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 KitsDesigned 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.
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
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...
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.
@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! ????
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...
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)
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.
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.
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.
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).
TL: DR: all forks are designed to flex, depending on disciple is what determines how much.
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If your not racing and dont need to fix punctures in a hurry who cares, they will work exactly the same.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I also put spray foam in my thru axles to dampen vibrations while maintaining stiffness and improve ride quality. Try it, it works.
www.bikerumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-26-at-9.58.54-AM.png
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 ✌️
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.
www.wolftoothcomponents.com/collections/wheels-and-hubs/products/boostinator
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...
www.wolftoothcomponents.com/products/boostinator
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
Seems simple and at a totally reasonable price to make otherwise unusable wheels compatible.
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?
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?
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