 15mm front axle but would like to see more 20mm options and I use Shinamo cranks on all my bikes as they are 24mm.
  • 17 2
 And how come there was no 28.99mm option?
  • 5 0
 @JanB: this. My 2015 Fox 36 rc2 with the 20mm axle was the stiffest feeling SC fork I’ve ridden
  • 1 1
 @ahauck: I had one of those too and forgot to tighten the pinch bolts a couple of times on day rides. You couldn't tell. That said, the torque spec on those bolts is like 1.2Nm or something - basically finger tight. Great fork.
  • 17 0
 It's not an article, it's data collection for the bike industry.
  • 2 0
 @jaame: they had the 29mm option, which was a rounded version of 28.99, although not sure why Sram had to make DUB exactly 28.99
  • 4 2
 @Lokirides: does the industry care what 13 year old schoolboys in English-speaking countries think they like this week?
  • 2 1
 @philbike111: Well, it's so the seals could be 0.01mm thicker than if they used a 29mm spindle of course!
  • 1 0
 @jaame: good point, but i believe they were just lazy to write out the entire number, it seems the effort outweighs the accuracy. lol
  • 2 0
 @philbike111: total conjecture here, but I believe it was too try to protect a carefully engineered vibe (if it's that specific they must have really thought it out!). In practice, it seems to have backfired. Maybe that's just the PinkBike bubble of outrage. Maybe few care and just ride that was bolted into their bike at purchase.
  • 4 1
 Nope I answered what I think is best not what I've got. I buy what's most prevalent because its easier to replace if I break it so I run boost wheels but superboost is a superior standard. Boost was a waste of time no better in any way than 142, the wheels are like 1‰ stiffer and the tyre clearance thing is just bullshit on every level. But I'm a realist none of the bikes or wheels I'd want come with 142 or superboost and spares would be hard to get now so...
  • 11 0
 Obviously you've haven't tried the latest 52.5mm doorknobs, they are total game changers. 20% stiffer yet 15% more compliant as best I can tell. If you can't tell the difference you must not push your setup to the limits like me.
  • 2 0
 @Catch22: lol "20% stiffer yet 15% compliant" I think I gotta try out that doorknob
  • 1 0
 @jaame: I checked 29mm for DUB... guess they rounded up?
  • 1 0
 I was thinking they got a bearing with a 29mm inner diameter, thus dropping the spindle to 28.99 allows it to slide in... just a guess.
  • 1 0
 If you haven't tried the new smart doorknobs with electronic locking and spring rate control you're missing out.
  • 1 0
 @philbike111: The spindle diameter is 28.99, and the bearings have a 29.00mm internal diameter.
  • 2 0
 @MaplePanda: Makes sense, i guess that's why they wrote it as 29mm, doesn't really matter with me, anytime i've gotten a DUB BB, its caused me more money. I've ran DUB 3 times and it always gets wrecked within a week
  • 1 0
 @Catch22: but will it still support 80kgs attatched via a strong leather strap?
  • 1 0
 I would like my bike even more if it had come with the more comfortable smaller diameter handlebar, smaller crank axle for bearings with big balls that last, and a seatpost and seat tube design optimized for 200 drop. I also think that 20 mm front axles are better than the 15 on my bike, but for compatibility I'm happy with the 15. I guess that 1.5 straight steerer would offer more options with anglesets and reach adjust headsets. So for my part, I loooove my new optic, but I don't think that it uses the ideal standards, oh yeah, it's got a pressfit BB, sucks.
  • 40 0
 I choose mostly what is "standard" now Except:

1.5" steer tube - Easier to make a straight tube. Less headset confusion since the top and bottom bearing can be the same.
24mm crank spindle - This provides the largest ball bearings for use with....
T47 BB - threaded like BSA but bigger, allowing for bigger ball bearings and more bearing options.
  • 21 0
 The disappearance of 1.5 steerers was a silly and short sighted move with today’s slack enduro & eBikes really being able to take advantage of that stout steerer. Tapered offered basically no advantage other than compatibility with old stems.

Now we have the “Stiffmeister” and new 1.8 tapered forks doing what 1.5 already did 15 years ago.
  • 10 0
 @ninjatarian: And you can bet your firstborn that the bike industry will avoid straight 1.5 steerers like the plague and force some stupid new 1.8 standard for the sake of incompatibility.
  • 15 0
 Agreed T47 and 34.9 seat tubes are 2 standards that actually make sense from a design standpoint and are not just forced obsolescence... which is why they will never catch on
  • 3 2
 @ninjatarian: actually tapered shafts are stiffer than straight ones though they have a bit if straight on them.
  • 4 1
 The comment I was looking for.

You forgot to add:

20mm axle - For better stiffness when the mtb industry finally moves to the correct way to make forks (aka inverted forks, and dual crown for dh and enduro aplications)

Rear axles are wtv as long as it's standard
  • 1 0
 I'd go with 1.5" steerer if they made the headtubes bigger. Today the jump of reach between frame sizes is sometimes around 30mm, for many riders a reachset is a great tool for fine tuning, which won't work well with 1.5" steerer (especially not Zerostack), unless they introduced another headset standard... So for me it's 1 1/8" for adjustability's sake, more important to me than the small weight penalty. Durability is no problem for both if engineered properly.

For the spindle one could argue that the 30mm spindle is superior in terms of stiffness/weight. On the other hand the bearing is probably a little heavier and bigger OD. Hard to tell which one is better, I think you can get both pretty equal in terms of weight and durability if the right bearing is chosen.
  • 2 2
 @iantmcg: T47 is heavy and the narrower BB width imposes down tube size restrictions on designers and competes, in the busiest space on a FS bicycle, with issues such as chain line. PF30 on an 83 or 92 mm shell using a one piece insert like the Wheels Manufacturing Thread Fit or BBInfinite One piece would make more sense.
  • 2 0
 @Ttimer: Yes - that is exactly how the industry makes money. We don't but entire bikes frequently enough to satisfy their lust for profit.
  • 3 0
 @andrewbikeguide: I think t47 BBs can be as narrow or wide as the frame designer wants, they are not limited by width. Width really only determines inboard vs outboard bearings

T47 is no heavier than the PF30 with threadfit or BBInifite one piece you suggested unless its a Carbon PF30. You can convert a PF30 to a T47 BB, if its metal, by using a T47 tap.

wheelsmfg.com/blog/what-is-a-t47-bottom-bracket.html
  • 1 0
 Straight 1.5 only ok if bike manufacturers make headtubes bigger and spec ZS56-ZS56 headset- so that works component will make an angleset to fit.

If you stick to 1.5” on a normal frame, it means we cannot slacken shit out brah
  • 1 0
 @Highclimber: I do like how a 30mm spindle opens up more possibilities like stronger spindles, power meters inside the spindle, storage spots, etc.

But I’m not sure the advantages of all that outweigh a 24mm with better bearings.
  • 1 0
 @Paddock22: yeah, in a lot of ways t47 is not really a new standard. It is basically the benefits of bb92 without the hassles. It makes no sense it is not getting any traction
  • 1 0
 Benefits of the bb30 I mean. It is friday
  • 3 0
 1.5 straight steerer wont allow very short stems though. The current steerer and bar are close already in a 35mm length stem.
  • 1 0
 @Paddock22: 30mm is fine but the use of aluminum is questionable at best.
Pressfit could have been nice but the industry is giving a shit about tolerances therefore it failed. Only because of this t47 makes "sense"
  • 41 4
 Strange how 30mm spindle and BSA are in the lead.... which is among the worst combinations possible!
  • 14 0
 Today in "don't believe everything you read on the internet"...
  • 2 2
 not sure what you mean, I run a Raceface SixC crank, with BSA30 BB
  • 5 0
 @philbike111: Very limited bearing size VS big axle.
  • 10 0
 @philbike111: bike shop guys will tell you, we replace more bearings on bottom bracket standards with large diameter axles fitted in small frame holes
  • 1 3
 @pbuser30972: oh, well ive had mine on for about 4 years, and it still running good, haven't had to replace anything... yet. Anyways ive used quite a bit of different, i've had a good experience with all of them besides DUB, had a BB failure two days in
  • 7 0
 Yep, let's not let PB commenters be in charge of frame/crank specification.
  • 5 0
 @philbike111: plenty of people have 0 issues but as someone who's worked in bike shops for 20 years, bigger axles with smaller bearings lead to a higher percentage of failures with the bearings and a much higher percentage of people who do have issues. Weirdly I'd have expected dub to be really bad for bearings but so far haven't seen that many, still relatively new I suppose though, tike will tell.
  • 6 1
 The last polls should be, What is your IQ and How much pot do you smoke?
  • 1 0
 @pbuser30972: I see, i guess I should start moving back to GXP, thanks for the info, appreciate it. It'll cost me less money, cause this sport is constantly draining my bank account
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: depends on how high they place the ranking, and how many grams they put. Me honestly, im standing at an 112 IQ, and I've only smoked pot twice, as a means of fun, they don't really care in cali.
  • 2 1
 Nobody knows what t47 is...
  • 1 0
 Mrti never bought a hope 30mm bb then, eah
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: 132 and a lot. tup
  • 1 0
 @JohanG: uh-oh, sounds like someone is taking those fake IQ tests from their FB feed again
  • 1 0
 @emptybe-er: or maybe you can't comprehend other people may score quite a bit better than you. Also, what's FB? Rolleyes
  • 34 1
 The bigger 34.9mm seat tube inner diameter is the way forward because you can't tell any difference by looking at it, it probably weighs a bit less on alloy frames, and it offers less flex for long travel droppers. Definitely better than 31.6mm. Oh yeah? Believe that.
  • 17 0
 Agreed. Droppers can be more robust if they have more space to play with.
  • 7 0
 Yeah but have you ever compared dropper post weights between sizes? The 34.9 weigh significantly more than 31.6.
  • 3 1
 @GBeard: Oh right I didn't think of that. Anyway it must surely be worth it if you want 200mm of drop or more?
  • 4 0
 @jaame: I wouldn’t know, I’m short.
  • 4 0
 @GBeard: Just spitballing: Maybe that's because they probably make the internals the same to save money across diameters. They still need those internals to be secure in the tube on 34.9(a relatively small market portion), so they just let the walls be thicker.
  • 3 2
 As far as I’m concerned they should be making seat post diameters as wide as they can possibly fit. They’re still the Achilles heal of mtb’s regarding reliability.
  • 2 0
 Eightpins!!! ????
  • 1 1
 Isn't 34.9 the outer diameter?
  • 2 0
 @Wamprat: Since I have gone to low-cost dropper posts designed to be maintained at home I have had no issues in over 3 years. Previous to that my KS and RS seat post were terrible. I am a fan of keeping their weight down.
  • 2 0
 Bikeyoke have said multiple times that they think 200mm+ droppers in 31.6 are not a great idea. They will eventually bow to market pressure, but 34.9 is definitely the way to go for long, reliable droppers.
  • 1 0
 @ptrcarson: You may be correct. I’ve only used Thomson for the last few years ????
  • 2 0
 @Wamprat: I just think with droppers they are going to need maintenance. Buy the one that makes it easy at home then the maintenance is 10 mins in the garage rather than two weeks and shipping.
  • 1 1
 @BenPea: It's the bike industry. Naturally they'd choose the exact OD of the "old" standard as the ID of the new one. Bc f*ck them that's why...
  • 1 1
 @Explodo: 30.9 and 31.6 are essentially the same internals with a thicker walled external tube. 34.9 sees an increase in internals so beefier bushings etc. It doesn't seem much but it is a straight out 10% increase and there is probably an engineer out there who will be able to tell us all how that translates into all sorts of improvements for seal and bushing life and seat post strength. There was this article a while ago about the improvements 34.9 offers: nsmb.com/articles/why-all-dropper-posts-should-be-349

If we take the bigger diameter tubes can be made thinner for the same strength argument then we can claw back some of the weight. If the industry is putting a lot of research into 35mm, 36 mm and 38mm seals (forks) then why not standardise a dropper tube standard that allows the industry to take advantage of that? 35 mm means the same tubes, bushings and seal that are used for forks might be able to be used in dropper posts and if not at least the R&D and lessons learnt can be applied to dropper posts.
  • 1 0
 @BenPea: you are soooo 2017!
  • 1 0
 @akkwlsk: myeah, go back another decade and you're close
  • 1 0
 34.9 dropper from one up vs 31.6 has about a 100 gram weight difference in the same drop
  • 1 0
 @BenPea: I think a 30.9 or 31.6 post fit in a tube of external diameter 34.9.
  • 1 1
 @GBeard: Many worry about weight but I will lose 2 pounds off my gut vs. a bike and have a simpler, more robust, and longer lasting bike. Maybe if it is an xc bike then have some super light solutions but above that I wouldn't complain about a few hundred grams
  • 1 0
 @monsieurgage: Why not save 2 lbs. off your gut AND your bike? Wouldn't that be ideal? Also as someone who weighs about 61 kilos I like to get my bike as light as possible because I can't man handle it as much.
  • 3 0
 @GBeard: Depends, enduro I will take a heavier bike with hopefully (big ask for the bike industry) longer living and more robust parts. XC then yeah lets go nuts and try not to smash the thing. In this case 100 or so grams is fine with me if the bushings are beefier especially since the STA on my new bike will be sub 77 degrees and potentially 210mm drop.

Aggregate though, maybe a dropper is the right place to save weight over a wheels, suspension, and brakes?

For a light dude who may not have much fat to lose I get looking to the bike but many complain about bike weight and do not have any sense of self awareness.
  • 1 0
 @jaame: that's correct, but where did you see an internal diameter of 34.9? Is that a thing?
  • 1 0
 @BenPea: the internal diameter of the seat tube I was referring to.
  • 1 0
 @jaame: sorry, totally ignored the poll and when straight down to commentland.
  • 1 0
 @BenPea: new Slash. According to this, singletrackworld.com/2018/01/is-34-9mm-the-next-major-standard-bikeyoke-adds-huge-revive-max-dropper-post, Spesh Enduros had it. But the new one is 30.9 internal. Might have something to do with wall thicknesses required to make the relatively tiny toptube/seattube junction strong enough. I doubt it matters much for 150mm droppers, and it shouldn't affect the QR collar on your '05 Reign, swingarm layout of which looks contemporary--low-mount shock in a cage. How about that water bottle stowage!
  • 1 0
 Agreed! Everyone wants thicker fork stanchions, and it works the same for posts too
  • 2 0
 I almost answered 34.9mm, but then remembered that the correct size would be of course 35mm. How on earth we still have a zillion of these ancient inch-to-mm-diameters floating around?!
  • 1 0
 @ceecee: it's a great bike for carrying water, refusing to become obsolete and never ever breaking.
Two questions about 34.9 ID seat tubes:
-Does that mean I have to put the front mech straight on the post? Where does the frame go?
-Can I insert my Reign into a Slash and baby Rashes?
No further questions, apart from why the f*ck have they invented 34.9 ID STs, obviously.
  • 1 0
 @BenPea: www.pinkbike.com/news/bikeyoke-revive-max-dropper-349.html

Low standover + tall rider = larger diameter dropper

Though he admits in third paragraph it's also for looks.

What happened to the dirty finger method? It can still work with singlespeed
  • 29 1
 Who the actual efff drank the cool aid and clicked 35mm bars? Please stand in line to receive your well deserved punch in the face. Thank you very much.
  • 3 1
 exactly, it was tested and there isn't even that much more stifness. Besides looks, I don't think there's a reason to spend the additional cash
  • 3 1
 @philbike111: I've always been told that it was entirely looks. Some people tried to argue that you can make a lighter bar because it's just as strong with a thinner wall, but the only people I listen to are the ones that say it's based on looks.
  • 5 1
 @philbike111: only bought 35 to get the oneup bars. Money wasted.
  • 2 1
 @SpeedMountain: It's about 97% looks and 3% improvement, you could probably feel a difference (I don't). People will always have an excuse to buy the "latest & greatest" even if they know deep down, that its not that much better, I personally just run a 32mm stem with 31.8 clamp
  • 3 2
 I voted 31.8 because I prefer aluminum bars, if I were buying carbon bars I would go 35 for sure
  • 2 1
 @matt-15: Even with Carbon Bars, there isn't much diffierence, besides the beefy look of the bar. It matches most of todays carbon frames.
  • 2 1
 35mm bars are a no go for me. I want more rise than most riders. Being stuck with less than 40mm rise is stupid.
  • 1 0
 @SpeedMountain: The "it's lighter" voices are talking BS. The companies who actually make the lightest and strongest aftermarket handlebars are all firmly in favor of 31.8. E.g. Syntace, Newmen, Schmolke.
  • 27 0
 The bike industry clicked on 'other.' everywhere
  • 10 1
 It's true - PinkBike Polls are the bike industry's Bohemian Grove.
  • 20 2
 I miss the Schrader-Presta poll..

Every time I buy a new rim I have to grab my goddamn drill and a 8mm bit so I don't have to mess with that outdated noodle roadie sh*t presta valve.

It's off my chest, thanks for listening.
  • 5 0
 I'm with you on the Schrader > Presta. But drilling into your rim? I'm not going to do that.
  • 20 2
 To everybody that thinks boost is the best standard, read your comments from five years ago here:

www.pinkbike.com/news/sram-announces-new-hub-standards-boost-148-and-110-2015.html
  • 21 1
 99.99% of us wouldn't notice the difference between boost and non boost. Now that boost is here I think people are just voting for it not to change again. That's why I voted for boost anyway.
  • 3 0
 Lols
  • 4 3
 Yep. I’m old enough to remember when Boost spacing was the biggest standard-changing scam foisted upon us by the manufacturers since 29-inch wheels. All hype! Or at least that’s what I read here in the comments section. Now everyone has either succumbed to the evil brainwashing, or just maybe the industry was right all along.
  • 2 0
 @friendlyfoe: I bet a good portion (maybe not 99.99%) of us still wouldn't notice the difference between thru and quick release axles. I like the idea of thru axles for sure, but make them all the same. Could probably do 15mm front and back, just changing lengthy for your frame/fork standard. OR, if the frame/fork spacings were standard all you'd have to worry about is a Chinesium replacement axle or purple ano titanium.
  • 4 0
 @TheR: old enough? It was like 5 years ago
  • 1 0
 @iammarkstewart: on my QR axle FS frame I converted the rear from QR to thru-bolt, there was a very noticeable difference in stiffness.
  • 1 0
 @whatsstinky: Yeah, that’s part of the gag.
  • 15 0
 Can we get PB to have a podcast or article with some engineers who bike and can discuss the merits of all these? From a strength to weight to efficiency to cost lets here the pros and cons? I answered the questions but I am no engineer and a lot of my knowledge is second hand ie. 30mm spindles are stronger, 1.5-1.8 steerer tubes are just as strong but lighter, 157 hubs are stronger, 35mm bars are stronger...yada yada yada.

How much is the bike industry marketing bullsheet and how much has data and research to back it up? I may not like the answer but I am asking the question.

Any engineers in the comments?
  • 4 2
 30mm spindles are stronger/stiffer, but that also means the bearings are smaller and less robust, decreasing bearing life.

But I agree. Usually very things in life are just clearly better for everything. Most of these standards are likely the same way. You gain something (stiffness), but trade away bearing life (or something else).

Would be nice to get more engineering responses about what is likely “best” for most scenarios. I’d find that very interesting.
  • 2 1
 @ocnlogan: its the bike industry looking for money, if you really think about it, we haven't really had that big of an advancement without trading out something for it. Not to mention the money it costs to buy the thing
  • 3 0
 @philbike111:

I’m not quite as cynical about it, but I get your point.

That said, bikes have improved, and there have been many incremental improvements.

Thru axles are just better, micro spline and XD offer a wider range of gear ratios (9-10t small gears vs the 11t of HG), shocks have more bushing overlap, frames are stiffer, and generally things are breaking less.

Not to mention geo changes.

So I don’t think it’s all “just because it’s different and I can sell something new”. Although that’s totally a thing as well.
  • 2 0
 @ocnlogan: Yeah I've forgot about the small improvements. Offset, the torque caps of rockshox, and more range. Guess I should be more thankful, as some people haven't even heard of this sport
  • 16 0
 Nothing needs to change.. even 30mm cranks are stupid as cranks haven't broken since isis..
  • 19 1
 Seriously...why would people want smaller, more poorly sealed bearings? I suppose if combined with a T47 frame it's OK, but there is nothing wrong with a 24mm spindle in a BSA frame. 24mm spindles can handle everything Chris Froome and MvDP throw at them, they should be fine for us.
  • 2 0
 Apart from that misadventure of Gwin's, but let's put that aside.
  • 7 0
 The fact that you say chris froome and not andreu lacondeguy is worrying. However yeah, either way 24mm is fine.
  • 3 0
 @mnorris122: Agreed. Tiny bearings bad.
  • 2 0
 @gabriel-mission9: Ha, I read Chris "Fromme" and was wondering how Chris got a mountain named after him.

But yeah, 24mm/BSA threaded.
  • 1 0
 @gabriel-mission9: Fair hahahaha I can't say I've ever snapped a crank spindle, but I'm sure many have
  • 16 3
 Too bad it is Pinkbike asking rather than the Bike Industry.

Crank spindles -car engines use 24 mm drive shafts - why do more?
Down with press fit - period
Everyone is engineering more flex into their bars after we went to 35 mm - the industry created a problem they then had to solve...............
Boost was enough..........
Pinkbike you forgot the 1 inch headset on a steel frame -bring back the MAG 20 TI !
  • 4 1
 Wouldn’t be surprised if Pinkbike sells/shares the data from these surveys. In this rare instance, I hope it is shared so companies stop producing garbagio
  • 11 2
 12x142 was fine too. Think most people voted boost not out of need but because that is what they have now and want to be able to swap out wheels. I am still on 142 and that is part of the reason I am hesitant to buy a bike... still waiting to see which way all kinds of these standards go to have a relatively future proof bike.
  • 3 0
 Honestly curious why I got the downvote. We’re people seriously having issues with 142 before they migrated to boost?
  • 1 0
 Speaking of old 1 inch threaded headsets in old steel frames, I was building up my winter beater bike to find out that not all 1 inch headsets and steer tubes are the same!! Different standards for road or mtb application.
  • 2 0
 Cars also use press fit bearings everywhere. Maybe we just start insisting bike frame manufactures actually hit tolerances from this century?
  • 2 0
 Look up hambini @nonk:

Agreed if it could be executed correctly. That’s the issue. Hambini has a great discussion of BSA versus press fit.
  • 1 0
 This is definitely market research that they're undertaking for a commercial client.
  • 1 0
 @nonk:
^^ this. There is nothing wrong with press fit in itself, it's used everywhere. It's just the biking industry failing to make bb shells with proper alignment and diameter.
  • 13 0
 Can we talk about derailleur hangers? That's one standard in the making that should definetly become one: Sram's Universal Derailleur Hanger. Not that derailleur hanger broke so easly nowadays but just for ease of availability.
  • 1 0
 I'm amazed this doesn't have more upvotes! Maybe there's just too much SRAM hate.
  • 12 2
 I don't understand why Centerlock has not stick. It is so cumbersome to have 12 tiny Hex bolts to fix 2 rotors on your wheels ! Centerlock's more elegant, super fast & simple AND make use of universal tools !
I only recently got centerlock on a road bike and I was so shocked by its simplicity I just don't wan something else ever.
  • 4 0
 YES!!!
  • 2 1
 I came here to post about my appreciation of centrelock also. I much prefer it to six bolt. When I had six bolt rotors, i was constantly having to tighten them regardless of loctite or tightening torque. Never have to think about it with centrelock.
  • 3 0
 But centerlock did stick, didn't it? Only the oversized Saint centerlock disappeared. I prefer the six T25 bolts but that's just me. If you want to run centerlock rotors than there is nothing stopping you.

Edit: That wasn't supposed to be a pun Wink .
  • 3 0
 6 bolt is much easier to tighten with a multi tool and can be done with the wheel on, which is a bonus on a pre ride/race bike check. Plus, it's easy and cheap to make both the hubs and the rotors. Centre lock is much more complex for manufacture, which rules it out as a universal standard, as it wouldn't be economic on cheaper bikes.
  • 2 0
 Cost seems like the answer. Six bolt rotors can be a simple sheet of metal. The hubs are also cheaper to manufacture. Though the advantages of centerlock might be worth it.
  • 1 0
 @dfiler: Ease of assembly has won over manufacturing costs in the past. The PM disc brake mount is pretty universal nowadays. It is probably saving a lot of time in the bike assembly line. I think the savings of centerlock vs six bolt T25 is minimal. They use pneumatic and or electric tools to tighten them so it isn't that much of a deal. For the home mechanic, are they in such a rush?
  • 1 0
 I must be the only person to have a centerlock rotor come undone and that's why I vote for 6-bolt. My torque wrench fits the 6-bolt screws, so with correct torque and blue threadlock I don't have them unscrew themselves. Also, it takes more than one of them to unscrew before the rotor becomes unusable, so I prefer 6-bolt for that redundancy which centerlock doesn't have. I really liked how much faster centerlock is to work on, but I'm too scared of it to use it again. If anyone knows what I could have been doing wrong, please let me know.
  • 2 0
 @vinay: In abstract, yeah, reduced manufacturing labor can offset component costs.

Though I think you're underestimating the cost difference between simply stamping/cutting a sheet of steel vs the same thing in addition to forging a centerlock spider and connecting it to that sheet of metal.
  • 13 0
 My favourite standard is a consistent one
  • 11 0
 Serious question, is anyone actually bending 24mm cranks? I can't imagine how hard I would have to case something for that to happen.
  • 6 0
 That's not why 30mm exists its so they can make the spindles from aluminium instead of steel. Started in road bikes, it's a weight weenie thing really.
  • 1 1
 @pbuser30972: I have seen 24mm spindles on road bikes actually twisted because of the amount of watts some riders are capable of. I thought 30mm spindles came about to give them more torsional rigidity.
  • 2 0
 @srsiri23w: yeah but 24mm is just the outside diameter. I would assume that road cranks would be made with much thinner walls to save weight.

Would still love to hear if anyone has a justification for 30mm beyond what pbuser said. If that's the case then 30mm cranks are really just for xc bikes. I definitely don't care about a few grams for steel cranks on my 35lb 150mm travel rig especially if it means replacing my bb more often.
  • 2 0
 @srsiri23w: I broke a cheap 24mm samox crank casing a jump. On a rigid bmx. Guarantee I put more into it than any spandex warrior can pedaling.
  • 1 0
 I broke a Samox too, on a fatbike. I put that on quality of manufacture, plus the fact that it had 10mm spacers outside the bb. Bad design for hard riding.
  • 15 3
 20mm front axle needs more votes!
  • 1 2
 And maybe also be more specific? 20x110 old or 20x110 boost?
  • 4 1
 People voting prob came to the sport long after it disappeared...
  • 7 1
 Agreed. Seeing 15mm beat 20mm makes baby Jesus cry
  • 1 0
 I came back to the sport after 12 years away. Shocked to discover 20mm front axles not prevalent and tapered head tubes rather than 1.5.
  • 1 0
 Would love to here the reasoning behind the down votes in this little thread!
  • 1 0
 @Afterschoolsports: 1.5 HTs never really took off anyway
  • 10 1
 I answered "Other" on all of them. As a professional in the bike industry, new standards = money in my pocket.

Now everybody take turns throwing a punch at the strawman!
  • 1 2
 @reindeln Do you make more of your money selling complete bikes? or through parts / service?
  • 1 0
 @pcledrew: from all anecdotal evidence I can think of, it's probably parts/service. Or at least, that's what my bike shop makes the most money off when I go into the store. I dont have the cash the throw around 3 G's every year, or even every other year, but I can swing a couple hundred bucks for repairs and upgrades that I can't do myself. And at the rate I abuse my bikes, that's at least a couple times a year. Hell, I spent 900 dollars between two different wheel sets I blew up or bent beyond repair just this year.
  • 1 0
 @pcledrew: on the other hand, I'm middle class. People I know in even the upper middle class have dropped 2 grand on bikes for them and their kids like it was burning a hole in their pocket.
  • 6 0
 Haha. Good one Pinkbike. You’re asking like the “industry” is going to listen at all. They’ll just keep creating bullshit and calling it a “standard” because 1. That’s how they get money, by selling stuff to us we don’t need by saying we do need it. And 2, people will buy it because they have been told they need it.
  • 4 0
 This is 100% facts, companies will keep creating new standards saying that the version they made is more efficient and lighter and probably stiffer
  • 6 0
 I'm not sure how many people in the industry need to hear this.... but most of these standards mean absolutely nothing to 99% of riders. Perhaps this is of benefit though so they can continue to market them with exaggerated benefits.
  • 1 0
 Agree with this, generally most consumers are limited to the inventory at their LBS and the LBS is not going to carry stuff that doesn't work with their inventory. So most people who need a new part are just going to go to the LBS explain their problem to staff and staff will make recommendations to customer based on factors including what they have to spend and what the LBS has available. In this situation standards will only factor in the discussion between LBS staff (mechanic and sale staff) customer just wants a solution that works in their given set of parameters which is usually based on price and performance.
  • 13 2
 XD drivers, why?
  • 3 10
flag pbuser30972 (Dec 4, 2020 at 12:46) (Below Threshold)
 Because microspline is shit and fails and we want 10 tooth cogs obvoiusly
  • 2 1
 I clicked on it just because I was trying to guess winners, and everybody that bought bikes in the last couple years is likely on it. While I do believe the xd driver is likely superior in itself, I bought a bike with shimano for cheaper cassettes and general brand preference. I also believe center lock is technically superior, but won't buy it because it necessitates not expensive rotors.
  • 3 0
 @AllMountin: You won't buy CL hubs because the rotors are expensive but you're a fan of XD driver where cassettes are eff'n expensive?
  • 1 2
 XD is the technically superior design. Only the big cog has material has a connection to the freehub body. With HG or MS, each cog has to have its own connection, which means there’s redundant and excess material in there. Only downside is that XD cassettes must be one piece, adding cost.
  • 5 0
 @MaplePanda:
“Only downside” You are paying three times as much for something that is barely any better. I’d say that’s a pretty big downside. Not only that, the cassette design is so poor that even a mid range GX cassette is absurdly expensive rather than just the top end weight weenie shit. Manufacturing capability is a huge part of any good design. Clearly SRAM has been hiring artists, not engineers.
  • 1 0
 @iammarkstewart: There was a typo in there, but the point was I personally buy the stuff that allows the wear parts to be manufactured cheaper, even though the other option may have theoretical advantages. Another example is straight pull vs j bend. I'll opt for a six bolt, j bend hub every time.
  • 2 0
 @Mini-Pinner: This is why I bought the e*thirteen TRS+ cassette. It's even lighter than my ol XT 11-36.
  • 1 0
 @Mini-Pinner: Well yea, I agree that the value isn’t there, but if you’re looking for the lightest cassette possible, well there you go. Shimano has to use a bunch of softer aluminum and titanium cogs to get a XTR cassette that’s still heavier than XX1.
  • 1 0
 @MaplePanda: what about garbaruk? Lighter cheaper stronger than sram, fits on HG. 1 piece CNC steel. Sram also uses those same soft alloy cogs up there last i heard.
  • 1 0
 Because bikes have to be unnecessarily expensive, so people can complain about too high prices
  • 1 0
 @Jimmy0: XX1 cassette only has the 50t made with aluminum.

That garbaruk cassette looks awesome. It used the same philosophy as an XD cassette: all the first 11 cogs are machined out of one piece, and only contacts the freehub at the very end. Only limitation with that one is that it has an 11t small cog.
  • 1 0
 @MaplePanda: Absolutely not. If anything Microspline is the superior design. XD forces all the cogs in the cassette to be a piece of a single carrier. XD cassettes need to be one piece for no good reason. It's a lot more expensive to manufacture and if something breaks you need to replace the whole cassette, driving up the effective cost even further
  • 9 0
 Just pick your preference and be a dick about it.
  • 10 2
 Everyone who answered 30mm bottom bracket spindle and bsa threaded is a moron who wants dead bb bearings every few months.
  • 4 0
 This. 24 steel spindle FTW BSA on metal frame. BB92 on carbon frame.
  • 6 1
 Well majority of the people who answered are Enduro riders.
Example: majority answered' 15 x110 mm boost front hub ' '12x148 mm rear hub'.
I can't ride downhill on a 15mm axle(boost) or 12x148mm. What is this 148 mm rear hub spacing, just get the 12x150 mm.
What's the big deal... it's only 2 mm's difference.
12x150 has proven to be a great standard . It's been around for 13 years or more.
Nobody had issues or what so ever. Totally just a rip off 'New better standards'.
Everything is getting more expensive, and you get just a bit better bike parts.
BUT the price is 50 % higher or at least 30 %.
Sram XD driver as an example. Cassettes are 3 times more expensive then the Shimano ones.
For the price i expect 3 times better performance, which is not there.
  • 2 0
 That’s what I thought, it just shows most here ride newish enduro bikes.
The bike industry should have just used the DH sizes for Enduros, 20x110 and 12x150 non-boost. Forget about all these in between sizes.
  • 4 0
 I do feel like 15mm front axles are a backwards step, I have Bos Deville forks with a 20mm axle that's lighter, stiffer and easier to use than any current 15mm axle even though it's 8 year old technology.
  • 2 1
 I must be a really outdated then, running a 135x10 bolt on axle in the back wheel and a 1.5inch steer tube with 26x2.7 inch tires on my dh bike. Lol.
  • 3 1
 XD cassettes are expensive because they have to be one piece, unlike a Shimano cassette which can be made of individual cogs. I heard it takes SRAM like 6 hours to machine each XD cassette? That’s a lot more expensive than just stamping out a bunch of cogs from sheet metal and just riveting them to a spider.
  • 6 0
 @MaplePanda:

Translation: “XD cassettes are expensive because they are poorly designed”
  • 2 0
 @MaplePanda: If the "superior design" is a multi-fold increase in price of a replacement part with next to no performance improvement or weight loss, you'll need to explain to me how superior design works. HG freehubs have been around for a long time for a reason and you can get the reliable replacements for what you could call reasonable prices...far less than XD comparables.
  • 1 0
 I guess it depends on whether your viewpoint is around "which standards work well that are in significant use today?" vs "if we were to change the whole industry overnight and stick with it forever, what standards should we choose?"
  • 1 0
 @iammarkstewart: Well for one, HG only lets you go down to an 11t, and people have issues with freehub gouging. I agree that XD sucks when it comes to value, but if you’re looking for the absolute lightest cassette, it wins in that regard. Shimano has to use a lot of softer aluminum and titanium to make a cassette that’s ultimately still heavier than XX1’s nearly all-steel construction.
  • 1 0
 @MaplePanda: *Looks at NX 690g Cassettes*
  • 1 0
 @Zhehan: NX uses the HG driver.
  • 6 0
 this is a bit mindf*cky because are my answers really what I want/think is ideal, or is it just what the industry has told me works well/what I'm used to?
  • 7 1
 Why don’t more people like centerlock rotors?

Admittedly I don’t have them at the moment, but they’re so nice when you do.
  • 1 0
 I think the main gripe is that trailside repairs are more difficult (read: not gonna happen). I'm fine with CL, but I can image that it'd be pretty frustrating if I severely bent a rotor and couldn't get it off to limp home.
  • 3 0
 @pmhobson: sure, but has that ever happened to you?

In 13yrs if dh it has never happened to me, but I’m sure now it will.
  • 2 0
 @nvranka: It has not happened to me. Like I said, I like CL rotors. But I think that's the concern with them.

Also, if you're riding DH, you're likely at park or shuttling. in a 50-mi back country loop, the stakes would be different.
  • 5 0
 @nvranka: if you have a tool to remove a rotor you can remove the caliper as well.
  • 2 0
 I plan on building my next wheels with centrelock. They are so much better for me. I have never had a problem with them. Looking forward to 223mm rotors coming in them too. Needing to tighten 6 bolt rotors though, that feels like something I had to do on the trail all the time.
  • 1 1
 Can I buy sub $10 rotors for CL? A stamped rotor is super cheap to make. Making the common replacement part more complex is a bad thing. I've had to ride out with no rear brake before. If you do trials type stuff and log rides, eventually the rear wheel slips off the wrong way and lunches a rotor.
  • 13 5
 Centerlock all day.
  • 10 9
 I don't understand how anyone wants to mess with 6 little bolts, finding their Torx key, fiddling with all these parts after lining up the rotor, including the little lock spacers, and then cutting their knuckles on the rotor at least twice in the 5 minute process when your Torx slips. When it could be a matter of one splined tool, little force required, easy alignment (this can be done with the wheel vertical), in just 10 seconds? I get that one manufacturer started this and other were reluctant to go along, but WHY would anyone want 6 bolt?
  • 4 2
 @joostd: Because it's easier to machine a hub and make a rotor with 6-bolt (more options) and the center lock if not done correctly can develop play. Seen it with several high end hubs/rotors. It is a nice system...when don correctly. That said, we have endless other bolts on our bikes, six little makes no real difference.
  • 4 2
 @joostd: agreed. I think it's better in literally every way.
  • 2 0
 Rotor bolts are the only thing I use a power tool on. My little Makita impact driver makes swapping rotors very quick and nearly foolproof.
  • 5 4
 @joostd:
Hmm let's see.
Very simply 6 bolts that you can remove with even the cheapest multi tool,
or a huge splined nut that you can only remove if you have a wrench..
Jup, 6 bolts all day baby.
  • 7 0
 Can we talk about how good Shimano Freeza discs look !? 100% Justifies centerlock IMO
  • 5 3
 @joostd: Its Easier, cheaper, and less work needed. You have 6 bolts, screw it on, done. If you get a center lock hub, you need a special tool (another one) and if it gets loose trailside, your pretty much screwed. If 6 bolts gets loose, ask for a riders multitool, or use your own. Also 6 bolt has way more options, and you could customize the screws based on your bikes color, something you can't do with centerlock. 6 bolt is just better IMO
  • 2 0
 @philbike111: Has anyone ever had a centerlock rotor come loose trailside? Or any rotor, for that matter? Badly enough that you can't finish your ride (or trip)?
I do appreciate the argument that fewer specialized tools would be nice, but I'm happy with them if it makes specific tasks easier or quicker. Like the cassette tool. I typically bring both while traveling, but not on typical rides.

Also: what about valves? Why do we have Schrader on suspension and (most people) have Presta on wheels?
  • 3 1
 @joostd: Well everybody has their opinions, I personally prefer 6 bolt, cause when I had centerlock, I had to get a special tool for it, cost me 30 bucks and I missed 2 weeks of riding. So its really just on what you prefer, I have tons of torx bits and torx screwdrivers, so its just easier for me.

I think Valves are just a something companies came up with to get more money out of buyers. What better way to make someone buy something then making is 100% necessary. A cheap shock pump will set you back 10-15 bucks, whilst a cheap presta pump is anywhere from 20-50 bucks
  • 1 0
 @philbike111: while I agree with your frustration, presta valves were invented for skinny road bike rims way back in the day because drilling big holes for Schrader valves was weakening the rims
  • 1 0
 @joostd: yep, had a 6 bolt rotor rattle loose. It snagged the caliper and ripped the hub apart, fracturing where the screws go into the hub and bending the rotor. Thankfully it was on the rear wheel so I didn’t die. I must have have failed to tighten the bolts enough or they rattled loose. My fault entirely. Sad to see an i9 hub destroyed in a millisecond. Amazingly the caliper and pads were fine.
  • 4 1
 I really don't care what standard is on my bike. if I have to replace something I just replace it with whatever fits on that bike it's pretty simple. I think the Man issue is the lack of education people working in bike shops have when you're trying to buy a certain part. Maybe there should be a data system made for whatever standard is on a bike you just look it up, just like an auto store. maybe I've just come up an idea for a little business
  • 6 0
 Honestly that is the big problem, try working in a bike shop and keeping up with what's compatible with what and the manufacturers don't help at all. It's not education its bike companies just don't publish it or even seem to know themselves sometimes. I've called orbea last week to find out what wiring cable I need to fit THEIR light to THEIR ebike with everything including serial number of the bike and they can't even tell me so I have to order 2. It's a nightmare and customers have no clue what they have and just say I need a seatpost, you ask what size and just get a black expression back. Then when a new standard comes out and for a little while only 1 company makes it and when they start failing you can't get the part because they put all their effort into new stock not spares and no one else makes it yet so the other suppliers can't help. And it's even worse right now because everyone is out of stock of everything because global pandemics turn everyone into cyclists apparently.
  • 2 0
 @pbuser30972: this is my point. The customer isn't supposed to have a clue, the customer is supposed to be clueless that's why they're going to a bike shop. they're going to a bike shop to ask the question what they need the customer isn't supposed to know the difference standards. I'm a heavy duty mechanic I don't expect my customers to hold my hand fixing trying to find out what parts I need for their equipment, that's my job that's what I'm paid for. and in my experience that's the way it is in every other industry. There is nothing special about the bike industry and to be honest compared to other industries there isn't that many different standards. Standards change true innovation and innovation is what makes bikes better so bike shops just got to accept it educate themselves and be willing to help their customers.
  • 3 0
 I prefer any standard that lets me transfer parts over to a new frame. However, the industry is all about planned obsolescence. Two standards that the majority of companies should adopt are a SWAT container on the frame, and also a standard rear derailleur hanger. However, I know that will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
  • 1 0
 yep, we all know each company got to have their own little specific parts that cost anywhere from 50 to 1000. They're just looking for our wallets, they're gonna put a high price on anything they can, its always maximize profit not happiness.
  • 4 1
 Just because a standard is the most popular, doesn't mean it's the only one that "should stick around." As a super boost 12x157 proponent, I know it's going to lose out to 12x148. But a number of bike makes have found it works better for their designs, and I doubt they would use it if it didn't have advantages to their design. They designed the bikes and know more than armchair bike designers. I like press fit too, although nothing against threaded. But we all know threaded will be "most popular". So what. That doesn't mean PF should be ditched. I never have had any problems with it and I'm sure it saves weight or makes some designs easier.
  • 1 0
 Personally I have a problem with 12x157. On most bikes I already have clearance problems with my heels. With 157 this problem just gets bigger. And we are talking millimetres here. I could use shimano long spindle pedals for it nstance (btw. Only +4mm on each side), but that changes q factor and it might not be enough anyway.
  • 3 0
 The Abomination bike:
141x9 QR boost rear hub
9mm QR fork with 1.5" straight tube
Knock block or something similar
Press-fit BB (naturally)
Triple chainring cranks
17mm inner rims with 2.35 tires
380 mm reach on size large
external dropper with cable that moves with the shaft
70 degrees HT
60 degrees ST
Shimano Dual Controls
Specialized shock with brain thingy
  • 1 0
 Hahh, you'd be surprised how many bikes from 10-15 years ago would tick most of these
  • 1 0
 You have just described my bike...
  • 1 0
 With a Giant specific OD Fork / Headset just for fun and to make it difficult to replace or upgrade.

High standover.

I actually like them, but Gripshift would make some people moan.
  • 3 0
 Funny how people have voted for 30mm crank spindle to pair with a threaded BB, a combination that results In quite small bearings that aren’t the most durable. People have accepted bigger axles but revolted against bigger BBs to fit them In just because they tend to be press fit. This is why as much as it pains me to say Srams DUB actually makes sense, although durability is why I just run an older 24mm axle which is heavier but bomb proof.
  • 1 0
 I know right? What is that, Raceface spacing?
  • 1 0
 Yep. If you vote for 30mm crank spindles, but want a threaded BB, then you'd need to vote T47, not BSA. I wonder if some people meant/implied T47 when they clicked BSA threaded. But that's probably just wishful thinking on my part...
  • 1 0
 There are external bb's for 30mm axles on threaded bb shells, like the ones by Praxis Works and Hope. The bigger problem with 30mm axles imo is that they are alloy, which will eventually get worn down by hardened steel bearings rubbing them.
  • 3 0
 I only have old bikes. All QR, 100mm Front and 135mm rear. I have 26er's for the Trek Fuel 100 XC bike, the 1993 Miyata DupliCross MTB Tandem that I turned into a Touring Tandem and a steel "Beater" Iron Horse AT50 from 1993. I run matching Blue Panaracer T-Serv tires on the AT50 and it gets a ton of compliments. It cracks me up. It does ride really nice with the long chainstays, though.

I also have a Ritchey Ascent from 2016 rigid steel 650b/700c compatible adventure/commuter bike built up with flat bars. It has Race Face Ride cranks w/ 24mm spindle, External Bearings and a threaded bottom bracket.

All the rest of my bikes have square taper cranks and they all have BSA Threaded Bottom Brackets. Press Fit seems like a nightmare.

I've never ridden a bike with boost axles. I do understand how it can help with bike design and wheel strength. If bike pricing ever comes down out of the stratosphere, I might get a newer type of bike. But, all the bikes I have are fun to ride and make me happy.

This is one bike with boost spacing F/R that I can see myself buying: www.breezerbikes.com/bikes/adventure/thunder/thunder - Seems like a reasonably priced build and it can be upgraded with a suspension fork.
  • 2 1
 @Zhehan
to be fair, the industry cannot cater to a guy with only 30 year old bikes.
  • 1 0
 @fruitsd79: True. But, I wasn't asking them to. I was just saying that I only have old bikes because the market has priced me out for the most part.
  • 3 0
 I don't care about these standards at all, but for the love of God will bike companies make it easier to look up the standards they use? Spacing and BB type don't mean ANYTHING to me, but if I can't figure out which parts to buy I get so pissed.

I should be able to to to any brands website, type in the year and model, and they should have a PDF I can download where it's says "GXP press fit BB, 1 1/8th steerer, 148 rear spacing, 110 front spacing"
  • 1 0
 Wholeheartedly agree on the challenges looking up the specs for a given frame.

For all their flaws, I thought Pole had a decent solution for that with their Evolink's having a sticker on the downtube. Doesn't have all the information, but I think it's pretty practical. If you're really concerned about a bike's look, take off the sticker.

www.pinkbike.com/photo/14645406
  • 3 0
 mountain biking is only the latest of industries to make us all slaves to the ever changing fad. I bought my last bike because it fit and I liked the ride on the trail. Being turned into tech whores by sales departments is what this sport used to laugh at. Fuck it.
  • 4 0
 I would really love to see all bikes with thru axle, it's so much more easier to replace the wheels without messing brake alignment
  • 4 0
 How about the standard where the average bike price doesn't increase 100% in a 10 year time span? This forced obsolescence BS has ruined the sport.
  • 2 0
 I just want cranks that I don't have use a pry bar to remove. Large spindles mean small bearings, which mean BB's that wear out and need replacing sooner. Coincidentally, the brand that has large spindles also has cranks that often need pry bars to remove. Yeah SRAM, I'm talking to you. Never had to replace a Shimano BB and if I did, I can take the cranks off without brute force and bloody knuckles and profanity.
  • 2 0
 Once I started working on my own stuff a bit, I found that I really didn't want to support brands whose stuff required ample cursing for even the most routine task. Which is why all things SRAM that come with my bike find themselves replaced rather quickly...
  • 7 1
 We should burn the pressfitters for their sins
  • 2 0
 I'm happy with most changes but would be happy if IS brake mounts and shims made a return. Impossible to make badly and once those are set nothing needs touching again until the pads are gone. Post mount and flat mount are a garbage alternatives for cack handed mechanics. Only Hayes cross hair makes those remotely acceptable compared to IS.
  • 2 0
 Oh God, I forgot about the appearance of the dreaded flat mount brakes on mountain bikes. Please, no!
  • 2 0
 I believe the answers were skewed by what the majority of riders own. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- in fact, if the majority of us own bikes with the most commonly voted standards, that must mean they're good. That said, we wouldn't be where we are today if standards never changed, and people/companies never pushed the limit. An idea that crossed my mind -- what if we simply stuck with the standards we see now for a while, or at least longer than we have been? What would the effect of that be?

One big change that I could see as realistic is the potential drop in prices -- If frame and component standards didn't change as often, would that drive the demand and price down? If so, would that open up the sport to a more diverse group of riders in regard to socioeconomic status? Could this then provide a greater pool of qualified, capable, and enthusiastic individuals who could then help push the industry forward?

Full disclosure -- I'm not an expert on any of this, I just had some random thoughts and ideas. I'm curious to see if anything I just rambled on about makes sense to anyone else.
  • 2 0
 THE BIGGEST pain in the ass is the bottom bracket fiasco how many freaking standards do we need - Just pick something and then do it correctly. Everybody is against press fit, but the problem isn't press fit, its the manufacturers doing horrible jobs producing frames with the properly sized and aligned bottom bracket shells. It is no better with crappy misaligned BSA frames. For those that aren't aware of why you BB creaks, or you keep wearing out BB's prematurely check out Hambini on YouTube. He shows a lot of crappy frame manufacturing, and gives great presentations on why BBs creak and wear out quickly.
  • 2 0
 Instead of trying to standardize everything, go with a few options that make sense.. T47, allows for almost any crank to be used with the right BB.. 1.5 headtube. Pretty much any fork can fit... And Anglesets.. 34.9 seat tube.. Smaller posts can fit with a shim. Not sure which spacing option I'd rather see..
  • 2 0
 These replies don't look like preferred standards but what people own. The results are not really interesting.
Centerlock, threaded BB. straight 1.5 superboost and 20x110 have more benefits than others.
A good standard should be one that has more pros than cons. I hate these mediocre half ass solution. If something needs to be improve, let's improve it for real not just 1%
  • 2 0
 The results of these polls just reinforce that we collectively are done with "New" standards. What we have now works well and we are sick of our new set of wheels becoming incompatible with our next frame for a 3% increase in lateral stiffness of a new hub standard that 99.9% of us will never notice.
  • 2 0
 20mm front. Why anyone needed 15 is just stupid. 157 so you have as much room as you need for bike builders to mess around, bsa, 1 1/8th so you also have more room for reach adjust, mircospline is 1000 times better than xd. Xd is Always stuck, 31.8 has and always will be fine 35mm is just too stiff, and 30mm spindles are stronger and have longer lasting BB. The seat tube bigger is better for droppers so you have a bigger bushing to deal with play. The rest of the stupid standards created problems not solved them. Still I hope some people wake the f*ck up and stop pushing this shit on us
  • 5 0
 I don't think consumers are the ones who get to define the "standards"....
  • 3 3
 You get a vote with your wallet, if you don’t like new standards getting pushed don’t buy the bikes with them
  • 4 0
 @toad321: soooo any pointers on where I can buy a new non boost frame?
  • 3 0
 The only one I truly feel strongly about is handlebar clamp diameter. I've tried 35mm more than once and it has always been noticeably uncomfortable.
  • 2 0
 Agreed I accidentally ended up on 35 and went through 3 bars before finding one that wasn't uncomfortably stiff
  • 4 0
 Where's the Fauber crank option? People prefer large axle with small bearings (30mm) morons
  • 3 0
 What is the advantage of 35mm bars? The only real benefit I see is that you can remove the bar easier without taking the stem top plate off completely.
  • 5 0
 Looks more beefy.
  • 3 0
 I've been told it's because 31.8 looked out of place with large modern tubing. 35 has the appearance that matches oversized frame tubes.
  • 5 0
 Vibration something something flex something compliance something something
  • 6 1
 carburetors and leaded fuel for life!
  • 5 1
 Yeah! And what was wrong with steam and coal power?
  • 3 2
 I have bikes with BB30, BB92, BSA Threaded, 31.6 and 30.9 ST diameters, 142, 148, and SB 157, 51mm and 44mm offset 29er forks.... it sucks balls. Nothing is compatible, all because I like different bikes for different reasons. But... it is what it is, my quiver is fun and diverse.
  • 3 0
 Agreed! A bike that gets you smiles & miles, is a good bike.
  • 4 0
 It'd be cool if any option other than BSA Threaded was just a shortcut to deleting your account.
  • 1 0
 I mainly chose what I have on my bike. It works. The ones where I have an opinion is threaded bottom bracket. I don't like the pressfit because it meant some extra tools that are a bit more pricey than a bb wrench. I didn't have an opinion on freehub choice. What I would like to see is a single freehub. It was nice when they were all hg. Now if you want to change drivetrains you have to factor in the cost of a freehub. Especially if you're switching brands. It's not expensive in the grand scheme of things, bit its an extra cost.
  • 2 0
 Now that most/many have gone with droppers, seatpost diameter seems like an easy one to standardize. A larger diameter post would help with the dropper mechanics and post stiffness.
  • 3 0
 At this point, just leave it all alone and we'll be good. enough super boost, 29.5", 36er, 35.55mm clamps, etc. It's all good right now.
  • 1 0
 BB spindles can be what ever size 24mm or higher. Just threaded.....Always regardless of size. The larger diameter BB's can go with a larger thread. I think I heard whispers of Philwood or King testing out a larger diameter threaded last year sometime maybe?
  • 1 0
 Are you talking about a larger diameter BB or BB shell?
  • 1 0
 @J1BB: Larger diameter Shell (the frame itself). I believe the T47 is what I was thinking of. Larger shells, can be threaded just as the current BSA and allow for the larger diameter bearings for the 30mm spindles. That will alleviate some of the bearing issues and allow the larger spindles at the same time.
  • 1 0
 @bman33: Yep that sounds good to me.
I've had no problems with current BSA and 24mm dia spindles but I'm wanting to try newer cranks with 30mm dia spindles. I'm not stoked about the current BSA and 30mm spindle combo especially with available space due to limited outer dia I have as I want my ISCG mounted guide
  • 2 1
 Lol @ everybody just choosing what they own. We need a thorough investigation on what standards have actually changed over the last years, and what definitive benefits new bikes have as result.
While the often quoted notion, sometimes in defense of new standards, "modern bikes are much better than some years ago because of many improvements" bla bla is very true, I would like to know, is the jump from 142 to 148 rear really that relevant after all? Or is it mainly the geo, better suited components for the riding style, ...? in a thorough study it should be possible to single out important and not so important parameters.
Meanwhile I'm off buying the latest and greatest I can afford, just like everybody else Smile
  • 1 0
 Unpopular opinion here from someone who currently rides Boost rear spacing... Last bike was SuperBoost and it was pretty fantastic. I'm not someone who builds up bikes and swaps wheelsets, etc., so I get that it's sh*t for those folks. Just wanted to say SuperBoost on a trail bike felt really, really good IMO
  • 2 1
 Single crown forks still suffer from creaking CSU's. Therefore 1.8" lower is better.
Dropper posts are getting 200+mm travel. Therefore 34.9mm dia please
148mm rear hub seems like a good balance between 29 wheel spoke angle and heel clearance.
Press fit BB's can creak, keep it threaded for now.
Centrelock rotors are just higher tech with the aluminum core, have better heat dissipation, and less prone to bending from impacts.
XD driver is a dogs breakfast with combination of slots and threads. Shimano microspline is cheaper and simpler to make, and offers a 10t cog.
  • 1 0
 Correction: Single crown forks still suffer from creaking CSU's. Therefore 1.8" (or 1.5") straight (for equal bearings top and bottom) with dual crown.
  • 1 0
 @c-radicallis: pretty sure its just the bottom that will benefit from the larger diameter. Thats where most of the stress is. Oversizing the upper just makes the stem and upper bearings overkill. Plus a 1.5 or 1.8" straight steertube wouldn't allow short ~30mm stems.
  • 2 0
 @flattire: You're confusing headtubes and steerer tubes.

Steerer tube diameter has no effect on what stem lenght you can use.

Larger straight head tubes allow the use of equal bearings top and bottom, and also allow the use of larger headset cups for adjustment.
  • 1 0
 @c-radicallis: Agree, 1.8" straight headtube would be awesome for reach adjustable headsets. Also angle adjust.

Unless your stem positions the handlebar directly above the steertube axis, steertube diameter absolutely restricts how short a stem you can go.

Just like a 35mm handlebar also limits how short a stem can be.
  • 1 0
 @flattire: It's restricted if you want to attach the stem to the steerer, and have it in front of the steerer of course. I just wasn't considering those specific restrictions.
  • 1 0
 Microspline is inherently heavier. Shimano has to use a wack load of aluminum and titanium cogs (less durable) in their XTR cassette and it’s still heavier than XX1’s nearly entirely steel cassette.
  • 1 0
 Personally, I like how the older straight 1 1/8" steer tubes are compatible with BMX frames. It allows for more compatibility when matching a suspension fork to a BMX frame and allows for mixing and matching BMX and MTB stems (with the oversized clamp area).
  • 3 0
 I don't really love boost or anything, but now that I have a couple bikes with boost axles, please for the love of god don't change again.
  • 3 0
 The thing we learned definitively is that BSA should be the standard for all mountain bikes, unless you're specifically racing high level XC and need absolute weight savings.
  • 2 0
 People have been complaining about everything SRAM for years but when it comes to something that actually matters, having a well designed spindle, they choose SRAM’s shit alu over Shimano???
  • 2 1
 I think we missed an important part here: which type and size should bolts be? I vote for T25, but hex 5 is also acceptable. What is not acceptable, is using T25 for rotor bolts, hex 4 for shifters, hex 5 for brake levers and hex 3 for other stuff, JIS 2 for one derailleur limit screw and hex 3 for another. I get that there should be a small and large size, but I sometimes get the feeling bike (and parts) designers find it a personal challenge to use every size of fastener type and size on the same bike.
  • 1 0
 Being newer to mountain biking (2.5 years) I went and was doing a little reading on press fit bottom brackets. There was a lot of hate for them 5 years ago, and yet brand new bikes are still being made with them. TBH when I bought my first brand new mountain bike 1 year ago I never considered the bb, but it does have a press fit. I guess there are just too many people that don’t know or don’t care and continue to buy them, or the industry just doesn’t care what experienced riders want.
  • 5 0
 How about sticking with normal human powered bikes (i.e. no stupid ebikes)
  • 1 0
 BSA BB shell and 30mm spindle aren't actually that good a combo. 30mm is a bit big, the BB has to be made a bit too thin and you lose stiffness. 24mm is best for BSA shell. We need a larger diameter threaded standard for 30mm spindles, or ditch them for 24mm.
  • 1 0
 So many standards. The annoying part is when you work on your own bike and need new tools for some new standard that may be marginally better. The worst is proprietary things like having to buy a Knockblock stem for a Trek (unless you are prepared to buy their special lockring).
  • 1 0
 It’s not the BB axle diameter that’s the issue, it’s the way the cranks fasten to it. I haven’t had a SRAM crank yet that hasn’t loosened itself without me having to use lock tight on it... the Shimano system is better but also a bit finicky imo. I’m sure a better design exists out there? Maybe Hope or Raceface, haven’t tried those yet...?
  • 1 0
 >30mm crank axle by decisive margin
>BSA BB by decisive margin

Safe to say majority of respondents aren't mechanics. All BSA30 adapters are garbage for durability...The threads are paper thin and cups can deform over time. This is where T47 comes in as the final solution. There is no excessive thinning of the shell wall and you can fit nice big oversize bearings.
  • 2 0
 The 'Metal Standard' should stick around. You know bikes made of Aluminum, Steel and Titanium. Instead we constantly have the black plasticy stuff thrown at us. Yes the Metal Standard should definitely be here forever.
  • 1 0
 outside of the pro and skilled sport riders ! the correct answer is " I don't know and i don't care " ????
i've been riding Mt. bikes before they were called mt. bikes and none of that is even remotely interesting to me .
If it rolls and has good brakes , i'm happy. ????
  • 1 0
 Are you going to refuse to buy a bike because you don't like one of its standard? Very certainly not. You can only decide upon the Sram/Shimano and Fox / Rock Shox alternatives.

As for the standards, I agree with killuminatus. These polls are pointless.
  • 1 0
 It's hard to get bothered about these things. I've never once noticed the difference between axle or bb standards so it pretty much comed down to will my tools work and can I get spares. Not that I let that stop me answering the questions or commenting here.
  • 1 0
 I'd choose the rear axle spacing that suits the enclosed chain line of a gear box ebike. I've chosen the straight 1.5 headtube, so that you can adjust reach, as well as head angle. Free hub not required. Bottom bracket not required.
  • 1 0
 T47 is objectively the better BB standard, as you have space for real bearings, unlike 30 mm axle on BSA. 15x110 Boost was a mistake, we already had a stiffer standard in 20x110, and there's nothing stopping it from being within a gram or two weight wise.
  • 1 0
 Some of these standards make a huge difference and some are just not that critical.

1. Boost spacing, I have nice wheels, I had nice non-boost wheels and got stuck with either older frames or selling wheels for dirt cheap
2. Headtube: Make is straight which allows for use of whatever standard. Headsets are dirt cheap compared to frames and forks
3. BB: I prefer threaded. T47 is a nice looking standard if it gets more adoption. Like headsets, BB on cheap so I can fit what I need. I won't use press fit after a road bike I had was nothing but problems. I know Pivot claims its not an issue, but it sucks for a home mechanic
4. Crank spindles: I think the rush to 30mm was stupid. 24mm was more than enough, I'm not after weight savings so I rarely consider upgrading cranks though. Using a set of DUB GX now and they are just fine. I cannot tell the different between those and Next (other than not pulling pedals out the arms) or any other high end crank
5. Bars: Stems and bars are again pretty cheap all things considered. I'm using 31.8 because I have them and they work. Don't need them stiffer. I'd be frustrated if I had to replace my stem to get new bars.
6. XD is a good interface, wish it was universal, but oh well, I can swap freehubs if needed
7. 31.6 because I have it.. would have said 30.9 if I had that. I'm sure there are good reasons to go larger with new longer droppers.

All in all, innovation shouldn't be stopped due to trying to stick with standards, but creating new things that add such limited value is annoying and delays adoption due to having to replace lots of parts. Bikes aren't cars and most people buying high end bikes tend to move parts on and off them or between bikes. Sharing wheelsets, spare parts, etc is also something of a huge value. I'm down to 1 MTB right now, but when I get another it will share major standards with my current one so I can move parts.
  • 1 0
 I just want companies to stop making BS standards for the sake of being different. Look how many crank standards and BB nonsense we have. Same thing with seat posts, holy crap it's ridiculous to see how we have so many different sizes.
  • 1 0
 Everyone would be loving Superboost, if only we skipped regular Boost in the process. Also, with Superboost, hubs are interchangeable with DH bikes so it wouldn't have been so much of a new standard but just adopting DH spec to trail bikes,... which seems to be going pretty well (enduro), so yah, I vote for stiffer axles and bigger brake rotors too.
Currently, I think Superboost and Microspline are a pain because it's harder to source gear for it, but if we were all on it, it wouldn't be a problem.
  • 1 0
 Many of these I feel more or less strongly about because like boost, they just work well and why change again? There were others that I thought were worded in a funny way, so I answered in a funny way: What's your ideal front axle standard? Who knows?! Boost works well, but it easily could not be the ideal. Ideal seat tube diameter? Well I guess most bikes are carbon or aluminum, so to get a 30.9 or 31.6 seatpost, I'd said maybe 34.9. I wonder if that was supposed to say seat post size. In that case I'd vote 31.6. I love these polls. So much opinion!
  • 1 0
 What are all you window-lickers smoking? In what way is a 15mm axle better than a 20x110mm? Why is a 34.9mm seat tube for the frame not the optimal answer? How is a 148mm rear axle great while a 157mm not drastically better? 1.5" straight steerer still provides the most options.
I think this just shows what sheep most of the mountain bike industry (and customers) are. The only standard out of all of those which didn't exist in 2010 that has earned a spot on a hard use bike (IMO) is the XD driver.
  • 1 0
 There needs to be an "I don't care" option for most of these, because I literally don't care about axle standards, steerer tube diameters, and most everything else as long as they work and are designed correctly. The only things I voted on are freehub body and brake attachment interface.
  • 1 0
 Are the results getting sent to all the industry cheese heads? There is no reason for multiple standards for several of these categories. One good reason for keeping things simple...keep costs down for all the rides who want to get out and ride on functional, easy to maintain bikes.
  • 1 0
 And again we visit the comment section to see what the experts have to say! It seems that some are still defending 26in wheels, some are angry that super-boost exists on their time. Most interestingly, some have 26in super-boost wheels, claiming best of both worlds, and some want non-boost 29ers. One thing is for sure, anyone who is angry in this sea of comments doesn't ride their bike enough. Go ride, get faster, have fun, and quit shaming people for liking parts that let them go fast and having fun.
  • 1 0
 Pretty telling that PB users prefer their 31.8mm bars over 35mm when the price to switch is low and steerer tube compatibility is high. 1.5 straight head tube would offer more head angle tuning
  • 5 1
 You cannot run a 30mm stem with 35mm handlebar. The 35mm bar solved nothing since there was no problem with the 31,8mm bar to begin with.

Same goes for 1.5 inch head tubes - no short stem possible.

Happy the 1.5 is gone and the 35mm handlebar has not really cought on yet. Bigger is not always better.

Case in point? 24mm shimano (steel) axles last, 30mm aluminium axles are eaten by their (undersized creaking) bearings once there is just the slightest bit of misalignment in the bearing assembly.
  • 2 1
 @Helmchentuned: 1.5" head tube + tapered steerer would be the winning combo among current/past designs.
  • 4 0
 I still don't get the 15x110 standard and the 12x148. So gimmicky!
  • 2 1
 Wider Tires, without having it rub against the frame/fork. It also allows for a stiffer, stronger, and more efficient wheel
  • 3 0
 @philbike111: the extra stiffness 3mm of spoke bracing makes almost no difference, hence superboost a truly dish less rear wheel
  • 2 2
 I rode a Trek Remedy 29 when they first came out with boost rear but kept 15x100. I thought it handled weird. The next year with 15x110 it felt like it should. That was my opinion before the industry told me I needed 15x110.
  • 2 0
 @SpeedMountain: was very likely not the extra 3mm of spoke bracing in the front wheel you were feeling as its such a small difference in stiffness you couldn't possibly feel it.
  • 1 0
 @pbuser30972: Maybe not in the hub alone, but perhaps the wheel combined with the wider fork. Maybe it was more than one components advantage alone. Either way, I feel like the prevalence of 29" wheels today says there could be something to Boost. That's my anecdotal evidence.
  • 1 0
 @pbuser30972: Superboost isn't dishless though, DH 157 is. And they didn't even include that in the poll.
s14761.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Superboost-Plus-Standard-Enduro-005-1536x1021.jpg
  • 4 1
 Standards should be standard. In the bike industry. Standards change. Total bull shite.
  • 4 0
 whoa what a surprise everyone hates pressfit BBs
  • 1 0
 I'm cool with pressfit BBs. I think I am the only one on the planet that likes both pressfit BBs and the Reverb. lol.
  • 1 0
 I don't swap parts between bikes very often so I don't really care as long as it's readily available if I need a replacement and doesn't need expensive or hard to find tools to go with it.
  • 2 0
 The right answer, based on the questions is...."There are no Standards", except maybe what Thorjensen replied "Round wheels!"
  • 3 0
 I DON'T FUCKING CARE WHICH STANDARD LIVES... AS LONG AS IT IS THE ONLY ONE.
  • 2 0
 What spindle diameter - 30mm What BB standard - BSA threaded. Damn near 5000 people don't know why BSA isn't the ideal standard for a 30mm spindle. I need a table to flip.
  • 2 0
 I feel personally attacked, I just bought an old bike with a qr/135 rear axle spacing and I'm having a tough time findng used hubs for it.
  • 1 0
 Uh oh I'm ordering a custom marino bike frame with 10x135 spacing, I'd better be able to find a wheelset for it haha
  • 2 0
 At the time of writing this around 80% of people voted for BSA threaded BB, but 40% voted for 30mm cranks.

At least 20% of voters are clearly mad.
  • 1 0
 I guess this all refers to trailbikes, since most DH bikes have used 20x110 front axle, 12x150mm rear axle, big enough headtubes to accomodate any fork and 83mm (mostly BSA) BBs for ages now.
  • 1 0
 its kinda stupid preference for BSA threaded BB and 30mm axles. The bearings are very tiny and prone to fail on this arrangement. If you want trhreaded BB go with 24mm axle that works flawless for several years.
  • 2 0
 Maybe someone mentioned it already, but I feel there's one option missing in all of these:
"I don't give a sh*t, as long as it is STANDARD!!"
  • 1 0
 Important to avoid the standards within standards pain for interchangeable things like wheels. Considered Cannondale for a new bike but the Ai spacing that's asymmetrical boost spacing was a negative
  • 1 0
 So most people want BSA threaded and 30mm axles, it's dumb, makes for too small bearing. On BSA 29 is max for good performance. That said 30mm axle is good for a light al axle but frame should be bigger.
  • 1 0
 Can we have standard threads on rear axles please? 3 bikes, all the same hub spacing, 3 different pitch and length threads. No bike shop near here had the right thread pitch and length in, but they would if it was standard!
  • 1 0
 I think the reason there weren’t many new standards this year is because we have found out what works best. And I that’s evolution!
  • 3 0
 Alliteration and assonance, nice
  • 2 0
 The fact that even pinkbike doesnt know that you also need a 20x110 BOOST option shows how buggered up this has become!
  • 2 0
 Has anyone said "none of them, let's get a whole fresh new batch so it pisses everyone off." yet?
  • 2 0
 And here I am with my stupid 15x150 / 12x177 full sus fatbike that has 26 Fat and 27.5+ wheelsets...
  • 2 0
 I doubt anyone really gives a shit, we just don't like stuff changing all the time
  • 2 0
 Why not mentioning 157x12 (the regular version, without the uneven flanges and wider BB)
  • 3 0
 How about we start by erasing the word 'standard' from the bike industry.
  • 2 0
 standards...i hate them that much that i have 3 bikes with the same standards Smile )
  • 1 0
 Would like to add I do not hold LBS responsible for my dilemma, I find them immensely valuable in helping me getting a working solution to keep me riding.
  • 1 0
 Buggered an edit so this post makes no sense, sorry. in short a standard, any standard good. No preference in what it is as long as it is standard.
  • 1 0
 I am not going to buy a new bike until it comes with T47, superboost and a 34.9 seatpost. Worst case scenario is I keep having fun on my 8 year old bike.
  • 1 0
 I have a non-boost bike with decent wheels. So long as "boost adaptors" remain a thing, I'm fine with keeping boost a standard.
  • 3 0
 This is literally going to be a survey of what the majority currently has.
  • 1 0
 yep its gonna be what most people have, and not what they prefer. I believe some of these people don't change their components to match their preference at all
  • 2 0
 No mention of Srams Torque Caps. Torque caps combined with 20x110 front axles would be amazing!!!!!
  • 1 0
 To the statistically high number of people who decided a 30mm crank axle inside a BSA threaded BB was optimal..... Hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
  • 2 0
 I don't really care about the rest, but hub standards really need to be settled once and for all.
  • 2 0
 Unsurprisingly, BSA 30 is the most popular choice by the largest margin of all the categories. BIKE BRANDS TAKE NOT!
  • 2 0
 Wow, I thought I knew bikes pretty well, but my answer was "I don't know" on every single question.
  • 3 1
 Anyone that chooses a BB standard besides BSA threaded, your mom’s a hoe.
  • 1 0
 Never understood the appeal for centerlock rotors, how are you supposed to tighten them or work on them when out on the trail?
  • 2 0
 I don't have standards, I shit in my pants and swear around the ruling elite.
  • 1 0
 "I don't know" across the board because ... I don't know. LOL

Still cruising on a 2003 Gary Fisher so all of this does not compute.
  • 1 0
 How about wheel size? Keep 27.5” around! I feel like it’s slowly getting fazed out by how things are going, which is really sad!
  • 1 0
 Why's it sad? You'll still be able to get tires for a while so I wouldn't worry
  • 1 0
 @nordland071285: yes, but it’ll be sad when the day comes that you can’t buy any frames except for 29” wheel ones
  • 1 0
 Gotta be honest here, I don't care which standards. Surely some are marginally better than others, but JUST PICK ONE AND GO WITH IT!
  • 3 0
 Round wheels
  • 1 0
 People will pick what they have because no one is going to purposely vote to make their current stuff obsolete.
  • 3 2
 Engineering aside, I vastly prefer the number 142 to 148 or 157. Say it: 142. It's the best, isn't it?
  • 4 2
 Dear XD driver people, why?
  • 3 1
 Why not? I have vety good experience with it. I’m using it on 4 bikes in the family, and it’s great!
  • 2 2
 because we want maximum range, XD is proven and has been out for years. Micro spline, which was just released is not as tested and proven as XD. So I'm personally gonna put my faith in something proven.
  • 3 0
 The cassette installation and removal is just better, imo. I have had issues with cassette lockrings.
  • 3 2
 What is your reasoning for being against XD? It lasts forever, its a lot cheaper, and availability is far better since it was always freely available to all manufacturers. Shimano's launch of microspline was incredibly anti-competitive and it still suffers from gouging. My XTR cassette also came with some sort of anti-creak spacer, which means its probably going to start to creak, not something I had to worry about with XD. I have yet to see any positives over XD, its been a real pain.
  • 1 0
 @philbike111: dude you are sticking with xd because it’s gold cassette compatible, micro spline is best for sure, it’s as simple as hg except it can handle a smaller cog and it doesn’t get marred up by the cassette (also you can use hyper glide which is better than gold)
  • 2 0
 @bike-lair: Lmao, No Sir. I will never run a XX1 or X01 Cassette, as it doesn't make sense. Why spend the money on something that will wear out? I run GX for my cassette and chain, then XX1 shifter, dereailleur, and crankset. XD has been proven with time, and like @singleandluvinit said, it's widely available.
  • 2 0
 @philbike111: I agree. I have had XX1 and X01 cassettes, but they wore out too quick and shifting got poor. GX, XT, XTR (11-speed) cassettes last for a long time. There is a weight penalty, but not horrible unless racing.
  • 2 0
 @tacklingdummy: Glad somebody understands what I mean, XX1 and X01 are made of alloy and GX and NX are made of steel. It only makes sense to go with the cheaper and longers lasting cassette, in this case, GX for XD and NX for HG drive
  • 2 2
 There's no reason for superboost. Boost is big enough, and we must do away with press fit bottom brackets, threaded are always better
  • 2 1
 The bearings of threaded BBs are pressed into their cups, so all BBs are press-fit BBs in a certain sense. I'd prefer that frame manufactures stick to good tolerances instead of bonding aluminum shells into still crappy frames.
  • 2 0
 Superboost is the same than 12x150, it has endless benits. boost is a mediocre solution with mediocre benefits. we should go all the way to superboost.
  • 1 0
 @victorise: I could easily be convinced that Boost was a mistake and Super Boost is where things should have gone in the first place. But that makes me wonder if 110 mm spacing in the front should have gone further too.
  • 4 2
 Most of the new standards are simply marketing bs anyway.
  • 4 4
 No business spends $10^6+ on tooling costs for a marketing ploy.
  • 3 0
 I think what this old fart is trying to say is that the advantages are exaggerated, and the improvements between my 2020 fox fork and the new 2021 exist but are not nearly as large as the fox marketing department wants me to feel.
  • 1 0
 @cyclecuse: did you forget about cannondale in the 90's? There are definitely bike companies out there re-tooling for nominal gains in performance. Only to realize the only way out of the financial hole is successful marketing.
  • 1 0
 But that would be dishonest Smile
  • 2 1
 @cyclecuse: wanna bet ? everything is a marketing ploy . It was discovered long ago that if you make these things look serious by spending the money to retool , you will increase your profits far and above what was spent for re tooling.
People like to distinguish themselves from others to feel special no matter what they identify with.
if you identify as a Mt. bike rider then the only way you can maintain a degree of "specialness" is to constantly upgrade as the industry convinces you to do so.
  • 1 1
 @cyclecuse: Uhhh... How many industries have you actually participated in meaningfully? That's par for the course.
  • 2 0
 I don’t care what the standards are as long as there is one
  • 4 1
 100% I hate 6 bolts. They failed many times for me when centerlock has always been perfect for me.
  • 1 0
 @victorise: I voted for 6 bolt but I really like the centerlock hubs/discs I'm currently running. It's super easy and uses a tool that I already own.
  • 1 0
 34.9 seat tube will provide larger space for reliable droppers, not that chicken ones like now.
  • 1 0
 The results of this survey are totally out of wack with the reaction of boost 148 coming in a few years ago.
  • 1 0
 “The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.”

― Andrew S. Tanenbaum
  • 1 1
 Most of this crap doesn't need standardizing. You could reduce the options a bit but a true "standard" is unnecessary in most cases.
  • 2 0
 I got them all right! haha good survey!
  • 1 0
 You guys forgot to mention the new "standard" 29" wheels.

Here's a poll:

26", 27.5" or 29" wheels for standards?
  • 3 1
 26" wheels for me, any larger and I feel like I'm riding on wagon wheels
  • 1 2
 29" wheels, because they are the fastest and for XC racing that is the top priority. Also larger contact patch for better grip and cornering, better roll-over, better at carrying speed and practically no weight disadvantage.
  • 1 0
 TFW, all the answers are dictated by what people currently own, not engineering expertise, including my own.
  • 2 0
 All numbers should be whole numbers for one. Seattube? 32 or 35mm.
  • 1 0
 I think this poll is as relevant as asking electricity users how to build a nuclear plant...
  • 2 0
 I pretty much clicked everything thats on my bike
  • 2 0
 To everyone who selected a 27.2mm seat post diameter: why?
  • 1 0
 I do hope that some of the people in the bike industry sees this and take notes.
  • 1 0
 Still pissed at fox for the 15mm front axle..no good reason to switch from 20 x 110. Comical that "boost" is 15 x 110, grrr
  • 1 0
 None, keep em comin at an inconvenient rate, preferably right after I buy a brand new bike.
  • 1 0
 People apparently don't know T47 is a better threaded BB for 30mm spindles.
  • 1 0
 I like two wheels that turn and take me up and down
  • 1 0
 I'm trying to figure out how to put a rear hub on the front.
  • 2 0
 check out the OG Surly Pugsley Fork....9x135 QR...Fat Front...
  • 2 0
 It has been done before. I’ve seen people build steel rigid forks spaced at 135mm. That way they can run two SS rear hubs with two different size freewheels. If you want to change gear ratios easily and quickly just swap wheels.
  • 2 0
 @srsiri23w: I keep getting dropped chains with those front-mounted rear hubs. I do prefer the simplified shifter cable routing.
  • 2 0
 I'm mostly looking to annoy my friends with continuous freewheel sound on long climbs. And the dueling buzz on the downhill would be sweet! I got the idea from Turbo Kid. If you look close, you'll see he has a rear wheel mounted on the front.
  • 1 0
 2x2 fat bikes. They exist !
  • 1 0
 Should include fork offset too?
  • 1 1
 I want a new wheel size, 29 has been around too long and it is too small for my 6`8"..
  • 1 0
 No. We definitley do not need that right now. Now that 29"ers have actually become decent bikes, the last thing we need, is to go through another period of initial problems, which is a plague that a new wheel size standard would inevitably introduce.

If conventional sizing doesn't do the trick for you, just buy a Nicolai.
  • 1 0
 Why not make some comical 31.5" wheels... then quickly realize that for tall riders, the 31.5/29 mullet combination is actually amazing
  • 1 0
 If I ride some older standards can I get a discount?
  • 1 0
 Where is the triple front 9 speed rear option?
  • 2 0
 Back in 1999.
  • 1 0
 What about derailleur hangers?!
  • 1 0
 There hasn't really been a standard before Sram came out with the UDH. I'd be happy if at least manufacturers would stop making different hangers within their lineup and let's pray noone comes op with a new 'standard' to compete with Sram's.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer - than, not then. I'm sorry, I can't not.
  • 2 0
 26"
  • 1 0
 Tubeless not a controversial standard? How about tubeless inserts?
  • 1 0
 I really want super boost to die, other than that I don't care too much.
  • 1 0
 I would check “I don’t care.”
  • 1 0
 today i learned that i am not special. except for in handlebar diameter
  • 1 0
 why would people pick BB30 over PF30?! ignant
  • 1 0
 I don’t care what the standard is as long as there is one.
  • 1 0
 DUB is 3/4 right...needs only an M in the right place to be 4/4 right !!!!
  • 1 1
 Basically everything on here is everything Santa Cruz already does.
  • 1 1
 200 post mount all around.
  • 1 1
 Who cares, just pick one and stick to it.
  • 1 0
 Bring back cotter pins!
  • 1 0
 9/9 "I don't know" Smile
  • 1 0
 Couldn't care less
  • 1 0
 Slow news day?
  • 1 0
 gearbox as a standard
  • 1 0
 what happened to qr?
  • 1 2
 Why these pools? We are riding what the industry dictates.
  • 1 0
 To a degree, but if it doesn't sell then maybe they will stop making it?
  • 1 2
 27,5 and all the back wheel spacing are fucked up, the rest is fine.
  • 1 2
 Ah sorry I forgot 15mm front axle. There was need for that push, except to fuck people off
  • 1 0
 @Bloodshot0: Yeah, totally agree. Worst part is that a decade ago, there were bikes with 20mm front axles and 157mm spacing already sorted with threaded BB's... in many regards we haven't come far

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.050393
Mobile Version of Website