Why Syntace 142mm is here to stay?! by norcobicycles

75 13

husstler (Mar 2, 2011 at 0:20)

Wow, great. Just what mountain bikes need - a great new standard! As if headsets, cranks/BBs, front axles, and brake adapters weren't enough every company is going to pop out of the woodwork with another new "standard" to follow.

Can't wait to try and stock this crap ...

5 1

cyfa89 (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:30)

that said, if theyre real about it they *should* go to the iso and get it recognized as such

31 2

traildamo (Mar 2, 2011 at 5:09)

But ISO doesn't mean shit in the real world, just look at chainguides "is that a pre 2005 ISO mount?"

I'm with Hustler and all the rest on this one, it's yet another product that makes upgrading your bike a nightmare. These days it is almost impossible to buy a new frame without also having to buy a whole crate of other components due to too many "standards."

As I'm sure most of you are aware the word "standard" doesn't count for anything in our sport.

5 0

melonhead1145 FL (Mar 2, 2011 at 5:27)

totaly agree, standards are good, it allows us to knwo parts will fit, but they change far too often. however i can see the reason to change standars, as the newly conceived standard may be more eficient or better in some way. But these "better" standars make buying new parts, especialy frames a nightmare

1 3

cyfa89 (Mar 2, 2011 at 6:07)

@yetimong
yeah thats a good point
but there are only 3 types of guide mounts currently (iscg,iscg old and bb)?
look at how many new axles are coming out, especially for forks, as no standard have been followed for them yet

im still on 135 qr and 110 qr
im quite frankly baffled by all these new types (and i know my stuff too)
once the best technology is found and proven, then it should be standardised
its only recently that people have started playing with axle sizing again, now that the materials have advanced since last time we had a go
but a lot of things do have 'unwritten standards' 2 sizes of bars
26inch wheels (generally)
bike frames made from metal (not woods or polys!

)

as i said, once a new tech is proven and tested it should be standardised and mostly is
but up until we have that tech in place as the better of so many
there are going to be a few trial and errors

4 1

DARKSTAR63 (Mar 2, 2011 at 6:09)

You know they cant win. When manufacturers put out new bikes that arent a total redesign they get bashed. When they come out with innovative "new standards" they get bashed. Get with it, 135x9 has been dated for way too long. Nobody should be running that, considering that alot of these hubs can be adapted for either 135 or 142x12 im not seeign the issue. Stiffer? Bring it on.

14 0

mbc4386 (Mar 2, 2011 at 7:36)

I'm not an industry insider or anything, so I'm not defending anybody because I have a horse in this race, but isn't improving bikes and their components a good thing? A stiffer, lighter, stronger axle system and all of a sudden the bike companies are out to get us. How many of the complainers are running 10spd rear? That was a new idea a couple years ago. Personally, I have CK fun bolts and don't plan on changing any time soon, but you better believe I'll look at this when I do go shopping for a new frame.

18 0

ninjaty (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:04)

I don't have enough hands to face palm every dumb comment on here, so I'll just pick the one closest...or at the top...cough...hustler. If you read the article, Syntace offers more benefits than standard 12mm or QR. Lighter, Stiffer, more ergonomic. It is hands down a better system. Why be satisfied with the status que?

Innovation is what is constantly making mountain biking better. If everyone thought like you we would still be riding ridged bikes down sandy slopes in Kamloops and exploring the back country of the Chilcotens, or ripping down whistler on the fastest machines with pedals. We need companies to develop new Ideas to make our sport better. So before you hate, think about why you wouldn't want to improve the bikes you ride.

8 1

MatthewCarpenter (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:32)

I'm a great fan of that system - and it should replace both, 135x12 and 150x12 in my opinion. So that we only have 135x9 and X-12 left in the end.

Concerning Licence agreements:
"1. Licensee shall pay to Syntace for each bicycle frame in which a Licensed Product is installed a royalty of 1.00 € per unit plus turnover tax as required by law.
2. Syntace assures Licensee that this royalty of 1.00 € per unit will not be increased during the entire duration of the agreement by more than a possible adjustment to the inflation of the Euro."

Click on that video to see how the system works: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL4Tqy3z160

Concerning 135x12:
X-12 is superior in every aspect. The only problem is, that it takes a while until all manufacturers of high quality bikes change their system. And that you might need new hubs (but for lots of high quality hubs, you can just buy a conversion kit, e.g. for Hope Pro 2, costs 20 bucks : assets5.tribesportsshopping.co.uk/products/images/000/292/184/show/hope-conversion-kits-pro-2-x12-rear.jpg

Concerning 150x12:
most hubs don't feature a wider distance between the flanges than for 135 spacing, so there's no added stiffness for the rearwheel. And with increasing interest in lighter DH bikes (AND Hollowtech 2/X-gen/etc. cranks AND pressfit bearings to come) 83mm bottom brackets are annoying any ways. Thankfully nobody asks for 3,0" tyres to fit any more, and with a bit of hydroforming or bending, proper clearence can be achived without 83mm BBs - which are basically the only good reason to ask for 150mm spacing on the rear axle.

So hopefully we will get rid of those soon.

BTW: Tapered steerers have managed to deminish the market for 1,5" stems and connected products and tools, so new inventions can not only improve function but also make old standards obsolet and clear things up a bit.

2 1

riggadon (Mar 2, 2011 at 9:54)

any chances on adapters for 135x10? or am i the only with with this now "outdated" system

2 1

Rasterman (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:03)

The only thing great about this is you replace having to carry a $20 derailleur hanger with a $5 screw, I love that, bye bye and good riddance derailleur market! The huge downside is its patented, it will never take off, the benefits do not outweigh the costs, especially if there is money involved for the manufacturers. If it were free I'm sure some would be thinking about doing it.

3 0

DARKSTAR63 (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:55)

Well the design is proprietary to the frame/axle, not the hub. So you buy the frame/bike it comes with that Syntace axle, done deal. What we are really talking about here is 142x12 vs 135x12 or 135x10............In my opinion seeing as 12mm is def better than the 10, lets do away with it, most 135x12 will convert to 142x12 if needed so its a non issue. Then you have 150x12 for your big bikes. I really dont understand why all the huff. Might we see 150 go away? Maybe....but for now, since most people dont switch wheels back and forth between their xc and DH bikes Im not seeing a problem with having both on the market.

2 1

papapendrel (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:18)

I assume all you guys hating on standards are still running quill stems? and a square taper bb? 18 speed xc bikes? Grow up, new ideas improve equipment

2 1

brycepiwek (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:28)

^ DARKSTAR63 everyones making a big deal over it because..well... haters guna hate

1 1

DARKSTAR63 (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:33)

Heh, well, I suppose some things never change.

6 0

Straitline (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:35)

I think all dh bikes should have hinging chain stays that double as kickstands. Just throwing that out into the universe feel free to steal my non patented idea.

1 0

cyfa89 (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:48)

nothing wrong with running 135x9
after all this wasnt the 'first' axle size
but it has stuck as it works

same with this
what works will stick (hopefully)

10 speed has been around a lot longer than a couple years too!

4 1

husstler (Mar 2, 2011 at 13:00)

@ninjaty

"Why be satisfied with the status que?"

Sorry, the status what? (I couldn't resist)

OK, so suppose I am a typical uneducated end user of these products and wander in to a bike shop looking for a new wheel for my 160mm travel bike (which I left at home). There are three or four different possible hub choices, not even getting in to Centerlock vs. ISO-6 bolt, and as a typical customer I have no idea what the hell I have or need to fit. The public is hardly expected to know the specifics of their rear hub dimensions, especially when they all sound so similar.

I work at a bike retailer, I mostly have objections to 142mm hubs/another new rear axle "standard" and they include:

- More proprietary ludicrously priced hardware to stock/try to sell
- Have you seen pricing on any of the hub conversion kits? Axles?
- Crossover bikes have more limited availability of parts
- How many 160 mm bike users are there proportionally compared to mountain bike buyers overall (i.e. only a tiny demographic actually NEEDS a stiffer/stronger rear hub interface)

Niche products pushed on the masses like this keep product prices up.

Like scottidog said below this is a classic "solution in search of a problem", right up there with tapered steer tubes (also stupid).

6 1

EasyKillah (Mar 2, 2011 at 16:39)

has anyone tried to buy a 142 mm hub yet? truth is there are only 2 aftermarket hubs that come in those sizes. I really don't get why consumers would think this ios a great idea when i tried to build a bike for a 142 rear axle it was a bloody nightmare to find a hub and the best i could do was a $375 sram x-9. not at all the desired hub but it was the cheapest option (it was that or shimano xt/xtr) These new technologies are merely ways to hook you into a proprietary system to where once invested all your future repair money will go directly to a certain manufacturer. it also eliminates competition for that manufacturer since there are no aftermarket alternatives there's noone to compete price wise. everybody take my advice and don't buy into tyhis system until it actually becomes a standard size and aftermarket hubs feature this sizing.

WE NEED LESS PROPRIETARYISM IN BIKING!!!

7 0

kevinthelilbiker (Mar 2, 2011 at 16:51)

The problem I have is that because you are effectively running a 135 mm hub with spacers you aren't getting any wider stance flanges.
That pretty much makes the additional stiffness non existent. Maybe hub manufacturers are going to look into making 142mm specific hubs but really it seems the spacing was only created to ensure the patent could be secured.

The derailleur hanger is a nice work in but otherwise this product doesn't deliver much more than a 135mm * 12 setup with a lighter hollow axle. Seriously though you can get aluminum axles already in 135*12 that way well under 50 grams.

In the end its an effective system but the advantages are so minor its not a factor worth considering when looking at bicycles unless you already have a wheelset that fits one way or the other. While some like ninjaty will say that new ideas improve the sport well yes some of them do, but most of them just improve marketing.

4 0

darkelement (Mar 2, 2011 at 17:55)

Shit like this is why I quit Mountain Biking ,These "innovations" make this sport impossibly expensive, Why can't MTB be more like BMX?

In BMX you Have ;

Cranks : 19mm Spindles or 22mm spindles
BB: Spanish or Mid

and thats it EVERYTHING ELSE in BMX is standard to all companies from headsets,to Seatposts.(Like an Actual Standard that everyone follows).Everything fits and works together.

I understand a DH bike is a Hell of alot more Complex than a BMX but there Should be somethings that are "Actual Standards", at least BB's or something

God Damn...Rant over

1 0

iamamodel (Mar 2, 2011 at 18:29)

Kevin, thank you for ending my frustration: I had to read for fifteen minutes thinking "why isn't anyone talking about flange width?" until I came across your comment. Poeple above have gone totally OT.

1 0

cyfa89 (Mar 3, 2011 at 8:17)

tell us about flange width?
is this where the strength comes from?
makes sense

1 0

ninjaty (Mar 3, 2011 at 13:08)

The stiffness comes from the improved contact of the axle to the stay's improving frame's lateral stiffness in the rear end. not from the the wheel.

1 0

bunkey (Mar 3, 2011 at 17:45)

Is this not just another Norco media rape? 'Hey look guys, we're cutting edge!'

1 0

ninjaty (Mar 3, 2011 at 18:23)

Norco is not the only company to use Syntace. They are however providing information about the system, what it entails, and why they feel the system is a good fit with their new bikes.

1 0

bunkey (Mar 4, 2011 at 0:38)

I'm aware Norco isn't the only company, but that just adds to my point. The only bikes listed are the new Norco range

Edit: Hmm just realised the article is from Norco Bikes

Makes sense.

2 0

benjiscott82 (Mar 4, 2011 at 2:54)

WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO KID. you wont see my buying any tapered steerer frame, tapered forks, 15mm axles or this 142 bollocks, ave your cash people theyre just trying to rape your wallet

1 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 4, 2011 at 5:59)

As for all said above I agree but please stay off tapered steerers alone. It origins from 1.5 standard and there are two main points of this solution, rest is just marketing bullshit:
1.Stiffer interface steerer-crown
2. MOST IMPORTANTLY: wider connection headtube downtube. That creates stiffer and stronger joint = more steering precision, better handling and durability. As a positive sideeffect longer weld and contact surface allows to not use gussets. Weight is dropped therefore. WIN WIN WIN.

I Don't know if you guys noticed, Specialized used this cobra steerer tube on first demos and first SXes 04/05. That was exactly for that reason. Now big downside of 1.5 was the stem. Tapered steerer solved this problem.

Two bearing types are not a problem, as since 1.5 became popular various companies manufactured a couple of products both for 1 1/8 and 1.5. All they had to do is to put two different bearings they were already doing into one box.

Fork crowns were getting big steerer bases anyways, look at Marzocchi from 2004.

There are no downsides to tapered steerer tube solution, period
I could personaly live without tapered headtubes full on 1.5 works just fine.

3 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 4, 2011 at 6:14)

In general: let's just vote with our money and don't buy that new "standard crap". For most of all nobody forces us to change our hubs on our old bikes. There are models fitting our beauties. JUST DON'T BUY IT! For the sake of us all don't buy that crap, and they will listen.

They say: don't mess with the devil, he's on this earth for thousands of years, he's smarter than you, he learned how to screw you up. Just don't allow the bastard to get into you with this sentence: "why not give it a try"?

that's how AIDS came to people, scientists proved it come to us from monkeys - someone ten of thousands of years ago was lonely and depressed with masturbation. Then he realized there is this monkey he sees everyday, one day it bent over, and devil whispered this sentence to his ear...

5 0

husstler (Mar 4, 2011 at 6:35)

It now seems completely to compare new hub standards on a mountain bike to AIDS. Thanks.

3 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 4, 2011 at 7:06)

For everyone that want to get a confirmation that too much of "new standards" is simply wrong and stupid, let me spread this positive virus to you:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM

It's a scientific confirmation, not a text from some smartass loonie or salesman.

1 0

stewartluxton (Mar 6, 2011 at 3:20)

love the link, what a bunch of consumers we are hey ?!

1 0

cyfa89 (Mar 6, 2011 at 7:50)

so much i could say about that video
im going to go with
great link

(or should i go with that?)

is that a bauhaus building they destroy at the end?

2 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 6, 2011 at 9:08)

I'm glad U guys liked it. There's plenty of proper scientific confirmations (not just Al Gore stuff)from people working for long years studying such matters, that commercialism is bad for us. It destroys our mental and physical health at this very moment and most importantly it makes even more terrible impact on other people. And who has something to say against that? Dumb arses on reality shows, sales people, politicians, business consulting companies. As said by V Shiva: we live in the era of contaminated food, environment but also of contaminated science.

It would be great if some bike company could say: our bikes are made with technologies that make them long lasting, reliable and having possibly smallest impact on the environment that we all love to use our bikes in. On top of that we give local jobs, truly investing in our national economy. We know that costs much, but by buying our bike you are doing a good thing, and please consider whether that isn't worth more than light weight.

In these times that would be an innovation.

1 0

cyfa89 (Mar 6, 2011 at 9:48)

it truly is a throw away society

the way its going is

download a film called idiocracy (its a comedy, buts its meaning is very true)

2 0

jacobharrel (Mar 8, 2011 at 10:40)

@cyfa89 - no, it's Fallingwater, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. here

2 0

husstler (Mar 8, 2011 at 11:02)

Are you guys still commenting on this? That's a little ridiculous, considering we probably have a new axle standard that's been developed in the last week.

1 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 8, 2011 at 12:11)

yes it has a vaginal shape insert from non-drive side with fallic axle end. Then on drive side, der hanger is mounted with two bolts to a reminescence of genital sack. Both areas on phallic axle where it contacts the insert holes are inflatable by squeezing the reminescence of genital sack for boner stiff connection.

1 0

cyfa89 (Mar 8, 2011 at 12:43)

its a very nice house!

2 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 8, 2011 at 12:59)

Yes, it's a classic. Along with Villa Tugendat, Villa Savoy, House of Mrs Schröder. These have something that vast majority of current villas miss - proportions. Perhaps because their architects were proportions-fetishists, having huge knowledge about materials and craftmanship. Today architecture as craft is out of focus: we have trying to be an international star like Foster or Koolhas - they come to studies with an idea of ending up as a excentric designer in scarf, thinking for month and then drawing a line... then they come to the real job, find that theirideas are totally irrelevant and instead of following at least a bit of their dream, they fall into mediocre. stuuuuuuuuuff...

1 0

cyfa89 (Mar 9, 2011 at 10:59)

so true
you do get different periods though
what currently mediocre may be all the rage in a few centuries or what ever :s

1 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 10, 2011 at 7:13)

I could go for ages on it

Dutch, especially in Rotterdam, never fail to amaze me woth their freshness. Spanish & Portuguese are also capable of great "modern" designs. The rest is slowly falling into prefab: build easy, build fast. If to follow other way it is cheap explicit aesthetics. Then there are those all is white minimalists. Well same seem to happen with bicycle design. Stuff really starts to look the same. Few more glory and session look alikes and i'm buying a bamboo bike... :d

26 3

nouser (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:02)

Yet another solution in search of a problem. 135 x 12 is stiff enough for any all mountain bike. Freeride and DH and you have 150 x 12. Easy. This is born from the same nonsense as tapered headtubes and 15mm front axles.

3 2

almightybenners (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:28)

its no stiffer than 135 or if it is then thats a bonus its just an easier way of fitting the through axle hub into a frame it solves the problem of 135 x 12 wheels beng a bitch to get back on

5 0

james-good14 (Mar 2, 2011 at 3:04)

135x12 wheels are not hard to get back on at all

2 1

almightybenners (Mar 2, 2011 at 3:35)

they're more of a hassle than than qr wheels and anything that makes bike set up easier and faster is better in my eyes. it isnt designed to sit alongside the other axle standards but to replace 135x12 and seeing as most new bikes have modular dropouts and most hubs have swtchable axles these days i really dont see why so many people are bitching about it.

3 1

Matt76 (Mar 2, 2011 at 5:15)

I Have to agree with scottidog this is a complete waste of time. The average riding is not going to notice the difference between a 150mm or 135mm so why the hell we need this is beyond me. Its just another money spinner

3 2

jv86416 (Mar 2, 2011 at 6:22)

so true... just another headache if you're someone who switches their parts or frames regularly.

4 0

alexblayden (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:14)

150mm rear axles are required if you're running a wider 83mm bottom bracket! this gives a better chainline this if found on some sh bikes and is better in my mind because 150 rear end allows even wheel dishing which gives a stiffer/stronger rear wheel.

2 0

mbailey1 (Mar 2, 2011 at 14:06)

But you can get even wheel dishing on a 135mm axle by offsetting the frame as is done on a Specialized Demo. 150mm and 83mm BBs should be eliminated in my mind.

2 0

nouser (Mar 2, 2011 at 14:07)

I've used an old Ancillotti DH frame (2002 I think) with a 135 x 10 back end and which has those exact same locating grooves in the dropouts so you slide the wheel in from the back and then sling the axle through. It's nothing new and doesn't require a new axle length standard.

And anyway like benners says above it's hardly rocket science to get a standard wheel back on.

1 0

benjiscott82 (Mar 4, 2011 at 2:53)

indeed what an absolute joke. i will also never buy any of this tapered shit, just there to makemoney, fucking bullshit marketing bollocks

1 0

almightybenners (Mar 4, 2011 at 3:46)

woohhhh... getting well into it there... all bike parts are there to make money... tapered steerers are a geuinely good idea along with 142 rear ends, its just people being resistant to change thats stoping them catch on. i'd liketo pointout that i think tapered heard tubes are a suid idea though and think all bikes should have a 1.5 head tube so you can use any fork you like.

2 0

Kitejumping (Mar 4, 2011 at 17:55)

135x12 SS hubs FTW, 6 gears is more than enough and a SS hub built wheel is stronger.

14 3

Walrus666 (Mar 2, 2011 at 0:36)

If it ain't broken don't fix it. 135 QR has worked fine over the years and if you do want extra stiffness/strength then the 12mm axle works fine too. Doesn't weigh that much more (aluminium axles

). As for the way the mech hanger attaches... It can be done on any wheel spacing if the frame designers thought about it in advance. Too many bike companies are coming out with useless 'innovations' that are only there to empty our pockets. My 2 cents.

6 1

almightybenners (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:25)

it IS a 135 through axle but with locating grooves on the frame like a qr frame has making wheel installation easier how hard is it too understand?!

2 1

Walrus666 (Mar 2, 2011 at 3:03)

But how much more are you going to pay just for that commodity? It is literally only going to save a couple of seconds time.

2 0

almightybenners (Mar 2, 2011 at 3:39)

im not going to pay just for that but, if i buy a new frame with a 142 rear end then i can just switch the end caps off my hubs and put 142 ones on and it'll cost me about a 10er the same as it would cost me to convert my wheels to a 135 x 12 rear end.

1 1

Walrus666 (Mar 2, 2011 at 4:06)

Fair does. I still believe the only reason they made it though, was for the sake of getting more cash in their pockets.

2 1

bisk (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:24)

of course thats the reason. what the hell do you think they are? a charity? a businesses main goal is always to make money. they're improving products and trying to make money in the process. simples

7 1

chazdog (Mar 2, 2011 at 3:16)

I normally hate the multitude of industry standards ( what retard came up with tapered hedtubes anyway, lets reduce fork options and save no real weight without really strengthening in a way gusseting couldnt, grr) but this is one that makes sense, 12mm rear axles are a pain to get to line up most of the time, the only one thats easy ish is a maxle, and they have a nasty habit of undoing themselves. This looks neat, will still give heel clearance like a 135, makes wheels fiting easier too. the mech hanger aspect isnt essential to make this idea work but is still a good one, breakaway bolts will be affordable, unlike a hanger ( mech hanegrs have something like a 300% mark up on price, it takes the piss really). Good one syntace.

Tho can we lock all the desingers and manufacturers up, develep some FINAL standard that will stick for more than 5 minutes. then we can all start again from scratch, and only 'old' bikes would have to worry about 800 headset types.

7 0

almightybenners (Mar 2, 2011 at 3:40)

150x12 for dh bikes 142x12 for xc and 1.5 headtubes all around. job done

2 0

chazdog (Mar 2, 2011 at 4:01)

exactly, 1.5 allows reducer kits if you want tapered or standard, allows for lighter headtubes, simpler manufacture, greater weld area, and angle kits. i would happily run sytace on xc and dh bikes tbh, orange went back to 135 when they realised they got no advantage from the wider hub. Most dh bikes have removable dropouts, easy switch to the new standard then

6 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 10:22)

If I may add... 20mm axles for forks Kill 15mm! As far as I am concerned 15mm axle on Revelation saves less than 30g - that is retarded... Fox took it up only because they had no 20mm on other forks than 36 and 40, so they wanted to be different

2 0

almightybenners (Mar 4, 2011 at 3:47)

to be fair qr only saves like 50 gams over 15mm through axles

1 0

WAKIdesigns (Mar 4, 2011 at 5:10)

and that's only on high end QR hubs, often more expensive that excellent 20mm hubs like Hope

3 0

stever (Mar 2, 2011 at 7:12)

Hmmm, I'm no expert, but this new derailleur hanger looks like a dumb idea. Instead of bending a hanger, and simply straightening it out, you sheer it off, so now your expensive derailleur ends up in your wheel, damaging both the derailleur and the wheel. And, once the bolt is sheared off, you might be able to extract it from the frame, but you won't get the sheared off tip out of the old hanger, which means it will need to be replaced. Ya, sorry, but it really looks like this system looks more like it was designed to force us to break and replace more parts.

1 0

dom69foco (Mar 2, 2011 at 9:08)

good points, hangers are best bent! hadn't thought about the end of the bolt being stuck. its just dumb!

1 1

rideonjon (Mar 2, 2011 at 15:26)

did you idiots read the article extraction is done with a 3mm allen key inside the broken screw.

1 0

dom69foco (Mar 2, 2011 at 15:45)

ah fair enough. i did read it, but i am an idiot... still, i'm happy bending my hanger back once a year

4 0

stever (Mar 2, 2011 at 17:15)

Actually, rideonjon, I did read the article, and I think you tone is unwarranted. In describing the 3mm allen key bolt, the article says that it can be removed when it is broken, but the article doesn't specify WHAT the bolt can be removed from. Remember the bolt in now in 2 pieces. I interpret this to mean that the bolt can be removed from the frame, but not the second half from the hanger that has sheared off. Again, the article is unclear about this detail, so I could be mistaken, but so could you, so I think you need to check the attitude at the door.

1 2

rideonjon (Mar 2, 2011 at 20:38)

Stever you are a dumbass look at the second to last photo it has an internal hex runing the entire length of the bolt,meaning it can be extracted from whatever it is broken in.and secondly what did you think this bolt threads into,you make like it could be anything.and if you don't like my tone......well i think you know what you can do!!

1 0

stever (Mar 3, 2011 at 6:58)

Jon, the photo of the bolt really isn't clear enough to determine that the hex pattern runs the entire length (at least not from my perspective). You can really only see that the bolt is hollow, and that the hex pattern is, at a minimum, on the head. Maybe it does have the hex all the way through. All I'm saying is that that isn't 100% clear that this is the case.

So, who pissed in your cornflakes today anyway? Seriously, you sound like you've got some 'roid-rage going on.

1 0

rideonjon (Mar 3, 2011 at 12:03)

Stever there is a 5mm hex in the head and a 3mm hex running the length of the bolt(or at least in the portion that will need to be extracted),why is this so hard for you to understand.

1 0

stever (Mar 3, 2011 at 14:17)

It's not hard to understand. But please, enlighten me as to exactly where in the article this is spelled out? Right, you can't. This brings us back to your "idiots" comment, which is clearly unjustified. Do your trolling in your boat, not on the internet. I'm not getting sucked in.

1 0

dom69foco (Mar 3, 2011 at 16:02)

oh my god! chill! it's a bolt!!!

1 0

almightybenners (Mar 4, 2011 at 6:28)

the bolt is clearly hollow all the way through with a hex profile stever, you are being fairly thick if you cant see that the broken off end can be removed from the hanger aswell as the protion of the bolt that is left in the frame.

1 0

stever (Mar 4, 2011 at 7:26)

Yes, it is clearly hollow all the way through. I suspect though that maybe my sh!tty-^ss monitor doesn't reproduce blacks as well as some other people's monitors, because I am just unable to make out the profile of the hollow section.

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 3:59)

Guys, I have one of these rear ends. Possibly it is not written so that everyone understands it straight away, maybe it is not 100% clear, But I have one of those rear ends and the bolt has a 5mm hex key on top, and a 3mm hex running all the way through, so that the broken end left in the hanger if the bolt should break can be removed! Rideonjon you were right all the way along, why are people so ressistent to accepting this is a thourough and well thought through design???

3 0

galliwasp (Mar 2, 2011 at 9:40)

No one gives a rat's arse about my opinion, but it's mine and I'll volunteer it because I can, as follows. I've got my bike already -- Yellow Belladonna, the dirty slxt -- ergo I'm not in any hurry to buy new stuff simply because it exists. [Editor's side note: And this goes for Facebook and Twitter too. I don't have to use them just because they exist. "P!ss off, Facebook and Twitter!" Moving on.] The Syntace has some interesting isolates. *Shrugs.* Maybe I'll get to try it some day. I kept my last bike -- Agent Skully -- for about six years, so when it came to time to get a new lady, the leap in technology was, frankly, not as mind-blowing as I had thought it would be, but it was still bad-ass to be shredding something tight and new. I'll bring this back home now. My guess is the experience I had with an entire frame would be similar in nature to the experience of trying a new hub -- nice and all, but whatever. My current rear hub is a seven-year-old Hadley, front is a crappy but trusty Formula, and both allow wheels to turn, and me to have fun. They work. *Shrugs yet again.* Of course, not everyone here falls into the utilitarian category, but I still like to hear what people think about new bike sh!t. Not everyone can be pleased all the time, right? Again, the only thing that remains the same is change. And, if we don't like change, the good news is we can b!tch about it. *Smile.*

3 0

jackbenn8 (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:25)

bike company's are just like men until they have had a beer then all standards go out the window and the next best thing will do next best thing been 142x12 with bikes and with boobs for men then in the morning you realise it was a crap thing to do

3 0

uzurpator (Mar 2, 2011 at 14:16)

This is... good. Really. Well thought out and engineered. I hope it will be widely adopted on every bike from entry level to high end. However - reality being itsself. I am certain that there will be at least 40 incompatible 'standards' ranging from 141x11mm to 145x13mm and each will be new and improved. Just like press fit BBs and headtubes.

5 3

undercoverfreak (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:55)

What a load of BS!

How is 142x12 stiffer than 135x12 if all they do is add spacers both sides?

Surely you can use that pinch bolt system with any other thru axle system?

How is this more "reliable" than a standard QR or a 12mm thru axle?

2 1

yo13bo (Mar 2, 2011 at 3:40)

well the first pic shows that the 12x142mm hub has the flanges further apart so it would make the wheel stiffer. i really like this idea, what i dont like is a bagillion standards to sort through when looking for new parts. i think the 10x135 should just be eliminated really. 14x110 for bmx/dj mtbs, 12x142 for xc/am/4x and 12x150 for dh/fr

2 0

undercoverfreak (Mar 2, 2011 at 3:54)

"The first thing you will notice is that the latter is wider by 3.5mm on each side. The freehub body and hub shells however will line up identically between the two options. In some cases, the only different between these two hub sizes is a set of end caps."

Hence, same flange distance.

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 4:22)

The added stiffness comes from the axle to frame interface that by use of a conical split cone clamps in both radial and axial directions - which is for example not the case with Fox 15mm through axle. This split cone is also the thing that prevents the axle from coming undone (unlike DT axles or some others), as the split cone locks tight onto the axle.

X-12 has no pinch bolt system! It is done up with one turn of your allen key similar to a 9mm QR system, but without having to hold the other end. Pinchbolt systems require multiple tightengs of bolts: much heavier and takes longer for a assembly / dissassembly.

The flange distance is the same. The hub body is the same. 135mm hub bodies can be used - many conversion kits consist only of different end caps.

2 0

Leesethebeast (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:28)

If you don't like the idea, then don't use it. I think this will help make rear ends much stiffer and reliable, no more rear wheels going all over the place when the going gets rough. It's just more rigidity like we've already brought to front ends

2 0

guari (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:38)

what i remember isnt 2 points far apart weeker than 2 points close together ?
taking as reference middle point of the hub. It can easily be tested in a press machine. contacting the middle point.

that will make 142 weeker than a 135, being both 12mm axle through.

2 0

jclnv (Mar 2, 2011 at 15:34)

I agree with what everyone has said regarding the bullshit that's constantly marketed at people who ride bikes. The article or recycled press release (usually the latter on this site) is completely false in stating that the design enables a stronger/stiffer rear wheel. This design changes nothing with regard to wheel strength. The frame/axle interface has a minor increase in stiffness over a 135X10mm and basically nothing over 135X12mm bot-thru. If you disguised 135X10 and 142X12 hubs on an identical frame no rider on the planet would notice any difference. It's nearly as bad as 15mm fork axles. I will try my hardest to avoid bikes with this standard as with Fox's BS standard.

The annoying thing is there are real problems with bikes that need addressing, especially in the drive chain. Yet all that changes is pointless sideways steps like this.

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 4:14)

I must dissagree. The mag BIKE did a very simple test where they used the same DT hub which can be used for a 9mm QR, 10mm bolt through, 12 mm Maxle or the X-12 System. They applied a dummy Chain stay to both ends which resemble the interfaces used in the bikes for each system. One Chain stay dummy is held fixed. A force is applied to the other, deflection measured... simple, the result gives you comparable values of the system stiffness.
The 9mm QR had a stiffness of 27.3 - 38.5 (Tune, XTR and Mavic measured), 10mm bolt thru was 33.4, 12 mm Maxle was 43.2, and X-12 was 60.8 - thats 40% increase over Maxle !(Stiffness in NM per degree).
The Stiffness to weight ratio of Maxle was 0.42 whereas the stiffness to weight ratio of the X-12 was 1.54, thats tripple! Now these are measured values. If you think that that can not be felt, go to a bike expo such as Eurobike and test the stiffness your self!

2 0

iamamodel (Mar 2, 2011 at 18:39)

A standard is only as strong as the number of people that adopt it. Regardless of what you think about 142 x 12, the market and the frame manufacturers will determine if it will live or die. Ask me in five years what I think of it, if it is still around.

1 0

wiffle (Mar 3, 2011 at 20:49)

4. Regardless of anything else, through axles provide 100% consistent alignment of the rear wheel, and hence brake rotor. Any open dropout system has enough play to allow for the rotor to misalign in the caliper at least sometimes, and this is worse if you run brakes with small clearances. In this sense, ANY through axle is better than any open dropout.

5. A stiffer rear mech hanger leads to more precise shifting, especially under load. A mech hanger that is soft enough to bend means that you are not getting full performance from your (often expensive) drivetrain; it's a bit like having slightly stretchy cables. The break-away mechanism used by syntace allows for a very stiff hanger to ensure maximum shift precision whilst still providing a "circuit breaker" in the event of a serious contact.

6. If you work in a bike shop, you should be informed about your industry, just as someone working in any other industry should be. As such, it is your job to be aware of trends emerging in the industry, and be aware of what technology is being used, not just on the bikes you sell, but across the bike industry. A customer may not know exactly which axle system their bike uses, but I'll bet they know the brand and the model, and if you don't know it off the top of your head there is a wonderful tool called the internet; do a search and I'm sure any half-intelligent person will be able to figure out which system is being used.

1 0

wiffle (Mar 3, 2011 at 20:50)

7. When hi-strength alloys are welded there is almost invariably an amount of frame "creep" caused by the localised heating and cooling processes. In some cases the end result will be so minor as to be irrelevant, but sometimes noticeable misalignment of the frame (and in this case dropouts) will result. The Syntace system allows companies who care about this level of detail (most don't) to make sure that the dropouts are always aligned along the axis of the frame, something which no other system will.

8. Of the top of my head the 142x12mm system (although not always the full Syntace version) is currently being used by Cannondale, Trek, Rocky Mountain, Norco, Cube, Liteville, Scott, Canyon, and (in the future) Turner. Hub brands supporting it include Shimano, DT, Hope, King, Hadley, Tune, and Ringle. 2 years ago these lists would have been very short; expect them to be much longer again next year. The industry as a whole is clearly getting behind this system because they see merit in it, and don't want to be the last to the party because they were a dumb bunny who didn't recognize a good thing when they saw it.

1 0

wiffle (Mar 3, 2011 at 20:51)

9. Whilst 150mm spacing has merit if applied properly, it is not without its own issues. In particular it increases q-factor (the distance between the pedals) which is fine for short pedalling stints (eg Downhill) but which can lead to back/hip/knee pain when applied to XC/enduro/AM riding times. It also provides less heel clearance for those with big feet.

10. I have ridden bike with QR, 10mm bolt through, 135x12mm maxle, and 142x12mm Syntace X-12. 10mm RWS was noticeably stiffer than QR and allowed the bike to track in rough terrain much better, but still had brake alignment issues. Maxle was stiff like the RWS, no brake alignment issues, but was noticeably more difficult to to re-install the rear wheel, particularly when running a short chain and short/mid cage derailleur. X-12 actually feels stiffer even than maxle, is lighter than maxle, has consistent brake alignment, but is as easy to uninstall/re-install as the QR. In my books that gives it the benefits of both systems without the compromises of either. This IS an advancement in wheel/frame interface, and if you don't think so I'll have to assume you almost certainly haven't tried it.

Thanks for reading!!! :-)

2 1

F8L-DJ (Mar 2, 2011 at 0:41)

Cool. Little things are what make up the big things (our bikes). So if every bike co. put the best options, like this one on their bikes, the older poorer options would be redundant. Fact is, a lot after-market products on sale atm are the parts with qr hubs etc. The one thing I like about Trek is that they have an emphasis on these things.

3 2

ride360 (Mar 2, 2011 at 1:11)

The best thing about this new standard is that the wheel is self centering and remains compatible with existing wheelsets and cassettes. A 12 mm thru is the largest axle that would still fit through a standard cassette lock ring. Furthermore the 142 mm standard doesn't change the chainline, q-factor, or require a special hub.

This new standard is great. Increased stiffness, the wheel is self centering, current wheels are compatible with the purchase of a cheap adapter set, and it retains the same q-factor as a traditional 135mm. Progress, rock on.

Check out this article for more information:
www.bikerumor.com/2011/02/07/tech-speak-142x12-whats-the-big-idea

2 1

seguillo (Mar 2, 2011 at 1:20)

So look at it as a development of 142 x 12 rather than an entirely new standard? Yeah I think it's pretty smart, so if all manufacturers can just stick to this one, that'd be good.

1 0

gabodude (Mar 2, 2011 at 5:13)

The greatest benefit from this is that it'll sell bike. The average customer wants ease of use and technology they can understand (bigger is better) so designers come up with this sh!t. All the while, you're not teaching the customer how to fish, you're dumbing him/her down.

2 1

nfa2005 FL (Mar 2, 2011 at 5:36)

Great idea if they would have done this 10 years ago. Some day they will make the bb and headsets the same size. Now would that be more standard? A 1 1/8" steer tube or a 1 1/8 crank axle, imagine u can use ur headset as a bb if u want, how stupid is that?

1 0

gizmogunner (Mar 2, 2011 at 5:53)

why cant these guys just keep everything to a worldwide standerd instead of have say post and is mounts just have the one etc same with stem,s and steerers instead of 1 inch 1.1/8 and 1.5 just have the one it does slightly annoy every riding/bike builder in some way shape or form

1 0

myuziweighsaton (Mar 2, 2011 at 13:22)

If you stay with that mindset, we would still be riding rigid bikes. Mountain biking -- especially FR/DH -- is very new and continually evolving and being refined. At some level, yes, it sucks that there are so many different standards, but personally I am glad that there are not many components that swap between freeride and road anymore (aside from saddles and rear cassettes, and even these items could benefit from being DH/FR specific in design). Why settle at "good enough" -- let's build the best product possible. It doesn't matter what industry -- if you're not continually refining and improving, you're going to get left behind.

1 0

xoderberg (Mar 2, 2011 at 6:07)

The thing is, that the hub is supported by the dropouts too.
Like a 20mm axle is in your DH/FR fork, the hub rests on the outer legs and also the axle. That equals to a stiff setup, easy!
So that will help stiffen some AM bikes out there. And it's said to be alot lighter than all the other axles, pinch bolt setups, and easy if there comes a standard solution for those bikes...
It's a good idea.
And it's already used by alot of bike companies
So stop whining and just accept it!

1 0

undercoverfreak (Mar 2, 2011 at 6:40)

how do you figure that its lighter? And how is it easier than say a RS Maxle or DT RWS ?

1 0

xoderberg (Mar 2, 2011 at 7:24)

I've got DT RWS on all my bikes and it's really great and light. But the 142x12mm also has the hub resting against the frame for added support and stiffness. So with equal weight as the RWS it adds a bit more stiffness and features, so all in all, Stiffer and also lighter. That was my piont.

1 0

mn09js (Mar 2, 2011 at 14:19)

Does a 135x9 axle end cap not rest in the frame? Im still on 135x9 on my trail bike and its completely fine. Its just another annoying standard people have to consider when buying new wheels/frames. Exactly like the tapered steerer debacle. Having a 1.5 head tube and a 1 1/8th steerer makes sense because you can have a ZS headset or an angled headset. If people are that bothered about a stiffer ride, just get a 135x12, stop whining and making the rest of suffer.

1 0

xoderberg (Mar 10, 2011 at 15:13)

No, a 135x9 is not the same thing. In a 135x9 hub the axle rests in the frame dropuots and are then pinched with a qr axle, (not stiff at all)
With a 135x10 or 135x12 if you take away the axle the hub has nothing to support it.
On the 142 standard you can actually place your bike on the wheel without the axle because the frame has a recess that the hub sits in. Look at the pictures!
And what's wrong with tapered steerers? (probably gonna get killed for this one)
You have to consider that there are other bikes than FR and DH bikes out there. For a FR/DH bike i totally agree with you. it's much better to make the headtube 1,5 and make all options available.
But for XC, Trail and AM bikes an 1.5 steerer is overkill, but with tapered you get the best of both worls. A stiff 1,5 crown and steerer but a normal 1 1/8 stem that makes more sense on such a bike. Can you imagine an XC bike with a 1,5 stem? Does a stiffer steerer and crown hurt when they're making them so light (and maybe in carbonfiber)? Absolutlely not!
Is a tapered frame/fork setup stiffer than a regular 1 1/8setup? Of course it is!
And last who would wanna buy your beefy 135x12 rearaxle with 1,5" stem trail bike that you apparently think is a good idea?

3 0

grahamc FL (Mar 2, 2011 at 6:55)

Looks well designed but im just done with all these different standards.

Next 1.3" headtubes, 98mm bbs, 27" wheels, 30mm bars.

2 0

xoderberg (Mar 2, 2011 at 7:30)

For all you with Hi quality hubs from DT swiss, Ringle´, Hope and so on it shouldn't be a problem.
Just get a conversion kit and be happy that it doesn't matter what the f**k they come up with, you're still covered.

2 1

Diabolicus (Mar 2, 2011 at 7:51)

Wider axles are only better if the spacing between hub flanges increases, allowing greater dish and symmetry of the spokes. But this doesn't appear to address that. And you can't push the cassette out any more otherwise you'd have to compensate bad chainline by moving the cranks outwards. But current chainset positioning has been optimised for the average rider's hip width and that's not going to change. So leave it at 135mm, and make bigger stuff for DH where super efficient pedalling isn't such and issue and wider BB axles are OK.

1 0

undertheleaves (Mar 2, 2011 at 10:46)

Syntace knows what they're doing, they're a business. Lets change something and make everyone follow us with their pocket books. This change is not beneficial to the inovation of biking technology. It's simply money. There's good points and bad points but the real truth is they make the parts they way FOX makes theirs; they're own way. Not familiar with every size of axel exactly but I don't really care. I just see that a small part is making rules that big parts have to abide by and that's wrong so although my opinion doesn't matter, I say Syntace is the man and hopefully they pull their head out of their ass and do something inovational instead of saying that's the old part, here's the 2 new more expensive parts you need now. Let me just prove it real quick:

"Instead, hub caps are inset into the frame. This inset acts as a guide for INSTALLING the rear wheel while increasing the contact patch of the hub to the frame. While a traditional clamping style pinches the axle between the dropouts, this new system allows for a much stronger, stiffer and lighter clamping mechanism."

Do we have a problem with putting on our wheels? No come back with a change we all have to abide by that really benefits us. And I've never heard/seen the pinching really fall though since there's a bolt there and everything. Good change is good, dumb change is bad.

1 0

fiberglassguy27 (Mar 6, 2011 at 16:41)

Argue,complain,piss and moan till your blue in the face.If this becomes another "Standard",every one on here is going to buy this shit weather you want to or not, like it or not! This is not the worst thing that happened to me or you today! Right?

1 0

kirsty123 (Mar 2, 2011 at 9:19)

my brother has the new syntace x12 on his cube hanzz sl 2011 and it is good, he wants new wheels, i think hope have this size but i really doubt he will be able to sell his old wheels!

2 0

pl3mllr (Mar 2, 2011 at 13:44)

In any sport you must innovate, you must strive for better. The definition of innovation is: making as many mistakes as fast as possible.

1 0

HellslayeR (Mar 2, 2011 at 0:54)

I don't really like the 142mm but this derailleur hanger really great, but im not sure i will able to loose with just 3 mm hex wrench, that i already closed with a way higher one.

1 0

mybicycle (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:30)

after the hanger breaks there will be no tension on the bolt so it should come out easily.

2 0

dom69foco (Mar 2, 2011 at 9:11)

well the bolt breaks, leaving the end stuck in the hanger and the mech stuck in your spokes...

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 13:57)

Derailleur hangers which you can bent back when they get a whack have two problems:

1) They are designed to bend - this makes them weak and shifting prtecission is lost.
2) HAve you bent back a derailleur hanger? If you have you have likely gone through the process of breaking one two and not being able to source one the same as quickly as you would have liked to, if you were able to get one, and couldn't ride your bike until you got it, and probably realised that they can be quite expensive...

1 0

man-wolf (Mar 2, 2011 at 1:21)

It's definitely not a bad thing companies are pushing the development of every aspect of mountain bikes, I just wonder if the benefits of this system are really great enough to have an impact.

2 2

nobrain FL (Mar 2, 2011 at 4:08)

I'm not use to comment tech stuf but here come on !!! it's not about the 142x12 it's more about the hanger and pinch hold hanger bolt. If I understood well this bolt should be screewed in 2 pieces -one pinching the axle -one for holding the derailleur hanger. this is just crap! what ever hapen the way you tight one of the 2 thread will be loose ! YOU CAN'T screw a bolt in to 2 different pieces and get the right force and equal force on thoses pieces it's just a matter of producing it over positioned . that was just my input ...

1 0

mybicycle (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:12)

The lower threads screw into the derailleur hanger and tighten the pinch bolt stopping the end nut from spinning. The upper threads have a single purpose, to hold a spare onto the frame. When in use, only the lower threads are in use.

1 1

cofattire (Mar 2, 2011 at 6:56)

The hanger bolt is a great design, but the 142 thing is just another way for the cycling industry to force people to buy more stuff. I'm sure it is a tiny bit stiffer than 135 but we already have 150 for that. Personally I think all bikes other than xc race should be 150/12. You get a better chain line with 150 and it's stiffer than 135 or 142. Weight gain is minimal over 142 so what's the point other than to create another market. Now that we have three frame/hub sizes it just makes it more of a pain in the a$$ to build bikes and swap parts between bikes. How about this for a new standard: make parts in standard sizes.

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 14:15)

Hang on, don't confuse this. The axle/hub interface to the frame is what provides more stiffness, NOT the 142mm width, no-one says that going from a 135mm width to 142 mm alone gives increased stiffness, the X-12 Standard which includes hub to frame interface provides the added stiffness. The 142 mm width is simply to make the system compatible to current hubs, so manufacturers don't have to make new hubs! This is to keep the cost down for everyone! This is something everyone seems to find difficult to understand... the fact that 142 is used and current hub bodies and wheels are compatible, makes it cheap for everyone, NOT expensive as everyone seems to think...

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 14:15)

Also, have you compares hub weight of a 135mm hub and 150mm hub?

Some examples...

DT: 135mm: 240 [267g], 150mm 340 [356g]

Tune: 135mm: prince maxle or X12 [189g], 150mm King Mk [230g]

Shimano: we all know the weight penalty of Saint 150mm to XTR 142mm...

1 1

erenes (Mar 2, 2011 at 23:40)

wow wow my rear axle is 1.015% stiffer and I can feel it... even if I use 24 / 28 / 32 tripple butted spokes and 29" wheels with 350gr rims and tyres with zero pressure. I actually can feel the axle being much stiffer in the center of the wheel, but I cannot feel my ugly wheels with few spokes flex left and right like 50mm in every corner. And I need new 89 or 89mm wide bb so my chainstays are welded really wide allowing my fat tyre not to rub the chainstays in every corner. My wheels are not stiff at all. However my hub axle is! wow.

btw looks quite good and I really dont care

derraileur hanger reminds me bmx gyro tabs

1 0

Chri5s (Mar 3, 2011 at 9:54)

Whoever wrote that 135 * 12mm hubs are 'just clamped between the dropouts' really doesn't understand how an axle works, do they?

1 0

mnaranjo (Apr 16, 2011 at 16:46)

does anybody know the weight of the syntace X-12 axle?

I've read the DT RWS X-12 axle weight is 74g

But I> need to know if the syntace one is lighter

thanks

4 1

sebs-i-think (Mar 1, 2011 at 15:31)

Man that hub looks sick and the derailer idea is great

3 0

Rattsl (Mar 1, 2011 at 16:24)

Yes it looks awesome, but like all things new, give it time to improve and all should be solved by then.

14 2

transam711 (Mar 2, 2011 at 0:11)

Oh god noooooooo. Yes, I understand it's better for a lot of situations. Yes, I understand the other sizes will still be around. But it's just one more thing to have to deal with when swapping frames or wheelsets. Nothings more aggravating than finding a perfect second hand fork and then realizing it has a tapered steerer, and now this will be another speedbump for those of us who can't afford to put a whole bike together at one time...

Edit: tried that whole reading thing out and realized 135's can apparently be converted. I'd still prefer keeping two solid standards, but whatev's.

8 0

Rattsl (Mar 2, 2011 at 0:14)

I agree on the tapered fork thing and 10spd stuff is gonna get ridiculous.

6 1

transam711 (Mar 2, 2011 at 0:17)

Oh god, if 142's become common on all-mountain bikes , it's only a matter of time until they extend the freehub body and we start seeing 11 speeds. Richard Cunningham will be all over it.

4 2

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:09)

Would be actualy smarter to shorten the freehub body on 150 to make the whole thingt 135. People could easily live with 6 geared cassettes on DH and FR bikes.

1 2

cyfa89 (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:34)

so im right in thinking youd need a wider frame for this?
and obviously a bigger hole

1 1

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 3:01)

It is just going to be verified if people will actualy buy it. Though I like the der hanger bolt idea, slight modification might make it a new black.

2 1

collin7 (Mar 2, 2011 at 9:35)

I dont' like their idea with the derailleur hanger bolt snapping... or maybe I just don't get it. Isn't that just what your derailleur hanger is for? It's designed to break before your derailleur to protect it... the reason they still get mangled is because they either get sucked into your spokes (bye bye spokes, hello pain in the ass) or because your already taking such an impact on the derailleur there is no way to avoid damaging it.

It seems like the only way this design would protect your derailleur more is if it were weaker than the hanger already is... meaning it will just snap even easier!

Someone let me know if I'm missing something here... Also, if it threads into the frame (as the axle pinch bolt) and then into your hanger, how do you get the hanger tight enough to avoid any play? Are the thread counts slightly different to effectively pull the hanger against the frame?

1 0

z-man FL (Mar 2, 2011 at 9:36)

@corsair
Why would i sacrifice the possibility of having the best technology by making everything more convenient to assemble.

1 1

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 9:56)

Collin: I guess the point is that you break a whatever bolt instead of der hanger. Frame stays together, hanger stays together! Win win! It is way easier to get a cheap bolt and even carry it with you on the rides, rather than getting a spare hanger

Not surea bout this execution of this idea but in general... brilliant!

1 0

dmadness (Mar 2, 2011 at 10:18)

How many have had issues putting their bikes together with the current "standard"
this Is simply making things more complicated then they need to be.

1 4

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:03)

This is what industry calls innovation. Specialized wrote it down on their bikes: Innovate or die - WTF did they actualy innovate?! They just make their bikes lighter, more than it is needed.

I guess that vid goes well with these new standards, it's a classic:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWfaiTLPUKQ

1 0

z-man FL (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:08)

making something lighter, and stiffer, is innovation, As well as several other technologies explained. Convenience must be sacrificed for performance, even though, they are making it rather convenient to begin with.

1 0

Jamesdh08 (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:19)

I'm sorry, but even though there will always be some 'trend setting' innovations, at the end of the day riders want to be able to have as few variations as possible - It makes life so much easier when swapping wheelsets, buying new frames or hubs.

What happened to gearbox bikes? Ok, they're not exactly another standard, but at the time there was a huge emphasis on reducing unsprung weight. They only occupy a very small percentage of the market currently

150 bolt though for DH, 135 10mm bolt up or 9mm quick release for other disciplines. End of Story, thanks Syntace.

6 1

badbadleroybrown (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:33)

Someone please explain how you get a 'stiffer, stronger, lighter' rear wheel by using the exact same hub shell width and diameter but lengthing the axle 3.5mm on each side??? I don't know what world the writer of this artice lives in but, all other things being equal, if you take a 12mm rod that's 135mm long, it will always be stronger than a 12mm rod that's 142mm long... particularly if 7mm of that 142 is just a pair of shoddy endcaps as suggested by the writer.

2 1

norcobicycles (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:37)

The stronger and stiffer qualities come out of the conical clamping mechanism. This gets quite technical to explain but for the drawings and description have a look at syntace.com/index.cfm?pid=1&pk=1314

2 1

dmadness (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:40)

the writers Dyslexic ??? that is my best guess brown, props to you for being logical .

1 0

Jamesdh08 (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:42)

Technically the wheel isn't stronger like you have stated. Falsifying information to lure in sales is terrible, when in fact all that has happened is that the hub /frame interface has been structurally improved and strengthend.

3 3

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:45)

z-man how about if this making stuff lighter and stiffer is not needed? Then if that's true, is that innovation or unnecessary luxury?

What if making bikes too light is actualy wrong because you loose momentum? How about momentum is a poor riders great friend? Probably average riders friend too. And great most of riders are poorly or averagely skilled. Too light and too stiff bikes screw up their riding. Sharp handling provided by stiff bikes that average je cannot take any advantage of, even more it makes him feel more insecure on bike. Then too much choice on the market scews up their bikes and riding as well.

Carbon fiber - that stuff is terrible for environment - that's a innovation?! Resin and epoxy that Chinese people inhale in factories, because no worker union would ever allow that to happen in "western world". After 5 years workign with composites in aircraft industry people have wrecked lungs. is that a innovation?! So that some prick can have a sub 11kg trail bike?!

Innovations are things like 1.5 standard, widebars, adjustable seatposts.

2 0

badbadleroybrown (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:46)

@Norco... Syntace marketing doesn't change reality. All this does is attempt to address an issue where none exists. I've never had an issue with the clamping system on a 135x12 axle and the reality is that, regardless of how you hold it at the ends, given two rods of equal diameter and materials a longer rod is always weaker than the shorter one....

1 3

dmadness (Mar 2, 2011 at 11:53)

Feck the enviornment, I was a sicker ride.. :p

lets not cry about the vapours from resins and epoxy's.. Ever heard of a respirator ??

Momentum ??? last I checked gravity affected objects equally.. perhaps your looking for the word "innertia" and if its Innertia you rely on to get down the slope then I am glad to not be riding with you.

3 0

z-man FL (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:09)

@waki,
I can tell you that welding a frame from aluminum is just as bad for you, if you go unprotected. Like stated above, its called a respirator. not saying i believe in carbon bike either.

i can always feel the difference stiffness and weight makes.

1 2

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:13)

dmadness - don't teach me physics, it is you with your "intertia" that seem to know nothing about it. Feck the environment mhm... no i talked about people. By buying certain products you are destroying peoples lives. You really are. And environment is another story.

2 3

badbadleroybrown (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:16)

@Waki... I'll be honest, I really don't care if three Chinamen died in the making of my frame.

1 2

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:30)

z-man - sure you can feel it, but under certain weight level it just makes you slower just as too much weight (as long as there is no sport of UPHILL) Obstacles slow you down. Let's take 2 sets of UST Tyres and say you won't puncture - 1ply a 2ply Highrollers for instance. Take a rocky track on them, and I assure you - you will be slower. Spec (sorry for hanging on it) will tell you on their 26 epic bike: it's super light be faster. Then take Epic 29er and they will tell you that a good thing about 29 wheels is attack angle AND heavier tyres even though they accelarte slightly slower - they provide momentum so they go easier over obstacles with that too

badbadleroybrown - where do U buy UR food?

2 0

dmadness (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:36)

1. I can not teach, what you are not capable of learning.

2. we are all living on the same sphere and we will all suffer the same in the end, We will NEVER destroy the earth. We could rape and Explode it and we would cease to live but it would eventually return to some state resembleing life. It is a human condition that makes people give personality to things like the Earth, cars and decicions of moral stature.. morality being also a construct of the human mind. Rape, murdur and thievery ( as much as I am also morally opposed ) are completely natural and happen in nature on a daily basis. When did we bocome so arrogant as to separate ourselves from nature ? it's simply not possiblle.. as un-natural as it may seem, if WE ( humans or otherwise ) are doing it... It IS natural.. ( however objectional )

3. you know nothing of me.. I do in fact eat foods mostly grown in my backyard. and I dont live in a city, but I do weld and braize almost daily... and I WAER A RESPIRATOR.. jesus Fning Christ, do I have to explain to you what a respirator is?

4. not even going to get into a discussion about bacteria and the works of the mecenta corporation or others who are patenting seeds.

5. wasnt this all about a hub or something in the beginning ?? or am I now involved in one of those memory-party games where the message gets conveyed so may times that in the end it gets all f*ckered up ?

6. research has shown that sometimes organic compounds are in fact more harmfull then their genetically altered counterparts... I give the simple example of salt prior to the addition of iodine, the addition of this micronutrient has abolished certain diseases and is primarilly introduced to combat problems with the thyroid gland and prevention of mental retardation . or are you currentlly typing form behind a Goiter whilst drooling on yourself ?

7. Know your facts and who Your arguing with ..

1 0

dmadness (Mar 2, 2011 at 12:40)

Waki... You should just stop. you have not even the beginning of composition to be in an argument .. back to school for you ..

A lighter bike is easier to manuver and accellerates quicker.

LeeroyBrown..

props,,, again .

1 2

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 13:05)

dmadness - I only wish these guys there wear respirators. Your extensive knowledge in many fields yet young age led me to an assumption that you are pretty much a... highly developed version of a smartass. I must admit I'm nowhere close to where you are, but I'm only 29. There are hyperdeveloped ones like mr Dawkins who is pretty much ends up as a... prick. I can only wish you to not become like him and do more good. Working condition regulations are bitch, just as laws on using DDT. Yet we eat it because these don't apply in "worse world". Fact you grow your food seem that you know what. And rape and murder natural?! I mean what point are U making with that?! that it is natural what western world does to Asia?! You want to justify that or what?! or some pricks at wallstreet in 70s got really angry when state didn't wanted to

So for you to know who are you are talking to, or at least so you can understand me pointing these things here: I base my latest frustrations on lectures of "mainstream researchers" Vandana Shiva (not sure about Patel - too young to trust), Harvey, Soja, Barry Schwartz, Manger. Then I also read John Paul II and New Testament so that rationality does not sit on my brain too much...

As for bikes: I don't have more time to go deeper into it. Every person has skills that allow him to use certain advantages. Lighter object is more prone to be decelerated by obstacles, you don't have enough skills to pick the bike from the ground well enough - they slow you down. You as such developed smartass never had time to learn skills good enough to go over those obstacles. We both did other things in life.

Good night, I have to finish drawing penthouses for pricks in Vneck pullovers, and please lets spare this site lessons in the field of rhetorics, as well and I'm no a native english speaker so I will fail anywas

1 2

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 13:47)

And one last thing: do not give me any lessons on morality. You seem to loose that bit somewhere in your "research". Giving props to such statement is simply hard to comment as well as the statment of Leeroy itself. Yet I haven't managed to develop any proper term of describing such behaviour. Evil?

Your "research" seem to get you into a state where you feel "better than others?". Higher you raise yourself deeper you fall, Ego never creates, it can only destroy. Terms like "contaminated knowledge" "in the absence of the sacred" come to my mind. Sorry fr judging, but to be honest it simply hurts to read that.

4 0

badbadleroybrown (Mar 2, 2011 at 14:00)

@Waki... please take your naive ideals relating to the illusion of egalitarianism that you'e allowed yourself to believe over to a Yoga forum where someone may actually care. This "we're all equal" crap is just something people say to make the underprivledged feel better about life.

As for shit that hurts to read... dude, have you seen your grammar???? Cliche statements and naive philosophy surrounded by words that can hardly be called sentences and you want to talk about "hurts to read"... Wow!

So... anyway, longer axle is weaker than shorter axle. The world was just fine with 12x135 and can do without yet another standard.

1 2

WAKIdesigns (Mar 2, 2011 at 14:22)

I apologize for my grammar. I am quite priviledged, even according to prick standards... Every single person reconsidering some stuff after reading my endless grammatically poor essays is a win for me. I believe those who pay with their health are going to get at least some good from what I write in here. I also mean those who got fired or were forced to close their businesses in NA and Europe because of moving all industry to Far East. and I agree 12x135 is good mkaay

1 0

dmadness (Mar 2, 2011 at 17:30)

Not an "evolved a*shole" I just happen ro read lots and Am in my nature a scientist.. I have also spent several winters recovering from bad injuries such as
Shattered heel, brocken hip and femur and lately a brocken tibula and fibula.
So I have had the benafit of time to do my "research"

You fail.

1 0

Nobble (Mar 2, 2011 at 22:54)

WAKI: You're still trolling....you went on for hours the other day with the EXACT SAME argument....

And you know what?

you're still wrong.

A lighter bike is faster, as long as it is not too weak for it's purpose.

1 2

WAKIdesigns (Mar 3, 2011 at 1:57)

I'm consulting Gene Hamilton on "WAKi's ultimate theory of too light bike", we'll see what he says. I promise to deliver news if he tells me "you fail"

1 0

Nobble (Mar 3, 2011 at 7:52)

I'm sure you will, but i'd bet my life you wont tell us if he says you're wrong.

1 2

WAKIdesigns (Mar 3, 2011 at 8:11)

I will write a proper apology, trust me. If I'm right though, consequences might be terrible... I am affraid myself

2 3

morpheous (Mar 2, 2011 at 1:04)

I am all for progress and strength at the axle, but rear der hangars have always been designed from purposely soft alloy to fail before the rear mech gets damaged.(so you can continue your epic ride by carrying an extra der hangar (Light and small). This one looks fairly burley and stiff. Are we shifting the damage point needlessly at the expense of epic ride trail survivability?

3 0

brigand (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:06)

you haven't read the text, have you

the bolt that brakes in half is a great idea imo

3 2

m47h13u (Mar 2, 2011 at 4:23)

Except that the whole dual bolt idea fails from the start because you can't tighten 2 threaded pieces correctly with only a single bolt, it's mechanical knowledge 101 and they somehow managed to fail at that.

1 0

mybicycle (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:26)

as above, The lower threads screw into the derailleur hanger and tighten the pinch bolt stopping the end nut from spinning. The upper threads have a single purpose, to hold a spare onto the frame. When in use, only the lower threads are in use.

1 0

morpheous (Mar 2, 2011 at 14:41)

Yup, caught just lookin at the pictures!- ;-) I stand corrected, that's a pretty cool design.

6 4

JokerMachine (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:16)

I like the little Norco plug at the end. Gotta keep your sponsors in the public eye, right Pinkbike?

5 0

familyman (Mar 2, 2011 at 7:02)

The article was written by Norco and submitted to pinkbike.

1 0

bgee (Mar 2, 2011 at 18:44)

For the record, a traditional QR rear axle is 10mm. Not 9mm as the article says. Its traditional front QR axles that are 9mm.

1 0

bplatte (Mar 4, 2011 at 6:18)

People need to stop whining about having a standard and just know what your bike uses. The more options the better. Just saying.

1 0

jerycan (Mar 2, 2011 at 10:14)

WAAAAH! It doesn't work with my 88 Stumpjumper! I welcome useful innovation. If it wins on its merits, then great....

1 0

Leesethebeast (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:42)

Also you can convert your qr wheels to work with thisaxle, so how can you complain?

1 1

bgee (Mar 2, 2011 at 18:45)

For the record, a traditional QR rear axle is 10mm. Not 9mm as the article says. Its traditional front QR axles that are 9mm.

2 0

seraph (Mar 2, 2011 at 19:39)

142mm? Why not just 150mm?

2 0

deadatbirth (Mar 2, 2011 at 20:49)

the punctuation in your article's title is the suck

1 0

rich888 (Mar 2, 2011 at 13:35)

I hope its here to stay it on our 2011 Cube Hanzz SL

1 0

mnaranjo (Apr 17, 2011 at 14:42)

do you know the weight of the syntace x-12 axle?

thanks

1 0

WasabiJim (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:24)

what was wrong with 135 x 10 QR (saint some call it)???

1 0

cyfa89 (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:36)

going by an above comment, its probably due to the fact that the 12mm is the largest that still goes through a standard cassette lock ring
so i presume people are trying to get the most/maximum out of whats available

1 0

kyphoto (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:47)

So is this different than what Trek added to the Scratch last season?

1 0

fantaman (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:50)

Ghost latest DH bike is using the Syntace X-12 system

1 0

jaybird951 (Mar 3, 2011 at 2:55)

this article is about a stem? really?

2 0

deadatbirth (Mar 3, 2011 at 8:00)

no, its about bottom brackets

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:27)

...

1 0

JamesIDK (Mar 2, 2011 at 14:36)

yawn.......

4 5

Sir-Dirty-BIker (Mar 2, 2011 at 2:44)

Im running the syntace x-12 on my cube hanzz

Good stuff !!

3 0

evolution10 (Mar 2, 2011 at 7:04)

I really do not understand why new products, standards or any new development is such an issue for everyone. In the end it just gives riders "options". If you dont like it dont buy it. Thats simple! We should be accepting all these new designs just for the fact that it gives us all thousands of options to customize ours rigs to be exactly the way we want them! Just be happy that our industry is doing well enough to spend money on developing new products rather than bashing them because a product might bring any direct benefit to you in particular....just my thoughts..

2 0

cofattire (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:53)

I understand your point, but it's not always better options that are offer when a new standard is created. Often you are forced into buying these new designs. Example: you want to buy whatever new AM frame that just came out but you'll also have to buy a new rear wheel, or over priced adaptors. My gripe with 142 is it's inferior to 150 in every way other than a slight weight savings so what's the point? It just complicates the build process and limits the ability to swap parts. Think of how nice it would be if all bikes were 150. You could swap your DH rear wheel with your AM rear wheel or vise versa depending on what bike you want to ride and which wheel best suits the ride. But no, we have to have 135 for xc, 142 for am, and 150 for DH. I don't see any advantage in this for us the riders. Only advantage is for the companies who get to sell more parts.

1 0

mybicycle (Mar 2, 2011 at 8:55)

*Cough* ... that is why there is 157x12...

2 3

Sir-Dirty-BIker (Mar 2, 2011 at 9:33)

whats with the negative props ??

3 0

rideonjon (Mar 2, 2011 at 15:39)

so why do all these new Norco bike have this system with toe and camber adjustment are all their new frames crooked and this is the solution?

1 0

bgee (Mar 2, 2011 at 18:43)

..

2 0

wiffle (Mar 3, 2011 at 20:49)

ok, so here's my 20c worth. Feel free to flame if you have actual evidence/experience to back up your comments.

1. There are only 4 things in life we actually NEED; water, food, shelter, and clothing (unless you live in the tropics ;-)). None of us NEED a stiffer, or lighter, or stronger, or plusher , or more user friendly bike, because we don't need a bike at all. We WANT a bike because we enjoy riding, and whilst some are happy with any bike, some riders WANT the performance attributes listed above, as well as many others. As such, any new development (dropper posts, for example) will appeal to those riders whose WANTS are met by the technology; if you don't want these things, you will not see any value in it.

2. Just to clarify, the standard QR is actually 135x10mm (not 9mm as some stated); front is 9x100mm (not 110mm as someone stated). If you don't believe me go and measure for yourself.

3. The 142x12mm system is not inherently weaker than a 135x12mm because the unsupported length of the axle is the same in both :ie 135mm. The extra 3.5mm either end is supported by the dropout slot and so the loaded length and therefore strength is the same. Think about it before you reply if you're not sure.

1 0

bhocewar (Mar 6, 2011 at 15:31)

142mm "standard" is a economists scam!!! Don´t be fooled by them!!! We have established that the 142mm standard is no more stiff than 135mm thru-axle and the only purpose of it, is self centering rear wheel/hub when mounting it.
You must be crazy to redesign the whole dropout system and create new standards just for that purpose. Obviously the goal here is to mislead consumers and sell them something they don`t need or read between the lines - take some extra money.

And why am I complaining here?Take a look at the picture/link bellow.It`s a standard 135 thru axle dropout, and you know what...
...it has already machined in shoulders to rest the hub on, when screwing the axle in. And it works perfectly. Simple as that. No extra standards!!

www.shrani.si/f/d/4/1BnMH7Qv/photo0115.jpg

The 142mm standard should be ignored, banned...

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:23)

@ bhocewar (and whoever above addresses the same...)

1) It is not at all an economic scam.
2) It is not purely for companies to make money.
3) It is not simply to force people into something new
4) It is not simply to force people into something completely new
5) It is not to make all your bikes have different standards, so that nothing is interchangeable
6) The extra stiffness does not come from the 142mm spacing! It comes from the system. Is X-12 stiffer?

Why? Read on…

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:25)

1) It is not at all an economic scam.
The last thing Syntace wanted to do was to introduce yet another standard to confuse everyone. There simply wasn’t a standard on the market which was as good as they wanted… so they made what they wanted and it turned out damn good! That’s why companies are buying it… What confuses everyone is the different versions of the standard bike manufacturers have come up with that only use part of the X-12 system in order to not have to pay the 1euro royalty per frame (come on guys, that is 1 Euro per frame, it is not like that makes the bike WAY dearer to manufacture!!!) and not its full potential (such as TREK, ROCKY, LA PIERRE… they use 142 x 12 dimensions but not the full X-12 potential)

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:26)

Syntace has made a better rear axle/frame interface standard and has used 142mm as the spacing in order to be able to use current hubs!!! Most people running wheels with reasonably current hubs only need a conversion kit, not a completely new back wheel or hub. This was to make it as simple and cost effective for everyone, not money scamming like assumed by so many people here. If that were the case Syntace would have probably introduced completely new hub standard with wider flages etc...

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:28)

2) It is not purely for companies to make money.
This is not for the companies to make money. This is innovation… if you read all the details you will realize this is an improvement and makes bikes better… for those of you that don’t want bikes to get better: stay away from it! Simple. Those that want a better bike will like it.

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:28)

3) It is not simply to force people into something new
Why are people so resistant to improvements and innovation which makes sense? The companies that use it have realized that it makes a better bike. If anyone has difficulties understanding why, read the details and post it here where it doesn’t make sense to you, I’m sure someone will explain it!

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:28)

4) It is not simply to force people into something completely new
It is NOT something “completely new”. It is based on current hubs, and tweaks the interface to the frame in order to achieve a range of improvements, including stiffness gain and weight saving, and simplicity of use. Again, many current hubs are either compatible or you can get conversion kits… there are even cheaper hubs out there now such as Novatec…

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:29)

5) It is not to make all your bikes have different standards, so that nothing is interchangeable any more… I have experienced this as being a whole new bike standard spread over a range of bikes…

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:29)

Example:
I have ridden following bikes: DH bike, a XC bike, a 4X/Dirt bike, All Mountain bike, Enduro bike and FR bike and all have had this new standard and it has contributed to awesome complete bike weights and really good complete bike stiffness and resulting fantastic handling.

-Full 8” DH bike 16.2kg (including 1.4 Kg tyres, Fox 40’s all that gear)

-4X bike 10.2Kg (or below 10kg without powder coating)

-XC bike 10.1Kg (150mm travel up front, 140 on the rear)

-AM bike 12.2Kg (160 / 160 mm travel)

-FR bike 14.0Kg (incl. 2.5 Mudy Mary’s, 187mm Fox 36es, 8” rear travel, + potential for 13.5 kg build)

These are just some examples of really awesome bikes I have ridden, and the X-12 rear end definitely contributed to the entire build being as perfect as I have experienced them. My experience. Fullstop.

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:32)

6) The extra stiffness does not come from the 142mm spacing! It comes from the system. Is X-12 stiffer?
I said it above, but I will explain it again here. The added stiffness comes from the axle to frame interface that by use of a conical split cone clamps in both radial and axial directions - which is for example not the case with Fox 15mm through axle or the Maxle. Have you ever looked exactly at how the previously mentioined two systems work? The X-12 split cone is also the thing that gives the X-12 a self locking mechanism (I believe Norco forgot to mention that) so the axle does not come undone (as with some DT axles and others), as the split cone locks onto the axle when done up.

The flange distance is the same as a 135mm hub, in fact the hub body is the same. 135mm hub bodies can be used - many conversion kits consist only of different end caps.

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:33)

The mag BIKE did a very simple test where they used the same DT hub which can be used for a 10mm QR, 10mm bolt through, 12 mm Maxle or the X-12 System. They applied a dummy chain stay to both ends which resemble the interfaces used in the bikes for each system. One chain stay dummy is held fixed. A force is applied to the other, deflection measured... simple, the result gives you comparable values of the system stiffness.
The 10mm QR had a stiffness of 27.3 - 38.5 (Tune, XTR and Mavic measured), 10mm bolt thru was 33.4, 12 mm Maxle was 43.2, and X-12 was 60.8 - thats 40% increase over Maxle! (Stiffness in NM per degree) and when you look at the was Maxle works, it makes total sense too. So before you reply, look at how your Maxle works!!!

1 0

eightyonespices (Mar 24, 2011 at 15:33)

The Stiffness to weight ratio of Maxle was 0.42 whereas the stiffness to weight ratio of the X-12 was 1.54, thats tripple! Now these are measured values. If you think that that can not be felt, your simply very wrong. If you want to experience the stiffness gain hands on, drop by at a bike expo such as Eurobike or Taipei and test the stiffness your self, there is a very simple display similar to the test that BIKE did where you can feel it! Come back and tell us that is not the case after you have tested it.

1 0

rideonjon (Apr 3, 2011 at 11:46)

do you work for Syntace ???