When Are New Standards Called For? - Pinkbike Poll

Feb 9, 2018
by Vernon Felton  
The Mob RUles

It’s been a few weeks since the Internet blew a gasket over the combination of SRAM’s announcement of their new DUB bottom bracket and crankset system and Knolly’s decision to bypass Boost 148 and go straight to 157 spacing, a la Pivot’s Super Boost Plus.

While neither DUB nor Knolly’s rear spacing can actually be said to be new standards, they (in particular DUB) touched a very raw nerve amongst many riders who wish the bike industry would just take a damn vacation already from cranking out new widgets that aren’t completely backwards compatible with existing components.

I’ve flogged this particular zombie horse a million times over, so I’ll keep this brief.

We’ve come to a point at which many consumers believe the bike industry is just making new shit up in order to:
(1) Obsolete the bikes consumers already own; and
(2) Force those same consumers to buy more product.

Plenty of engineers, on the other hand, will tell you that sooner or later you reach a point when you’ve squeezed all the minor improvements you can out of a particular widget and making the next real leap in performance necessarily requires creating a new widget that doesn’t bolt together with all the parts you already own. At some point, they contend, innovation simply requires that standards change.

So, here’s a question. What kind of performance gain actually merits making “old” parts obsolete? Or to put it another way, how much better does a widget have to get in order for you to stomach the hassles created by a new standard?

When Are New Standards Worth It?

What kind of performance gain actually merits making “old” parts obsolete? Or to put it another way, how much better does a widget have to get in order for you to stomach the hassles created by a new standard?




283 Comments

  • + 309
 To me DUB was not a change in standards, it’s a change in product. Product that’s compatible with all frames, not a standard that makes frames obsolete. The outrage was stupid in my view.
  • + 78
 The only part was marketing sticking with 28.99 which felt like an insult to consumers.
  • + 46
 It truely doesnt make sense why people were so offended by the DUB stuff, its compatible with everything except italian threaded bbs. People might just be hardwired to hate new stuff
  • + 71
 As I said elsewhere, ultimately, DUB doesn't really impact me or my ability to get parts for my bike or anything else, but we're just SO sick of SRAM's BS marketing and their push for standards for the sake of generating sales, that we've had enough, and calling it 28.99 instead of 29 almost seemed aimed at rubbing the consumer's nose in it all. Like they're saying "Look what we can get away with!"
  • + 18
 Its not dub itself though, everyone has stressed this. Needle that broke the camels back and all that.
  • - 1
 @xeren: is it any different than 31.8mm handlebars? Why not go to 32? It is a bit of a brag on srams part but I dont seem to mind, 11 speed was great, 12 speed is great, dub is just another thing.
  • + 11
 I'll bite from the devil's advocate side. DUB pisses me off because like their GXP interface, SRAM just couldn't help being different from the other established conventions around the industry. You can find a 24mm or often even a 30mm BB in BSA, press fit, etc., in just about every shop nowadays. DUB? Not so much. It'll take a while to be able to find these parts in shops, and even if it does spread quickly, LBS's will be stuck with an inventory of non-compatible 24mm BBs.
  • - 10
flag Tr011 (Feb 9, 2018 at 12:37) (Below Threshold)
 @acetasting1992: in recent history they have developed the xd driver, which allowed them to start with a 10t cog and made a nice tidy little system. They then came out with boost, which made 1x drivetrains work significantly better for both team red and blue. There isnt really anything to complain about with either, dub is for sram its not a whole industry shift.
  • + 10
 So why introduce 30mm PF 92 in the first place?
  • + 40
 They claim they introduced DUB to simply the existing options. Before DUB there were two SRAM spindles - 30mm and 24mm. DUB made it three. How's that simplifying?

They could have made DUB 30mm and TRULY simplified things. But that would mean less BB sales. Better yet, they could have finally given in and admitted shimano has a better system and just adapted it. THAT would have been real simplification. Frikin everybody uses 24mm spindles.
  • + 42
 For me, 28.99mm is useless when there is already 30mm. That 1.1mm difference makes just no sense. We're talking 1.1 freaking mm!!! Just go 30mm stop that marketing bullsh*t. I'm an engineer and I really like new stuff but that one is plain stupid. It clearly smells (read stink) marketing, not engineering.
  • + 4
 @zhendo: 24mm ≠ 24mm. There are different "size" 24mm BB/crank combos that sound like they should, but in fact do not work together.
  • + 84
 @Tr011: 31.8 is the metric conversion for 1.25 inches. That's just how the math worked out.

This is a matter of calling it 28.99 vs 29. You're fine telling me sram has a +/- 0.01mm tolerance? For reference, that's smaller than a white blood cell.

It's purely masturbatory marketing and I'm calling that shit out
  • + 18
 @Tr011: That's fine if SRAM wishes to isolate themselves from the industry. They can just isolate themselves right into irrelevancy.

The better approach is to make sure your products work with as many competitors products as possible. Has nobody learned anything from Google?
  • - 8
flag Tr011 (Feb 9, 2018 at 12:54) (Below Threshold)
 @TheRaven: so its srams fault that after market suppliers arent on the ball and releasing product in conjunction with sram?
  • + 9
 @woofer2609: SRAM did not introduce 30mm PF92 or sell this combination.
  • + 6
 TRUMP IS RIGHT ON THIS ONE www.pinkbike.com/photo/15585070
  • - 1
 @TheRaven: I followed your advice and tried to hammer my XTR crankset in a GXP bottom bracket, because both should be a 24 mm spindle system. Didn't work. Please tell me what I did wrong.
  • + 16
 The outrage was stupid but SRAM has no one to blame but themselves because they feed every little change into their giant marketing machine which then gets sold as the mega new latest greatest. If they would have just rolled this out as a small improvement like it is...then the shit show would not have occurred.
  • + 2
 @ckcost: Exactly
  • + 1
 @zhendo: But they will still need those 24mm BB's for all the cranks in the market. Its not like those will be obsolete.
  • - 4
flag iJak (Feb 9, 2018 at 13:34) (Below Threshold)
 I agree with this - don't know why people are outrage. This is not a replacement of something rendering the previous option obsolete. This is just something NEW added to the line and because it's new, its the latest and greatest in terms of weight. Yes 28.99 might sound silly but we as the biking community, the base line principle of any other sport, should just love the sport for what it is. This hate and outrage is really driven by consumerism which is fine, but to this particular case, it's JUST ANOTHER OPTION.

Burger = meat and bread...
Cheese Burger = meat bread and cheese.....ANOTHER OPTION...Y U MAD AT CHEESE BURGER....
Bacon Cheese burger = WTF......world will fall apart.
  • + 13
 @nots1: why did someone made a fkng GXP bottom bracket in the first place?! Why is there BB30 in MTB?! These are the only problems worth discussing AND adressing. The rest is crying over polishing a turd. Like debating Russian Politics, that is: Never ever admit any mistake, any wrong doing, even if it's as banal as spilling coffee - instead flood the airwaves with most outlandish explanations how you make everything better. I wish most industry came from Canada not US - because we need more of god damn SORRY
  • + 11
 Many of the recent changes were caused by SRAM so I think in general they deserve the outrage. Boost, Metric shock, Torque cap, XD
  • + 7
 Can’t agree more. The argument is: can’t you just stick with the crappy two sizes going forward instead of reducing manufacturing costs and future proofing by going to one crank spindle?

Seriously, changing the spindle size to one means that you can carry over your nice crank to your next bike regardless if it’s press fit or threaded in the future.

And to those that are still bent about boost, just buy a damn adapter and run your old wheels and get over it.

XD drivers got us to Eagle and got rid of a bad design that gets pitted with time anyhow. Boost got us 29ers that ride mo better. These changes add up. Bikes are way cooler than 5 years ago.

Some changes are going to suck and not last, remember when ISIS was known for a crank standard? But, without f*ck ups we won’t have success. If DUB bothers you, you should ask your DR. about Xanax.
  • + 8
 can we just get to the next mike vs mike, already?
  • - 9
flag WAKIdesigns (Feb 9, 2018 at 13:57) (Below Threshold)
 @whambat: ask your Dr about Xanax, yeah, great idea. I'll stop caring so much about everything. Like... bike standards or people behaving like a*sholes to me, or my mortgage or... sometimes I want to kill a lot of people but I feel I shouldn't. Or sometimes in my darkest moments I thought of crashing my plane full of those loud people, into a side of the mountain, but that would be horrible... But well... I don't care anymore...
  • + 8
 It's not the issue of fitting a bike frame, it's not compatible with all the other crank sets that SRAM has that's already in the market! It's just a way that SRAM is trying to monopolize OEM.
  • + 4
 @Tr011: 31.8 is just the conversion of 1.25 inches to metric rounded to the nearest tenth. 28.99 seems a little specific, as nobody without calipers could tell the difference. I wish they weren't phasing out 11 speed though. The gx cassettes were not that expensive, they were lighter, and I can't take advantage of the bigger cassette because I already have the chainring size maxed on my bike
  • + 9
 @drivereight: that may be the issue, but they just can't do it with their silly priced cassettes and XD drivers, then they doubled down with Eagle. First Shimano kicked their butt after releasing their own 11sp stuff, then companies like Praxis and Sunrace fkd them in Aftermarket by offering wide ranges in Shimano pricing. They can talk as much as they want about their wide range, money tends to talk wider. Also Shimano cranks like SLX are a laugh in the face of SRAM, almost half price of SRAMs according product. I did want X1 alloy cranks. I resigned though, 180Euro for X1 or 80 for SLX... hah... yeah, I can live without the fancy shmancies of spiderless design and buy myself pretentious pedals for the remaining money.
  • - 5
flag jaymac10 (Feb 9, 2018 at 15:07) (Below Threshold)
 @Klainmeister: What do the specific dimensions of a product have anything to do with being insulted? The only people who were insulted were the people dumb enough to think Sram came out with a new "standard", which they didn't.
  • + 4
 @nots1: I never said Sram introduced the 30mm pf 92. I know Shimano introduced pf92 for 24mm non stepped spindles, but I actually don't know who introduced 30mm pf92bb's...RaceFace? It was, however, adopted and spec'ed without due testing, which is not so good.
Is 30mm even necessary? I don't know, I doubt it for most riders. If you're worried about flex, start riding with stiffer soled shoes. This will make a much bigger difference.
  • + 3
 @Tr011: I'm with you on this one. It makes no sense? I think the outrage stems from them not having it yet. They just bought their new longer, lower, slacker, stiffer, boosted, eagle, 29er on carbon hoops...and now they gotta upgrade the BB! Consumerism!
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: don’t know why you got down voted. That was kinda funny, for you Smile
  • + 3
 @WAKIdesigns: I think the main reason that Shimano is so much cheaper is because of the grey marketed OEM parts that the European web shops get their hands on. SRAM has actively fought against this model as it is part of what is killing LBS's. I imagine that the price shock wouldn't be as massive if Shimano actually cared about the independent bike industry as opposed to the corporate side. I have ridden Shimano and SRAM and I personally like SRAM. I do think Shimano makes better brakes, but I haven't ridden the newest SRAM stuff out there yet.
  • + 2
 @nots1: GXP is 22mm in one end. But you knew that right?
  • + 13
 @oogens: It’s actually more ludicrous than +/-.01mm. In order to maintain 28.99mm, SRAM needs to be machining to a +/-.004mm tolerance, or .000157”.

Based strictly on SRAMs pricing, I can assure that those tolerances are not even close to being met. The fact that SRAM boldly claims that they are is just another slap in the face.
  • + 4
 @Tr011: I do hate everything new. My bike is rigid, my cellphone is the size of a briefcase, and my gasoline is leaded. deal with it.
  • + 5
 @lRaphl: that is the allowed tolerance between and "slip fit" and a "press fit" in CNC machining land. Its tight however still a "look what I can do" moment by SRAM. The whole video on metric shock when they said "imagine if you build a bike around our shock" clearly goes to show you SRAM and Specialized rule mountain biking and can do what they want. and we still by it. However I do feel what I call a "Cannondale" effect happening to SRAM soon where it does not matter how much it helps people will think they are making it just to be different and sales will tank.
  • + 6
 @WAKIdesigns: I'm sorry bottom brackets made you so upset
  • + 5
 @Tr011: No, it's SRAMs fault for introducing something for which after market suppliers have to release new products in order to be compatible. That what the whole point of my comment.

@nots1: Yeah I can tell you what you did wrong, you attempted to participate in a sport that is clearly completely over your head. Maybe try something simpler...like Tennis?
  • + 26
 @EricLanglais: But Shimano is cheaper at MSRP too. White/Grey/Black market has nothing to do with it. It's easy to see why Shimano's cheaper. They've had the same BB since 2006, their cranks are all alloy, their derailleurs are far simpler in design, their cassettes aren't CNC'ed from a single block of metal...etc. They keep it simple and stick with what works.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate SRAM going out on the leading edge and taking all the heat, but they could also learn alot from Shimano...i.e. don't fix what ain't broken. There are lots of things in MTB'ers lives that need improvement...crank spindles are not one of them.
  • + 4
 @whambat:
Are you saying you don’t remember that isis was a good thing? Like one of the major steps along the way that allowed mountain biking to progress. So you could catch big air without snapping B.B. axles off and tearing your lower leg apart?
  • + 0
 @TheRaven: x1000000 ^^^
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Sorry about that.
  • + 0
 @EricLanglais: as if Sram wasn’t pumping out hard the grey marketed OEMs. How do you think I am able to afford a Lyrik? What Shimano does to Sram drivetrains is what RS does to Fox. In European online shops, RS is just a nudge more expensive than XFusion, Suntour, Manitou and other pseudo cheap alternatives while Fox is priced along with Öhlins, Formula and Cane Creek
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: Eventually GXP and 30mm spindle crankset's won't be made, then that'll simplify SKU's. BB's would still be available for a while longer until demand for those takes a dive, then DUB will be the only system offered by Sram.
  • + 0
 @drivereight: What other crankset's that Sram make are compatible with each other?? GXP isn't compatible with BB30/PF30 without a conversion BB like Praxis. Pretty sure you cant fit a 30mm spindle anywhere near a GXP BB....
  • + 1
 .......
  • + 1
 @oogens: Maybe if the temperature is right.
  • + 2
 @oogens: I don't remember ever seeing Sram say what their tolerance was on the shaft diameter, only that the nominal shaft diameter was 28.99 mm. But for reference, a +/- 0.01 mm tolerance is really not that absurd in the machining world. I have some interference fit diameters in my job that require a +/- 0.008 mm tolerance, and that is on a diameter with a nominal size of around 500 mm. Achieving that tolerance from a turning process is difficult, but not impossible. When you get into precision grinding machines (which i am sure is what they use to finish their bearing race fit diameters) a +/- 0.01 mm tolerance is easy. I regularly order attribute gauges in that nominal size range with tolerances of +0.005 / -0 mm.

I do agree that they should have just called it 29 mm for marketing reasons.
  • - 3
 @xeren: 28.99 is a metric conversion from an imperial standard size. It’s not like they had a new custom size made up. Just like 25.4 or 31.8 are metric conversions from imperial sizes.
  • + 5
 @Willie1: what Imperial standard size would that be? 1 9/64" is close but not quite and hardly very "standard"
  • + 1
 @mrleach: You may have missed my post above, but in order to maintain 28.99mm their tollerence needs to be +/-.004mm, not +/-.01. That type of tollerence is silly given that this is a mass produced, low priced bicycle part we are talking about.

I could even understand SRAM calling it 28.9mm instead of 29mm, but it’s that extra .09mm SRAM threw in there that makes this standard so ridiculous.
  • + 9
 @TheRaven: yeah, it's hard to believe that it's "for us" when it involves any proprietary standards or system.

ISCG05 was a good start, and I thought the beginning of a new trend in cooperation between manufacturers. How disappointing that companies would rather make their own widgets to their own standards to keep consumers locked in a brand ecosystem.

Demo 8's have 135mm rear hubs to this day. Does anyone here feel like that makes their Demo slow? Does anyone hear about demos folding rear wheels like greeting cards every ten minutes? Probably not.
  • + 1
 @LoganKM1982: for DH bikes it makes little sense. Boost came up mainly because of plus. It has to do with chain clearance so it doesn't rub on 3.0 tyres. Then many plus rims are very wide so the spoke holes are offset. So wider flange makes the poor triangulation, little less poor. But well...
  • - 13
flag nots1 (Feb 10, 2018 at 12:07) (Below Threshold)
 @TheRaven: Little kid, I'm in my 28th season of riding mountain bikes this year. I bet you shit your pants back then when I started as much as you shit in your pants today because of a bottom bracket. But I acknowledge you beat me when it comes to being the greater keyboard hero.
  • - 12
flag nots1 (Feb 10, 2018 at 12:12) (Below Threshold)
 @gtrguy: Sure, was just joking to highlight that there is no "universal 24mm" spindle standard. You always bought BB/Crank systems, even back in the days of square taper bottom brackets, when some cranks required different spindle lengths than others to meet the same Q-factor. But the kids (@TheRaven) today think they know everything.
  • + 7
 @nots1: He has it on you when it comes to being polite and professional as well.
  • + 6
 @nots1: I was bombing hills in Austin tx going over 30mph with just lax helmet when I was 15. I love how you look at our generation as disregard because you are an old man. Quite funny and a very ignorant statement. Those knees will be done soon old man.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I will agree that many new standards are great options to have. Hub flange spacing, 12mm rear axles, head angles that aren't relics from a bygone era when professional road cyclists took over sponsored mtb racing, etc.

The application and marketing is fun to sift through though.

Are we having a polite discussion? Something must be seriously wrong, I'm panicking all of a sudden what do I do...WHAT DO I DO!!!! Uh, uh e-bikes need 26" wheels and all look way too much like sessions!!!! Also, if you wear a half shell and goggles you're definitely a cannibal, even if you don't know it yet!!!

Whew, that was close.
  • - 11
flag nots1 (Feb 10, 2018 at 12:31) (Below Threshold)
 @LoganKM1982: I was always under the impression that being professional implied knowing what one is talking about. I have yet to witness that between all the whining that is going on here from certain people.
  • - 7
flag nots1 (Feb 10, 2018 at 12:32) (Below Threshold)
 @Jpowell01: I prefer bombing down real mountains, but when hills are your thing, good for you.
  • + 8
 @nots1: were you as childish and clueless 28 years ago as you are today? Generally I'd expect some progress in all those years. Especially with something that your parents should have taught you when you were six - make a stupid comment, get a stupid reply.
  • - 11
flag nots1 (Feb 10, 2018 at 13:45) (Below Threshold)
 @TheRaven: Childish - I'd say yes, I still have as much fun riding bikes now as I had back as a kid. Maybe even more. Clueless, stupid comments - That's more your thing, so I leave it to you.
  • + 2
 @Tr011: bearcats 31.8mm is actually 1.25in
  • + 2
 @Tr011: 31.8 is the metric equivalent of 1.25 inches.
  • + 3
 @nots1: Having fun isn't childish. Your attitude is.

Anyway, i'm calling your bluff - school me...point out my "clueless comment" and set me straight.
  • + 2
 @Demoguy: Eventually, sure. But by that time SRAM will have introduced at least one (probably two) more new spindles so the cycle will start over again. Has SRAM gone even 5 years with ANY of their "innovations"?
  • + 1
 @whambat: "Seriously, changing the spindle size to one means that you can carry over your nice crank to your next bike regardless if it’s press fit or threaded in the future."

You'll need a new BB for the next bike anyway, so it's exactly the same as before!... There's no advantage,
  • + 3
 @hitechredneck: I like your train of thought! Hence why my next hard earned suspension fork will be a DVO and not a RS. It'll be on my Trek Slash.

And when I replace my rear shock.... it too will be a DVO... and not a RS or Fox.


Ive become increasingly irritable with anything with a SRAM logo on it. I do believe Im not the only one.
  • + 3
 @billreilly: Why would you need a new BB? You might, if your old one is shot...but what if you have a CK/Praxis/Wheels Mfg BB that doesn't die every season? Would be great to be able to keep that $100+ unit for a few years wouldn't it?

Furthermore, wouldn't it be nice, when you buy a new bike that comes with SRAM and you want Shimano, or vice versa, to not have to add $60-100 to the cost of the switch for a freakin bottom bracket to replace the perfectly good on that came on the bike? Or what if you like Specialized but prefer Shimano's cranksets because they last longer, are lighter, or whatever reason you may have? Wouldn't it be nice to not have to buy a freakin custom engineered adapter BB just because Specailized decided that all their customers should be stuck with SRAM?

Again, we already have plenty of things to spend our money on just keeping our bikes in rideable condition. We do not need this BS for something that really is very simple.
  • - 2
 @hitechredneck: trunnion and metric has made suspension better though, du bushings are pretty bad. Sram worked with several brands to bring metric and trunnion to the market, specialized and trek are the only big brands running proprietary suspension. It sounds like yoy are upset because the new and improved hardware doesnt work on older bikes.
  • + 1
 @Tr011: No not at all, I agree DU bushing are crap, trunnion mount system is a better mounting system. However the need to change size to metric and build your bike around our shock is a bit dumb. Also the arrogance of the statement of "imagine if they build a bike around our shock how good it would be" The only thing I could think of was DUH, make the bike engineers figure out how to make their bike work with SRAMs shock of course it is going to be good if a entire bike is build around how to make their shit work right. Im not upset at all that I cannot run SRAMs crap shocks on my current bikes.
  • + 0
 @TheRaven: what about going from shimano to literally anything else, I cant believe that when I upgraded to a xtr di2 derailleur that my trusty old sram x9 shifter didnt work with it. Wheels manufacturing makes tons of bbs that allow you to use your shimano crankset on a specialized bike or whatever else you might own.
  • - 1
 @hitechredneck: srams crap seems to be the winningest groupset on wc curcuits you should let those athletes know it sucks so they stop winning on it
  • + 3
 @Tr011: Yeah and I can't believe that when I went from riding cross country to downhill that I had to buy a different bike. Oh wait...no I remember, I wasn't surprised...cause i'm not that stupid.

Wheels manufacturing makes some awesome stuff. See my comment that you responded to re: how ridiculous it is that we need a company like that to exist.
  • - 1
 @gtrguy: 1 1/8” before machining.
  • + 1
 @Willie1: 1 1/8" is nearly .5mm smaller than 28.99mm
  • + 1
 @Tr011: Isn't this just an Imperial vs Metric thing?
  • + 1
 @billreilly: you need a new B.B., but your crank will work with a press fit or threaded cup. A new B.B. is 30-40 bucks. A new carbon crank is much much more expensive if you go from press fit to threaded, $3-400.
  • + 1
 @jflb: the spindle was durable, but I went through several B.B.s a season because they would never last. There was a point when I’d be lucky to have a B.B. last more than a month.
  • + 1
 @woofer2609: Sram didn't do a 30mm PF92 because they knew it was a bad idea. RF did that.. and look what happened
  • + 1
 @oogens:
Run-of-the-mill metal machining tolerances are ~0.025 mm. "Precision machining" tolerances are not well defined, but they are typically understood to start at 0.01 mm and go down from there, with 0.001 mm being possible.

White blood cells are pretty big. Two of them stacked on each other are thicker than a sheet of paper.
  • + 2
 @Tr011: 31.8 = 1.25"
It's a semi logical step from 25.4 (1") in the mishmash imperial/metric bike world.
28.99 is just a pisstake! Like 100th of a millimeter. Are their tolerances even that tight?
  • + 1
 @oogens:

White blood cell is much smaller than that.

Also, 1.01 is lots of room, for a seal or to make the assembly bigger.

CNC's can hold a .01 tolerance easily.
  • + 2
 @evolixsurf: white blood cells are around 12-20 microns, which is 0.012-0.02 mm

I'm not saying it's impossible to machine stuff to that tolerance, I'm doubtful that they would from a cost-benefit perspective in a sport where derailleur hangers are aligned with a 2 foot rod with a bit sticking out the side to rub against the wheel.

They say it was done for honesty (lolwut), but it seriously comes off as "buy our shit because it's so perfect that we're at 4 significant figures"
  • + 2
 @oogens: I think I just heard a mic drop.
  • + 2
 @Tr011: It's very different. A 31.8mm handlebar was not designed as a metric measurement. 31.8 is an inch and a quarter. All Handlebar related measurements are imperial. Stem clamps are either 22.2mm, 25.4mm or 31.8mm which is actually just the metric was of saying 7/8", 1" or 1 1/4". Only the 'new' 35mm is a true metric sizing.
  • + 1
 @Willie1: ha, yes, that very common imperial size of 1.14133858 inches
  • + 1
 @Tr011: 31.8mm is 1.25", dumb-dumb
  • + 1
 @biker-green: for crying out loud, I never said Sram created a 30mm pf92, but if you create the part (rf), or spec it on a bike, field test it first!
  • + 152
 My opinion is that the constantly shifting standards are a major reason that LBSs are failing. There is an IMPOSSIBLE array of parts to keep in stock these days. Most of the time, I won't even bother *trying* to see if my LBS has something, I just mail order it. If you don't have a huge warehouse and move a lot of product, how can you possibly keep parts for the 1 bazillion kinds of standards that we have to deal with?
  • + 40
 I agree 100%. The "industry" isn't doing its self any favors.
  • + 9
 @cmcrawfo: +1000000000000000000000
  • + 13
 Well, the auto neighborhood garage seems to get along just fine, servicing hundreds (thousands?) of different vehicles with continuous change, and little stock on hand, and getting the jobs done in a day or two...

I think what needs to change is the outdated distribution systems that the dealers depend on. To me, it seems way too slow, cumbersome and not set up well to serve the LBS (and ultimate consumer) needs.
  • + 13
 @sospeedy:it really comes down to economy of scale. that said, there several bicycle parts distributors (near you) who can deliver most product to the LBS in 24hrs.

.. just consider, if you drive a more exotic vehicle, or require specific performance parts... you are going to be waiting longer.
  • + 8
 @sospeedy: That's because LBS are expected to be nice and shiny like the Audi dealership but also have the parts availability of Lordco. That's two different businesses.
And Lordco can only exist with same day or next day delivery of parts from Vendors. When's that coming for the bike industry? We still have to do booking orders and sit on half a years worth of stock, just so we can get it.
  • + 20
 @sospeedy: In the UK (can't speak for other places), local garages work by having same day delivery of parts from places like Euro Car Parts who stock everything for all brands, you drop your car in, they decide what bits it needs and a chap in a van or on a moped is there within a couple of hours with the repair parts. That doesn't exist for an LBS as far as I'm aware as of yet.
  • + 16
 @nouseforaname: 100% agreed, but this is another area that SRAM are actually directly responsible for f**king up. They have gone "full lean" meaning that instead of stocking inventory themselves, everything is made to order (ordered either by OEMs or distributors). What this means is that they have pushed all their inventory load onto their own distributors, who have to order 3-6 months ahead of time, and are left frantically trying to project sales of both complete units and spare parts for yet another new product, so they go pushing their dealers for booking orders of stuff the dealers don't have data to realistically predict - the dealers are mostly quite small businesses who aren't data analysts either, so they order a small number that they know they can safely sell.

SRAM by contrast should have a very good capacity for statistical projection given that many of their products are made by the tens if not hundreds of thousands per year - yes there's a cost associated with holding inventory, but eliminating it entirely stands to benefit nobody except the most utterly risk averse accountant.

Then the distributors add up the booking orders and order say 100 of a unit, and they sell out quickly once riding season begins, dealers can't get any more until 6 months later (ie basically next season because it's already June), then the next year the distributors sit there going "well we sold 100 of that part last year, why don't we order 110 this year" because they didn't have the capability to actually sell all the units that they could have (which might have been 800), so the next year they under-order AGAIN.

The whole "lean manufacturing" thing sounds great until you inadvertently f**k the entire distribution chain and all your dealers and distributors in the process.
  • + 3
 @cmcrawfo: Agreed. I have always said that the mtb industry is it's own worst enemy.
  • + 6
 I also think it's also a way for big brands trying to hurt smaller brands, it's no big deal to trek or specialized to produce new molds and tooling every year to update to boost or 'metric' shocks or whatever else but smaller brands can't amortize stuff that quickly. People on this site obviously see through a lot of the BS but for someone who bikes but doesn't really follow the industry it's an easy sale to say something is the latest 'upgraded' standard that other bikes they are looking at don't have
  • + 6
 @Socket: You understand the predicament very well. For SRAM it's a cutting off the nose to spite the face sort of thing. The current LBS model is becoming increasingly nonviable, so when the LBS dries up and blows away, people will find other hobbies to take up instead. I've already seen it where I live.
  • + 3
 @mikealive: yeah it doesn't do anyone any favours. I understand the thinking and the desire to go full Toyota but the reality is that the MTB industry is not big enough or well funded enough for that to work at the level they are trying to do it, especially when spare parts are needed so frequently and there are so many of them that need to be stocked by companies that aren't SRAM or their direct subsidiaries. It's obviously not malicious, I don't think anyone at SRAM wants to harm their distribution chain, but it's happening regardless.
  • + 2
 The new dub cranks also require the lbs to get new tools since the old ones are incompatible.
  • + 2
 @nigelh: Incorrect. It uses the same spline.
  • + 2
 @sospeedy: not even a relevant comparison. The automotive industry is many hundreds of times larger than the high end bike industry.
  • + 3
 @sospeedy: Bad example since bikes are so simple that there's no reason to ever take it to a shop unless they have the parts already in stock vs the the two days it takes to order parts and fix it yourself. The only reason for a bike shop is the in-stock parts that can get you going again within an hour, so with so many stupid standards that make no difference in how bikes ride it's going to kill shops everywhere besides the busiest bike regions.
  • + 3
 @Socket: bravo sir!
  • + 1
 good point!!
  • + 3
 @sospeedy: This is a poor comparison. Those auto garages you speak of get their parts from local parts warehouses like NAPA, Auto Zone, etc. There's tons of these warehouses in every city. There's isn't a warehouse like this for LBS.
  • + 3
 @coop3422: Thanks...that's exactly my point. The distributers retain rights to serve the LBS but do a poor job IMO. Why is it that i can order a part on Jenson and have it in 22 hours (literally!), while when i go to the LBS and they call the distributer and are told it would be 30 days? I like to support the LBS but the reality is that they are handcuffed by a system that doesn't work for them anymore.
  • + 2
 @sospeedy: Exactly. I can order from Jenson or Art's, and the part is on my doorstep within 24 hours - and for $0 shipping. I'd like to go my LBS, but just imagine the wheels they would have to keep in stock in order to match the Jenson/mail order service ... 26", 27.5", 29", boost, non-boost, 135mm.... oh, and the wide array of rim widths to service plus and non-plus tires. And which freehub do you want? It's impossible for an LBS. It used to be we had 26" wheels with 135mm hubs. That was it - so an LBS *could* keep a stock of wheels.

I don't think we necessarily want to go back to the days of a single wheel size for everything - but it illustrates the problem that the uncontrolled proliferation of 'standards' has created for the LBS. And you're right, there is no good distributor model to alleviate this. So mildly mechanically competent consumers just order their parts and save a ton of time and some money.
  • + 3
 @pinhead907:
I end up stocking my shop or ordering parts off Jenson for customers since our distro channels suck so bad. SRAM & Shimano have both abandoned a ton of distros too so they are losing tons of business, and I'm trying to spread my business out so they stay above water. So ridiculous.
  • + 65
 Q: When Are New Standards Called For?
A: When sales start to dip.

Do I think improvements are necessary? Of course, we all do, few of us want to be riding a friction shifting, fully rigid, toe strapped, steep angled, fixed seatpost, bullmoose barred POS.

But before introducing a "standard" how about testing first before bringing it to market, and it better not try and fix something that isn't broken.

PF92 30mm BB doesn't have enough room for seals?
Why wasn't this sussed out in testing in a real world scenario first?

15mm thru axle?
Why not just go with the established 20mm that already existed?

The whole BB thing is such a sh!t show anyway. Few people I know complain about 24mm axles not being stiff enough, or how they hate their threaded BB.
Seriously, whoever thought up PF needs a high five. In the face. With a porcupine.

Why the hell do we have 15mm axle tapered steerer forks? If the answer is tapered= "stiffer" (which is the Holy Grail of Bikedom), then why wouldn't you make/keep the stiffer 20mm axle?
It's these types of shenanagigs that "grind my gears"

I'm going riding now (on my 26' wheeled, non tapered, threaded BB hardtail, of course...)
  • + 5
 The mantra simply is Innov... RESIZE OR DIE.
  • + 9
 Don't get me started on 15mm axles. I can live with many of the new standards and understand the benefits (even if they are too incremental), but the move from 20mm to 15mm front axle was purely a money-making scam dreamt up by someone (possibly a few people at Fox/RS) to sell more product. Still pisses me off now.
  • + 5
 @tremeer023: 15mm was conjured by Shimano and Fox. They wanted a thru axle for XC marathon crowd, the biggest group of MTBers out there. It was lighter and stiffer than 9mm QR and allowed for faster and simplier wheel replacement. Good causes after all. Fox got it right directly, while it took RS a few iterations of Maxle to finally get it right. 15mm was easier to market to XCers (lighter than 20mm - how much, irrelevant: lighter, lighter, LIGHTER!!!) and possibly allowed making fork/ axle interfaces with poorer tolerances. But they did fk up the spacing. Should have gone for 110 directly.
  • + 5
 @WAKIdesigns: maybe should have thought of going wider at the same time, but I always thought 20mm was lighter. It's a bigger hole so less material required right?
  • + 0
 @tremeer023: the 20mm axle itself may be lighter but the hub gets heavier. Off course theoretically - that is as long as you consider 15mm specific hubs. If you run Hope or CK it doesn't matter at all. But many 15mm specific hubs are up to 50g lighter than lightest 20mm offerings. I think it had to do mostly with selling thru axle idea to quasi roadies.
  • + 3
 @WAKIdesigns: it still blows my mind how RS couldn't manage to get the freakin axle working right... those things were an abomination.
  • + 1
 They use the same bearings. 15mm adds an extra axle
@WAKIdesigns:
  • + 1
 @fussylou: huh what? Which hubs? I assure you 15mm specific hubs use smaller bearings and smaller bodies. Even cheaper 15mm novatec and supersstar go at 120ish grams while hubs with exchangeable axle fittings like hope go at 160-250
  • + 0
 @jcav5: i think the 2015!Fox 36 was the last great axle system. Secure lock that’s easy and fast to use
  • + 2
 @tremeer023: It was Fox/Shimano.
  • + 48
 I don't want to come across as condescending to engineers at bike companies, but they are bikes. There are little to no regulations or industry standards, and they are very primitive. My area of expertise is automotive electrical, so let's look at that. Most of the electrical system of cars has been centered on 12v since the early 60s. There are many reasons to up the voltage these days, efficiency, smaller wires, but 12v is the standard, cars can be designed around it. Bosch, Marelli, Pektron, etc. all makes modules (as well as the OEMs) on 12v, not to mention all the fuses, connectors, etc. so to change you would need to show a MAJOR advantage in doing so to make such a shift. The next major standard is CAN bus, and later the OBD mandate, from the early 90s. CAN bus is very primitive compared to other communication systems developed in the last 3 decades (CAN bus was developed when the internet was barely a thing, you can think of CAN bus as a 56k modem vs the fiber we have today), yet to this day even the most advanced autonomous luxury vehicles use CAN architecture. Has it limited progress? Not really, there are cost saving elements that could come from other standards but only if the new standards were adopted on a large scale. If every manufacturer came up with their own communication protocol it would just be cost passed on to the consumer for no gain.

Funnily enough there was a metric tire size, very similar to the 26" to 650b difference, called Michelin TRX, it came on cars like the BMW 635csi and Ferrari 308. Of course it was a huge flop because at the end of the day there was no performance difference (just like 26 to 650b, sorry koolaid drinkers). I rambled on a bit here but here's the bottom line - we have 5000lb sedans that go from 0-60 in 2.3 seconds, drive themselves, connect to your phone and play your music, know when you usually leave for work so can warm/cool themselves to prepare for your desired temperature, all on 30 year old industry standards. Real innovation and creativity has brought us to this point, not arbitrarily changing hardware. If you were an engineer at an auto company and said "hey, I just figured out how to make the car 4% faster, but we have to change all the harnesses to 13.2ga wiring (12ga and 14ga will not work), also the connectors have to be 3% smaller so we'll need all new ones, we can just pass all the cost to the consumer" you would be out of a job. Somehow there are people building cars, rockets, and planes out there that aren't as picky and demanding as bicycle engineers, miraculously they have worked within these severe constraints for decades, I guess only the bicycle is so demanding a technology it requires a new standard every 2 months.
  • + 6
 This should have significantly more upvotes
  • + 1
 No lie about the TRX’s. I had a 635csi on them and swapped the wheels out straight away to be able to run normal tyres as they were dreadful. I keep seeing “concourse” cars, with TRX’s on the original alloys and just think, what an utter waste. If you can improve it, please do!
  • + 1
 And that is the problem, bike companies can pass this BS off on the consumer, car companies can't. Not many people would finance a race car, but buy an EWS winning bike? Doesn't seem to be a problem. If we wouldn't buy it, they wouldn't sell it. I'm sure the vast majority of pinkbike readers are riding a bike less than 5 years old (me included), how old is your car?
No one in the industry wants to get caught holding the hot potato. Yeti slept on larger wheel sizes then had to firesale their sb66s--one the top bikes from the era. The only thing to blame for this predicament is our own desires to be faster, farther, better.
  • + 37
 I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again: until they're actually standard, they're not Standards, they're Sizes.

It's all the nobbing around with half steps that I think is the real problem. 135 wasn't wide enough, sure, whatever, we had 150 hubs. Then 148 came along (because flange width) even though 150 hubs almost always had loads of dead space between flange and disc mounts (looking at you, Hope). And now we're going to 150/157 anyway for trail bikes now. Material science hasn't come on that much in the past few years, 150/157 spacing was possible ages ago on all bikes.
  • + 2
 Loads of lost space between flange and the disc mounts, well that is because Hope are much smarter than fkng Ibis and their retarded Super Boost. 150-157 spacing offsets the driveside flange providing better spoke triangulation of that drive side as a result building a stronger rear wheel. Now moving non driveside outwards is not exactly effective as it promotes imbalance in spoke tension between DS and NDS. So if you are as stupid as someone at Ibis, you are moving that flange all the fricking way to the disc brake mounts creating a rather shitty wheel that is worse off than 142x12, with overtensioned spoked on the DS and undertensioned spokes on NDS. What Hope did lately was they introduced the latest Pro 4 DH hub where they sacrificed the unnecessary for DH full width of the freehub body and moved the drive side flange outwards. Something that pretty much nobody thought of when 150x12 was conceived, until just few years back. You could see 135x12 6 gear wide DT hub on Sam Hills Demo back in 2010, but nobody got interested. And then you have all those twats claiming: Boost got as wide as possible to not make heels hit the frame. No, as Knolly has proven with 157 spacing on all of their bikes, that is pure bollocks. But Trek wouldn't be able to make nice clean lines on their chainstays following short rear trend.
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: Knolly hasn't actually sold a single 157mm hub bike so nothing has been proven at this point.
  • + 3
 @WAKIdesigns: Ibis super boost you say.

Ibis.

Waaaahhhhhh?
  • + 1
 Dont forget that Hope have now brought out the HB160 with a 130mm priority rear spacing.....
  • + 1
 Ibis needs to get its proprietaries straight.
  • + 1
 @jmd2drsrbtrrthn4: was it Pivot?! Did I just sht on Ibis undeservedly?
  • + 3
 @ntd14: The HB160 is its own thing though, that bike is designed as a whole package by Hope using sizes and measurements that make sense. The NDS chainstay was moved in and the hub narrowed to create a dishless wheel. As well, the DS hub flange was pushed over, taking up space that was saved using a custom small freehub body and cassette.

That entire bike was built in house to be the best possible bike, not to conform to standards.
  • + 25
 New standards must be a measurable forward step.
QR to 20mm, awesome (piss off 15mm)
135QR to 142x12, also awesome.
142x12 to 157x12 dishless spacing, excellent (piss off 148boost).
1 1/8th to tapered steerer, perfectly fine.
68/73mm BSA to any Press Fit? Piss off bike industry.
Taper/Isis/Octalink to 24mm hollow axle and external BB? Fantastic.
26in to 29in, awesome, eventually. 650b can f*ck off.
.
In the last several years too many new standards have come along that offer nothing to me as the end user, or in some cases a backward step. It's all well and good for marketing man telling me it's 30% stiffer and x-grams lighter each year, but if those claims were even half true bikes would weigh 12lbs and be able to survive re-entry from space by now.
  • + 1
 150/157 wouldn't be necessary if someone came up with 6sprocket wide freehub bodies earlier. Or picked up the idea from 2010 Spec Demo. But Spec doesn't have as good pen pal relationship with component makers as Trek has with Sram
  • + 3
 @WAKIdesigns: I need more than 6 gears to actually climb hills. 157x12 allows dishless spacing and full width 10/11/12 speed. Although I think Hope's 130x17 rear axle is genius use of a road hub for no dish mtb spacing. Can't see th erest of the industry taking them up on it though.
.
Of course Mr Millyard built a single sided 135mm external width dishless DH swingarm 12 years ago, but that was also attached to gearbox, which we should all be using by now.
  • - 2
 @Fix-the-Spade: I thought you meant 157 for DH.
  • + 11
 @WAKIdesigns: Nah, if I'm going to pick a standard, one standard for everything. You know, so it comes as standard.
  • + 23
 While I applaud SRAM for making all their cranks use the same/one size spindle AND the fact they will fit in all frames, the 28.99 sizing and all the logic to it is complete bullshit and SRAM 100% knows it is. 1mm (.5mm respective to radius) in no way provides noticeable performance in the bearings' life or bearing seals. This was done to block competitors like Race Face form being compatible with their BBs/Cranks...pretty transparent.

Boost (aka wider spaced flanges/148mm) ARE in fact a sturdier build. Do all riders need it? No. Does it help with other aspects of frame design and tire clearance? Yes. The BS thing with 148/Boost is the baby step with 142 first. The axle/frame slots in 142 are great. The industry should have just made the just to the wider and 142 slots at once. Less painful all around after the initial shock. I understand it's a bit more complex than that. However that is why the blogosphere went nuts on that one.

Press fit vs. threaded bb (and all the PF sizes) Yes, a larger diameter BB most press fits use gives room for larger/stronger tube and BB junctions as well as larger spindles. Fine. Just make them with an threaded BB at the larger diameter and call it a day. Every single frame maker knows the main reason it is done is for a cost savings move. Now if frames cost $100 retail, I understand the move. However, most 'high end' frames start at the very least $1500. saving $3 at that level and calling it a performance benefit is again...bullshit and we all know it.

With all that said above, I MUCH rather ride a modern bike that what I was riding in the mid 90's or even early 2000's. Modern bikes are better in every way.

Rant over, rubber side down guys!
[Reply]
  • + 15
 In most industries you hear the term "future proof". While I understand you cannot make a bike that doesn't require change for 30 years, you can certainly stop coming out with incremental, proprietary, non-adaptable, planned obsolescence alterations. These other industries almost certainly have engineers and they're able to do it to an extent.
  • + 1
 Nailed it^
  • + 18
 "Changing standards is only acceptable when there's a demonstrated benefit to the rider experience" CHECK.
  • + 15
 I'm pretty happy I don't have to ride rim brakes and 1.75" Tractor John's any more. Keep the evolution rolling!!!!
  • + 11
 The Problem with people talking about BBs is that there are no standards like everyone says. Every brand has several different spindles and specific BBs for their own stuff. How is SRAM making the leap to one single spindle a bad thing? It's going to mean when you buy a new eagle drivetrain for $1000 you can keep moving those cranks from bike to bike to bike whether it was press fit or threaded. You can't do that now.
  • + 8
 Stop with the logic, buddy!
  • + 6
 @endlessblockades: Oh shit good call, I completely spaced on the fact I was in an internet comment section. I'll rephrase, "Down with sram for making change! change is bad! Luddites forever!"
  • + 3
 There is one legitimate BB standard: Threaded.

If everybody would ignore everything else, boycott frame manufacturers who blow it with Press Fit BBs, ignore DUB, buy Shimano cranks and BB's, everything will fix itself and get back to the simpler, more reliable way things were.

We can make it back home again, I promise you. It will be a long journey, but the eventual comfort will be worth it.
  • + 1
 Really? how many changes has Sram made in the last ten years, like hubs or brakes or bb's or drivetrain? 14 speed is coming, I expect a new marketing BS package in 3 years or less.
  • + 13
 Nope I wish we were still downhilling on clunkers. All these fancy suspensions and "brakes" are making us soft.
  • + 12
 Hahaha, picture on point... Great choice Vernon
  • + 2
 +1 million. Agree 100%
  • + 10
 Not one mace among them. Pussies.
  • + 1
 Thanks for the giggle Smile
  • + 6
 Where's the "I'm fine with changing 'standards', as long as they don't force me into buying different and/or inferior products" option?

I've decided that I'm okay with DUB, and the outrage was largely overblown for what it is. Frame manufacturers aren't changing their BB shells, this product works with all existing frames. I am not being forced to buy new cranks and BB, but if I do it's another option that will work with my frame.

Boost spacing on the other hand killed my custom Chris King wheelset that I had for years as the latest bike I bought didn't have compatible frame or fork spacing. I'm on an inferior set of wheels now, and I'm not going to drop that much coin on a set of King hubs again unless the market settles down. But with 157mm rear spacing and 20mm Boost front spacing seemingly coming on strong, I don't know how long that will take.
  • + 5
 My list of the most stupid "standards":
1)Giant overdrive headset //OMG were they completly nuts?
2)Sram DU(m)B //explained in 9/10 PB comment sections
3)metric shock //might have been easier to multiply the old numbers by 25.4 and sell the old product
3)110x15 front
4)34.9 seatposts

Where are the days when you could come to your LBS and go home with new replacement stuff you needed without preordering. Seems like nowerdays you need to have two bikes if because otherwise you risk instantly unsolvable technicals.
  • + 5
 I like to think that the reason why i don't buy a set of expensive carbon wheels is because my they be obsolete in little time when in reality it is because i can't afford it. Still there are more standarts than i would even like to remember.
  • + 4
 I'm still riding steel (new as in, bought one week before boost was released) hardtails with QR rear axles and theaded bb's. I even have a 1 1/8th head tube on 2 of them. I wish I had issues with any thing that would make me curse 90's tech, but I have none. Even my 29er wheels don't give me fits running amuck on skinny flanges. I'm not excited about the day I switch, just hope it levels off, so it's not obsolete in a week....
  • + 4
 One standard I wouldn't mind seeing a change is with the air valves for inflating/deflating tires. Presta can bend easy and seizes up. Filling tires with 3.0 or bigger takes for ever. Schrader is doesn't fit most rims without drilling the hole bigger and tubeless valves are very uncommon. Just a thought.
  • + 4
 Tubeless Schrader valves can be had at almost any auto parts store. And cheap. Like 2 for $5.00. If you feel like getting reamed, Stan's sells them for a lot more...
  • + 4
 Agreed. Presta is one of the shittiest things on modern bikes. Too little air flow, fragile and prone to clogging.

And don’t get me started on forks that require fenders to be attached with zip ties. WTF are zip ties needed on $1000 forks? Ironically, that’s a standard. Mountain bike fenders all have to be mounted with zip ties.
  • + 2
 @dfiler:
presta is a road bike thing from the days of 19 mm external width rims where a 2 mm bigger hole was a big deal. This is one more old school road bike standard that needs to go away on mountain bikes. But the equally old school Schrader valves would be just fine. Now, where do I get a Schrader tube for my 27.5X2.3 winter tires or tubeless studded tires?

And, yes. fenders should be mounted with bolts with big backing plates, like my MX rides in the 1980's. But that means drilling and tapping a couple of holes and casting bosses into the lower fork crown. And forks should be mounted with either tapered roller or toroidal roller bearings, like the folks with engines use for their forks. Or like my 1982 Peugeot road bike? And while we are at it maybe we could use the same kind of bearings for bottom brackets?

It looks like someone finally is building DH forks with a good wheel mounting system. Like my Marzocchi forks in 1986? That was 30 years ago. The problem isn't new designs. The problem is crap designs. Particularly when there is a good design that is not patent protected.

The back and forth between road and MTB seems to do no good for either. Disc brakes with that tire contact patch? When it starts raining I slow down on my road bike, and I try and stay away from mud. And carbon rims on road bikes that require those disc brakes to have any brakes when it rains?

My first MTB had bolt down axles. Say what you want; they worked. Then someone thought the 1930's designed road bike QR was cool. So over it came. Until we got disc brakes that worked when they are wet.

Now the trendy roadies are leaving QR for through axles. Because if you don't tighten your QR correctly and you get the front wheel off the ground you might crash? And besides, the through axles are cool... I have QR on my disc brake tandem and have never had any issues.

I don't have an issue with vendor specific designs for a system. My new roadie has Campagnolo cranks, which require a Campag specific BB. But it fits just fine into a BSA threaded frame. So it is time to retire my 1982 French frame (which I bought new) and get on with life.

Also, for those of you who think SRAM stuff is too expensive, go build a Campagnolo Super Record road bike. They make SRAM look like bargain basement stuff. At least with Campag you get what you pay for, sort of. My 10,000 mile Campagnolo design alloy freehub is still in great shape, unlike what the Shimano design would look like at that age. The problems of the affluent in the first world.
  • + 1
 Stan's makes an awesome tubeless Schrader valve. Works much better than the Presta setups, it accepts the sealant faster, and the core doesn't gum up.
  • + 1
 @dfiler: I believe that new Mattoc has fender mounts
  • + 9
 26ers Rule !
  • + 3
 Maybe companies like Sram who also own Rock Shox would loose market dominance if we didn’t purchase their goods? They are an example of this changing of standards to keep selling shit that we can get parts for a few years down the road.
I like my Shimano and Fox. Simple, durable and lots of it for a good price and I can keep finding parts and service...
  • + 3
 Exactly, the problem is, that you usually don't get an option to pick components of your choice when buying a new bike. And I bet that 90% of components like forks shocks or cranks are sold on new bikes.
  • + 2
 I don‘t like the answering options. The gap between game changing and even a bit better is way to big and most people would settle in between I‘d say. On another note: f#ck boost and the people who invent bs arguments to support it, f#ck pressfit and especially f#ck 35mm bars. Before I‘ll be willing to ride those 35mm bars, hell is frozen. That shit makes me mad to the point where I wanna stick 800x35mm riser bars up the arses of the development and marketing team, that is responsible...
  • + 2
 I want new standards every 3 months! I have a hole in my soul that can only be filled by expensive, unnecessary items purchased on credit. As that hole gets filled, my peenus grows with it. Totally worth it!

/Sarcasm

The people I see on the trails having the most fun, and riding the best, are on what most people would consider antiques. Figure that out.

Apart from the suspension fork on my 27.5 wheeled carbon framed HT I notice very little difference compare to my 20yr old rigid 26er. Definitely not $3k + difference anyways...
  • + 2
 We're not stupid. Engineers like to improve things, and they'd change standards every single year if it meant they could make a better product. It's up to the industry heads to temper that and only introduce new standards when it's bound to make a massive difference in performance. It's a delicate balance. Without that balance, you damage the ability for riders to participate in the sport, damaging the long term viability and growth of the industry.
  • + 4
 Engineers like to do it right, the first time. Marketing and sales want incremental improvements so they can keep selling. Bikes are not that complicated, there is no reason that you can't get the stiffness you want out of component xyz when you design it the first time... it's not like OMG WE JUST DISCOVERED A NEW KIND OF ALUMINUM, NOW WE CAN SHAVE OFF .005mm FROM THIS PART.

The problem is this... BIG changes for SMALL improvements that no one can *really* feel. Changes that there is no good reason for not being incorporated into the original design.
  • + 1
 Yours is the best answer yet.
  • + 2
 "Plenty of engineers, on the other hand, will tell you that sooner or later you reach a point when you’ve squeezed all the minor improvements you can out of a particular widget and making the next real leap in performance necessarily requires creating a new widget that doesn’t bolt together with all the parts you already own"


People are pissed about the "Frequency" of the changes using incremental improvements, a common marketing technique used in many products especially technology.
  • + 2
 I think it's fine for things to change -- at a reasonable pace. We are at a point of change fatigue, it's just too much in too short of a time. The BB stuff has been just silly. No significant improvement from any of the wacky stuff they have tried, just a crutch while they figured out the whole carbon thing. I like what SRAM did with DUB, but they were part of the problem to begin with. The hub width thing is just poor foresight. Going from 135mm to 142mm really only gained us some minor stiffness. Then they realized they could go a teeny bit wider and squeeze some extra gears in. Duh. I love 1x, so I'm happy that came about, but they could have just gone to 150mm. It's only 7.5mm more each side over the old 135mm.

It would just be nice if someone in the bike industry would stand up and admit that they could have gotten similar performance gains without creating so many new "standards." We shouldn't even call them that.
  • + 3
 135 to 142 gained zero stiffness. All it was for was so that it was slightly easier to put your wheel in, which it isnt!. If you go back and look at the videos of it being introduced, the people pushing it even claim that its better because of how easy it is to put you wheel in www.pinkbike.com/news/12x142-explained.html. 142 was a much bigger joke than Boost, at least boost actually does something, even if it is small, and there were better options.
  • + 1
 I didn’t know it was all it was for what it was¿@ntd14:
  • + 3
 I don't want to see another new standard for at least 10 years. Bike companies need to focus on refining current products, and make them more reliable, affordable, and lighter.
  • + 2
 I ride a Ragley Marley from 2013. I have modified it so it's 1×10 and with a dropper post. It is absolutly outdated but somehow I'm so happy with it. I can not update it any more because of the new standards (it has 26 inch wheels and finding parts is becoming more and more difficult). But still it put a smile on my face everytime I ride it. I know my next bike is going to be something super classy and brand new with all the new standards. But for now it is just me and my outdated Ragley Marley from 2013 not giving a flying fork about new standards.
  • + 2
 If gearboxes become standard, what would you guys like to see as a rear axle standard? I would like to see a 134x20mm
This allows for the same 57mm flange to flange distance on most boost 148 hubs which is plenty stiff for all wheels. Also allows for 3,5mm pockets and an SS drive. Also give great heel clearance & you can thread through tight rutted trails.

If forks get a 20mm axle why wouldn't the rear wheel have the same? They both get abused the same way.

Comments?
  • + 7
 Forks have two skinny independent legs. The structure for a rear triangle is typically much more robust. It just doesn't need the extra stiffness.
  • + 0
 Boost. My gearbox bike have boost and ther are boost hubs with singelspeed to buy.
  • + 1
 I think you are on to something
  • + 0
 @TucsonDon: a rear 20mm axle would open new design possbilities

@mini : which bike? which hub?
  • + 0
 @heyburn: nikolai ion-16 gpi with industry nine hubs.

But i bett 142mm ss hubs like on the zerode will work amazing to.
  • + 1
 Heel clearance?
  • + 1
 (I think) didn't the hope concept bike go for 130mm equal flange width because they found that equal is more beneficial than wider an un'equal width ?
Definitely a good concept, I have the pro trials on my 4X'er with a 6 speed set up and the flange width is super wide and equal
  • + 1
 That makes so much sense. Thanks@mini:
  • + 1
 @nojzilla: ya by 57mm flange to flange I meant thet theyre symetrically spaced out 28.5mm from center. Its just the flange width itself on a boost hub works, thus taking that 57mm. But the symetrical bracing would make it stronger
  • + 2
 28.99mm mwahahah


They´re laughing at you. Laughing straight in to your face.

And its not the product manager, or the sales manager thats laughing this time - its the marketing guys. Marketing guys have mugged you all - and the best some of you can manage is talking about their machining tolerances. Yep, you fell for this one hook line and sinker.

24mm GXP works fine in PF92. This is the only real reason for them making 28.99, to fit a bigger axle in a PF92 frame. SRAM actually say this. A BB size that was never needed and badly thought out births an equally ridiculous new axle standard. And some of you openly here applauding this BS.

A little piece (more) of mountainbiking died this day.
  • + 2
 Maybe I'm way off but it seems like the bike industry has wanted 29 wheels for most uses for a while now but so many people were anti so they did 27.5 to move the wheel up a little bit and get most people over to that. And then the standards started changing and mostly they seem to be related to bigger wheels in some way. Now 27.5 has mostly taken over 26 and all these new 29ers are coming out including DH bikes. Will we see 27.5 get phased out for 29ers like 27.5 did to 26? Is that the ultimate standards change?
  • + 1
 I've always thought 27.5 was a heavier 26 and 29er, after weight was dropped, was a far superior size, for trail use at least. I did ride my 29er at Rays Indoor, expert jump lines, with zero issues. Remember when Giant all but phased out 29er's for 27.5? I did not like the first 29er's that came out back when, but now. After 2 or so years, I really like them. Rode my 26er twice last year and will likely bypass 27.5.
  • + 2
 I wish bike shops could have an easier time stocking all the new standards. Its insane for brands to have too many parts for small shops to have on hand. Brands really need to work on having these parts WAY MORE available for shops. In Canada it can be absolutely insane how long parts can take to get from anyone. Automotive shops can do it. so can the bike industry.
  • + 1
 Its really not that bad, try and stock the wheels manufacturing stuff they make things super easy
  • + 5
 the vast majority of the time, it's easier to order it yourself online... I have actually had shops tell me to do just that. The LBS is changing.
  • + 3
 I don't even bother with LBS any more, they don't stock much, and the stuff they do stock is crazy expensive. "We can order ____ for you"... yeah, so can I, AND it will show up at my door and be 75% cheaper
  • + 1
 @jcav5: thats the way it is here in VT also, but I recently to a trip to Nevada, and stopped in to All Mountain Cyclery . it was crazy they had all kinds of parts set up in displays, shocks, forks, droppers, pedals, bars, stems, hubs, rims . I didn't know what to do
  • + 1
 I'm really falling behind on these new standards. 135 bolt on rear axle, 110x20 thru axle front, 73mm threaded bb, 1.5inch head tube, chopped 9 speed cassette. And 26 inch wheels, of course. The only modernized pieces to my bike are a 785mm handlebar and dropper post. The only thing I'd change is to a 142mm thru axle in the back so my rear wheel doesn't keep working itself loose
  • + 1
 I can't answer this poll. Where is the option for "I’m okay with standards changing, but only when they introduce actual improvements in performance."

It doesn't need to be game changing but it does need to make a noticeable difference to something that actually needed improving. As other people have pointed out, making something stiffer that is already plenty stiff enough might look great as a marketable percentage on a sheet of dot-point improvements but it doesn't do stuff all for the customer.

If I read all the clever marketing and am still not sure exactly how a wonderful new 'standard' is going to improve my next ride then chances are it's just planned obsolescence bullshit.
  • + 1
 i don’t feel this is a bike problem. I see it with cars too, fancy plumbing fixtures, home appliances and even the windows on my house. Spare parts are either not available or have to be sourced at great cost in terms of time to track down a supplier with stock. See how many LBSs can service a Campy equipped road bike. Good luck with that in Canada.
  • + 1
 The only way you will get some semblance of standardisation is if the UCI put in place a more stingent set of class rules for mtb racing disciplines. I.e XC, DH, and enduro (which of course isn't UCI sanctioned) you will get a rush to create the best bike under the standard and the development will slow markedly at the standard boundary. You will get that are built outside the standard the same as with road bikes but you will but if you by a bike built within the race spec standards they could be made to have significant standardisation of sizing etc. The question is do you want to do that,as you will have issues like trying to introduce real innovations, like road bikers recently did getting disk brakes sanctioned.
  • + 1
 DUB makes a lot more sense than 35mm bars do. Boost in the rear is just stupid, in the front it seems fine but not really needed by most people I know. The new 157 makes sense, the old one from DH is just a lot of wasted space. Just wait until Shimano changes their hub driver again.... Ugh!
  • + 1
 Tomorrow …/…/… made another stupid decision and we going to be force feed with some on other crap like 21mm x boost or metric shocks with imperial fiting.
Super boost only solution is shitty quality hubs or Onyxrp
I’m still waiting for 29”x6” 212mm rear spacing with narrow Q-factor
And why majority of frames is for persons with T-rex syndrome?? I’d like to have some made in china high end boutique but they’re XL frames(468mm) reach shorter than some M frames(480mm) when I’m need L sized frame.
In addition, yeas some “mentally challenged persons” can wake up and make fatbike pike/34 fork
  • + 1
 what pisses me off is when a Bike manufacturer puts proprietary parts on a stock build, or designs a frame around an
'improved" standard. Everything about the bikes geometry is what I want but then Im stuck with components I dont like and limited to the options I can upgrade without spending a fortune or even upgrade period. Thats where I feel the weight of hub spacing, bottom brackets, rear shocks etc swinging from my nuts like tarzan having a bad day.

innovation, yes I get it, but is limiting the consumer really innovative? why not have people stoked on compatibility and saying how much they love your bike to others on the trail without the old "but I wish it had____" statement to follow
  • + 1
 I think the bike industry has it good. Look at cars or motorcycles, you can't just take another companies major part and bolt it into your car. You might say you can with wheels, but there are even more sizes available there too. Bikes have a large amount of support and compatibility available between tons of brands. You can still buy a full parts kit to outfit 10 year old frames if you want, I know because I just did it.
  • + 1
 It is funny. I recently upgraded from Shimano octalink to Truvativ Howitzer. Octalink has been good for the past thirteen years or so but the interface has developed so much play that it was giving me knee problems. Howitzer seems good, not a clue which diameter the axle has though. Ignorance is bliss I guess. It seems like if I'd know, I might get upset. Now that I don't know anyway, I just keep riding it for another decade and fully well accept that when the time has come, standards have changed anyway.
  • + 1
 They have not changed in bmx or snowboarding for 15 years and i haven’t had less fun because of it. I’m also more likely to buy new products for those sports knowing they will work with my old stuff and won’t be obsolete in a year.
  • + 1
 Camber profiles have certainly changed on snowboards over the last 15 years. Traditional Camber isn't the only choice anymore, and Rocker or Hybrid profiles are arguably more common, and many would agree, a benefit to the rider.
  • + 1
 Agree that new things have been introduced but it has not prohibited cross campatability in the ways bike standards have. Aside from Burton every binding works with every board and boot. Also, things are going back to full camber because aside from marketing purposes those boards do more things better. @mtb505:
  • + 1
 Not to stoke the fire, but I'm not seeing DUB as being game changing or any thing. I think the last big change that I saw that I was a big fan of was thru-axles. Boost seems to be pretty awesome too, but I am also a big fan of Cannondales Ai offset approach. What I would really like to see is one standardized seatpost size. I hated that I could use my old dropper post on my new frame because it was too big.
  • + 1
 As much as we moan gotta admit, we are used to this shit by now. Sure tech evolves but nowerdays, that new standard better be a Fkng BIG advantage to riding or massively simplify meching or the bike experience as a whole, otherwise FK IT. there's so many, TOO many new standards now. Every other month that it's a running joke in cycling.
But... (point of discussion) Ultimately this is/could harm the industry an lbs in the way that.. Personally I will wait out YEARS to see which of these standards sticks around to become the norm an which are forgotten, which means I'm keeping my hard earned £$€ or trawling the Bay for nearly new bargains on (only just) old tech/standards that are still offering very high performance but just don't fit the sellers new frame or current size whatever

Also as mentioned above, FK sram for being g the biggest culprits in this
  • + 1
 You have marketing guys , engineer's and designers getting paid every working day to think up the next new thing. Often that involves change. Bikes have reached a plateau of refinement. That's why most modern plastic endoro machines look like clones. Ironically the odd bikes now get our attention. The one gear up front is causing all this boost bs I still say 26 inch wheels are lighter stronger and turn faster. As for cranks I would prefer a standard for chain rings to interface with any crank. Four arm spiders work just fine.
  • + 1
 Personally, I don't find changes in "standards" impact me much as an end user. Parts wear out, frames break, new fully built bikes are always cheaper than building .... and I can still easily find all the parts I need to keep my 20 y/o hardtail rolling . I don't really get what everyone is complaining about? .. sure, it's nearly impossible to buy a wheel set for you current bike and expect it to work on your future bike... but hasnet that always been the case? unless you actually remember a time when every bike had a 110mm rear wheel spacing.
  • + 3
 "sure, it's nearly impossible to buy a wheel set for you current bike and expect it to work on your future bike... but hasnet that always been the case?"

yes that is the problem
  • + 0
 @rwb500: The point being, this is how things have always been. Its been like this longer than MTB has been a thing... longer than you have been alive. If you still want to ride around a 135 wheel spacing and 26" wheels, fill your boots. Walmart has piles of bikes who's standards have not changed for 20 yrs. You want performance MTB? this is it.
  • + 2
 @rwb500: How many parts can you swap over from your current car to your next car? Going to go out on a limb and guess ZERO. Meanwhile, I can still swap the vast majority of my parts between all my bikes with little effort.... so, what's your beef again?
  • + 2
 "unless you actually remember a time when every bike had a 110mm rear wheel spacing."
Yep
I'm That old! Big Grin
  • + 2
 @cmcrawfo: I've always seen it this way, being into dirt bikes, its not like I can have a extra wheel set for my honda then buy a ktm and expect them to fit, or even if I got a brand new honda chances are its completely redesigned . The only things with standards on dirt bikes are bars, tires,and some accessories.
  • + 5
 Stop changing standards every damn year Madder
  • + 6
 If they change every damn year.... are they standards?
  • + 1
 screw standards, not everybody can afford to buy a new fork or bike new sh*t every month whenever a new gay standard is made, all brands that make up the new standards just want you to buy more new stuff to make older bikes worth nothing.
  • + 1
 I think for some people the only way to feel like an expert is to pick apart and criticize anything and everything new. Especially if that person doesn't actually work in the bicycle industry, or works as a bike shop mechanic. Every bike shop mechanic is actually a top level mechanical engineer who's just doing the bike shop thing because it's sooooo much more fun and pays soooo much better than designing bikes and components. Kinda like all the wait staff in Hollywood are really actors and screenwriters.
  • + 1
 Engineering for engineering's sake often does not lead to better products. Yes, you need solid engineering, of course, but it should not be a means to an end. Can you imagine how differently Apple would have been if it had been Woz and not Steve Jobs leading the charge?
A lot of this is just snake oil and marketing. How come we had to move from the perfectly fine 20mm front axle to 15mm axles?? This logic would seem to contradict what they're saying about 157mm rear hubs!
  • + 3
 The real joke is the front boost 110x15 when there's 110x20 may years ago... 148 is not a bik joke.... 142 was!!! But if they go to 157 directly... better
  • + 1
 that is alot of comments.
BB and cranks i could careless about.

If the frame is made using an existing hub spacing, then i will get that hub for my preferred frame or fork, from the hundreds of midgrade, and five awesome hub mfg's that make all the sizes now.

i chose the hub, i chose the frame, i chose the fork, or i bought a complete and the argument is nil.
if i cant get the hub or want to use an old one, i am being cheap: DONT BUY THE NEW BIKE!
if i got the complete and cant use my old parts, i am being cheap: DONT BUY THE NEW BIKE!
the used market had become so effectively blown up (helped by the standards sure a bit) that used and old standard frames are everywhere for smoking deals, as are those parts: DONT BUY THE NEW BIKE!

i love the new bikes. sign me up for super boost forks. and buy my old CK hubs for 100 dollars. i have lots.
  • + 1
 Standards can and should change, but it's a problem if they preclude previously employed ones. For example, wider tires (better?) = wider stays (not better?) = wider Q-Factor (bad). You should be able to keep your preferred Q-Factor, for example, regardless of new standards. So the choice in frame/crank should still exist. We should be able to choose.
  • + 1
 I think @Fix-The-Spade made a great point when laying out the comment that made me realize that there is a difference between engineering and incremental improvements and I think the move from 26” to 29er to 650b and now we see a resurgence of 29ers. 650b was a BS solution for most riders that solved the problem of 29ers that can’t feel playful or nimble. 29er wheels weren’t the problem, it was frame geo, seat stay length and a bunch of other small incremental changes that drastically improved the ride of 29er wheels. In the meantime we created a whole new wheel size and sub-market for 5 years while the “engineers” figured it out.
  • + 1
 Here is a fact that people need to get their heads around. There is no standard. There has never been a standard. There have been trends in the industry for sure, threaded bb, threadless steerers, 3X, 2X etc. Some get put on almost every bike bike on the market it seems and they stick around for a while. This gives the appearance of standards but in fact the are not. Company to company, model to model differences in physical dimensions rather than overall concept are where the differences lay. When it comes to the dimensions of those components companies always have and always will (most likely) continue to offer so called upgrades to remain competitive in the market. No one is forcing you to purchase new "widgets". 1998 hard-tail rider who whoops your ass and mine, imagine what they could do on the latest shiz.
  • + 1
 This poll should have been a % increase in performance needed to justify a change. For me the number is 100% it has to be twice as good or it isn't worth making the change. If the engineers can't get to that level give them more Red Bull or Monster till they get it figured out.
  • + 1
 Need we only look at what's gone on with front axles over the last 5 years to realize the shit were being fed... Good ol 20mm thru axles the standard that was too heavy and wide then not too heavy and wide but still changed Good ol' 20mm thru-axles, the standard that was too heavy and wide, then not too heavy and wide, but still changed. -Bike Radar
  • + 1
 Option 1 for me... B/C I don't have to - and won't - buy but a fraction of what's out there. I'm good as long as all my motley widgetness still runs fun. Can't I still lust from afar as we did the smokey Ferrari/babe poster from the 80's? Time will come to trade-in/up and pine for the latest greatest. Have some wallet will power and just be glad companies care to keep pushin' ...dayumn!
  • + 1
 the last game changing standards i remember are 20mm front axles (over QR), 150x12 rear ends (over 135mm) and 1.5" taper forks... all of which were for strength and stiffness..ánd therefore safety which enabled riders to go bigger.

everything since has felt either unnecessary or just money grabbing imo
  • + 1
 I don’t think you parsed it out correctly. People are not against new standards, we are against constantly changing standards that really don’t make a substantial improvement, but yet require us to purchase new compenents whe upgrading frames. A few examples:

1) Bottom Brackets- One press in standard was plenty. Instead we have more than 4.
2) Boost- We could have gone straight to 157, which uses the 150 hubs already in existence and provides a substantial increase in wheel stiffness rather than the small one 148 provides. For the front, 20mm that is backwards compatible with the current 20 x 110.
3) Bar Clamps- 25.4 to 31.8 was great, 31.8 to 35, not so much and pretty useless, but yet requires new components.
  • + 2
 I'm no damn commie, but controlled obsolescence whether it be with product life, or new standards that forces people to buy new stuff is one of the major drawbacks of our current system of consumerism.
  • + 2
 Slow news week Vernon? ...God Dammit Pinkbike. You guy's are like f*cking Fox news with this billshit. This is literally the way 'Murca got trumped. #feedthetrolls
  • + 1
 Thanks for saying what I wanted to. You put it into words a lot more eloquently. xD
  • + 1
 "Standards" are created by industry working groups that collaborate for a beneficial reason. "Dub" is not a standard, but a marketing ploy. There is no benefit, except to SRAM's bottom line.
  • + 0
 To my knowledge, there are no "standards" regarding mountain bikes. There are a wide variety of products you can buy, but there's not regulatory body setting specifications for those products. Changes in the products are driven by innovation/marketing/whatever per the producer. Getting mad at a company for evolving their product doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
  • + 1
 Since I'm not a fan of SRAM, I couldn't care less what screwball new 'standard' they brought out with/for their cranks.
I'm too busy lighting the torches over all the new hub 'standards'
  • + 1
 standardisation. great while it lasted but mtb's are so diverse in design now ,one cap doesn’t fit all .
incremental improvement just shows how good even a couple of year old bikes are
  • + 2
 I suspect that no one would give a damn if standards changed all the time, just so long as people can still get parts for their CURRENT BIKE!
  • + 1
 Pretty sure the internet didn’t ‘Blow a Gasket’ about this. In fact nobody gives a damn apart from Vernon Felton who constantly bitches about it just for something to write about on pinkbike. FOH
  • + 0
 DUB has simplified the standard. Why is everyone so up in arms over this.

ITS VERY SIMPLE, 1 CRANK FITS BOTH BB30 and GXP

Example:
you have a BB30 frame that you cracked or upgraded. New bike is GXP. you NO longer have to buy a new set of cranks to suit your new frame. you just need to change your bottom bracket.

Damn I would choose replacing the Bottom Bracket any day over having to buy a new set of cranks.

AND GUESS WHAT IT FITS YOUR CURRENT BIKE!!!!!!

SO HOW IS IT A NEW STANDARD!!!!!!!
  • + 3
 Because you don't understand the difference between frame-bb interface and bb-cranks interface. Stupid.
  • + 0
 @IluvRIDING: I don't think you understand.
1 SET OF CRANKS THAT FITS ALL FRAME BB STANDARDS.
SIMPLE SIMPLE A BIT LIKE YOU.....
  • + 1
 Both my bikes are now 10+ years old and I don't see myself buying a new one until I know a bike will be able to be maintained affordably for a few years. Just because its new now doesn't mean it will stay in style.
  • + 2
 I want to try the t47 threaded bb with outboard bearings from Chris King. The 157 superboost of bottom brackets.....
  • + 1
 T47 is one of the few reasonable new standards. It provides threaded cups, big bearings, and compatibility with virtually any modern crank. Drawbacks are it's expensive, bulky and maybe a bit heavy.
  • + 0
 Don't like it, don't buy it. Simplicity. I don't like Sram brakes, I don't buy them. I don't like foam grips, I don't buy them. I don't like fanny packs, I don't buy them. I don't like beets, I don't buy them.
  • + 1
 In the humble words of Bon Jovi; The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Is there really that much difference going on?
  • + 1
 I find it more annoying when the new components require a new tool to service. There is no reason for it. Then trying to purchase the new tool can be a nightmare.
  • + 2
 How about a poll on when it's ok to have yet another PB article on new standards?
  • + 1
 Vernon is just testing the waters here, he’s an insider and knows that some ridiculous shite is on the horizon, likely to be announced at sea otter
  • + 1
 Boost 148 has been around long enough. It's time for some newer axle standards that work better with the latest 28.25 inch wheelsets
  • + 1
 I'd like a 18.3mm axle please. Just to be somewhere in between 15mm and 20mm. Thank you!
  • + 1
 Why everyone bitching about standards? Look at the car's wheel, disk Tyre combo and so on...

Buy a bike, ride shit out of it, buy new one;
  • + 1
 boost 148- shitty little money making iteration on the way to 157 where everyone will end up.
  • + 2
 Until 161.899.
  • - 2
 Change is hard.. always is, always will be. But, CHANGE is one thing in life you can count on. The way we deal with those changes largely determines how happy we are; If we are prepared, then it's no big deal. Change is coming... are you shreddy ?
  • + 1
 My Knolly Endo is non-boost, threaded BB and 27.5 wheels. I feel so oldschool.
  • + 1
 I would not be surprised in new rear axel goes from 12mm to 15mm, do you hear me Super Boost Plus!!
  • + 1
 Not with a 10-11 tooth cog
  • + 1
 20mm to 15mm will save... 10g!? holy sh*t! I think I'll just go and bin my 20mm forks right now! (Or just have a piss)
  • + 1
 Just STOP calling them "STANDARDS" and everything will be ok
  • + 1
 When are they necessary? Every two weeks.
  • + 1
 meh, DUB. I'm just gonna stay in 2005, thats it.
  • + 1
 Ffs, quit calling them standards. They’re options.
  • + 1
 3 from 4 mean the same result for marketing rat
  • + 0
 I’d like to take a second to review the words on this poll:

Game changing + axle width.


Said nobody ever.
  • + 1
 Trunnion seems like a good idea. Discuss.
  • + 1
 I don't buy it until I think it's worth it, works for me.
  • + 1
 29+ is the new MEGASTANDARD!
  • + 1
 Nice one VerFel.
  • + 1
 Read:

woofer2609
  • + 0
 More click bait.. damn
  • - 2
 The more standards the better, give us more choice!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2018. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.147179
Mobile Version of Website