Bike Standards—How Did We Get Here?—A Podcast

Dec 12, 2017 at 20:26
by Vernon Felton  
X

A conversation—that’s what we are aiming to create here. A conversation between riders, bike shops and the bike industry itself. There’s a hell of a lot to talk about these days… including the impact being made by the flood of bike standards that have hit the market in recent years. How does it all impact riders? How about the bike shops carrying all of those bikes and parts? And what about the people making the actual products—what’s their take on all this?

I am not a retro grouch. I’m a fan of the kind of innovation that makes bikes and products better. I am, however, concerned about what sometimes seems like an avalanche of haphazard, half-step “innovations” that have saddled bikes and components with the lifespan of a fruit fly. A few of the folks at Chris King share some of my sentiments, which is why they invited a number of companies and bike shop types to King’s factory in Portland, Oregon. The goal was to get a better grasp on the issue and to broaden the discussion.

Geoff Casey of Santa Cruz Bicycles
Geoff Casey of Santa Cruz Bicycles
Chris King Bike Industry Panel Bike Standards Photo by Erik Fenner Vernon Felton Daniel Limburg of Pivot Cycles
Daniel Limburg of Pivot Cycles

Chris King Bike Industry Panel Bike Standards Photo by Erik Fenner utch Boucher of Moots Cycles
Butch Boucher of Moots Cycles
Chris King Bike Industry Panel Bike Standards Photo by Erik Fenner Matt Robertson of Enve Composites
Matt Robertson of Enve Composites

Employees from Enve, Fox Racing, Moots, Pivot Cycles and Santa Cruz Bicycles answered the call; as did representatives from several Pacific Northwest shops, including Cyclepath, Fanatik Bike, Fat Tire Farm, River City Bicycles and Sellwood Cycle Repair. Where were Shimano, SRAM, Trek, Specialized, Giant….? Fair question. This was our first attempt at creating an industry dialogue and, unfortunately, many people from those (and other companies) were overseas at the time. We’ll work on broadening the attendee list (and conversation) next time around.

Chris King Bike Industry Panel Bike Standards Photo by Erik Fenner Dave Guettler of River City Bicycles
Dave Guettler of River City Bicycles
Chris King Bike Industry Panel Bike Standards Photo by Erik Fenner Luke Demoe of Fanatik Bike and Barry O Connor from Fat Tire Farm
Luke Demoe of Fanatik Bike (left) and Barry O'Connor from Fat Tire Farm

Why does the bike industry produce so many competing standards for the same basic component?

What kind of impact does the flood of new standards have on bike shops?

Is there any chance that the major players in the bike industry will ever agree to collaborate on new standards in the future?


Those are just a few of the questions we ask and answer here.

So, sit back and give it a listen.

Finally, we'd like to give a quick shout out to Annalisa Fish (who co-hosts the "We Got to Hang Out" cycling podcast) for recording the conversation and giving us the raw materials to make this podcast.





406 Comments

  • + 430
 I think the bicycle industry needs to take all the money they spend on "Innovation" and spend 5-10 years funneling it into local, national, and global cycling advocacy. Build a stronger customer base, fight the legal battles us small time trail builders can't fight, pay Cladio whatever it takes to build pump tracks everywhere. I dunno. Maybe I'm way off base here but to me bikes are more or less where they're going to be for a long time (aside from stupid hub standards moving a handful of MM from side to side.)
  • + 32
 Amen to that Salute
  • + 51
 I agree wholeheartedly. Especially if it means we get to have Claudio at grand openings all around the world shouting 'wahwuhwuhWAUGH,' as he drunkenly rides round his latest creation.
  • + 11
 Well doesn't it make sense? It was easy to drive sales when innovation actually meant something. The Monster T wasn't a hard sale to free riders for example. But we're at this point now where they've diluted the idea of innovation (when it pertains to bicycles) to almost nothing. To me it'd make sense to shift focus, drive sales with new ridership, or re-invigorate old ridership with exciting new riding opportunities or something to that effect.
  • + 39
 The real question is: Are we killing the market by selling bikes and products that loose half of their value as soon as they leave the door?
  • + 59
 @enrico650: the value of a bike is what it brings to your life not what you get paid for it at the pawn shop
  • + 9
 @properp: Tell that to the people that saved their hard earned money to purchase a bike and then, 6 months down the road they find out it's not to the current standards.
  • + 12
 @enrico650: they're just lying to themselves they don't really care, they just think other people care and worry about keeping up because of that
  • + 33
 @enrico650:Waaaaaa I've been riding bikes my entire life that we're not to current standards. I'm still allowed to ride with all the other bikes.
  • + 32
 @enrico650: make sure you never buy a computer
  • + 12
 @enrico650: Maybe, but you're buying my future bikes, so thanks.
  • + 2
 This.
  • - 1
 @properp: Good for you.
  • + 7
 @properp: wow, a PB commenter who actually *gets* it...
  • + 16
 @enrico650: That seems silly. Did they buy a bike as an investment? It's a poor investment. I still ride my 26" all-mountain bike and it gave me as much joy on my last ride as it did the first.

Standards have no effect on my current ride, that is until I need to replace my bike, which when I do will likely come with wheels that fit the frame.

The various standards would impact the aftermarket products more than the bike purchase. If you want a new set of wheels, you are now interested in the spacing standard.
  • + 2
 Just spoken out of my mind..
  • + 9
 @enrico650: what kind of idiot gets a new bike and 6mo later is complaining new standards have been released?

I've kept every bike I've owned for at least 2-5yrs and standards or not it has been a weapon the whole time....
  • - 9
flag endurocat (Dec 13, 2017 at 14:02) (Below Threshold)
 @oldmanjoe: Maybe the new standard should be that companies make a commitment to keep making bikes and products for 26" instead of forcing customers into their so called ; new standard
  • - 10
flag endurocat (Dec 13, 2017 at 14:03) (Below Threshold)
 @DarrellW: No , I'm not.
  • + 42
 @Rucker10 @Pinkbike, now you need to introduce a nomination for stupidest comment of the year 2017.

Bike companies are businesses. They design, manufacture, market and sell bikes. They also sponsor riders, events, competitions, video shoots etc. etc.

Despite the hippy knee jerk reaction that got your post so many +1's, most bike companies are not huge multinationals that operate on a limitless budget. Even if they were, what other multinationals do you see investing into their markets in the way that you propose?

They build the bikes, you build the stuff to ride them on.

You get to put your own personal touch on something that you and your friends built. To me that is priceless and it is the soul of MTB. Not getting big companies to invest in and build your sport for you.

Never mind though, lets harass all the bike companies to do our work for us and then after they do our hippy bidding, we can all sit round a camp fire, sing Kumbaya and wank each other off.
  • - 6
flag WasatchEnduro (Dec 13, 2017 at 14:14) (Below Threshold)
 @enrico650:

Enrico Iglesias -> you’re always gonna lose if you look at your bike purchase thr
  • + 9
 through that distorted lens.

“Waaaaaa! My bike/car/snowboard just lost all it’s value because I bought it new and rode it once.”

Asinine. A bike isn’t an investment. Buy and ride for 4 years then sell (or keep) and buy again.
  • - 3
 @properp:

Preach it Perp!

+100!
  • + 5
 @enrico650: If you believe the marketing hype about new and current "standards" I've got a bridge to sell you.
  • + 16
 Cult theory: Changes in hub spacing are only due to pressure from bike rack companies who need people to buy something new
  • + 16
 @excavator666: You seem like you have some weird repressed issues with hippies.

Anyways... I wasn't suggesting the bike companies build our trails. The industry in question paying Claudio to go around and build bike parks is an idealistic exaggeration (wouldn't it be sweet though?) I think my point is a perfectly valid one. The industry is losing market share, and coming up with nonsense changes in standards, and trying to force E-bikes down our throats isn't going to work, they should try some other ideas. It probably won't be mine and that's fine, like I said it was mostly a whimsical statement, but it certainly wouldn't be the worst thing in the world either.
  • + 12
 @enrico650: if you want to have the latest because it’s latest your life will always be filled with disappointment.

@Rucker10: I hear your point, a noble one but in case of a private company, the saying of my mother applies: you can do whatever you want with your own earned money. It’s not your business what others do with theirs.
  • + 6
 @WAKIdesigns: You're not wrong, but they are going to change one way or another. They'd be crazy not to see how changing hub standards a couple mm at the time so that we'll have to buy their different shit every handful of years is driving away more people then it's keeping.
  • + 15
 @Rucker10: I agree with you mate.

How much bigger would mtb be if there were legal trails, well built and maintained, accessible to all standards from novices to pros all over the place? Include in that family trails where I can ride along side my kid.

What if there was some heavy weight backing for us when trying to negotiate access etc?

Surely these changes would bring far more people into the sport than all the current marketing bs? And more people means more sales. Seems pretty logical to me.
  • + 0
 @Rucker10: I get it and I don’t like what’s happening with the progression resize based economy, but I find it quite unrelated to trail access advocacy/ trail construction/ maintenance. You can do both.
  • + 4
 Sounds great, but consumers drive the industry and they buy the latest and greatest. If you aren't investing in new designs and ideas, someone else will and they'll take market share. Lets say for example that Santa Cruz, Specialized, Trek or one of the other companies released a new campaign this spring with ads and everything that said exactly what you proposed. A few people might support that and buy their bikes, but if one of the other companies came out with something "new" then they'd take most of the customers. Its the way it is until customers force the change.
  • + 0
 @enrico650: true , but ultimately who cares? 12x142 is strong enough. anything newer is just gimmick
  • + 15
 @excavator666: Actually many companies across various industries spend huge amounts of money (relative to revenue) to influence government policy in favour of maintaining or increasing their respective markets.

And I don't think @Rucker10 was at all implying that the industry should "do our hippy bidding", but instead made a valid point that increasing awareness, riding opportunities and access would actually help build their consumer base and, in the long run, improve sales.

And contrary to your point, a simple count of bicycle companies would imply that "most" are not huge multinationals... but when you look at the market share of the huge multinationals there are certainly a few with massive resources available that could easily afford to route more funds toward grassroots development if their owners/shareholders could look beyond the next quarter.
  • + 2
 @trauty: well ssid
  • + 6
 @enrico650: Fox has just about every fork in 26" for 2017, I can still get numerous rims in 26" Maxxis has brand new 26" tires, etc. I can get a hub in every rear and front 'standard' I want either new or on buy/sell section at the click of a button. Your point?
  • + 11
 @bman33: just pick me up some new elastomers for the Judy
  • + 1
 Well stated man. I hope these guys take it to heart.
  • + 6
 @excavator666: Can I come camping with you?
  • + 2
 @properp: yes! I blew up so many Judy cartridges back in day. ????
  • + 1
 Hell yes brother!!
  • + 1
 @enrico650: They become antique bike lovers and scrounge for hard to get parts.
  • + 4
 They are too busy trying to sell more e-bikes. And their stooges IMBA support that instead of actual access improvements like Sustainable Trails Coalition' bill.
  • + 1
 @dicky1080: You have trail access issues in Chile?
  • + 3
 Man you guys are going to be pissed when someone tells you what capitalism is....
  • + 0
 You sound like the people in the middle-ages outlawing Science.
  • - 1
 @simooo: heh, if it was possible for Pinkbike to host a very realistic simulation of medieval public torture, the bots representing Bike Industry insiders would be the most common victims. Aside of E-bikers off course... my guts would be allo over the place. Perhaps that is the future of Pinkbike comment board. The Pink Bike Park of agonizing death. Nobody rides bikes, everyone just whines about them and endulges ganging up on particular individuals or whole companies to serve them a horrific death.

I love the idea of a virtual bike park... we could all build our own characters and bikes.
  • + 3
 @properp: I just converted a 10+ year old 110x20mm Ringle Abbah DH hub to 100x15 by changing bearings and internals and end caps to Hope and a little bit of filing for good measure.

It just takes a little bit of ingenuity. It saved me binning a perfectly good 36h 29er wheel.
  • + 3
 @trauty: surprised it took so long scrolling down before anyone said the word "gimmick". Saves me doing it I suppose
  • + 0
 @Dont-hit-trees Sure thing buddy Wink

@robwhynot: That's called lobbying. I personally would not support an MTB company that I knew was guilty of lobbying.

No, what @Rucker10 was implying is that he wants the bike companies to do his work for him. Why doesn't he try to action these changes himself? Why doesn't he get a group of likeminded people together to support and lend weight to his argument?

Why doesn't he do some research, prepare a proposal to this nature and then present it to a bike company, instead of soapboxing about it in the Pinkbike comments section? Better again, why doesn't he start a bike company and try to build and sell bikes and also spend 5-10 years funnelling investment into local, national, and global cycling advocacy at the same time?

MTB is in a great place at the minute. No one is stuck for somewhere to ride their bike regardless of access issues, and we've got this far through the collaboration of they build the bikes, we build the stuff to ride them on.

Despite that, there actually are bike comanies who invest into the sport in MANY different ways. What thanks do they get? They get pissed on by losers in the pinkbike comments section. No one has even mentioned ONE of them in this discussion! Take the Hope Academy for example: hopeacademyuk.com

To all the people complaining about having to buy new standards. You don't HAVE to buy them! You can still buy a budget or second hand bike and have the time of your life on them. If you think that you have to own the latest trends/standards to have a good time on a bike, then I suggest you look at your riding instead of your ride.

If you don't want an e-bike, THEN DON'T BUY ONE! We control the market. If no one buys e-bikes, then companies won't continue to try and sell them.
  • + 2
 @properp: Or a phone, a car, a television etc.. etc..
  • + 1
 And World Peace!
  • + 3
 I love it. So many people getting on the "dont buy a new bike" train
  • + 1
 @BryceBorlick: I've been riding that train since late 2014.
  • + 0
 @properp: My bike lost 50% of its value 5 months after I bought it. All for a ridiculous switch from 142 to 148. The same happened to my previous bike, but on a longer time interval, because of the switch from 26 to 650b (i.e. 27"). The same happened to all the components I purchased in the last 20 years.

What would you do if the same happened to your car? or motorcycle?
  • + 7
 @duzzi: I would continue to use it and beat on it and Shred on it. I buy all those things that you mentioned for enjoyment in my life not as Investments. I have never met a single person on the trail yet that says I'm going to buy this bike because next year it's going to be worth a lot of money. If you want to buy a bicycle for an investment I suggest an antique Schwinn Krate
  • + 3
 10 years and building the same bikes? The industry would be bankrupt after 2. No sales, no money.

You would think that in capitalist USA people would know how an industry works.
  • + 2
 @enrico650: If they saved their money, and purchased the bike, they should enjoy it for the bike that it is, not because its 'the latest thing'. For the people who find value in having the latest bling, they are prepared to spend regularly to be 'cool' even though that sort of thing usually makes you more of a tool than cool.
  • + 4
 @fiatpolski: The normal people here know just fine. It's the cry babies on the thread that complain. I have said it here before, Fox still makes 26" forks , Maxxis still makes 26" new tires. I can buy a new hub in almost every configuration if not, plenty of used in great condition on ebay, Buy/sell on Pinkbike, etc. Some people just like to bitch. haha
  • + 0
 @BryceBorlick: I love it too. As if Pinkbike commenters stood for buying force that can be reckoned with.
  • + 7
 @duzzi: Dude, your bike lost 50% of its value the second you rolled it out the door. Standards had nothing to do with it. Same thing with cars and motorcycles. I bought a Triumph Thruxton in February. The second I signed papers, it lost a huge chunk of new value. So what? To me, its value is in its use.

Sure, new standards are really making bikes awesome. Stiffer forks, stiffer rear ends. It all sounds great. But alas, I'm still on my '08 Kona with old school spacing. Do you suppose every time I swing a leg over it I think to myself, "Man, I really got screwed buying this thing back in 08?" No, I think, "sweet, another ride on this machine that has proven itself over the years."

All this complaining is pointless. Did you enjoy your bike when you bought it? Can you still enjoy it even though it isn't the latest thing? If not, then I'd suggest some serious self reflection.
  • + 2
 @enrico650: Yes, the resale value of their bike decreases when that happens. That's a bummer for them - but sports gear is not generally something you buy hoping for high value retention. And today's bikes are generally pretty awesome - so the rapid turnover at the top end tends to create a lot of opportunity for bargain hunters, both in the new market (bikes getting discounted pretty heavily in year 2 or 3 of their model run) and the used market (I picked up a used 26"-wheeled FS Stumpjumper for my 12 year old - a bike he'll be able to ride for at least three or four years).
  • + 1
 @High-Life: you sure are a dreamer
  • + 1
 @duzzi: Depreciation curves on cars and motorcycles tend to be steepest in the first year or two of ownership. The second you sign on the dotted line, that "new" car goes to "used"/"pre-owned" status. I'm not a fan of needless changes in standards, and it drives me nuts that stuff that really should be standardized across the industry isn't (really, we need two ways of attaching brake rotors to hubs?). But sports gear in general, even when it's not driven by new standards, tends to exhibit the same steep depreciation curves as we see in MTB. You can buy brand-new prior year skis with no substantive change (only different topsheet graphics) for easily 30% off every year. I'd argue the reason your new bike lost 50% of its value isn't the hub standard switch - it's that the bike went from "new" to "used" status. Perhaps the depreciation is a little steeper if there's a standard switch involved - but most of what you observed is just the normal life cycle of gear.
  • + 1
 @Poulsbojohnny: Amen, brother!
  • + 1
 @bman33: living in heaven $9400110895334002942880/15448387/ to the door
Outdated standards I'll take them all day long
  • + 4
 @excavator666: lobying can be a force for good you know. Many industries work with the government to try and affect positive changes.

I don´t agree that the responsibility of negociating access and building and maintaining trails should fall only on us riders. The industry clearly has funds designated to increasing sales; why not spend some of that on improving and creating new trails to attract a wider audience and therefore increase sales? Seems to me that that could be more effective than making all these micro "improvements" every year: Expand customer base instead of trying to sell more to those that are already riders.

Also the reverse is true. Imagine if a government took the decision that no bikes were allowed off road; that would mean a loss of sales for the bike industry; surely it is in the best interests of the industry that people have good places to use their product?
  • + 4
 @excavator666: Why would you not support a bike company that invests money in trying to influence governments to maintain or expand trail access? Lobbying to remove enviro standards to make dumping carbon acceptable would be a different story.

And Capitalism is an economic system of monetary policy, investment, property rights and freedom of choice. What you are speaking of is competition, an attribute of capitalism, but often confused to be synonymous. In competition a company that is performing their fiduciary duty to owners/investors will explore all reasonable opportunities to provide growth, profit and return on investment. You don't think if a community that had little to no trail access received funding to build a Cannondale Bike Park with a bunch of sweet trails wouldn't 1. be valuable to Cannondale's brand and 2. grow the local market (more in favour of Cannondale than competitors)...? It's sponsorship of a different ilk.

There's no right or wrong here, and I'm not arguing that bike companies should or shouldn't do this kind of stuff, just countering your singularly-focused position with a different pov (I suppose one would call it trolling, I like to try to create thoughtful dialogue)... you may be surprised how rewarding it would be to actually be able to consider multiple perspectives on an issue... it is actually a sign of the level of intellect you're trying to portray.
  • + 0
 @dicky1080: Bike companies are already investing into these things though.

Most trail centres and bike parks are sponsored by... bike companies.
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: your best idea yet! I for one would nominate you as Park Manager.
  • - 3
 @robwhynot: Absolutely man! Constructive dialogue is always a good thing.

At the end of the day we have to look at what's realistic though. The MTB industry IS investing into its market.

I just get the impression that a lot of people have this nauseating hippy sense of entitlement, whereby they feel that the MTB industry owes them something. It doesn't!

I'm a serious advocate of traditional capitalism. It's the essence of why we're not still living in caves throwing shit at each other.

There's just too many people waiting for, or expecting others to do things for them instead of doing it themselves, or alternatively approaching those who they deem responsible for it; with strategies for executing their pipedreams.
  • + 3
 @excavator666: You wanna show me on the doll where the hippy touched you or what?

You're a fan of constructive dialog but you're taking an incredibly hardline approach to what is obviously a fanciful idea.

I'm not sitting in front of a boardroom full of mountain bike executives. I'm throwing out a whimsical idea that would actually probably amount to something pretty rad if the world was a perfect place, but I have no allusions to the fact that it isn't.
  • + 4
 @excavator666: Absolutely, just look at some of the compaines involved in this article. I think the point is that investing like that could be more beneficial than micro improvements and marketing BS. In your first reply you were adamant that the reposnibility to build lies with the riders not the industry.
  • + 1
 @laxguy: thank you. But I would be poisoned or back stabbed rather quickly. Keyboard thug for life
  • + 4
 @excavator666: I think you're slightly missing what @Rucker10 was getting at while you're focusing so much on trail advocacy and hippies.

There's not much evidence that the rising tide is taking everyone with it as far as consumer capitalism and how it is currently working in the bike industry - the constantly changing standards (trying to create need in the consumer rather than satisfy one) aren't developing a customer base, they look like they're driving people away and only providing significant profits for the shareholders at the top.
Ignoring the proposed specifics of trail advocacy, your associated hippies etc - he's got a point that there's a chunk of money accumulating at the top created, in part, by ever changing standards designed to bring about a premature obsolescence to continue the consumption. So a few people get a big chunk while resources are used up at a ferocious rate and say, LBS's and smaller bike companies, are massively squeezed. There's the sensation of being squeezed for every last drop as someone looking to buy a new bike - rather than companies developing customer bases - when it comes to these ever changing standards.
  • + 6
 @dicky1080: my biggest outtake from it are two things:
1. "If we are changing lowers of the fork, why not change it to 110?" Which is a clear aftermath bullcrap. Then why not go to 20x110 then?! As it should have been done when Shimano and Fox came out with this 15x100 bollocks! I know why, it doesn't take a post doc in engineering, rather a weekend course in marketing: because XC crowd which stands for vast majority of mountain bikes being sold, would be pissed off at adding 20grams! Front wheel stiffness?! Really?!
2. Rear boost was invented for plus bikes, for their chainline and wacky wide rims requiring more triangulation, not to increase rear end stiffness for 29ers, or to make shorter stays, which is bullsht. As I have been saying all along. The problem is, NOBODY whines about two rear hub standards for fat bikes, because they are a niche product, having nothing to do with normal bikes. So why was it brought upon us all? Why wasn't plus left as a niche, own genre like fatties, considering how many unknowns there were as they were creating the whole hype storm? That obviously backfired? Not to mention the fact, that many smart people on regular bikes noticed that it is better to leave the crankset as non-boost, since the chainline gets better? Not to mention that Cannondale proved that same result of the improved chainline and spoke triangulation can be achieved by offsetting the 142mm rear hub to the drive side?! Asymetric rims anybody?!

Boost is bullsht. So is Super Boost. The reason 150/157 had so much space left on the non drive side is because moving the NDS flange outwards, by keeping the DS flange in the same place, does NOTHING! It creates even more spoke tension imbalance between NDS and DS.

Ugh... I was expecting much more from this. I don't want to sound like a racist, but North Americans are way too polite. Cesar Rojo, who is a genuine authority speaks more openly with more valid arguments than most of the people in this podcast. Even Chris King himself spoke more sense in his interview with Dirt where he called out the industry on profiteering. I just don't know how can you on one side say that destandarization is a nightmare, that you are left with piles of old standards and then turn defensive to boost.

@vernonfelton, kudos to you, good questions in good tone. I like you more than Spoomer. He is way too gentle in his podcasts.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I'll protect you.. someones gotta keep things fun around here.
  • + 1
 @jimmyconnors: you have some good points. However, "..driving people away and only providing significant profits for the shareholders at the top." Directly contradicts itself. Losing customers does not increase shareholders profit, it does the complete opposite. Also, there are many boutique/'core' brands that directly benefit from being different that the big "S" with proprietary shocks for example or other 'Giant' or large brands. They thrive on being the very things the other big brands are not. Santa Cruz uses threaded BB's, so does Transition. One up has made a great business selling adapters and epander kits. MRP makes several 100 to 110 adapters for front hubs to go from regular to boost. Yes 142 was a baby step and BS in many ways. However, 148 IS a better hub that 135 through or 142. Small benefits but no doubt a benefit.
  • + 3
 @bman33: I take your point - that is of course contradictory. I wasn't intentionally linking those two things if I'm honest, writing in a hurry.
To be clearer, what I was trying to say was that the big players who are driving these endless changes seem to be a little too concerned with money going to the top than those below them - I wonder if that's why we're seeing such astronomical prices as the market flatlines.
And, Transition spoke a few years ago about the changing standards affecting them - they'd create molds etc for manufacture only for the standard to change on them. They contended that at that time it was negatively affecting their business and that they felt forced in to keeping up with the standards. Think it was on Pinkbike I saw it.
  • + 1
 Four years? WTF, I expect at least 10 years of useful SERVICEABLE life for a $4,000 investment! I want to be able to repair a 2005 Reign my son handed down to get me started so I can let friends who are not world cup athletes ride it. Seems this industry is producing marketing white noise for bling crap designed to last less than a pair of shoes, but then again, what one isn't?
  • + 1
 True. I am trying to get the politicians in Oslo to realise the potential of trails and downhill riding. Today I am sharing a sleigh ride hill with pedestrians who loves to release their dogs without a leash, that would turn into shish kebab without my Hope V4 brakes. Wink The national sport is cross country skiing and alpine skiing, but in Oslo we only have proper snow for 3 months. I wonder what else we could do...
  • - 2
 @Rucker10: Hippies spend more time talking about their fanciful, idealistic, half-baked ideas, than they do putting them into action.

Fanciful ideas aren't worth a feck if they aren't supported by action. But it is the expectation of the purveyors of these "ideas", for others to take them seriously, when ultimately they have no intention of actually doing anything about them, and all they're doing is wasting people's time with their bloody nonsense.

You have a weak to non-existent argument, and because you haven't got anything more concrete or constructive to contribute to the discussion, you are incinuating that I am discouraging constructive criticism with my hardline attitude, when in actual fact I am the one who is suggesting actions which might take the discussion beyond Pinkbike.

Here are the facts:
1: Bike companies ARE investing into trails.
2: You are not.

You don't have to be sitting at the top of the boardroom table to influence those who actually are. If you fanciful "ideas" are good enough, and you can support and articulate them, then the people who they're aimed at would have to be retarded not to listen to them!

Now run along and get your crayons out, and start writing to all the big bad bike companies with your brilliant ideas.

I'll be expecting to hear you on the next podcast.
  • + 2
 @excavator666: I'd get my crayons out for you but I'm afraid if I did you'd try to eat them.

Mountain biking is a "fanciful idealistic half baked idea" you dickbag. It's grown ass men (and women) riding around in the woods on toys. It isn't serious business. I have no idea how you spend your time but I'm starting to suspect it involves lots of trail segments followed by ritualistic self mutilation every time you don't make a KOM.

I would argue that at least part of Pinkbike's mission statement has to be the sharing of ideas, regardless of how "fanciful." If you don't like one of them, fair enough. People like you retard development more than you help it. Tails have never been built on the shoulders of naysayers and misanthropes but rather by the dreamers and probably the hippies that you decry so vehemently.
  • + 2
 @Rucker10: Man, I was waiting for someone to say it... finally someone feeling like I do.
  • - 3
 @Rucker10: That would be a lot of self mutilation.

It's the same for you with butthurt?
  • + 2
 @excavator666: Ah! Humility! I wasn’t expecting that. I appreciate that if not much else. Touché sir.
  • + 1
 @nvranka: For some people, always being on the newest generation of stuff is really important. I don't subscribe to that point of view personally, but I do business with plenty of people who do. If you really wanna be on the latest stuff and you have a limited budget, you're gonna get pretty pissed if you keep having to buy a new bike before you can easily afford it.
  • + 1
 As much as I'd like to agree with this (because who doesnt want those things) You have to remember that they're a business and have to create new products to drive the industry forward. A bike company that doesnt do that will fall out of business pretty fast :/
  • + 3
 @excavator666: lobbying is how you get government to affect changes that will improve your future. Want more bike infrastructure? Someone has to rub elbows with politicians. SRAM hire lobbyists. Ditto Shimano. Ditto Trek, Soecialized, Giant, QBP, cannondale, just to list the ones I've heard of specifically. They're the ones putting money down in an effort to make biking more accessible. Is it out of goodness of their heart? Nah, it's for the future of their business. That doesn't mean it makes them the devil.
  • + 1
 @duzzi: I wouldn't buy a new one every year and complain about it.
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: Good call on rear boost.

Trek developed it for their 29+ Stache to achieve ridiculously short chainstays and then rolled it out to their other bikes. If the rest of the industry resisted the change then Trek would have been on their own and it may well have died or at least lived with Plus bikes.

How ironic that Trek who were responsible for 148 were not at thsee discussions....
  • + 1
 @bman33: But how can Hope make a 130mm rear end that is stiffer than 148mm... or maybe gearboxes should be developed so we can get a narrower stronger rear wheel....
  • + 1
 @sambs827: I concede your point about lobbying. Your point only serves to reinforce mine though. Bike companies already ARE investing into trails and more.

Unfortunately you still get uninformed ingrates getting their opinions confused with ideas. Ingrates who think that the world owes them something, and opinions which are usually at the expense of someone else.

Regarding standards. Yes some new standards are retarded, and clearly unnecessary. You don't have to buy them though. If there was only one company out there and you could only buy one standard, then yes that would be a problem, but there is so much variety that people have no excuse for not being able to buy whatever they want.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Amen to that!
  • + 1
 @excavator666: i just want to clear one thing out. i agree with your criticism of @Rucker10 idealistic approach. I have been there in 2010-2012 calling corporations out on some leftie greenie bullsht spree, doing nothing. I bought Hope Hubs and felt like a moral human being for chosing local produce. I was that stupid. I just liked Ruckers way of calling mountain bikers as a whole, as a bunch of folks who are often too full of themselves
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: I also used to have an unrealistic hippy attitude (when I was a teenager), but then the world taught me how it works.

Some MTB'ers are full of themselves, some aren't. If you're full of yourself because you're good then you're fully entitled to be. If you're full of yourself but haven't got the goods, then all you are is full of shit.

I'd say that most of the bombastic nonsense in the PB comments section comes from the latter. @Rucker10 is one of them, and hasn't got a clue what he's on about. Perhaps they only live in this fantasy land in the safe space of the PB, but yes, at least on here they do appear to be full of themselves.

On the trail I find the vast majority of guys to be pleasant and good fun.

Once again though, it is the expectation of these dellusionals to be taken seriously without any research, acknowledgement of the facts, or ultimately action, which is making a mockery of those that ARE doing these things!

It's a bit a personal thing for me to be honest, as I've ran various ventures which I and my team busted our god damn asses to acheive, but innevitably we always had naysayers and detractors who hadn't a clue what they were talking about, who thought that they could do it better, even though they hadn't done prior to that point, and still haven't done since!

I have to call out this attitude where I see it.
  • + 2
 @excavator666: I see your perspective, but I personally see it from the inside of MTB. At my work nobody does that, because you just can't criticize others (even the competition) because everyone will quickly ask you to show what you can do. But in MTB there are waaaay to many free lunching whiny arses (not saying that Ruckus is one as I don't know him) who say "there should be a trail here", "this feature is too dangerous, they should reshape it", "those guys can't build trails", "somebody should build some good jumps in this town". I don't build trails, Sometimes I maintain them by removing crap and cutting through fallen trees, I created no more than 100m of a singletrack in my life and maybe built 10 dirt jumps in total. BUT I know people who build a lot and I respect their work a lot, even if it is a small kicker. And I hear this whining because people who are whining know who built a certain thing and they think they can speak openly when certain people are not around. And I hate it. The "Somebody should do something" attitude coped with "I am just expressing my opinion". Not only you have nothing to show up with, you want to get away with responsibility for talking crap. I am ashamed of how little I work for trails, but at least I keep my mouth shut and never criticize, unless someone did something stupid that I know from own experience, is just stupid, and I consult my friends who do build stuff, what do they think about it. Like building a big, badly shaped jump on the edge of natural reserve at the view of everyone passing by.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Fair point. A lot of it goes on in MTB, and I think everyone is at least a little guilty of it, which is why it needs to be called out.

If various parties can open a dialogue which leads to positive action, then everyone benefits.

Action speaks louder than words after all.
  • + 4
 The best part is they don't even show the original 135mm
  • + 2
 The bike manufacturers should be going to bat for the consumers when it comes to trail access. So many areas, mountain bike trail access is heavily pressured by different groups. The mountain bike community doesn't really have a big enough voice to argue their case for trail access. The bike manufacturers have a lot more pull when it comes to advocating for trail access to different municipalities and regions.
  • + 1
 @excavator666: if you genuinely want to "open a dialogue" then in my experience, and I think most would agree, the best way to do this is leave the aggressive attitude and name calling out of it. It's very difficult not to go on the defensive when you have someone treating you like shit and even harder to have a constructive conversation. If you don't like what someone says then by all means tell them, that is the right thing to do, but don't do it with anger and insults.
  • + 2
 @dicky1080: Conclusion to the discussion, which you have not added anything to. "Get off your soapbox and don't expect someone else to do it, when you're perfectly capable of doing it yourself."

It may be difficult not to go on the defensive when someone is being aggressive towards you, but it should be easy to defend yourself using facts if there is any merit to your argument whatsoever.

My "agressive attitude" gets things done. If it comes off as being curt or aggressive it's because I don't waste time entertaining the fanciful ideas of idiots. Especially when these losers attempt to tout their opinions as ideas at the expense of others, without having done any research or fact checking.
  • + 1
 @dicky1080: Incidentally, I'm not saying that the actions of these dreamers are completely hopeless, but sometimes people just need a kick up the arse to get their head out of the clouds and to get them to take some initiative.
  • + 1
 @excavator666: Holy sht, you mean business...
  • + 1
 @excavator666: you have absolutely no idea what I or anyone else on this forum has done or is doing with regards to building trails, working towards access or championing the sport. How do you know that @Rucker10 hasn't been building trail for years and is frustrated with his efforts to get some sort support from the industry?

You entered this conversation saying that the industry isn't responsible for trail building, then halfway through you change your opinion with no mention of that change at all. Right from the go you have been aggressive and insulting which is not the way to "get things done" or "open a dialogue". You said yourself that actions are important, but throughout this conversation your actions have not helped in any sort of constructive way at all. It would seem to me that you just want a fight and to make yourself out to be superior to everyone who has a different opinion to you. The problem is you contradict yourself, don't listen or try to understand the other and all with this f you attitude.

With regards to defending a point of view with facts; the point of view you attacked at the beginning, which was also an attack on the person not just his opinion, you then agree with halfway through but keep on attacking the person! Your attitude doesn't come off as being aggressive, it is aggressive.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/037/793/lou_yelling_at_jordana.jpg


@dicky1080
1: Because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
4: In my intial statement I said that bike companies do invest into the sport.
2: Bike compaies are not responsible for building trails.
3: They still do though.
4: I constructively advised to do some research on the subject, and prepare a strategy/proposal.
5: I do not want a fight, but I also do not want to see the efforts of others erroneously dismissed.
6: The point of view I challenged, initially challenged the bike industry.
7: I do not agree with his point of view.
  • + 1
 @excavator666: none of the which justifies name calling and treating people aggressively.
  • + 1
 @dicky1080: Suck it hippy.
  • + 1
 Totttallly...hope they will read ur comment
  • + 1
 @excavator666 I was just impressed with the consistence and word economy of your reply.
  • + 65
 Basically these new standards keep falling out of people's asses because the big bike companies all want to be like Apple and sell idiots the same shit with different coloured toilet paper every year. For a few years it's worked quite well, but bikes aren't iPhones and Mike Sinyard's not Steve Jobs, so the buyers have got bored with it pretty damn quick.
  • + 63
 Whoooooah there.... Hold your horses there cowboy.... you can get different coloured toilet paper?!?!?! Sign me up!!!!
  • + 127
 @bigtim: mine changes colour when I use it!!!!
  • + 1
 @fix-the-spade You are correct. Companies already invested millions thinking that every year a new "thing" will drive sales. They will struggle next year
  • + 3
 I love the hoard of dongles I require to use a mouse while charging my macbook, or god forbid use a memory card or USB stick and a mouse, I then require a full birds nest of dongles.
  • + 12
 To be fair, Specialized isn't the one behind these standards, it's Trek and SRAM. They did there fair share of proprietary shocks though.
  • - 6
flag WAKIdesigns (Dec 13, 2017 at 15:15) (Below Threshold)
 How dare you shit on my portal to verbal diarrhea and compulsive autoeroticism
  • + 1
 @bigtim: www.myrenova.com/c/1/colors 100% guaranteed to change your toilet experience.
  • - 1
 @applepie: can't you use the touchpad, or a bluetooth mouse like it was actually designed for?

Or just buy one of these? satechi.net/products/satechi-type-c-pass-through-usb-hub-with-usb-c-charging-port

You're welcome.
  • + 1
 can you buy it in brown?
  • + 57
 The customers are getting the best end of the deal? As a customer, it's hard for me to see it that way.
  • + 11
 it's bs. These companies are in it to make money, first and foremost. Make no mistake about that.
  • + 13
 @atrokz: yes, by definition, companies have the goal of making money. They are not charities or non-profits. You can say their marketing is BS, but blaming them for trying to make a profit?

It's not like any of these guys are like the dude who acquired the patent for a drug required to keep patients alive, and jacked the price up 700%, and for the most part, no one in the bike industry is hosting Shark Tank.
  • + 11
 @ReformedRoadie: I think he is referring to making profits off of nonsensical standard changes that have no real benefit other than requiring customer to buy new stuff that otherwise wouldn't be necessary. Example: 15mm axles and 100mm spacing on forks. Like that was really an improvement. The old 20mm x 110mm made it easy to swap wheels in a pinch from DH to XC.

We all love our bikes and for most of us a luxury that brings us joy. But the way the industry is with this stuff and trying to go proprietary is a$$nine.
  • + 1
 I interpreted it as whatever you buy, it'll be great and fantastic and you really won't notice any difference compared to any other "modern" standard. Maybe?
  • + 0
 @Peregrinebikes: they wouldn’t do it if it wouldn’t work. I was selling an RS Revelation 27,5 lately and two potential buyers pointed out lack of Boost, one of them had it as a requirement for upgrade of his current fork.
  • + 4
 @WAKIdesigns: Your Revelation is lacking in the boost department by approximately 100%
  • + 3
 @browner: my point was. Someone wanted to change his fork just because he wanted Boost. Another person thought that my fork is as outdated as a 2001 Marzocchi. They were probably quite confused. Especially considering that my asking price was quite low for what was a rather unused and 2 year old fork. Like the man telling me, why would I ride 160 Lyrik if Pike comes in 160 and it is lighter. I told him I wanted a possibility to change to 180 and Lyrik seemed more solid to me. He replied, that changing travel to 180 seems unreasonable. He was making a point about validating 100g of weight saving, while I was eating pork and drinking beer during a break in riding. What I mean is... confusion. lots of confusion.
  • + 2
 @ReformedRoadie: you missed the point unfortunately, @Peregrinebikes got it. Also, some people in the industry were also on shark tank, in case you missed tantrum bikes being on it.

All in all, I'm for improvements and advancements that make sense. I'm not a fan of proprietary stuff on bikes for the sake of it, or 'advancements' that have little to no merit, obfuscated by bs claims of XX% etc. As a mfg eng and manufacturing and engineering consulting business owner, and long time rider and former cycling business owner I can see some of these 'advancements' are clearly bullshit, for the sake of profit vs providing value to customers. Some aren't. PF bbs? BS.
  • + 40
 Ultra-mega boost needs to happen real soon. You people won't believe how much better your bikes will perform.
  • + 50
 my dick is immensely hard just thinking of that 1.2% stiffness increase
  • + 29
 @9M119M1: it's actually 1.22%, get it right. And if you don't adopt to the new, new, new standard, you'll be at least 10 minutes slower on a 5 minute loop. Also, the new standard will raise bike prices by 12%.
  • + 9
 Bottom brackets are going to get wide to the point it will be like straddling a horse to accommodate these wider hubs.
  • + 2
 Nay, nay, SuperUltraMegaPlusBoost is the next huge thing!
  • + 2
 ExtremeSuperUltraMegaPlusBoost is even a better!
  • + 2
 @doe222: we will all be on ebikes so we won't have to pedal anyway
  • + 1
 I don't care what it's called so long as i can remove 2 more spokes and pay triple for rims.
  • + 3
 I have just acquired Boost all over thanks to a 2018 bike. Its so much stiffer they had to give me 24/28 spoke wheels to add some compliance. Or maybe to save a bit of weight - you know all that extra metal to make everything wider. ...
  • + 32
 Thanks to Vernon and Chris King for inviting us to this. It was a pleasure being in the same room with so many great folks. This podcast is a very condensed version of a full day of conversation and constructive criticism. Let's have the next summit down here in Asheville, then we can all go ride a little Pisgah!
  • + 2
 Got any jobs going in the UK?
  • + 3
 Pisgah has the goods!! Hope y'all will invite the Novatec crew next go round. Were just south of you guys.. currently moving our headquarters to Clayton GA. Braappp Braaappp
  • + 5
 Little Pisgah? You guys have more trails than the industry has standards.
  • + 1
 Well, that was fluffy.
  • + 1
 You know I'm always game to head on over to Asheville and Brevard for bikes, trails and beer. Thanks @IndustryNineOfficial for coming out to Portland and being part of it.
  • + 2
 @TheMotoGiveth: make sure you use caution if you are invited. Those I9 boys are fast. Could just be an invite to take you out in the woods and drop the competition.
  • + 1
 @TheMotoGiveth: Why Clayton? I was up there this past weekend and noticed that you guys are there now. Originally I didn't think Clayton had much to offer with just Stonewall, but man, was I wrong after searching a little on Strava heatmaps. There's some good stuff around there!
  • + 24
 Bit of a silly title really - there are pretty much no standards in the bike industry!
  • + 17
 Oh come on... what about chain pitch, grip (inside) diameter and pedal spindle threading?
  • + 6
 @martn: That is all open season now! You should not have mentioned that, as now there is a very real possibility that some company will get off on that idea, and before you know it, all pedals will become metric trndering all others useless and incompatible. Marketing genius! Now look what you have done
  • + 2
 @HerrDoctorSloth: yep they are definitely going to change the threading and the pitch now...
  • + 1
 @inverted180: it would make sense - smaller ligther rings / cassettes with the same ratios. If you could get a 500% range at half the weight people would take it. It would also make rear suspension work better just like gearboxes do by removing weight.
  • + 1
 @martn: uhhh, bmx use 1/2”and mtb use 9/16” we can’t even agree on that!
  • + 1
 @martn: Most of those are from the dark ages of bicycles though.

Chain pitch is something that was probably settled on before I was born, likely taken from industy.
Grip inside diameter, well yes, but WTB almost went there by making you cut the ends of your bars to a specific angle to fit their grips and pedal spindle, again probably settled on before I was born.

I think chain pitch could change in the future as the drivetrain companies have a monopoly on the market anyway, why would it matter if the new SRAM groupset had a specific pitch when it has a specific chain anyway for Eagle?

Grip / Bar diameter and pedal spindle dia and pitch I cant see changing, it would be suicide for whoever attempted it.

Aside from that, tell me of almost a single part that has remained constant over the years, there are literally none. Bar diameter, Stem size, steerer tube, brake mounts, hub width, headsets etc etc and on into the future I am sure.

Change = $$$$$
  • + 1
 @Racer951: The only thing my current bike has in common with my older bikes is threaded BB and 135mm rear hubs.

Agree change = $$$$ whether they want to admit it or not.
  • + 1
 @fartymarty: Well that and the above stuff like chain pitch and a few odds and ends....

Got a nice set of 135 wheels? Try and find a frame to fit nowdays, ask me how I know. Its depressing to have to essentially throw nice kit away when you were perfectly happy with its performance.

Whats very funny is that one minute everybody wants a super stiff wheel etc, a month later carbon / stiff wheels are 'too stiff' and help cause fatigue, one minute everyone wants the 'benefit' of 35mm bars until they make your hands hurt etc...
  • + 4
 @Racer951: I've got a set of Hopes with Flow MK3s and a 135mm rear. Change the end caps and 142 is good. I'm sure I could also convert to 148mm as well - OK I don't get the full benefits of boost but still get to keep my wheels. This is where companies like Hope are great.

I'm still on 31.8mm aluminium Renthals. They're stiff enough for me at 95kg.

This is one reason I am glad I don't have the cash to buy a new bike (or frame). It is nice sitting back and watching it all unfold without being overly affected by it.
  • + 1
 @fartymarty: this is exactly what I was thinking. Parts companies make adaptors to ensure their parts will fit just about any standard.
  • + 1
 @fartymarty: it's 135 to 148 where I have had issues - you need rotor spacers and have to re dish the wheel, not ideal for a nice wheelset.

You say about feeling the benefits of boost but I wonder what they really are in the real world? I probably couldn't tell.
  • + 1
 @Racer951: yeah a redish is a bit if a pain but doable. I think the real world difference would be marginal for the mere mortal. I'm don't think I would notice either. Given you would be comparing an old bike to a new one there are too many other variables.
  • + 20
 The industry doesn't want you to maintain and ride your current bike for 5-8 years. With proper maintenance, a bike can last a long time. That cuts into revenue. So the "solution" is to make your parts outdated as quickly as possible so that you have to upgrade.
  • + 1
 Apple style
  • + 1
 Bang on the button there mate
  • + 14
 How about lets go back to when you could put any part on any bike, man those were the days!! Seems like now a days you cant even swap parts with the next year same model bike its completely ridiculous and not for the greater good of the people shelling out the doe for these bikes let me tell ya its all about the fat getting fatter.
  • + 13
 "Shit sucks for us too!" (said the bike manufacturer). Wait a second, what do you mean it 'sucks' for you too. Do you mean it sucks because you're not constantly making profit, does it suck because your efforts to capitalize of a market that is saturated already with constantly purchasing is not purchasing more? neoliberal capitalism is the time when people become machinic in their constant drive for betterment, done through purchasing, amongst other things, and companies/industries are treated like their profit is a RIGHT! It's not. Let's please not forget that companies don't have 'feelings', they are profit seeking mechanism who have as the bottom line profit, constant profit. History has told us (again and again) that profit comes at the cost of exploitation, that is, in our case, exploitation of workers (making the bikes in Asia), shops (selling the bikes), and consumers (buying the bikes). The point here is that if we focus on how companies are doing solely w/r/t profit (and not what matters... community building, trails, etc...) we lose sight of the fact that their venture, by nature, is problematic. Biking is an activity, let's not let it get all caught up in the 'activity' of consumerism, where capital, and not us at the bottom, are the winners.
  • - 2
 What crawled up your ass?

So you think that the company is should stop producing new bikes because old bikes should last a lifetime? Then what? Loads and loads of small bike brands will bite the dust and you'll be left woth a few brands that can control the market and price. And lack of choice.

Bike companies are companies like any other industry in the world, of course they want to make money. But they are passionate people who stay in an industry renowned for poor pay and poor profit because they live for it. Small brands are passionate and do want the best for the consumer. But of course they need to make money or what is the point? They should do it for free?

Just out of interest what do you do for a living? And unless you say volunteer and a homeless shelter your f*cked cause it just makes you a whining hypocrit.
  • + 3
 @clarky78: I think the point was that it comes off as whining from the very people who were complicit in changing things every year or two.
  • + 5
 Once the Marxist utopia fixes the problematic bike industry we can all ride the bike equivalent of a Lada... People that put it all on the line (time and money) to start businesses in the bike industry make me sick!
  • + 1
 It wouldn't have been saturized if we had more riders needing more gear. Refering you to the winning comment.
  • + 16
 "27.5 is better than 26"..ugh I was hoping this would be a honest conversation..
  • + 2
 just gone 27.5 with fat 2.6 tyres. Why? I still miss my 26".
  • + 14
 Boost or no boost, threaded axles are too flexible. It’s time to pressfit them into frames and forks. Pressfit bottom brackets have proven their superiority to a threaded standard.
  • + 17
 You don't go too far enough. Pressfit spokes are the innovation we are missing. 0.3% stiffer, 0.2% lighter and you have the convenience of just throwing away your wheel and buying a new one if you damage anything or it goes out of true. Less time fiddling, more time riding!
  • + 2
 @PhillipJ: pressfit tires! (Like LEGO car tires)!
  • + 15
 Why make things easy for your customer base when you can squeeze them for more $ with the “next best thing”?
  • + 11
 All I know is that I have two 29'ers in my garage, and there are shockingly few parts that I can swap between the two bikes. One is Boost, the other is 100/142. Seatposts are different diameters. Handlebars are different diameters. They have different BBs. Cranks have different bolt circle patterns (note that neither are even direct mount!). It's kind of crazy, man.
  • + 0
 It's a ball-ache in theory, but how often do you find yourself wanting to swap parts? I've got MTBs with 16/18, 20, 26 (3 bikes) and 27.5 wheels, with a mix of QR100 /15mmTA front and QR135 and 12/142 rear axles in my shed. And a mix of canti, v-brake, 140mm (kids bikes) 160mm and 180mm discs, which between them require 6 different styles of pad.

You know what? In practice it's no big deal.
  • + 1
 As someone that dabbles in a few different mechanical related hobbies such as motorcycles and dirtbikes, I find it crazy that so many people expect to be able to swap parts from different brands. Have you ever tried to put the seat from one motorcycle on another? It won't work, same with almost every part besides a few standards. Hell, if you look at wheels, there is no standard there, most times you can't take a wheel from one motorcycle and put it on another without machining new spacers and making sure the disks for the brakes align.

Not attacking you, in the last 2 years I've been getting back into mountain bikes after a hiatus, and this idea of everything must be standard is so strange to me. It really does seem isolated to the bicycling industry.
  • + 3
 I've got two cars in my driveway.. Not a single part is compatible between the two of them...
  • + 5
 @lumpy873: So you guys are cool with it? I, for one, would like to be able to grab a wheel from one bike and slap it on the other in a pinch. You'd think that if I had 2 freaking 29'ers (from the same manufacturer it turns out), that this wouldn't be such a big deal.

And incidentally, I have a Honda Civic and a Honda CR-V. There are a surprising number of parts that I can change between them.
  • + 1
 @dsut4392: I didn't mention my kids bikes - to me, I have two 29'er that I ride, both from the same manufacturer. And they're only 4 model years apart. I love the new bike to death, but I don't think all of the new standards are why I like it so much. The new bike is Boost, which admittedly has some advantages, but beyond that, does the new handlebar clamp diameter matter? Or seat post diameter? And, it's not a plus bike. As far as I know, plus bikes are the only thing that really, truly needed boost... So I'm pretty sure that if my new bike was still 100/142, I'd like it just as much even if the wheels were a couple percent less stiff.
  • + 0
 I have 2 bikes in my garage, a 650b trail bike and a 20" bmx. The only parts i can swap between the two are pedals and handlebar end caps.
  • + 2
 @onetrykid: but your post is stupid. Why is it unreasonable to expect that I can swap a few parts between two trail bikes with the same size wheels?
  • + 1
 @pinhead907: While I agree it would be great to have compatible parts, it also stagnates progress, and I think the amount of people pissed off at it is a bit silly. So many industries this is the norm, for a variety of reasons such as trade secrets, patents, producibility, or progression of design. Why do people that are into bikes get so bent out of shape when a new part doesn't fit a 4 year old bike.

To your point of the honda parts being interchangeable, yes inside a brand there is some interchangeability between certain model years. In bikes this happens as well, certain brands keep some elements the same, while others change. If nothing changed on bikes, and everything was interchangeable, when would progress happen? If you have a hub spacing and stick with it for 10 years, you stagnate what could otherwise be open design space.
  • + 2
 @dsut4392: so you think it is okay that what used to be hand me down parts are now landfill parts because they are essentially useless because I don't think its okay at all. I have had multiple bikes pretty much my whole life and enjoyed getting new parts for one bike so I could upgrade parts on multiple bikes at once. The used part would be peeled off one bike and put right on another replacing a cheaper part. Or if a friend called needing something Id usually have a spare. Now a days you never now what "standard" is on what bike and its like trying to pull teeth going to the net to find info on anything. Sometimes scrolling for hours and still not finding the right info which is just a big waste of time if every bike in the discipline had the same standards on them it would make a hell of a lot more sense to me
  • + 2
 @pinhead907: lol, my post is so stupid you didn't think it's a joke? lighten up and i do agree you should be able to swap parts from one bike to the other, i did when i moved from an all mountain bike to a DH/FR bike in 2005.
  • + 1
 @mhoshal: Why are your parts now landfill? That's crazy talk. If anything, the 'landfill' problem is created not because you can't hand down the used parts, but by the fact you're 'upgrading' parts that are in perfect working order.

One of the bikes I mention in my post is the first MTB I bought in 1991 (1990 model Raleigh Technium), and my newest is just pre-boost. I've had no problem replacing worn out parts with new ones. I upgraded the whole drivetrain two years ago, and some of the original parts I took off (the ones that weren't worn out) have gone on to someone doing up a vintage build. I live in a town of about 200k people, and there are at least 3 bike co-ops that will gladly use any parts in working order. They build up bikes from donated and junkyard bikes, and pass them on to people in need - among all the dross there's a couple of late 1980s Reynolds 531 road bikes being resurrected right now that I wouldn't mind riding myself. Or it's easier than ever to sell parts for small coin on eBay or facebook buy/sell/swap groups.

Like I said in my post above, in theory it sounds like a ball-ache, but in my lived experience it just hasn't been a problem. You wanna hear something crazy? As of today (when my 4YO stepped got his first pedal bike for his birthday), EVERY SINGLE BIKE in my shed can fit on the Elite Direto power trainer my wife is getting for Christmas using only the parts included in the box.
  • + 1
 @dsut4392: lmao why dont you actually buy a new bike and then give us your input man you wouldn't be saying the same thing take for instance my 2012 reign to my 2015 reign 3 year difference and almost no parts are compatible. Sorry I don't ride walmart bikes that still have 80's tech.
  • + 2
 @pinhead907: Sure, I don't disagree with any of that [your assertion that Boost148 and different seatpost diameters make no real difference to your experience]. But the incompatibilities just don't bother me much in practice. I keep a few key spares in stock of consumables I'm most likely to need (10sp chain and MTB cassette, 27.5 tyre, brake pads, 26 and 27.5 tube in case the sealant doesn't work, gear cables), particularly where they are incompatible between bikes and might mean somebody misses a ride without them. But I've yet to find myself in a pickle because I couldn't swap handlebars or seat posts or wheels between bikes.
  • + 2
 @mhoshal: 'standards' are changing all the time, there's nothing particularly exceptional about the period from 2012 to 2015 just because that's when you first started to get facial hair. People bitched about changing from freewheels to free hubs, from 126 to 130mm rear spacing, about going from downtube shifters to brifters, about changing from thumbies to rapid-fire, about 5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12 speeds, whether or not suspension was worthwhile or ethical, cantis to linear pull brakes making levers obsolete, disk brakes and the various mounting standards, rotor sizes and hydraulic fluids, about loose bearings to cassette BBs, square taper to ISIS to Octalink to external threaded, threaded to threadless steerers, wheel sizes etc etc. You know what? If you want the new shiny shiny, buy it, if not, don't, but just shut up and ride.

Get back to me when you can work out your own argument, because right now you're both bitching that things aren't compatible, and saying you wouldn't ride old tech because it's old. And you don't like that the old stuff is now 'landfill'.

Gotta ask, wtf are you doing with two Reigns anyway, why not swap one of them out for something a little different? [not hating on the Reign by the way, I used to own one and it changed my thinking about what was rideable at the time - I just don't see the point in having two]
  • + 0
 @dsut4392: I've been riding since about '90 or '91. And I'm fairly sure things are worse now than it was then. It's probably driven largely by the 3 wheel sizes we have today, while back then there was only 26" (I know, technically, it wasn't "only" 26, but I could easily could the number of non-26" bikes I saw in the entire 90's on my fingers). I still have two of my old bikes from the 90's, and there is hardly a single part that I can't swap between those 2 bikes. They're both 1" steer tubes, but one has a threadless headset. That's pretty much the sole incompatibility between the two. My 2 new bikes? Virtually nothing. I can swap the seats and tires, I guess.

Does it practically put me in a bind? Probably not very much - but in fact I was planning to swap the stems, but I can't due to the handlebar diameter difference. The 35mm handlebar, in particular, seems pointless. The industry guys can say that they want to make a better bike, but at some point, give us a break. I'm sure that the 35mm bar makes a small difference if you're riding two identical bikes back to back on the same trail - but I don't think a standard customer such as myself will possible pick up on it since I'm NOT able to ride two otherwise identical bikes back to back to evaluate it. I just want to ride. And it's a hassle that to me to need to shop for and match 132 different parameters just to change my frickin' stem.
  • + 0
 @dsut4392: you're an Idiot I'm 33 and actually alot changed bb changed wheel size changed hub widths changed gearing changed. Again sorry I don't ride the high class walmart bikes you ride with 80's standards but I like other people out here don't just ride Raleighs
  • + 2
 @mhoshal: you're just a late bloomer then I guess. That 'walmart' Raleigh is the same bike Tomac was on, but never mind. Hope you're having fun with your little pissing contest, try facing downwind next time and it won't blow back in your face.
  • + 0
 @dsut4392: oh man you really got me there. Can't come back with anything because you know Im right so then it becomes a pissing contest to you lol. Thats great that you own a bike thats the same as tomacs you must feel really special still doesn't change the fact that every bike back then had interchangeable parts that would work on damn near every bike.
  • + 13
 All these standards are repugnant, promote dumb consumerism and create landfill. There's also a negative side.
  • + 10
 What I hate about magazine bike reviews and MTBR.com bike reviews is when they list the pro's & Con's of bikes and they always put boost 148 as a pro. Can I ask why? 1st of all it's standard on all bikes. SHouldn't it just be assumed? Also is it so groundbreaking that they need to keep saying it's a pro for every bike they review like it's needed to be said. Or are they just so desperate to have something to add to their column? Frankly my Non-boost bikes rear wheels feel just as good as the Boost bikes I have ridden. i really can't tell a difference. Stop trying to sell it as an innovation. It's just a PITA
  • + 9
 It would be interesting to see how things would have gone if mountain bikes hadn't started out as adaptations of road bikes but instead were actually designed from the ground up to be effective for trail riding. As a mechanical engineer, I am fully aware of the bias that comes from trying to revise something instead of just starting from scratch. I have so many questions... why didn't they START with 11 speeds instead of 8 or whatever? If 148mm is the max hub width for ergonomics, why did they START narrower? Why in the world did handlebars start out so narrow when it is so simple to see how much better control you get with wider bars? The good thing is that it looks to me like functionality is about as good as it's going to get (excluding tech advancements), but people probably said that ten years ago too haha. Now we just have to judge fads and marketing gimmicks that won't improve anything or may even hurt performance.
  • + 16
 As with other industries, the moderns designs are only possible because of the progression in technology used to achieve them. But there was also an overall focus on XC through the 90s and the resulting trend towards weight-weenie-ism. Narrower handlebars are all that was needed (or fashionable) for an XC bike, and 30" wide handlebars using 90" tech would have been relatively heavy. (Let's ignore the heavy bar ends many of us put on narrow bars though!)

A 11 speed 50t cassette using 80s or 90s bike tech would have been very heavy, and 80s or 90s shifters and derailleurs would not have been able to maintain good shifting with a cassette spaced that closely. Even older 8spd systems couldn't hold adjustment as well as many modern 10 or 11 speed systems

Wider hubs weren't needed when frame strength and stiffness, rim width and stiffness, tire size, fork travel, etc were all lower than modern standards. No one piece of puzzle stood out as hugely behind the game. Just like tapered steerers weren't needed when forks were so flexible that the headtube didn't matter in comparison

It fees like most of the big progressions have come within the last 10 years, but none of those progressions make as much sense on their own as they do together
  • + 3
 11 speeds? what is this, 2015?
  • + 2
 @TNTall : the biggest mistake to me is the long stem/narrow bar combo. Yes, the bar would have been heavier but still ok, the others were difficult to foresee as showmethemountains says.

Many things come in the game as "it can be made at 12-14kg". Bigger than 26" in the 90's? Would have been too heavy, etc.
Now we can squeeze more in that "reasonable weight", so we have trail bikes with fox 36, DH tires and so on.
  • + 0
 As a mechanical engineer, I am disappointed in your lack of knowledge of bicycle history and why it took so long to get what we have now. Manufacturing methods take a while to dial in, and people don't like handlebars breaking on them or excessively heavy components.

Stop thinking you are fully aware of anything and you'll go much further in your profession.

Nice try though. Smile
  • + 9
 Does anyone remember trying to stock the correct square taper BB? 73, 68, 70/ 108,110, 113, 115,118, 121, etc etc etc.
  • + 1
 Yes, I do. I think about the griping about standards now in the bb world as really silly. 68mm was totally different then 73mm. Oh wait Italian threads, well we will see if the distributor had those in that size. Oh and campy taper, hmmmmmm... Might be at least several weeks out.
  • + 2
 Oh yes, far too familiar. For me, I prefer the 68mm or 73mm threaded shells, but paired with external bearings like hollowtech 2. When mtbs went old school bmx and started press fitting BBs I was shaking my head in confusion. Funny though, I hear threaded BBs are making a comeback.
  • + 1
 Ohhhhhhh, I rember! Oh I do!
  • + 6
 I used to ride department store bikes and dream about the latest and greatest. I remember dismissing new things like suspension forks as unnecessary. I once complained that nobody stocked 1" steer tubes anymore when I needed to replace a bent rigid fork. Today I ride a spaceship and it is awesome! I don't miss periodically pulling my BB out to lube the caged ball bearings, only to find the cage had disintegrated. I loved riding every one of the bikes I have owned, in fact the only thing that hasn't changed over all this time is that I still love to ride my bike! RYFB.
  • + 5
 At 14:30, Geoff Casey from SCB says, "We don't have any reason to spec something unless there is a clear advantage..." So why do you spec Novatec hubs on your mid-level builds? A roughly $7,000 Cdn price tag and the hubs blow up soon after. Dave Guettler of River City Bicycles is absolutely correct in expressing why the consumer is treated as the test guinnea pig. This is clearly the case with SCB spec-ing Novatec hubs.
  • + 4
 Aye? I use novatec on all my personal builds because there so reliable.
  • + 3
 Hey Brumos, As an employee of Novatec I see your problem. If you have an issue please contact me at Ben@novatecusa.net I am a racer and run these products into the ground trying to find what works and what doesn't. I get it.. shit breaks. We have some top notch products but often times that is overshadowed.
  • + 1
 @brumos: So, a guy buys used parts online, and expects warranty support? Really?
  • + 1
 @lumpy873: Fair enough.. buyer beware! But what about all the other's who purchased new with the same exact issue? It's a moot point in the end because from what i've been told, SCB will be spec-ing DT 370 going forward.
  • + 9
 "Bike Standards" ohh boy cant wait for these comments
  • + 5
 A lot of standards are just a way to keep the business moving and to feed the machine. Not to mention the waist of resources.
Take for instance the 148 mm standard. Why this standard when there is already the 150 mm rear hub spacing? 1 mm diference on each side!!! I mean, you could use your existing 10 year old 150mm rear hub from hope or chris king, which last forever, and keep it rolling instead of purchase new hub. This is what I call waist of resources. The same for 20 mm on forks. We now all have 15 mm, but if we had 15 mm before they would have switch it to 20 mm with all those benefits. Mountain biking needs to be more eco friendly and wallet friendly. There is no point in spending all those resources on great parts and parts that last forever if in the next year they come out with new stuff to make the previous ones obsolete.
  • + 3
 Exactly. That what I was talking about above. Its the 148 that total pushed people over the edge. XC pedally types could have stuck with 142. Beyond that 150 would have been the choice.
  • + 1
 Curiosity : would a 150mm hub slot in a 148mm frame easily? I guess it would...
  • + 1
 Do you have any other hobbies besides bicycles that focus around something mechanical? I mean such as dirt bikes, or motorcycles, or ATVs. Bicycles are the only one where there is the concept that everything must be standard. There is no hub standard on motorcycles, if you want to swap wheels from another bike you need to get spacers machined, make sure sprockets align, and make spacers for the disk brakes to align well. Why would bicycles be any different? The fact that there are any standards at all, and you can buy different wheelsets from several different companies and even other OEM suppliers and fit them up trouble free is awesome.

This isn't about companies greed, but in the design process certain elements need to change otherwise you see no progress. Maybe a couple mm on the hubs don't matter much, but in some cases if a company wants to try and come up with something different they have to change dimensions. You could argue well it isn't needed, but that's what engineers do as a job, try to make better designs. Telling companies to just put out the same thing so that it is cheaper or easier for the consumer completely ignores the purpose of why engineers are even employed. I'm an aerospace engineer, I work in aircraft, and there is almost nothing that stays exactly the same from aircraft model to aircraft model.
  • + 2
 150mm standard was 150mm between the inside faces of the dropouts, but 148mm is theoretically 141mm between the dropouts with 3.5mm of the end caps slotting into the frame on either side. Because 150mm hubs weren't designed to fit into dropout notches, only to sit against the face of the dropout, there was no standard for the diameter of the end caps so they may or may not fit in any frame

Like the old 135x12 standard, the 150mm standard was a bit of a pain to use because of the loack of those notches in the dropouts to locate the hub in the right position to insert the axle; you had to hold the wheel and frame in just the right spot to get the axle in. Hence the 157mm standard that added 3.5mm to each end cap to slot into new notches in the dropouts in the exact same way that 142mm was created by adding 3.5mm to each end cap on a 135mm hub.

I would have preferred that they just stuck with 142 and 157 as the two standards
  • + 5
 I think the larger companies are afraid of a repeat of the Great 29er Phenomenon. 29ers began very organically with limited and incremental support, until a point of sustainable demand was reached. At that point most of the companies that built 29er bikes and/or supporting components saw growth and others jumped on the wagon, er wheel. The companies that didn't embrace the big wheels temporarily stagnated and rushed to catch up later.

Of course we saw the opposite growth cycle with 650b bikes, which were driven from the industry side before demand was there. This seems to be what has happened with many of the trending mountain bike genre's these days, which of course greatly influences standards.

On one hand we have companies willing to innovate and take chances with trends in the industry like fat bikes, plus bikes, suspension travel for larger tires/wheels, etc. On the other hand this has resulted in more proprietary parts and standards. I applaud the willingness of companies to make these gambles, but with no unity among the large bike and components manufactures, of course consumers will be forced to some degree to drink the Koolaide. This type of meeting seems like a big step in the right direction. Just get the big bike manufactures to show up and participate and we could all benefit.
  • + 1
 I guess you didn't listen to the whole podcast. Niner themselves told you who made the 29 work with a fit for purpose fork
  • + 4
 Giant, Trek, and Specialized aren't there because they are the worst offenders of all. f*ckin Overdrive, a proprietary steer tube? You couldn't make that shit up. And Trek and Specialized with their stupid proprietary yokes and shock sizes. You should see peoples faces when they buy their $7k Trek/Spec and want to upgrade their shock only to find out they are stuck with whatever is on it for eternity. Great stuff!
  • + 1
 FWIW, you can change out the headset in a Giant if you want to replace your Overdrive fork with something with a different steerer. Yeah, Overdrive was a silly 'standard', but no big deal to change to something different.
  • + 4
 it is not about evolution or progress, but about sales and money and market share. Indutry simply does not understand that they sinply swap future sales into present with frustrated buyers. We already had a similar situation in the 90s: 3 steerer tube diameters and endless color choices (also some sort of standard). Which ended up, that every shop stocked the wrong parts and sold them for nothing at the end of the season. In the end it resulted in 1 1/8 headtube standard and black only components. Live was easy and everybody happy. Anyone noticed that nobody is talking anymore about building up a frame, but complete bikes only? at the moment, this is a dead end, for everybody
  • + 8
 Hey, bike industry...F&£@ YOU!
  • + 4
 I'm actually designing a bike frame for myself at this very moment, so this post is very timely for me.

So many of these "standards" really are unnecessary and complicate the situation for everyone downstream of the big bike company designer. Can it really be considered a "standard" if it's constantly in flux and changed to a new (read: not backwards compatible) version every year? Sure bikes are getting better every year, but I don't attribute a whole lot of that to each of these standards - mostly to geometry, materials, and better functioning, more reliable subsystems (suspension, brakes, drivetrain, etc).

Not to mention, it's not exactly straight forward trying to find all the right tech info and drawings to see what is/isn't compatible with each product. Talk about a nightmare for consumers, smaller manufacturers, and shops alike.

Kudos to Pinkbike for trying to get the conversation started.
  • + 9
 Superboost? u w0t m8.
  • + 5
 UberBoost!
  • + 5
 I don't really care about superboost because I know superboost+ will be a real game changer.
  • + 4
 Ueberboost.
  • + 5
 @winko: TURBOBOOST. you heard it here first. 149mm. A 1% increase in PAH! What are you waiting for?
  • + 4
 ABOOT FCKNG TIME I remember when the bmx did this over the ever increasing crappy BB standards an the result was ONE standard. A strong, functional BB that actually an improvement whilst using the ORIGINAL size bearing I Know this won't happen in mtb though....
  • + 6
 Bike Industry... "Can we talk about the new standards" Pinkbike Community *Grabs torches and pitchforks*
  • + 3
 These guys use the term 'standard' when they should be using 'specification'. A standard is a (generally) universally accepted and robustly developed set of specifications that are agreed on by a wide reaching body. Take USB for example. As guys say above, marketing...
  • + 3
 Drawing from my past 17 years of shop and industry experience dealing with a plethora of manufacturers, job security is a big part of it. Not that tech needs to achieve a type of suspended animation where nothing ever changes however the current level of constantly changing standards which increases incompatibility to new heights needs to be reined in before something really tanks.
  • + 3
 A few things strike me from this, and great discussion and transparency. Business is business, and differentiation of product is going to be there -- companies want to have a better product to gain market share. They all do it, even the smaller guys, and even when they have to follow the bigger guys (and they get some benefit from the big guys' R&D budget via suppliers). This doesn't necessarily mean new "standards," but that's not out of the question if the company thinks that a change differentiates their product. The drive by these companies is truly to make a better bike to differentiate themselves, not make us keep buying new parts. The problem is the pace of change. Technology enables it, big budgets enable it, but our wallets have difficulty keeping up. We need to assume positive intent. It doesn't mean we need to like it, but we are not victims of the man here. We have better bikes, end to end. Yes, they are kind of expensive. Either make the sacrifice, ride what you've got, or take up bowling or knitting or something. But in my experience, nobody cares what you are riding. You'll catch up eventually, and the "standards" will eventually settle down. Still not sure why they call them standards if there are so many of them.
  • + 2
 The last bike I bought from a shop, new, was the first generation of the Giant Reign 2 (Thai Green), which was in 2005. I still ride this bike today and it holds up with all the new bikes today. The reason why I haven't bought a new bike since is because the "Ride it on Sunday, Sell it on Monday" principal has taken over. Probably the only thing I would say has 'innovated' riding is a dropper post.
It appears we are victims of the infamous "Hunt's Tomato Sauce Study" done at Cornell in the 80's. Baffle the consumer with choices so they are never satisfied with what they actually have and always think the grass is greener on the other side.
Should bikes actually increase in value if the frame is tried and true and held the same year after year? Mtn Biking has become too disposable.
The next logical step is to just lease your bike, why own it? The prices are up there with good used cars now, so why not? I would rather lease a good bike for the season and just renew the next year.
  • + 2
 How did we get here?
Because USA cycling industry is run by people with business degrees that have nothing to do with sport, let alone cycling?
ABC of business school: Make more products = sell more products.
Make old (12 months) products obsolete and force people to update.

Charlie Cunningham (the single, most influential person in mtb development imho) had 118 front and 140-141 (?) rear hubs in the 80's. For a reason.
If you never heard of him, you should really look him up.


30 Years afterwards the industry
  • + 2
 I have split feelings toward this;
On one side, I can't skip on all the BS this industry try to spoon feed the consumer, all the false claims, inflated prices, etc
But on the other side I see the mad evolution the bikes have had in this 30 years, and in last 10 too. As soon as new stuff came out people called BS on it. Myself, "why the hell would I need 3x8?? 3x7 is perfectly fine". And it was fine at the time, but over the years we landed to my beloved 1x, and all started adding 1 cog at the time.
So my point is, bikes are a million times better than they were in the 90s, all by adding or removing some milimiters here and there once in a while, that can seem a gimmick individually, but all together make a difference.
And said so, please, stop the crazy shit going on with the hubs, we arrived here, is all good, just keep it like this for a few years ;
I proceed now to listen to the podcast.
  • + 4
 A massive, massive cash grab. The bicycle industry has begun to copy the electronics industry model in terms of forced obsolescence.
  • + 2
 So....

The manufacturers are performance driven; the best bike will of course, be the bike they want to make, and no-one is trying to drive consumer sales for the sake of it. If you make the best bike, people will buy it. Most of us get that.
That works at the macro, industry level and no-one can justifiably get angry about that; it is the way industry works.

Thing is, all consumers are essentially operating at the ultimate micro level. The individual.

That is why many consumers have that "sour" feeling as mentioned in the podcast.

For my part, I have given up. It is too expensive and changes too quickly right now. Enjoy the future everyone; I'm just riding my old bikes and don't have to worry about it any more. Have a good upcoming weekend everyone, whatever you ride.
  • + 4
 The bike industry made a mistake not adjusting the hub flanges when they designed 142 and 150, only now they are correcting it on the 148!!
  • + 5
 Looking at these pictures of meetings, smells of collusion!
  • + 4
 @drivereight: Believe me, there was no collusion. Fake news.
  • + 3
 142 is just 135 with a thru-axle, a design made for QR road bikes way back in the day of "hand crafted" bikes (i.e straight from some dude's garage). Not really surprising that modern engineers would want something better for mountain bikes.
  • + 7
 142x12 was a legitimate upgrade from the previous standards.

135 QR and 135x12 TA could share the same basic rear triangle design, minus the dropouts, and made it possible to have convertible hubs. But 135x12 was a pain to use because there was no notches in the dropouts to locate the hub in the right position to insert the axle, so you had to hold the hub and frame in just the right spot to get the axle in.

142x12 TA solved this neatly by just adding 3.5mm to both end caps and putting a 3.5mm notch in each dropout. The change was purposefully not about making anything wider (as the inside face of the dropouts was still supposed to be about 135mm wide) but about making an easy to use TA standard. Many hubs could be converted over with new end caps, and many frames with replaceable dropouts could be upgraded too. This relatively painless change in standards allowed the bike industry to finally make rear thru axles a common thing!
  • + 6
 And that makes the bike engineers and companies look incompetent and kills consumer confidence. I'm all for innovation, but R&D it thoroughly first and then release whatever new standard to the public. Don't rush it to market claiming it's the next greatest thing and then change the standard a year later.

I rely on purchasing new bikes with the cash of selling off my previously used bikes. If those bikes are obsolete and worthless in a year or two then I'm going to keep my bikes a lot longer, e.g., not spend money in the bike industry, until the "standards" settle down.
  • + 20
 No, I disagree about 142. It was an elegant move to get you the same convenience of mounting a wheel similar to what we already had in the front fork. For many hubs it merely meant you could just swap end caps and mount the old 135x12 wheel in your new 142x12 frame. Shame Syntace wasn't at that meeting as I do think they tend to introduce new standards when they see an advantage without being too disruptive. Going from 135x12 to 142x12 went really smooth and especially expensive hubs (Hope, DT Swiss etc) could be modified. Same with EVO6. You can use a standard Boost 148 hub (now that is already common) and just offset it a little to equalize the tension in the spokes.

Really the industry isn't pushing us anywhere as hard as people seem to think. You can still get 135x10 qr rear hubs, Stans Flow rims in 26" (with 26" tubes, Schraeder valves and Schwalbe tires with Addix compound etc.). Everything is still there to keep your 15 year old bike going. I'm having a new 26" frame built and I'm not even half worried I won't be able to find components. Some things have unified, so things have diversified. Back in the days you had IS front, IS rear, PM and Boxxer mount disc brake mounts. Yes some forks and frames have 180mm or 203mm disc brake mounts but this also went with IS back in the day. There were multiple (poor fitting) chain guide mounts until Weagle got together with a couple of manufacturers and defined ISCG05. Same with Cane Creek, standardized the headset sizing. Multiple standards yes, but for good reason and fairly comprehensive. And now with dropper seatposts the number of seat post diameters has dropped tremendously as well. There is good reason to mess with several established standards (chain link length, pedal thread diameter, handlebar diameter where the grip goes...) that would mean the end of the friendly and understanding PB comment section as we know it. But the industry hasn't, yet.

As long as brands keep trying new stuff, we'll be seeing variation. And if you find yourself on the bleeding edge of it, you risk investing in a dead end (first generation Saint hubs, rapid rise...). If you don't want that, make sure you're behind the times at least five years or so and you'll be good.
  • + 1
 @vinay: very good points, me thinks
  • + 2
 for some reason, the 150mm standard is not shown on these diagrams, maybe because the diagrams were created to explain why 148mm was needed. Even the older Demo8 had 150 hub with 6mm offset, that moved the rim towards the center between the flanges.It is nice to be able to use the same length of spokes for both sides, with almost equal tension. Since then Specialized went back to 135mm on the DH bike (with their unique offsets), which apparently is better in their view than any of the standards shown above. So we should probably expect more standards evolving soon.
  • + 7
 @showmethemountains:

Yeah. 142 was legit. I'm still running a few sets of ancient King rear 135 hubs that I upgraded to 142 with a simple axel swap.

148... I tell you that is what pushed people over the edge. Virtually no difference can be felt on the trail but it rendered many frames and hubs incompatible.

150/157... That should have been the next step up from 142. If I'm going to change out expensive hubs I better be able to feel it on the trail.


Why this specific issue , 148, was not in the audio clip makes no sense to me. It was the single most inflammatory change the bike industry did.


Big props to King and Felton for launching such a noble forum. Keep up the good work.

Me, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I'm riding my 142 spaced Knolly on ancient King hubs. I plan to make my next trail bike with a 157 rear hub. Completely ignoring 148. If the 157 trail bike does not work out, I'll use that hub on my DH bike. Imagine that, a hub that can be used on both your trail bike and your DH bike - now that would be real innovation, or maybe just plain common sense.
  • + 1
 @dthomp325: Not quite. www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

Road spacing is only got to 130mm in the 1990s, and this is still standard on most non-disc bikes. MTB spacing only went to 135 in the 1990s as well, for instance Shimano XT M732 was available in 130mm OLD until 1994 at least.
  • + 1
 @drivereight: Well the 142 is exactly the same hub shell with the same width dropouts so I'm not sure what you wanted them to do.

As for the 150 not adjusting the hub flanges, I'm sure some hub manufacturers did but it actually makes a lot of sense not to move the disc side flange because it allows for even spoke tension (because the rim has moved in relation to both flanges). Is even tension more important that a better bracing angle on that one side? I don't know but I've certainly read plenty of people argue that it is.
  • + 1
 @Tim2: As you can see the hub chart, then disc placement on the hub did not change even with super boost! If the industry widened the hub flanges on the 142, the disc placment would still be in same place! The 142 wheels would have been stiffer than 135, but they remain same! If the 142 hubs flanges widened, they would just need an axel swap today to properly accommodate the 148 boosted frames! If youre using a 142 hub on a boosted frame, there’s no benefits since the hub flanges are the same as 135. The new 148 boost hub flanges has been widened which makes a better wheel. I actually built up a 26” wheel on 148 CK hubs running on my 5010 fun ride.
  • + 1
 @drivereight: The point of 142 was exactly that it didn't change the flange spacing or disc offset. 142 frames are still 135mm between the dropouts, and the 142 standard was designed to allow hubs to be easily converted with new end caps. It is because of this easy change that companies and riders embraced it we finally starting getting rear thru-axles on XC and trail bikes!
  • + 2
 @vinay:

Pinkbike staff: Can we sticky this comment by @vinay to the top of each and every article about any new 'standards' news. It'd save everyone so much time.

Absolutely vinay; nail on the head. With you on that one.
  • + 1
 @MikerJ: can't agree more re: 148 not being specifically addressed in the podcast as it was the catalyst in the outrage. why didn't they make 150 the new standard in trail bike as we moved to 157 DH. exasperating. reeks of trek marketing collusion. yuck.
  • + 2
 @breadrevolution: because 150 requires a wider BB.
  • + 6
 my takeaway from this: "its the other guys fault!"
  • + 3
 What this tells me is that 157 DH was stupid. Why didn't hey just move the hub flange back then, and increase the bracing angle of the spokes. But seriously, just stop already.
  • + 5
 i still run 135mm hubs, and can't really see any reason why they'd need to be wider.
  • + 1
 Frame Upgrade compatibility
  • - 5
flag enduroelite (Dec 13, 2017 at 13:32) (Below Threshold)
 Have you tried a bike with 142mm or 150mm spacing? What tire size do you run? The wider your rear axle is, the wider your bb should be to allow for a proper chain line. Allowing you to have a larger down tube, which would make the tube stiffer, and since the tube is larger, the tube wall can be thinner to make it lighter. so wider, allows for larger and counter intuitively lighter. I was always breaking QR's then I went to a solid axle and I was bending them ( not to mention that they were heavy AF. then I went to 142 and haven't had any issues since. As was said in the discussion, " that's a standard for road bikes and has no place on an MTB. all of this, not even going into how much stronger of a wheel you can build with a wider hub flange stance....
  • + 5
 @enduroelite: FWIW 135mm and 142mm hubs share the same chainline, so the BB width and chainring doesn't need to change
  • + 5
 @enduroelite: I ride a Dartmoor 26 Player with 135x12mm rear hub with a custom axle. I hit big drops, I keep doing 180s and often fail, sometimes from a 5 or 6 stair set. I have had zero issues for 3 years now. I have broken 3 Rock Shox rear maxles on my old DH frame with the same wheelset (MTX39 on a Division hub), until I just bought a big bolt and stuck it in the frame. By the way 142mm is also 135mm body, so your argument is completely invalid Big Grin
  • + 6
 Set one standard. Maintain it. For the love of god!
  • + 1
 This may sound a bit silly after two pints but the bike industry is trying to make the product as close to being 3 dimensional as possible. Aside from tighter cassettes and other streamlined components, from a marketing perspective anything that gives the appearance of adding mass and surface area without necessarily adding weight will thrill the sweaty masses (consumer). What excites people as much as lots of visible paint with cool graphics? The auto industry has had many decades to prove that marketing works, the bike industry is just entering its golden age of 'model year' marketing cycles. Big fat axles and down tubes can fit more sponsors decals don't ya know? It's quite simple really.
  • + 1
 I am looking in the past for bike parts, not in the future.
At least keep an option for every bike part to be able to be purchased on custom order, I mean to produce that one rotor that you liked or that one frame or I don't know.
But don't force me to buy a 27.5 wheel if I like my 26" wheels.I just went through a lot to find some Mavic EX 721 Disc rims 26"... why did it had to be that hard?

Currently searching for a Shimano Saint Oversized Centerlock 160mm and I can't find one anywhere Frown
  • + 6
 135mm forever
  • + 1
 new standards are set when proprietary items work and companies compete to make them better. Patents make this process slow and expensive, forcing the larger consumer base to stay stagnant and unable to afford upgrades leading them to complain on the internet about how the industry is full of shams.

you know whats a sham, specific bike wash, or any specific soap for that matter. If its safe for my balls its gotta be safe for my bike. How about bike/hike/run specific socks?

The industry continues to move forward whether you as a consumer are on board or not. Humans love innovation, but hate paying for it. Unfortunately, there are certain restrictions that force us to buy into whatever new idea comes along.
  • + 1
 Maybe we should stop calling them standards! I like the advent of bicycle companies having lots of options to choose from regarding new technology and hub dimensions. They should match the technology and spec to the intended use of the bike. Is the same with wheel size. Match the wheel size to the intended use. I like having options. Could you imagine if there was only one wheel size option and one axle/hub option for vehicles! Imagine having a 14 inch wheel and small axle-hub on a large SUV. Or a super large wheel and hub on a little Fiat. So let’s stop calling them standards and let’s think in terms of choices. I am glad there are choices and that the industry is getting ever more sophisticated in its technology.
  • + 1
 how do you measure evolution? Position in Srava? who cares about strava? who races?

I buy bike things or get "worried" about standards because I'm an addict and have more time behind the screen than on my actual bikes (+4 MTBs and 2 Roadbikes)

With time passing by (like standards), I concluded thst it matters more the ride/trail/friends than all this mambojambo!

Just Ride You're bike!
  • + 3
 Bike standards are an effort to squeeze additional revenue from the consumer. No need for such a silly discussion. It's all about money. Capitalism is an illness.
  • + 1
 I'm expecting to see the gear box bikes make some significant inroads this year as people decide to bail on the 10, 11, 12 speed progression and run a 135mm wheel without any dish. Pick a fork, boost or non boost and be done with it.
  • + 1
 Gotta say I found this really interesting to listen to whilst wrenching on bikes. I listened to the other topics on the Chris King site (surprised about the direct to consumer response being so neutral/positive!) . Is there any more of this kinda stuff anywhere?? Beats the same old music everyday.
  • + 1
 Thanks @clarky78. We were truly aiming to provide a public discussion with a wide range of voices from people who are intimately involved with making and selling bikes and components. There is a lot of interesting grey areas to what often seem like simple black-and-white topics.

I was also really surprised by how neutral everyone was about the direct-to-consumer issue (in that particular segment, which is on the Chris King site), but I think the bike industry is largely resigned to the idea that direct-to-consumer (or "omni channel sales" or whatever we want to call it) is here and ultimately inevitable. Now it's just a question of figuring out how bike shops will survive the shift in how bike companies sell their bikes. In a sense, it's already happened with components and consumers are already in the habit of buying everything else (other than, perhaps, cars) online, so digging in their heels and praying that consumers won't do the same with bikes is a bit like tilting at windmills.

For bike shops to survive the shift, however, they are really going to have to shift the way they do business. Can't be easy for them.

Thanks for listening.
  • + 2
 @vernonfelton: Yeah. As a mechanic and person with a generally strong voice towards my opinions and suggestions about how to the run the shop I was really interested to see how others think. I do wonder how American business is different to us over here in Europe, (do Giant offer dealer direct outside US?) and the differences in politics affects things. Ebikes are successful here and Satan's spawn there for example, and I think ebikes are maybe easier to sell from bricks and mortar shops as people maybe fear them more for setting up and assembly maybe. But the direct thing is a major problem, it has wiped out many highstreet stores in other industries and I see no way there will be place left for so many bike shops in the same way. Innovate or die I guess. Coffee shop/bar/bike shop helps but not sure it is enough to get people buying big money bikes, maybe people who buy low end models. Intersting and scary to see how things move in that respect.
  • + 1
 Clarky78, check out Vitalmtb's podcasts. Fun listening.
  • + 1
 Nothing has really changed in mtbing.. Dropper posts handlebar widths finally bottom brackets and cranks are reliable Carbon bikes All mountain is the new freeride I guess Bikes of old still last as long, ride as fast. Maybe slightly heavier, but built to take a beating. Otherwise it's all marketing and BS but people gotta get paid.
  • + 1
 I just spent 5 grand to replace an out of standard bike because it was hard to get parts anymore. I won't do it again. It's retarded to change standards just because you want to change it. It would be better for business and customers to stick with one wheel spacing. Where bikes are now won't improve but much for another couple millimeters. Progress for only the sake of progress doesn't make consumers happy. The system is only working because consumers are being forced to replace their bikes because they can't get a new wheel, or fork, etc... I won't do it again. I don't have 5 grand to throw out the door every 5 years because some R&D dick wants to innovate or die.
  • + 1
 Whats most interesting to me is that they didn't get a chance to ask the people who actually brought the standard. SRAM and TREK. Specialized tried to do a new wheel standard with SCS which failed miserably (however in concept its actually not too bad - just horrible execution).

The new standards have much less to do with the Hub than it does with the Chain line, Tire Clearance, Q-Factor, and Frame Stiffness. The hub is a poor byproduct of frame engineers. They didn't start with the hub. They didn't even really design any wheels when they were doing it. The rear wheel just becomes marketing garbage.

Because the biggest companies in the industries make the standard everyone else must follow. The people above can have opinions but ultimately if they want to be in the industry they have to follow what the others do. If i9 didn't make boost they wouldn't sell much - whether they like boost or not.

These new standards are not really an improvement at all on the rear hub. Front hub however is great!
  • + 4
 The timing of the event, unfortunately, coincided with a tradeshow in Taiwan, so a lot of brands weren't able to come, including Trek and SRAM, though I know a number of big companies did want to come and be part of it. For a first-year event, though, I think we still managed to bring in a compelling range of voices and opinions. Our goal, in the future, is to bring the biggest players in the industry to the panel as well.
  • + 2
 @vernonfelton: Thank you for acknowledging this comment Smile I work in the manufacturing side of cycling and I know many of these standards are very difficult for smaller companies to do. It requires a lot of adjustments, new SKU, marketing, etc which is very expensive. Boost does not outweigh those expenses for most smaller companies - the aren't selling all kinds of new products because of it.
  • + 3
 It's interesting to go back and look at the comments on the article that announced 12x142....

www.pinkbike.com/news/12x142-explained.html
  • + 5
 @santacruz THANK YOU for sticking with threaded BBs.
  • + 4
 All of my family's press-fit Shimano BB 92s work flawlessly. Some are several years old now.
  • + 1
 @properp: Ditto. Not a creak from mine on my Trance which is 4 years old next week.
  • + 2
 Took me two years of hard riding (Whistler/Moab/wet n muddy trails/etc.) to finally wear my pressfit BB out...
  • + 1
 Shit, this is pretty terrible.

Fact is this: Had the industry listened to Cunningham of WTB & Bradbury over at Manitou back in the 80’s we’d at one standard by 1992.

But we didn’t because the peanut gallery chimed in.

Brandbury did 110/145. Cunnigham I believe did 118/140 or 145. But no, everyone thought we should stick to existing standards vs make a better product.

One of the worst things we can do is listen to the forum junkies & armchair engineers. Pity guys like Cunningham & Bradbury are out of the biz.
  • + 4
 While they were having this podcast, Trek was busy making Mega Boost 149.5.
  • + 1
 can you tell me in good faith that manufacturing a brand new hub spacing (boost 14Cool is appreciably better than using an existing standard that already has a huge following (150mm). Is -2mm really worth it? why not use 150 on your trail and enduro bikes??
  • + 1
 Personally it's easier to get sign off for a new bike because of backwards incompatiblity. " Yes - I know it's frustrating me too - I loved those Ibis 941s but they just aren't compatible. And I know you want me to be safe - I'm doing this because the kids need their father."
  • + 1
 The industry doesn't want you to maintain and ride your current bike for 5-8 years. With proper maintenance, a bike can last a long time. That cuts into revenue. So the "solution" is to make your parts outdated as quickly as possible and convince you that the geometry of your bike from 3 years ago is suddenly all wrong. I love new shiny bike stuff, but the industry is messing with us.
  • + 2
 @baggyferret: best inspirational video of the year.
  • + 2
 Ooooops! The industry forgot to adjust the flanges on the 142 and 150, so it was the same as the 135 all this time!! Even the 110 front hub, the flanges were not adjusted prior to boost!!
  • + 2
 The best thing you can do is splurge on a brand new bike with lifetime warranty and hold on to it, if you’re a shredder, you’ll end up getting a fresh frame every season !
  • + 4
 Yeah, but all the parts from last years frame wont fit...
  • + 1
 It's all bullshit anyway. I bought a carbon framed carbon wheeled 29er for £7k - 3 years ago. It generates envy. It admittedly does go pretty well. I bought recently a Surly pugsley fat bike. It's hard to pedal, tiring to ride and just stupid. I love it and it's rekindled my desire to explore aimlessly without a stopwatch on proceedings. So who gives a flying f*ck in a rolling doughnut about this new standard or that new standard. Just buy something you enjoy now and be happily obsolete tomorrow. What these people should be talking about it making e bikes unwaterproof. That I'd pay to see.
  • + 3
 NO such thing these days as industry standard. Same as NO such thing as a open secret. Intellectual Morons abound. The idea fairies be at it again.....Buyer beware....
  • + 1
 Corporate Greed, plain and simple, wake up people and smell the $$$$$.
One question I would ask, when will someone realise we ask for a bigger axle on the front of the bike than the rear?
  • + 2
 i want a knight rider turbo boost shock....... and i want it to talk to me like stephen hawking,,,saying leonard nemoy quotes..."157 superboosts just not logical jim".....
  • + 2
 Love it how some of them made it sound like they are doing us a favour and always looking to make better products over making profit...calling bullsh*t
  • + 2
 Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
Malcom was right...
  • + 1
 Good Podcast but I 100% agree that things need to SLOW down in the bike industry. I like the tech end and love Mountain biking, but come on enough with all the new standard crap...
  • + 3
 Yeah as a consumer I really don't want to do the R&D for large companies who have a lot more money than I do
  • + 1
 Kind of an obvious question, but given all of the amazing production technology and materials available couldn't they just make stiffer and stronger hubs without changing the form factor?
  • + 0
 Its nice to hear different sides of how the bike world is changing. There is always innovation and you can't help but think that the consumer is going to be harmed by these new standards that are introduced every year or two...but lets be honest. We are all trying to keep up. We are always working to develop a product that is going to be what every rider is looking for. The bottom line is that we need to make products sustainable for people to enjoy!
  • + 3
 As a consumer you speak with your wallet if you don't like it don't support it
  • + 1
 I don't agree. If your wallet isn't very fat then you have to think about resale value and that means buying what's fashionable whether you like it or not
  • + 5
 @dicky1080: If you're poor buy used. These 'innovations' are for the dentists. Luckily for me, YT came along and helped me find a niche in between I could afford. Like @properp suggested, I voted with my dollar - it's all we have.
  • + 2
 @endlessblockades: if I work hard and save up, why shouldn't I be able to buy new? A new bike is a very special thing, why shouldn't I get the opportunity to have this special thing?

But to do it, it will take me a very long time and when I do have the cash, I have to factor more than just my taste into the equation.

The concept of Voting with your wallet is great on paper but in reality I don't believe it really happens. The vast majority buy something because the marketing got them; from bikes to cell phones to cosmetics, whatever it is, there are rarely any real options.

The whole 26" vs 27.5 thing is a great example: at the time they said vote with your wallet, but who would pay thousands to buy a bike that has old standards, isn't fashionable and won't have a good resale value? The marketing won.
  • + 1
 @endlessblockades: further to your comment I think that buying yt instead of say trek is really only "voting" for a brand. You weren't voting against any of these standards.
  • + 2
 @endlessblockades: YT what a good vote
  • + 1
 @dicky1080: naw they got my dollar for a lot of reasons besides being a vote against the status quo of massive middlemen markups. Trek makes some great bikes but I doubt they would have worked with me like the YT boys did ( paid in increments via PayPal )....and the price/performance ratio....and...and. Those days may be gone and everyone is hopping on the the Direct bandwagon theses days, but I made it work for me.
  • + 2
 Used bikes have a soul, bro. I understand people who want virgins though
  • + 1
 @Uuno: the older I get the lower my standards are. I am now content with one that just holds air in the tires
  • + 0
 @Uuno: I´ve never actually bought a new bike, I´m just playing devils advocate! Second hand is soo the way to go!
  • + 0
 Great discussion. I hate new standards as much as the next guy, but I also love progress.

Ironically, my handlebar is compatible with EVERY brand of grips except for WBT's new padlock grip. However, after riding enough Pivots with this new grip, I am sold on the advantages of it. In fact, I voluntarily paid to have my bars cut to accept these new grips. Now, I realize these grips and bar shape will most likely NEVER become the standard, but I just made my bike less backwards-compatible. Now I'm forced to buy WTB or Pivot grips from now on; but I'm OK with that because I love the performance upgrade; i can feel it, and it makes a large difference to me. It was worth the performance advantage.

Thankfully, if I ever wanted to go back, I can buy a new bar for $100-180 and go back. And this was a total voluntary choice for me, making my bike less compatible with other products. So... I guess I play both sides of the fence.

I will say... long gone are the days of just buying a frame and swapping my old parts on; because of all these hub standards. My $1600 non-boost wheels are now worth $400 and they won't transfer to my new frame. Used bikes are less usable and compatible now. It's definitely a double-edged sword.

Thank goodness we're "settled" on tapered head tubes and 15mm front axles.
  • + 2
 where is the 12x150 mention? still a relevant standard as there are tons of dh sleds around with it.
  • + 1
 no need, just buy the 148mm and get two 1 mm washer for each side and you're good to go!! ;-)
  • + 3
 Wtf is super boost? Didn't take long for that one to creep in there!
  • + 2
 The standard will be plastic composite bikes. Not carbon fibre, not aluminum.
  • + 3
 I remember the days of being "Rick Rolled" was the standard.
  • + 2
 Moots? River City Bikes? Who are they? Wasn't moots relevant in about 1981?
  • + 1
 Waltworks>moots by a landslide
  • + 2
 This is what happens when you let the government get involved in regulating hub spacing
  • + 1
 I felt like an idiot building a 135x12 thru axle wheel for my hornet in 2017. Sometimes you just have to go against the grain...
  • + 3
 It's all about the money.
  • + 2
 I would like to see more bike companies buck this trend and not jump the boost bandwagon.
  • + 2
 Here is a link to the other podcasts that @vernonfelton mentioned at the end of this one. chrisking.com/blog/672
  • + 1
 Bike industry, do what ever you like with the sizes... Just STOP calling them "Standards"
  • + 1
 Durability, reliability, economically, practicality, and simplicity is where the money should go.
  • + 1
 too much money spent on research for something that's as good as it already is gonna be spend more money locally for trails.
  • + 1
 Should have got that angry bell-end from Santa Cruz to go, just to see him get wound up again.
  • + 2
 It's as if these bike companies exist purely to make money.
  • + 1
 The bike i got recently, has boost 141qr rear. How long is this going to last now and will i ever find a replacement hub??
  • + 1
 Could someone point me to the Chris King podcast on buying direct... not managed to find it yet! Thanks
  • + 2
 never mind the bollocks... mate. that's what all these 'standards'are.
  • - 2
 The reason why I quit MTB, I could not keep up. I am currently only riding Dirt/Street. If I am to buy another FR rig, it would be the Kona Process but maybe in 2 years or so. I hate SRAM with a passion, I hate the nonsense surrounding the entire "make a new standard and don't keep the old standard" crap. I hate the audacity with which the industry is insinuating that we, as consumers, are mindless drones that have the mental capacity of a gold fish.
  • + 8
 its funny you say that. i just went and had a look at srams website. they still sell 135 QR hubs, 10 speed cassettes, front mechs, double cranksets. so what are you so angry about?
  • + 1
 way to go we just skipped 150mm dh which actually has the same hub flange as 157 just wider end caps...
  • + 1
 youtu.be/Jj0uBQ7j5c4 - this guy explains how we got here, really well...
  • + 1
 Holy Schmidt. Sitting home with the flu and I thought I was gonna die when that guy started laughing. I started coughing and couldn't stop. Ha
  • + 2
 They all say they hate it yet they DO IT. Morons.
  • + 1
 Do bearded men feel less like Bruce Jenner’s?
  • + 1
 Hoping for the Max Mini, then the Mini Max!
  • + 1
 Why is this standards podcast not on standard podcast apps
  • + 1
 Not sure titling the article with an oxymoron is really going to help...
  • + 1
 135mm was a standard too!! another one plus!
  • + 2
 What no 135x12?
  • + 1
 Just keep it at 150, across the board. There strong and they work.
  • + 1
 Harrumphharrumphharrumph!!!
  • + 1
 Still dont know what boost is and still do not give a single fuck about it
  • + 0
 Not a podcast if its not available in podcast apps. This is "some audio on a webpage".
  • + 1
 Where do we go from here...
  • + 5
 To ride our bikes of course
  • + 2
 28 3/4, 156 1/2, 1 3/16 - 1 7/16 taper. The bike industry is a fukin joke
  • + 2
 Time for a boycott
  • + 1
 Bike industry's starter pack: checked shirt and a beard.
  • + 1
 Bearded urban lumberjack farm
  • + 0
 9x135 for the win , with 26" of course
  • + 0
 It’s 10mm dood. 9mm is front axle qr stuff
  • + 0
 I don't see what all the fuss is about.
  • + 1
 Marketing.
  • - 2
 WIDER = STRONGER

Larger wheels need a wider hub. Don't tell me you think a 29er 150mm travel bike rear wheel should be on a 135mm rear hub spacing.
  • + 5
 If the hub flanges are not adjusted, it’s just the same as the 135, 142 standard!
  • + 5
 We never needed or asked for a 29er with 150mm of travel Big Grin Look at the XC races today, if I didn't know better, I'd be thinking those people really want to open a restaurant with all those tacos.
  • + 3
 @FrEeZa: well, if you look at the sales of long travel 29er's, people are asking for them with their wallets.
  • + 6
 @biker245: You're saying it as if it is a choice. One of my best friends works for one the biggest chains of bike shops here in Germany, it is close to impossible to get a 26" from the manufacturers. Little kids here ride either 24" bikes or 27/29". I know I sound incredibly rude, hateful and so on, but there is a huge push from manufacturers as well. For example, Magura are on almost every bike in Germany, they are huge, so people are paying with their wallets for Magura as well? On the contrary, Magura have quite possibly the worst reputation for reliability and functionality as well. Just because it sells doesn't mean it's good/ wanted/ needed.
  • + 1
 Wow, you really studied the subject didn't you
  • + 0
 just E BIKES
  • - 3
 bike industry: here's our reasoning for coming up with these standards.
video with reasons: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
  • + 18
 2007 called, they want their meme back.
  • + 9
 @IN4M: never
  • + 2
 @Niko182: That's it, you've summoned him, while you sleep Rick is going to come round your house and glue your doors and window shut, cut your phone cables, set up a massive boombox of his greatest hits and leave in on track 1 repeating.
  • + 1
 @IN4M: memberries Smile
  • + 3
 @Fix-the-Spade: people still have house phones?
  • + 1
 @nug12182: Some do but we all have internet.
  • + 0
 automobile industry...
  • - 1
 Wasn't this article already posted last year? Who really gives a damn.
  • - 2
 "waah, my Kona Stinky from 10 years ago is hard to get parts for! waaah"
I mean seriously...
  • + 3
 @DonkeyTeeth: that stinks
  • + 2
 Nope. I posted an article announcing that I would be attending a panel discussion and I asked readers to submit questions they wanted the panelists to answer. I then noted that I'd follow up with the audio from the discussion, which is what is contained in this post.
  • + 0
 @DonkeyTeeth: exactly what I am thinking...
  • + 2
 Kim’s stinky ftw @DonkeyTeeth:
  • + 0
 #makeyourboostgreatagain
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.210631
Mobile Version of Website