SRAM Announces New Hub Standards - Boost 148 and 110

Mar 18, 2015
by Mike Kazimer  

The first hint that a new hub spacing standard was on the way occurred early last summer when Trek released the details of their new Remedy. The bike had 12x148mm rear spacing, a development that came about through a collaboration with SRAM and given the name Boost 148. But despite the fact that Trek was the first company to roll out bikes with Boost 148, this isn't a proprietary design. Instead, it's an open standard that can be used by any bike manufacturer, and by the looks of things, a number of companies will be hopping on board in the very near future.

To go along with the Boost 148 rear, SRAM has now officially announced Boost 110, which uses a 15x110mm thru axle (as opposed to the current 15x100mm spacing). Like Boost 148, which moves the rear hub flanges 3mm outboard on each side in order to improve the spoke bracing angle and increase wheel stiffness, Boost 110 moves the front hub flanges out by 5mm on each side to accomplish this same goal for the front wheel.

Going to a hub with 110mm spacing also means that fork legs need to be widened slightly, a move that has the added benefit of
Trek Remedy 29 Review
Trek's Remedy 29 was the first production bike with Boost 148.

increasing tire clearance. This means that a 29” Boost 110 fork will also work with 27.5+ wheels, which use a 27.5 x 3.0” tire. Confused yet? Hopefully not, but it is a lot to digest, especially when you add in the fact that Boost 148 requires a slight drivetrain change, in the form of a chainring spider that's offset by three millimeters to accompany change in cassette position. To help clarify things, here are the Boost basics in list form:



Boost 110

• 15x110 front hub spacing
• Hub flanges move outboard by 5mm
• The increased distance between fork legs lets 29” Boost forks work with 27.5 x 3.0” tires
• A 29” wheel built with a 15x110 Boost hub is claimed to be as stiff as a 26" wheel built with a standard 15x100 hub.

SRAM Boost 148 and 110



Boost 148

• 12x148mm rear spacing
• Hub flanges move outboard by 3mm
• Improved bracing angle is claimed to put the stiffness of a 29” wheel on par with that of a 27.5” wheel on a 142mm hub.
• Requires chainline to be adjusted 3mm outboard via a different chainring spider. This does not affect the crank's Q factor.

SRAM Boost 148 and 110


SRAM's Boost Components

Since SRAM is the driving force behind the Boost standard, it's not surprising that they have a growing line of components to go along with it. Boost versions of their Roam 40 wheelset will be offered in 27.5” and 29” options, and there will also be Boost X0 hubs. There is also a MTH 700 Boost hub, which uses the same internals as SRAM's X9 hubs.

Regarding suspension forks, Boost 110 version of the RockShox SID and Reba will be released this June that will work with 29” or 27.5+ wheels, and later in the summer two different Boost versions of the Pike will be available, one for 27.5” wheels, and one for 29” or 27.5+ wheels.


End Cap Swaps?

The short answer to the question, “Can't I just swap out my hub end caps in order to use my existing wheels on a frame designed for Boost 148?” is 'No.' This is due to the widening of the hub flange width. Hub axle end cap swaps were possible with 15x100 or 12x142mm spacing because the actual hub width didn't change with either of those standard – both were based off of the existing quick release hub dimensions. With Boost, the hubs are actually wider, which moves the position of the disc brake rotor further outboard as well. Granted, armed with a handful of spacers it may be possible to rig something up, but taking the MacGyver route has the potential for severely compromising strength, whether that's at the disc rotor or the axle, and neither is a good spot for failure.
SRAM Boost 148 and 110
RockShox's SID, Reba, and Pike will all be offered for Boost 110.

SRAM Boost 148 and 110
Boost 148 compatible XX1 and X1 cranks will also be available.

What's Next?

Changes are certainly afoot in the mountain bike industry, but there's still something missing. All of these Boost components need somewhere to go, and except for Trek, no other major player has released a Boost 148 bike, and no large manufacturer has announced a production 27.5+ bike. Boost 148 allows for more tire clearance, and also creates room for wider suspension pivots, shorter chainstays, and additional room for a front chain ring, all of which have been limiting factors for bicycle frame design in the past. There's no doubt that bikes that take advantage of the new standard will be revealed in the near future – the fact that both SRAM and FOX have announced Boost 110 forks is a clear sign the accompanying bikes are on the way. The Taipei Cycle Show takes place this week, followed by Crankworx Rotorura and then the Sea Otter Classic soon after, all of which are likely places for the next generation of mountain bikes to start appearing.



Pinkbike's Take:
bigquotesWhenever a new standard is introduced, a certain amount of resistance is to be expected. After all, who wants to find out that the bike that they purchased last week already has technology on it that's no longer the latest and greatest? Look back in the archives to 2008 when the 15x100 thru axle was introduced, or 2011 when 12x142 came about and you'll see the same arguments against change as there are today. At the same time, if the industry didn't move forward (granted, it does sometimes go sideways, and even backwards), we'd still be riding with cantilever brakes and toe clips. Wider tires and stiffer wheels combined with the frame design potential that Boost allows certainly sound like good things, but plenty of questions still remain, and until we have actual trail time on these new products the jury is still out, although by all indications Boost is here to stay... at least until the next new standard pops up a few years down the line. - Mike Kazimer



540 Comments

  • 295 8
 15x110? How about the existing (re: old) standard of 20x110? Much better in every way.
  • 31 62
flag mikekazimer Mod Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 7:15) (Below Threshold)
 I hear you, although a 15x110 hub does have wider flanges than a 20x110 hub, and there's more clearance between the fork legs.
  • 136 2
 then make hub flanges taller, and thus use shorter spokes.
  • 169 8
 Lol of course 20*110 was way better. Provides a wide clamping surface which enables the use of lighter fasteners to secure the axle, reduces torsional flex and enables the implementation of more rolling elements. I am almost positive we can expect a new standard in the DH world from Sram in the short future, say 20*125.... Basically the only reason shit like this exist is to provide the SRAM corporation a small lead of time for which they can have a monopoly on hub standards as they are specific to there bikes, this way, when a manufacturer specs a complete, they are dragged into buying to full SRAM package. There marketing to the end user doesn't make much sense, but it is a quick and dirty way to force companies into building up full SRAM bikes.


I'm sure my next bike will be a fox / shimano / raceface / easton build.
  • 66 3
 They could have used the 20x110mm standard while tweaking the lowers. Why do we need a new axle size to accommodate bigger tires? And yes, Wayne, taller flanges would NEGATE THE NEEd FOR A NEW REAR AXLE STANDARD

Porsche-level engineers
  • 26 1
 You can have the legs wider, and then have the fork dropouts stay at 20x110 to get your tire clearance! I have yet to see a convincing argument that 15mm is better/worth the hassle over 20mm.
  • 7 16
flag macross87 (Mar 18, 2015 at 7:24) (Below Threshold)
 Clarence is a plus for the plus sized tire craze. Especially is snow/mud country.
  • 18 2
 X Fusion Metric - 20x110mm and stiffer than any fork. I would put money on it.
  • 51 1
 And why not use the 12x150 downhill standard instead of 148?

My aurum has a 157 mm rear axle width and it's so frustrating to find hubs with the right spacing.
  • 23 4
 Apparently 148mm is as wide as you can go before you need a new Bottom Bracket Standard.
  • 14 15
 Guys, don't compare 148mm to 150mm. Do your research. But for starters, the space between the end of the axle to the cassette/freehub body is larger on the 142/148mm rear hubs compared to the 150.
  • 51 3
 Will be just like Giants Overdrive 2 that no longer exists
  • 27 43
flag DARKSTAR63 (Mar 18, 2015 at 7:29) (Below Threshold)
 People are going to squirm and resist these changes .. however... now that 26 inch wheels are truly in the rear view mirror widening hub flanges to produce properly stiff and light wheels is something that's necessary. Let's be honest if you are building or buying a high end bike is it really a big deal? There will still be plenty out there for those riding what they are riding. It hurts nobody.
  • 68 2
 Didn't we already try this super wide tire junk back in the late 90's? Guess what? They sucked then and they suck now. No, I do not want to run 3" wide tires without an engine.
  • 169 3
 I might go back to 26" wheels. I hear they're stiff. lol
  • 25 0
 @WayneParsons Lol I still have a 3.0 Nokian Gazzaloddi hanging in the garage.... and I remember when 2.7 DH tires were a thing. I thought we learned this lesson already? I don't care to bring the numbness of a fat bike to my everyday riding, pass.
  • 19 1
 Man, when Gazzy 3" tires were a "thing" I was using 2.2" Michelins on my DH bike because their insane ability to track.
  • 31 8
 My bike is finally SRAM free now that I changed the vivid to a used elka. Feels really good. I was disgusted every time I looked at my bike because of that one part. Never again lol
  • 37 2
 2016: "Add random company here" announces: We found out that for some applications the 110x15 mm is not enough and we are proud to introduce the new Boost 110x20 mm for front hubs and forks.
Bet your money on it. It will happen.
  • 28 3
 so 2mm less than standard DH hubs? WHY ?!?! just another "standard" to confuse and drive the prices up in the mountain bike world !
  • 40 3
 now I officially hate sram. The reason to get into the hub wheel game is to make propriatery interfacing to their forks. If bikes come stock with this crap then it'll be hard to find replacements that aren't a sram product. IE. keeping you on one fork brand. keeping you on one wheel/hub brand. now they have to make a different spoke/nipple/hub interface system then they are set to monopolize oem and replacement at the same time.
  • 8 1
 @makripper don't give them any ideas on new "standards"!! Wink
  • 14 17
 @makripper - DT Swiss, Industry Nine, and Hope have all announced Boost compatible hubs.
  • 40 4
 @mikekazimer that is sad to hear...
  • 7 1
 @mikekazimer Who is on board for forks and frames?
  • 10 7
 @makripper - Other than Trek, that's still to be determined, but there are plenty of rumors, and more definite answers should be available in the next month or so.
  • 35 1
 Of course every brand will adopt it, that's a part of the problem! They have to.
  • 17 3
 Imagine how wide the hub flanges would be if one of these mega companies would build a proper gearbox bike? No more snagging and ripping off deraileurs/hangers, instant shifting, Think of the potential durability of an internal, sealed gearbox compared to commonplace drivetrains? Weight will always be a problem though, I guess, and cost. But my goodness, the cost of the 11 speeds is exhorbitant. I've always wanted the Rohloff 14 speed hub, regardless of the weight, and I'd rather buy one of those than the new 11 speed.
  • 18 47
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 8:14) (Below Threshold)
 @theminsta... people on pinkbike ACTUALLY doing their own research (or reading the entire article) before posting a comment? Are you new here or something?

@Wayneparsons... Have you ever built wheels yourself or know the science behind them? I'm guessing you haven't otherwise you'd know there's a limit to how big you can make a hub flange before you run into a series of diminishing returns, not the least of which is the added weight needed to properly support them and
the limitations it puts on the number of spoke crossings and thus how strong the wheel ends up being for dealing with torque loads. And as to the old DH tires of the 90s and fat bikes, if you haven't ridden such tires or bikes then you shouldn't be trying to make comparisons as you clearly don't know the difference between myths and reality.
  • 111 0
 @mikekazimer did you lose the office competition on who had to write this article knowing it was going to be a comment massacre?
  • 15 1
 What is really aggravating is that new standards commonly result in future limited availability of parts needed to maintain "old standard" bikes that are otherwise perfectly fine. Even where "old standard" parts are available, they usually have little competition and are therefore expensive. Further, if an old standard part is no longer available, you need to buy multiple expensive new standard parts just to replace the one worn out old standard part.
  • 16 0
 I just think this is pointless creating yet another obscure standard. The whole thing about creating 148 spacing rather than using 150 because it's too wide for standard bb width. I seem to remember 83mm bbs being created for that exact purpose so it wasn't like there weren't any off the shelf parts that would accomplish what they are trying to do with boost148.
  • 3 0
 @Helm72 I could see that going down for sure! I do feel sorry for him though...
  • 5 1
 then dont buy into it haha. unfortunately lots of people will unknowingly.
  • 24 3
 @deeeight I build all my own wheels. Thanks for asking.
  • 4 4
 -People say that, and it's seems a sound argument, but I have not personally run into that yet. 26 inch rims, hubs in all widths, 1 1/8 steerer's still kicking around threaded bb's ... just thinking of the top of my head, there are more .... all still readily available. Can you cite an example? @R-P-S
  • 18 0
 The next trend I think will be 27.5 minus. All the benefits of 27.5 but more agile and quicker accelerating, they'll need new axle standards like 20 x 110 axles and 150 x 12. I'm already ahead of the game.
  • 52 1
 At what point do we no longer have "standards" and instead just have a f*ckload of random sizing/spacing options? Someone should remind the industry what "standard" means
  • 49 2
 Why are they calling it boost? Is that supposed to be some kind of a sick joke? The only thing their trying to boost is their profit margins.
  • 10 0
 it's the simple "here today, gone later today" of industrial design economics of every industry. seriously, we won't have time to be properly butthurt by it before it changes yet again on us. nbd. just gotta keep riding is all.
  • 5 0
 @regdunlop38 Well put! That made me laugh out loud because it's so bloody clear and obvious what a standard should be...
  • 53 1
 still a 26er and I am happy every day reading crap like this
  • 9 2
 It might be better stiffness for 29ers but I believe it was bikerumor that tested and wrote about this a while back. The problem it created is that you're much more likely to hit your shoes against the chainstays! So this system might actually be too wide and they'll have to revise it back down in a year or two!
  • 9 15
flag DARKSTAR63 (Mar 18, 2015 at 8:56) (Below Threshold)
 A standard is not obligated to be anything but a set sizing that others can choose to adopt or not choose to adopt. There is no "mountain bicycle doctrine" that states all bb's must be the same, all hubs must be the same ect... That would inherently limit progress in engineering and design. This is a way overblown "issue".
  • 13 3
 What we want is the Bike makers to sit down at the same table and agree on set standards. Until then all this multi sized stupidity will continue. The same goes for UST.
  • 6 1
 This isn't progress and until they realise that we're going to be stuck in a rut of having new and unnecessary 'standards' being thrown at us.
  • 9 3
 @DARKSTAR63: You should search "connotation" in the dictionary as well. Linguistic trends support the idea that connotation is frequently more relevant than the denotation. The connotation being explicitly stated as "what a standard should be"...
  • 36 0
 Soon the return of the 26 " ! Smile
  • 2 0
 I hear you
  • 1 9
flag DARKSTAR63 (Mar 18, 2015 at 9:10) (Below Threshold)
 Wow @theminsta good idea- I'll do that thanks for the tip. @madmon never going to happen. Still struggling to see the "issue" other than it annoys some people.
  • 13 0
 Oh horror - now your 12x142 is as obsolete as my 135 mm QR, well almost :-) So glad i stuck with 26"...
  • 6 1
 @DARKSTAR63 No real issue here other than that it's unnecessary bullshit from SRAM. It's been said before a few times, but there will always be companies out there that listen to their customers and provide the products they need and want, that's why there's been no real drop in availability in parts for 26" bikes even though 27.5" is now established.
  • 8 6
 So don't buy SRAM then right? I mean if it offends don't use it. It's just that I ask myself... if I'm looking at a new bike that sports it... Is it a deal breaker? Do I not buy a bike that is fantastic because of the rear hub spacing? No, of course not, I buy it and when I go to replace the hub I buy one that fits.
  • 8 17
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 9:32) (Below Threshold)
 Its not patented people...any hub / fork maker is free to produce compatible parts...and they already are... its no different that how Shimano / Fox collaborated for 15 x 100. Or Pacenti did with Panaracer and Velocity.
  • 19 0
 They are going to adopt it as part of a new campaign: fat bike lite.

I doubt you will see 27.5x3 tires on the EWS or in WC, because you know rolling resistance and acceleration are key. Is this not for the new 'Bike Packing" genre?

Feeding the pigs at the trough, you know, middle aged, mid to high income segment, that don't REALLY know what the NEED, other than what they WANT is something NEW. It's hilarious in a sad sort of way, but what do you expect, that's where the big profits are made!
  • 8 5
 Two days ago I broke down and upgraded my bike from 26", 135x10, 20x100, to a modern bike with 27.5, 142x12 and 15x100 Pike.

Thank you SRAM!
  • 5 0
 You're only as strong as your weakest link!
  • 37 2
 I think these mtb engineers need to step away from the design bench and go for a ride.

I will say it again: moto has it figured it out and mtb should take heed. The standards are ironed out and everybody is happy. If you dont have money for new, you can buy a reasonable used moto that isnt obsolete because of this ridiculous standards hopping. This whole BS is hurting new riders because the reality is there to drop $5k on a bike that is relatively obsolete in two or three years and has near zero for resale. It is sad when moto--as in bikes with a motor-- is more affordable than mtb.
  • 4 28
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 9:48) (Below Threshold)
 So how does this affect you? The 15x100 and 142x12 standards are not being abandoned/replaced.
  • 6 0
 @silvbullit: Could do with a silver bullet to kill this thing before it spreads haha
  • 6 1
 @deeeight are you sure about that? I can see 15x100 because it was a dumb answer to a question that didn't exist (and hopefully it does go away), but I would guess 142 is on the chopping block.
  • 6 2
 i'm just waiting for it to all go away from the metric system before i start upgrading. just a pinch of this will gain me a new york minute on a 800 yard dh trail!
  • 13 21
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 10:01) (Below Threshold)
 15x100 is and always was intended to replace 9 x 100mm and 12 x 142 is the same for 10 x 135mm (hollow axle QR type, not the old thru-axle DH type). Outside of big travel 29ers and mid-fat 650Bs, you're not going to see everything going to 15x110 or 12x148. Hell even with just 15x100 forks, you typically still need to step up to bikes over $1500 to get that feature. But you folks really have nothing to complain about... there's five front and six rear hub standards for fat bikes already all in continuous production.

- 135 QR with rear disc offset (used for front and rear depending on brand)
- 135 QR with front disc offset (front)
- 135 x 15 with front disc offset (front)
- 142 x 15 with front disc offset (front)
- 150 x 15 with front disc offset
- 170 QR (rear)
- 177x12 (rear)
- 190 QR (rear)
- 190x12 (rear)
- 197x12 (rear)
  • 17 1
 @mikekazimer the problem is still store storage space. Now you have 135, 142, 148, 150, 157 rear end hubs. A store with either have only a few of those standards or a very small choice in all of them (remember buying a seatpost for your frame ca. 2006? It was a PITA). Imagine you need a hub/wheel fast before a trip because you've ruined yours. It may be a problem. It also limits your choice. Not to mention it limits the ability to find products for customers for small shopowners so small shops will suffer because of the overabundance of standards.

Not to mention I still wonder why 150x12 means we have to use 83mm bb's acording to 90% of the industry yet 148mm rear is ok with 73mm bb's?
  • 5 1
 @deeeight I hope you are right, I really do! Not to beat a decade old dead horse, but when 15x100 was introduced, I asked why not just go to 20mm. After all, we know that larger diameter tubes are much stiffer using thinner walls, right? Handlebars?

If you didn't know any better you'd think that 15x100 was prior to 20x110. Taking a step backwards didn't make sense.

Just like now, they could have not addressed the shortfalls of a Q/R axle by introducing a 15mm thru-axle, but instead using an existing, better, standard and made it better.
  • 3 24
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 10:23) (Below Threshold)
 @spaced a good distribution chain solves that problem... and really how often do you destroy/replace a rear hub at the last minute ?

As to your second smaller question, it gets the longer answer.. This also keeps being mentioned by other folks who know in the comments above and below this (theminsta was up to a half dozen attempts last time i counted)... 150x12 isn't simply 2mm wider than Boost 148 because of how the hub end caps work on the Boost (and 142) hubs in that they sit partially inside the dropouts. You need to be comparing 150 to a virtual 141 hub, or 148 to a 157 x 12. The 150 and 157 hubs needed 83mm BB shell widths to have the chainlines work out properly because at the time the standards were changed in DH, no crank makers were willing to offer models with the spider of the crank re-positioned to correct the chainline for the wider hub spacing. So to keep using the same crank compatibilities the bottom brackets had to get bigger to move the rings over. That's not the case today as SRAM being part of this development is also producing crank arms compatible with frames which use the Boost 148 standard.
  • 31 2
 I like turtles.
  • 7 0
 Hey, me too, @jwillsaylor !
  • 5 0
 @deeeight sorry but distribution chain has nothing to do with small local shops. What you are saying is good for the distributor but not for the client and not for the LBS (so not for local biking communities too!!!) It also has nothing to with local shops at bike spots in the mountains. You can really expect a wide offer in an array of standards in flaship stores and a few big ones and those are only present in select big cities and few resorts. The rest of them are SOL. I know many shopowners who will not be able to keep up with it. Hell half of the shops in the alpes I know will have the same problem.

For the 2nd part - So to cut it short it's not a problem because sram also makes cranks that will work with the new standards? Or is the cassete positioning in relation to front crank cog the same as in 148?
  • 3 14
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 10:45) (Below Threshold)
 Except it does... and as someone who's done the small local shop routine... I don't worry about the number of hub standards. Accounts with the correct distributors solves any reasonable availability issues on sourcing spares. Maybe where you are this is a problem, but for most of the world where the forks/frames for these new hub standards will be sold it isn't.

Correct, and shimano, FSA, RaceFace and others will also similarly offer Boost 148 chainline compatible cranks. The cassette position for 148 is 3mm wider outboard than for 142 (which is itself positioned the same as 135). 135mm and 150mm the hub end caps fit flush to the inside face of the dropouts (like how front hubs do to the fork dropouts) but 142, 148 and 157 the end caps fit into grooves in the dropouts and so lie partially inside the space of the dropout.
  • 7 1
 @deeeight : While 150 isn't simply 2mm wider than the 148, it is absolutely comparable, as should be all spacings used for mountain bikes. On another note, If this new standard requires a new chainring spider anyway, why not just make a new chainring spider for the 150 to account for 73mm BB's chainlines? (on a side note, i had a Bullit with 150 rear spacing and no chainline issues. Maybe just lucky...)

I get your point that people jumped all over this thing like white on rice, without knowing really what it was (myself included), but that doesn't change the fact that it answers a question that no one was asking.

To the point of the many options for rear wheel spacing of the fat bikes: the reason this seems to exist is that it's such a new market that everyone is searching for the most appropriate answer (and it may never get answered since it is such a small market). You want to talk about comparing apples to apples...
  • 10 1
 Total nonsense!
You can run whatever tire you wish with a 20x110 hub and have lots of clearance for mud etc. The Boxxer has a lot of clearance for a 2.7 tire, not to mention that I run a Kenda Telonix 2.6 on my 05 Dirt Jam Pro SL when it gets weird outside and clearance is still pretty much OK. It would have been much better for the sport/technology to make the 20x110 a better system if possible and that is it. Now you basically take a 20x110 hub and put 15mm caps on it and done, which is not really development in my book. Nonsense!
  • 18 2
 All this changing of widths , ratios , number of gears just to keep an antiquated , archaic , consumable and expensive way of changing gears being a solid cash cow. I mean come on , dragging chains side ways across cogs in a victorian way in the 21st century , take away the cassette and mech and stop pissing around.
  • 2 15
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 11:06) (Below Threshold)
 @biking85... except that doesn't actually address the wheel strength issue. As has been said by many, not all 150/157 hub makers actually widened the flanges apart to take advantage of the extra space available. Some did, but many didn't. Its a lot simpler to create a new standard and allow anyone who chooses to use it to do so, than try and fix an existing standard that is already losing popularity just because some consumers refuse to throw away their old hubs and insist everything new be fully backwards compatible to what they already own. The 150 standard was a dropout-spacing standard alone. The Boost 148 standard is both a dropout AND a hub shell standard.
  • 7 3
 I don't know of many shops stocking hubs of any standard so give me a break with "what if I break my hub the day before my big trip" well you're SOL, just like always.
  • 6 1
 @bigburd I believe you nailed it. I still have a gearbox Nicolai bike from two years ago as my featured pic on my profile. We are in the stone ages when it comes to drivetrains. It is truly amazing how long they actually last given what they are exposed to on mountain bikes.

@deeeight I see what you are saying, but I disagree about the ease with which it would be to "fix" standards, as opposed to creating new ones. I would also just continue to argue that they are trying to fix something that was never an issue to begin with.

I'm all for new "standards" or whatever they want to call them, as long as they make sense. I used to be a mechanic and salesperson at a bike shop, and I pushed just about every new piece of tech that came out; and probably, if this had come out back then, I'd have been all over it too. I've come to realize that there are differences between companies developing real innovations, and those that are just marketing gimmicks. I believe this falls into the latter category, particularly since it answers a question no one was really asking.

We shall have to agree to disagree! Wink
  • 15 3
 I think at this point they should be called hub "options" and not "standards"
  • 2 1
 Hi Lurch!!
  • 27 5
 The good news is, those of us riding 26" for life will never need any of this bullshit.
  • 5 1
 ^truth. we are like dogs chasing cars. what would we ever do with it when we catch one? it's amusing to be the only species that constantly and systematically acquires shite we don't need. guilty. hehe
  • 10 15
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 13:46) (Below Threshold)
 What amuses me most is all the folks for whom these standards don't apply to, bitching like somehow their biking fun lives are over because the industry addressed a need in a market segment that they're not interested in anyway.
  • 8 4
 That's really what It comes down to @deeeight "Man I can't use this old haggard wheel set on my brand new 6k bike, dang new standards" - said no one ever.
  • 4 1
 Eh? When someone turns up with 650b+ at an EWS and destroys the field it will be effect (resale) everyone with a 650b bike. All the Reigns, Nomads etc. Junk, overnight.
  • 5 1
 I agree with you on the bitching part but "addressing a need"? i like the word option better in this application. we are talking about millimeters of movement here. the bitching is no different than the perception that it will make your current skill level lives elevate for the same reason. fair play to all sides
  • 3 0
 I recon next thing will be 78mm wide BB with a 27mm axle , not quite DH , more than XC and giving better chain line for 148mm hubs !
  • 5 1
 @deeeight My only concern is being force to use something I don't want. If a high quality 150mm spaced 26" wheel is still available, I don't care how many 27.5 spacing standards you have.
  • 7 1
 @deeeight: Is it possible that releasing these new sizes means standard-normal parts won't go down in price due to increased overhead involved in producing different products of differing sizes and designs? I mean to say that Sram could have invested in bettering production, R&D, etc., increasing profit margins through economies of scale and actual improvements, as opposed to providing a new product in hopes of increasing revenue from a limited and relatively small market.
  • 5 0
 If you're gonna come out with something new and different then why not make it easy for someone to retrofit their old shit so that buying the new shit won't make their old shit obsolete. Simple concern for the consumer. Buy this new fork and we have the parts you need to use all your old stuff. Instead of buy this new fork and you gotta buy all new parts to make it work.
  • 3 12
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 15:28) (Below Threshold)
 @Bigburd The only people who will be affected by these new hubs are the people buying new bikes that are 29ers, expedition bikes, and fat bikes really. If you weren't in those markets already this stuff really makes no difference to you. As to high quality 150mm spaced 26"... well Woven Precision carbon rim laced to a Chris King or Hope Evo hub and poof... problem solved. Woven incidently will have Boost 110 and 148 hubs soon (their first samples are due to ship immediately after the Taipei show ends).

www.wovenprecision.com

@Kubaner How about looking at it another way. Everyone keeps clamouring "why didn't they just use 20x110". Answer... same weaker wheel problem as before (remember the goal isn't the hub stiffness or the fork stiffness, but the physics of the actual wheel and its spokes, yes SRAM is making their hubs and forks further compatible with each other but that's a bonus to their parts only). Others keep asking why they didn't just change 20x110 hubs with wider flanges...great idea but then you just eliminated a whole slew of replacement part options for owners of forks built around the older 20mm design because manufacturers are unlikely to bother producing TWO versions of a so-called standard.

@theminsta If you're worried about prices then you're in the wrong sport. But knowing people who alpine ski and hell even people into fishing.. they'd think we're getting off easy.
  • 13 2
 Whether or not it affects me or not doesn't change the flavor of the bullshit.
  • 12 2
 Capitalism is rotten.
  • 1 13
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 15:51) (Below Threshold)
 Except its not bullshit... it might be to you and a few hundred others on this site, but its clearly not to SRAM or Fox or Maxxis or Vee Tire or Panaracer or WTB or others who are investing millions in tooling for these things. And its not to the folks already hunting around for the tires.
  • 2 0
 uh oh
  • 1 0
 Just got rid of that pain in the ass on my reign
  • 6 0
 time for a break from the sport. see you in six years!
  • 6 3
 So once again Sram tells me I'm wrong for enjoying what I have
  • 4 0
 deeeight, "The only people who will be affected by these new hubs are the people buying new bikes that are 29ers, expedition bikes, and fat bikes really"

How much time have you spent on 650b+? I've heard from people who have that your comment above is rather inaccurate.
  • 6 2
 As long as they continue producing 26' rubbers
  • 4 1
 Screw you guys im going home, not reading anything about new tech anymore. Im just gonna wait for sram to come out with some bull shit that makes ridi g a bike so easy its not fun anymore, do some real innovating
  • 13 0
 The 15x100 hub was about the only current standard on my bike!

26"
3x9
Straight steerer
10x135
Threaded BB
Even my cables are exposed!!

All old standards now!
  • 9 1
 @deeeight

- Sorry but you are out of touch. Ok a small shop can order for a customer a part he needs but sometimes a customer needs a part fast. Hell a ton of people just want stuff ASAP and they will go somewhere else if they have to wait. It's a problem for a small shopowner. Hell it's a big problem for shops in bike spots. They get 99% of their sales from "I need this part fast".

You can have an acount but that doesn't slove the problem of lost customers
  • 12 1
 easy to see why almost all of your comments get hidden D8. Constantly trying to justify industry BS, created with the sole purpose of shifting units
  • 8 3
 I don't think he rides much but he surely likes to read articles online and gather enough industry BS to believe he knows what hes talking about, but the reality is that he basically summarizes everything the industries marketing campaigns would like you to hear. I don't believe he adds much of his own perspective into his "vast knowledge of the bike industry" mainly because he lacks a great deal of first hand experience with using any of these new and upcoming products. You can't give feedback on new standards and so on if of course you are yet to use them, specifically noting the term "use" is to truly bring the product to the level of riding it was designed to perform. In other words, this guy doesn't push a bike hard enough for any of his opinions to be legitimate. Id rather hear how a product performs from a consumer who is truly pushing the limits of its designs than from an individual who spends majority of there time reading articles and going for the odd ride on the very mediocre local trail system.
  • 3 1
 sram can freaking bite me
  • 9 0
 Just because its new, doesn't mean its better.
  • 3 0
 fair to say that the kool aid is too strong for some
  • 5 0
 Just another marketing/product fad to make more money
  • 1 0
 Unless you can you can top your reverb dropper post. ...go ahead or stop making NONSENSE!!!!
  • 2 0
 more clearance between the legs?

Always a good thing, I guess.
  • 1 1
 Looking at that picture taken from the rear, it can be seen that the disc mounts are in the required position close to the disc, then the dropouts have two bends to move them further outboard. This space is filled with the hub end cap. I think they should have made the dropouts straight down to the wheel clamping interface. It could then have been Boost 136 or 138, thus making a stronger frame and axle.
  • 4 1
 BOOST = Bunch Of Obvious Sales Tactics
  • 1 0
 US measurement system is obsolete. Ask the rest of the planet.
  • 2 0
 Rest of the planet uses imperial measures for thing like water pipes and the like just fine. And us industry uses metric measures just fine. For consumer measures, it really does not matter at all.
  • 1 0
 @Benread: Show me a person who runs a standard 73mm BB, I dare you! Everyone I know uses at least 78-80.5 of BB (with spacers) on a 142mm rear hub. You cannot tell me that working out the kinks of 2mm is too much work. I run a 135x12 rear hub on my DJ bike with a 81 BB spacing to even out the cranks and so that my chain ring clears the frame. and I run a clean 83mm on my Glory 2013. SRAM is just in it for the money and nothing else and we know it.
  • 1 0
 @theminsta: That could not have been worked out in any way? No way what so ever? We have Wi-Fi gears for crying out loud! Big Grin
  • 2 0
 @Velaro: Holy shit, you were just a year off.
  • 2 0
 @Velaro: It took a bit longer, but damn, you were right.
  • 1 0
 @Velaro: OMFG!! ahaahhahhaha
  • 125 3
 I checked the calendar twice, thinking it's April 1st. Rolleyes
  • 19 0
 Protip: If Santa Cruz isn't releasing a new bike, it's not April 1st.
  • 3 0
 lol i did exactly the same thing had to check the date just incase!
  • 10 0
 Swedish Chef says "Vurt Da Furk!?!?"
  • 103 2
 A simple guide to innovation in the bike industry.
Step 1: Chose a component
Step 2: Make it bigger
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit
  • 71 1
 step 3 : pretend that you've improved its stiffness
  • 49 0
 Step 3: make it 2 mm smaller
  • 74 1
 step 2.5: write a whole article about how this minor difference will change the way you ride a bike dramatically
  • 36 0
 Step 5: make it 2mm bigger
Then repeat previous steps.
  • 21 1
 Step 99999999999: Use your engineers and designers to create worthwhile parts and upgrades, by improving physical and material design.
Step 100000000000: Do tests to see if changes to design resulted in actual, appreciable improvements.
Step 100000000001: Show your would-be customers actual data and information on how well it improves upon the previous.

But obvious Sram stopped at 4. The company, with the size/power/resources to do great things, seems to deliver less than halfway.
  • 6 2
 Etape 3 : marketing !
  • 33 2
 Step 666: let them choose their hub sizes and be a dick about it
  • 9 0
 Step 5 bring out the enduro/race version
Step 6 more profit
  • 1 0
 ehhhhh
  • 6 2
 No, I'm sorry but it's actually:
Step 1: Steal underwear
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit
  • 97 12
 Finally! A hub standard that is stronger than 142, but lighter than 150! My search is over.
  • 23 1
 But wait! There's more....
  • 25 1
 You've been searching for this hub standard all your life..... So happy for you...
  • 32 0
 Ive been waiting... for a hub standard like you... to come intooo my liiiifeeee
  • 1 1
 As I stated in another article...Don't give me something in between old and older and tell me its better cuz its new. I hope ibishreddin is joking. I don't think anyone with a job actually feels that way. This article makes me completely sick to my stomach.
  • 87 1
 I came here for the comments.
  • 75 2
 My wife says every millimeter makes a difference.
  • 25 2
 Yeah, but I think she was talking about flange diameter, not axle length.
  • 7 1
 tell her it makes it even more stiff
  • 14 4
 My wife kept saying that it better get longer next time, but then after several years and several thousands of dollars spent on enlargement pills and treatments, she divorced me saying: I meant duration you idiot!
  • 55 1
 Just more noise from the industry people. Really is ridiculous. My one model year old 27.5 is obsolete! I will now have to live with these horribly flexy wheels. Every time I dive into a corner, I will be haunted by the realization that my wheels could be .0000004% stiffer.
  • 4 37
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 9:28) (Below Threshold)
 I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word obsolete.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
  • 7 1
 I don't, or you don't?
dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsolete

How about this one; obtuse. Go look that one up while you are at it.
  • 2 13
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 20:06) (Below Threshold)
 You don't, though you do seem to have a firm grasp on being obtuse.
  • 5 0
 Now you're just being acute
  • 2 8
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 19, 2015 at 12:31) (Below Threshold)
 Accurate is more what I'm being. Look two years ago every down-propped me and whined about my posts on 650Bs coming to ALL bikes and enduro/dh especially and I was proved correct and in two years I'll be proved correct again about these new hub standards. And I'm fine with laughing away happilly at those who wish to stick their heads into the sand and try and ignore what's already coming, whether they like it or not.
  • 49 4
 GO HOME SRAM. YOUR DRUNK.
  • 42 1
 I'm nauseated.

From the Remedy 9.9 review:
"As far as actual wheel stiffness goes, I can't say that I noticed any drastic increase. The bike does track very well in corners, but the rear end didn't feel any stiffer than other 29ers I've spent time on recently. "
  • 16 36
flag mikekazimer Mod Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 7:11) (Below Threshold)
 That quote is correct, but that's only one wheelset on one bike. I wouldn't take that as proof that this will be the case in all situations. And good luck with your sickness.
  • 22 1
 ...not to mention there is such a thing as too stiff. some flex helps your bike track better. Again, look at what MX has already been through years ago. They build flex into their forks, frames, swingarms, and wheels to make the bikes faster in the corners. The MTB industry is once again screwing around with goofy standards in place of existing standards. A 20x110mm front end is lighter and stiffer than a 15mm, so why the switch? I don't get it.
  • 15 1
 Paid Advertisement!
  • 22 1
 @ MikeKazimer-

I appreciate your professional response. And my nausea is doing just fine – I just went out and looked in my garage and I realized I'm perfectly happy with what I have and don't have to spend any money on what you guys try to sell us. Have a great day! :-)
  • 43 0
 @vw4ever - That's what I like to hear. It's my job to report on new products and developments, but at the end of the day, as long as everyone's out having a good time on the trails that's what matters the most.
  • 3 0
 wayneParsons@ you can't compare a bicycle to a 55hp motocross bike. It's still the rider. My kid can go down most trails faster then guys on expensive DH bikes on a dirt jumper wearing vans and a skater helmet!
  • 43 0
 Good god, when will the f*ckers stop with this sh*t and actually focus on something really innovative?! Internal gears, low weight dropper seatposts...
  • 11 0
 just another way that you buy more stuff from a company b/c its the only thing that will fit
  • 45 2
 26" 68/73 100 135 1 1/8" for life yo
  • 7 3
 3x9 for lyfe
  • 1 0
 31.8 2.35
  • 38 2
 Does having 3mm wider flange spacing really equate to appreciable returns in performance for riders? Or is this a way simply a devious plan to reignite sales?

Either way, I'll be able to run my 20x110mm front wheels on those new forks with a slight modification, so thank you.

edit; and since the fork will probably have a post-mount 160mm brake mount, I'm sure someone sensible would make adapters for 160-180mm so that we can run our 15x100mm wheels centered, while the brake caliper moves inboard the extra 5mm.
  • 5 0
 dang didn't even think of that hack! good friggen idea bud! hopefully they didn't skew the axial location of the rotor, but knowing them, they certainly did!
  • 4 0
 Yeah, I shot a lot of people's feet with this comment. But here's to hoping that they're well into production!
  • 1 1
 Well you are going to have to space out the rotors, and get some specially machined hub caps. It would actually be the exact same amount of work to make a 15x100 hub fit the fork.
  • 3 19
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 9:50) (Below Threshold)
 Its appreciable returns for 29ers, which is what the new standards were meant for originally.
  • 4 0
 If you want me to bend over in how I define appreciable, OK. The rear Boost148 has benefits that can improve durability (need for less spoke tension to achieve lateral balance on driveside) as well as stiffness/strength through better triangulation.

But how can you explain Boost 15x110mm? They say it will have flange spacing wider than most 20x110mm, but it sounds like they could have simply optimized designs around the 20x110mm axle standard. The standard having the same width as this new size. If you can't come up with a fast answer, it's just another BS size that the industry will have to adapt to. One more end cap, to add to that long, unnecessary list. Besides, one could have argued that the 20mm axle was a much better way forward with 29ers and 27.5+.
  • 4 0
 How about just replacing the right side spacer on a 15x100 mm hub with one that's 10 mm longer. The disc alignment remains the same. You'd have to re-dish your wheel but you'd end up with much less difference between the left and right spoke angles. After all... you can build the hub as wide as you want, the wheel's real-world stiffness will essentially come down to the angle of the steeper side (usually the left).
The flanges of a Hope front hub for example are currently offset 20 and 33 mm from the center. Re-spacing the hub 10 mm to the left and re-dishing the wheel 5 mm to the right you'd end up with 25 and 28 mm, which would improve stiffness on the weaker left side. When building a new hub, then offsetting the right flange further (what SRAM does if i get it correctly) sure wouldn't hurt, but it just adds stiffness to the already stronger side.
  • 2 0
 Oh shnap @martn I forgot about the flange positions on the front hubs for a moment. That is a very good/better idea for existing 15x100mm hubs!
  • 1 0
 Well im not trying to defend what is going on here, but a 'boost' 20x110 mm hub will still not be the same as current 20x110. Think of the 2015 Fox 36. It is compatible with both the 15x100mm and 20x110mm axles. So with that in mind, let us now space out the fork legs 5mm each side, and remove the recess that the hub sits into. We can still snugly fit our 20x110 mm hubs in there. BUT now the brake post is 5mm away, but obviously the plane in which the rotor sits is not any farther away from center. If there was a 'boost' 20x110mm hub, it would still have a different shell than current 20x110, as the flanges would still be 5mm farther from centre, hence your stiffer wheel. It wouldnt be as simple as changing the end caps of existing hub caps
  • 1 0
 So........... it's just optimization with marketing?
  • 1 5
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 21:13) (Below Threshold)
 Actually there's room with the Rockshox Plus forks to fit a 20x110 if someone wants to make a stepped diameter thru-axle for the hub. While PB didn't report it properly as explained in the Bikerumour report, they have 35mm faces to interface with the SRAM Torque-Tube hubs, which could also fit any other end cap pressing againt it larger than 15 but smaller than 35. But of course the brake caliper mount will be in the wrong place for the rotor and it'll void warranties using a fork in a not-intended way and it'll still result in a weaker wheel than what a proper 15x110 hub would. How many people with 20x110 hubs sitting around are really going to wait to lace it to a wide 650B rim and then wait for some fork maker to step up to offer a 29er derived model to clear the tires that accepts the old 20x110 standard ? Very few. If you truly want it done, go pay Suntour or MRP or someone a hundred grand to make a run of forks for you. Or have your own lowers made with the needed tire clearance and the 20mm axle you want that'll fit to some other brand uppers and sell them aftermarket. If you insist on going to this setup thru a conversion, mtbr's got threads going now in their plus size forum on what fork/frame/rim/tire combinations actually work together. Rockshox was still making 20mm axle Reba 29ers up until around 2010-2011. It'll fit the WTB Trail Blazer 2.8s but that's about it.
  • 40 0
 I will just go ride my 27.5+ Carbon framed Electric Enduro Fatbike.
  • 3 0
 Better be quick, or it will be old hat! Several years back, I built an all singing all dancing gaming PC, future proof it was meant to be. I went to load the first game on to it, only to find everything was out of date and the game would not run! Now its happening to mountain biking, but at least we can still ride them!!!
  • 34 2
 Are you bleeping kidding me?!?! What's even better than a 148mm, that exists already? 150mm!!!! This shouldn't make a person angry, but it sure does make me angry!!!
  • 12 2
 I mean, 2mm???? 2mm is almost NOTHING when it comes to relative size of a hub!
  • 14 5
 And as far as "Pinkbike's take" goes, it's not change that gets people riled up. It's change for the sake of change. 15 by 100 is so close to 20 by 110 that it's not funny, as is the difference between 142 and 150 (or 148 for crying out loud). No one (probably not true, but darn near) complained when dropper seatposts started proliferating, because they add so much to the riding experience. I'm sure everyone complained about the weight of suspension forks when they started appearing, but they improved the ride so much, as did disc brakes, rear suspension, indexed shifting that actually works well, etc
  • 5 1
 I need to take the proverbial "chill pill".
  • 13 0
 this industry can be such a joke sometimes. who is making these decisions? enginerds or product managers?
  • 6 19
flag mikekazimer Mod Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 7:18) (Below Threshold)
 12x150mm spacing typically requires an 83mm bottom bracket. Also, many 12x150mm hubs use the same shell as their 135mm counterparts, where Boost 148 will require wider spacing between the flanges.
  • 21 1
 then us the existing 150mm spacing and widen the flanges.
  • 6 9
 148mm is as wide as you can go before you have to change the Bottom Bracket standard, this isn't some marketing gimmick. This new standard maybe frustrating now but in the long term it will result in Stiffer, Stronger bikes.
  • 5 0
 Yes, many 150 hubs are the same shell as 135's, but many are not. And we already have them, we already have the axles, we even already have the frames in DH bikes.
  • 22 2
 then use an 83mm BB? Am I lost in some sort of alternate universe here or something?
  • 6 1
 I don't understand the bottom bracket standard comment. I don't think that's a true statement. I had the last version of the SC Bullit, which had 150mm rear hub spacing (and interchangeable 135 dropouts), and a normal bottom bracket. I started with the 135 size and then went to the 150 size, which had a better chainline than with the 135.
  • 7 0
 It's not actually as wide, as it counts the endcaps like 142 does. so it's comparable to 157, not 150. Not that I think it's a good idea, mind you, but we should compare apples to apples.
  • 5 6
 @wayneparsons - an 83mm BB increases the crank's Q factor, which some riders dislike. And @groghunter is correct about the spacing semantics.
  • 8 1
 then why do we already use it on downhill bikes?

The question is, what is the ultimate goal here? Are we going to make our riding more enjoyable? Faster? Probably not. Are we responding to this TREND of super wide tires? Again, super stiff doesn't necessarily translate into more speed, nor a more enjoyable ride. I would like some real data on why taller flanges/shorter spokes in combination with current spacing standards would not be as stiff as what SRAM is proposing.
  • 9 1
 @WayneParsons because q factor is far less of a problem on DH bikes, because you don't spend hours pedaling them from a seated position. Of course, you do that with fatbikes, & no-one seems to be complaining there, so WTF, eh?
  • 2 0
 Didn't Chub make some tall flange mountain bike hubs a while back? Maybe they still do, but I don't think they ever caught on. I'm with you, though, @WayneParsons
  • 11 1
 @WayneParsons Bikes were all useless and unrideable before this glorious new standard came to save us!
  • 5 0
 @biking85 - Chub is now part of e*thirteen, and their tall flange design is still alive, although not as extreme as some of the earlier version. www.pinkbike.com/u/mikekazimer/blog/First-Look-ethirteens-TRS-Race-Product-Line.html
  • 1 0
 Expensive, though, & there's been some reports of the aluminum flanges separating from the CF shell.
  • 4 42
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 8:18) (Below Threshold)
 Whine all you want folks, this is the way the industry is going and those of us actually buying these bikes aren't afraid of new hub standards and we outnumber you.
  • 8 0
 @deeeight I suspect it's more along the lines of the fact that the average person who goes into the shop to buy a new bike is easily sold and swayed that the newest, best thing is just that, and that they can't live without it, and that if they don't buy it, they will be left in the dust.
  • 16 4
 Quite honestly... 3 or 4 years ago I would be all over this stuff, broadcasting lots of righteous ejaculations full of references to leftist ideology... Today, I am only spectating... I am in peace and I will enjoy the show I drink to all of you guys! Fight hard, fight well until your fingers bleed and keys melt - We shall all meet in the halls Valhalla! Cheers!
  • 10 0
 150x12mm and 73mm bb works quite well I think. I loved it on my 06 vp free.
  • 18 1
 Didn't we just learn that 26" wheels aren't any slower than other sizes? Look at how the new sizes got shoved down our collective throats by saying that 26" was useless. I'm riding 650b and quite happy on it, but I'd be a fool if I said that 26" wheels were in any way worse, slower, or less enjoyable.

I use this an example of how this industry likes to manufacture (lol pun) a problem that doesn't exist, and convince us that the old stuff was inferior.

Don't get me wrong, mostly every advancement goes into making riding more enjoyable. I remember questioning the decision to develop 15x100mm hubs/axles and saying that 20x110 was much much better in every category. Many people (like Deeeight) were saying embrace it because its so much better, technological advancement, blah blah blah... yet it seems that this standard may be on the cutting block. Lack of foresight much?
  • 4 4
 If you're talking about that study on bike radar(I believe) I would counterpoint that DH teams have been finding their racers gain a second or so on 650 bikes, consistently. I wouldn't consider that study to be the end all, be all.
  • 6 1
 A 5mm Q factor increase per side isn't going to make a huge difference on anything but a road bike and in that position, unless you have no balls to begin with. These are trail bikes being changed. I find Q factors are too narrow to begin with, but I'm a large framed guy. My feet stand much further apart than a narrow q factor dictates and it's bad on my knees. This bike also ships with a spacer to correct the chain line because of this new hub 'standard' (its not a standard, SRAM has no idea what that means) which makes that entire point moot and erroneous. Argue all you want about who buys bikes, 'progress' (lol), and questionable improvements, but we know a new 'standard' will be released in 5 years which will make all the difference in the world, because some intern designers who couldn't cut it elsewhere said so. :-P

But whatever, it's not as bad as it can be. At least bikes aren't still be sold with QR front axles.
  • 3 1
 @atrokz I find that bike's Q factor too narrow too, and I'm 5'9" with a 31" inseam. Not exactly a giant over here. No, I don't want to be riding bow legged, but a little extra width won't hurt.
  • 7 0
 @wayneparsons It's dictated by a sport that isn't even mountain biking. It's different on the road, where a body is in a much more static position, and that may make sense. Aerodynamics too! but on a mtb where we are trail riding and just farting around, it's dynamic positioning that changes and moves around, so to say a 73mm Q factor is ideal and a 83mm one isn't, for trail bikes, is a joke. People are build differently, to think I have the same Q factor limits as a 5'6" guy is asinine and goes against skeletal proof. But hey, we're the outliers apparently!
  • 1 0
 Actually, they just came out with a new OEM XC30 & a treking fork that are both QR. womp womp. Frown
  • 3 0
 I miss my old santa cruz super 8 with its 160x14mm axle, why isnt that the new standard.....
  • 2 20
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 9:02) (Below Threshold)
 No place in the internet / bike industry do people lose their shit over new technology quite like they do here.
  • 8 2
 @deeeight I know a few forums where people are true buying force in MTB, thus they are not as critical as Pinkbike... I'm sure you'd call them open minded. The problem is that if you try to slay any obvious saint cow, (dunno wheel size alone is less relevant than whole bike, all carbon is not made equal) they will try to kill you with keyboards with same ferocity that people here btch on every new standard. Hate is intrinsic to all of us, each one of us has just different ways of channeling it... different things turn us into hate blind keyboard berserkers. When you tell someone in a reasonable manner that what he puts so much belief (and money) into, is not really the case - sht gets loose!
  • 13 0
 I have no problem with progress. It's where things have to go. I have a problem with seemingly calculated progress with the intention of pinching every penny from the consumer. Here's how I see it:
how long have 29" wheels been out? A while right?
How long has 15x100 been out? Not that long now.
142? It's young.

So what stopped them from finding the benefits of 148 and 110 back then? Two were very close to existing standards already in place. In the upheaval of standards back then, 148 should have been seen as so beneficial if the benefits are obvious. The Q factor tripe is moot since it's debatable on it's own.

Right.....

These incremental changes that drastically alter the frame is "how standards proliferate" to the tee.
  • 2 15
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 9:20) (Below Threshold)
 @waki... Of course and that's also why if Pinkbike didn't have staff going to trade shows and editors who have industry contacts (like RC), a lot of this stuff would never get revealed here and even when it does, its usually after its been already revealed/released someplace else days if not weeks before. The industry itself generally knows its a waste of time giving stuff for review someplace where 90% of the comments about something new will be negative. Canada's got a host of companies that are frame builders and wheel makers and component makers and the ones i've talked to have said "why bother" when I asked if they'd send new product XYZ here for testing/review.
  • 12 2
 Last thing I would want to see is a bunch of yes men who are afraid of critical thinking.
  • 2 15
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 9:24) (Below Threshold)
 But you're in favour of a bunch of people who are afraid of the results of the critical thinking that was already done on a subject?
  • 4 1
 Deeeight : I think, therefore I bother !
  • 6 2
 @deeeight you tell me how widening the flanges on existing hub standards would be worse on the trail. Ready, go!
  • 2 17
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 9:38) (Below Threshold)
 Why bother? Even after I do so people will still bully down my answer because I'm the one posting the facts and I have better things to do with my day than write all long explanations of reality to folks who'd rather live in fantasy land.
  • 15 1
 @deeeight ". . .90% of the comments about something new will be negative." If something makes sense, it gets lots of positive comments, just like the Wolf Tooth componentry article did just yesterday. Unfortunately for SRAM on this website today, peoples' BS-o-meters are finely tuned, and maxed out, incidentally. BTW, 87.3% of all statistics are made up.
  • 19 0
 Mountain bikes are the new consumer electronics. Welcome to planned obsolescence in bike design. Unfortunately for the bike industry there aren't billions of people aspiring to owning the latest axle standard like they are the latest processor in a MacBook Pro. Be very careful bike industry.
  • 6 0
 Ok Deeeight won't, so anyone care to enlighten us as to how these standards would be an improvement, on the trail (like, in actuality) over current hub standards by widening and/or raising the height of the flanges.

And since we're on the subject, let's have a back to back clocking of how fast one is compared to the other on varying types of trails.

Yes, frames can be too stiff. Yes, wheels can be too stiff. Yes, tires can be too wide.

@jclnv you are totally correct.
  • 2 0
 Conjecture: flanges are thicker, therefore heavier, than hub shell, so widening the shell may get you the same widened triangle base at a lower weight cost. but that only factors in the hub, how much weight is added by 10mm wider crowns on forks, or dropouts? I would contend it's probably a wash.
  • 7 0
 @Waki and whoever else is bashing the Pinkbike community...I know those other forums fairly well and it is like taking lunch in the breakroom with a bunch of sophomore-level mechanical engineering students. They clamour over the newest gadget like flies to shit because they admittedly froth over the tech as much or more then the ride.You can always spot those guys on the trails, usually as you pass them. Pinkbike seems to be the shut up and ride crowd and I can drink to that.

Good things get positive comments, but too much of the latest "innovations" leave people's wallets empty for zero gain.

Now I see 26" tires and rims drop from companies selections as I attempt to build new wheels and replace worn tires with exactly what I want that was available before. That gets me real fired up about any new standard, optional or not.
  • 4 1
 I am not bashing Pinkbike community - You assume too much. For me it would be like peeing in my own soup. And your first paragraph is a fine example of projecting your own perception of society on an undefined group of people, to whom you owe a great deal of thankfulness for paying the R&D bill making our bikes as good as they are today. Why do you care if they buy a bike to show off to their colleagues? It's their life, their decisions, don't judge a man by his bike. I think I know where you are coming from, I've been there, hell yea I have, and it was a sad place full of demons rather than real people. The reality is you can dodge the punch and redirect it to make something great out of it: as we write this there's still plenty of 26" products and second hand market for this wheel size is a dream come true at this moment - sht is so cheap that you can buy a top of the line bike from 2012 for 2000$ - REJOICE! If someone wants to buy 275+ be my guest, buy two, his/hers decision will not have tiniest negative impact on my life and the way I ride.
  • 4 1
 Wider flanges making a super stiff conventional 3x by 32h hub-spoke-rim stiffer. That's not really a benefit. Maybe for dirt jumping. Not on a trail. I have a different theory why they did this. I've ridden the NEW 24 hole SRAM wheels (29er's) and had the tire rub the rear chainstay while seated and hammering on a climb at an angle. Big old quads help this.. The rims looked like they were almost floating back and forth in the wheel when I hit stuff at an angle. I tightened the already tight spokes and I still got it to rub again. I could feel the flex in corners. Put my old wheels back on, nothing. I think they are trying to fix something (the new wheels) and make money in the process. Or have to order their hubs to use their forks. Like the RS fork. I could be completely wrong and a bit drunk.. Nobody knows..
  • 2 1
 I'll put this out there:

I built a different set of hoops from last year and from my seated 'feeling' is that and they are not only a little flexier but grippier. Its a bit early in the year to come to that conclusion but I feel there may be some truth to it.
  • 2 1
 @oldschool43 question is, does the weight lost by going 24h, outpace the weight gained by going 110? considering all the places that need widening, (lower crown, upper crown, axle, as well as hub) I'm pretty skeptical. quick look at the DT swiss website say's that 6 competition spokes only weigh 30g. even after nipples, that's not very much weight allowance to work with.
  • 2 1
 I don't know. Doesn't seem much "better". You'd gain some weight. I would think there would be slightly more flex in the new fork (remember the 15 and 20 were designed was to fix the flex) By pushing out the width of the fork it would allow more degrees of twist, that would off set some of the strength gained by the flange and hub body. I could be wrong. I've built 1000 or so sets of wheels. For me, I always go 32 hole by 3 cross, but I've never been under 200lbs. From time to time I ride different wheels to see if they are good or not. More for customers or friends, if they can stand a few days of my rough housing.. My thinking before I rode the SRAM wheels, 29er 24 hole 2 cross with traditional straightpull spokes is not going to be very stiff. You can have a stiff rim, but it will move around. I've ridden Easton (24 hole 3x) Mavic (not a good comparo) and those designs held up fine and no noticeable issues. But even in a few corners I could get the tire on the SRAM wheel to just buzz the chainstay. It moved 7mm to touch it! Again, I'm a true heavy weight, I'm sure there is mathematical equation that like 240lbs x 15mph x 10 foot radius x pump down with legs x 35 degree lean angle. A 350 lbs side load? I still think it's to fix their floppy wheels. I tried to get the same stuff with my 32h 3x Hope/Halo Vapour Aluminum wheels, nothing. Same tires, pressures. They flex, I can feel that, but not what the SRAM's did.. Also, this new flange design, might reek some havoc on a J-bend spoke when it's dished.
  • 1 1
 @mikekazimer What is going to actually change with the cranks? I assume its just the chainline since one of Trek's selling points on 148 is that it won't effect Q-factor. I am curious to know how many more people will be rubbing their heels on the chain/seatstay if the Q-factor doesn't change.
  • 2 1
 @dlstucki - As far as I know, the only change is the 3mm chainring offset - the Q factor remains the same.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer That is what I figured. Another level of complication for chain guides.
  • 1 0
 I'm right with you on that @oldschool43 & I weigh 160lbs. All my stuff is 32x3cross, though that's more about convenience in hub & rim selection. If 28h rims & hubs were plentiful, & offered a good selection of different brands, I might try them. but 24h is awfully few spokes. I can't say I've ever felt a wheel flex in my life, even when I weighed 230lbs, but flex isn't the only factor here, long term durability is certainly going to be affected as well.
  • 3 0
 @groghunter Never mind my theory, Fox just dropped a 110mm fork. I still wouldn't ride the 24x2 cross SRAM's. Have a feeling I'd break something. The Easton Havoc's were okay, but the rear hub had issues. It's hard to find a good 28 hole rim so I haven't tried them for me either.
  • 29 1
 WTF..... it's only 2mm away from a tried and true standard that we have had for years!!!! 150mm x 12mm. Fu Q SRAM and the biking marketing
  • 13 0
 But it's not DH - it's ENDURO!
  • 4 5
 Guys, don't compare 148mm to 150mm. Do your research. But for starters, the space between the end of the axle to the cassette/freehub body is larger on the 142/148mm rear hubs compared to the 150. As in, 3.5mm of the axle goes into the frame's dropout slot.
  • 4 1
 It's all just change for the sake of change, @theminsta. The point is, that we were here already with the 150's. I'm sure they twiddled around with the whole thing enough to claim they are justifying the differences, but it's all a bunch of horse crap.
  • 7 1
 If you read my 4 other comments here, I'm completely against marginal "improvements"... My point is simply that it's incorrect to compare 148 to 150. If you're gonna make a comparison to that HUB SHELL size, it should be either 148 to 157, or 141 to 150.

Anyways, I even want the 150mm hubs to disappear, in favor for every rear hub to be 142mm.
  • 2 0
 That's all fine and dandy, but they WILL be compared, because they are already out there. Just as they will be compared to the 142s and the 135s, and then we will compare them to the next new "standards" when they come out.
  • 21 0
 What a load of SH*T sram - The team that developed this should have been tasked with stopping all their reverbs cacking up. That would be flippin progress!

When will they concentrate on stuff that matters and makes a difference. - internal gearbox, better durability on parts, BB's that dont die when run through a puddle, etc etc

All standard changes do, now we have gotten rid of the stuff inherited from road bikes, is shaft the consumer.

It devalues the bikes we own
It decreases the availability of spares
Companies like Hope that offer aftermarket product have to develop for a billion standards which means they have to charge more

For absolutely EFF all gain for us. Bell ends!

And pinkbike don't wind us up, by calling us Luddites, when we criticize this stuff. There are so many issues out there with their existing products that if they focused on that stuff instead of pissing about with this kind of guff we would all be better off.
  • 12 1
 I love Pinkbike. I think its probably the best online publications out there. But I would like to see more journalism here. Plus the ability to question things, like in opinion pieces. I really don't mean to compare it to the motorbike world, but I have to in this case. There are publications there so powerful they can help dictate the future market and development of better equipment. Motocross Action's Jody Weasel's opinion pieces are brilliant, thought provoking, and blatantly questions industry decisions without fear of repercussions. I believe all mountain bike publications should invest more into opinion articles that may actually have an impact on where we are going. I am not singling out PB, but in generality speaking of all mountain bike based media. Its just that some of these articles read like paid advertisements, which they may or may not be. We, as readers, need to know if and when they are.
  • 10 2
 @WayneParsons - this certainly isn't a paid advertisement. As far as having an opinion on the new standards, until I spend time on the trail with them I don't have that strong of an opinion, which is why this piece is fairly neutral. The Remedy 29 I recently reviewed had Boost 148, but that wasn't the standout feature of the bike. 27.5+ seems interesting, but I'm curious how they'll handle on the steepest, most technical terrain. As soon as I get my hands on a set I'll start putting the miles in and report back.
  • 1 0
 It is an interesting comparison to make, and no doubt, there are moto pubs that read like advertisements, too. I think that is a big part of the reason why KTM continues to build the types of bikes that the Japs refuse to even consider, like all of their two strokes and the barely legal 500/350exc duo. That, and the people buy them, but the mags were screaming at the Japs to build those bikes long before KTM became a major player.
  • 3 0
 We are tough on you @mikekazimer but how would we get this news without you? Thanks for the work you do! And, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Just like buttholes, they all stink!!! Even mine!
  • 4 0
 Mike does express some skepticism in the "Pinkbike's take" section, which I did appreciate. Quite a few other bike press outlets don't even have a standard section of the article for the author to express their opinion. Go take a look at some of the shenanigans that go on on Vital & BikeRumor: I've seen articles on Vital that were probably written top to bottom by the manufacturer, & I've seen BR delete any negative comments about brands that they advertise with.
  • 1 1
 Totally agree. I'm of the leaning that we, collectively, should think it is our prerogative to be pushing the boundaries.
  • 3 0
 @mikekazamir i don't think you, nor any of will find fault in testing these products. By themselves, I'm 99.9% sure they will perform great. I would also guess that because of it, the review will be subsequently glowing.

The question remains, as a journalist should be asking, is how is this better, and who is demanding it? And, of course, the broader question is do the consumers need yet another unnecessary standard when there are so many holes in mtb technology that are not being addressed?

Maybe a double blind study would be the best way to review it.
  • 1 0
 I'd argue that's a topic to be discussed, at least by a journalist, when he's actually tried the product in question. It'd be a little unprofessional, when you get paid to give opinions on things, to start ranting about something at length when you haven't even really given it a fair chance. Certainly not a way to keep manufacturers sending you product to review.
  • 2 0
 Totally agree, but raising the topic, judging by by the overwhelming response from readers who seem to be upset, would be a road worth traveling.
  • 24 0
 yeah lets put another option AGAIN, retards.
  • 18 0
 The claim that a 10mm wider hub spacing makes a 29" wheel as stiff as a 26" wheel is questionable at best. So many factors involved in backing up that claim.
  • 18 0
 So basicaly all they wanted to say is that this whole 27.5 + Boost + new hubs etc. makes the new standard almost as good and stiff as the 26"?
  • 1 22
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 8:28) (Below Threshold)
 yes but without the limitations of the 26" platform that the industry and REAL consumers have now largely abandoned.
  • 19 1
 Hold up, gotta get my popcorn Razz
  • 12 1
 I'll take a beer, too!
  • 7 1
 Smoked a whole doobie reading this stuff already and only half way down the page.
  • 14 0
 They should sell this idea to Lego. Just think if you made every Lego block bigger by 2.34% all the existing Lego would not fit with the new Lego 'standard' and then the Lego company would be rolling in money as they made everyone take their existing Lego to the landfill and buy new Lego!
  • 14 0
 I can still mount up the wheels on my 1999 yz250 onto my 2014 Yz450f with just changing spacers. The bike industry is a f-ing joke. This is a total scam. Oh, and my yz450f costs about the same as a DH bike. There is only one reason for SRAM to do this, to try to force the small volume fork mfg. out of business. The cost of the castings for the Magnesium lowers is probably the single biggest capital outlay for a fork MFG. This causes them to have to make entirely new molds most likely. SRAM has the volume to support that investment, the smaller guys may not. There's no magic or secret here, just a move to screw everyone else and make a few extra bucks.
  • 16 0
 We have a space program, and we're still coming up with more bicycle standards every year.
  • 1 0
 SPACE BIKES!!!!
  • 14 0
 All my bikes are still 26" wheels with 20x110 front and either QR or 12x150 rear. Everything I own was outdated years ago, so another standard just goes in one ear and out the other at this point.
  • 12 0
 A way to eventually make us upgrade to new bikes and new parts over a couple mm's... Because we are all millionaires... I just hope they keep parts for my 26" chili coming for years to come because I hope to hold on to it for awhile!
  • 17 1
 Someone want to tell them that 20x110mm and 12x150mm already exists?
  • 2 20
flag deeeight Plus (Mar 18, 2015 at 8:21) (Below Threshold)
 I think SRAM knows... Rockshox invented the 20x110 standard. But that was nearly 20 years ago and standards and technology moves on.
  • 6 1
 Its not a technological advancement though. If they would invest into improving on existing models without making the former obsolete, then that's advancement. Again I'll ask: will this make previous options slower or less enjoyable? Probably not.

I'd much rather see a company like SRAM invest into the development of an 11-40t cassette, something in which many, many people want.
  • 3 1
 Technology changes, and word "change" is very neutral to whether something goes in a good or bad direction. In a way... evolution is like that as well.

I personally could not give a less fk if SRAM introduced 152mm in September saying it's better than 148mm... I missed slack&low, short&wide, 650B, now Enduro geometry and I realized that I am alive enough Big Grin Off course I think half of it is sht and I took half of it on board, but... I am just looking forward to sunday ride. Thank God and Science that waves generated by release of new products and stuff people think about them is not going to interrupt it. I may do a few drawings that will make me giggle though Big Grin
  • 16 0
 At this rate will be back to 26in bikes!
  • 7 0
 LOL! I was the exact same thing!
  • 8 0
 WoW, I can't believe I'm ahead of the time for once in my life....
  • 15 0
 Seriously SRAM! Stop being a bunch of knobs, and give my a charger damper for my Lyrik already!
  • 1 7
flag Nobble (Mar 18, 2015 at 8:13) (Below Threshold)
 They make a lyrik with a charger damper, it's called a pike.
  • 10 0
 Oh look, somebody read the internet joke book! I had no idea the Pike has a 20mm axel and 170mm of travel. Damn son! My bad! Why don't you go buy some more SRAM stuff. Maybe it'll make you feel better Captain Grumpos.
  • 16 0
 Dead Horse
  • 11 0
 complete madness of standards in the bicycle industry. 135,142,150,157,100,110,15,20,BSA,BB30,PF30,26,27.5,29, ISCG03/05, tapered 1.5/1 1/8, tapered 1.5/1.25,IS, PM, centerlock,31.8,35.0 Pseudo technical progress to boost sales, nothing more...why do they call it standard? no other industry is as crazy (incl. us)...
  • 1 0
 I've said for a while, that the bike industry needs it's own version of EIA/TIA. At the very least, these boost axle standards should be the universal "widened" standard, but I bet we'll see at least one company bring out their own, incompatible version.
  • 11 0
 No just No....Never have I thought my wheels (the correct wheels for the given application) were not stiff enough..Ever..doesn't matter if this new standard does exactly as it claims..not necessary.
  • 10 0
 Yeah how about no. f*ck 15mm axles. What the hell is wrong with 20mm? I get that the sport needs to evolve but why create a whole bunch of shit that 5% of the industry will use? Whatever though anything I say or anything you say has no effect on the company or products.
  • 10 0
 It really chaps my ass that this new standard is only required because of the push into bigger wheels. Why? Because I'm willing to bet that the engineers knew about this issue, the marketers told them to shut up and started selling big wheeled frames anyway, claiming they were optimized of bigger wheels, when in reality they weren't, completely anyway. And don't write this off like some conspiracy theory based BS, I have worked for almost 20yrs in product development, marketing and sales in both food and tech sectors… the latter scenario happens most every time "innovation" is brought to market. Remember that video where i think it was a Spec rider ripping a 29" enduro down a californian ridge line and in some of the slowmo shots you could see a huge amount of flex in the wheel… when it was pointed out, the standard "big wheels are designed to flex" retort was put forth. Now, laughably, the industry is bring forth a new standard to improve the stiffness that was supposed to not be an issue.
  • 11 0
 Mtb industry... Just another year of the same thing with a different size that is the same to ride and will make my new 650b bike belong in the past because of an axle....
  • 12 0
 Oh nice! Now my bike build is no longer cutting edge.
  • 12 0
 Bikes are like computers now. 6 months in and you're outdated!
  • 5 0
 If ur surprised, u havnt been paying attention. Everything's going wider. Just need the rubber to catch up w/rims now.
  • 2 0
 Fat bike tires! Woot!!!
  • 4 1
 That's what I tell the misses: wider is better.
  • 10 0
 I love innovations. I love. But when I hear NEW STANDARDS, that make your equipment ABSOLUTE makes me a little sad and PISSED. Money grabbing bastards!!
  • 4 0
 I assume you meant "OBSOLETE"?
  • 6 0
 ...aabsolutely Wink
  • 9 0
 April fools is still two weeks away? Maybe they released this early accidentally. I refuse to believe this is for real. Everything sounds too tongue-in-cheek defeatist.
  • 8 0
 I would like to see all hub standards match up with the travel of the bike....process 111=111 hub process 134=134 Hub DH bikes 200 mm spacing... my hard tail 0 mm hub....that autta do it.
  • 11 2
 Blablabla shit shit shit blabla we want to suck all you money again...Seriously, fuck you Sram and other big brands that always fuck up things...
  • 7 0
 Yet another innovation by sram that will force you to spend more money. I've honestly never heard anyone say that they want fatter tires on a bike. What these bikes have gained in quickness and handling in the last few years have just been wiped out by phat bikes. Great.
  • 10 0
 Hey, cheer up! Giants overdrive 1.25 headtube went away, this might as well! Theres only 1 bike that uses this garbage!
  • 12 1
 That's it. Fuck this. I'm not building bikes no more
  • 15 4
 gamechanger
  • 8 2
 Here's the deal: These new standards are bullshit but I understand why they are happening. Margins are low in the bike world and no one is getting rich in comparison to most other industries If you want to keep generating revenue you need to keep selling new bikes and components. If they don't keep changing standards they won't be able to sell as many bikes and components. Us dirtbags may not like it but it's the main reason our beloved bike industry is able to keep chugging along.
  • 3 0
 And you are telling us there isn't much of a margin on today's $10,000 + bikes with most if not all of its components made in asia...?
  • 1 0
 I understand that companies that hand build their frames in house and still make their components in an area that pays above what our grandparents would regularly give us for candy the margins are low....but common...
  • 10 0
 And the crooks of the industry strike again.
  • 6 0
 Further proof that the "bike industry" is run by Non-bikers!
  • 6 1
 skiers.
  • 3 0
 So true bikebike69!!!
  • 8 2
 I'm sorry, does everyone's bike suddenly not work anymore? Who cares if new stuff comes out. You bought your bike when you did because it was the best value for the money at that time. Do you guys own a computer? If you buy a computer today, in two years there will be something that is literally twice as fast. Does your current computer suddenly not work anymore? Honestly, it's even worse with computers as the software will be updated to require faster hardware but your trails aren't updated quite as fast.

Ride your bike and quit bitching.
  • 6 0
 This is complete BS!
There are already so many "standards" out there for various components which only last a few years until they are replaced as it is. It was awesome only having a few dropout standards! There is 0 performance gain to be had with these new sizes.
Why even bother with 148x12mm when 150x12 already exists & places your hub flanges an entire 1mm wider on each side!
Same for the 110x15mm front; 110x20mm already exists & provides you with a stiffer front end. Don't drink the Koolaid that these companies try & feed you.

I thought the bike industry prided itself on being more environmentally friendly than many other industries by creating human powered machines. As long as more redundant standards keep coming out we're just killing the earth even more. The number of resources required to develop, produce, distribute, market & sell these "standards" is not ethically worth it for an extra 3mm of hub flange width.

The MATH:
142x12mm hub with 24mm hub flange offset on the drive-side using 290mm spokes.
The angle of the spoke from the rim is approx 4.75 degrees.

148x12mm hub with 27mm hub flange offset on the drive-side using 290mm spokes.
The angle of the spoke from the rim is approx 5.34 degrees.

150x12mm hub with 28mm hub flange offset on the drive-side using 290mm spokes.
The angle of the spoke from the rim is approx 5.54 degrees.

5.34 - 4.75 = .59 degree difference from 142x12mm
5.54 - 5.34 = .20 degree difference from 150x12mm

How many people are going to notice a slightly stiffer wheel with an extra .59 degree difference?
  • 3 0
 "I thought the bike industry prided itself on being more environmentally friendly than many other industries by creating human powered machines. As long as more redundant standards keep coming out we're just killing the earth even more. The number of resources required to develop, produce, distribute, market & sell these "standards" is not ethically worth it for an extra 3mm of hub flange width. "

I wanted to say this yesterday too, but I was so screwd about this standards I couldn't think a way to say it in English :-D.
  • 6 0
 Most annoying thing is that this effects the drive train too. Meaning new adaptors and or cranks required assuming you don't buy a complete bike build with 'boost' gear installed.
  • 4 0
 Of course it does. It will open a whole new market to new stuff. The more standards and more of this nonsense the more I stick with my 26ers.
  • 5 0
 The geometry of moving the outside of the rear hub (and thus the spoke attachment points) out by 3mm each side creates very little lateral stiffness. Similarly, 6mm more space doesn't open up that much more room for different pivot designs and all that. If you're taking the hit of introducing another standard (and thus the extra cost of tooling, carrying more parts inventory), and inconveniencing shopsband customers, why not go a bit further with room to grow, like 160 mm? Would love to have that explained by someone with actual knowledge of the process - too radical? Diminishing returns of strength versus weight?
  • 2 0
 Q factor is the limit, it's already wide (some want narrower Q factor). 10% increase in width (typical rear hub is 60mm between flanges), mean that you have around 20% gain in stiffness.
On the other side, going from 559 to 622 rims (26 to 29") decreased stiffness up to 28% (in reality less, since flange and rim height are the same).

In the end it's a good thing IMHO, but they should have done directly when going 29"/27.5 route, not incrementally.
  • 1 0
 @g-42 - At a certain point I'd imagine that chain stay / heel clearance would become a factor. If you decrease chainstay length, and then widen the rear spacing, it can be difficult to keep the chain and seat stays from getting in the way of a rider's heels. I agree that 6mm doesn't open up a whole lot of room for pivot changes, but it does create the tire clearance needed for a 27.5+ setup.
  • 9 1
 Hush guys... Relax.. Just let sram keep on producing new products until people stop buying them.
  • 10 1
 Finally, this is what everybody was waiting for! Not!
  • 5 0
 Maybe there are in fact measurable improvements that result from these new "standards". But to the ordinary rider it just feels like Sram is trying to move the industry in a direction that requires everyone buy all new parts.
  • 6 0
 Sod it I'm just going to get a BMX. I swear there's none of this 'has to be the new thing' I know people who have been riding the same frame and components for the last 10 years and are killing it.
  • 11 1
 Fuck you SRAM
  • 2 1
 Very good ! Smile Smile Smile
  • 5 0
 Dear industry... PLEASE stop that shit and come with REAL inventions wich makes biking better and even more fun as it is.
there are WAY to many "standards" out there, and absolutly NO ONE needs that new version.

Dear consumer:
Please just dont buy that bullshit. Go riding and wait for them to come up with something new mich MAYBE makes sense.
  • 9 0
 :-(
  • 9 0
 incomprehensible !!!
  • 6 0
 My next hub is gonna be a Chris King 142 and then I don't wanna buy another hub for 10 years until the dust settles on this ridiculous standard war we're in.
  • 3 0
 Good thing Chris King is slow to accept industry standards due to their rigorous development and testing process. I couldn't be happier with my King headset and hubs; love that buzzzzzzzzzzzz!
  • 4 0
 This is pissing me off because i don't exactly have enough money to keep up with modern component designs, for example i have no idea how i am ever going to find a 1 1/8 non tapered steerer 150 mm fork with a 15mm axle for anything but £900 (fox 36 is only modern fork that has such an option). So i am stuck with limited choice when it comes to parts until i manage to save up enough money to get a new bike with all the modern tech on it. Bike industry doesn't care one bit about its customers.
  • 5 0
 Have fun with that SRAM, I'll just buy parts elsewhere. Plenty of sane MTB manufacturers who aren't trying to f*ck us all out of riding by exponentially increasing costs with new & improved "standards"
  • 4 0
 didn't fall for flat bars, didn't fall for biggers wheels , didn't fall for fat tyres back in the early 2000,s thay wer shit then thay are shit now, wount be falling for this crap lol , next thing will be long stems and skinsuits again.
  • 4 0
 DOH! I was gonna order a new frame. Better wait, so they don't tell me "oh man, you have that stuff, that's so 48 hrs ago, everything changed by a couple of mm, scrap that 7K bike and spend 9K so you aren't left behind again, till next week..."
  • 4 0
 This is getting out of control LOL....12x148 mm??????? WTF?????? What's next 13X151???
What does standard means in the bike industry?

This is purely a way to make our bikes obsolete every year just to make us feel we need to buy a new one. PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT!!!
I'm sure the next move will be a 26,75 inch wheel or a 26,86 inch wheel.

New standard?? It's a huge mess now!!!!
  • 4 0
 Vote with your wallets people. For once in your lives resist the urge to drop your pants for the "latest and greatest" and send a message. Consign BS like this sit on their warehouse shelves for eternity. That is the only way companies will take note and start ACTUALLY innovating. It might even let some real innovators get in the back door too. But if you can't resist the shiny new baubles be prepared to face ever more ridiculous incarnations of the same 'ol shit.
  • 9 1
 12x150, anyone?
  • 6 1
 I've bought my last new Scam fork. If I have to I'll do the back wheel for a frame if I really want the frame. Very unimpressed
  • 4 1
 It's to fix its wheels. Never had much luck with anything SRAM. I've tried to like them. For me it's been, use a SRAM part for a season or until it breaks or never really works after several attempts to make it work, then replace it with something non SRAM and use it until it becomes outdated, multi seasoned and old. Brakes, forks, hubs, rims, shifters and derailleurs. Never used SRAM branded cranks because of the failure rate of the other stuff. I see the thinking and logic behind the spacing, but I have also seen how flexy their new 24 spoke wheels are, those extra mm's should bring their wheels up to normal wheel stiffness. I tried a set and it flexed 7mm and the tire rubbed the chainstay powering up a hill going across a rain rut section, even after a spoke tightening, did it again. My normal wheelset, not even close. I tried to repeat it. I bought something else. Shame they can't come out and say they're trying to fix something..
  • 4 0
 Sooooo Dumb!
Again the industry trying to force a useless change that serves no purpose other than to sell "new stuff" no one
needs or ever ask for!
But still the unknowing masses will buy into it.
  • 3 0
 I rarely go to lbs because they rarely have what my bike needs. I went to one the other day because they held a bike demo, and I wanted inside to find a table full of 135 hubs and 9 speed derailleurs marked down to crazy prices and I wanted them all, but then I realized none of them would fit any of my bikes. This is what's killing lbs. This stuff is so expensive that no wonder they don't have what I need. Who can keep inventory of 9 hub standards, 5 kinds of chainrings and who knows how many bottom brackets.
  • 3 0
 Seriously, SRAM: f*** that shit! This is some unnecessary bullshit.
Cannondale developed the Ai Drivetrain, which actually makes some sense, especially solving the issue of the asymetrical wheel reducing stiffness: support.cannondale.com/hc/en-us/articles/203326837-Ai-Drivetrain
But that Boost 148 only means using the market power of the SRAM-RockShox-Truvativ-Zipp-Avid enterprise to sell us bullshit. New hubs, new frame, new cranks, new forks, new whatsoever without backwards compatibility.

F*** that shit!
  • 3 0
 So I have a 26 inch FS bike with 10mmx134 rear and 100mm x15mm front. I'd like to upgrade my frame, but actually screw that now I don't want to, if we are playing the 'let's change standards for zero performance benefit' game then I'll just keep riding what I've already got. I have no problem with innovations like tubeless tires and disk brakes, but not this. Sure, the blah blah blah marketing might fool some people who are buying new bikes but this shit is just murdering the LBS and home mechanics who build their own bikes.
  • 3 0
 I like to see all these efforts to make 27,5 as stiff as 26, then also as light! if this is possible, please. So when, finally, in a few years... they will also get as cheap as 26 has become, so I will start thinking on buying it.
  • 6 0
 Read headline. Skipped article. Went straight to comments. Laughing uncontrollably....
  • 3 0
 Give me a 27.879" wheel bike, specific for 2.6134" wide tires, with a 15.89mm x 110.978mm front hub and a 13.267mm x 147.459mm rear hub. Once this perfect compromise off all sizes and "standards" will be the ultimate bike. Until someone comes out with a front hub that is 15.937mm and blows the stiffness of my 15.89mm axle away.
  • 3 0
 Oh f*ck off SRAM. You've finally gotten to a point where I can recommend your drivetrains (well the top two tiers at least) and your brakes to customers with a straight face. Forget that sales level support now. I'm just one guy, but hopefully others will get sick enough of this crap to join in.
  • 4 0
 Everytime i read somethin like this iam so happy that i have so much fun rocking my f*cked up ragley steel HT with an old Fork. Don't believe the Hype!!! 26 inch with 20mm axle. Shit feels right!!!! Smile
  • 5 0
 Welcome to Mountain Biking where standards arn't standard, companies love screwing you over and no one can agree on anything. We hope you get fed up with your stay Smile
  • 3 0
 I'm waiting for the new standard that costs $6.00. Improves handling, makes it easier to climb, lightens my bike, makes me smile more. I have it! Buy some chain lube and ignore the new standard, then go ride until I lose 10lbs.
  • 4 0
 How the hell am I still able to enjoy my 26 inch wheels, 1 1/8 head tubes and 20mm front hubs??
I must be some kind of messiah or something.

You hear that, bicycle industry? Obey your Messiah and stop this nonesense!
  • 1 0
 Messiah you say... We'll crucify you or burn you like a witch!
  • 1 1
 - There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
- Are there? What are they? Tell us. - Do they hurt?
  • 2 1
 You are a witch or a heretic when you have something negative to say against the Holy congregation of logical Enduro-Sexuals like: "Pike is worse than 36, XT brakes suck or I Bozon forbid: you don't like slack angles. You may also be punished by riding too long stem, that is 50mm+. and bars narrower than 760mm. In such instances the punishments may range from drowning in sealant (or man extracted substance of similar colour and viscosity), splitting anus using narrow wide chainring, crucifixion using ti bolts screwed in up to 4Nm, or stoning with steel BMX stems
  • 3 0
 I own a 27.5 Enduro bike, which other than being all around bike, is mediocre for everything, rode a friend's 2007 gt Idrive 26'er the other day, like one I used to own and deja voo, I remembered why I used to climb better and lasted longer.... all this marketing crap makes no sense. Instead of being a victim of the money suckers, I'll be smarter and build a top of the line 26er, with top of the line 3x9, and it will be cheap!!
  • 7 0
 The only brands that can dictate standards are Shimano and Campagnolo....
  • 7 0
 Dear Mountain Bike Industry,

F**K YOU
  • 5 0
 Uhg, can't wait for the day when all theses standards are settled and common!!!
  • 8 0
 Just like the promise with USB... And USB-micro
  • 5 0
 I can't wait 2017 and the new (new) "superboost +" hub width "standards"...
  • 2 0
 LOL SuperBoost. Good one...
  • 1 0
 I cant wait until like Specialised tell us we dont need to wider but narrower to get a better chainline, esp with 7spd go back to 73mm on DH bikes and create more not less clearance, what a load of industry BS..,,
  • 2 0
 I guess there will be some more small businesses who will make adapters to fit regular parts. (for bikes and forks equipped with new standards).

Just like the 'XX1' revolution. I absolutely believe it's a great product, but won't buy it.
I applaud Shimano who thinks of better and cheaper ways to improve on existing standards!
Surely one day one person will think of all the money they are missing out on at sram?

is there a word to describe the amount of money they have spent to push customers away? Like inverse customer acquisition...

In these modern days where small businesses are creating an industry around their product to become successful, why are the main competitors in the bicycle industry destroying themselves? And even making an industry to others who offer workarounds...
  • 2 0
 I understand the small benefits of the 15mm axle vs 20mm and am on board with new standards so long as there is plenty of selection from different brands. Not just one or two companies. But I can't help but feel a little annoyed the decision to go narrow hub spacing to 100mm only to increase it back to 110mm years later. Don't really get why it was neccessary to shrink the width in the first place.
  • 4 0
 There are no advantages to 15mm that couldn't (& honestly were already with maxle lite)be solved by lighter 20mm axles.
  • 1 0
 Sram already made the maxle light lighter and stiffer years ago than Shimano and Foxs 15mm years ago, and 20m is better than 15mm, but it was industry pressure that made them add 15mm, they sucked the proverbial and sold out
  • 5 0
 Yet more proof that marketing people and not engineers are designing bike components these days.
  • 5 0
 I just love it when things no longer fit together and you gain zero noticeable performance benefit....not.
  • 2 0
 It's really sad when the mtb media has to fight to convince us that the never ending incompatibility trend is justified. Yes many improvements have been made over the years, and we are all grateful for them, but the road to get here was made as windy as humanly possible. Bikes have been dialed for many years so now we take turns just for sake of it.
  • 2 0
 Im glad I downsized to 20" this year while everyone is going up in size. Its about the riding, not about having the newest fancy thing. Nobody judges you by your bike...but by your skill. Different feel when I session with a group of bmxers compared to a group of "enduro riders" on carbon bikes in the mountain.
  • 5 0
 Scam is slowly digging their own grave. They will eventually go the way of the Dodo.
  • 2 0
 This is just gonna overwhelm people just starting out wondering whats best for them and what exactly is interchangeable. Plus I really cant see 2 mm making a difference in stiffness its a crock of sram if you ask me and seriously this is just turning me off of all the new stuff coming out these days ill stick with my 26" 04 Rocky Mountain rmx with 2002 marzocchi shivers it still runs great!!!
  • 3 1
 SRAM Announces WW3 against forum trolls is what I just clicked on right?

Is your current hub working well? Yes. Are there gonna be spare hubs for your frame until you sell or destroy it? Yes. Is somebody forcing you to buy this thingy? No.
YAAY!
  • 4 0
 Carful bike industry - I'm the demographic and income range that you drool over and even I'm getting sick of this. Seriously.
  • 7 0
 Thank god i am on 26er!!
  • 2 0
 I can totally understand what Sram and Trek are doing here. I am 100% sure that those 5mm or whatever produce a marginal stiffness increase, that could possibly make a 650b or whatever the hell it's called as stiff as a 26" wheel. I'm just not sure that someone who actually rides would ever notice it.

Instead of reading about how these new hubs are so and so much stiffer, I'd like to hear: Who is noticing it? Who was complaining? The answer is probably no one, but let's face it, this isn't stuff designed to fix a major problem. These are simply new tools to sell more bikes. Understandable. It's an industry fed by people like us who will piss and moan about this stuff until we get on it and convince ourselves that it's so much better than what we already have.

There is a reason why companies like this are still in business. In spite of any protests, there are still guys who are buying this new stuff every year, because they've been convinced that without it, they're not going to be able to keep up with their buddies or win next weekends race. Or they're just fools and piss money away.

All that being said, I'm still riding 26" wheels and shockingly I still have fun. I just try not to complain too much, because I know that's just my inner consumer getting upset that his shiny toy isn't as shiny as the new toys... a thought process I'm trying to slowly rid myself of.
  • 1 1
 stroke the monkey u will feel more of a stiffeness differnce
  • 2 0
 adjective

adjective: STANDARD - used or accepted as normal or average. ie "the standard rate of income tax"


synonyms: normal, usual, typical, stock, common, ordinary, customary, conventional, habitual, accustomed, expected, wonted, everyday, regular, routine, day-to-day, daily, established, settled, set, fixed, traditional, quotidian, prevailing

Since when did bringing out yet another hub size every 2 weeks make it a standard ????
  • 3 1
 What a load of shit. A load you, Kazimer, seem so oddly content with. All this baby stepping forward & backward like the industry's trying & failing to teach itself to dance. It's pretty simple, the widest flanges, & largest diameter axles that are practical are the best options all around. Gimme a 40 mm BB spindle, a 30 mm front axle & a 20 mm rear & those are 3 things that'll never be a concern again no matter how big we ride. Gimme wider flanges on 26" wheels. My 20 mm front hub has plenty of room on it to widen the flanges without a change in standards, but it's like 10 or 15 years old, I don't even know. There's nothing wrong with it & the flanges could be even wider. You (the industry) took a better standard (20 mm), made it shittier (15 mm) & now decide "lets force another conversion to sell more shit" by slightly widening hubs to some "carefully calculated" size to leave room for a bit more in a few years. Why not 150 mm, instead of 148? In three years do we get the "Super Ultra Hyper Mega Boost 150" version? Ohhhhh can't wait for that technological leap!!! Space age shit there!! Oh wait, we already have 150 mm hubs!!!! This is largely why I use BMX hardware whenever possible, also because it's usually better designed by people that actually give a shit about their sport rather than their profits. Fvck you & your new "standards". No one needs 'em, or wants 'em. If you don't have a demonstrable improvement that I need or can really benefit from then fvck off.

You know if you, SCAM, a drivetrain company, put the transmission in a gearbox where it belongs, there'd be a shit ton of free space to widen hub flanges while nearly bombproofing the most fragile & obsolete part of the off-road bicycle. I know you know this already though. :/
  • 3 1
 Stop whining about the industry! As the consumers, you have the power. If you don't buy the new standard and purchase your products from other manufacturers who are waiting to see if this takes hold, the new standard will not catch on. However, if you buy it up as soon as it hits the shelf, you are forcing other manufacturers to follow suit. This is exactly what happened with 650B. There were lots of hold-out manufacturers who didn't believe the hype but once consumer demand went through the roof, they had to switch over to retain their market share. They are businesses, right?

Complaining is boring. Don't get me wrong, "revolutionary advances" like SRAM's new hub standards are laughably cynical but all the swirl actually benefits SRAM. This is hype. Hype sells.

Tech changes do not become the standard until the majority of the industry gets on board. If you don't buy it, other manufacturers won't sell it. On the other hand, if you've written a complaint above and end up buying this product from SRAM this year, you're part of the problem
  • 2 0
 I agree with all those who are upset, frustrated, annoyed, etc. The rate at which mtb "standards" change these days is nothing short of ridiculous. Maybe someone should compile all these comments and send them to SRAM's customer service email about 10,000 times.
  • 1 0
 hell yeah maybe if they took theyre hand off it and listened they might be shocked what we actually think, then again I think theyre bubble of BS is so big they dont care, or even worse connect to the real world
  • 2 0
 LOL @ everyone hating on sram for adopting a new (improved?) standard, but when shimano & fox introduced the 15x100 fork you were all on your soap box screaming bloody murder only about 2 years ago. "I'll stick with my beloved fox brand after I accepted 15x100 142x12 was popular enough to stay". Either blame yourself for buying in in the first place or keep using your 26" 9mm qr front 135 qr rear 27.2 non-dropper post 90mm stem 620mm bars anti-progress machine and sink back in to insignificance.
  • 2 0
 I'm still rolling on a 26" 135 and 20qr... haha

I'm all for technology but it sure is expensive to keep up with. Not to mention you become limited in your component setup..
135
142
150
158 kona?
now 148?
next will be 152.625...
  • 5 0
 waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
  • 3 2
 I wonder if any of the bike manufacturers (*cough*SantaCruz*cough*) would offer a redesigned rear triangle to be able to accomodate the new spacing and brake mount issues. I just bought my PinkBike BOTY SC Nomad in October dammnit!!!
  • 4 0
 This won't be noticeably better, I wouldn't worry about it.
  • 4 0
 unless you're buying a new bike next year, you have nothing to worry about.
  • 5 0
 Pretty sure I can get a hammer an bang a 150 in there Its all good
  • 4 0
 if it jams force it!, if it breaks, it needed replacing anyway!
  • 5 1
 Two new hub standards in one press release! Hereby I announce: TROLL FEEEEEEEST!!!

www.pinkbike.com/photo/12021467
  • 6 0
 I'm not typically a troll, but I'm trolling the heck out of this one. Not sure why, but when I read it, it just made me angry.
  • 1 0
 Nice artwork in the link btw.
  • 5 0
 Who gives a f*%k

Boost this (grabs nutsack)
  • 1 0
 Good one....got me laughing
  • 4 0
 No, thanks. We already have 150 and 142 mm spacing, 148 is just really dumb.
  • 2 1
 All I heard was blah blah blah I'm a dirty tramp. Seriously who gives a shit? There is a point at which things become too stiff, and we can get there without any more obsolescence. 27.5+ is like Pepsi Next: filling a void for people who can't quite handle full-fattie. No offense but I want to see the same article as written by Mike Levy.
  • 4 1
 Don't shoot the messenger, you can thank SRAM and SRAM alone for this. Won't make much of a difference if Mike Levy wrote it, as a PB author he'd still have to report on it like @mikekazimer did; he'd hold back all the same in the PB take section. In all honesty this doesn't make my brand new bike obsolete, I'm not going to be upgrading to a new bike for a loooong time and any consumables or parts that need replacing or upgrading are still widely available and are going to be for a long time too. Parts for 26" bikes are still available even though 27.5" has well and truly taken the lead, so honestly this just boils down to a dick move by SRAM and has no real world consequences for anyone at the moment.
  • 3 0
 Nothing against Kazimer at all, I would just appreciate the bike media singing the same song as the bike people: PB should be calling this bullshit like everyone else.
  • 1 0
 No no no, why? "For the big companies to make more profit ofcourse". Well, I think we should be trying to fund in country design and manufacture, and trying to bring costs down for everyone. Yes it maybe be a better design, but is it really worth it for he majority of riders?
  • 6 0
 Sram = Apple !
  • 3 0
 Lets call it the I-hub...
  • 1 0
 without vaseline! Smile
  • 2 0
 Shit like this makes it very hard to believe they dont just want my money. Remember when you sunk loads of cash into the future just a couple of years ago? Tough luck buddy, bend over and give us your money.
  • 5 0
 Let's all just get outdoors and ride
  • 1 0
 just one question....buy the time i can save for this will this standard have been replaced.....probably looking to get another bike in the next 6 months..
so so far i see bikes were using crappy frame geo from old road bikes with there super short top tubes but massive stems (apperantly this was only recently rectified - ha ha nope) and now we should get these new hub standards.....i am begining to dislike mtb manufacturers with there nonsense claims. But whatever let all the rich people hate on comments like this because there totally fine with a million and one standards that make buying spares a friggin nightmare....future proof..non existant. like others before me have said whats up with these overnight standards. Dumbest one of seen so far though is INTEGRATED A-STEM on LOOK bikes for example so glad that one hasnt caught on though i am suprised.....maybe cos sram didnt cover it.
  • 1 0
 BTW higher flanges don´t help much in terms of bracing angle on a 3x wheel. If they did, there would already be a lot of them in use with the current standard from way back. High flange hubs are for the hipster SS crowd for looks only.
  • 1 0
 Mountain Biking used to be a simple sport. I build my first bike with no problems. I'm building a new bike and can't find a compatible headset (Stupid OverDrive 2), BB/Crank combo, wheels/hubs, etc. Too much BS non-standards. Whatever the F*ck the companies want to do, just include the adaptors for FREE!!!
  • 3 0
 seriously? who the &%$§ needs yet an other standard? using metric units throughout bikes and bike parts - that would be something for a change!
  • 1 0
 Everyone's reaction to the new standards. img.pandawhale.com/80872-jack-nicholson-angry-pots-pans-h8yl.gif
Time to turn turn off your computer (i.imgur.com/YO9YFgc.gif) and just enjoy the ride on your trusty steed.
  • 1 1
 u sucker, thats what we refer to the brain wash, or hamburger model suck it and see, n dont question or you are a hippie numb nuts wake up and smell the bacon, u assimilated borg!
  • 1 0
 What an absolute load of bullshit!! New standard this! new standard that! The more you lot lap it up the more the manufacturers will keep developing "new standards" to make more cash!! Stop buying this shit and they will stop bringing in "new" and totally un-needed "standards". Never in my life have i ridden down a trail and thought....."I bet a 148mm hub will feel so much better than my current 142mm one"... I am dreading the bullshit called 27.5+ wheelsize. No wonder i have slowly lost interest in this sport even though i have spent 2.5k on a new bike a few months ago! Oh and bring on the negative props...lets introduce a "new industry standard" in the amount of negative props a person can get!!!
  • 1 0
 Wow! another new "standard", I'm in the middle of building a new set of wide rim 27.5 wheels with 12 x142 rear and 15 x 100 front only to find them obsolete before the spoke prep dries. I guess I will wait until the dust settles before I adopt todays new standard probably two years from now when the price point matches my resources. If it doesn't fly as a new standard I'll just keep riding. Either way I didn't win the lottery, receive an inheritance or get a substantial raise so I'll just keep building my new, old now wheelset. Talk about Buzzkill!
  • 1 0
 Sad truth is this standard will make it to standard 27.5 bikes in the near future. I say this because if the benefits of wheel stiffness at lower cost (as compared to carbon rims) on 29ers is true, then why not 27.5 as well? The only reason why this isn't being pushed on 27.5 is because it is simply too much to push on the average buyer that recently dropped 26" in favor of 27.5 . Once the industry pushes 29er riders to the new standard, they will suddenly realize similar benefits can be had with 27.5 as well. It is coming, just a matter of time.
  • 1 0
 The thing is, different standards are need for different bikes e.g. fat bikes need 100mm crank spindles, and 190 axle spacing primarily for mud room, DH bikes need 150mm axle spacing and 83mm bb as it enables a better chainline, stronger and stiffer wheels (wider hub flange distance), stiffness and mudroom, Dj bikes need a standard 68/73mm bb and 135x10 axle for the sliding dropouts. Everything else needs 142x12 axles and 68/73mm bbs. Front axle wise, everything short of DH should be 15mm, and DH or DJ or Slopestyle should be 20mm. Steerer wise, should all be tapered, as it enable the best compromise between stiffness and stem choice. Seat posts should be 2 sizes. 27.2 (29.8/30.0 seatclamp) as it is more comfortable and better for xc riding in general or 31.6 for maximum dropper post compatibility (150mm travel plus) and a 34.9 seatclamp. Wheel sizes make sense to change between terrain, needs and disciplines. But you know that's just my thoughts on standardisation.
  • 1 1
 fook fat bikes, worse than e bikes, for fat lazy arse couch potatoes
  • 1 0
 when 142 x12 came along I've never seen so many new bikes on the market the following year with 142 x 12 rear hubs, and I thought is was such a great advancement, so happy with it that both my bikes are 142 x 12 ... then this ! wheelbuilders are going to have a nervous fucking breakdown !!!
  • 4 0
 Geeeez im Just getting over the whole 650B rammed down my throat, ease up mtb industry
  • 1 0
 I like technology moving forward. Hydraulic disc brakes, dropper posts and the 1x10 narrow wide chainrings are definitely boons to bikers everywhere. This is real innovation. Real world benefits and you can slap it on your existing bike and feel the difference. But creating new "tech" and "standards" which are only supposedly slightly incrementally better than a standard that already works fine or even better (such as 20x110!) smells like marketing bull to me. Who really feels and needs an incrementally stiffer wheel? Not a lot. For those who do, they just get stronger spokes and rims. They say a 29er wheel with their new standard will be as stiff as a 27.5 wheel with the old standard. But do you really need a stiffer 29er wheel considering that these will mostly be found on xc bikes? For us who still have 2nd or 3rd bikes with QRs on both ends, 3x8 drivetrains and straight steerer tubes, these new "standards" only limit our upgrade choices, and force us to buy new bikes. Marketing driven bull...
  • 1 0
 Are you f*cking kidding? Just go the extra 2mm. I can see it already....next year SRAM is going to "revolutionize" the game with a 12x150mm hub standard and everyone sitting on 148mm will be left with their thumb up their ass (thankfully those of us who already have 150mm rear hub spacing will be left unscathed). Can someone please teach these clowns that SUBTLETY and TIMING are integral to marketing?
  • 1 0
 way to kill of LBS even more, though Im a fan of the YT business model, I do feel for the LbS, even crap distributors, how much stock do they need to stock now eg forks not just hubs etc to meet markets, problem for the problem sake is not just the technology advancement, now theyre is a growing supply stock issue, theyre is a growing disconect with consumers to products and understanding what they need for theyre bike, even for experts this is getting harder and harder, so great work Sram just fook everyone over, you do some good work then you go and fook it up, Pike charger damper, 11 spd MtB drivetrain good stuff and innovative on an MtB scale, but this shite is just fooked up science! Hamburgers for hamburgers sake, just added larger patties and extra cheese thats from some really hard place to get from and no one can pronounce, nice, go outside and bich slap yoursleves, you solved a problem that wasnt a problem, just for profit, I hope anyone with sense ignores these products, if anything the Pike for ex, should have gone 20mm which is already 110mm HELLO beyotches!
  • 3 0
 I don't get it.

How do these new standards make people want to buy a new bike?
Surely potential new standards will just make people delay buying?
  • 1 0
 So it looks like the manufacturers are coming down off the 29" and 27.5" 'waves' that caused everyone to go out and buy new sh*t, so now they're throwing as much crap against the wall as they can to get you and me to keep buying new and 'improved'.
Like we all needed MORE axle sizes..
  • 1 0
 At what point are we getting past "innovation" and instead just changing crap around and marketing the snot out of it to try and have a "fresh new product?"

How many people really had an actual issue (not perceived, or what an article told you) with older hub sizes? I've been through a couple of different "standard sizes" now and I can't say I've noticed any difference, nor have the size changes solved any perceived problems.
  • 1 0
 Mtb industry is starting to piss me off. What about just ridding our bikes and give people time to adjust to new standards and actually have time to try those. Not everyone changes bike every year and changing standards every two years just makes people more frustrated and it becomes harder to buy the proper bike. I guess people at SRAM already knew that 148 and 110 was possible 2 or 3 years ago... Why go thru a standard before going to the best standard!?!? I know it's business but it just makes me want to road bike. Frown
  • 1 0
 This reminds me of when the US government tried to ram SOPA down our throats but was stopped in the nick of time by the collective outrage of netizens. Please don't let this issue die out or be content with just expressing your outrage here on PB's comments page. Write your senator (oops), I mean write SRAM and complain! Refuse to buy their products for a while and maybe we'll have a fighting chance they will back down from this ridiculous marginal change to the defacto 142x12 standard. This is insane people and we should not stand for it!
  • 1 0
 I'd really like to see @YT step in and make the 2016 Capra with 110 x 20 mm front hub, and 150 mm rear. I would spend more to buy this bike, just to send a message to the rest of the industry to stop messing around with standards so much.
  • 1 0
 From an engineering perspective this makes a crap load of sense for 29ers. 300 mm spokes with a 21 mm flange width on either the front disc side or the drive side rear leads to some really really dumb braving angles. An extra 5 mm will improve bracing angle and is really welcome. Nice to see 110 for the front, as 100 mm is leftover from forever ago when there were no disc brake calipers taking up space up front. I suspect a lot of the nay sayers here are 26ers for life, and this doesn't apply to them at all.
  • 2 0
 good job sram. you should get yourself a dictionary and look up the meaning of standard.. on another note anyone want to buy my brand-new 2015 bike that hasn't even seen dirt yet and is already obsolete
  • 1 0
 The reason that we don't have wider tire clearance on frames (not a limitation of the hub, but a limitation of swingarm design) is because that makes the swingarms wider, and so we don't hit our shoes, we make the BB wider, and a wider BB is increasingly inefficient for pedaling. A new hub standard is not needed to allow frame makers to accommodate wider tires.
Also, a 3 mm different chainline for this standard? Last time I checked, 3 mm doesn't matter for chainline. I'll bet you that people won't need to swap spiders.
I certainly hope no other frame makers get on board for this (well, go ahead Scott, Gary Fisher, make some slightly slimmer fat bikes...), but I can't believe the benefits of this are that significant. Better to spend your money on higher quality wheels.
This smacks of "making a new standard just to make more money" more than 27.5" wheels, a 142 mm rear, or the proprietary nature of the latest drivetrains. I'm surprised chains are still universal for the # of speeds.
If you're going to innovate, innovate. Don't half-ass it.
  • 1 0
 What a f*cking pile of bullshit! How many more ridiculous new standards are we going to experience in the coming years?? I suggest cone shaped lock-on grips with square socket bolts and 38h hubs and rims as an extra 2 spokes will without doubt immensly improve the wheel stiffness. Oh, maybe two new chain widths would also add some flavour.. Stop this farse!
  • 1 0
 Um, what, hang on a minute... damn I was just about to go and buy some new hubs and a fork, now I'm just annoyed and confused. Think I'm just gonna stay with my "OLD" 9x100, 10x135 hubs and (internally modified), QR DJ3's. Word.
  • 1 0
 None of it is really "standard" anymore with so many options to choose from at this point. If I want to keep running my old frames and forks, when they supposedly become obsolete, I'm only need one good hub option(the ones I'm on).
  • 1 0
 The only stuff I'll have on my bike from Sram is their xo 10sp drivetrain components, Hammerschmidt, Reverb, and xo trail brakes. I have Chris King and Mavic for wheels. Also, if you're gonna have a 148mm hub, just have the bb be 83mm. It makes perfect sense. That's what frame companies do with 150mm spaced hubs. It's stupid to alter the crankset of a bike that is already designed around the 148mm standard. My advice: design it right in the first place.
  • 1 0
 NEW STANDARD TESTED - New Trek Remedy 9.8 Review - LIMITATIONS
The rear Boost 148 hub designed to give the 29” rear wheel more support lacks muscle though, with an amount of flex that many will not want. Punching into hard packed berms or diving into compressions there was an unnerving amount of give at times particularly in the front wheel. At first I believed the movement to be the tyre but now firmly believe this to be the wheel flexing as well as the tyre rolling slightly.

So f*ck new standard...
  • 1 0
 None of this is necessary if you stick to 1X drive trains. I just built a frame where the rear hub is off center by 6mm, so that the spoke angle is symmetric (zero dish) and mounted the front chainring on the outside of the cranks (where usually the big gear goes). It offsets the chain ring exactly by 6mm, no problems with chain line whatsoever. Realigning your wheel is easy and loads cheaper than this new "standard".
  • 1 0
 Did some calculations and with Boost148 the spokes on a 29er can handle 1.45% more lateral force than a standard 26 rear wheel, so yes as "stiff"! (Calculations based on the specs of a Velltec 414 rear hub).
The 6mm-shift (introducing the SIK-SHIFT or wait Spesh and many other have done this before) on the other hand allows for 14% more lateral force than a standard 26!
Well done Trek & SRAM!
  • 5 1
 umm what about 150mm hubs?
  • 5 1
 This is all a bunch of confusing nonsense!!!
  • 4 0
 It's all about the space between the legs, isn't it?
  • 4 0
 "Choose a hub size and be a dick about it"
  • 2 1
 Is this not a case of change for change's sake, but really just an attempt to make the larger wheel sizes closer to the performance of 26" because of the resistance of the pros to the new wheel Sizes?
  • 2 0
 Yippie! My 2 month old bike is already outdated. This is awesome, buyers remorse is becoming a way of life in the MTB business.

Just kidding, I really don't give a $hit
  • 3 0
 I laughed, then I checked my calendar. Nope, not April 1st. Gotta be kidding me.
  • 4 0
 "choose your hub size and be a dick about it, is that a 150 ewww!!!!!"
  • 4 0
 They want yo money... and this is how... they gonna git it...
  • 3 0
 So 2 new standards in 1 week? Great. Also people will really feel that 2mm difference between 148 and 150x12
  • 4 0
 Why wouldn't they just space out the flanges on a 150mm hub?
  • 4 0
 WTF!
again a new standard? Again, the driver kidding?
b... s....
  • 1 0
 i'm fairly ok with this provided this stays only with 29ers for 650b+, and doesn't move to 650b or 26 as those wheels don't need these extra sizes, and as long as 15x110 and 148 doesn't require new tools.
  • 2 0
 The isosolece triangle has a wider base in both hubs. It's a good move, even if trek left it off the smaller 650b remedy (which I just bought grrrr).
  • 3 0
 This is exactly why I stopped buying new bikes and recently got into dirt biking...
  • 2 0
 my post on this would probably be hidden as below threshold. in translation "I am questioning the mental faculties of some people in the industry."
  • 3 0
 I think Deeeight summed it up perfectly, "What ever you do DON'T buy a Fat Bike".
  • 2 0
 I hope these new hubs will available with new proprietary industry standards of 28", 27"(650a), and super stiff 25.975" sized wheels. I can only hope!
  • 4 0
 When everybody has is own standard, why do we call that a standard ?!
  • 2 0
 Lets create a new standard and once the community has accept it... create a newer standard. Dear bike industry... I'm bored....
  • 4 0
 It's so stupid, it hurts.
  • 1 0
 It makes me want to die
  • 4 0
 no need to read details. What a stupid idea! idiots! piss off.
  • 5 0
 Is it April 1st already?
  • 2 0
 How about a 28.2639" wheel with a 113.5/18 spacing. Get you a stick and roll it around the neighborhood like kids used to do since it won't fit a damn thing?
  • 4 1
 This is just strating to be ridiculous, and we are idiots for going with it. truth has been said
  • 3 1
 After reading the messages, it appears this new standard is a resounding success and met with great fanfare. Well done. Carry on Sram.
  • 1 0
 I smell collusion... Industry giants getting together to change the standard in order to render current models obsolete (and thus discontinuing production of current standardized products) in order to force an upgrade...
  • 1 0
 Rear Wheel: 5mm Axle spacer on non-drive side, 5mm disc spacer or brake adapter, Dish wheel over 2.5mm

Front Wheel: 10mm axle spacer on non disc side, dish wheel over 5mm.

DONE!!!!
  • 1 0
 More new standards, yaaaay...
Do we really need a new size for everything every 5 minutes just to enjoy riding our bikes up and down hills?
It's this kind of crap that made me stop riding mtb and just stick to riding BMX.
  • 3 0
 This is borderline propaganda.. come on bike industry.. were better than this!
  • 3 0
 I'm not going to buy anything 27.5+ or any f*cken new hub standard. When there is 20 standards it is not anymore a standard.
  • 3 0
 Sram: "psst. Holy shit guys, everyone bought that 27.5 crap. Let's come up with something even more ridiculous!"
  • 2 0
 ...almost like the industry is set up to sell as many bikes as possible...? Us poor slobs - keep feeding us the pellets and we'll keep pecking the shiny red button.
  • 3 0
 Bugger. Does this mean I should have upgraded my cantilever brakes and toe clips already?
  • 1 0
 Watching another stiffness-oriented standard revolution as it rolls through our industry like a tsunami I am becoming increasingly worried about people who really run this show and their biggest concerns...
  • 2 0
 PLEEEEEEASE NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is Giant's hideously obsolete and pointless "Overdrive 2" again. Abandon ship!!!!!
  • 1 0
 Why not go back to Formulas old disc bolt pattern of 4 holes whilst we're at it? 'cuz it's got less bolts therefore 159% stronger and 67% lighter. They can sram it where the sun...
  • 1 0
 Pinkbike should actually add the setting, if the article was good a [+] and [-] AND if i actually liked the content [+] and [-]
what a huge piece of horsecrap this is... 148 my ass! theres 150. same goes for the front hub!
  • 2 0
 Why was this not done from day one of having 27.5 forced upon us. If this was needed to improve larger wheels then don't wait till now.
Glad to be on 26" still.
  • 3 0
 bllleeeuuuuaaaaarrrghhh *vomits*
  • 4 0
 "Standard"
  • 3 0
 If they change the wheel size again I think I might just cry
  • 4 1
 it's for niners! if you don't ride a niner, don't worry 'bout it...
  • 2 2
 And pass up an opportunity to complain and show the world how worthless their lives are? Fat chance of that.
  • 3 0
 So if my Fatbike is for pow, is 27.5+ for groomers?
  • 3 0
 Some people just want to watch the world burn.
  • 4 1
 Well fuck this. I'm just going to stick to walking in the future.
  • 3 0
 Well you don´t have to made a standard every f..year.
  • 3 0
 I'm just happy to own a bike,haha
  • 2 1
 I dumped Sram many years ago, but hope this backfires none the less. So long Sram, you and your cronies are not even a memory.
  • 5 1
 Go home drunk, ure SRAM
  • 4 0
 This is stupid.
  • 2 2
 Q factor. Hahaha. Fuck off with your nonsense. Fuck off SRAM, fuck off Trek. The only thing left on my bikes that are SRAM are rear derailleurs and shifters. Those will be changed ASAP.
  • 1 0
 Really? Thanks for the solution to a problem that never existed. This doesn't make non 26 inch wheels stiff enough to warrant the cost to the average rider.
  • 2 0
 We will be better riders because of this....blahahaha... This is where mtb could take a few notes from bmx
  • 3 0
 MTB comapanies are worse than Apple.
  • 2 0
 I can see CRC / Jenson and the likes getting so many returns due to the wrong order!
  • 1 0
 Boost 148 isn't that good, I'm looking forward to next year's boost 149.23583294959602436765487 or what ever that's not on the market.
  • 1 0
 I'm adding this to my favorites so I never forget why I shouldn't like SRAM, not because this information is one of my favorites
  • 3 0
 FTS!
  • 1 0
 Looks like a trek! haha new standards more excuses to upgrade and spend more money lol
  • 2 0
 This is beyond frustrating
  • 2 0
 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
  • 2 0
 well would you look at that
  • 2 0
 Why they do what people tell them not to do,come on!
  • 1 0
 seems like Apple did with iPhone 5 and up.. changing the chargind port and now with MacBook pro and usb-c... bullshit!
  • 2 1
 Yeah the whole MTB industry pretty much is just like Crapple. A money making "leetist" dicktatorship that the pencil pricked approval whores can't help throw a fortune at to have the "new".
  • 1 0
 Don't need it, don't want it. Thanks for the option but I personally won't be going anywhere near it
  • 1 0
 Between this and the E-bike advertisement (that they stealthily removed) pinkbike is having a rough week!
  • 1 0
 lol or get a 150mm hub and cut it down to 148mm...though the frame may not be tuned for that...it might work out.
  • 2 0
 One bike company on board = New Standard?
  • 2 0
 How many different wheels/hubs does your LBS carry now....
  • 2 0
 Pick a hub size and be a dick about it.
  • 2 0
 is that a 142? ..they suck
lol
  • 1 0
 Ah yes! finally yet another standard now my new bike is older than i tough Big Grin
  • 1 0
 why would anyone buy a new 2015 bike now, knowing that it's parts are now going to be obsolete if this gets adopted?
  • 1 0
 The word standard, is lost to the world. Ride 26 and be content, you are not alone.
  • 1 0
 I like these introductions of new standards, it just makes all the parts compatible with my bike cheaper.
  • 1 0
 hmm, I hoped there will be 149 hub. 148 is not wide enough, but 150 is too much and also too heavy. 149 is the point, yep.
  • 1 0
 BOYCOTT!!!!! It's the only way to make a change. We have to stop them from all these sh!tty unnecessary changes!
  • 1 0
 Wow. Lots of negativity towards the Boost 148mm hub. Is this hub not making room for shorter chain stays and wider tires?
  • 2 0
 I am confused
  • 1 0
 Look mom, another new standard
  • 3 6
 Sram. All you've ever made is total poo. sram should not be aloud on the trails. I'm building my own trails and anyone caught with sram will be asked to explain in no less than 2000 words why they think it's acceptable to buy poo and wipe it on their bicycle or the option of death. And their foul SRAM filth thrown down the toilet where shit is meant to go.
  • 2 0
 Why??????????????????
  • 2 1
 I guess they are skipping the idea of 29+
  • 1 0
 Has anyone considered the ramifications of making it too stiff?
  • 1 0
 thats what she said..
  • 2 0
 NO more!
  • 2 1
 I found a new hobby, hockey cards and getting out of SRAM
  • 1 0
 Maybe this standard is to accommodate the electric assist later on.
  • 3 1
 Boycott !!!
  • 1 0
 This just means deals on "obsolete" wheelsets for me in the near future.
  • 1 1
 WAAAAAAGGGGHHHH - Everyone's being forced at gunpoint to buy 148 hubs..... Oh wait, no they're not.
  • 1 0
 Enough is enough. Screw you SRAM.
  • 1 0
 wow thanks sram for making new technology annoying rather than exciting.
  • 1 0
 i do not neeeeeed New standard.......
  • 1 0
 Rock Shox Pike vs Fox 36? Anyone?
  • 1 0
 Jesus Christ , they need to stop this shit
  • 1 0
 I wish these new hub standards had been an April Fool :-(
  • 1 0
 Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'll laugh if anyone buys this shite.
  • 1 1
 System Replacement And Modernization
  • 1 0
 Marginal Gains
  • 11 14
 Motocross > Mountain bikes
  • 11 1
 "motocross > mountain bikes" After being dedicated to mtn biking for 20 years i'm starting to think the same way. Sure its really fun but the industry and its high dollar sales pitch is just killing its potential growth. They have dedicated bikers by the balls to buy new parts because their old parts will no longer be supported. My dirt bike cost the same as a mountain bike and while I'm riding it I'm too involved in riding to talk to other people about the differences in one bike and its parts over another. There is no "how do you like that new fork?" or "how different is that 1x11 system". It is "braaaaap" "wooohooo" regardless if you are riding a new KTM 350 or an ancient Honda XR650.
  • 13 0
 found this in the earlier trek 29 carbon remedy review:

"Trek says that this wider spacing has allowed them to move the hub's spoke flanges out farther, which then gives the spokes a better bracing angle to make for a laterally stiffer wheel. How much stiffer? They told us that it's enough to bring the average priced 29er wheel into the same range as a 26'' or 27.5'' wheel, although exact figures on specific wheel model comparisons weren't presented to us. Moving the cassette outwards by a few millimeters does upset the bike's chain line, though, so all Boost 148 equipped bikes will come with a slightly different crank spider that compensates by also moving the 'ring outwards slightly to match the change at the rear of the bike "

so based on this statement i am left to think that they drop 26" wheels telling us we dont need them and there not that good and then a year or two later they offer up new hub standards to tray and match the old 26" wheels in stiffness......go figure.
so anyone who moaned at people like me who didnt like the idea of 26" wheels dying off must be happy with these new hub standards :-) thanks for all you too eager to change for the latest stuff types. Your the ones to blame for all these changes. Dont get me wrong some changes are good and needed but some are just not worth the hassle.
  • 5 0
 Rabid, u are spot on. Exactly what I thought.
First they created the 27.5 and noticed the flaws and now they come out with new amendments and standards to bring them closer to a 26. Why not just ride a 26? Problem solved. Lol
  • 4 0
 You know, we have this new thing, which isn't better, but it is closer to what you once had. Don't worry, in a few years time you can buy yet another update to get even closer to what you want.

Seriously. New Cranksets for this hub "standard"? Totally worth it....
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.098859
Mobile Version of Website