MRP Boost Adapter Kit for DT Swiss Wheels

Feb 3, 2017 at 13:30
by Richard Cunningham  
Most of us have a spare set of wheels laying around, but now that nearly every new mountain bike has the wider Boost hub spacing, those hoops probably won't fit your present bike. If your wheels are built with DT Swiss 240s or 350 hubs, then you can salvage the front wheel with MRP's Better Boost Adapter kit—a Boost conversion kit that includes the correct end-caps to space 100-millimeter front hubs to 110 millimeters. Also included are six-hole spacers with the necessary hardware to re-position the rotors. Kits are priced from $44.95 to $49.95 USD. Sadly, there is no Better Boost kit for the more-expensive rear wheel—yet.
The official MRP press release follows below:

MRP Better Boost Adapter

MRP Better Boost Adapter Kits

Designed for converting compatible DT-Swiss 15x100mm hubs to 15x110mm Boost standard, the new Better Boost Adapter Kits allow you to keep your existing 15x100mm front wheel as you upgrade to a new Boost 15x110mm fork.

What makes them better?

There are other conversion kits on the market, but ours is the best. One competing kit consists of two loose 5mm axle spacers that are a pain to install and are easily lost during wheel removal. Another provides you with just one end-cap and requires that you re-dish your wheel to re-center it in your fork. The Better Boost Adapter Kit consists of two precisely machined end caps and a rotor spacer (and requisite bolts), and it requires NO DISHING.

Better Boost Adapter


Which Hubs are Compatible?

There are currently two Better Boost Adapter Kits available:
• Better Boost Adapter Kit for DT-Swiss 350 15x100mm 6-bolt front hubs
• Better Boost Adapter Kit for DT-Swiss 240s "Fifteen" 15x100 6-bolt front hubs

Note: Better Boost adapter kits are not compatible with QR or 20mm hubs, nor are they compatible with those featuring a Shimano Centerlock brake mount. Kits are not suitable for use with Rock Shox RS-1.

Kit Includes two endcaps, rotor-spacer, and XL T25 rotor bolts
US MSRP $44.95 - 49.95
Contact: MSRP




Author Info:
RichardCunningham avatar

Member since Mar 23, 2011
974 articles

157 Comments
  • 79 4
 What is the purpose of boost for front wheels again?
  • 14 13
 Wider tires?
  • 56 4
 Make you spend money. It's a bussiness, what you expect?
  • 61 2
 Help to feed starving bike manufacturer's children.
  • 49 18
 Stiffer, stronger wheel. Boost front hub has the flanges 10mm further apart so you get better bracing angle from the spokes, increasing wheels stiffness and strength.
  • 140 7
 Things I've NEVER heard on the trail "this ride would be so much better if my front wheel was stiffer!"
  • 21 16
 @NoahColorado: do you prefer them to be flaccid?
  • 23 27
flag deeeight (Feb 3, 2017 at 17:44) (Below Threshold)
 Wider hub flanges which lead to stiffer wheels which steer / track better.
  • 120 11
 @SCLuke: Nice recital of the marketing blurb, you have a wider fork crown, bridge and hub axle with boost, all of this will allow for more flex when forces are exerted through the wheel, as well as being heavier. Stiffer wheel, flexier forks, very flexy tyre!... If you want stiffness run 20mm axles and 26" wheels with a dh casing. Boosts' sole purpose is to accommodate +plus size wheels, its marketed as a band-aid for allowing shorter chainstays for 29rs and helping to stiffen flexy wagon wheels, but its pure marketing hype.
I'm all for a new standard if it becomes the ONLY standard for ALL mtb's, but Boost is really a band aid for a tyre 'standard' ahem.. Width, that nobody wants...
  • 21 3
 @ctd07: Amen.
  • 2 2
 @NoahColorado: Side to side stiffness I think, not bump wise.
  • 9 6
 @ctd07: The hate is strong with this one. I agree there is tons of marketing bs out there, and it's quite unfortunate, but rear boost spacing does in fact make it possible for manufactures to shorten up the chainstays without loosing tire clearance, even for "regular" width tires.

You also can't deny that boost spacing stiffens up 29 wheels. That info might get used a lot in marketing but at least it's true info so idk if you can classify it as marketing hype or say the sole purpose of boost is for +size tires.

I agree with your comment on fork crowns being less stiff with front boost spacing.
  • 9 2
 @zirkman: Boost rear, regular fork!! Seems like it would be the best of both worlds.
  • 40 1
 Imagine if we came up with a 110 standard that used a 5mm larger diameter axle! Imagine the extra stiffness and strength we would get from that at a minimal weight gain if any! 110x20. How rad and problem solving would that be.
  • 10 0
 @atrokz: Haha, can you imagine that! What an amazing idea that would be at such a small weight penalty if any, making it bolt up would increase stiffness massively too....

@zirkman: It depends on the design but yeh, a fair few companies do have super short chainstays on 29rs using standard axle widths though, as for the increased stiffness, for the sake of 1mm either side they could have just increased flange spacing and used standard dh spacing or the 157mm (dh + 3.5mm dropout slots) at a pesky 4.5mm burden of width, that said I do frequently narrowly avoid smashing into rocks and trees by margins of less than 4.5mm, so thank goodness for boost, our saviour! ????
  • 9 1
 @deeeight: just like the old 20mm x 110 axle does then
  • 1 2
 @Crankmt: But they're NOT, are they?
  • 4 3
 Never understood the tapered headtube reasoning. Talking about reducing flex when you've got stanchions, sliders and seals on your forks lol yeah righto
  • 14 2
 who remembers 150mm dh spacing in the rear? didnt that work jsut fine, i guess not as now we have a pile of new standards.

the front end was always fine (until the push for bendy 15mm axles for barely any weight saving came around) and if you wanted more tyre clearance, stiffer rear end why didnt manufacturers just use the pre-existing standard?

oh yeah to make money...
  • 5 0
 Equal flange spacing is more important to a strong stiff wheel than wider, wide and equal even better
  • 2 1
 Haha yes please adapt my wheels and sell me a new fork so I can keep flaccid wheels and then have a flaccid fork too!
  • 4 0
 @ctd07: mic drop
  • 5 0
 @atrokz: Your spot on what a load of shit this boost bollox is.
  • 11 0
 If it's super short chain stays you're after, just use smaller wheels, my 26" bike has super short chain stays, super stiff rear end, and really stiff wheels too! How modern is that?
  • 2 0
 I would like to see a comparison between BOOST FRONT 15mm axles and wheels compared to NON BOOST 20 mm axles and the same wheels.
I get 148 mm on the rear, but the 110 standard up front seems a bit unjustified, if stiffness is the argument (not tire size)
  • 7 2
 @mark3:

Except it didn't. 20 x110 dropout hubs use the same flange spacing and disc rotor offset as 100mm dropout hubs. The simply increased the length of the hub end caps. If you fitted a rotor spacer and different end caps for a 15mm axle to a 20mm hub you would duplicate what this mrp kit does.

The fundamental difference is that boost hubs have a minimum specification for flange offsets that must be met whereas other existing dropiut / axle spacing standards did not, because it was developed primarily to increase the lateral stiffness of 29er / 700c wheels.
  • 7 1
 So basically, if boost has any advantage over non-boost, it is gone with this hub conversion. At least you get to use your old hubs, but you won't get the advantages boost would be getting you.

If the whole point of boost would be getting the spokes under a better angle, it would be much more effective to get taller flanges, maybe a taller rim even. Or now that rims got wider, use rims with offset drilling and cross the spokes (so the spokes from the left hub flange go to the right hand drills in the rims). All much more effective and easier than boost (if you'd actually use proper boost hubs, that is).

That said, if the bike frame of my dreams has boost hub (or evo6) spacing then so be it. I guess this is the way people ended up with 100x15 front axles, press fit bb, 27.5" rims and wheels etc. Not because it was a conscious choice and/or preference over the old standard, but just because it was part of the package.
  • 2 0
 @ctd07: STICKY note this for every boost product that comes next
  • 4 0
 @vinay:

Correct.This MRP kit is simply to allow you to re-use your 20mm axle wheels with specific hubs, in boost dropout forks. You don't get any of the benefits of boost hub specs.

The problem with taller flanges is they weigh more (as they need to be stronger/stiffer themselves) than a longer hub shell center does to spread the existing size flanges further apart.

Most of the standards folks complain "well why didn't they use THIS existing one" only became standards in the first place because some manufacturer with market clout adopted it first, and then dared their competitors not to follow suit. The 20x110 hub standard, and the IS disc offset standards were developed by Rockshox. The axle for the boxxer fork, and the disc mount/offset standards which put the rotors where they need to be from the hub center line because of the disc brake designs they bought from Amp Research. The front hubs used the same exact rotor offset and the rear hub bolt circle for all international standard 6 bolt rotors was copied from the rear amp disc rotors (which while being a 3-bolt rotor, are the same circle...so you can use amp rear rotors on IS 6 bolt rear hubs). Every major fork manufacturer then copied Rockshox for DH forks... and the same with every major disc brake manufacter at the time also did the same for the 6-bolt rotors, and the inline 51mm spacing caliper mounting standard.
  • 6 0
 @zirkman:

And what it does for 29er wheels it also does for 650B and 26er wheels. Realistically...the move to wider hub flanges should have been done 15 years ago at least... when disc brakes became the standard for all high end mountain bikes. Instead the industry kept plodding along with the same inferior hub dimensions and disc rotor offsets. Its also why as more cogs were added to the rear cassette, the spacing between them kept shrinking (and thus they became more finicky to keep the shifter/derailleur adjusted properly). Instead of just fixing the root of the problem...widen the flange and axle spacing, and make it possible to use a longer freehub body...we got stuff like SRAM's ESP/1:1 ratio derailleurs...and later shimano's Dyna-Sys derailleurs and now SRAM's Exact ratio for 10/11 speed stuff, and so forth. We've been trapped into the same physical size limit for the width of the freehub/cassette since Shimano went to 8 speed (in 1992 with XTR for mountain bikes, and a couple years earlier with Dura Ace for road).
  • 1 0
 It's for people with OCD
  • 2 0
 So we can all pretend 20mm never existed.
  • 2 0
 Hah, didn't realize I was going to open a can of worms with that question, I genuinely didn't know. But, uh, thanks for clearing it up for me?
  • 1 0
 @NoahColorado: Actually i've been thinking exactly that a lot lately with my Arch EX front wheel.
  • 1 0
 @ctd07: THIS. Boost was a band aid, when there was already another option in 157 around. When Pivot did their Switchblade 157 and called it "Super Boost Plus" it was all very tongue in cheek....they felt 157 was the proper solution to the stiffness issue.
  • 1 0
 @ctd07: and @atrokz 20x110 does not have a wider spoke flange than 15x100. you get stiffness from the axle but no increase in wheel stiffness. I agree there have been band-aids upon band-aids in this industry. Why was 15x100 even a thing when 20x110 existed. or before that when they made 20x110 why didn't they widen the brake mount so the spoke flanges could be wider creating the best possible situation of a stronger wheel and stiffer axle. Oh crap, now we're going to have 20x110 boost, sorry guys.
  • 1 0
 @SCLuke: well aware. The few mm increase in flange spacing is pretty negligible in reality, and I'd be willing to put together a 8020 jig to illustrate this in reality vs fea (which id like to see how it's done taking into account the spoke assembly) using indicators and actual movement if someone wants to provide the wheels. Stiffness from the 5mm increase in diameter, and the more solid clamping of this axle are of greater concern to me than the stiffness of the wheel itself by a minor margin. The obvious solution to boost would have been 20x110 with a wider flange spacing, which you illustrate perfectly. haha
  • 1 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: it still exists on the forks that require the most stiffness.....
  • 1 0
 @atrokz: Forks that require the most stiffness? That would be all of them.
  • 1 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: incorrect. you don't want the stiffest fork in the world to race XC. Forks are designed with flex in order to tame chatter and prevent them from braking. The cycling discipline that requires the most stiffness, is DH (and inherently free-ride where they use DH equipment), and in this discipline, teams continue to tweek the stiffness of their wheels thanks to carbon fiber rims, and these wheels run on 20x110 standard which is narrower flange spacing than boost 15x110. Think about that for a moment: some of the fastest racers in the world, add more flex to their wheels, to make up for ultra stiff rims and aid in compliance (traction) at speed. If people actually think they need stiffer wheels than these pros, well I don't know what to say to those people. it's easy to get sold on "moar = better" but in reality the 'best' solution is always more nuanced, is a stack up of the entire assembly and it's components, and as we are shown by racing (it's more honest than the marketing and design teams because facts are exposed), not always what we are told.

TL: DR: all forks are designed to flex, depending on disciple is what determines how much.
  • 2 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: fwiw boost in the rear makes more sense than on the fork, for which stiffness hasn't been as much of an issue. it's why most companies are running standard front/boost rear, to take advantage of the stiffness where it could be used (rear wheel, most of the weight and energy for most riders) whereas a front wheel is already pretty stiff when running newer wheels/forks that are already quite stiff. Enve has a decent writeup on it. iirc it's not equally spaced at any rate, which is what it should have chased vs 'moar = better'. equal tension is better than just wider, and would result in a better handling/tracking wheel than just wider.
  • 3 0
 @atrokz: A fork that flexes will make chatter worse as it will move back and forth like a tuning fork over bumps, that applies to any bike with a fork from a rigid road bike to Moto GP. In a telescopic fork you don't want flex, period. Flex causes binding, reduces the effectiveness of the seals and increases bushing wear. Filtering out the chatter is the job of the damper, front tyre, wheel, bar and grips.
.
As you noted pro teams tweak spoke tension to adjust wheel flex, they don't start fitting light crowns and axles to make the fork flex. I find 15x110 a really strange direction to go in from the get go, making the wheel stiffer but giving the fork no more strength to cope with the extra load, it's almost as bad as the fashion for making the crown lighter and lighter until they all turned into creaking messes a couple of years ago. 20mm is a better solution, it gives a stronger and stiffer connection between the fork lowers, but leaves the wheel alone. It was better when 15x100 came along and it's still better now.
  • 2 0
 @atrokz: While I'm ranting, 20x110 with an offset brake mount would have been better than all three current standards. Move the brake posts 5mm out and allow for symmetrical flange width on the hub. Sell a post adapter with 5mm inboard offset for use with old style 20x110 hub or pack a 5mm disc spacer in with the fork like the MRP kit. Although IIRC Marzocchi hold a patent for something similar, which might be why it never happened elsewhere.
  • 3 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: amount of lateral movement is inherently designed into most modern suspension forks, including moto GP. it is also designed into landing gear that suspends tens of thousands of tons when landing (my industry). Binding would need to be an excessive amount, which would be a bad design. Remember the old Z1 forks, or even any 9mm fork and how much they flexed? Did the forks bind? Nope, because it would have to be a lot to bind. You need stiffness, but you also need some dampening characteristics in order to prevent it from becoming too stiff, thus leading to it causing chatter. if you don't believe me, feel free to email Fox, Sram, DVO, or any suspension designer to talk about it. They will echo the belief that some movement is required, laterally, in order to help tune out vibration (Formula created the IFT for this exact reason, because forks flex laterally). it's not to say we want noodles in all directions, but rather a tuned amount of movement under load to provide some energy dissipation. It's also illustrated with 35mm bars, which most people stopped running, because they were too stiff. I agree that there's limits in both directions, there always is, and it's never 'moar flex' or 'no flex' but rather a minuscule amount of movement. it's really minor, but should serve to illustrate how the stiffest forks on the market (DH) use the old standard because 20mmx110 is significantly siffer for torsion than a 15x110
  • 1 0
 @Fix-the-Spade: yea, that would have be THE solution, and could have carried over to DH as well. Why they didn't? I guess we will have to wait until the next DH standard to find out..... hahaha.
  • 2 0
 while it's motoGP, and about chassis tuning, this article illustrates the approach taken to incorporate 'flex' into a design. motodna.net/flex-or-not-flex

patent for lateral suspension: www.google.com/patents/US7490843 "However, the compromise of a stiffer front end is the appearance of chatter, particularly during turns. Severe leaning angles typically result from motorcycles negotiating these turns and produce conditions conducive to chatter. When the motorcycle is leaning, the tire's contact patch shifts from the center to side, but the forces from the road are in the vertical direction. Upon hitting little bumps, the vertical force transfers onto the motorcycle mostly laterally. The inability of stiff forks to flex in the lateral direction causes the bumps and imperfections of the road surface to lift up the vehicle, as it is unable to absorb damping."

and www.insidemotorcycles.com/blogs/item/400-controlling-flex-in-motogp.html


good reads, pertains to our sport as well.
  • 2 0
 The other item missing is from the older 20x110 standard is surface area of the contact between the hub and the fork. Currently it's really small. This would improve the stiffness as well however it would make the fork lower larger. Still if you were going to make all these changes why not also look at that then you would have 20x110 Boost with a larger flange interface for the fork for a stronger wheel and a stiffer connection to the fork with a 20mm axle, Do that and it could make some of the upside down forks that were too flexy stiff enough.
  • 1 0
 @SCLuke: totally! I hope this is an area looked at when the inevitable comes up and the DH standard is replaced. making it larger, and similar to the engagement on 15mm, would be a large increase in torsional stiffness, which is what we want and define as 'tracking' (fork twisting- the kind of flex we don't want, vs lateral flex where we want a bit of give for traction).
  • 1 0
 So if I understand correctly, stiffness up front is probably sufficient for most of us, no need for boost there. In the rear it makes sense but then again bigger wheels make less sense over there. So basically if we go for 27.5" in the front, 26" and stick to old standard hubs, we'll be fine Smile .

Of course there was room for wider flange spacing on 20x110 hubs. It is just that many companies made hubs which were convertible between 9x100 (qr) and 20x110 so flange spacing and rotor position was fixed. And in these cases, the bearing spacing is also fixed. Indeed I never got why they did it like that. If you lace up a wheel for a fork with a 20x110 axle, you would never use it in a 9x100 qr fork. Maybe that's what triggered the shift to 15x100. The way 20x110 was executed didn't give any advantages. As for making the fork stiffer for torsion, I'm not sure either. The round axle isn't great for that. The hexagonal axle interface Manitou uses must be better, though I don't have any experience with those. Sure larger diameter helps to a lesser extend as well, but then again why not go right up to 30mm (didn't Foes use that) or 25mm (Specialized Enduro someyear)? I think the dual arch approach of Magura and DVO is going to help more against torsion.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: believe it or not, the extra 5mm gives a very large increase in stiffness. doubling the radius gives a 4 fold increase in elastic section modulus whereas tube thickness only increases it by a fraction. I forget the exact formula (without grabbing my handbook) but iirc 20mm is 20% stiffer than 5mm.
  • 2 0
 @atrokz: Well yeah, I don't question the fact that increasing the diameter of the axle increases the bending and torsion stiffness. To the third power even if I recall correctly (when leaving the tube wall thickness constant). I just think that the round clamping interface between fork and axle isn't great for transfering that torque between the fork lowers. The hexagonal interface Manitou uses (or the octagonal interface Magura seems to be working on now with their USD forks) does a better job there. But what you want is that the fork lowers remain aligned. That is, that they don't twist and that not one bends forwards and the other one backwards. Of course if they do that, they also rotate around the lateral axis with respect to each other so a torsionally stiff axle that actually transfers that torque could help there. But I believe bending of the axle is more important. And sure bending stiffness (due to the larger diameter) is important, but the way it is supported matters just as much. Deflection is to the fourth power of length, so a 10% longer axle without any real benefit (wider flange and bearing spacing) for a standard 20x110 axle over a 15x100 axle gives you nearly 50% more deflection. Also part of how it is supported is the torsion of the fork lowers around the vertical axis. Fork lowers that do allow for this, allow the axle to bend in a U shape (effectively making the axle appear twice as long) compared to fork lowers that don't torque. These require the axle to bend in an S shape. I think this is why fork arches got deeper (front to back) and not necessarily so high. To not allow the fork lowers to torque with respect to each other (around the vertical axis, that is). The Magura forks (2007 onwards) and the DVO stanchion guard with the dual arch do an even better job there. It may be a patent that keeps other companies from doing the same. Increasing stanchion diameter of course helps as well but as you mention, it also takes away the (arguably not so bad) simultaneous fore and aft deflection of both legs. Cannondale would actually be in the position to tune fore-aft and lateral stiffness of their Lefty fork by replacing that square stanchion by a rectangular one.

It is hard to discuss this matter without the use of graphics so I hope you understand what I'm aiming at. Considering your background in aerospace tech I assume you at least are familiar with the concepts I discuss here though of course you could still question whether it applies to suspension forks the way I illustrate it here.

Where are you working? A friend of mine did her graduation project at Avcorp in Vancouver, helping them make their production line more lean. She definitely liked the pace (and she doesn't even ride mountainbikes). Another friend did it at Boeing in Seattle (design of a wing part for their Dreamliner) so they could meet up every now and then.
  • 2 0
 @vinay: totally! A splined or similar interface would remove a lot of twisting flex imo but would raise cost a bit. I had a sherman back in the day and it had little twisting flex for such a pinner fork. it would help though and reduce twisting. And yea, it's hard over text, esp in this forum format.

I work for a landing gear mfg, as a manufacturing engineer. prior was mfg eng for a naval defense contractor and prior to that I was a tool and die maker in aerospace machining, so can't name places here but it's been a good run. I've heard good things about boeing out there, one of our temp engineers got a job out there and seemed to like it a lot.
  • 39 2
 20x110
  • 15 1
 That will be the new 'Ultra-Boost' standard in 2019.
  • 5 0
 @wallheater: Well that is good because I'm riding the future standard roght now.
  • 3 1
 @Smallbright: No way man. I'm riding that too but it is old. That 2019 ultra boost uses slanted end caps. Just because.
  • 8 0
 Anyone gonna make something so I can salvage my Chris King hubs? If not think I'm stuck turning them into wind chimes.....
  • 1 0
 Ditto! Hopefully soon.
  • 4 0
 @NomadNinja: just use the ebay spacer kits and be careful not to lose them when removing the wheel.

If your not racing and dont need to fix punctures in a hurry who cares, they will work exactly the same.
  • 1 0
 @Racer951: do you have them from experience? I was thinking that's the only way to reuse the king hubs.
  • 2 1
 Nope, they're worthless now. I'll give you $100 shipped ????
  • 1 0
 @krisrayner: I'll pay you $100 to take these obsolete pieces of metal. Razz I hope they last me 10 more years
  • 2 0
 @tonggi: Not for Chris King hubs but I use a ebay spacer kit for a rear wheel I have in a boost frame - a spacer each side of the axle and a 6mm rotor spacer and I am able to use my otherwise ready for the bin wheels for $20.

It would only ever be an issue if you removed the wheel a lot as it can be a little fiddly to put the last spacer in, aside from that there is not much that can go wrong.
  • 1 0
 I tried one of those eBay spacer kits on my 29" I9 wheelset to try them on my Hightower. They felt great.

As other have noted careful not to loose the spacers when you pull the through axle out. Not a great solution for me as these wheels are for my XC bike and installing/removing the disc spacer isn't something I want to do all the time.

The kits are worth the money while you contemplate which Boost wheelset to build / purchase at a more natural wheel upgrade timing.
  • 1 0
 I hear the Chris king hubs make great saltNpepper shakers!
  • 7 2
 the main problem with all these new standards is they are not just new standards, they slowly phase out old stuff. its forcing perfectly good things to go obsolete in disguise. its literally just marketing tactics and you can tell that it is as its so much harder to get the older stuff these days.

if manufactureres continued to make the old standards as readilly available as the new ones then that would be a good move, it gives them the money from the idiots who must alwasy have the absolute "best" stuff that all the top riders use and it also lets the guys with 12 year old frames like me keep my bike running
  • 1 0
 Slowly phasing out the old stuff is how technology moves forward in lots of areas since the industrial age began centuries ago. As to perfectly good. Thats debatable. Perfectly adequate perhaps but if we always settled for adequate then we would still be using cantilever brakes, short travel suspension, and 24 speed drivetrains.
  • 2 0
 @deeeight:
It may be how technology has moved forward, but the 20x110 is just so much stiffer and stronger, I do not know a single person who would give up 20 grams in order to not feel more stable and secure. Sure, you may be making a stronger wheel with boost, but when have you seen Bender having any issues with his set up? Also, if the twisted world of psychology has taught me anything, it is that if you are willing to sell an idea, just go for the tiniest positive margin you have in that favour and go nuts with it. Boost makes a stronger wheel.... and a weaker axle and fork. The 1x12 is also a negative solution to a non-existing problem. By adding two huge cogs in the back you also add extra chain, which is equal to a substantial weight penalty. Also, the dérailleur is almost at rim height. It is so much simple to just add a very small cog in the front and not deal with the hassle and price tags of a 1x12 system.
  • 1 0
 @FrEeZa:

The 20mm axle is stiffer which helps the fork yes, but doesn't at all help how stiff/strong the actual wheel is as far as the spokes go, and as long as we're all riding wheels with laced spokes, then that's where improvements need to be focused first.

Never use Josh Bender as a base for any comparison unless its how to hurt ones self by bravely hucking stuff you lack the equipment and skill to actually land successfully. Every huck he's famous for on videos only got him noticed because the bike/fork BROKE when he landed, or he couldn't handle the ride out and pogo'ed off the bike.
  • 3 0
 @deeeight:
How does exchanging a 20mm axle for a 15mm one fix the problem of a not strong enough wheel? Surely the hubs could be improved upon without having to scrap the entire concept. The rear Boost baffles me even more, as I have never seen a 78mm BB without at least 1 spacer on each side for a better chain line, given that that is the only problem that the 150/157 hubs were facing. The 150 was inherently made just for strength, right? Hell, Dave the man Weagle himself said that Boost was a load of crack as well.
  • 1 0
 @FrEeZa:

Dave Weagle only said that because he didn't think to "invent" it first.

There's no such thing as a 78mm BB.

You're confusing what the parts of the wheel actually contribute in terms of overall strength of the wheel. Most of a wheel strength comes from the spokes. Remember again that boost hubs were designed first and foremost for 29ers, which don't use 20mm axle anything except for the rare handful of World Cup Enduro/DH 29er attempts by teams like Trek, Specialized, and possibly Lenz.

150/157 hubs again shared the same problem as 142 hubs. They're all designed around the same flange spacing and disc rotor position as 135mm were. There are very few hub makers who used the extra available real estate to widen the spoke flanges on 150 hubs.
  • 1 0
 @deeeight:
The Hope hubs are spaced as a 135/142, my hub flanges are as wide as possible. Big companies tend to do a half ass job. I ran a 150mm Division hub that was with flanges wider apart than the Evo II, my current NOX hub is also wider. I was mistaken with the 78 BB width, I meant a 73mm with at least 1 spacer on both sides, making it basically a 78mm. Also, if a Boost 148 can fit a 73mm BB, why cant a 150mm rear hub not fit a 73 BB with a 1mm spacer on each side? Boost may have been created for 29", but you cannot buy a strong freeride 26" or 27.5 fork with a 20mm axle. For my DJ bike I can only buy a DJ1 and Circus in a 20mm variant at an affordable price. For Freeride, the choice is even harder, RS make no decent fork for FR, MZ have no 66 any more and Manitou do not offer anything, FOX is just over priced with the 36.
  • 1 0
 @FrEeZa:

I have said MANY times now that "with few exceptions" most hub manufacturers never took advantage of the extra real estate afforded by wider dropout spacing of existing standards to actually widen the hub flanges. And even those few that have, they're still limited by where the disc rotor has to be, and the freehub body has to be, with how far they can move the spoke flanges.

I happen to build wheels... I have a nice database of hub dimensions as a result, for when calculating spoke lengths, and among them are the numbers for Hope Evo Pro II hubs. 53mm of spacing for the front flanges and 50mm in the rear on paper sounds good. But I have other hubs from other makers with greater spacing than Hope. A set of Novatec's I built had 58mm of flange spacing in front and 54.5 in the back. SRAM X.0 Hub shells in all their non-boost axle spacings (including 20x110) are 56mm of flange spacing in front, and 54.75mm in the rear for 135QR/142 hubs. Of all the non-boost disc hubs I have, the widest flange spacing belongs to an asian brand called Circus Monkey with 59mm in front and 55mm in the rear.

To put that in perspective, a set of boost specific Hope Evo Pro II hubs have 58mm of flange spacing in front and 57mm in the back and SRAM's X.0 Boost hubs are 66mm in front and 60.75mm in the rear. In other words... Hope really isn't a hub maker that falls into the "few exceptions" group for taking advantage of the available real estate in either the existing or boost standards. X0 DH rear hubs have 69.75mm between the flanges but wouldn't work in frames with the existing 73mm shell width because the chain line would be too far out of whack.

150/157 hubs are generally designed for frames with 83mm BB shell widths, not 73mm because the chain line of the hub is further outboard. The 73mm shell's chainline is designed for the existing 135 rear hub spacing (142 hubs are identical to 135 except for the extra axle length used by the clamping thru-axle dropouts). Boost compatible frames don't just have 148mm dropout spacing, but also require cranks with the chainline shifted about 3mm outboard to match the re-positioned freehub body to maintain a proper chainline. The "fudge it" method for folks not wishing to buy new cranks, but who are already riding their bikes as 1x drivetrains, is to place the chainring on the outer position of the crank spider tabs, not the inner position, or buy a new spider if you happen to own a crank which they have be changed.

Trek, SRAM and other manufacturers (whether its component manufacturers or bike/frame manufacturers) don't have a problem with boost rear hubs also needing new cranks because they KNOW quite well that the majority of consumers don't custom build their new bikes using existing used parts, and they're not particularly concerned about the small minority that do. For every person who complains on a forum about how they refuse to adopt a new "standard" because none of their existing parts fit, they'll be fifty who have no such qualms. Their only concern is with moving the technology base of the industry forwards, and those who are mature and can see the big picture will follow along with that move and those who aren't, will complain about it.

The vast majority of consumers get their new bikes complete, in bike stores, and thus will get their boost frame, boost compatible cranks, boost fork, and boost hubs all together. And the majority of people who take the custom build approach, are doing so because they have the money to do so, and also equally have no qualms about needing specific new parts. So really the complaining comes down to an even smaller minority who only have importance to the decisions of the bike industry, in their own imaginations. Which the complainers on pink bike for example, learned during the rise of 650B wheels to where they've now almost totally eclipsed 26ers except for a handful of freestyle/gravity/trials disciplines that really don't matter to 99.9% of the worlds cyclists. A couple thousand votes against 650B on this site did exactly what to stop Trek, Specialized, Giant and others from going whole hog with 650B ?! The answer is somewhere better zip and F all.
  • 4 0
 A new optimized conversion in 2018 will reportedly shed weight, add stiffness, and remind you that whatever you're riding now is undoubtedly inferior. Checks all the boxes for me, as most people will be spending thousands for new frames and forks yearly (as a minimum) and re-use those carbon wheels they got fleeced into buying. 12℅ lighter, 20℅ stiffer than the stiffness of last year's noticeably stiff, but not quite completely stiff thing we stiffened last year to stiffen things up.

I also put spray foam in my thru axles to dampen vibrations while maintaining stiffness and improve ride quality. Try it, it works.
  • 6 2
 This garbage, while they may force people to buy their pretend new standard products, it's certainly forced me to keep each bike for several years now. Also,as far as I can see there is a noticeable lack of proper mountain bike journalism and amateur content, it's just nonsense marketing.
  • 4 0
 Chris King need to come up with a boost adapter kit. Those hubs are just too damn expensive to replace. It also seems shitty to think about replacing hubs that are designed to last for the sake of a new frame. I'm not a big standards fretter typically, but the boost thing made things a lot more complicated when looking to swap a frame.
  • 6 0
 The adapters look cool, but hasn't a non boost wheel been pretty durable over the last few decades. Just saying
  • 8 5
 Profile are still being jerks and not releasing any adaptors, nor are they responding to my many inquiries about when they will. I Spent close to $600 on my hubs from you Profile. Show some love to your loyal customers, well once loyal anyway.. you make everything in house get us some freakn adapters already geez...
  • 6 0
 Try calling them. They respond pretty quick that way, I have their hubs as well.
  • 3 0
 Call them last time I spoke with them they were in the process of getting them built.
  • 3 0
 110mm spacing has been around a long time for 20mm thru axle... some marketing geek discovered 15mm thru axle with the existing 110mm spacing should be called "boost"... in theory, it's just marketing bullshit. The actual new rear spacing aka "boost" does have a significantly stiffer rear wheel with the new physical width of the shell. These boost kits are just a band aid for a broken wallet and still feel like you're riding a 135mm shell.
  • 2 0
 110 mm dropout spacing has been around since the boxxer and dho forks were first made by rock shox, but the spacing was for tire clearance only. It didnt actually make for stronger wheels because they copied the flange spacing and disc rotor position from 100mm spacing hubs. With.few exceptions, of all the many hub makers to have done both 100 and 110mm front hubs the only differences have been the axle diameter and length of the hub end caps.
  • 2 0
 Now that I have a new hardtail and fox fork with boost spacing to the fleet I've dabbled a bit for a while I trying to search for alternatives. I bought the eBay spacers that are from California. They suck. Please don't try them. Too much play. You don't want that in the front wheel let alone rear. You can feel it click rocking the wheel side to side. I also found out Hope has there own in house adapters for the evo2. After that,seems like these MRP are what's left. I chose to just lace up New from scratch. The industry won!
  • 7 2
 The adapter kit cost damn near the same as the street price of a new DT Swiss 350 front hub. Too expensive.
  • 3 0
 So boost for stifness but get rid of 20mm axle, 38mm-40mm stanctions (bomber 66 and totem forks). LAME!!!!! All of my bikes already have 150mm in the rear, standard from over 10 years ago.
  • 1 0
 Looks like the hub on my Glory, that I've been riding for 2 years now Big Grin .....
  • 1 0
 @FrEeZa: The Pivot one significantly increase the flange widths, and has room for something larger than an 8 speed DH cassette Smile
  • 2 0
 @Bustacrimes:
My hub has flanges to exactly where the rotor bolts up, not like the fake stuff Hope is making. I run a 9 speed cassette, I use three gears anyway ✌️
  • 2 0
 @FrEeZa: all good Smile
  • 1 0
 Why don't make a boost adapter like the american classic?, that center the spoke zone to obtain almost the same spoke tension in the booth sides and don't need a adapter for the rotor.
  • 1 0
 Its mentioned in the paragraph under the question.... "why are these better?"

To center the spokes requires someone skilled in wheel building, to re-dish the wheel and thats likely to cost most folks if they lack the skills themselves another $20 or more. Also once re-dished the wheel is only usable in a boost compatible fork. To restore it to use in a regular 15 x 100 spacing fork means removing the adapter and re-dishing the wheel again. With the mrp kit, you just remove the rotor spacer and swap back to the stock end caps. The type of consumer who buys this type of kit likely owns many bikes and lots of spare parts, wheels, forks, etc.
  • 1 0
 Wolftooth has a conversion I believe for DT Swiss rears
www.wolftoothcomponents.com/collections/wheels-and-hubs/products/boostinator
  • 3 0
 A solution to a problem created to sell more shit nobody wants
  • 2 0
 That is so true, it's also scary once someone else says/writes it. Are we that stupid?
  • 2 0
 I got set of 3 mm rear boost spacers at mtbtools.com that work find
  • 1 0
 Mine too. Well made, reasonably priced, available. Not as sexy as those anodized MRP spacers but just as effective.
  • 2 0
 Wish I would have known about this before getting Boostinator and having my wheel re-dished!
  • 1 0
 It looks good.but,they only want to make you spend your money.it's just a bussiness.
  • 2 0
 Yeah we all have a spare set of wheela sitting around with dt hubs.
  • 3 0
 69x420
  • 1 0
 I thought having boost was to have a new spec wheelsetbthat has a wider flange for a stronger wheelset
  • 2 0
 Boost = Unnecessary for SR Wink
  • 1 0
 Kit for center-lock hubs coming soon?
  • 1 0
 And Hope Pro II evo (please and thank you)
  • 1 0
 @bvd453: you can't run a rotor spacer on a centerlock wheel, so they'd to do an 6-bolt adapter that includes a spacer.
  • 6 0
 Yes. We have a kit forthcoming with these end caps and a caliper adapter (rather than a rotor spacer). This kit will only work with 6" post mounts. Your rotor will stay in the same place. Make sense?
  • 1 0
 @PHeller: Yes but you can space the caliper over,with IS mount anyways.
  • 1 0
 @PHeller: Hope doesn't make centerlock. I just want the same kit for Hope 6 bolt hubs.
  • 4 0
 @bvd453: it's a possibility. We're considering models for Stan's, I9, and Hope.
  • 1 0
 @NoahColorado: stoked to hear a 240 CL kit is coming. Not that I need right now but nice regardless.
  • 1 0
 @NoahColorado: So this would be half the equation for Rear PM 6" CL rotors too?
  • 1 0
 @NoahColorado: Stan's Neo kit?
  • 1 0
 @NoahColorado: Any possibility of a conversion kit for 142+ to Boost?

All of us with last generation Spec. mountain bikes have that problem.

I have a cool set of carbon Roval Trail 142+ wheels sitting unused and unloved in my office because they will not fit my new Pivot which is Boost...
  • 2 0
 @willycpc: Roval make a conversion kit already, get in touch with a Spec dealer
  • 1 0
 @bvd453: The boostinator kits are already available for Hope Pro II/4 hubs:

www.wolftoothcomponents.com/products/boostinator
  • 1 1
 @NoahColorado: Yes make this for I9!
  • 1 0
 Any spacers made for Mavic wheels?
  • 1 0
 is there anthing for CK hubs?
  • 3 2
 What about one for the rear?
  • 2 0
 my thoughts exactly. Ive had to pass up on a few frames because I dont want to buy a new rear wheel
  • 3 0
 wolf tooth components does for DT 240/350, Hope 2evo/4 and for White Industries MI6/WXR rear hubs. Check their web site.
  • 2 1
 Generic ebay spacer kit - $20, job done.
  • 3 2
 Just grind off the excess 1mm on each side of the frame and put a 150mm rear wheel. Then simply send an envelope to SRAM with a photo of the unicorn and a huge printed out middle finger and a packet of lube...for their pleasure. Smile
  • 1 0
 @FrEeZa: I like that plan
  • 2 0
 @FrEeZa: Or just fit the 150mm wheel, the frame will easily flex 1mm each side :-) - Still send the envelope to SRAM though.
  • 5 4
 Looks like a copy of Wolftooth.
  • 7 2
 They just told you why they are different. The Wolf Tooth adapters require a redish on DT Swiss hubs. I surmise that Wolftooth/Lindarets wanted to keep costs down, and only doing a single end cap and rotor spacer was cheaper than two end caps. I'm not exactly wild about the $45 price.
  • 10 2
 One spacer and re-dishing is a better solution as it results in a stronger wheel.
  • 7 0
 @PHeller: yeah, having to re-dish is better, even if it's a hassle. it results in more even spoke tensions on each side. the MRP one doesn't increase the strength of the wheel at all

for all the crap people talk about boost, it *is* a step up in wheel stiffness. worth throwing out your bike and buying a boost one? of course not, but if you're going to be upgrading anyway, might as well get the benefits
  • 1 20
flag PHeller (Feb 3, 2017 at 15:51) (Below Threshold)
 @stella10: front wheels dont have dish, so they dont benefit from the centering advantages of the rear wheel dish.
  • 6 0
 @PHeller: haha, yes, front wheels absolutely do have dish. i guess you've never built or trued a wheel or talked to a mechanic or ever even thought about it before
  • 6 7
 @xeren: My apologies, I'm thinking of old rim brake wheels. Disc wheels do in fact have dish to compensate for the intrusion of the rotor onto the 100mm wide hub.
  • 6 0
 My front wheels don't have to be dished 'cause I ride brakeless foo!
  • 6 9
 Insane price for two ultra simple turned spacers and a rotor spacer with 6 drill holes. You can get some complete hubs for similar money! Its amaIng that MRP make enough of a big deal about this 'product' that it has ended up here, its the kind of thing I expect to see from the small guys offering niche solutions for half this price not one of the big brands. Bigging up a couple of orange end caps and spacer like it took real effort and engineering prowess to design.
  • 11 0
 You're gonna buy A complete hub(comparable to DT's), spokes, and nipples and re-lace for ~$50? Let alone two hubs? Good luck with that.

Seems simple and at a totally reasonable price to make otherwise unusable wheels compatible.
  • 5 0
 I's a nice idea but I don't agree with the first paragraph. It makes it sound like everyone is on Boost spacing already, which I am pretty sure they are not.
  • 11 1
 I don't agree with your opinion, but I appreciate you thinking we're one of the "big brands." LOL
  • 1 1
 @NoahColorado: i'd also rather have such things made by a troll blacksmith in an ice-cave in the Himalaja, but well,..
  • 1 0
 @NoahColorado: hah! You guys are at least pretty well known! Beer
  • 3 1
 @NoahColorado: Not to mean disrespect to you or MRP but you have a load of great products, chainguides that work, a fork that competes with Fox and Rockshox, a full chainring lineup amongst other products and the one product I see banded around the internet lately from you guys is some spacers that could be knocked up in a few hours by anyone marketed as if they are some kind of engineering genius.

You are one of the 'big brands' compared to the guys who usually sell stuff like this - You are an OEM supplier, distribute worldwide and have enough cash to fund the development and manufacture of your own suspension fork and you employ over 20 people - No you are not Shimano but you are not exactly a one man band?
  • 4 0
 You do realize they're not building these with hacksaws and a dremel right? Tooling costs, milling machines and lathes maintainence costs, cost of a place to keep and use this shit, electric, water or oil for spraying the parts/tooling, anodizing cathodes and dyes... All these consumables and overhead costs add up man.
  • 1 0
 i did gasp at the price too. it is a super simple piece to machine. i would expect it to be priced around the same as a any old axle converters. so 15 quid, like what the hope hub adaptors cost. maybe 20 when you include the disc spacer. this is a hell of a mark up for such super easy to make parts
  • 1 2
 @therealtylerdurden: quite aware, my work heavily involves cnc machining so you are preaching to the initiated.

They are aluminium parts, there is no custom tooling involved, cost of material around $0.30 a part, anodising is outsourced no worries about 'cathodes' or that business.

Be realistic here - you can buy pedals, stems etc for the price of these and think of the costs involved there?
  • 5 0
 @Racer951: OMG, $45 is soooo outrageous!!!!
You all must live on Taco Bell for being this cheap, Jesus. Bet you spend $45 on dinner pretty regularly. Welcome to 2017, where employers actually have to pay their workers enough to afford a living, especially in the US. Sure, you could go buy a set of pedals for $45 that came off an assembly line with 1000 more in Taiwan or China, out of a factory that makes only pedals. How many of you actually ride that cheap of pedals anyhow??? Or you could build a new wheel to a 350/240 boost hub, new spokes and a nice rim, and start wondering why you just spent $300+ vs $45 for no real noticeable performance gain. Crawl back into your BuySell cave and keep hunting those second hand deals, it really helps this industry alive. If even only long enough for everybody to keep bitching about prices and lack of product they actually want....

OR make your own if you work around machines for a living
  • 1 0
 @Racer951: Huh. R&D costs then maybe? Lol. What industry do you work in man?
  • 1 0
 I kind of agree with him. $20 is the going rate for end caps to change axle standard. Everyone else designs and makes their own end caps for their hubs. These ones are over priced.
  • 1 0
 Can't delete your own post anymore, WTF??
  • 1 0
 Buy it! Buy it! Buy it now!!!!
  • 6 5
 or just stay 26"
  • 3 2
 More gimmicks
  • 2 1
 We love gimmicks! Now we need 28,3" wheels to combat the extra added weight of 27.5++Evo II
  • 1 4
 What's sounds sucks but becomes a new standard? (Boo)st
  • 1 3
 nice.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.042479
Mobile Version of Website