Have Your Say on the Ever-Changing Bike Standards

Sep 26, 2017 at 15:26
by Vernon Felton  
X

A couple weeks after I published this story about the potential for yet another axle standard, I received a call from the guys at Chris King who, like me, find themselves concerned by the rate of change in the bike industry and the impact it's having on both bike shops and the average rider. They wanted to put together a conference of sorts—a symposium where we could gather people in the bike industry together and talk this standards thing over. Well, that’s happening.

Chris King’s open house is just a week away (October 13th-15th) and one of the things they’ll be tackling in a panel discussion is this question of ever-changing standards. Who'll be on the panel? There'll be veteran bike shop wrenches as well as representatives of bike and component brands. I’ll also be at the open house, moderating the discussion, and I’d like to put some of your questions in front of the panel. So, read on and when you’re done, drop your two cents into the comments section. We’ll select a few of your gems and toss them at the panel. Following the event, we’ll present you with an article and a podcast from the event.

Luddites

WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
The point is to get the conversation rolling. I’m not as cynical as many readers. I don’t think that bike companies are loaded with bean counters rubbing their hands together in glee as they plot to make every new generation of bike and part incompatible with the one that came before it, but I do think the industry would benefit from hearing riders’ voices. In a world of $3,000 bike frames and "affordable" $600 wheelsets, discovering that your new wonder-gadget has the lifespan of a fruit fly is a bitter f*ckin' pill to swallow indeed. You never expected it to remain state of the art forever (you'd be thick to even dream that), but still...

WE ARE NOT LUDDITES
Let me step back for a moment with a disclaimer. We are not Luddites. We are not proposing that innovation should stop or that you should be riding rigid forks and 2.1-inch tires. Bikes and parts getting better? That’s a good thing. Bring it on. Nope, what I and some other people find disturbing is the rate at which one standard is eclipsed by another.

I’ve proposed, here, that the bike industry devise some way of putting its many heads together whenever a new bottom bracket or axle standard rears its head so that we don’t wind up obsoleting wheels and frames and forks every three years simply because the last "innovation" wound up being a half-baked idea that plenty of engineers from other brands knew was just a half-step in the right direction. And, yes, that happens. As it stands, a lot of people are afraid of buying a new bike, frame, fork or wheelset because who knows how long it’ll be before the bike industry comes out with the next Boost 5000…. That's not good for riders. And, in the long run, it's not good for bike and component brands either who actually need to keep selling stuff to those riders.

Of course, the bike industry is not a hippie commune. It is a bundle of businesses. Competing businesses. Businesses that don’t want to cough up their intellectual property or clue their competitors in on their next big bike project. Maybe it’s impossible to have this meeting of the minds… Just a pipe dream.

Or maybe not.
Luddites
A flyer for the original Luddite movement. Not to be confused with a flyer for the Chris King open house.

Tell us what you think.

Better yet, if you could ask this panel of bike industry folks anything about standards, do it here in this comments section. You could ask about the rate of change or the possibility of there ever being a consortium of standards or, hell, I dunno. I don’t live inside your brain. Maybe you are totally cool with the rate at which new standards come and go. Go ahead and pose a question either way. We’ll put a handful of the more compelling and constructive questions and comments in front of the panel and we'll bring you their answers.

Have at it. Let's get the conversation going.


576 Comments

  • + 382
 If you make a change, make it a big change, none of this millimeter here millimeter there business
  • + 637
 yeah give us some 250mm hubs u pussies
  • + 56
 And manufacturers actually get together and have a conversation about what they're doing.
If there had been any discussion whatsoever we might have all migrated from 135 to 142 to the Pivot super boost, which is basically an update to the old DH standard.
We also might have skipped 15mm fork axles altogether (thanks for nothing on that one).
  • + 43
 I read a great quote in some article on PB that said the "I don't hate new standards, I hate bad engineering". I think that's valid. Between not "future proofing" their designs, and incrementally making small advances (Knowing where the end product in going, but hosing us for as much $$$ along the way as possible), we're (the buying public) getting the shaft. I didn't buy a Hightower LT in part this year because why bother? I'll just want the super rad bike they come out with next year anyway...
  • + 23
 @cky78: Speaking of bad engineering, i like how everyone has realized that carbon bikes are being put through the ringer and carbon needs to be durable. Gone are the days of lightweight carbon bikes. Hurray for lightweight alloy.
  • + 5
 @alexsin: They absolutely get together to discuss these things. About 30 of them have already commented in this article incognito about having to use standards on new frames they don't want to make.

Pinkbike, bringing great minds together.
  • + 10
 @raditude: Re-Enter... Foes! LOL. I just switched from my 6lb enduro carbon frame back to 6.5lb Aluminum. Guys are like, wow this is light!
  • + 0
 @ehansen007: f*ck yes
  • + 3
 @tdoyle1995: BAAA!!! i like you
  • + 2
 @raditude: i respectfully disagree. and also agree. does that work?
  • + 6
 "the last "innovation" wound up being a half-baked idea that plenty of engineers from other brands knew was just a half-step in the right direction. "
this. No problem with innovation, but real innovation that matters, not a boost + 0,05
  • + 3
 @cky78: before the invention of the automobile bicycle Engineers was one of the highest classes of engineering. If you were a top-notch engineer before the invention of the automobile the bicycle industry was the top notch goal for you. Now I believe that most not all engineers in the bicycle industry where the dropouts and flunkies. I've dealt with so much senseless crap Over The Last 5 Years the bike industry makes me want to puke. I still love you guys at Chris King and think your stuff is the bomb. Please do not think that this was directed solely at you.
  • + 14
 Just blame it all on Strava
  • + 21
 @cky78: I agree 100%. I think part of the issue and the reason we see "innovative" standards moving forward at such an incremental pace is that alot of these stem from the professional race aspect of the sport. When a win comes down to tenths or hunredths of a second, changes by the millimetre or weight shaved by a gram can make a big difference in the hands of a world class rider. But that type of innovation happens in any sport at the professional level. I believe this is where and why its become a problem in the mountain bike industry is because component and bike companies are so quick to push these improvements onto the average rider, that alot of times. Especially in most recent years. The question of whether or not the average rider will noticeably benefit from said innovations is never honestly considered not to mention the lack of forethought when it comes to future proofing them.
Case and point being the 15mm x 100mm axle standard. It was an answer to a (in my honest opinion) completely non-existent problem. So much so that not to long ago we started seeing the spacing increased back to 110mm in the form of "boost 15x110" and now the rebirth of "20x110" on long travel single crowns.
So roughly 5-6 years later, (2011-2012 is when, if my memory is correct 15x100 was introduced) we've basically walked around in one giant circle. I also don't remember enough complaints about 20x110 being too stiff or too heavy by the majority of riders to warrant 15x100 in the first place.
All in all in my opinion, save the incremental changes for the racetrack and the pros. When that change has been proven and built upon to the point where it will significantly benefit the rest of us (e.g dropper posts, long front/short rear geo etc), can be effectively be used by the majority of the industry and consideration has been given to changes that might happen in the future. Then pass it on to us to enjoy.
  • + 3
 We want to have the best mountain bikes, right? If I bought a new one, that's certainly what I'd think about. Albeit the best means something different in any varying situation. If changing is indeed better, then there is a fairly simply method to find out what should be the standard. Take that change, and change it to an extreme, and then bring it back until it makes sense. Is a boost 250 hub in order? Probably not, but if after examining what makes a better mountain bike (and if boosting something does actually make it better), quit the in-between and go for boost 200.

P.S. Competition is hard. Creating multiple "standards" by BRAND makes consumers cranky. Taking an example with freehub bodies, they do the same thing. Instead of having inter-compatibility issues, create competition through quality and performance. Yes, sizes are different, but let's get rid of the non performance-related differences. p.p.s. I realize this is unrealistic and I'm just mad about having to switch out my non-tapered steerer.
  • + 20
 @properp: thats not right at all. There is plenty of great engineers that could work anywhere else in this industry but love cycling and follow their passion.
The ones to blame for this are not the engineers.
Its the marketing guys that always need new stuff to talk about regardless of it being better or not and demand planners who are afraid of anything that's different and not what they sold last year (and not black).
Together they are a deadly combo...

A big part of the designers and engineers working in this industry are just as frustrated about 1mm changes as the consumers are...
  • + 17
 Front hubs are the give-away that this isn't just the friendly bike companies trying to make the best bikes ever. 20 to 15, then 100 to 110: two product generations of standards obsolescence, ZERO practical benefit to riders. Don't bust into tears, but the suits aren't on our side.
  • - 15
flag MRED-mtb (Oct 5, 2017 at 14:18) (Below Threshold)
 @raditude: Aluminum sucks. Carbon is way way way better:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5eMMf11uhM
  • + 16
 No one cares what we think
  • + 3
 @michibretz: okay maybe I was a little harsh on the engineers. Blame it on my frustration with this ever-changing standards. There used to be a point in time when Engineers had the final say in a boardroom. In today's world I completely believe it all comes down to profit and numbers.. I do appreciate people that are engineers in the bicycle industry doing it for passion. I also know sometimes when people chase their passion it's not what they're best at it's what they like most. It is just too far easy to point blame at everyone except ourselves. At the end of the day no one has any one to blame except their selves if they ponied up the money and bought the product. I do not believe anyone on this site has ever had a gun held to their head and purchase a bicycle.
  • + 13
 Ban Centerlock! It's inefficient, you need two different large tools for front and rear that you'll NEVER have in your back pack.
  • + 2
 @cky78: your missing out on a really awesome bike,be it a year or more, its too long to ride something not as good.
both the LT and the sb5.5 are prob the best all rounders out there.
  • - 1
 @eeeasy: Two of the worst IMO.
  • + 10
 I'm starting with the man in the mirror! I'm asking him to change his ways!
  • + 36
 @properp: i am an engineer, you can absolutely always blame stupid shit on marketing
  • + 2
 @brycepiwek: thank you for pointing this one out. whoever's idea it was to drop 20x110 and go backwards to 15x100 needs to switch from designing bicycles to strollers. Just built a new enduro bike and really wish i would have been able to get it with 20x110 up front and super boost 157 in the rear.
  • + 11
 @properp: As an (automotive) engineer myself, I can honestly say that the decisions as to what standards the new frame has and how far they go will not be made by engineering. If it was left to an engineer to do they would probably just cut the crap and do it properly- once, but then sales will say 'it won't sell- that's too big a change' and water it down.
  • + 2
 @kipvr: 20 + year industrial maintenance technician. We had a saying in the maintenance department that Engineers had two years to build a machine and they would do the best job they could with it. Then it was given to the maintenance department and we had to figure out how to actually make it run production in two weeks time. I have spent a lifetime dealing with Engineers. Some are great some are absolutely horrid.
  • + 5
 @wiscobiker: thats harsh to say.... they have studied really long for their degree in social media marketing... they literally graduated with a B.S. degree! LOL
  • + 3
 i'm told some of the stupidity around the 15mm axle standard was in the attempt to have a "trail" category, and to keep people from using 150mm travel forks in the park with 20mm axle front wheels from exploding and dying... this was done for legal reasons. I have heard stories of fork manufacturers losing lawsuits when a 9 year old second hand 130mm fork failed and some kid got injured riding in the park. definitely not it's intended use.
also, +1 on going from 142 to 157 super boost plus, @alexsin
  • + 8
 I'm of the opinion a bike should be 20x110, 12x157 and 73 threaded. 31.8 seems to work well for seatposts and handlebars (though I don't really care if 35mm takes off since stems are cheap). I think keeping those would not hinder bike development for many years to come.
  • + 10
 @properp: What does a engineer use for birth control? His personality.
  • + 2
 @RLEnglish: i would rather never get laid again then have kids and f*ck up everything i have going on.
  • + 0
 @wiscobiker: I agree with you about boost.
  • + 8
 @brycepiwek: people forget. Fox and Shimano devoeloped 15mm, because centerlock rotors wouldn’t work with 20mm axles.
  • + 3
 @properp: you hit it (the nail, that is). Enough people keep buying for the marketing folks keep it going. Average MXer can't afford race engineered parts, so "the best" is for the racers only. With bikes, enough people are willing to pay for race parts so they market them to everyman. If they didn't do it that way I bet race bikes would all still be metal so they could keep improving stuff for the racers, but once they make it out of plastic they have to sell it to everybody to justify the investment.
  • + 3
 @marxbix: I'm that guy that wore out the stroller wheels (yes, even 1 year olds like drifting) and started looking around for replacements (there aren't any, curse the stroller industry).
  • + 1
 But as you say- business. Money talks. Actual average joe's needs have nothing to do with it.
  • + 4
 I have a fox 36 and have never owned a 15mm axle!
  • + 15
 A very wise man wrote a few lines in 2012.
www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-GB/news/343
  • + 3
 @ecologist: From the first time ever riding with my ten day old girl, I learned that the only way to keep her happy was to go fast and drift a lot. I could often be found drifting that poor stoller in the gravel and stuff. Either carry my baby on my body or ride like that, there is no other way. She's seven now and joins me on mtb rides. The time in between she's swinging in the trapeze in the living room, in the rings in her own room, jumping on the trampoline in the backyard or riding her skateboard in the streets. She'll be fine.

I haven't found any excessive wear on those wheels, but the linkage of the actual stroller developed some excess play.
  • + 1
 @tdoyle1995: that what she said ??
  • + 3
 @eeeasy: My buddy bought a Hightower and after one day at Thunder Mountain the tire had wore through the paint into the carbon on the back of the seat post. The worst thing? He never went through the full stroke on the shock that came on the bike....Tell me that's not bad engineering...
  • - 2
 My buddy bought a Hightower and after one day at Thunder Mountain the tire had wore through the paint into the carbon on the back of the seat post. The worst thing? He never went through the full stroke on the shock that came on the bike....Tell me that's not bad engineering...
  • + 1
 @carym: huh? my Saint and Zee hubs say otherwise
  • + 5
 @michibretz: Bad engineering does is often not the work of bad engineers. It is more often the result of ill conceived projects. Changes generated in the board room or the marketing department often go down with no real benefit to the product. Changes generated by engineering to solve real problems or improve performance often don't sell well. In the end bike shop buyers and customers bear some of the blame.

Just a few years ago "aggressive 29er" was a total niche product, now everyone has a few in the line up. The delay wasn't in those companies ability to design a faster, better handling bike by going up a wheel size, it was in getting the market to accept another change.

Motos rarely have the same diameter and width of rubber in the front and back. The engineering requirement of the front and back wheels are just too different. Bike engineers know this, but we don't see 27.5+ rear, 29 front bikes out there because no one would buy them.

Big companies can roll out new standards because they only sell complete bikes. Shops, small manufacturers and peeps that wrench their own bikes and post on PB are just dragged along for the ride.
  • + 17
 Have fun at the conference! Let us know when its safe to buy bikes again Smile oh and dont listen to the trek guy
  • + 4
 @ecologist: we vote with our wallets in the modern-day world unfortunately.
  • + 5
 @tomonda: thanks for the link truly a good read
  • + 2
 @carym: Regarding the 15x100 - Yeah, people forget. They forget the abominable 9mm QR axle which the 15mm axles killed. Forcing a 20x110 on the spandex crowd would be a tough sell and from this POV, I believe, 15mm deserves its existence. Employing it on a 170mm 36 is a whole different question...
  • + 3
 @eeeasy: you sir are correct those are 2 mighty all arounders. Ride the future today.
  • + 4
 New standards are fine, they save me a lot of money. If the standards did not change I would probably keep a frame for 2-3 years and then be fooled into believing I need a new one. But instead I plan to keep my bike and components for at least 10 years: better for my wallet and better for the environment.

Example? My Ibis HD3 and its carbon wheels were made obsolete 10 months after their purchase. The industry, with pinkbike in tow, decided that a 6 mm increase in hub spacing was the new and greatest revolution. An overnight loss of a few thousands dollars.

But there is a simple solution: don't buy into the marketing scum!
  • + 6
 @brycepiwek: You are played by the industry. It is absurd to think that going from 142 to 148 hub axle brings any benefit to a bike. You can easily argue that the 142 is better than 148. (I can just see the titles: Lighter! more compact wheel! no loss of rigidity!).
  • + 3
 Yeah lets make a tire that stays on the rim so the WC guys don't have the season decided on if there tire blew off or not.
  • + 1
 @RLEnglish: lol haa haa hee hee
  • + 1
 @duzzi: that was exactly point I was trying to make. I did ramble on a little there so it might have gotten lost in translation. My bad haha. I agree completely, 142 to 148 was too incremental to make a difference to us.
  • + 1
 @carym: that's odd because my old Entourage had a RS lyrik with a 20mm axle, with a zee hub and centrelock rotor...
  • + 4
 I'm baffled that people are saying that 148mm isn't enough. I see so many bikes with large areas of seatstay paint missing. I would personally rather have one less gear on my cassette and occasionally change my chainring to suit terrain rather than have an even wider rear spacing.
  • + 5
 150x12. Thanks.
  • + 2
 @rockin-itis: You mean old 157mm?
  • + 4
 @ecologist: I agree, I'm on my second stroller and my wife is pissed. Add to the list suite case manufacturers please allow me to replace the wheels without doing major surgery on my suite cases.

I'm all for 157x12 rear and 110x20 front............seems logical to this engineer.
  • + 5
 Agreed.

Examples:

135mm should have jumped right to 150 or 157mm. Whether is super boosted or not does not matter as the dropouts are the same. Imagine the same hub for all you mountain bikes.

Handlebars moving up to 35mm is utter BS.


Some have complained that King has been slow to respond to industry change. I mostly applaud that. If more component makers hesitated on jumping on the latest "improvement" you'd see more well thought out, real advancements.


Way to go CK, for trying to get things moving in the right direction. Also, FYI, I'm a proud owner of a few of your hubsets. Most are over 10 years old. One rear hub is probably almost 15 years old and is currently on my AM bike I ride almost every day. Keep up the great work.

Pivot tried to push for meaningful change with using a DH rear axle standard on their Switchblade. That was a real improvement. It did not actually require "super" boost, just a DH hub. Great idea. But, I'm not sure too many riders talked with their wallets and bought that bike.
  • + 2
 @jaame: I know what you mean !
I'm running 20x110mm on an older bike with 55s and always liked that system.
When I bought 36s for a new bike a year back, didn't both fitting the 15mm adaptors, and simply bought wheels with a 20mm axle front hub.
  • + 1
 @carym: I thought Shimano had always produced Saint C/L hubs in 20mm ?
It was only the original lock-ring that wouldn't fit - and that's all that needed redesigning wasn't it ?
  • + 3
 @Diabolicus: I've had marzocchi DJ and 55, rockshox lyrik, totem and argyle, and the fox 36. All 20mm. Thank god for Hope!
  • + 1
 @Diabolicus: the 20mm front CL was BB tool lockring, but shimano has changed the size for new slx, xt and xtr. It will probably be the case with new saint, which will further confuse matters.
Why the change? They wanted to use a smaller bearing that saves 4.83 grams. I don't know about anyone else, but I can really feel the weight reduction.
  • + 2
 @properp: As an oil refinery maintenance tech we have our own saying about engineers.

They could work out the square root of a banana, they just couldn't peel it!
  • + 2
 @pospist: Pink Bike this is the place I eat crow. This comment triggered my snack. I ride a 2008 26" bike with a Magura Wotan 160 mm fork (1 1/8 straight steerer) at the time short of Dual crowns, no "stiffer" front fork existed. I just spent 6 days riding a 2017 Rocky Slayer mounted with a Fox 36 with 170mm, tapered steerer, & 15mm boost front axle. It was stiff as I needed. I spent the entire time making bad decisions in Squamish and Whister (including a full park day). Not ONCE did my hack, corner stuffing, front heavy landingþ, pilot error bad line taking 46 yr old, 235 lb ass EVER wish for more from the front. Would I like to see 20x110 boost as the defacto trail / enduro / DH & AM standard... YES.
  • + 2
 @tomonda: great article, it says it all, and back in 2012.
  • + 1
 @petehaddock: Engineers live in the perfect world of textbooks and Theory. Not the real world
  • + 1
 I grew up in the eighties, there were three kinds of bikes: BMX, Ten Speed, and the cool new Mountain bikes. All BMX parts interchanged, all Ten Speed parts interchanged, and all Mountain bike parts interchanged. There have been great improvements over the years and I can say every new bike I build is better than the last -- but, it is like breaking a code trying to get the correct parts and having to borrow proprietary tools from my buddies. I have always used Chris King components, they always seem to be bomb proof and most resistant to change - as they want to make sure the new standard is proven, or valid before they invest and make a product for it. Bike industry: simplify, actually make standards, make frames and parts compatible - you are driving us nuts, focus on big picture shit - not putting bike shops out of business, actually keeping air in a tire and not blowing off rims, Ditching all these stupid standards and GETTING PRICES DOWN.
  • + 2
 @brycepiwek: good points made all around. What King's symposium will unlikely be able to address is for the ongoing need for manufactuers to beat (or screw over) their competitors...often at the expense of the consumer.

The bullsh!t 15mm axle standard was at the hands of Fox and Shimano who needed a way to compete with SRAM's 20mm Maxle. They teamed up and with their combined influence were able to change the way product managers bought kits for their builds. Marketers were only able to speak to one benefit of 15mm axles, they were a few grams lighter. Big deal. Everyone go out and buy new forks and wheels.
  • + 1
 @EnduroManiac: How about just don't buy Center lock? Plenty of very high end options in 6-bolt
  • + 1
 @cky78: My friend rides Steamboat bike park daily with his new Hightower (he lives there) and hit Whistler with it, hits everything except maybe Crabapple hits and has had zero issues. What tire is your buddy riding?
  • + 1
 @alexsin: I agree about the 15mm axles! Either they really make no difference on torsional stiffness compared to 20mm, in which case 20mm was a mistake and 15mm is the way to go for all applications including downhill, or they are just stupid. I say 20mm for everything, if they are too strong for the intended use just use lighter materials. A 20mm system can be made lighter than a 15mm one.
  • + 2
 @Phillyenduro: I think the 15mm standard was more to get riders off of 9mm QRs, not off of 20s.
  • + 1
 @dockboy: I currently ride with two types of forks. Those with 9mm qr and some with 20x110 axles. Still, I believe that if the old 20x110 hubs could be converted to 15x100 simply by swapping end caps there was no advantage in the old 20x110 or at least none in the way it was executed. Same bearing distance, same flange spacing. Just using a longer axle doesn't give you any advantage. Now, boost at least uses the 110mm spacing properly. I'm not saying my old 20x110 perform poorly. Not at all. Is boost ideal as it is? No, don't think so either. It probably takes a company like Syntace to come up with an asymmetric fork just like the did with evo6 in the rear. Now, that will make people go ape shit. They may be able to deal with an asymetric rear triangle because the rear drivetrain is asymmetric as well. But shifting the front hub a few mm, I doubt many can cope with that.

As for 9mm qr or bolted axles, they're fine. These hubs are relatively cheap, easy to service and reliable (if you can handle a spanner). And obviously slotted dropouts are much more simple too. I might have missed something, but I think in BMX people still use slotted dropouts (front and rear) just fine. Maybe not in BMX racing, I don't follow that tech too closely. But really, it is good enough for jumping. What went wrong is that suspension fork manufacturers used vertical dropouts (as was common in road cycling) and placed the disc brake caliper in the rearward position. This way the brake lifted the axle out of the dropout. Fork manufacturers have learned, dropouts are angled forwards and the caliper has shifted more above the axle. I'm running 180mm or 190mm rotors in a Magura Laurin FCR (200Cool fork most of the time and never had issues. Now the other reason of course is that a thru axle can be used as a structural member for the fork. With these bigger forks this may become more necessary. But I'm running 26" and the dual arch design makes these lowers more than stiff and strong enough.
  • + 1
 @tomonda: Joe Graney always gets to the point.
  • + 147
 Can we get a standard for water bottle lids?
  • + 28
 The struggle is real. I feel you.
  • + 37
 Can we get a standard for not putting my feces in a bag and leaving it in the middle of the trail in said bag? That is a standard we can all get behind.
  • + 7
 @IamTheDogEzra: yes I mean if you went through the effort of putting it in the bag, haven't you been through the worst part of it?! People!! Cmon!!!!
  • + 2
 Pop quiz: how many f*cks does the industry give what anyone thinks about its standards?
  • + 0
 @jaame: 0.0000 f*cks given. from their perspective "innovation" = "new parts" which means increased revenue. The real problem is the consumer thinking they need to keep up with the joneses instead of just riding your bike. New wheel sizes aren't your problem people, its your poor skills, sorry. But there will always be a market for people to try and buy better skills, just like there will always be a market for miracle weight loss pills, so the industry is going to try to make money off it, read Capitalism.
  • + 133
 can we all just admit that 142 spacing is all we really need, 35mm bars and stems are a nonsense, threaded bb is the correct standard, 6 bolt hubs only, 100 x 15mm for the forks, one cassette freehub body please. think that's us sorted....
  • - 7
flag Chris97a (Oct 5, 2017 at 12:31) (Below Threshold)
 As a bigger and fairly aggressive rider I have to counter some of that. I have ridden 29ers with 142 rear wheels and that is a flexy experience. 35 mm bars are great for me but massive overkill for anyone on the smaller side of average. 110 hubs up front work better for me in the 29er world. 6 bolt is perfect along with threaded bb's. Totally fine with 1 freehub as long as it is XD so I don't have to run a giant cassette on my 1x.
  • + 60
 110x20 is the one true fork standard, when suspension brands bang on and on about how much stiffer-er this year's model is, I take the presence of a 15mm axle as a direct admission that they're talking shit. Suntour of all people are the only one's to actually put their money where their mouth is and release a 20mm axled single crown fork this year.
  • + 4
 @Fix-the-Spade:
The new 20 mm standard that is just coming out is fine by me on a 29er since it is a boost hub shell instead of a non boost hub shell. The older standards are totally fine on the smaller wheels but I believe fall short when aggressive 29ers.
  • + 7
 @Fix-the-Spade: Fox 36 is still 20mm with a 2nd 15mm axle isnt it?
  • + 8
 It's true what you say but hasn't that ship sailed already? Everything is boost now. Let's stop here at boost
  • + 9
 @toop182, you've described mine (and probably most peoples) current bike and you are right- they work just fine. I do miss my 'old 20mm front axle though, think we were screwed over there. Any future standards need to spend longer in the design phase until the point that they actually make a relevant difference on the trails.
  • + 55
 @Chris97a: flexy wheels is due to a poor wheel build, not the hubs being a couple mm narrower
  • + 1
 I wish I could recommend this twice. Nail on the head.
  • - 5
flag e-loop (Oct 5, 2017 at 14:16) (Below Threshold)
 @toop182 I agree with everything, except 6 bolt rotors. I just find centerlock much better
  • + 4
 #135ain'tDead
  • + 1
 @Fix-the-Spade:
That is the main reason why I bought a new Durolux with 20x110mm!
  • + 6
 110x20, 142x10/12, threaded BB, 44HT, 31.8 bar / stem and 180mm post mount brakes.
  • + 3
 @fartymarty: You just described my Cotic Rocket.
  • - 5
flag MTBLegend92 (Oct 5, 2017 at 19:33) (Below Threshold)
 @e-loop: Centerlock is superior to six bolt in every way, some people just hate change. Fewer parts, easier to take off and on, safer mounting system. Even if you forget the lockring on the disc brake, centerlock physically cannot come off of the hub when mounted in the fork/frame. I nearly risked serious injury last week because the rotor bolts on my rear chris king had all gotten loose, which thankfully I noticed right before my ride because the rotor was moving independent of the rear hub when I grabbed the brake, a pretty terrifying feeling I must say
  • + 2
 I agree on all that but I do have to say I really like center lock rotors. Nice only having one bolt holding it all together. Those darn t25 bolts get annoying after the first few.
  • + 1
 @chize: I will admit it is possible to build a strong enough 29er 142 axle rear wheel for a bigger guy like myself with the right components. 2 cross on the drive side and a asymmetrical rim could do it.
With the smaller wheels almost anything reasonable would do. I was happy enough on my oem 27.5 wheels that had fairly skinny Alex rims.
With boost rear it is not the 3 mm change in flange placement per side you should focus on, but rather the fact that the 3mm translates into 15% more triangulation of the spokes on the drive side.
I do want to admit that I haven't pedaled a trail bike with a DH rear hub and am curious if I could get away with that despite my duck footedness. If I could avoid heel strikes on the stays then that would be my preferred rear hub.
  • + 1
 @Fix-the-Spade: or a lot of other sensibly designed bikes.
  • + 1
 Right on... Frame w/multi wheel size - 27.5+ & 29 - clearance is doable w/142 rear. THAT's the honey hole from all recent advancements. So many possibilities and end caps/disc brakes keep most gear/wheels in compatible range. Let capitalism handle the other BS & I'll wait for dirt cheap trickle downs.
  • + 0
 @scotterbrains: If 135mm is do-able with 29+ (as it is on my Krampus) then 142mm easily works.

The 148mm rear end came from Trek on their Stache where they made the CS as short as possible with a 29+ tyre. It has since been rolled out to everything regardless whether it is necessary or not. Long fronts and short CS dont make sense IMHO so its a solution to a non issue developed by to make frames obsolete.
  • + 2
 @Chris97a: It is a ridiculous fantasy that spacing the spokes 3 mm outward gives you a better wheel. Nobody has EVER published any data about that simply because the difference is insignificant.
  • + 1
 @fartymarty: Agree w/you re: 135mm and compatible caps for both setups (142mm also) without wholesale gear/frame changes... is best of all worlds currently available. One bike, so many possibilities. Creativity to amateur home builders/tinkerers like me is unprecedented.
  • + 7
 @chize: why not move the standard to zero dish hubs with offset cassettes to truly build strong wheels. Any dished wheel is constantly trying to self destruct.
  • + 4
 @gunnysun: I can't believe I searched for the word "DISH" and yours is the only response. All MTB wheels should be ZERO DISH, and yet we keep releasing stupid new standards that don't address this. Any wheelbuilder will attest to how much more durable in the long run a wheel is with equal length spokes, equal tensions, and no dish. If we're going to keep making new standards to milk more money out of consumers, let's at least make the standard perfect - not a half arsed marketing-based job.
  • + 2
 @duzzi:
Quite a bit has been written about this actually.

I will agree that 3mm makes it sound like a small change, but as bracing angle is the most important factor in building a laterally stiff wheel it is a big deal. The 3mm is a 15% increase in hub flange offset so that is a pretty big jump in bracing angle and the bigger the rim the bigger the change in bracing angle. Here is a article that talks about this a little,

www.rouesartisanales.com/article-23159755.html

I have read a paper by an engineer about this subject and will post it when I find it. It has lots of maths.

I agree with others that making the back of the bike asymmetrical is another good way to solve the lateral stiffness issue, but then all the bike companies would need to agree on a number to offset by and I don't think that would be very likely.
  • + 1
 @uuuu: it's sad because I thought this would be a major point if a new standard is considered and yet no one is even thinking about it. I want to say nukeproof configures their frames/wheels this way. I have probably 15000 miles on zero dish single speed wheels with two trueings.
  • + 1
 @gunnysun: that would be ideal but I can't think of a way that would work with current cassette sizes without throwing q-factor way off. I imagine things will go that way as gear boxes get better
  • + 106
 My conspiracy theory is different from everyone else's conspiracy theory.

I think the main strategy behind the shifting-standards isn't to make end users buy more bikes and wheels, it's to hurt smaller competitors. Trek and SRAM want to drive companies like Transition and Chris King out of business. If the little guys are constantly forced to redesign for new standards, and to stock multiple standards at once, those little guys suffer. If end users think twice before dropping money on an "outdated" design or a parts upgrade, those little guys suffer. Maybe they have less resources to develop new product, maybe they go belly up. Big guys win.

So, riders aren't the intended target, we're just the collateral damage. Thanks, Trek!
  • + 12
 Can't agree more. Right now Sram is setting the pace for the whole industry.
  • - 10
flag mollow (Oct 5, 2017 at 14:28) (Below Threshold)
 Tell me more about how small of a player Transition is in the industy
  • + 18
 @mollow: Transition is tiny compared to the bigger players. 11 employees vs 1800 (according to Google) at Trek.
  • + 4
 @Phillyenduro: Agreed. It's par for the course nowadays. Before, it was Walmart and now it's Amazon. Love Transition, Canfield Bros, and the like, (and I'm happy to support them) but I don't know how small companies like that can survive, much less thrive in an environment like this. Bike shops either, as they can't justify stocking components that will be obsolete before dust can settle on them. The ultimate logical conclusion appears to be Amazon buys SRAM, and it's game over for everyone else. I hope I'm wrong.
  • + 8
 They probably sell less bikes than one single model that Giant/Trek/Specialized sell.

BTW Phillyenduro is absolutely spot on with his comment above. It's all about tooling costs for companies who can't afford to change every three years. If SRAM can change an axle standard and get it adopted before Shimano they make millions more in OEM.
  • + 8
 Shimano and Fox started the fire with that stupid 15x100 from axle. Way before that Boost BS. They ganged up together to fight SRAM, and fucked us all in the process.
  • + 9
 I must say, Mollow you are a right c*nt on just about every thread. Are you autistic or something? Serious question, I want a reason to give you a break here mate..

@Phillyenduro I am on board with what you are saying. Driving sales is just a secondary benefit. I think most new standards in the past 5-6 years have brought with them marginal improvements for the end user, often times have been an absolute nightmare for the LBS, and would appear to be costly to implement even for those large companies developing them. Pressuring out the smaller competition would be an easy motivation to realize here.
  • + 3
 120% right. This is the dark side of capitalism, companies don't want to compete, all they want is to sink the competition, because in the long term this gives them more profit.
  • + 12
 It also funny how those 11 guys make way cooler bikes compared to all 1800 Big Grin
  • + 2
 @winko: That's because they care about what they're doing.
  • + 1
 The "improvements" that sram and trek make are, thats how it appears to me, often not well thought through. just look at sram with the ever failing reverb seatpost, use of dot brake fluid, low quality bearings in the derailleurs... or trek with the weak performance of drcv with a degressive shock rate so you will bump the shock through all the time, the breaking frames on the main pivot, the push of boost spacing.

I do not mean to bash just these two companies that i have had bad experiences with. It is just annoying that the "improvemets" are often not improvements at all but just a seemingly random changes that make the riders spend more of their money. Or for the companies to stand out from the crowd of manufacturers.
I just think the improvements should be well thought through - that also means there must not be a new standard every second season.

I do not agree that the smaller companies will be having big trouble with the ever changing standards. I would be very happy if more companies would stick to the proven standards for longer. I would rather buy a frame with 142mm rear end than 148 or 157 because of the heel rub on chainstays of wider rear ends as well as more rock strkes. Also who needs boost cranks anyway?

Has anyone thought through why not stick to a standard that was already there and maybe make improvements to it? Just to name some:
20x110mm through axles (they are coming back)
12x150mm rear axles (instead of 148mm)
1.5 straight steerers (although they look ugly, they definitely bring less flex if you run a few spacers)
threaded bottom brackets (also coming back after those press fit bbs)

I do not generally hate developments. I think some really made riding better:
new school geometry
wider rims (about 30mm inner diameter)
1x drivetrains
metric shock sizing (because of the bigger bushing overlap)
tapered / 1.5 steerer
through axles
  • + 7
 Dude. My Trek Stache came only *half*-boosted. The rear axle is 148 but up front I have a rigid carbon fork with only 100mm spacing. All of the suspension forks that fit my front wheel (29x3" tire with a 50mm rim) are 110mm. This means that in order to fit a front suspension, I would need to adapt the front wheel. Common adapter kits come with a two 5mm spacer rings that sit on either side of the hub and a 5mm six-bolt spacer for the brake rotor.

Except my bicycle uses a center-lock rotor that *can't* be spaced out with a 6-bolt adaptor.

A few small brands are making specialty adaptors that actually replace the right-side bearing seals with one that adds an additional 10mm to that side of the hub, offsetting the hub by 5mm and putting the brake rotor in the right spot. This also offets the rim and tire by 5mm, which requires the wheel to be re-dished to center the rim in the new fork.

Except-- nobody makes this particular kit for a Shimano hub. They exist for a lot of other brands, but not a Shimano 15x100.

So now I'm looking at either buying a new wheel ($250 for a compatible one, before tubeless sealant, brake rotor and other incidentals) or rebuilding my current wheel with a 110 hub, which means I can't convert back to my rigid fork in the future if I decide I don't actually enjoy the new setup.

This is insanity. I really like some of the changes that have taken place in the past 15 years such as 29er wheels, plus-sized tires, through-axles, 1x drivetrains and affordable disc brakes, but the sheer volume of different standards just makes it so damn frustrating to upgrade.
  • + 2
 @XIVXV: Metric shocks don't inherently have more bushing overlap. It's simply a new design. The units of shock length measurement are irrelevant.

It was a change by SRAM to gain more OEM shock sales. If you convince a frame designer that they should design around metric and Fox etc don't have that length available...
  • + 72
 "Of course, the bike industry is not a hippie commune." We can work to change that. It's just going to take a progressive attitude to sex and the right drugs. Come on people.

My hub spacing isn't on this page, who do I need to talk to about this?
  • + 29
 I still have 135QR, steel hardtail frame, and 1 1/8" steerer tube. I feel completely left out.
  • + 3
 @Offrhodes: don't feel left out they just started making high quality 26in tubes
  • + 2
 @Offrhodes: I'm on an OG Reign frame with a greatest hits of parts from the last decade. I can't tell my boost from metric. It's a lottery as to what standards will be around when I finally manage to crack the f*cker.
  • + 1
 @properp: yeah forget FOMO, embrace FOFI (fear of fitting in)
  • + 2
 @Offrhodes: ignorance is bliss!!
  • + 1
 @Offrhodes: Should I feel left out too then? This is what I have too, with IS mount disc brakes, latex tubes (with Schraeder valves), 26x2.4" tires, 1x9sp drivetrain, 26.8mm seatpost isn't too common anymore either. I just replaced my octalink cranks by Truvativ Howitzer. Not sure how common Howitzer is but at least I'm running external bearings now Smile .
  • + 2
 @Offrhodes: Built new 26" enduro bike in 2014 (thanks banshee for offering it) when everyone jumped ship, 10/10 would do it again!
  • + 68
 I would just like to take the opportunity to thank Chris King for not being one of the primary drivers behind this nonsense. The idea that boost spacing was some innocuous design update that had nothing to do with driving new interest and sales via new and exciting marketing is complete BS. 150/157 rear hubs achieve everything boost claimed to and then some. You'll realize this when they do it again in 2-3 years because the decisions are based on marketing releases and stagnant sales, not stagnant designs based in engineering. Listen to the podcasts vital did with sram marketing peeps. It's product release improvement, not product design improvement, plain and simple. And CK was not out there pushing it. Thank you.

Also, CK: sell your buzzworks offset headsets dammit.
  • + 5
 it's 100% BS for sure.

Cue someone who couldn't perform a geometry problem telling us about 'triangulation'.
  • + 5
 I fully agree with the above statement and is a reason I own three sets of King hubs, headsets, etc.

That being said - Chris King needs to point from his FAIRTRADE™ sourced throne a garlic scented finger at the CNC machines and make XD drivers for their road hubs... Pretty sure that "standard" is going to stick.
  • + 2
 Was it CK that suggested threaded BB but also threaded headsets? That seems like a farking brilliant idea!
  • + 8
 @Klainmeister: That was Canfieldbrothers.
  • + 2
 Nailed it with a lot of that.
I can do boosty 20x110 // 12x157.
XD driver is actually good, and I can tolerate pointless parallelism on 31.8/35mm bars. Just make seat tubes big, for the same reason longer I2I shocks make sense.
  • + 60
 As a small bike brand we too are sucked into this cycle. Our new Mettle very nearly hit the market with an ‘old’ (pun intended) 142 rear axle spacing. Our production model was switched to 148 so that we didn’t appear to have an old model when stocked arrived and have to pay extra tooling charges a short way down the line to add 6mm and little performance gain.

It was also by complete luck and just in time that we found out about metric shocks and had a chance to implement them into our design. Fortunately we see a big performance gain with this latter change and we’re glad we did move to it.

These kind of side step standard changes continue to catch businesses like us - and much bigger ones - out.

My question is how does the industry expect the smaller brands to compete, survive, and thrive if the goal posts keep moving a few millimetres every year?

Pat @ Identiti Bikes
  • + 17
 Big companies do work together. To crush the small guy. They don't care... It is a way of ensuring small companies can't compete or catch up. Ask Mr. Oliver.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=00wQYmvfhn4
  • + 9
 You seriously are wondering "how does the industry expect the smaller brands to compete, survive, and thrive if the goal posts keep moving a few millimetres every year?"

They don't care about you. You really should know that.
  • + 3
 Haha what's the interest for the bike brands that lead the dance to help small brands compete?
I see none... That's why they don't help.
  • + 2
 @es7ebanlv: arguably it goes further than that. One of the effects the constant change in standards will actually have is that all of the smaller, disruptive players will have to waste their resources chasing measurements like this in order to stay relevant instead of beating the big players at their own game
  • + 3
 It was largely a rhetorical question but even the big companies chase each other just so they don’t miss a ‘sales’ feature on a spec sheet for the same of a few mm and extra incompatibility.
  • + 2
 @Identiti-Bikes: Do feel sorry for the small guys like you in the industry.
Would be nice if they could pick some figures and stick with them.
Its puts you in that situation of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Where as a boutique brand that isn't full production (ie Curtis) can make whatever is requested and isn't always having to chase the latest changes.

I just look at my BMXs and the parts are able to be fitted across the board. Some minor differences (ie American BB compared to Euro) but the rest is basically the same. 100mm front and 110 rear.
Either they got it right or realise that side of the industry isn't into being forced into proprietary equipment.
  • + 1
 @tehllama: Yes of course, and also releasing "old" technology because big brands change everything each year. Little guys really have it rough.
  • + 50
 It all started with cell phone plans.
  • + 40
 Taking existing technology and modifying the dimensions by 2 or 3% is not innovation. It's not progress. It's bullshit

A seatpost that can automatically adjust it's height with the push of a button is innovation. Tires that can run without tubes and seal themselves when punctured are innovation. A maintenance free drivetrain that doesn't dangle off the ass of the bike would be innovation.
  • + 10
 This. Big time. To add another, the introduction of disk brakes. Truly innovative and changed the game.
  • + 0
 +1
whats it gonna be with the gearbox, yeah that would be nice to know
  • + 3
 All of these items are transferable to another frame.

It’s the frame dude. That’s the problem.
  • + 33
 I am certainly holding off on a new ride. My 2013 Mojo HD still has more gas than I do. My future proofed 2010 CK hubs still work with the new axle, and I scooped up a 2015 27.5 Pike when my 2009 Fox 36 let go.

At the end of the day it’s the fat guy on the seat.

Unless the frame fails - I see no point in buying until the rapid pace of “evolving” standard slows.
  • + 2
 I have a 2013 HD too. Did you convert yours to 27.5?
  • + 19
 not trying to be a jerk, but every post or forum like this has some reply like yours. it doesn't answer the writers question and it won't be discussed at the CK meeting. there are people like you will hold onto your stuff until the day it days. we get it. but this kind of post isn't about people like you, its about the people buying new products. we've all heard it before: "its the rider, not the bike. my ______ still works great after ______ years."
  • + 9
 @dtrotter: to be fair though, my 2007 Sunday is fast approaching its 10th birthday, and it still works a treat Smile
  • + 33
 @dtrotter: I'm specifically not upgrading my bikes because of boost. I have two great non-boost wheelsets. I'd like to also buy an AM hardtail, and I would ideally be able to just swap wheels to it, but the ones that finally have good geometry, are also now boost. So for me, it's leading to a reduction in bike purchases. Good for my wallet, bad for the bike industry.
  • + 3
 @TucsonDon: yeh, i used to run 2 bikes for years (ht and suss) but due to compatibility issues now find life much easier with one bike for all. My non-boost wheels work just fine too, bit of flex = more grip.
  • + 6
 Agreed. My "old" ride will be replaced only upon frame or suspension fail.
Even when I entertain the thought of a new bike ... it's already superseded by new components, frames and standards !

The industry should focus on future proofing when building new product, built in fender and mud protection
and simple user performed maintenance that can be performed with normal bike shop tools.
Wheels need to be bomb-proof without the need for inserts.

Claims of newer, stiffer frame / stem / wheels yada yada... Ignored.
  • + 5
 @dtrotter: I bought my 26" bike at the end of life for that size, and it was a commitment to spend that amount on a bike. Since then I've done a few upgrades, and I'm planning on doing a 1X conversion next. Luckily the hub on my bike will take the bigger cassette, but had it not because of a new standard, I wouldn't be buying the 1X full set.
  • + 2
 @TucsonDon: Precisely my sentiments. This may be a losing battle but my sincere hope is that manufacturers at least make their "innovations" and changes backwards compatible. And I appreciate that King has made great efforts to accommodate newer standards on older product. Unfortunately, I have a small pile of now useless axles from the many changes over the past few years. Expensive f*cking habit I've got, it seems.
  • + 1
 @the-lorax: nah just running 26’ with a 27.5 Pike. Was thinking that I would.... just never got around to it.
  • + 3
 @dtrotter:


You missed the point. Why do you think i built my wheelset up with Kings? Because they last forever. Nothing was on my horizon regarding my lifetime hubs for them to be outdated.

Here’s the deal. I have no interest spending 3500 on a frame that will be obsoleted in 3 years. That goes the same for rim sizes, fork offsets, lacing patterns, gears. All of these millimeter changes for what? To go a little further next cycle? Why?

There’s too many manufacturers trying to entice me that their latest greatest is the best. I’ll buy revolutionary products rather than a mid-cycle refresh.

I learned my lesson with proprietary product with a 2008 Spesh Enduro. Proprietary fork with proprietary 25mm hub!, proprietary rear shock (admittedly an easy fix). But I bought the bike with a warranty and to keep the warranty I had to spend 400$ a year sending the fork and shock back to the factory for a rebuild?!!! Cmon. Another $2k over the live of the bike?

We live in a subscription world where we are sold installment payments. These minor updates and slight improvements are costing us more over the long haul.


I’ve got 5 bikes. Transition BottleRocket I’m building back up for my kid. Transition TR450, Spesh Hardrock as the baby trailer puller, the Mojo and last summer a Niner BSB.

You can tell Chris that the last new bike I wanted to buy was updated to a new model within 16 months.

It’s my hard earned money and I will buy a bike when I know that 3 years later it will still be current. I don’t have to hand my cash out for the “privilege” of supporting a brand.
  • + 0
 @jmd2drsrbtrrthn4: no, i think you missed the point. the point is, these new bikes don't become obsolete. just likes yours didn't. someone, somewhere, today is researching their first bike purchase that they intend to keep for a long long time, just like you did when you bought yours. and for those people, great! do your research, read these articles, read the comments, watch reviews, test ride, demo, all that. thats okay. not everyone is constantly upgrading and even though some people have really old bikes and they still enjoy them, its okay for others to desire the latest and greatest even though we all know there might be some new parts next year.
  • + 11
 @dtrotter: No, it's the exact opposite. The people buying something new every two years don't care what the new standard is because they always have something new and are focused on having the latest and greatest.

Those of us that hang onto a bike, or buy used bikes are the ones who are affected by changing standards because parts stop being available to support our older stuff.

Second group needs the support more since they are out actually riding their gear.
  • + 3
 @Dethphist: touche. point taken. that is a good point.
  • + 16
 @Dethphist: @dtrotter @jmd2drsrbtrrthn4

I have been thinking about the very things you all have been debating, and I think that between you, you have totalled nailed the entire situation, and as a result, are giving everyone huge hints as to how to approach their own personal world of bikes....and the industry too.

If I may, a little explanation:

1) There are two distinct user groups here. "Frugals" like me and @jmd2drsrbtrrthn4 who don't want to give up using perfectly great stuff, and "Early Adopters" who, as @dtrotter says, want to get the latest and greatest. Early adopters don't care about standards as much as frugals.

It is so obvious that it isn't stated enough perhaps, however, all of us are somewhere on that continuum, and crucially, we all move along it.

2) There is a very real link between the number of new standards (and how essential they are perceived) and the numbers of users migrating towards the "Frugals" end of the continuum. More standards with (perceived) inbuilt obsolescence and you push us all left towards being more frugal.

However, more innovations that are not proprietary and that show huge leaps forward, and that can be migrated between frames and components and we all become earlier adopters.

It should be obvious to all of us, but it appears we don't all see past our own noses.


3) Where is the sweet spot on that continuum? If we find it, we all benefit.
We might not like where we end up but, all of us, by default with our purchase decisions (including the decisions not to buy), end up somewhere on that continuum.

Find it, and be happy with it. That is all we can do, as we wait to see what the industry does next, and which way we feel impelled to slide along that continuum. Learning to accept that is key to maintaining both sanity and pleasure in our riding, and decorum on PB message boards!!

4) And you too, bike industry, it is in your interests, bike industry, to make sure you find that sweet spot on the industry wide level to stop creating more frugals from ever increasing numbers of standards, each with increasingly marginal gains and / or worsening cost performance perceptions.

You have failed to do that magnificently over the past 3 to 5 years bike industry, and the presence of this piece, and the CK sponsored meeting, is all the proof you need. Your report card reads "Could do a lot better".

So be better at moving more of us to the early adopter side of the continuum, or.... (and I hate to say it, but it is probably very very attractive to the men and women in the suits....)

.....don't bother giving a shit about re-attracting frugals to be early adopters, instead just aim for entirely new consumer target groups, saturate that market, then rinse and repeat.

Carbon kick bike or women's specific "Sunday Leisure City-Trail" E-bike anyone?
  • - 1
 @dtrotter: you are a moron.

Please describe your definition of obsolete.
  • + 2
 @orientdave: well spoken. I fall into the frugal category. I would like to replace my old full suspension. I sold it two years ago because upgrades disappeared. Want to upgrade my as 29er too but not willing to now until I break it and end up bikeless.
  • + 32
 No way in hell will I think about building a new bike until all this bullshit slows down.
  • + 21
 You'll be waiting a while bud.
  • + 25
 Bike industry: I like parts with multiple uses. My 26" wheels and tires fit my hardtail, big bike, and commuter. The constant ongoing "obsolescence" of bike parts has made me realize the fruitlessness of chasing the newest shiny object, in bikes and in life. I haven't bought much more than tires and pedals in the last five years and have way more money to spend on travel and experiences. Thank you for opening my eyes!
  • + 23
 I think this is a novel (and very good idea), however you hit the nail on the head when you spoke to the fact that it's a bunch of business competing with one another. I don't know how sympathetic they will be to the consumer's voice... And no offense against Chris King, but I can't think of one bike where their hubs are OEM equipment. So how much weight can they really throw around against the big bike corporations who perpetuate the ever-changing standards? Time will tell. It's a noble cause, and certainly one worth championing. My quesiton is this: As far as discernable benefits to the rider on the trail, have we not hit the point of diminishing returns when it comes to hub width? It's like having a watch that's waterproof to 100m but selling it to get a watch that's waterproof to 200m. It is of absolutely no consequence as 100m is much deeper than you'll ever dive. Or in car speak, what can you do with 800+ hp that you can't do with 550 hp (looking at you Hellcat)? Same thing applies to hub width... What say you bike industry? I think the answer, if they are honest, has to do with being the first to market with "innovations" that we don't actually need.
  • + 5
 ^A number of very good points here. Just looking at it from a different perspective for the sake of argument. Is Chris King, with their aftermarket positioning and no OEM, in a unique position to bring people together and try to have this conversation? If standards change, they'll adapt and may have to produce another axle spec or a new hub shell, both adding cost to their operation, but seems like they aren't on the front lines as the OEMs go after each other.
  • - 5
flag parallaxid (Oct 5, 2017 at 12:56) (Below Threshold)
 Its just a big PR stunt
  • + 23
 I was just thinking on my ride last night, if my wheel was 4% stiffer laterally, I'd have gotten the Strava KOM AND a higher reading on the RAD meter app.
  • + 20
 No one is addressing the elephant in the room. What about hub standards for DH tandem bikes?

They have to constantly race on puny hubs made for single rider bikes and need real solutions. Please stop leaving them out of the industry conversations.
  • + 20
 Strange how a standard only last for a couple of years? no longer a standard more innervation for the latest craze.
Personally never thought there anything wrong with these Standards:
20mm front hub non boost
142mm rear
threaded BB
iscg 05
Sad thing, I actually stopped my self from buying a new Transition patrol frame due to needing to replace the wheels and cranks, ended up buying an Airdrop.
  • + 4
 That setup sounds perfect to me
  • + 1
 If only Airdrop was sold in the US
  • + 19
 I wonder if the bike industry realize how much their hardcore base (thinking about those who started riding 15 - 30 years ago, never stopped and own multiple bikes) are bitter about the standard shit show that happened in the past 5 year or so. I know we are quite a bunch of passionate riders who are still holding out to our old ride, refusing to drop big money on something that is likely to be obsolete 2 years from now.

You did sell many bikes to new riders and your sales figures are doing great, but there will be an end to this if buying a new bike continues to be a stressful, frustrating and wallet-draining experience. It used to be fun to buy a new bike; it isn't as much fun anymore. We used to easily be able to assemble a kick ass hardtail from the leftover parts as we upgraded our main ride. It isn't possible anymore and that sucks, big time.

I would like the bike industry to agree to stick for a few years to the current standards for the main bike parts: Boost spacing, 27.5, 27.5+/29 cross-compatible frames, 1.125 - 1.5 tapered head tube, etc. That way, we'll be able to build kickass custom bikes from the frame up or continuously upgrade a great complete bike for a while. #bringbackcustombikes Smile

After a few years of stable standards, it will become clear what must me changed. We will actually be happy to see an innovation that will be a true improvement
  • + 22
 'Do you want the super boost plus?'
Just sounds like something a barista should be saying....
  • + 13
 "I'll take a venti boost double foam calf-caf latte"
"Would you like to make it super boost plus?"
"Sure, I'll treat myself"
  • + 6
 Naw thats literally an option straight from Jamba Juice
  • + 4
 Bust must plus
  • + 17
 In recent years the bike industry collectively seems to have promoted standards in haphazard fashion. By that I mean micro-tweaks that seek micro-improvements without balancing the desired utility of having some positive change of the negative change of making an older part incompatible and/or orphaned.

It's difficult to escape the impression that these ever changing standards are driven purely by engineering-needs and consumer-wants without much consideration of the user-experience as a whole. Is this impression fair?

Do you collectively as industry give more then half-hearted consideration to whether or not the new standard solve more problems then it causes? Ie is the new standard worth it in the grand scheme of things? And how long is that grand scheme of things? A year? Two years? A decade?

Finally; the bike industry is sometimes accused of being a bunch of bro-brah hacks bumbling along from one "innovation" to "another". But another bro-brah industry somehow managed to rationalize standard for consumers. I reference skiing who's done that for downhill binding/boot and alpine-touring binding/boot interfaces. Why is the bike industry incapable of doing this? If it's a deliberate choice to have tens (if not hundreds) of competing standards instead why does the bike industry think this is a good thing?
  • + 0
 It is capable of doing such things : postmount is one of those (even though I can't find another example).
Metric is another standard but at least major suspension manufacturers sat at the table and agreed to something.

I can't believe how many people are just Sram fanboys since they brought all the latest BS : boost, metric, Torque caps, XD drivers.
  • + 4
 @Whipperman: There are several post mount standards, and post mount itself is poorly defined because the way that adaptors connect to one another is not fully defined. IS mounts were better defined, but again too many of them. Metric didn't really need to happen for the sake of standardisation - it's now created a whole lot of other bullshit in the form of multiple mounting methods (trunnion, bearing, DU) that we were doing just fine without. In fact, you could argue that shock sizing was already one of the most standardised things out there, the only real variation being in the mounting hardware width, which is cheaply and easily replaced if you need to.

Realistically, the only things in the entire MTB industry that actually are standardised, that virtually nobody is disagreeing with, are the 9/16" pedal thread standard, gear cable inner/outer sizing, bottle cage mounts, and the 22.2mm bar/grip interface. Everything else has multiple competing standards. Derailleur hangers used to be standardised (as in any derailleur would mount to it, not any hanger fits your frame) but Shimano had to go and change that with their "direct mount" or whatever it's called.

At any rate hopefully this symposium gets somewhere. It's gotta be an absolute nightmare to be a distributor in the bike world these days.
  • + 1
 @Socket: shhhhhht. They are reading this...
  • + 2
 The ski industry was doing pretty well until the last few years. With the introduction WTR and GripSole many manufacturers are going down the bike industry path of changing standards for negligible/zero gain and real compatibility issues for consumers.
  • + 20
 The only thing standard in the MTB world is, there is no standard.
  • + 7
 And no perfect bike. There. I said it. Fight me.
  • + 16
 One thing that annoys the hell out of me is that they can't just pick a standard and use it over a wide variety of bikes. Why can't I put my V10 wheels on my Nomad? There's so many times a full DH set of rubber/wheels would be perfect on my Nomad (day of lift access in the morning and then out of bounds pedal off the top in the afternoon). Did we really need a 15mm axle for Boost when the 20mm DH hub would be just fine? And if 15mm is just fine on a single crown fork designed for Enduro'ing your ass down the Whistler EWS course, then surely it's perfect for a dual crown fork as well, no?
Specialized has used 135mm on modern DH bikes. Why can't 147mm be used? Or what's wrong with 157mm on a hard hitting trail bike? This is not a crack at SC, as it makes sense they'd use the 'industry standard' for trail bikes on their trail bikes, and vice versa for the DH. But why can't the industry as a whole go one way and stick with it?
  • + 1
 Oh my god kram I agreeeeeeee with this soooo much!!! glad someone thinks...
  • + 15
 I'm constantly tempted to buy upgrades for my bikes. I like working on my bikes. I don't like spending hours online trying to figure out which parts are compatible. End result? I don't bother buying the parts, it's too much hassle.

You're losing out on my money. Either keep things simple or make me an awesome idiot proof app which tells me what parts are compatible with what
  • + 3
 My words! You could also stretch that to people not buying new bikes because they are not sure if the "new standard" will survive or if they will have big trouble getting parts in future.
  • + 15
 My .02, I've been involved in mtb suspension innovation and design since the beginning. First as the rider, then the pro XC/DH racer, then in customer service, then development and now as the designer and head engineer. A lot of what we did back then was carried over from previous ideas, mostly from the road but then moto influence came into play with suspension fork designs, full suspension bikes, disc brakes, etc. This from a design stand point, in hindsite, is/was total blue ocean stuff. At first we doubted suspension, then we rode it and found out it made the ride better. Less fatigue, faster, more fun. Then full suspension bikes, God this was a mess at the beginning, again it made the ride better regardless. Slogan's like, "Suspend the rider not the bike" was a marketing line from Klien for years, huh? There was a whole era there, Beam bikes, URT, Klien's Mantra...Be glad a lot of you are young and missed that era. I was a suspension seat post rider. Hardtails and suspension posts were the ticket! Then disc brakes. The always revolving wheel size wasn't on the map until what 5 years ago? Now wrap all that up and throw 5 or 6 more rear cogs in the mix, add into the mix wider rims and you get what we had today. It's the constant with every design project to date, shove 10lbs of s#@T in a 5lb bag. We keep that bag full too! No extra room anywhere. Until lately in some regards. Some address things like Rear shocks only having 0.5mm gap prior to clashing metal on metal at bottom-out and parts so small they really are just gizmos, not really performance features, now we have metric standard rear shock designs. It gives us, the designers, a whooping 10mm more internal space to work with. Keep that 5lb bag full ! They start off as headaches but, also places for improvement if you are an optimist. We've been learning how to do it right for years. In contrast, back when I rode and got into racing I had one bike for everything. Now there's a bike for every aspect of riding. Progress! Boost could have happened years ago when I called Paul Turner and asked what size front hubs were they going to use for their DH fork. Turner says 120 x 20mm. In most cases today this would have been good to know for all involved, mainly the consumer right? Wrong, They changed to 110 x 20mm without saying a word. Fun, We had our fork done, 120 x 20mm 180mm X-Vert (rim brakes still!!). We chose to convert to try and create something standard, RS had the momentum here at the time. Let's not forget, Manitou and Rockshox were direct competitors back then. So looking back it was most likely a move on Paul's side to feed us bad info or their ideas changed in the process. On the other hand, We could have continued with a wider version. Boost front hubs were created mainly for the 29 market. In fact boost was a for thought of the 29 DH movement. A 110 x 15mm front wheel is awesome for 29". Also with boost came a change in brake spacing. It allowed the brake and spoke flange to move outward 5mm. This is the main reason boost came around. So now you have a stiffer wheel for 29 and down the line. At the same time, Fat bikes showed up, new tire sizes, Plus tires. For me Plus is the same as 29". Only issue there, tire and rim manufacturers measured their products differently and the information that wa savailable was vague. Why, because of competitiveness. Signing an NDA to get info on tire sizes so we could design suspension forks to fit it? I call it not playing nice. Nobody openly sharing the new design envelope. I mean back when we had the idea for 1.5" headsets we openly put it out there for all the share and so it could become a standard. Our competitors kinda laughed at it. I mean seriously, we just went thru 1" threaded, 1 1/4 evolution and back to 1 1/8". Now look where that landed because noby wanted to collaborate. We got tapered which I think is the best of everything. Again there's got to be somebody that goes with 1.5" lower 1 1/4" upper... I mean come on. All this does is create more work. Did it sell more bikes? I doubt it. Was it better? Negligible at best. The rear end of the bike pushing out multiple times seems to be a bit more complex. I just built up my first All boost bike. I had to run the wider 158mm q factor crank spacing and my heals still clip the chain stays. Press BB's, thankfully I have had no design influence in this area. I understand, no threads allows for this material and in turn lighter but I thought we had a good thing going with threaded. My guess is it is due to the whole carbon fiber frame evolution. Cheaper to produce, lighter, new marketing, fresh and new. My guess is the bike industry will flatten out in terms of these innovations and settle into a bigger "normal" then we had back in the day. I'm an XC / All mtn guy and there's a whole market of bikes and products for me as well as all the other genres of bike riders. I think were done learning how to build bikes write now. It's just a matter of time until all the extra fluff fades away. ...and then there's e-bikes. Have fun at you symposium Vernon. Any suspension companies going? I'd love to be there!
  • + 3
 Really appreciated reading all of this. Big Grin
  • + 1
 @Soulrider67. Thanks for writing that
  • + 2
 Finally someone commented on q-factor. I find it incredible how few people realize that boost is 148 instead of 150 because at 150 it affects q-factor and at 148 it doesn’t.

People can complain about boost all they want but at the end of the day the truth is that they really do make wheels stiffer, especially 29ers. The other thing boost does that few people realize is that the wider flanges allow your rim to have more allowable lateral movement. This is a good thing for durability and fewer flat spots from cased jumps.

I would call myself an early adopter of new technology, but I certainly recognize why it gets frustrating for many. Sucks when your expensive frame/parts are “outdated” within a years time. At the same time, I have to admit that bikes now are waaaaay better than they were even just 5 years ago. Everything helps a little bit, whether it’s barely wider hubs rims tires and bars, slacker and longer front ends, shorter chainstays, wider range cassettes/drivetrains, dropper posts, trunnion mounted shocks, etc etc. they all add up incrementally to improve the whole bike and importantly the biking experience. I say continue on with the innovation. But at the same time I’d like to say cheers to CK for attempting to get more brands to collaborate and standardize. As a mechanic it’s so frustrating to have to own 12 different wrenches to remove bottom brackets...
  • + 5
 Remind me again whats wrong with 135/142 and 26" wheels? By all means create new standards but don't force me there. I am all for bigger better brakes, charger dampers and the like and happily shell out for such things because they make a discernible difference even to an amateur. Boost and the like, not so much.
  • + 1
 Double that!
  • + 1
 @headshot: I would respectfully argue/claim that Boost is helpful even to the amateur for one more big reason that I didn't put in my last comment. Tire clearance. Boost allows for wider clearance between the chain stays and I think everyone will agree that wider tires mean more traction and better mud clearance. Not everyone is going to go to a 2.8" width or wider, which boost allows, but even that 2.4-2.6" range is helpful for nearly any discipline, perhaps minus straight up XC racing. I'll be surprised if there's a 135mm QR dropout frame out there that fits a 2.6" tire. And if there is, then guaranteed there's no room to shed mud. Sometimes the difference between what you can do and what you should do is what makes an experience good or great, boost gives you more options and allows for more of those "Should do" experiences.
  • + 3
 My gripe with it all is that as a consumer we buy what's in front of us and usually at a premium & when some unseen entity decides that this "standard" we just bought is not the right thing they depricate it and we are left with a piece of gear that has not shelf life or support really.

I'm riding a 2012 Yeti SB66 (built at the very end of 2012 coming into 2013), I bought it in Feb of 2014 thinking I had a new bike ~ alas ~ I didn't and it wasn't but a few months after that the whole 27.5" wheel shift occured.

I love my bike and having ridden several 27.5" bikes in a variety of conditions am not subtle enough to decern any real difference worth ditching a $4K bike to follow such fickle trending ~ a lot like catching lighning in a jar is seems.

The bike industry is worse than the IT industry as there isn't an ISO or or ITIL etc. to frame any of this into a reasonable platform to promote the evolution your talking about; it's just the Paul Turners of the world doing their thing and we are stuck with that decision until the next epiphony arrives and off we go again.
  • + 2
 @sledshed:

q-factor... This was one of the alleged "big reasons" to push 148 over 150/157, so I'm a bit bitter with it.

I'd bet most trail, AM, enduro, and DH riders don't care much at all about q-factor and would gladly deal with a few more millimeters of width it if they could have a true standard with improvement like the 150 or 157mm rear spacing. Wouldn't it be great to have the same rear hub on all your bikes?

XC racing guys... Let them stick with 142.


See, everyone is happy, without inventing anything new.
  • + 1
 @sledshed: Well my QR Enduro happily fits a Schwalbe 2.3 which is more like a Maxxis 2.5 with some room to spare. My non boost Pike also has lots of space for something bigger than a Magic Mary 2.3 I have. I am not saying that Boost is rubbish per se, rather that the relatively tiny changes to standards in an industry that relies on components from many different sources is a real pain in the ass unless you're continually upgrading your bike to the latest. Which is probably exactly what the industry wants of course.
  • + 11
 I am a PC gaming enthusiast as much as I am into mountain bikes, and I have to say I am blown away by how well competitors get along in that world and how long those hardware companies stick to standards. It is common for a socket or component on a PC to stay the same format for up to 10 years! Sure, the tech that slots into those sockets improves rapidly, but they seem to understand that they need to keep things the same for a while to allow consumers to buy the existing products, and that way they don't have to wait for people to catch on. I feel like it's cheaper for them to continue to develop within a certain standard rather than re-tooling everything and hoping that people catch on. I am supportive of the innovations I've seen in the bike industry the last few years, but agree with people that sometimes it is excessive, or not worth the massive changes for very small performance benefits.
  • + 3
 You're maybe too young to remember the ISA/PCI/AGP/PCIx wars, or the sockets before and around Pentium era. Things are stabler now, but back in the day they weren't.
  • + 3
 @es7ebanlv: Still now with a simple driver, flat head, Phillips, Robertson, Allen, Torx, Hex, Tri-Wing, Spanner etc plus all the tamper resistants. Conspiracy!!..actually Phillips vs Robertson for the car industry kinda was....
  • + 10
 What a minefield. Of comments. I'm going to try to answer the question in the article rather than do more ranting. There are some good points being made here.

The things I'm most concerned about are: (1) peer review; (2) Inter-compatibility; (3) legacy support; (4) experimental trickle-down; and (5) market review.

The bicycle industry has exploded in size in the last 10 years, and in so doing, seems to me to have lost touch on a more personal level with the people buying stuff - or at least failed to acknowledge the changing demographic. At the same time the profile of the buying public has changed; where once bikes were cobbled together and lovingly maintained by a niche demographic which was scrimping and saving to support a hobby, it's become mainstream, appealed to a much richer thrill-seeking group, and has just about left the original group on which it was founded behind entirely.

Let's assume for a moment that, given this conference is happening at all, there is an interest in reconnecting with people who buy bikes as more than open wallets. Wouldn't it be good for everyone if product launches were met with excitement rather than groans? When did that last happen? So, Industry - you need to rebuild a little faith. This will mean doing things to make your public feel good, and looked after, rather than scratching a meaningless statistical itch (3.8% stiffer, 9% lighter etc etc) just for the sake of product differentiation and sales. We're at a point where bikes are phenomenally capable, and all of the designers and customers and marketing agencies could really benefit from a breather. You should ask yourselves - at what point does consumer ethics surpass profit?

So to address the five points above, my questions are:

(1) Peer Review - and a consumer-focused, corporate membership scheme. This exists in so many other construction, design and manufacturing sectors; model approaches are readily available. Can you envisage an industry 'steering group' of sorts, perhaps this very one, based on voluntary membership and by necessity composed of a spectrum of brands and fabricators from the behemoths of Specialized to small-scale innovators and component manufacturers? Chris King is at this table; so too should be Paragon Machine Works, who make a staggering array of frame building parts and virtually single-handedly support grass-roots frame building. What remit and power do you think this group could have? What would its code of conduct and ethics look like, and how as a body could it promote membership as a valuable asset, allowing members to promote themselves as user-focussed groups with a real interest in enduring enjoyment of their product?

(2) Inter-compatibility. Using this group to bring together diverse engineering thinking, would it be possible to objectively assess emerging innovation against tangible benefit - and in so doing to remember specifically that the most beneficial component innovation for riders is always going to be one you can bolt to an existing assemblage of other components?

I'll give you an example. I have a set of American Classic hubs which started life as 100/135 9mm QR. With relatively cheap switches of internals, they've now moved to 100x15 and 142x12. In future, as and when I can afford or need a new chassis, AC now produce parts to change them to 110x15 and 148x12, and swap out the freehub for XD. That is frankly amazing - everyone wins. I can make incremental, low-cost improvement; AC maintain a revenue stream for upgrade parts and avoid costly re-tooling; and they've also built invaluable social capital because people like me will buy their hubs again, when they eventually do wear out. Was this accident or luck? I doubt it. They could/should be marketing the crap out of the idea. I see opportunities for this kind of future-proofing in all sorts of other spaces, from swappable rear dropouts, to adjustable back ends that let you tune BB height for different wheel sizes, to fork arches that accommodate virtually everything currently made... this is only possible through inter-brand cooperation. It creates market fluidity, avoids locked-in standards, and promotes choice without compromise. To achieve this, you need to trend forecast and work on best-case engineering solutions outside of the product delivery stream.

(3) Legacy Support. If, and only if, a new innovation truly necessitates incompatibility with an existing standard (e.g. the move from 1 1/8 to tapered), will members of this group commit to legacy support for a defined period, say a minimum of 10 years and preferably more, during which time top-quality engineering will continue to be available at sensible prices? For example - it's difficult if not impossible to get a charger damper in a 1 1/8 fork, even though there is no reason at all why that shouldn't be a simple thing to produce. A little product legacy analysis, a fine-grained understanding of which parts can be brought together into an assembly, and responsible attitudes to existing customers would make this quite possible.

(4) Experimental trickle-down. The industry seems to be in a constant rush to move competition-level R&D into consumer products as fast as possible. Again, a bit of breathing space would be a great benefit. Whilst 10ths of a second matter in competition, they really don't to the people buying bikes, and making incompatible parts to achieve this notional gain is frankly irresponsible. Is there scope for the group to review and comment on race product development BEFORE the knee-jerk conversion to consumer product?

(5) Market Review. This might be the most important of all, and gets to the heart of the purpose of this article. Given the explosion of standards in the last few years, are members of the group prepared to commit to a moratorium on new, differentiated development to allow time for market review - and make use of trend forecasters and best-case engineering ideation to predict and commit to a consolidated set of standards which give scope for incremental innovation without obsolescence? How might you sell this to a jaded consumer base as a way to rebuild social capital, and as a benefit of selecting one of your brands?

That's it. And quite enough. Good luck!
  • + 3
 Great contribution here! Excellent synthesis of the situation and suggestions of paths forward! Thanks!
  • + 2
 @AProulx: cheers dude. We'll see if it's heard!
  • + 9
 A company often wins when they can differentiate themselves from their competitors and show a distinct advantage. I believe a lot of companies in the bike industry differentiate themselves but they don’t have a true advantage. Car companies, cellphones, computers, energy drinks, running shoes, outdoor camping gear, weight-loss products and thousands of other industries…. And now… bike manufactures are doing a hard sales pitch. I remember ads in the early 1990s were about riding your bike. Now ads are about bb height and head tube angles. (I guess riding your bike is assumed)

So, in a market of everything being the same how does the bike industry get US to purchase THEIR new bike or part? They might tweak this or that, widen here or there, go metric and label it something new that is a “game changer”, “extremely supple”, “stable”, “faster”…. AND they buy enough media to saturate the major media outlets bikers hang out in so bikers start drinking their kool-aid®. If we believe their new thing is the best thing (like they said)…they can get away with spending 500k on media instead of spending much more to actually MAKE a new product better.

Now bikers care about offsets, tube angles, external widths, internal widths, engagements points, cassette ranges and suspension tunes more than ever before. An educated consumer is a powerful consumer but we can’t confuse education and being sold. The newest thing isn’t always the best thing. The new standard isn’t always worth it. And riding your bike instead of getting caught up in the sales pitch will always win. Care about what’s happening but get your opinion from trying the product and coming to your own conclusion.

And, by the way….My 2016 cellphone lasted longer than my 2017 bike did.
  • + 1
 Couldn't agree more. I do really get upset by buying some parts that don't even make it through a season.
  • + 1
 Agree. Its people being suckers with their money who are feeding this monster.
  • + 7
 The bottom line is whoever has the latest innovation can capture the most sales before everyone else. Then it takes another "innovation" to push the market again, so on and so forth. The OEM's don't make money on the used market, so they don't care that your 5-year-old $5,000 bike is now only worth $500.
  • + 1
 The OME's don't make money on the used market but if the value of used bikes drops off significantly it effects most consumers cash flow to purchase a new bike. The other thing that happens is if the use market prices get to low is that most consumers will think long and hard if the new this or that is worth last years innovations. Both of these things do have a potential impact on the OME's bottom line.
  • + 2
 They should care. If the used market is strong it is easier to sell you bike and buy the latest and greatest.
  • + 7
 What's the feasibility of whenever a "minor" change is made to accompany it with adapters off the bat. Adapters have come along for boost wheels, but it took a while and would be nice if they were available from the start. This also works better as things get wider as opposed to narrower.

Other than that, how about a commitment from brands to support X standard for a minimum of 10 years. I don't even really believe this will work, but maybe it will help?
  • + 6
 Question: Most other design industries participate in keeping to industry standards through external engineering groups, do frame and component companies have any sort of collaboration with external groups who create guidelines? For example, electronic appliance companies have CE mark, UL listing, etc guidelines so that things remain compatible between brands. The automotive industry has standards so that vendors products work for different designers. Standards limit creativity is some regards but also creates an environment where all companies can directly compete and be a part of the same game. Consumers need reassurance that standards are actual standards.
  • + 6
 As an industry guy in the "inside" I can say I think the desire to make better products is truly the motivating factor. However, I do believe that more forethought needs to happen as we look at standards across the board. Is it really worth it or are we just making yet another frustrating buying experience for the consumer?
  • + 26
 Don't bullshit, it's the desire to make money. Specialized is a great example, make parts in house for high margins, make parts proprietary so you have to use specialized approved replacements. Sue and stifle competitors. All while acting like they are the best company in the industry.
  • + 13
 Just tell me who's urethra we should be shoving those 15mm boost front axles up. And they better not try to tell me the switch from 20mm to 15mm was to make a better product...
  • + 6
 @poozank: If you aren't in it to make money, then what is the point. Specialized isn't selling handjobs.
  • - 3
 @dfiler: 240lbs geared up, i think it is cute that people think that 15mm isn't stiff enough. I can't detect flex in my pike, so why is everyone else complaining?
  • + 8
 @raditude: Maybe they should be, those steel Cove frames were nice.
  • + 2
 @mammal: Oh Cove.
  • - 1
 @raditude:
At 270 I second that.
  • + 3
 @raditude: Maybe the should be... that's a $13b industry...
  • + 2
 @raditude: but Ibis used to.
  • + 6
 @raditude: I think it's just because it was heavier and less stiff than 20mm, so no benefits for the rider at all, but Fox just didn't want to follow in Rock Shox footsteps, and they had the better OEM relationships at the time. Sort of like how Betamax was actually technically superior to VHS, but VHS still won.
  • + 4
 @dfiler: switch to 15mm did save 30 grams though.... meh
  • + 2
 @TucsonDon: Yea, i mean i rip through bikes so fast none of this matters to me at all. I just think it's funny. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of it. a rigid singlespeed 26" can still put a smile on your face. Doesn't matter what you have or how light your bike is if you spend more time in this forum than riding it (not a personal attack). People are getting fired up about standards when there are still readily available parts for all of it. They just don't have the newest thing.
  • + 5
 @raditude: You are missing the point. It is problably stiff enough for most people, but is it better than 20mm? Is it worth the weight saving? A few grams difference. What for?
  • + 0
 @raditude: you clearly have no idea how much money you can make doing that....
  • + 1
 @Startgas:
I do not have any problem with 20mm axles, but I'll have a guess at the reason for the switch.

It seemed to have been an attempt to get XC riders to adapt to through axles as this smaller size allowed the use of smaller less draggy beatings. It was the size that met that criteria while still being stiff enough for almost all users.
  • + 1
 @raditude: I agree that the differences are marginal for the most part, but at 220 geared up, the Yari and Lyrik are noticeably stiffer. Not that it matters, the pike was awesome when I had it. But my bike does feel a lot more solid now. That said, incremental improvements like adding 5 mm here and there wont be noticeable by your average punter.
  • + 4
 Valid point. (also industry guy) Product managers are working on stuff for 18-24 months before it is released. At that point they have to present it to the sales staff and give them some numbers to use. It is x% stiffer or x grams lighter or whatever. Every year it has to be better than last year and better than what the competition is releasing at the same time in some measurable way. The sales staff has to then hit the road with those glorious numbers and essentially say the same thing that they did last year - "this years' bikes are the greatest two wheeled vehicles ever created by mortals". Those same numbers will be the basis of ads and printed in every press release. It is a bit simplistic to say it is all about money. It is really all about beating the competitive models. Those numbers are one of many characteristics that will be cited in a pitch for each model in the lineup. "At $4k we have a stiffer frame and a better wheel spec, at $3k we have better brakes and a dropper post, etc" Really, those numbers are all about impressing the riders. Everyone is making good bikes these days, it is getting hard to stand out.
  • + 1
 @bentown: But is the ONLY thing you changed the fork? Nothing else changed? I just think people assume it is the fork that lacks stiffness, BUT they have no clue what their spoke tension is or monitor it. They don't play with air pressure to see if it is tire flex. Frame flex, handlebar, etc etc.

I just think that things are wrongly associated to the fork far too often.
  • + 1
 @raditude: Yeah I hear ya. And yeh things would have changed over time etc. But forwards and backwards flex was visibly less on the more burly body, I mean visibly as in you could see with your eyes it was moving less (as opposed to feeling, which was noticeable too). I'm just arguing the toss on whether or not a component was stiffer, which is moot in the scheme of things. The real point is someone made above, if these changes are so marginal for most people, what's the point? Just wait until there's a significant change and make it then.
  • + 1
 @raditude: What? But I just ordered an "epic"!
  • + 2
 @raditude: at 170lbs fully geared I'm going to have to pull another shocker: my RS Sektor with 32mm stanchions is just as stiff as my pike. The damper is garbage but that's another story.
  • + 2
 @RichMahogany: This is exactly what is happening and why. I also don't have any problems with progress and design evolution but my frustration is the lack of backward compatibility. If everyone were always just buying completely new bikes from the tires to the grips, this wouldn't matter much, but where I think it starts to hurt the industry is when people are worried about spending $1200 to say upgrade to a new set of wheels. In the back of their minds they are also thinking that maybe in a year to so I'll get a new frame or even complete bike but it sure would be nice to migrate those sweet new wheels over to the new ride except crap, there will be a new standard next year and I'm sure the frame I'll want will have the mega boost standard so my sweet wheels won't fit. Now you have no one upgrading individual components and parts incrementally over time but rather holding out for the whole new ride whenever that time comes and with what ever earth changing new standards it comes with. Only problem is that with the costs continuously increasing to the point where they are now reaching that of a new (cheap) car, the average person isn't going to drop on a completely new bike every few years so you get larger but much fewer and less frequent purchases from consumers.
  • + 6
 Seeing as we had 135 x 9 then 142 x 12 then 148 x 12 and now super boost , one cant help but think that the bike manufacturers are actually making incremental changes for more money. My question is this:
What is the end goal for axle standards? Is it a specific measurment that the industry is creeping towards slowly to extend profits along the way? Or has this song and dance been an experiment?
  • + 8
 More like:

135x9
150x12
135x10
135x12
142x12
148x12

It's basically running in circles.
  • + 5
 Tell Shimano to swallow their pride and just adopt the XD hub standard on their new cassettes. It's a more mature move than demanding everyone switch, and gives them a better chance of having folks switch back to Shimano from Sram.
  • + 5
 Another one. The bike industry does not seem capable of supporting legacy standards or harmonizing and rationalizing standards for parts and components wholly within the domain of Bikes.

Enter ebikes where battery design and manufacture is supplied by third parties. What assurance and confidence should consumers have that battery supply will be supported for any reasonable length of time? What assurance can industry give that a consumer's ebike won't be pretty orphaned doorstop 5, 10 years down the road?
  • + 4
 An informed and observant cyclist will easily decipher between what is truly an engineering advancement and what is a marketing gimmick. The majority of comments on this article will be from the more discerning customers, as the pinkbike community is, and at the end of the day we will still be the ones watching the consumer herd jump on every new bandwagon that comes by.
  • + 2
 Yep sheep will be sheep.
  • + 4
 Things that should be standard in no particular order (copying from some already posted comments)
Caution: may be unreasonably unrealistic.

1. Hub spacing (or at least like, only three standards (DH, fatbike, mtb?)
2. Water bottle lids
3. Marked tire widths (Maxxis.)
4. Bottom brackets
5. Headsets
6. Freehub bodies
7. Spokes (J-bend or straight pull. Really, pick one) also more standard lengths would be nice.
8. Spoke nipples (so you don't need like 7 spoke wrenches)
9. Bar clamp diameters (31.8 vs 35)
10. Bolts (especially cockpit hardware. pick a size. preferrably 4 or 5 or T25 torx or something reasonable)
11. Seatpost size (why do we need 31.6 and 30.9?)
12. Clamp-sharing stuff. (this probably isn't going to happen, but it would be nice to be able to mount Sram and Shimano stuff together without an aftermarket adapter)
13. Derailleur hangers!! it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to just pick one derailleur hanger and stick with it. Or at least keep them in stock. Jeez.
14. Shock sizes. Metric is better, but really
15. Front through-axles. 15? 20? 47?
16. Brake pads. they don't need to be the same compounds or anything, but same size and shape would be nice.
17. Fork offsets. Maybe 42 or 44 or 46 or 51 or 65 is better for 29ers or 27.5, but fricking pick one.
18. Making new standards at least somewhat compatible with old standards, and having adapters available from the start.
19. Timed releases of new standards. Maybe if companies had to wait a year or two to introduce a standard, they wouldn't some out so half-baked.
20. Standards! standards should be standard!

That's probably not a complete list, just everything I could think of at the moment.
  • + 1
 number of spokes per wheel, I have a set of sram roam wheels with 24 spokes and I can't find many rims to upgrade to (and I can't afford a new wheel set)
  • + 1
 Some musings:

4. Bottom brackets - awfully hard, due to different widths, and type, but could do something like hub spacing, DH, Fatbike, Mtb
9. Bar Clamp Diameters - Kind of need 2 as they perform differently, but having only 2 would be nice
16. Brake Pads: At least have 2 sizes, 4 pot brakes, and a 2 pot brakes
17. Fork Offsets: Do you really need only one? I don't mind having options here
18. YES
  • + 1
 @olliefmartin: Sorry you bought a 24 spoke "system" wheelset. You'll never do it again.
  • + 4
 I agree with the article on the issue of too rapid of changes. I feel this is having a huge affect on bike sales. DH bikes in particular. DH bikes seem to be going through a massive identity crisis right now. 27.5 vs 29. super boost vs. 175dh. standard shocks vs. metric. Carbon vs alu. And now 203 vs 250mm rotors... Too much is changing way too fast. Most are gonna sit on what they have till it calms down a bit.
  • + 4
 I hope companies like Surly and Hope can provide input into the symposium as they've come up with clever ways to future-proof and adapt bikes and parts to these fast-changing standards (e.g., Surly's gnot boost drop-outs, work with 135,142 and 148mm standards). As much as possible, companies should engineer a new standard to be adaptable to previous iterations of past standards.
  • + 1
 Not just Surly but Salsa too. Their Timberjack uses alternator drop outs for 135x9,142x12, or 148x12. That's going to be my next hardtail so I can use my 142x12 Enve 29er and Ibis 741 27.5 depending on my mood.
  • + 5
 If you are going to introduce any new standard, consider rolling out the necessary adapters for the rest of us right at product launch. At least then our old parts don't become obsolete so quickly.
  • + 4
 Is there bicycle industry version of SAE? A body that regulates requirements for certain types of parts and components, ensuring they meet design and engineering criteria, testing requirements, etc. Automobile manufacturers have absolute freedom to design a chassis and it's components however they see fit, but there are certain components which must meet certain standards. Wheels must have a certain bolt center diameter, brakes must be a certain size, and so on. This is important to ensure compatibility, ease of service, and competitive products from varying manufacturers.

A consortium or regulatory body for design and manufacturing in the cycling industry would be extraordinarily beneficial for parts that are regularly and commonly replaceable; hubs, brakes, seat posts, handle bars, forks, etc. Parts specific to the chassis or frame can be manufacturer specific. I don't expect to be able to get a front control arm for my Ford from Chevrolet.

A final point; standards do not stifle progress or innovation. A good, well thought out standard will force manufacturers to develop the best product to meet the requirements of that standard instead of giving them the freedom to come up with some half baked variant because following the standard was inconvenient. If everyone has to play within a certain range of criteria or variables then it becomes about how you do what you do rather than what it is. We need innovative standards that push design and manufacturing to design and build the best products.
  • + 6
 New tech is fine by me.
My issue is what support will remain for the older designs?
I like my 142 rear hub and 15mm maxle front.
  • + 1
 This (in part). I have no issue with innovation...you like 27.5" wheels, boost+ axles, great - bully for you. Failing to support previous model year's products? That's BS. And to say that the bike industry shouldn't care about that is very myopic.

Why would I buy something new and pay the higher price tag if there isn't going to be a way for me to replace wheels/axles/whatever when they break? If it's going to be obsolete soon anyway, then I may as well go buy a used bike to thrash rather than spend dollars on a new one. While it's far from a scientific study, I know several people who threw up their hands at a new bike, and got a used one for just this reason.
  • + 1
 And that's where the problem is. With hubs changing every 3 years there will be too many different hubs to produce and too few people that will by hubs of each standard so that it will not be economical for companies to produce them. They will drop the production of the less popular.
  • + 4
 150/83 for enduro and DH.
142/73 trail and down.
I think most gravity riders are use to that spacing. Cross country and trailbikes don't need the spacing. We always hear how "a couple of millimeters for an engineer is like a mile" so give the room to work on the beefier bikes. They can build plenty of stiffness in the already existing hum standards. Hope was able to get great stiffness out of the narrow hub on their carbon bike. Engineers should be able to get something out of all the room afforded on the wider BB and wider hub.
  • + 4
 Maybe we can get everybody to adopt Hope's spacing.
  • + 1
 @fluffyreddragon: This is what i want. Why the hell do we have overhanging caliper mounts and axles extending under them towards the spoke flange and ever widening hub shells, if we have all that space there for free?? As Hope showed you can doo Boost flange spacing in under 140 mm of width.

I don't have much of a problem with rotor sizing as it currently stands, but move the damn rotor all the way to the frame and then use the space to move the spoke flanges apart without the frame getting wider.
  • + 4
 @vernonfelton If enduro bikes are being ridden on downhill-esque tracks, and enduro frames are being designed to handle downhill abuse, why, oh why, do they just not use downhill standards?

Weight gain would be negligible on such a bike, and with 12x150/157 and 20x110 axles together with an 83mm BB, we'd have all the spacing and strength we could ask for. Find out, please!
  • + 3
 Innovation is incremental change, and there are a lot of players in the bicycle industry. To think that manufactures can innovate while simultaneously making sure every other manufacturer is on board seems unrealistic. As long as we want bikes to evolve, there are going to be new standards. I've never heard anyone complain that the wheels on their Audi don't fit on there Toyota, or that the engine in their Polaris won't fit in their Arctic Cat.
  • + 3
 To me there is a huge responsability for journalists in this problem : they never doubt that the latest relase is useless. Come on, get the engineer to explain their test protocol, the dimensioning.

All they see are the fancy heli drops, the Power Point announcing +0.0001% increase in yield/stiffness/radness. Then they get a free shirt and a beer. And all they have to do is write a 500 words infomercial with photos of pro riders and a couple of graphics to show the science. I'm talking to you @vernonfelton
  • + 3
 I bought a my first bike right at the wrong time - 2014. It's 26 inch and has modern geo (65 HA, long, low) and rides amazing. So for me bring back 26 inch non-boost 142mm frames back and I'll buy a new frame/fork/wheelset because I can move my best parts around between them then (won't happen, I know). I'd have had 3 new frames at least on impulse purchases by now if I could swap in my expensive components that I've spent loads of money tuning to perfection for me. As it is I can't make myself sink 3 or 4 big ones into a whole new setup (new wheel size / tyres / boost hubs / boost fork / metric shock) for something that WILL be junk in 1-2 years so I haven't. In fact... it's made me get the most out of my current bike. Now I wonder if a new wheel size or wonder hub size bike will actually be any better at all. New doesn't necessarily mean better. I'd have sunk thousands of pounds into new frames and parts had I been able to move components from one to the other so the latest one always had my best parts but the old one was still fully ridable and able to be sold on. As it is I bought a 2nd hand 26er frame and swap parts around with that. Sort it out bike industry. In theory it does look about settled right now but I'm still going to lose so much money getting rid of everything 26er related for peanuts. I feel sorry for 1st generation 27.5 non boost bike owners the most. You got screwed over twice. Once leaving 26 behind and then re-building your wheels again for the next boost frame. Frown
  • + 3
 Until people quit purchasing these ever-changing standards and make the bike companies realize we will not stand for it anymore they will keep doing it. The most powerful voice you have is with your pocketbook. At the end of the day not a single board meeting talks about if their customers are happy it's all profits and numbers people.
  • + 3
 perhaps the problem isn't the continuous development of new parts, perhaps it is our perception?

we can be either for or against progress. we can't tell the manufacturers to hold on to standards for X years, and then all change at the same time. nobody would buy bikes for all the years in between and they'd all go broke.

we need continuous development. sure some of the updates people are seeing as unnecessary, for instance boost 148...lots of comments are suggesting it's not necessary, but maybe those people are looking at it from purely their 27.5" wheel view? but a few have pointed out that they're a great hub standard for 29ers.

and that's where I think the bike manufacturers are coming from. they're looking at every possible angle where we're generally only thinking about how something impacts us directly.

sure, perhaps there are some changes that might not be something we should have on our bikes, perhaps they're half way markers when the brands should have gone in the whole hog. nobody gets it right all the time.

but perhaps we also need to not view our current standards as old and obsolete, because then so does the second hand market. if the bike you're on now does the job perfectly for you, but still has 142hubs, only a 100mm dropper and a 10speed cassette, then why should it not do the job just as well for the next person to buy it from you?

we're angry about the constant development, suggesting it's unnecessary, but at the same time, it seems the market still wants it? otherwise we'd all be riding our bikes longer. i'm always seeing in my local market each year around this time, piles of last years bikes being sold to be replaced with this years...
  • + 3
 At what point do we stop? Standards and innovation walk a fine line. Without innovation we'd be stuck riding full rigid frames with v-brakes or for that matter not even mountain/biking at all. We'd be stuck ski touring in heavy clunky ski gear without avalanche rescue tools and have cars where you have to roll down the window yourself, and maybe still using an outhouse instead of a flush toilet. Granted it is nice when one toilet seat fits another but even there you need to be careful on which seat you buy.

Mountain biking is still in the design infancy stage with nothing but change in the future. Again look at skiing or even Snow MX Bikes as an example, still looking for better solutions. Yes, I feel some of it is tactical marketing but as an overall industry I love what engineers and designers are trying to do: make a better, faster, stronger, lighter product that is more fun to use. And maybe a new product that revolutionizes an industry results.

Without change in life, you are either done or dead, mentally and physically. Keep it up designers/engineers...you rule!! Can't wait to see what I can dream of next year.

Nothing is forever in life, except change itself.
  • + 3
 I think the industry has shot themselves in the foot. From my industry friends I keep hearing sales are flat. I’m not buying anything new, it’’s not that I don’t have the money, it’s just I’m tired of the new standards and I’m going to wait till at least they settle on an axle size. 148? 15mm front, what was wrong with 20mm? I think we can all predict 20mm is going to come back as the standard with all the long travel 29ers in play. As Mike Ferrentino noted in a Bike Mag article the 15mm vs. 20mm debate went on when long travel 29ers weren’t the rage. Add to the DVOs comments about 20mm x 110mm this year, It’s bound to happen. So guess what, I’m not buying shit from any bike company. I have cash burning a hole in my pocket for a new bike but I’m just gonna wait. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

Now since Chris King is hosting this. I really love your hubs, but for you to make a boost 110x15 front hub and leave it at that is shooting yourself in the foot. Boost is hear to stay and we all have to face the music. Your hubs are great but for my next bike I’m considering Hope or Industry Nine because their hubs are more easily upgradeable. You guys used to live by the motto “These are not disposable parts…” but 110x15 is it. While with i9 and Hope it’s one front hub and you can QR, 15mm, or 20mm.

Then the companies with their proprietary headsets and parts, yes Trek, and Cannondale, no thanks. I want to be able to pick up a frame, build my way, and if something breaks or creaks I can fix it of find a part for it easily.

Please make big changes that matter, not 1 or 2mm here and there.
  • + 4
 When all of your parts are manufactured in the united states with USA sourced material, in an environmentally friendly, and humane ways (to my knowledge, Taiwan has yet to ratify the ILO Convention No. 29 and No. 105 that concerned forced labour) it takes a little bit more time and money to come to market with loads of new options that the industry decided was the new standard. Chris King offers a front 110x15 boost hub, also a rear 148x12 boost. As their mission statement states, "We are fiercely independent, incorruptible by passing trends or fads. Careful consideration drives our actions. We practice patience with new product and process introductions. We recognize our efforts are just a few points in a universal continuum."

Chris King as a company makes thoughtful long-term decisions. How long do you think it takes a relatively small company to produce new standards? I can tell you first hand it takes nearly a year to get a product absolutely precise and dialed to bring it to market. That is what Chris King Precision Components is all about. Precision, and finding a way to keep supporting all of their previous market options. I have massive respect for a USA manufacturing company whose parts are built in-house and do not compromise quality to match every single standard just to make a quick buck off the consumer.
  • + 1
 @Holstermx26: All of my bikes have King hubs, headsets, and bottom brackets so please don't think I'm not a Chris King supporter. All I'm trying to say is for King to come out with 15x110 hub without an option to convert to 20 x 110 is a bad move. My 20mm LD hub converted to 15mm no problem.

I love CK products and support environmental and socially responsible companies (made in the US is a super bonus too) but I'm a bit disappointed that no consideration was made for axle upgrades to your new 15x110 because as everyone here at stated 20x110 is on the horizon. Hence, I'm holding off till things get hashed out. If I'm forking out close to $2000 for a wheel set build I'd like to keep my options open.

Per dominic54s post below (This is the EXACT REASON why all my wheels roll on Chris King hub and why I'm disappointed about their decision on the 15x110 hubs.) Just replace Chris King with American Classic and you have my exact sentiment.

I'll give you an example. I have a set of American Classic hubs which started life as 100/135 9mm QR. With relatively cheap switches of internals, they've now moved to 100x15 and 142x12. In future, as and when I can afford or need a new chassis, AC now produce parts to change them to 110x15 and 148x12, and swap out the freehub for XD. That is frankly amazing - everyone wins. I can make incremental, low-cost improvement; AC maintain a revenue stream for upgrade parts and avoid costly re-tooling; and they've also built invaluable social capital because people like me will buy their hubs again, when they eventually do wear out.
  • + 3
 Keep the new standards coming. One person's leftovers for the "gotta have new stuff attitude" is another persons now affordable happiness.

That said, will we eventually be running our stems backwards with the top tubes growing each year? At what point, will the BB have to be moved fwd to accommodate proper center of mass within the base of support in the ready position.
  • + 3
 I know my spending on bikes and parts is a droop in the ocean,but for me to fund this drop is quite hard, I do think that constantly changing standards take out the pleasure of riding and building bikes. To begin with I'm not against innovation but a line should be drawn at constant changes. Unfortunately bike industry is the perfect example of consumer society we're fooled by new standards and we, let's face it, fall for them. I use an"old????"(2014) banshee legend with 26" wheels and I remember how upset I was when 27.5 wheels (now yes 29) came into trend. Yeah tough luck for me but without any bad feeling I can ask that "Do these new standards make me a better rider?" I think nope, I believe we should spend our hard earned money on those things which make sense.
  • + 2
 Well said.
  • + 3
 at one point someone realized that if they change the standards...they will have more products to sell to consumers. then all they have to do is convince the consumer that the newer standard is the better one. not that difficult I'm sure.

as consumers/gear heads we gobble it up like hungry birds, and the bike industry is laughing all the way to the bank...while I have 1/2 dozen bikes in my garage with no interchangeable parts...smh.

f*ck you very much!
  • + 3
 As an engineer working in the industry, I think it is hard to understand from the outside how difficult it is for the industry to establish and agree on standards, especially if you do not want to go by small steps. Big problems are:
- Shimano will (almost) never agree on a standard first established by Sram, and they will try to protect their own standard.
- If brands find a better solution, they want to take advantage from it and either patent it or at least tell no one about it. This also means new "standards" need to be designed around patents.
- The technical evolution of the bike comes with new challenges that do not work well with old standards. Bigger wheels, wider tires, bigger chainrings, it will just not work out with the standards of old
- The biggest problem is to get everyone together before new standards are set up. So everyone comes up with a solution that suits their need, but does not necessarily plays nice with others. e.g. Shimano understands well what helps them to come up with better components, but not necessarily how they could help frame designers make better frames.
- IMHO, most new standards are actually an improvement over the old one, but they are not as good as they could be. If people would talk together, then bigger steps could be achieved.
- Most of the times, if new standards are discussed, it is not the relevant people discussing them. It is small, boutique brands like Chris King. But that does not help if the big brands are not adopting them.
  • + 2
 Largely i would agree with that but many Old bikes can be improved with modern advancements although not necessarily standards.

Take a 10-15 year old bike for example and stick some 15 thru' axle forks with platform suspension on it and a dropper post and the bike will feel significantly better. However stick a overpriced modern 1x drive train on it and you'll be wondering where 40% maybe even 50% in some cases of your total gear range went for what? One shifter instead of two (it's not exactly complicated) and better ground clearance?

The vast majority of riders including myself won't notice small changes and even if we do it will so negligible its not worth obsoleting set ups for it.
  • + 0
 @Andy-ap: 1X is not really a different standard... But if can choose between a 2x and a 1x11 or even 1x12 setup, I will choose1x because I get all the gear range I need. But more important, as an engineer, I will choose 1x, because I can make a better frame without the hassles that come with an FD. And I can make better frames with boost standard than without. This is where the bicycle industry often fails to communicate the full picture. Many of these new standards are just there because of new demands by the end consumers.
  • + 2
 @cru-jones: Fair point, and yes when do you use that 44t chain ring on an old bike other than riding on the road or flying down a fire road. Which i do use my bikes on the road for commuting and trails etc so yeah 44t is a bit pointless.

But for that matter Mountain bikes have ceased being 'all terrain' bikes that can be used on the road if you wish and pretty much have become focused narrow minded compromised machines that seem to be 80% targeted at going downhill. By that i mean current geometry lends itself far more to long low and slack so great going down but crap at climbing (in comparison to old). Weirdly though typical gearing has actually lowered. This must be some attempt at least to retain some climbing ability.
  • + 3
 Why must manufacturers cheap out on many of the most important components with new bike builds?

It is so frustrating to buy a brand new bike and instantly have to put $1000 into wheels that aren't made of cheese, $500 into upgrading contact points (Pedals, bars/stem, saddle), as well as a couple hundred to have the bike vinyl wrapped etc. Never mind the fact it comes with a 125mm dropper post on a size L 29er made for racing down hills?

My 2017 Trek Slash 9.8 I bought this year retailed for $7300CAD and was advertised as a race bike. I can tell you the $40 rims and $30 stem are NOT race ready. My $7300CAD bike would cost the average consumer almost $10,000CAD by the time it's built up ready to handle a summer on the local race circuit.

Stop cheaping out on components. Give me a bike I can use for the intended use out of the box.
  • + 3
 135mm to 142mm is the same as 150mm to 157mm DH spacing. The hub itself is the same but with 3.5mm extra length of end caps to allow slots in the frame to locate your wheel to make it easy to fit the axle. You can swap end caps with the same hub and it works for both. That was a good change.
148mm Boost spacing was a bad change. A few mm of change to flange spacing resulting in 1 or 2mm difference in spoke lengths resulting in 2/ of bugger all increase in stiffness. Is is better? Marginally. Was it worth bringing in a new standard. Hell no. Why not just use the existing 157mm spacing like Pivot did?
110mm/15mm boost front spacing. Why oh why? Who was bending front wheels at 100mm? Why not just use the existing 110mm/20mm DH standard if you want stronger/stiffer wheels?
111mm/20mm "boost" with the brake mount moved over 5mm...... that just makes me angry.

The worst new standard has to be 35mm bar/stem though. No need for that whatsoever.

Press fit bottom brackets are all about saving money for frame manufacturers, so I get why they exist, but they suck. No performance benefit. BSA threaded all the way!
  • + 2
 Great idea but unless you get Shimano and SRAM to the table you aren't getting anywhere.

Shimano doesn't have boost compatibility, useful single chainrings, a dropper post, or 12 speed drivetrains yet. They seem to be years behind SRAM who makes every component possible on the bike.

Props to CK but the bike industry is nothing like the motorcycle industry which it has tried to emulate (engineering wise) since the start. It is a hot mess.

Oh and just admit that your current focus is E-bikes and get on with it.
  • + 1
 Shimano did just release a dropper but seriously if you're still shopping droppers and buy a reverb you're loony tunes.
  • + 1
 @T-woot: They announced it but it is just vaporware. It doesn't exist. At least the Reverb has gone through some iterations by now since it has been out for years.
  • + 1
 @Sycip69er: Its been out for years and I've probably warrantied over 100 of them in the last few years and rebuilt another 100 of them. They are crap, their new seals didn't fix the outstanding issues. Why would you want to spend $500 on something that needs a lot of maintenance and cannot be easily serviced like a Fox Transfer or KS post, Special-ed Command post or even Bontragers Drop Line.
  • + 1
 @T-woot: I'm not buying them, they are OEM on lots of bike brands. I just made a point that SRAM brought one to the table years ago and Shimano is still "testing" theirs. Different mentality and what I'm perceiving as different market share these days. Shimano can't even get their pricing right in the US. Remember when having XTR was the coolest? Few even care about XTR anymore. maybe it will change but Shimano is most likely going to push the E-bike phase pretty hard is my guess.
  • + 1
 @Sycip69er: I think you're forgetting that Shimano road groups way outsale Sram. Sram has way more OE spec everything but that doesn't make the reverb a good or solid product. Sram is doing right by US map pricing where as Shimano doesn't give a rats yes that is true. By then again at some point, nearly everyone of these companies just stops caring and just blow their product out direct to consumer or to amazon or whatever. Really, the prices for bike products are ALL outrageous, but if you choose right you can get a parts that last, a reverb isn't one of them.
  • + 2
 As an old timer coming around to by a new MTB after 18 years - it's mind blowing how many different standards there are and how fragmented the market is compared to 15-20 years ago. Prices have about doubled since then, and I believe the average bike company is probably less profitable than before. Better standardization will actually help allow the best products to surface to the top, rather than having one company trying to differentiate the other buy having a different standard. Prices due to larger production volumes will decrease will quality will increase.

It's really up to the big guys to drive this (Shimano, SRAM, Giants, Treks, Specialized, etc) - through agreement as consortium and probably acquiring upstarts that are coming up with good ideas. I have no doubt engineering talent dilution is a contributor as well...working in Silicon Valley myself...the lure of tech industry for engineering far overshadows the bike or even auto industry nowadays.
  • + 2
 standards wouldn't matter as much if bikes came off the floor with more optimized spec. You bet I'm going to toss the garbage wheels that come on my next bike and boostinate my current carbon wheels with star ratchets. Just got pretty short life out of a 11speed road cassette, even keeping an eye on chain stretch. I like front derailleurs as they give me a wide range even if a bent hanger, or mud blocks off gears on either end of the cassette.
  • + 2
 I agree with the premise of the article...I hate how fast things are constantly evolving and making bikes barely a couple years old "obsolete" by the new technology standards. Even when carefully maintained, riders have problems getting fair $ for their used bikes because buyers look at it and just see "old" technology. All about the $$$ with the bike & component makers.

Even worse? When the "old" tech comes back in vogue, like coil suspension. As an avid fan of coils, while replacing my last bike I had to accept pretty much no bikes with the spec I wanted came with coils anymore. Not 2 weeks after I bought it, I saw an article here on PinkBike about "The return of the COIL!!". AYFKM?? [acronym, you can figure it out Wink ]

Its not the progression that is the issue, as someone noted above, its that they will stop supporting the older designs. Then what? More waste, more non-recyclable carbon bikes & components in the landfills, etc.
  • + 2
 It's not worth it to buy new parts and bikes every year. I just bought a 2012 Kona Operator. My last bike was a 2004 Kona Scrap 5 years ago. After the next new standards comes out you can get good deals on the old standards.
  • + 2
 All the changing standards just keep meesing with the local bike shop/recreational rider buying experience.. Bring in your 2011 barely ridden bike that you still feel is a wicked bike and not be able to get parts to get you back on the trail today.. Instead its a 3 weeek wait to get the ‘old’ parts that they cant afford to stock.. I for one just keep upgrading every few years to keep up with the standards, that being said I ride alot and would probably need to repair/replace most parts anyway.
  • + 2
 The very first thing to do is bin the word 'Standard'. Its grossly misused and is probably the most misleading of this whole discussion.

Yeah we have to progress but the blame lies with the clueless misinformed folk who gulibly lap up everything that manufacturers dream up. If the consumer. That's us. Will just stop for a minute, do some research and most importantly some CRITICAL thinking then ask around for advice we, the consumers can stop 90% off the bullshit that marketing departments come up with. At the moment it seems very much like a marketing bullshit driven industry but then customers whinge about all this new tech as they don't bother to actually evaluate if the new best thing is actually an advantage and if so by how much but gladly throw money at it regardless.

lastly this all comes back around to cost. Gone are the days of 'If you can't afford it you can't have it'. Everything is so finance, credit and debt driven these days manufacturers have free reign to overprice everything they sell because they can go hey look 0% APR. So what will the manufacturer then do. Dream up some hocus pocus smoke and mirrors tale that their new idea is awesome just so it seems like your getting the latest and greatest offering. So the next 24 months of paying for a bike that's MORE EXPENSIVE than a f*cking brand new car doesn't seem so bad.
  • + 2
 I've stuck with my "old" bike because I don't know which bandwagon to jump on, I'm fine with 26" wheels and 135mm rear axle. Seems every time I see a new bike that interests me I just end up thinking that it's not got boost axles or is missing a metric shock and will be outdated in no time. I'm definitely spending less money due to the rate of change.
  • + 2
 It's just shortsightedness by the industry. Whilst changing these standards to hopefully make a little more profit, I don't think they realise that they are ruining the entire "cool bike dude" image so many manufacturers try to portray resulting in us consumers just plainly not trusting them. Would one of the "cool bike dude" manufacturers have been criticised by consumers for not taking up the whole boost bullshit? Nope. I conclude that there are no "cool bike dude" companies. Just corporate sharks who couldn't give a stuff about us riders.
  • + 2
 I would like to see the following: Going back to 9 or 10 speeds using the current 12 speed chain width, casette spacing, and rear cassette ratio range, thereby freeing up some extra hub space to create a better, maybe even symmetrical, spoke angle. If they could keep the same range using fewer cassette cogs and still make it shift well, it woụld make a stronger wheel. The reduced number of gears would mean fewer shifts to get to the ring I need. Anybody with me?
  • + 1
 Sorry, your solution makes far too much sense and will therefore be downvoted repeatedly.
  • + 2
 When I bought my Kona in 2008, I had the opportunity to get a 29er. But it was pretty new and I was leery of adopting a new technology that hadn't proven itself yet. Fast forward 9 years and it is time to buy a bike again. (I know, I know, but I don't have the funds to change bikes like some people change shoes). In the time between, 29 gave way to 27.5, which has now given way back to 29 (and 27.5 some more) with wider/stiffer wheels, hub spacing has gone all over the place, wheel widths are still in flux, and axle spacing is STILL going wider and wider.

All these things are great innovations in cycling, where that technology had been a standard for DECADES. And there is the problem. It's like the Wild West of wheel dimensions. Up to the 29er revolution, you could go into any bike shop and buy a hub/wheel combo and it was guaranteed to work with your bike. Period. With the flavor of the week components that we now have, it becomes more difficult to get a part on the quick. It also means that with constantly changing widths, the scope of parts required to fit a given hub/wheel/frame becomes overly broad, which decreases the market for a given size. This in turn, will result in higher pricing for a given size due to companies having to maintain a larger catalog.

Maybe in the end, manufacturers won't see a difference in their bottom line, but as a consumer, expecting us to be on board with anything outside of even 148 is asking a lot. Think about it, only now are the boutique brands and majors getting their lineups to 148 boost sizes. How long has this size been out, only to be cast aside in favor of newer widths?

I think the correct course of action would be for manufactures to work together using new tech for race teams. Sort it out for a few years and when the dust settles, THEN introduce your findings as a standard. It would make things much easier for the consumer, and that is why they make product, right?
  • + 2
 In my opinion, the standards that we see popping up every few months are a necessity for companies to stay "relevant". If a company was like, ok this is it, we stop here, then they would slowly lose market share because they aren't coming out with anything fresh and new. They're essentially keeping up with the Jones. The big "problem" that a lot of us have with the ever changing standard is not actually the standard itself, it's a problem that we can't control within; our desire to have that new thing. With that decision to go to the next standard we try selling a bunch a perfectly good stuff for next to nothing. SO, I personally feel that we are not butt hurt about the standard itself, we are butt hurt about our inability to resist and most people just don't know it because consumerism is engrained in us, and ESPECIALLY is the form of bikes, a hobby we all follow and cherish so dearly. Last example where I speak for myself but others may be able to relate: the new iPhone is released, I could honestly care less, i still use an old outdated and working just fine one, but people across the world are scrambling to come up with a grand to get one. A new axle standard comes out, I say meh whatever, a few people around me talk about it, I see it in the shop a few times, and see it enough on pb. Next thing you know I have a new fork, frame and wheels. The industry is good at marketing and we can't resist, that's the actual problem that everyone is pissing and moaning about. Please ride your bicycle.
  • + 2
 Some more thoughts on all of this, more because I'm fed up rather than anything else.

35mm bars and stems: Pick up a 31.8mm Raceface SixC carbon bar in one hand and a 35mm one in the other. Tell me which one you'd rather ride. Better yet, bolt a 35mm carbon bar set up onto your bike, then a 31.8mm carbon set up, then an alloy set up and tell me which one you'd rather have. 35mm wins on every level. Don't like it? You can still get 31.8mm stuff. It's "significantly" (By 10 grams! but also 15mm narrower at its widest) heavier than 35mm stuff and feels harsher to ride, but it's still out there. 31.8mm isn't as good as 35mm not because the "industry" isn't trying as hard. It's not as good because the extra 3.2mm makes a noticeable difference in how bars can be put together and produced.

Sometimes stuff reaches the end of the line in terms of development. Like the 30 pin connector we all knew and loved, it's time for 31.8 to go away. Boost 148 though, that shouldn't go away.

135X9 and 142X12 = the same damn thing. Same exact hub width, spacing, and width between the flanges. One has a thru-axle, but they're the same damn hubs. 150 and 157mm, same thing. Only 150mm hubs floated around and didn't have a notch on each side of the frame to slot into, making putting a wheel in a hassle. An extra 3.5mm on each end made for 157mm hubs and that 3.5mm was used to interface into slots on the rear dropouts like you got with 135X9 and 142X12.

Boost is fundamentally better. Is it a huge difference? Not for everyone, but at least it doesn't mess with Q-factor, something 150 and 157 can't claim. Sure, Pivot will tell you that Super Boost Plus 157 is the way of the future, but if it were that good A- they'd be using their idiotic hub "standard" on more of their bikes, especially the new Mach 6, and B- they'd be selling more Switchblades than they are. A lot more. You don't want a trail bike with 150/157mm rear hub spacing and Pivot's internal sales numbers for the Switchblade more than likely back me up on that. I can guarantee that my local Pivot dealer's sales numbers for that bike sure do back that up.

See, thing is that I've been in this game on the back-shop tech, floor sales, and company sides of things, on and off, for a damn long time. I remember what it was like to ride bikes that had "standards." It's what made me quit mountain biking for other pursuits. That stuff sucked.

Don't believe me? Go buy a $700 Giant hardtail at your local shop. It features all the "standards" you know and love! 135X9 rear hub spacing, 100X9 front hub spacing, a nice threaded, square taper bottom bracket, 30.9mm round seat post, a straight 1 1/8 headtube and steerer, and a 31.8mm handlebar/stem. As many old, commonly available standards as you can possibly cram on one bike! The bike of your standards dream is available, and it's ONLY $700!!! OMG MIND BLOWN!!!!!!!!!!! Even better, it's got a "standard" 3X8 drivetrain as well. None of that pussy 11/12 speed stuff with those narrow chains and expensive cassettes, no way! Just $700 of chain-sucky, "standards"-loving hardtail!

It's called a Talon 3, and for most Giant dealers it's one of the most important bikes available because it actually sells. A lot. By the pallet load in fact. For every pallet load of Talon 3s sold, a good giant dealer might sell 2-3 mid range full suspension trail bikes if they're doing OK that week. For every two-three pallets of Talons sold, they might sell one of their boutique brand trail bikes. It sucks to ride, but the people buying them don't care and the bikes are easy and cheap to support. The sad fact is that if you're arguing about standards on Pinkbike you're the bleeding edge of bike consumption. You are the 1% of mountain bikes. The 99% of mountain bikes still are "standardized," so to speak. Same garbage that's been on bikes for years and that's OK.

Where new "standards" are killing high-end cycling is in parts availability and complexity. In parts pricing and the fact that shops have to stock 325346457 different bottom brackets now, which isn't even relevant because no matter how many you've got you still never have the right one and all of your distributors are sold out while Chain Reaction has about a billion of the bottom brackets you need retailing at less than your cost price.

Car companies are responsible for making sure parts are available for their bikes. In cycling, that responsibility is passed along to component manufacturers. It's a model that doesn't work, in that SRAM and Shimano's priorities are different from those of their bike-building customers. Can I call Giant to get a bottom bracket for one of their bikes? Santa Cruz? No and no, but I can deal with a bunch of different distributors that might have it if I'm lucky. Seeing as how top-end bikes now cost as much as low-end cars, I think it's time for a change in terms of parts, support, and whose responsibility it is to provide replacement wear items and parts.

Then again, I wouldn't have to worry about that if I bought that new Hope bike. You know, the one with "standard" nothing at all, because Hope decided standards were stupid and that they could do better. By all accounts they have, so why aren't more companies following their lead?

And if they can't, at least start by bringing prices down. My mobile phone spends 12 hrs/day on me, either in my pocket or in one of my hands. It's the most crucial piece of technology I own and it cost just over $700 retail, unlocked. My laptop was less than $1500 and it's one of my primary work tools, meaning that it gets me paid. My mountain bike, a thing I ride 3-4 times/week for a couple hours at a time, cost me $3500 and I could have easily spent $7000 had I been able to afford it. How does the bike industry expect new riders to come into the sport and current riders to stay in it when a semi decent, entry level full suspension trail bike package is at least $3000 out-the-door and ready to ride??
  • + 2
 The rate of new standards is dizzying. While hubs (shown) is a recent issue, I think Bottom Brackets are the worse offender. Partially, because I ride road a lot. But yeah, the lack of standards is pretty damn ridiculous.

So, here is my question to the industry panel:

Is there some sort of review process that we can put in place to ensure that A) we don't slow down innovation, B) we vet the idea before putting the thing into production, and C) Bicycle brands will realize that by rushing to adopt a new "standard" that ultimately won't be successful long term, they are hurting the community and themselves.

Looking right at you big S, with your 142+ hubs. Pfffff!
  • + 2
 I believe we should question the long term serviceability of components, and establishing a minimum timescale for obsoletion whereby manufacturers must provide spares and equivalent quality replacement parts for a defined timescale. This in turn should cause self regulation from manufacturers, and a more considered approach towards future proofing of bikes, keeping consumers happy and allowing smaller manufacturers to invest in development more confidently.
  • + 3
 As long as there are early adopter dentists willing to throw money at every new pointless standards big manufactures come up with. We'll never have actual standards that last a few years.
  • + 2
 With all these new standards, many of us have decided not to buy another bike until things settle down, even though we have cash to get a new ride. We don't want our new rides to be outdated by the time we build it. At what point does the negative impact of incremental changes out weight the positive impact?
  • + 2
 @vernonfelton My question to them would be: have they researched what the ideal size hub is for mountain biking? If not, how come? More specific, what size hub is best for 26, 27, or 29 inch wheels? Or, what size hub is best for xc, trail, or DH?

From my perspective, the MTB industry does things backwards. Rather than use science/engineering to find the ideal size, it seems things just drift along so what you get are things like "super boost plus," which is just an incremental change to an old size.
  • + 2
 Standardize certain components like: one pressfit/one external bb standard. 142/100 hubs for all mtbs , 100/130 for road etc etc. As a mechanic it is a real drain when you have to stock a million and one different headsets and bottom brackets to ensure you have all bases covered. Also think it would be beneficial to the manufacturers of components to not have to pay for expensive tooling and moulds, and use that money on improving in other ways.
  • + 2
 Its just as much as a pain for the consumer when we go in the shop to see that the shop has 10 different "standard" BB's but none work with your bike....
  • + 2
 It was awesome when any frame you had fit with any hub you wanted. I don't like buying completes, cause there is always a compromise, or you're shelling out huge bucks at a time, which I rarely wanna do. None stop incremental changes mean a greater chance of buying completes and being left with "obsolete" gear that just sits in a bin or gets sold to logical people at a huge discount. I can't get behind any of it unless the improvements are monumental.
  • + 2
 When creating a new standard, ask yourself - What is the TRUE value added with this product? Is the value so great that it's worth the replacement cost, as someone who likely has a fixed budget to spend on a bicycle?

Some products knock this out of the park - the wide/narrow chainring, for example. The performance advantage is clearly worth the $40 a new chain ring costs.

Going from 20mm x 110 front axles to 15mm x 110 boost? Not at all worth the 200+ dollar investment in a new hub (at best), or a new fork (at worst).

I feel like companies don't ask themselves this question. It's instead- is there value added? If the question is (even remotely, on paper) yes, they run with it. There's little cost consideration on behalf of the actual consumers.
  • + 1
 I'm sure this will get lost at the bottom.

But can we talk about seatposts? They need to pick a mounting standard for the saddle. Rails all have the same width. But every company has to have their proprietary mount.
As a mechanic I see so many stripped bolts where the designers tried to hide the mounting bolts. It's either impossible to tighten, or takes 5 minutes to remove the saddle.
  • + 1
 Personally I feel that innovation and creativity are wonderful driving forces and should be encouraged. The diverse world we live in is because of our ability to develop new ideas. I believe this conference is a great step towards better communication among bike enthusiasts of all kinds. Change is a constant. without it we would be stagnant. But the change in the bike industry happens quickly, and so it should be talked about among peers and implemented if it proves to actually give a benefit to riders.
  • + 1
 This conversation is awesome I remember having a great discussion/debate about the tapered vs 1.1/8th vs 1.5 I argued that we should skip the tapered and everyone could buck up and buy new stems and go with 1.5 giving the option for universal headtube's. My dad and another mechanic at our shop said that would be nice but people don't like radical change they won't easily except it but they will except minor "improvements". In that argument the weight gain of the 1.5 headtube's the new standard and the fact that your old stems wouldn't work were enough to put people off the idea. Instead they put forth a half upgrade and said its stiffer and you don't have to change your stem. That was a long time ago and it's interesting to look back on it through a new lense people didn't used to accept new standards because they bought nice parts assuming they would be transferred to the next frame eventually. I would like to ask all the 10 year plus riders how long did you expect your second nice decent bike to last and the same question to the 5 years or less riders I would bet the 5 year guys would be surprised by the 10-20 year riders response.
  • + 1
 I don't think people need to change their stem because of a larger diameter headtube. They would have if they ran a larger diameter steerer though. This is probably what you imply but mind you these are very different things. I think most headtubes nowadays would accept a straight 1.5" steerer. You may just need an external headset, sometimes. But as for the straight 1.5" steerer, Cannondale did/does that for quite a while already. I think it must have been in 2003 or so when Manitou came with their onepointfive headtube standard because they claimed there was no other way to run a single crown fork with more than five inch travel. Just as with any new standard the world went ape shit and Marzocchi even released their Z150 forks to prove that you can get a 150mm travel single crown fork with a 1 1/8" steerer. Soon enough other companies followed though I think for the longest forks (like 180-200mm travel single crown) they stuck with the larger diameter steerer. Though of course it limits how short the stem could be. So later companies came with tapered steerers which are 1.5" at the crown and 1.125 in the upper section. So if anything, it is the onepointfive straight steerer that has been, tapered is an evolution thereof.

I've been riding mtb since 2001. Other than my first mtb, I don't buy completes but only replace parts (including frame).The frame I ride now I've had since 2007 or so (I think). It is a steel hardtail (DMR) which I bought in a bit of a hurry when I wrecked my previous steel hardtail frame (Voodoo) in a crash. Now that the kind of frame I'm looking for (I always wanted the top tube low so I accepted the frame to be too short, but now I can finally get low and long enough) it has become time to look for a replacement. That would be the geometry I've always been after so yeah, I expect that to last me a couple of decades. Does that answer your question?
  • + 1
 @vinay: lots of good points in there. As for the 1.5 for longer travel I never saw that argument but it seems sorta valid except for the dj3 coming in 150 for years. As for cannon dale they had a 1 1/4 or something like that for a while. as for the short stem at the time your talking about nobody really wanted a short stem and you still had 50mm stems which was as short a people wanted to go. The tapered thing was annoying because like you said you can fit a 1.5 in headset in a zero stack headtube's so if we had switched headtube's years ago than we could have chosen any. Steerer. Also I like your style picking a bike I'm a steel hardtail guy as well had a voodoo dj frame a long time ago but my favorite was my steel soul cycles roscoe it was awesome and it had a nice sloped top tube I would have ridden it forever if it wasn't stolen
  • + 1
 @loganflores: As for the stem length, it is a funny one. Even though I created this PB account a while ago, I only became active here when Dirt magazine UK went out of print (which was a couple of years ago now). Until then Dirt was my main media source of all things mountainbike related. And all their reviews as long as I can remember start with "swap out the silly bar and stem" before they even started testing. So I was surprised to read on PB that it was only a couple of years ago that they started to ride with short stems. Apparently they tested the bikes as they came. I don't know anyone who buys complete bikes so obviously no one went with how manufacturers spec their bikes except for the beginners who need a package to start with and then modify. I think I have been riding with 40 and 50mm stems for well over a decade. My Truvativ Hussefelt (40mm) stem is quite a classic. It sure must have been a common stem over there as well?
  • + 1
 @vinay: people talked a lot of shit about hussifelt parts in general I had/have the same stem mine was a 50mm it actually was kind of difficult to find a 40 truvative came stock on a lot of bikes I never had any issues a bit heavy but durable decent price I've still got some cranks that are running smooth I'm kinda a stem hoarder and always have been I've got a little 30mm stem 25.4. However it depends on what type of riding you were doing there was a time that convincing a customer to buy a 70mm stem for their trail bike was an argument. I always liked short stems but they didn't really take off until long top tubes which didnt take off until bigger wheels. Basically when I first worked in shops 80-100 were popular and 50 was for dj or dh and some all mountain riders if anyone remembers that term.
  • + 2
 Please can you add serial numbers to some components so I can attempt to tell if something is stolen?

Why did you make the move to 25.7"/29" without working out what else needed to change first?
  • + 1
 All is about advantages, incredibly there is never anything negative in the new stuff. This is pure marketing.

Take a ruler and mess 6mm, there is no much space there for a great technical revolution but these 6mm bring lot of money to some people.

New doesn’t mean always “Innovation”. There is nothing new in the boost, well: using a bit of sarcasm, yes, the new frame that you have to buy to amply your horizons in 6mm
  • + 1
 I think that we've reached a point where most bikes and parts are very well engineered to start with. At that stage, minute changes need to happen in order to improve it because the really big changes have already been made. We don't necessarily need new "standards," but experimentation is the only way to keep improving technology that's already dialed pretty darn well.
  • + 1
 “As it stands, a lot of people are afraid of buying a new bike, frame, fork or wheel set because who knows how long it’ll be before the bike industry comes out with the next Boost 5000…."

You should print this out and place it on your cover-letters, make it a running title throughout your powerpoint, post it over the doorframe and on the ceiling of the room. You may have competing companies there but you’ve all got this problem. My bike is a 2016 Enduro with already ‘outdated’ 142/100 axles. No WAY I’d pull the trigger on anything for a good long while with all this up in the air.
  • + 1
 standard should mean that they are of the same specifications. we don't have standards, we have disjointed ideas that aren't compatible with each other. how many different headsets, bottom brackets, one off tools for hubs, bb's or other various parts should we need to stock in the shop i work in. different generations and levels of parts are incompatible with no real meaningful reason why. change can bring drastic improvements, but it needs to be for a valid reason not just to show that you can file patents for random crap. i resent boost spacing because the industry was taken by surprise and nobody was there ready with the compatible parts so sram capitalised, i think this was a dirty tactic. to add insult to injury how much of a faff is it to locate your hubs in the drop outs now #notgoingforwards.
  • + 1
 I work at a shop in a small town in the interior of BC with a riding season that has a start and an end, and it seems to me that the main thing we need to be able to do to keep our customers happy is keep them on their bikes, especially when those bikes are new. When we have to send new parts back for warranty, or when our shop and/or our distributors have a hard time keeping spare/loaner parts and tools in stock for all of the possible standard combinations, that keeps people from being on their bikes.

My question is: When new standards/products are introduced, how much thought goes into keeping riders on their new bikes vs. making their new bikes "perform" better?

For example, the hubs that come on 80% of the bikes we sell have had some reliability issues with the freehub bodies and hub axles. Not all of them, but enough to be noticable. This season, we have been unable to source those axles in 148mm Boost from any of our Canadian distributors and have had to take weeks (bordering on months) talking back and forth with that brands main (American) parts and warranty department to solve our problem.

I know there are places in the world where bike and parts availability are worse than in Canada, but are efforts being made to make sure that the part/tool availability is being kept up to speed with the availability of new bikes?
  • + 1
 I could see the bicycle industry benefiting from adopting actual standardized specifications, managed and controlled by an industry committee. This could include material standards, technical specs (performance requirements), design specs (standard dims and tolerances, etc.), and even part standards. This has the effect of improving cost, quality, component interchangeability across the industry. Take SAE Standards in the aerospace and automotive industries as an example.
  • + 1
 Clearly what we need is a bike that is both playful and stable, fast like and XC rig but able to handle Whistler, cheap and environmentally friendly like alloy, but with the stiffness and ride quality of carbon... lets add a gearbox that weighs less than Eagle, make the whole thing virtually maintenance free, and keep the cost under $4k. Also no more flat tires please. If you can do this by creating standards that won't change for 10years that would be super. Can I have it in a different color depending on my mood? Also make sure none of my riding buddies buy the same one...

On a more serious note- 110x20mm, 157x12mm, and that new thread-fit 47 (is that the right number?) BB for 30mm axles seem like good places to start, but I'm not an engineer. Standardized bearings and tools to press them in and out across FS designs would be great too. Having a standardized way to get ~ 1cm of height adjustment front and rear would be nice (tire choice, terrain, and personal style vary quite a lot).
  • + 1
 The more frame standards can be whittled down (bb, axles, etc.) to a few quality options, the better -- there is actually something to be said for some constraints to aid innovation (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Obstructions). How can things improve within accepted standards vs. let's make a new standard to differentiate ourselves/improve the bike in a teeny tiny way that in turn makes it incompatible with every other part on the market.
  • + 1
 I like that the bike industry is somewhat standardized, one of the things I like most is being able to pick and choose what aftermarket parts I want on my bike. It can really hurt you when you change them and make old standards obsolete though, so that's definitely worth the consideration. Was jumping to boost spacing to marginally improve rigidity, and improve clearance for plus wheels (the newest coolest thing that basically flopped) worth it? I certainly don't think so, especially now that we're talking about making this obsolete to clear 20mm axles.

Slow it down, take your time, make sure that your changes will last a bit longer than 3 years. We want to buy your shit, but we'll all be alot happier if you don't do shit like that all the time.
  • + 1
 like theres anything to debate that hasn't allready been said. There's been articles here that have just as much admitted the current wave of ever increasing standards is to ease the introduction of Ebikes.
Time will tell but, the biggest point I think is that long time, experienced riders can see this shit a mile away whereas younger riders an newbs will be eating up the new crap an loving it

could the bike industry be cutting its own throat? is the downward trend in sales here? will Ebikes save the big money corps?
who knows? but,

will dirty dirt bike kids still be ragging bike around the woods jumping off stuff?
I hope so
there's always BMX
:/
  • + 1
 I would like to thank bike manufactures for maintaining only 2-3 seat post diameters and handlebar diameters, grip manufacturers are the real mvps, 1 size fits (except you wtb your idea sucked).

The state of affairs is the following areas have been messed with too much!
bottom brackets and spindle sizes
hub widths/ spacing
wheel sizes
proprietary shock mounting
I know i am missing something here
  • + 1
 I might be in the minority. One thing I USED to love about biking was that I could buy 3 frames - a DH bike, a trail bike, and a dirt jumper, and interchange 95% of the parts. I got 3 bikes for nearly the price of one. Aside from wheel size, everything else should/could be compatible to switch around. I don't mind spending good money on a part or bike, but do what I9 does - make those hubs fit all the "standards" and make damn sure I can put it on any bike I want! It also makes the resale value of a bike drop, meaning I'll likely spend less with you than if 20572o5023532508 people want the replacement part instead of 7.
  • + 1
 The rate of change of innovation is too quick. I still can’t believe that I just bought a 2017 bike, and it is obsolete now. It is not obsolete for complete innovations though, it is obsolete because of a few millimeters! Why can’t the bike industry just make large innovation over a longer period of time? Let’s face it. I rode a boost bike and nonboost bik back to back, and I could not feel the difference. Why can just go straight from nonboost to super boost, because there is noticeably more stiff es between super boost and nonboost.
  • + 1
 Since everyone hates these half-steps forward why do we bother.

Now that even DH bikes are going 29, why did we even bother with 27.5?

Why didn't we go right to super boost plus instead of having 157 as a mid point.

Everyone says it's because people wouldn't accept the big change unless we had the smaller change, but people hated the small change and they hate the second small change. But if we had just one big change people would deal with it just the same.

That's where the conspiracy theory cries from.

Also, bikes are just too damn expensive. When your 6k bike is obsolete six months after you buy it, it really sours you on the industry.
  • + 1
 Man I bet chris king sales are hurting these days. As a guilty pleasure I would buy a set of CK hubs and build some dope wheels up for my dh bikes. I'd do this knowing I'd use them on my next bike or three and eventually sell them off when I got bored of the color. Then I'd repeat. With the lack of compatibility between bikes, this isn't a guilty pleasure anymore, rather just a waste of money. The people have caught on and the industry is feeling it. They've had a long enough run of holding us hostage to the new latest and greatest standard. Sales are sliding and they did it to themselves!
  • + 1
 I have 4 mountain bikes and none of them can share any wheel or tire. I miss the days of swapping heavy enduro/dh wheels on the xc for training then back to a lighter set for race day. If i wanted to do that now i'd have 16 wheels in my garage....mind you this is with a 2014 as my newest bike. 26/27.5/29, 15mm, 12mm, QR, 10sp, 11sp, 135mm, 142mm, 160, 180, 203rotors.
I think i just need a second job.
  • + 1
 I don't mind genuine progress for new standards, it's the part of evolution for better products and break sport barriers, but as long as the brands/manufacturers offer options to integrate and adapt to these new standards in an affordable price. Without costumers there is NO evolution neither!
  • + 1
 to me, it seems like the "standards" change based on the type of bike. i'm not smart enough to know WHY a DH bike needs a 157 or Super 157 hub and an XC only "needs" a 142. i just assume it has to do with bike geometry. i don't mind "boost" for the rear, but i think it's stupid for the front. we changed an entire line of forks just for a few millimeters.
the "idea" of widening the rear hub a "touch" so you can move that wheel forward to shorten the chainstays is a good idea. it would be nice if the through axles are the same size, 15mm both front and back. then i would say for those bikes that point down a mountain do a 15mm rear and a 20mm front for axles. at least you can see a trend for the more beefy engineering for bikes that point down a mountain and light efficient engineering for bikes that go up the mountain.
i personally, ride the bike until it's broke! you don't have to upgrade everything. if it worked 5 years ago on the same trail, you don't need a whole new bike to do the same trail. maybe the new bike saves you 10 seconds, but are you actually racing where you are getting paid? no? then ride your current bike until it dies, then get a whole new bike.
  • + 1
 Huge respect to King for my ss hub.

Is hard to imagine how the conversation will go, other than someone pushing for a 'final standard' (super boost 157 for the rear), some people agreeing, and other people resisting.

I sure wish the final result will be modular and back compatible with existing standards (including 9x135) but flange location is too important... not sure how there can be a middle ground, the flanges get located, then the brake rotor and everything follows from there.

I'd feel really good if there was an actual engineering analysis of what is the actual necessary flange spacing. Go ahead and do some rigorous SAE type work, determine an answer that is true forever, then stop thinking about it.

I suspect the right answer for hubs with big 'ol nasty cassettes involves an asymmetric frame...
  • + 1
 I'm going to try to be as polite as I can. Want to do something innovative and increase the rear end's rigidity? Stop widening the rear axle, and displace the drivetrain to the right side. Just like Iron Horse did back then, or as Cannondale did not so long ago. Center the rim with respect to the hub flanges and stop giving us half-baked solutions such as asymmetrical rims, boost spacing and uneven hub flanges. I don't want to end up needing a horse saddle to ride my bike because you guys keep widening the rear hub and consequently the crankset.

Or if you need something different to throw over the table, tell us why do seatposts and steerers have to be round. Make the upper half of the steerer hexagonal, and place a plastic adapter to center the upper headset bearing. Throw in hexagonal spacers to adjust the stem height. Then make the stem's steerer hole hexagonal and stop us from going nuts when trying to align a short stem with our front wheel. Now if anyone thinks this is a bad idea because you'd break the handlebar in a crash, think about all the direct mount stems you nowadays. It'll be a small tooling investment for the industry, and a giant leap forward for the MTB community.
  • + 1
 I HAVE THE SOLUTION!!, well its just an idea, lets build on that : Why not creating some sort non-profit "MTB Specification Standard Association" , where basic design and dimensional standard guide lines would be established, discussed and updated, upon periodical meetings or assembly. The members of the commitee would have to meet specific qualifications... in other words be really smart, good riders and drink IPA. The design or dimensional standards udpates would have to prioritize certain core values , like technologial advancement , safety, quality, gnarliness, whip factor...

Manufacturers of parts and bikes could then choose to build their bikes following these guidelines, the customer could then choose to buy "MTBSSA"certified bike, knowing that he can buy "MTBSS" certified parts without fearing it will be replaced by 27.95 next year. Non standardized parts and bikes would still out there, but this way the customer, biker would know what expect . Plenty of similar associations exists in other industries , a good example is UL or
CSA. It would be something riders could rely on. Our mountain bike standard association could be more rad and gnarly , so the stokeness level can stay high.
  • + 1
 Is it possible for the bike industry to standardize measurements, a consistent agreement across the board that all brands will stick to for dimensions and weights?

Things like geometry chart measurements taken from standard points, for example top tubes have 2 measurements, effective and actual but some brands use both and others one or the other, they should also state the size of tyres and fork length that the geometry was taken with (some do but many don't) this makes it confusing and unrealistic when comparing bikes.
Another is weights, things like not including pedals or frame weights including shocks or not including them, fork weights with the steerer cut down or not, you get the picture.

It should be a standard level playing field so consumers can make informed decisions based on data that is reliably comparable and not skewed.
  • + 1
 Don't forget Boost Quick Release 110 front (same dropout spacing, but no thru-axle, just 9mm axle ends and a QR skewer), and 141 boost rear (again regular 10mm axle ends with QR skewer instead of a thru-axle). Claimed to allow frames and forks to be made cheaper. Mongoose and Marin used it this year on some entry-level plus models.
  • + 1
 I don't know, but for an ordinary biker like me, I have been on a 12x142 for a long time and now I'm on a 148 but still, I haven't found anything significant from two different spacing. I guess the bike industry are just scrambling to put something new in the market every year and say that this is the new standard just to earn more.
  • + 1
 Industry business 101: More standards = More money.

What exactly was stopping manufactures from using the already standardized 150mm spacing that has been around since the later 90's? Or keeping the 20mm standard but in QR form for trail forks? Exactly.
By altering spacing ever so slightly in this case 2 and 10mm, you've created an entire multi-million dollar market that otherwise never would have existed.

I'm not saying new standards should never be developed however the frequency of ever changing standards in the bike industry tells me that it's either on the verge of going broke or companies are really that obsessed with profits.
  • + 1
 I'm reading through a lot of comments on here saying that so many new standards are creaded by the big players which I totally agree with but don't see many solutions or incentives for them to stop if they're making money. So many of the standards are also created for the performance gains that are seen at the professional race levels. I might get a lot of crap for saying this but why not get the UCI or the EWS guys to put restrictions on the bikes allowed to race just like with racecars, albeit for a different reason. I'm don't know why they would be willing to do this but does anyone know why this has never been done? This would definitely put an end to all the new standards if their sponsored racer's can't ride the newest standards.
  • + 1
 Anyone from the UCI going? Much as i think the rules for road & track cycling hold back progress you can probably fit a 2017 road bike groupset to a 15year old frame and vise versa. which ultimately makes road cycling a cheaper sport to get into. I'm sure there is a middle ground where competition rules can help generate a frame work in which bike company's can innovate. (works for other sports.)
  • + 1
 All these proprietary standards are ridiculous. Every manufacturer has their own standard which is not compatible with anything else. We (bike shops and consumers) don't need, or want, 9 Bottom Brackets, 7 Direct mount chainrings, 8 hub widths, etc. It's impossible for LBS's to stock inventory which leads to everyone buying their stuff online. I have not and will not support standards I do not agree with. Vote with your wallet.
  • + 1
 I'd like standard changes to be more meaningful. Change multiple things at once, or change them in a way where the only reason to change them again is if the sport changes. Evolution needs to be more disruptive and less iterative.
  • + 1
 I think its a mixed bag for sure, but who is really to blame - if anyone? There's no denying that bikes today are notably better than those of 10 years ago... and better bikes is a great thing. But, do we all need better bikes? I certainly don't need them, but I sure as shit want them and buy them. Bike companies are in business to stay in business. As long us suckers keep buying the new, incrementally better stuff they push out; guess what, they're going to keep pushing it out. I absolutely encourage the change, accept that this is an expensive sport, and realize if you want to keep chasing the next best thing its going to be even more expensive.
  • + 1
 When engineers came together in 2003 to put the ISCG standard together- everything was sweet. You could finally buy a chain guide that would fit on the mounts. A few short years later someone said, what if we want to run a centric pivot around the bb, or use a bmx shell, or an external bb cup? Just two years after ISCG, ISCG05 was born. These things take time, no one can see every possibility, but eventually- it will nut itself out. The standards that work will remain, those that don't will fall behind.
  • + 1
 I'd love to see tire manufacturers agree on his they measure width. And measure it in metric please. I'd love to see wheel/ rim brands agree that width is measured internal. And if really love brand's to stop using proprietary shock/mount dimensions.
  • + 1
 In lots of industries they use planned obsolescence, built in faults, to ensure their products don't last too long. That's long enough to not really piss you off when it stops working. This way they increase sales because customers are buying more often. For example most white goods are designed to last 3 years, washing machines 7 years and so on, just long enough to not have you lose faith in the brand.

However if a bike brand gets a reputation for making products that fail they risk going out of business. That's something I loved about bikes, one of the few industries making products that last (my 2008 pitch is still going strong). Damage can be fixed, components can be replaced, you can make a bike last a long time.

So how can bike companies stop you fixing your old ride and get you to buy new? Keep changing the standards. It's their version of planned obsolescence. When the whole 26" vs 27.5 thing was happening everyone said "vote with your wallet". Well I call bullshit, anyone who spends thousands on a new bike is clearly going to want the latest and greatest (even if it is only greatest because the marketing department tells you it is) and unless money is just not an issue for you, resale value has to be factored in, again the latest is clearly going to be worth more second hand than the "old" technology. The bike companies know this, that's why they keep changing standards. The whole thing is just about maximising sales and profits (which it clearly has to be as these are businesses we are taking about here, they exist to make money).

The comments about also shafting the small bike brands are very interesting as well, changing standards seems to be a double edged sword. I really hope this isn't the main motivation behind their behaviour, the small brands keep the industry moving forwards, they are the innovators and keep the industry rich and vibrant. If the big brands are out to kill the small brands it will make things boring and stale which clearly won't help any business in the long run. I remember fondly 26" 9 speed where almost everything was compatible with everything else, ah the good old days, maybe we will get back to this in the future, probably not!
  • + 1
 At the risk of writing a comment that will be lost amongst the vastness of Pinkbike, here's my take:

Ultimately, the problem the cycle industry is, just like many product industries, is that there is no real R&D. Bare with me...
Proper "Research and Development" into new products with genuinely useful and good outcomes has to involve prototypes and testing. Which is expensive - really expensive. And it's not seen as a good investment because
a) computer finite analysis is seen as all you need.
b) history shows that it isn't required, ie the bikes sell just fine without it.

But I think both of these have their limits - which is why we're where we are now. It's a blind system.

The current sales model also substitutes genuine R&D with marketing. It's easier to sponsor Greg Minnaar to prove a product's effectiveness than to use scientific data.
  • + 1
 I didn't read the all of the above 200 comments so someone may have already asked, but why can't we just have different end caps more accessible. There's conversion kits of spacers from pretty much any hub to any axle diameter, but they kinda suck. Would it be so hard for hub production to include easier access to interchangeable end caps/rotor spacers?
  • + 1
 We are currently in a period of rapid innovation. Wheel sizes have settled. Hub dimensions are starting to settle (hopefully). Metric suspension yay. Let's calm down and work with what we've got for awhile. Allow component and frame manufactures to experiment with these standards over a couple model years to really bring out the great and not so great aspects off that "standard". This could be achieved by something along the lines of - if a company or companies agree to produce and equip a new standard they should be confident to keep it for at least 2-3 years.

That being said, companies should absolutely continue doing pilot program and testing in house and with each other
  • + 1
 First, Chris King requires special "non-standard" tools to work on their gear. Why would they complain about new standards? Second, for 29" and 27.5" wheels the diameter of the wheel has increased, but the center to flange didn't change for mountain bikes until boost. An engineer at DT and I discussed this over 12 years ago, a 29" wheel adds roughly 10% diameter, yet prior to boost there was no increase in triangulation to compensate. Boost and super boost will increase wheel strength, longer spokes, and additional leverage from increased wheel diameter. Third, additional clearance for mountain bike tires allows for wider options with more traction. As a shop owner, I realize this business becomes more complicated as new standards are rolled out, either way I'll take my Troy for a ride over my MB-1 any day.
  • + 2
 Ya, well, my MB-1 is still going as strong today as it was back in '88. I have been through many cracked aluminum frames, worn out suspension forks and shocks and other broken parts since then, but the old trusty MB-1 is always ready to go and is rolling on pretty much all original parts. It's also a lot of fun on nontechnical trails where my modern full squish can make those same trails pretty boring. There are plenty of trails where I choose the MB1 due to the fun factor when the trails are pretty tame. Not every bike ride is a full face-helmet type of ride.
  • + 1
 Think that Troy will still be operating in 30 years from now? Do you think anyone would even want anything to do with that Troy in 30 years? No, to both, but your MB1 will still be rideable and desirable if kept up properly. And, strangely enough, I have no issues finding parts for those old bikes to this day.

Wish they made bikes with the same quality they did back then.
  • + 1
 @Singletrackmac: I miss my MB-2 dearly.
  • + 1
 Question for Chris King: Have you tested the boost width and do you think it truly makes a difference? I have two 29er's and other than one crash in 4 seasons, I have yet to destroy an aluminum rim or even break a spoke. I did test ride the company responsible for boost and they were not solid wheels. Just a guess, but I think they tried to fix an issue..
  • + 1
 As an engineer and a coach for a high school mountain bike team, this whole thing about standards in the cycling industry is frustrating as heck. I have a few spare parts that I carry to races but I generally don't have what's needed beyond master links. I can't swap out wheels, forks, brakes, and so on. I wish that the fork manufacturers would pick a standard axle for XC, downhill, enduro/all mountain and stick with it. Same goes for the rear hubs. Seriously, why can't big brands like Specialized or Trek use one size across their general line? It would save so much on stocked parts, save dealers, and make the lives of cyclists so much easier. The designers would have it so easy. Why bother calling anything a standard if you only use it in under 10% of any given genre of bikes? As an example, try finding the right derailleur hanger for a 10 year old brand name bike. It's possible if look at them every day but the average Joe would never find it on Google. Discussion isn't collusion. Get it together.
  • + 1
 I'm sure that someone else has already made this comment, but I think the industry needs to at the very least stop claiming every change as a new standard. When one manufacturer develops a proprietary solution, that doesn't constitute a new standard. If the rest of the industry realizes that the solution is in fact better and starts adopting it, then you can make a case for something being the new standard, but it has to reach that "critical mass" first. Also, I'm not an engineer but there surely has to be a clever way of building in some future proof-ness while the industry figures out what is best. Be it spacers, swappable drop-outs or whatever, at least give us some flexibility so that we're not special ordering parts every time something inevitably breaks. Or, when it comes to wheels, with all of the flip-chips and angle-adjustable headsets we have are you really telling me we can't have one frame that you can run 27.5, plus and 29er wheels in? I'd love to be able to be able to throw on some small wheels when I want a poppy and playful bike, and then swap to 29er wheels and tweak my suspension for the all day epic rides.

Furthermore, while I understand that in racing were every second counts, small, incremental changes can make the difference between standing on the podium or not, but especially in our sport where the terrain, style of riding, and skill level make so much more of a difference than these incremental changes, I'd much rather see standards limited to changes that are universally, objectively better. Take 29er DH bikes. Perhaps in a year or two everyone will be on wagon wheels but after all the fuss and "27.5 is dead" talk at the start of the year, Gwin is sitting on top again. Some tracks are better for certain wheels. Just like in auto racing, every week the teams adjust gearing, aero, tire pressures etc - and every year there's a new formula one car, but we don't see all of that getting shoe-horned into the models consumers buy right away. The good stuff trickles down, the fads fade away.
  • + 1
 ok, as a tall guy, i would LOVE an XL frame designed from scratch. I know it cost company's money to do that, but it simply doesn't work that well for a big guy to ride a bike designed in size medium and simply adapted somehow for the other sizes.
  • + 1
 With all the brilliant minds within the industry is there no way that when these new “standards” (Used very loosely) that they also introduce some way of making the outgoing “standard” compatible with the newer one with spacers etc? There’s nothing worse than knowing that all of your old components, especially wheelsets since most spend quite a lot of money on them, are now completely useless and not even worth a penny reselling. I know manufacturers really don’t care about the second hand market, but surely allowing for this could increase the amount of frame only sales they would make, as people could afford to buy that and reuse all of their perfectly serviceable componentry on their brand new frames. Consumers are happy because they get the opportunity to upgrade to the latest bling bling without a second mortgage and manufacturers are happy because it’s cash money in their pockets. My 0.02 ????
  • + 1
 Wow, 400+ comments already. I don't chime in much and didn't read them all, but there is really only one way to reach the people running these companies. Let's face it, money talks. We are buying these products, even though we all complain about the ever changing "standards" that aren't standard. They (the bike companies) pretend to listen to us and hear our concerns, but yet the money keeps flowing in. They must be on to something. The only way the people guiding these decisions will clue in to how seriously pissed the consumers are is when we stop purchasing them. Imagine, if we absolutely didn't buy any new shit for 6 months... Cash flow is a real issue and they will take note of shit sales.

As cyclists in general, we are wildly counter culture (insert your stigma here) etc, we love to be independent. But we have to come together as a whole to stop the bullshit "innovations" that just complicate, intimidate, and piss people off. My mom always said it's better to be pissed off than pissed on, but right about now I feel like I've been showering in the piss of innovations for years. When will it stop?
  • + 1
 vanillagorrilla99: I appreciate your point however reading through so much of this I see a theme that I don't like that is vote with your wallet if you don't like it don't buy it but that's ineffective and clearly didn't work for a large portion of the industry. That's not a solution people didn't like 27.5 and all the as$holes said you don't have to buy it if you don't like it then it doesn't effect you. Yes it did millions of perfectly good parts were scrapped to get you to buy new shit. And as for all of us coming together to fight change name for me the last time that happend I've been at it a long time and can't remember a time the industry or group of riders stood up against a new standard. Finally I like your idea lets all stop buying for six months.
  • + 1
 There are 142-148 adapters. Crank I don't think will work which is really annoying. Obviously there needed to be some change for fat tire bikes to evolve but for the rest of us still running a normal 27.5 or 29 trail bike its bullshit that we don't have the option to use old parts on new frames.
  • + 5
 I wish they would have a standard on cycling shoes sizes.
  • + 1
 Standardize foot sizes!
  • + 1
 @Vernon Felton

Currently I prefer to run 142x12 rear and either 20mm or 15mm front (most hubs are able to be changed with low cost easily). I think we can all agree that thru axles are way better and should stay. Me personally am invested in 6 sets of Chris king Hubs (non-boost) and possibly cannot use them on future boost frames unless there is a conversion like other brands have. Somewhat frustrating as these hubs are expensive and will hinder any future builds of mine.

With that said I have a DH bike with 150x12 rear, this requires a wider hub shell and different axle so its a whole different rear hub. Since most trail bikes now are 27.5 and so are most newer DH bikes it would be nice to be able to have cross compatibility between the 2. Given that boost is 148x12 (2mm shorter then 150mm and 6mm wider then 142mm) why not settle on boost for all bikes? which would allow compatibility between bikes.

For cranks I am not sure how I feel since RF allows you swap spindles which is very nice so you could use on a DH or trail bike. Shimano though you cannot but cranks should be used as intended so maybe that answers that.
  • + 1
 When you look at the spacing of the cassette and the rotor, 150x12 is not 2mm wider than 148. It is 9mm wider. 148 without an extra 3.5mm of endcap sticking into each dropout (which 150x12 does not have) is 141mm. There are actually a couple bikes with Boost AND quick release. The cassette, flange, and rotor are all in the same place as Boost 148, but the axle length is 141mm.
  • + 1
 @notenduro: 148, 150, 142 is the dropout spacing. For example you do not measure the part the slides into the frame on 135 axle, if you did it would be more like 142 since they are about 3.5mm each side. This is why what you are talking about is 141mm not 148mm.

www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

The 141mm is a cheaper version of boost which the end to end measurement would be 148 (2mm less then 150mm on a thru alxe frame) so low end frames retain the same chainline and such. You can change the caps to use on a boost thru axle frame. Personally I would not buy a Trail bike with this odd ball spacing as a QR is more flexible. For road disk maybe it could make sense because your hubs could be used on a trail bike.

www.bikerumor.com/2016/04/15/soc16-marin-shows-pine-mountain-1-ushers-new-141mm-boost-qr-dropouts

My point is that why not make DH bikes with boost and forget about 150mm? Even if you had a bike with the boost QR, you could buy the end caps for thru axle and run it on another bike with standard boost. Most hubs now cannot convert to boost without buying a whole new hub. I just like cross compatibility.
  • + 3
 I would like to see more thought put into "backward compatibility" when new standards are created.

Apologies if someone else has already brought it up.
  • + 1
 How important is backward comparability? I contend the frame and component manufacturer's deemphasis of this has done a wide dis-service.

Is a 6mm wider hub really worth pissing off those who have invested as much as $3,000 in wheels that are now ocean fill if they want to buy a new frame? All you've done is lock folks into not upgrading. That's not good for anyone.

If manufacturer X wants to make their new frame with new standard Y for the Z% improvement, consider the benefit to the industry of offering an option for backward comparability. It's really not infeasible to have dropout or brake mount options or adapters for this new standard Y.
  • + 1
 I believe the industry is getting exactly what they want with the new standards. It has created drama and discussion as shown by the length of this comment page. You can't buy any better marketing then this.

As for the consumer frustration. I think it is over rated. If you want to build a stable of bikes with compatible wheels, cranks etc.. its possible. I think some of the standards are unnecessary, and I haven't spent any of my money supporting them. Don't like press fit BB? then don't buy it. I never thought 15mm front hubs were worth my money either. Maybe my tastes will change one my next build.
  • + 1
 Minute changes are dishonest and ruin the credibility of the biking industry. I know it's a business but dramatic improvements are the only things that justify purchases. Hub standards are just another way for many bike makers to prop up poorly designed suspension.
  • + 1
 I'm sorry I entered this discussion late and do not know if this question has already been asked.

Can the panel/group envisage some benefits to non e bike riders from current efforts to develop standardised ebike products. I know there is considerable debate regarding whether ebikes should be viewed as a bicycle at the moment, but this is not what I am alluding to.

For example recent stronger stiffer products (ebike fox 36 and sram ex drive) have been released and will there be a corresponding change to standards to meet ebike needs that will be of benefit to non motorised mountain bikers. I'm guessing yes.

Apologies in advance I'm half way thru my second bottle of wine and this has been a challenge to get this far.
  • + 1
 I would really like to see a return to a "no bullshit" style of bike building. I understand change for the sake of improvement, but how does having 100 different bottom bracket standards make a bike better? Often times stupid revisions like that make a bike worse and end up hurting the consumer all for a very marginal short term gain for the manufacturer. I also understand that collaboration between manufacturers is largely a pipe dream, but what about collaboration through the component makers? If frame makers agreed to confer with component makers before making a standards change wouldn't that weed out most of the stupid ideas?
  • + 1
 I missed this article because I haven't logged on in a few days. Thank you Vernon and CK for trying to address this. I have a few thoughts if you folks don't mind... I started seriously riding Mtb late in my adult life right around the time the ever changing standards thing started heating up. I'd wanted to get into it for over a decade but life was really really in the way. So that being said the bikes I lusted after we're actually old school bikes. Yeah I really loved those old Bedford made Cannondales, being from PA and all. As it turned out money being a factor and everyone having upgrade fever I was able to obtain a pair of these old bikes a HT and a dear friend who used to race for CDale back in the day gifted me a basically NOS Raven frame. I built that bike up in 2014 with the best parts I could get. 140mm Lefty max fork, a custom made shock, (yes you can get those) Hope brakes, Race face turbine, i9 hubs, XTR etc. you get the idea. I even managed to fit a Thomson dropper to it. That bike is still my everyday trail bike to this day. PA has lots of gnar and it goes through it just fine. So last year for Christmas my wife got a CC Bronson because she didn't want a "girly" bike she wanted a badass bike. She got one. So I have on a regular basis been able to ride hopped up old school and more or less latest and greatest new school. Here's my thought on changing standards. Quality is what counts. Neither bike rides like a dog. They are just different requiring different handling skills and a different type of riding finesse. You need different body English riding VPP suspension than you do single pivot. Smaller wheels handle better on tight twisty techy low speed single track. Bigger wheels and slacker HA rips on wider faster stuff. Clutch derailleurs are great in keeping the chains quiet but they don't shift as buttery as older non clutch. They just don't. I have little to no problem with chain drop on either bike. A high quality chain cut to the correct length matters. Setup of your gear matters. All hubs should be easily rebuildable. Glad they did away with QR wheel skewers any of that leftover road bike stuff sucks. Glad it's gone. The industry should stop trying to compare all its frames in two dimensions. "Climbs like a mountain goat on crack and goes downhill like a puma with a rocket up its ass!" No they don't. Everything is a compromise. They should build different frames to do different things and list them for what their intention is. Just come to Philly and ride Belmont plateau and you'll very quickly see how important quick turning and the ability to go up and over large obstacles is. So bike frame geo should be based on the type of riding you'll mostly do. Trust me EC trails ain't the same as the PNW. Both are great but different. Requiring different frame geo and handling characteristics. Why didn't UST rims become a standard??? My old Mavic EN821 rims were the bomb. No rim tape! Broken spoke? Just unthread it from the little bushing thing and install a new one. No tire removal, no need to retape the rim, etc. just change the damn spoke. 1x drive trains are great but they require more maintenance in terms of chain ring and cassette replacement. No it's impossible to keep a textbook perfect chainline on one of those. Everything is a compromise. Sometimes the compromise benefits outweigh the drawbacks. But the industry touting things as perfect this year and shit last year is BS. One standard that the industry really really really should move to is the god damn gear box. 1x 2x or ancient 3x external drivetrains are stupid on mtbs! Road bikes? Fine. They only get ridden on glass smooth surfaces. Take a three foot blind drop and have your derailleur come down on a rock? Kiss that one goodbye. I'm on my third derailleur this year. It's like you've got this space age wonder machine that can carry a person through any kind of terrain and then you hang this cable actuated chain thingy off the side that looks like it would've been really high tech back in WW1! The bike industry has no desire to start using gear boxes. Hey all you little frame makers out there. Start making some frames with pinion gear boxes!!! C'mon! My dream bike frame would be a fully with VPP or Orange type single pivot, pinion gear box drive. And while you're at it. Fix the wheel and tire problem. It's disgraceful to see the work of so many top racing pros and their crews get thrown away over a busted rim and flat tire. I've gone through three sets of rims on my builds too. Santa Cruz seems to be on to something with its new carbon rims. We need strong rims that have just the right amount of tensile strength give for the curves. My old trail bike keeps going through the gnar as does my wife's gorgeous pink Bronson. They just do it with different style! Quality and durability, rebuildabilty is what counts. Little bike companies stop competeing so hard against each other. Form a quild and take on the big guys. Peace, out.
  • + 1
 From a user perspective, press-fit bottom brackets are atrocious. When used in frames using internal cable routing that require bottom racket removal to change cables on, for example, the bb must be ponder out; this is insane. It is far too easy to damage parts this way. This issue aside, the number of bikes I've encountered with creaking press fit bottom brackets is staggering. This includes some being ridden by pros. The interface is inferior to threaded in practice, and many riders are already specifying BSA threaded shells for custom bikes. A few brands have started to spec threaded again. Please, let's go back to threads, whatever diameter, I don't really care.
  • + 1
 My opinion:
-20x110mm hubs boost or not. 15mm was a mistake.
-threaded bb 73 or 83mm pressfit is/was unnecessary and only brought headaches
-142mm rear hubs are fine and if we want stiffer wheels we can mess around with asymmetric rims and rear triangles to achieve that. The Hope bike and Cannondale have showed us that. Yes 150mm/157mm hubs already exist but I think narrower rear ends is better.
-31.8mm handlebars. 35mm seems to be another waste of time. I understand the premise but this constant race for stiffer and stiffer bikes is just silly. Motogp and other forms of racing have found out that a degree of flex is good. The old style Fox 40 lowers were stiffer than the current generation.
-seatposts are coming down to 31.8 or 30.9mm after many years of all sorts of different sizes.
-transmission should also be an area with fewer variations! 22/24/30mm crank axles, 3arm, 4arm, direct mount cranks! We don't need all that and then have a million bb variations to go with that!
I like the direct mount chainring idea as it allows you to choose your chainring size without worrying about whether or not it will fit! E.g. Shimano 1x cranks can't take a chainring smaller than 30T.
-Also settle down on the 10/11/12/13? speed cassettes! Soon we will get yet another freehub and it won't be compatible with current hubs!!!

I look forward to the day when bike geometry stabilizes and different bikes will just come with different spec and different suspension systems.

I really hope this meeting will allow brands to come with a consensus and we won't have to suffer any more "standards"!
  • + 1
 Looking forward to the new 26" wheels. They will be so reactive. In fact, i heard they are going to be on the brand new 20x110 axle standard!

I have a yeti 575, which is old but very functional. I have an old lyrik on it. It has a Giant dropper post. It has kind of been my way to hide from the drama of changing standards, and yet when I jumped on my brother's 2017 kona for a go-round i found the ride height, responsiveness, and geo to be such an improvement it broke my heart. The conclusion I have come to is that if you buy a new bike every 10 years it will have all new bits and bobs and it will feel new and different and you will be impressed, but it means you can't do a ton of upgrading year over year (with the exception of the yari to lyrik because unlike fox RS make's their stuff reverse compatible.)
This means the real victims here are not cyclists. It is component manufacturers, So much so that the shifting standards could kill a small manufacturer.

Also, for those who think the manufacturers should make big steps, I feel like maybe you are forgetting how people saw the 20x110 axle back in the days of qr forks. It was thought to be for FR and DH use only. no xc rider would have touched it. It was by degrees: 15x100 then 15x110 that suddenly xc riders see the value of a tortionally stiff front end. ALso when they phased in that change the Enduro aspect of the sport was very young. The big companies did not know that 6" travel bobbers would take over the market. Remember the kona coiler? The Iron horse yakuza? 45+lbs with 20mm axle single crown forks that weighed 7+lbs. Back then they never could have guessed that long legged trail bikes would weigh under 30lbs.
  • + 1
 I think its fine to have all the standards and changes. It's harder to differentiate in today's market and if everyone has to use proprietary parts let it happen.

Look at the automotive world, Mercedes and Honda can't use most of their part interchangeably but they cater to different customers looking for different things. For aftermarket parts brands have to cater to both of these people when applicable and it is a risk of how many they need to make. That part sucks for smaller companies that can't make 15 different options but it leaves the opportunity for companies to specialize their offerings for certain brands.

If this does happen to the bike industry it might be cool to see bikes like the Marin Hawk Hill becoming the Honda Civic equivalent of bikes and a Santa Cruz Hightower becoming the BMW M5. I think this may lower the cost of entry to the sport and get more people on bikes and will give brands at the high end the ability to push the boundaries even if it doesn't match what everyone else is doing.

Just trying to spin the "evolution" of standards into a positive
  • + 1
 Why don't you build modular parts that are planned to support the next 5 or 10 years of development? This way, the customers could only have to buy the "upgrade kit" in order to adapt their bike to the new stuff instead of having a hole new bike.
  • + 5
 20x110 and 12x150. Best standart ever! Enuff said!!! Razz
  • + 2
 Couldn't agree more!!
  • + 1
 Since boost is here to stay. Can the industry at least do the following:

1) We don't need more than three hub standards. Period.

2)Dump 157 dh. Its pointless and does nothing tangible, when compared to Super Boost Plus 157.

3) For the love of god, just call it Boost 157!.....
  • + 4
 The super boost plus moniker was actually an intentional jab at boost spacing by pivot bikes when they released the switchblade. Undeniably not a particularly funny joke given that they are becoming the butt of their own joke when even component manufacturers are coming forward to talk about the ridiculous rate of change.
  • + 1
 Lots of new standard claim to increase stiffness.

Firstly, lets have some independent testing to prove this is the fact. Some simple *ag packet calcs I've performed show Boost increase spoke component of lateral wheel stiffness by 5%. Add in stiffness from rim, flexier fork crown, tyres... And the overall effect is likely to be two tenth of f*ck all! But it's a relatively complex system and some real world values could easily be achieived by simple lab tests. These result should be published. Thie will help blow a lot of bollox standard out of the water.

Secondly who said stiffness is better. A bit of compliance is good in my opinion. Increased stiffness is just a nice metric for marketing!

I'd love Pinkbike, or any ma, to do an article; get an old Cannondale Prophet with all the best component from the same era. And compare to a modern bike. I think it may weigh a bit more for equivalent capability, but I think it would be equivalent capability! Certainly only marginal gains at best!
  • + 1
 I still ride my ChisKing 135QR, 26". You don't need more for CC and trail ride. The funny thing is though: about a month ago I rode a 110km trail (BEAC MAXI 110 in Hungary) and at one of the check point an old lady noticed and asked:" Why do you have smaller wheel than the others?". I was surprised and answered:" Because I am not in rush...".
Think it again: bigger wheel, bigger hub, bigger everything. Why? To be faster? Riding is not work where you want to be done quickly...
  • + 1
 MY BIKE IS A 2012 SPECIALIZED CAMBER COMP 26: recon tk silver,100/135mm qr axles, straight steerer, 3x9 drivetrain, 26 inch wheels. But, do i still love riding it and put down some fast times on my home trails against newer, better equipment? YESSSS!!!!!! phooey to standards its still about whos riding it. but i really do want a new trail/enduro bike!
  • + 1
 I don't care about new standards because i can't afford and I'm not interested in buying new components as son ad they are released. Whether or not 6 mm make a difference, bike companies have the right to create new standard to pursuit profit. Issues would come up if old parts weren't available anymore, but it's not the case as for now. This meeting is a great idea and truly needed for the industry of course, but I think that as a consumer it doesn't concern me much.
  • + 1
 "I don't care about new standards because i can't afford and I'm not interested in buying new components as son ad they are released"... "but I think that as a consumer it doesn't concern me much."

So you're saying you don't care what food tastes like, cos you don't eat that often? You gotta eat sooner or later.

If there are a dozen standards, buying old stock or used parts down the line will not be easier, it will be harder as whatever is available will only be compatible with 1/12th of whatever else is around.
  • + 1
 @DownhillDoozy: I get your point and I partially agree. I was referring more about how little I can do against bike company's business
  • + 1
 In my opinion, this issue of "standards" is symptomatic of what the industry is doing to itself. They are really losing touch with the bulk of their market, and their channel to that market. Specifically on the lack of or evolving standards, the best may not win, just what happens to get the most into the market.
Think of Sony and the Betamax. Arguably the better technology of the day, but in their greed, they forced the market in another direction, and that platform went the way of the dodo, at the expense of the early adopters.

If current trends continue, the LBS will take it on the chin, only having access to bikes that no-one can afford, and they won't be able to keep any parts inventory, because every part has become obsolete. As no standard is being maintained, this limits the ability of the aftermarket to respond and/or keep-up, which may be the strategy of the big brands, but the big brands have been traditionally been horrible at aftermarket support. The big-box retailers will still be peddling crap, pushing the volume numbers that the big bike brands only wish that they could find any way to tap, and haven’t any clue why as they remain that out of touch. Shooting the gap will be some direct to consumer on-line bikes will come in to fill the resulting void, putting yet another nail in the coffin of the LBS, and with no-one left the service bikes (or to do it affordably), all bikes then become disposable.

The industry needs some consensus, and to embrace the high-end and high-volume aftermarket companies. They already depend on them to get to market. Find a way to sustain this market and the sports we love, and the retail partners that make it possible, rather than forcing its evolution into something that it isn’t.

Our last remaining hope, may be boutique brands and hand-made bikes, as the main-stream bikes push to higher price points they are becoming more competitive. Perhaps they will partner with (or start one) components manufacturers, to keep some sanity in these component “standards” and eat the big brand’s lunches by bringing us better bikes, that we can actually own, ride, and maintain for years to come.
  • + 1
 Here's my perspective, for what it's worth, and it was published, in part, in the Oct. '17 issue of Mountain Bike Action in the "TrailGrams" section titled "No More Standards!" by the editor. It was in response to Mike Wirth's editorial "Quit Reinventing the Wheel" that he published in the July '17 issue of Mountain Bike Action:

"... Your July ’17 'For What It’s Worth' was great! I completely agree with your perspective about how the new 'standards' in mountain bicycling are causing perplexity for riders (and bicycle dealers). Your example of the different wheel standards was a good case-in-point. Thanks for having the courage to recognize what is happening to our beloved sport.

The bicycle mfg. industry, like many other industries, is addicted to the “myth of more is better” paradigm, so it’s unlikely they will ever embrace 'enough.' Yes, change is constant, but it’s become more about bikestyle creep (similar to lifestyle creep)—as the measure of status, acceptance and performance. It would be disingenuous on my part not to admit that I’ve also gotten caught up in the bike technology quagmire, as over the years I’ve upgraded my bikes and components more than I would like to admit. But your column has caused me to reflect on how I’ve lost my own rationality in this matter.

This unfortunate development reminded me of 'Occam’s Razor,' a problem-solving principle named after the 13th century English philosopher, William of Ockham. The metaphorical 'Razor' in Ockham’s writing is the discipline to shave away unnecessary complexity and to look for simple or practical explanations and applications. In other words, to identify essentials that can be used for practical solutions to avoid complexity.

The rapid obsolescence from the technological changes occurring in mountain biking is frustrating to consumers, as well as to our comprehension of them. How can the do-it-yourself bike mechanic (and LBS mechanic) possibly keep up with the new tools needed alone ...?

Perhaps, it’s time for Occam’s Razor to be applied to the bicycle industry—for the overall benefit of consumers. Otherwise; if the rate of change continues unabated, it will lead to even more frustration for those of us who love the sport for what it is versus just for pure replacement consumption."
  • + 1
 Post geometry, weight, dimentions (ie hub wheel build dimentions, and bikes wheel size) physical attributes, specifications before all the blowhard blah bla blah marketing bs. Far to often i have to wade through flash pages and into the archived to find out basic info; which inteligent and knowledgable people should be using yo make decisions, instead of listening to a buch of professional blowhard media marketing dueches spew literary shit clouds.
  • + 1
 I have been reading all the posts and not one person has said how GREAT the "innovative" standards moving forward is for the poor broke guy like me. Now you think i'm crazy right...I buy off ebay to build my super machine that I could never buy new. This poor guy doesn't have 3,000 to 10,000 to spend however I can buy your rich guy parts at 10% of the original price and have that dream machine I would never be able to buy. So what if i'm 2 years back in time. I say to be American innovative must go on at a fast pace or Japan or China will do it anyway.
  • + 4
 Saying the bike companies don't do this on purpose, strictly for their income potential, is... "Alternative facts"
  • + 2
 Well they are a business at the end of the day, primarily to make a profit.
  • + 1
 The saying was that we need an XD driver for 12 speed, but unless both component manufacturers have said they will never go for more gears in the rear, there will be a YD driver or shimano equivalent and the hubs will change again

The saying was that 29 was the max for a 142 spacing, but with these super boosts, the limit for wheel stiffness will change again.

The saying was that the max travel on good 29ers was 120mm, but now with boost we have bikes like enduro 29 with 160mm of travel

If there are road map items for a larger wheel size/13/14speed, can we make sure that the new axle standard will be compatible?

Please make sure the next standard will be long travel 31in wheel 13 speed compatible.
  • + 1
 Will there be a Hope representative? I would be interested to see the rest of the panel weigh in on the Hope bike to see if any of the "oddities" there might be transferable to new bikes. Symmetrical hubs, radial brake mounts... it makes sense. I am not opposed to wider hubs as I see the benefit of additional stiffness and accommodation for big rubber, but at some point there needs to be a consensus on what the public sees as beneficial rather than a marketing scheme.
  • + 1
 in the end, it's all up to two companies: Shimano and SRAM. They say "NO" an no one else make shit.
What the industry needs is an agreement of the big S's to control longevity of new standars (not the propper word, but anyway) in key areas like hub spacing, something really easy when involving only two companies in pretty equal conditions.
  • + 0
 Its really only a matter of controlling one of the S's. Shimano has a long track record of not releasing products until they are ready for release and also no changing their standards much.
  • + 1
 Add Specialized to that list. If they can't have someone produce their special stuff, they will do it them selves.
  • + 1
 @Startgas: nah, people would never buy whatever the brand if there's only house branded parts available.
  • + 1
 @Squamishboz: hmmmyeah, that's true, one of the big S's is more interested in milking the cow than the other one
  • + 1
 I make my living as a wheelbuilder and when it comes to the "standards" argument I just shake my head and grin. Doesn't matter to me at all. I'll make a living at this regardless of what the current "standard" is. There's a lot of ways to design and build wheels and several ways to make it work well. You can drive yourself crazy debating and trying to decide what the best possible design is, but that seems kind of pointless to me in practical terms. I give advice and opinions to my customers when asked, and the rest of the time I just smile and build whatever they're asking for, even if I think there are better choices out there.
  • + 1
 Each discipline should have its own standard. Simple. Future standards should all be accepted by manufacturers and to see if it can be improved before release. DH front axles should be larger to improve upside down forks. Rear DH Hubs should have wider flanges so a slimmer cassette with 5 gears could be used.
  • + 1
 One thing and one thing only the industry has to make:

END CAPS

No matter how many new hubs and axels you want to come up to, from now on every new hub should have a full compatibility with its predecessors. I can't believe that there's no brand that can engineer end caps to bit a 142 wheel on a 148 frame. Boostinator does help in some cases cleaning up the mess that someone else created.

At 148 I have already scratched the end of the chain stay with my shoe. It's not "ergonomic" anymore.

A narrow hub and symmetrical spoke length.

The 15x110 boost is by far the most disgusting new standard. It gives no difference or what so ever. Furthermore, if you want stiffer you had 20 hubs...
  • + 1
 I'm just stocking up on spares and ignoring what the industry does. "Boost is so much stiffer" blah blah blah hype hype hype.

I'm happy with my bike and ability to service it myself, so I don't really give a sh*t what you fullas say eh.
  • + 3
 They need to BOOST some of the trails instead of the parts. I can barely get my fat ass through some of those skinny sections!
  • + 2
 Simple and as it should have been from the start. 20x110 up front, 150x12 at the back for anything from AM to DH, possibly DJ too. Then XC and wagon wheel can live their lives and play weight whinnies.
  • + 0
 Why stop at 20? And are you sure 12 isn't enough?
Why stop at 110?
Why stop at 150?
  • + 1
 @captaingrumpy: Because over the years those dimensions proved to be plenty enough for DH bikes, is an existing standard that so far allowed me to keep the same set of hubs from frame to frame. Saving money, and less impacting the environment. And if I could transfer me wheels from my DH to my Enduro that would be great too. Companies keep trying to bring more stiffness and yet refuse to go with DH standards, that's ridiculous. At the end of the day the extra g are not really relevant when you keep trying to make a fork or a frame rigid to counter act the weight saving standard. And the boost is just a piss take, I mean sure instead of using 150x12, lets make it 148x12 just to make sure there is no compatibility.
  • + 1
 I will say only this.
In 2010 I bought a new Giant Faith, rear standard was a 150x12mm hub.
The hub was from Forumala Hubs, the model i do not remember probably some generic model.
Important is that the engenieer who designed it used the extra space available on the disc side and moved the spoke flange 6mm compared to DTswiss and other brands at the time in so basicly acheaving "ancient boost"

So now when they shove me with "standards" today i realy regret selling that hub, at least as a reminder that once engineer was an enginneer...
  • + 1
 Real Question: What strategy will the industry adopt around "standards" that will still tempt both Chris King customers, and and the rest of us wage slaves, to open their wallets for new bikes and "upgrades" so that companies maximize profits and riders can feel (temporarily) "satisfied"?

It is a given that the industry wants you to desire and purchase new bikes. The more, the better.

Please feed them the information they need, as they are concerned sales and profits are down with forced boost (and press-in, and plus size's) failure.
  • + 1
 Couple of questions that (in my mind at least) might vary a little from the trends seen in the comments above: in these days with the standards changing every year, at what point do these larger manufacturers start to see diminishing marginal returns on their latest, greatest mountain bike? When engineers are running these companies and pushing for these minimal changes it forces these companies to build tons of brand new molds every year with minimal changes from the molds last year. For one mold a company may spend anywhere from 100k to 500k per mold, multiplied by three sizes (at the very least), that increases overhead cost rather significantly. Speaking as a fitter and salesperson at one of (insert big name brand here) top 10 concept stores in the country, I know that many manufacturers only produce a VERY small handful of each size - less than 10 nationwide per size for our flagship trail bike. So if it costs this company half a million or so just in carbon molds, not to mention labor or materials for the frames, and less than 50 bikes are being sold nationwide with a margin of 35 % or so on a 5k bike, the company is still in significant negative numbers when it comes to profit.

Now I'm well aware that for ANY big bike brand, the hybrid and fitness bikes are the real money makers. Those are also the bikes that just one shop could sell 50 of in a month as opposed to 10 in a year compared to a carbon trail bike.

All that to say, when standards change this often as a result of engineering (whether or not you believe it to be half assed is irrelevant for my question) do companies even see any notable profit on these top end bikes? It seems to me that some sort of standard, no matter where it is, would actually lead to better profits, which would allow these companies to spend more of those profits on more tangible, significant improvements, and perhaps most significantly would keep paying customers happy because their parts would no longer become obsolete within two years. When this happens customers get frustrated and dont buy new bikes. Since companies make so much more money on higher margin parts and accessories rather than frames, keeping things more standard would allow companies to profit on upgraded suspension, wheels, drivetrains, etc... for longer as well. Seems like a win win to me.
  • + 1
 I used to change bikes at least once a year but since 2014 I have only changed bikes once.
I would change the frames because the standards were the same and upgrade other parts as of when but now I can't do that as 6 months later the standards are out of date, so I do not change bikes as often.

So my question

Would you be happy if the UCI intervened and put strict standard restrictions in for racing?
  • + 1
 While this is debatable, I always wonder why mtb is so much more unstable "standard"-wise than road. I just bought a new road bike (spooky Mulholland) and everything is pretty much the same as my previous road bike from 2009 save the fork, which is now tapered (a welcome advancement in my opinion). Sure, there are things floating around like direct mount caliper brakes, disc, etc. There is also the suspension nonsense from companies like Specialized (Roubaix), but that stuff is not representative of the category as a whole in the same way that mtb "standards" are. Maybe this will change once pros go to disc, but I imagine the only thing that will change is disc, otherwise spacings and tech will remain the same.

Last year I bought a Process 111, which I love, and has a great wheel set (pro4 to flows). I'd like to be able to use these hubs for the next 10 years without an adapter, but that is probably impossible, and may have been a poor decision on my part. But I wanted a 111. Oh well.
  • + 1
 Planned obsolescence permeates modern industry. Although it kinda pisses me off that it feels like manufacurers are doing everything in their power to make sure your parts are useless after a season, it stimulates the bike industry... More new bikes are sold, tech gets better, bike companies make money. If everyone rode the same bike for 10 years, the bike industry would collapse. Just like the iPhone, you have to string people along and incentivize purchasing a new plastic rectangle that is measurably better. Key word- better. Sure, my garage is filled with obsolete parts, but they still have value to me-mostly the memories attached to them... We need bike companies, and companies need to make profit, so I'll grit my teeth and try to keep up with the new-new. It is the reality of modern business. I just need to learn to throw away my old components and stop hoarding...
  • + 1
 This is a fascinating topic and discussion.
Whilst I appreciate that the industry is indeed just that and focused on profit, I wonder how much cost has been sunk chasing said profits. My questions would be,
1. Which innovations have been most successful for the rider and industry alike? What's resulted in more satisfied owners and better financial outcomes?

2. Which areas of bike design truly warrant further innovation? Either to resolve half step incremental improvements, or fix utterly broken engineering.

3. What are the ratios that are considered when introducing new "standards"? And have they held up? So does the rate of innovation actually bite you all in the rear too as new standards either are superseded more quickly than you expect, or sales uptake is so slow your returns are smaller than forecast?

I must admit having owned 142/12 wheels and never having a problem with them that boost on my new bike felt good, but that could just be new bike stoke.
The 35mm bars on the other hand are purely cosmetic. They're no stiffer, more or less compliant or comfortable.

Looking forward to hearing more on this debate...
  • + 1
 I can't remember for the life of me where I read this, and it was from a manufacturer, but it was that 35mm handlebars REALLY are just for cosmetics, the reason the guy offered was something along the lines of "well, puny 31mm bars looked ridiculous with everything else boosted, so 35mm".
  • + 1
 Incremental changes are one thing, but what makes me sad are new standards that are worse than the ones before them. Example: PM brake mounts on forks and frame. Post mount sucks, you can strip the threads right in the fork/frame, effectively ruining them, and when taking off the caliper and putting it back, you have to recenter it, which on IS you can sidestep by taking off the whole IS-PM adapter.
Also press fit BBs.
  • + 1
 It has been a few years since the move to tapered 1.5'' - 1 1/8'' steerer tubes. Can we expect some 'innovation' in that area? For example 1.75'' - 1 2/8? It would be a great opportunity to make frames incompatible for everyone who just bought a boost/metric frame.
  • + 1
 As consumers, everyone is voicing an opinion and that’s cool, what I see is a larger cost to the industry that we see playing out around the world in regards to the huge number of SKUs and part numbers that are still “relevant” to consumers. The amount of product has expanded 3 fold due to all the new standards, that is an issue for Industry.

The Bike Shop has to cater for such a wide variety of standards, that they now need to stock 25 different styles of BB to cover everyone. That’s probably 20 more than they had 10 years ago, increasing their stock holdings and risk. So they are just not stocking much these days and will order in what they need when they need it, as it’s too damn expensive and hard to cater for everyone off the floor.

The Distros/Brands will be seeing less sell through of their stock due to this. If shops aren’t wanting to hold stock for every SKU then it falls back onto distros/Brands to do so. This should also be a factor in any decision making moving forward I believe. As if they’re now having to hold the syockand risk themselves, this will in turn drive prices higher for the Shop/consumer as well.

This is I believe the bigger problem for everyone, from consumer to brands than if your 6mm wider Hub is stiffer or not.
  • + 1
 Working I in a bike shop it's a right nightmare. You never have the right size item in stock because there is so many sizes and time it take to get the item from the distributor if they have it in stock, the customer can just order it online and they can get it next day 9 times out of 10. Your independent shop has lost a sale again from the big names on the internet with huge warehouses because of another size that could be millimetres different to what you have in stock. I understand the big differences between the wheel sizes but so many hub widths, headsets and BB sizes. It would be easier standardising some sizes and keep LBS in business. Suppose everyone is making a buck somewhere
  • + 1
 The world is moving to a subscription-based model (think cell phone carriers and contracts). Bean counters and stakeholders/stockholders LOVE the subscription-based model; it's guaranteed and reliable revenue. The bike industry cannot do this (it's strictly hardware based, ie. you buy a new bike and it's YOUR BIKE). At this point it certainly feels as if the industry is trying to create a subscription-based model by constantly changing "standards" and marketing the crud out of it ("This latest standard is the must-have, you cannot ride without it!"). Thus, it certainly generates sales. Frankly, I'm absolutely SICK of it. The bike industry is purely hardware based. I wish companies would realize that and figure out a better way to sell bikes. I don't give one "F" about going .25 seconds faster down my normal 4 mile descent. I just bought a new bike this year and already it's "out of date." BS. I'm keeping this one. It may very well be my last simply because I'm fed up with this crap.
  • + 1
 Let me be honest, I happily spend my time at the tail end of technology. It isn't too bad. The bleeding edge sucks because you spend loads for something that's obsolete within a year. At the end of my second year in university (2001) I replaced my 286 (with 5.25" and 3.5" DD disc drives) running MS-DOS 5.0 with a new machine (with linux because all MS Windows machines I touched instantly broke). I think I bought my first cd player in 2003 when the development seemed to have settled a little. Until then I was playing tapes and vinyl only (so indeed I needed someone to copy my new cds to tape for me before I could play them). So yeah, same with bike stuff. I only buy something when the old stuff is broken or if I feel I need a different geometry or so. Which means what I buy needs to be compatible with what I already have. It is no big problem because really, decent 9sp, 26" stuff is still available now that we can buy online. If anything, it sucks for the lbs because obviously they rarely stock what I need. Still, the availability of spares, parts and service will always be what I check before I buy. Be it a power tool, kitchen appliance or bike part. I may be to odd one who actually reads the user manual before buying a product. I wouldn't buy a brake from a company whose older type of brake pads aren't available anymore. Because if that's the case, at some point that will happen to my brakes too. Those who need to be competitive may value the latest and greatest but someone like me who just needs to go out for a blast every other day is better off with something reliable. For my next frame I'm considering either Pinion or Rohloff. I trust if I get one of these, I'll be good for another fair while.

That said, I do think the big component heads need to get together again. This is not uncommon. Dave Weagle once got them together to define ISCG05, Cane Creek once got them together to define a couple of headset standards. Eventually some stuff like the ISIS bottom bracket didn't work out for mountainbiking (though it is still going strong in unicycling because bearings can be bigger there) but yeah it is still worth a shot.
  • + 1
 I do my talking with my wallet... I only spend my money with companies that aren’t pushing crappy products or pointless standards and have some sort of a moral compass. I’ll be adding Chris King to my list of preferred products now and will be watching the outcome of this with interest to rule in and rule out who I give my money. If we all do this (and exercise some patience when working out what to buy) we’ll shape the industry (based on true performance gains) not the other way round despite their best efforts. Then we should see change based on real life performance gains and consumer demand rather than micro gains and bullshit.
  • + 1
 For a while the problem was great, easy online or LBS access to unsold overstock at heavy discount. Now we have a huge understock issue, replacement parts can be hard to come far too soon after you buy your bike (I'm not naming names).

Folks are not making parts in the quantities they used to. Manufacturers are not keeping spare parts inventories (before you troll me, I know there are glorious exceptions to this generalization).
  • + 1
 Broadly speaking, "Standards" aren't going to happen in the modern bike industry but clear concise information sharing can, and attempting to synchronize that information ahead of a new product life cycle should be the goal. Giving the active and concerned players ( riders and retailers) the opportunity to be informed or get informed reduces unnecessary stress or harm in the marketplace.

Diversity of options is absolutely a good thing, so many segments of cycling do require unbridled product development to ensure that discipline can reach for optimizing performance, durability and a positive user experience.
As to the novel ideas of parts compatibility from bike to bike or road to CX to Mtn, those options are limited going forward and live in the rear view mirror.
Without sounding too coachy, find your zone and be great at it, trying to keep up with brand xyz will most certainly bury your true talent. Say no when your gut says so, and dive deep when your heart is in it. The market will reward those who shine clearest.
Good luck with the symposium.
  • + 1
 #1 Bb92 pf go away more trouble than it's worth.
#2 pick a seat tube diameter 31.6 pref
#3 make boost 148 and 142 interchangeable easy or ditch boost. Either 142 or super boost 157 is pref for me
#4 copy hope/motor bikes a go radial brake mounts no more adapter Faff for different calipers and frames.
#5 more grease ports/easy to service bearings. Reduce waste and hassle ect.
That's about it for me.
  • + 1
 It is nice that DH stays the same. My 2012 Trek session 9.9 is 20x110 front, 12x157 rear. Why can't all bikes be like this? as wheels get bigger it makes sense to have wider flanges to keep the wheels stiff. In the ever expanding drive train of 11 speed and now 12 speed you need more space to have a large cassette and well spaced hub flanges. So 157 is making more and more sense in the rear for enduro. When it comes to DH cassettes only need to be 7 speed which frees up a great deal of space, SRAM is just filling it with a spacer. Why are more companies making hubs with wider spaced flanges to take advantage of the space using a 7 speed drive train. The only company that I can think of doing it is E*13 with the LG1R hub. I would like to see more options. Front it is clear 20x110 should be the standard for enduro. Enduro riders are riding the same tracks as DH guys, so it makes sense that they need the same stiffness and support. 20x110 front, 12x157 rear done and done
  • + 1
 1) The industry is chasing marginal gains. The components and bikes are so good that changing design standards is required.

2) Marketing! There is now a perfect bike for every rider, for every terrain in every manufacture/marketing company catalogue.

3) People buying new bikes because they want/need it.

= Cash money!
  • + 1
 Engineers should keep tinkering to make things better but they need a non-engineer to remind them that 3% increase in stiffness from a 6-10mm change is not worth the 1000’s of dollars the customer has to shell out so they can keep up with available components isn’t worth it. Also all these changes means new molds/tooling. Change is expensive and it’s about time the bike industry start innovating ways to make the sport cheaper without having to ride a $3k bike that has a boat anchor drivetrain and garbage suspension.
  • + 1
 Bottom line: consumers don't trust bike companies. Why? Because they suck at R&D. Because they release every single little improvement along the way from one standard to another. We didn't need 142X12 as a half-step between 135X9 and Boost 148 just like we didn't need 150mm spacing or 157mm, or whatever the hell Super Boost Plus 157mm is. But bike companies half-assed it and here we are complaining about it.

Giant makes over 5X as many models of bikes as Apple has products in their ENTIRE product line up if you ignore the Apple Watch fashion accessory, all the while Apple made 100X as much revenue as Giant in 2014 and has a Market Cap that's roughly 10X bigger. Why pick on Giant? Because there's no bigger bike company on the planet. The bigger problem is that Santa Cruz makes 12-15 more product models than Apple does total, which should tell you everything you need to know.

The mess of consumer distrust that the mountain bike industry finds itself in is totally due to their own mismanagement of their business and affairs. So when the "industry" hears people complaining about "standards," what they need to understand is that the word "standard" is actually a stand-in for "trust." As in your consumers don't trust you.

This is what happens when the vast majority of high-end consumers involved in a market fetishize the "engineer" over anyone else. Mountain biking needs 1/4 of the engineers it currently has and probably 5X as many product managers and planners. Why? Because this cycle of idiocy needs to end and engineers are responsible for it. Remember: Santa Cruz produces more bike models than Apple produces iPhone, iPad, laptop, desktop, and Apple TV models COMBINED. And Santa Cruz is held up as an example of a mountain bike company that does everything from standards to models right. Fact is they're better than most, which isn't saying much.

Bike companies: Learn how to say NO. Learn when to say NO. And it's time for engineers to stop being in charge. They've gotten it too wrong, too often.

Finally, bike consumers need to stop being idiots. Stop buying crap you don't need. Stop buying a new bike every other year. Stop being a consumerist tool and stop being a trendwhore. Don't like it? Don't buy it. And stop worrying about resale value, whether or not your bike is "obsolete," and just go ride. Stop talking about gear and start talking about experiences, new trails, trips, whatever. Hell, maybe try caring more about your damn shorts and shirt so you look like less of a tool, are more comfortable, and ride better.

It's not about the damn bike.
  • + 1
 In my humble opinion there is no need for a level of standardization IF the bike and component manufacturers keep supporting what they have developed. @arphia @ChopchopUk and @RWM5772 I totally agree with the level of frustration that everybody is echoing, and concur that backwards compatibility, and an industry promise to support products for a minimum of 10 years would go along way to reassuring all of us that the bike industry is not just changing standards to create fatter profit margins.

I ride a 2006 specialized Enduro and like @mhoshal stated previously the biggest reason that I need to buy a new bike is that I cannot get an updated, straight 1 1/8th steerer fork. This is a very frustrating and expensive situation to be put in, but it's not the hub spacing that is causing the problem. I had no trouble getting my local LBS to build me a rear wheel with a new 10x135 hub. Hub spacing is a pain but it's easily the most supported aspect of MTB'ing, try finding a new fork with a 1 1/8th straight steerer tube. I made one call to @SramMedia (ROCKSHOX) and the guy literally laughed at what I was asking. So while I thank Chris King for hosting a round table to discuss the future of MTB specs, I really hope that they are going to cover more than hub spacing.

So I guess If I had to ask one real question it would be: "Why has it taken so long for this conversation to happen?"
  • + 1
 I would propose:

1: Maximum of three sets of standards for disc hubs, BBs, etc., being road, dirt, and fat. There will be crossover, with XC racing bikes using road parts and road tandems using dirt parts, but let's keep it to three. And let's try to skip ahead a generation, while we're at it.

2. Hubs or axles that can handle torque, such as the SRAM Torque Cap or Manitou's Hex Lock.

3. Offset frames and forks for better symmetry of spoke bracing angles. Offset them by the width allocated to the rotor.

4. Simplify disc caliper spacers by using only "+10 mm", "+20 mm", etc.

5. Freebodies that make use of the space inside cassettes, such as the Kappius design. Perhaps a road standard that would accept a minimum 25 T sprocket (does anyone still use an 11-23 cassette?) and a dirt standard that would have a minimum 40 T.

6. Integrated dropper posts. Something along the lines of the Eightpins and KS Genesys designs is the way forward, but will only be adopted if we can agree on a diameter and mounting standard.

I'll take a guess at some standards we could live with for several years. They're burlier than the current norms and seem like overkill, but things always go that direction, so let's extrapolate beyond current needs:

Front hub:
- Road: 110 x 15 mm (current Boost).
- Dirt: 120 x 25 mm. It's conceivable this could be spaced down to the road/XC race standard with end caps.
- Fat: I don't know what you people need. Maybe 180 mm x 25 mm?

Rear hub:
- Road: 142 x 12 mm with maximum flange spacing.
- Dirt: 157 x 15 mm. Super Boost with a slightly larger axle. Or maybe wider, if we decide to put the outermost bearing on the drive side outboard of the cassette.
- Fat: How about 180 x 25 again to keep things simple?

BB:
Pressed-in bearings can work, but threaded systems have been a lot easier to live with, are easier to manufacture, and frame designers can still maximize pivot spacing.

Chainline:
Centre it on the cassette. Current chainlines are offset to the outside for added tire clearnace, which is why we can’t backpedal in the largest sprocket. With offset frames, we can maintain tire clearance and improve chainline.
  • + 1
 I had just as much fun on my bike when the standards were just that; STANDARD.
Yes, I love improvements, but every year I don't buy a bike, some new "standard" comes and goes.
It seemed for a time in the industry that great minds were coming together and agreeing on a standard, (disc brake mounting tabs, aheadsets, 1 1/8" etc. not going off madly in all directions.
The incompatibility issue really confused me when I first got into the dirtbike world as well, it is unnecessary and limits transferability of parts between riders when something breaks. I see the same thing happening with mountain bikes now.
  • + 1
 Hey Bike Industry.... You just lost a few thousand dollars from me due to your schizophrenic standards.
About a year ago I was lusting after a new Carbon AM frame to replace my 20mm TA 26in 142x12 bike.
What's a BB30 vs BB90?
142 or 148?
15x100?
15x110?

Finally I threw up my hands and said to myself, Hey... My current bike still runs great. F' It... I'm gonna buy a new truck instead.
  • + 1
 I can see the positive aspect with wider hubs and I for one would like to see boost becoming the standard standard if you know what I mean. But I also do belive that DH should have their own hubs for more rigidity, so where does that leave us? Two types of width on MTB hubs. (if you're not counting fatbike that is)
In my opinion as a bike mechanic and MTB enthusiast, that would be great.
Thanks for taking your time reading my comment, have a nice day!
  • + 1
 With modern-day CNC machines it is so easy to Crunch a few numbers and start a new standard. I guess if you don't like what the industry offers you Pony up and buy yourself a CNC and make your own stuff. That would be the ultimate solution to the problem and tell everyone to piss off.
  • + 1
 I would be happy if we all got used to home fabrication and having parts made/ modified etc instead of relying solely on cheesey bits of overpriced, anodised crap.
  • + 2
 @ThomDawson: just think of the amount of cool stuff you can fabricate for the price of one overpriced ever-changing Modern BS. Come on state-of-the-art 3D carbon printers where are you?
  • + 1
 How well does the industry know their customers? Do they even care? Do they know their customers purely from revenue gain/metrics perspective, or do they know their consumers from a ground level/eyes to the ground/what really works from a functionality and TRUE need perspective? IMHO, the bike industry AT BEST doesn't know their customers, and at worst, THEY DON'T CARE. It is unfortunate that the industry has to hit a down turn for companies to wake up and listen to the MANY PEOPLE WAITING ON THE SIDELINES BEFORE BUYING ANOTHER BIKE OR MAJOR PART.
  • + 1
 I like the new stuff coming out, but I don't like how so many of the same style bikes have different spacings. like if you wanted to just get a new frame you pretty much have to buy new hubs and fork also
  • + 1
 How come we don't have a gearbox that isn't actuated by a stupid grip shift? We have electronic shifting! You're telling me we can't mate that tech up to a gearbox and put the battery inside of the gearbox?
  • + 1
 Of course they can , but that's too durable, and you wont need to buy another one 1 year from now, so theres no long term profit. That's why Shimano and Sram wont sell you one. (We all know they have fully functional prototypes tucked away.)
  • + 1
 Keep doing what you're doing and make small changes but can you also provide a clear "layman's terms" spec sheet to explain what advantages your widget has over the current and previous "common" widgets.
  • + 1
 I'm totally good with the industry rolling out new standards every other week, but while you've got everyone in the same room could you check to see if anyone wants to cut me a sponsorship deal? Thanks PB!
  • + 1
 Can we see some unified naming systems? Half the trouble of BB standards is each is named different.

Get rid of "super boost" but tell me

end-cap-to-spokes/spokes-to-spokes/spokes-to-end-cap

please?
  • + 1
 Im ok with new standards as long as they actually bring a measurable improvement in performance. Half of these new standards are nothing but snakeoil to keep selling "new" things to gullible buyers.
  • + 0
 i wish they would put all there efforts into things that make a huge difference.
ie a replacement/alternative to the exposed chain/rear mech/cassette situation one that actually works doesn't cost a bomb & is not 4kg rather than how we can increase wheel rear end stiffness 5% of which none of us mere morals can actually feel
yes I know there is pinion and others but there rather boutique lets have just a small percentage put in other more important areas

why can I have 4 rear hub options yet dropper posts the best invention since the disc brakes are still unreliable
why can I custom tune my rear shock right down to my last meal yet it weezers like a pig after 100 hrs riding
why does EVERY single manufacturer spec an xt mech yet fits the worse sealed headset bearings known to man (or women)
the mtb world is slowly loosing its routes and instead is been driven by the wrong people
ist time we took our sport back and let us tell them what we need instead of them making what they think we need
  • + 0
 @vernonfelton The bike industry does not have the same set of standardization guidelines that organizations such as the IEEE or ISO regulate. Shouldn't it be time for the mtb industry to agree on standard builds (e.g. axle length) and have a 5-year (or longer) lock prior to proposing changes?
  • + 1
 Boost was created to improve wheels' stiffness. But why are some manufacturers not using it, prefering to use instead :
>offset stays like Cannondale
>symmetrical bracing like American Classic
?
  • + 1
 Syntace and Liteville are using the EVO6 symmetrical rear wheels for a few years now. I have a Liteville 101 with a symmetrical 29" rear wheel and it certainly feels stiffer than the 27.5" 142 asymmetrical I have on the other bike... Why more brands aren't using it, no clue. I hoped (for my own sake) that EVO6 would pick up like the syntace X-12 axel did a few years ago but it isn't quite happening yet...
  • + 3
 Changing hub standards is my excuse for poor riding skills. Don't take that away from me.
  • + 1
 I like this guy's attitude ^^^
  • + 0
 Really, the problem is YOU, consumer! You keep buying this shit they're putting out, so they keep selling it. I'm mostly pointing at Americans but really anybody who's buying this crap every season, or every other season, it's you're own fault. Don't cry about it. You vote with your dollar, and you are continuing to vote for new standards every year. Try this... don't buy a new bike? Don't buy shit. That's how you stick it to them. duh. Tell your friends.
  • + 0
 so your saying when both my bikes get clapped out beyond being worth spending money on to keep running, i should just not buy a new bike? i mean boost is f*cking dumb, i bought my 650b trail bike right before boost came out so finding wheel sets is f*cking impossible, but what else am i supposed to do?
  • + 3
 Let's all agree on how to properly measure tire size>>>>>. The discrepancy from company to company is crazy
  • + 1
 Ya it was sure fun to find out that trek put 22.5 internal width rims on my 2017 Remedy when everyone else is going with wide rims and bigger tires... seems like they were trying to get rid of old stock..
  • + 2
 Why not develop a standard for making asymmetric rear triangles?
Super Boost Plus seems to make the spoke tension LESS even. The old DH standard could build stronger wheels.
  • + 0
 Bike companies bean counters are not trying to screw us with non-compatible "innovations"? Really? That, by definition, is exactly what the 1x craze is all about. We went from 2x and even 3x with 22 plus gear ranges down to 11 or 12, with the latter 12 spd compacts having gear jumps from 42 to 50? (The SRAM 12 spd cassette 11-50). An eight tooth gear jump---yeah, very useful on a tough hill. What a f@#^g joke. Or maybe I am wrong, so someone please explain to me why after years of limited gear choices (remember 7sp cassettes), that we are now told to believe that it is "innovative" to sell a top of the line MTB bike with only 11 or 12 gears. I mean did I miss something regarding those evil front derailleurs, so that we needed to purge them from our bikes. Electronic shifting, disc brakes, better carbon frames and then one giant leap backwards for gear choice, as if the laws of physics have some how "improved" and all those reasons for upping the gear count have been undone. Good grief. Clowns.
They are even now selling top of the line 1x MTBs with frames that you cannot add a front cassette to. (which is new for this year for a few makers). Previously they at least built the frame with the little direct mount screw hole in place. Now, nada.
There are going to be so many used 1x for sale in a couple years..............And the next time I hear someone say they "upgraded" their MTB by going from a 1x to a 2x..................
  • + 1
 I think you need to give 1x setup with a clutched rear derailleur a go? Ive been running a 1x on my trail bike for over ten years to keep that chain on them gears. Back then you needed to run a chain guide with a bottom pulley and were limited to 32 teeth on your cassette. I run an equally sturdy setup today without the chain guide and with 46 teeth on my cassette. It's pretty damn sweet! 1x is less weight, less parts to break, and I personally can't think of what I would do with more than a 500% gear range. A good 1x setup is one of the best innovations in mountain biking in the last 10 years in my opinion.
  • + 1
 @pinknugget: I have tried, hence my post. But my real point was, why take away the choice? If I want to buy a top end carbon MTB from a major manufacturer I am now stuck with 1x? As if anyone who thinks having more than 11 gears (you know like the 70's), is just crazy. There is not any logical reason the manufacturers cannot leave us the choice. .... other than money. As for your comments, I have never broken a front derailleur. Given where it sits on the bike, it is very well protected. Now the rear derailleur..... that is just hanging there..... The front derailleur is also just about the simplist moving piece of gear on the bike and the notion that removing it takes away some complicated, prone to break piece of gear that just needed to go, is the nonsense being served up by the bike companies. In fact front derailleurs are efficient, easy to maintain, relatively cheap and really innocous. The notion that it needed to go is absurd given what it does to gear choices. For my purposes I ride in a really steep area, broken up by long runs of fire roads where a taller top end is needed. My perfect set up--48/32 front and 11-40 rear. Can climb anything with 32 to 40 and the top end is great. As for weight---I will take the 300 gram penalty. Anyway---back to my point-----nothing explains taking away the option of more gears except companies wanting to take our money. Cheers
  • + 1
 @cgr1: My point is that a 1x setup is a simpler, more durable setup than a 2x or 3x and provides superior chain retention. Additionally, I don't think most riders have a need for gearing as tall as 48 front and 11 rear. I ride a modern endure sled with 30 front and 9 rear, enjoy riding fast down big mountains, and have never felt like my gearing wasn't tall enough. I don't think the idea to remove the front derailleur was that it was bad and needed to go, just that 1x setup is a superior solution to accomplishing the same thing - providing a large gear range. Myself, and a lot of people I have ridden with over the years were running 1x setups long before the manufactures caught up. For us (and riders with similar needs) this has been a great evolution of the drive train. If you believe it is just a bunch of marketing bs, keep rocking your 2x setup. There are plenty of modern carbon frames with front derailleur mounts.
  • + 1
 @pinknugget: Well, a few thoughts. First, simpler and durable are always good goals, but that assumes you have something that is complex and prone to failure. A front derailleur suffers neither of these faults. As noted, the mechanics of it are quite simple and easy to maintain, and in my 25 years of MTB and road riding, I have literally never worn one out. Which is not to say I have not replaced a few to upgrade from say XT to XTR. So while the industry may try to sell it as addressing a durability and complexity issue, it is neither. Or as they say, it is a solution in search of a problem. That is why it is bs. I mean think about it, how hard is it to operate a rear derailleur, and how often do you shift it on a ride compared to the rear derailleur.? And that does not even take into account the availability of electronic shifting, which makes the whole operation idiot proof. So you have this easy to operate, durable piece of equipment that doubles your gear choices and avoids a rear cassette with massive gear ratio gaps, and the industry is getting rid of it why??? Durability and complexity issues? Come on. And f the industry really wants to solve a problem, how about making rear cassettes and/or chains that last more than one season? Imagine that would cut in to sales though. Second, 30 to 9 for top end. Ok. But you are spinning like gumby on meth on anything approaching 30 MPH, and I can easily go 30 MPH and be under 90 cadence. But I guess I just ride faster than you. Which is ok. Last, I wish you were correct about their being plenty of options. Which is one of the things that got be started on this, just give me the option. Ride on.
  • + 1
 @cgr1: I'm going to chalk this up to us doing very different types of riding. For myself and many others, modern 1x setups are innovation that solves a problem. I have not run a 2x setup in over a decade on my mountain bike for one reason - chain retention. The simplicity that goes along with it is an added bonus. If that's not a problem for you, than it isn't solving a problem. For a lot of people it is.
  • + 1
 @pinknugget: Ok. Fair enough. You are right, I have zero issues with chain retention. I have been MTBing in Marin County for 20 years and cannot even remember the last time I threw a chain. I would note that rear derailleurs have come a long way in ten years, so you might be surprised how well the springs now hold the chain. I would also add, especially for anyone else reading this string, that chain retention problems usually are caused by either a worn rear derailleur (springs are shot), or too much chain. Many people buy a new chain and do not realize that even a top-of-the-line XTR/Durace 11 spd chain, is one size fits all in the box, and needs to be shortened for many drive trains. Even a 2x MTB might have just a 36T large front ring and 40T rear as largest. That same chain also is spec'd to work for a road bike with up to a 53T front and a 34T rear large gear. You can see from those numbers that is a huge difference in how much gearing the chain will have to circumnavigate when on the largest rings. So if you get a lot of chain slap or are dropping the chain, check these things out.
  • + 2
 WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
The point is to get the conversation rolling. I’m.........

WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
The point is to get more money
  • + 0
 Like any of us are going back to our Stumpy rigids as a form of protest. Just thank god all these bikes are metric and you can get at them with a three ended hex wrench! That's about as much standardization as we could hope for with all these new bike companies popping up. The Mountain bike has exploded with so many new features and benefits it makes frustrating parts ordering but this conversation alone with all the hilarious comments is almost worth it!
  • + 3
 How did that International Splined Interface Standard work out (other than the terrorists stealing the name)?
  • + 1
 I know every time I hear that in the news I think of my old cranks haha.
  • + 1
 If bike manufacturer's are going to make continual changes a policy should be in place to make sure adapters or conversion kits are available to make them universal and not exclusive.
  • + 2
 Some sense at last. Well done for doing this and I hope the parties involved can reach an agreement for the sake of us consumers and your future business prospects.
  • + 1
 Backwards compatibility would be HUGE. I understand there are a few companies making spacers for running non boost on boosted frames/forks, but it would be nice to have that ability without voiding warranties.
  • + 3
 Was looking at TREK Roscoe, it has boost rear... and of course it is another standard of boost: 141mm QR.
  • + 1
 Yep, this one has popped up on a few bikes now! Its for cheap plus bikes.
  • + 2
 How about an Alloy Threaded Bottom Bracket shell in a Carbon Frame? Maybe the whole Bottom Bracket should be alloy with "lugs" for where the carbon tubes are joined.
  • + 1
 you could just mold it in
  • + 0
 First of all, innovation is great! My current 2014 Kona Process 153 compared to my former 2007 Norco Six is a result of innovation. Back in 2007 my Norco Six was the result of innovation. We have all greatly benefited from the innovation of improved manufacturing methods and the evolution of bike geometry. Having said that, it is my hope there will be some sort of meeting of the minds during this open house event. It would be good for riders and LBS's if we could quickly move towards a more basic set of standards. Then we need an agreed upon process for how to go about adopting an evolution of these basic standards, with built in mechanisms to ensure useful innovation that moves the industry forward. We have enough collective buying power, as Pinkbike followers, that we could force accountability on manufacturers who are continuing to "go rogue", doing their own thing, and coming up with their own new standards, outside of the parameters of some sort of industry guidelines on how standards should evolve. A new standard for the size of a fork steer tube, bottom bracket, rear axle or front axle should not be arbitrarily decided by one bike brand or by one manufacturer. This is hurting the industry.
  • + 2
 you are too late bike industry you have already lost your market and whats more is you cant even see that such is your vision
  • + 1
 Question: why can't more companies produce new standard parts which also have retro compatibility/spacing? That way people aren't forced to say, upgrade frame/fork when they want to buy a new set of wheels.
  • + 3
 Until something is actually a standard, please just call it a new size instead. Words mean things.
  • + 0
 I'm no scholar but it seems to me that getting an even and symmetrical spoke tension would be signifigantly more beneficial to wheel strength than the current trend of just making everything wider. This seems like a benefit to frames and forks too seeing as they wouldn't have to be as wide and burly.
  • + 2
 You do have a point. As an structural point of view symmetrical spokes is the way to go. Think replacements as well... It's out there already with the likes of Syntace on wheels and Liteville on frames, they call it EVO6. Cannondale has it on the Jekyll (and maybe other of they bikes).
I have a Liteville 101 with a symmetrical 29" EVO6 rear wheel and it is very strong indeed. I don't understand why there aren't more brands using it. Time will tell!
  • + 1
 press fit bottom brackets, they tried it, they sucked, lets just agree to stop putting them in new bikes and then kill the production of replacement parts 6-7 years down the road
  • + 0
 Hi @ Vernon Felton
I would be really really interested why they have created 148mm in the back and not just going with 150mm?
The people hating here just talk bullshit I think. Like that thing with big changes and not just millimeters. I'd love to see him with 185mm rotors on a 180mm brake mount and then saying that again. I think it's a good thing that the industry is still trying to develop and don't stand still. Small changes can have huge effects. But if you could ask that one question for me that would be super cool. There was no one so far that was able to tell me why.
  • + 1
 Things change, oh what crap I rode on. I want a t47 bb and a 157 superboost hub and I want something better a few years on. Coil springs are back. Good old days are now.
  • + 1
 so if we stop new standards as of now, does this mean the price of bikes will come down because of a longer sale period and manufacture.
  • + 1
 I agree with a lot of comments in here, but at the end it comes down to:
What trails you ride, and what have changed and evolved, in a way that you "need" new standards?
  • + 2
 it would be pretty damn nice if we could line up a few more things like sram/shimano freehubs etc...
  • + 2
 I hope for the best, but the last time CK got involved on any standards we ended up with ISIS bottom brackets.
  • + 2
 Do you want ISIS? Because that's how you get ISIS.
  • + 1
 I just don't understand boost spacing. 1 mm off each side from 150 rear spacing? What a waste of time. And yes, my current bike has boost spacing.
  • + 1
 As long as the biking industry supports their "standard" with replacement parts, etc. for at least 10 years, I could care less about the latest "5 minute standard".
  • - 1
 I'd rather have more new standards than ask engineers to make design compromises in the frame and suspension. I think we are seeing a resurgence in bike design which is awesome. There were several years where everyone did the same thing and we seemed kinda stuck, but now we're starting to see experimentation again: Marin's suspension design, Transition's offset experimentation, Shimano electronic shifting, integrated droppers, Canyon's adjustable geo, Zerode's internal gearing.

I want to go back to the days where there was actually a difference between brands and crazy designs were OK to sell. I think brands are over-reliant on standardized parts from 3rd party suppliers because they're too small to engineer their own parts, but I'm fine if you need new standards or even custom OEM parts to make cool designs happen.

It's inevitable that fat bikes, XC bikes, enduro bikes, and DH bikes are going to have different requirements, and that's fine with me. I don't want a "quiver killer", I want the best tool for the job.
  • + 1
 I just want a conversion kit for my QR King wheelset to boost. I saved for years to get a King wheelset and 1 year later Boost comes and makes my purchase worthless Frown
  • + 0
 We don't have to "reinvent the wheel"! Lets take a look at how other competing companies in other industries do this. Im sure the Automobile manufacturers had to overcome this same issue or if not another industry.
  • + 1
 imo, it's not the innovation; it's the price. that fact that a new product comes out does not necessarily mean that the new product needs to be 2xs the price.
  • - 1
 Every years it's something new; axle sizes, bottom brackets, shock dimensions (stupid metric), different freehubs........it's never ending!!! I'm okay with different headset cup standards, different seat post sizes, different wheel sizes (26, 27.5 & 29). Just stop with all the new headaches. One engineer thinks it's amazing, the next guy goes to out do him, and so on and so forth. Sit every engineer in a room and talk it out. Ughhhhh Frown Frown Frown Frown Frown
  • + 3
 Bike companies that doesn't support 26"bikes don't get my $!
  • + 1
 As long as I can buy the stuff I need for my bike, I couldn't care how many standards/choices there are. It just makes it harder for the manufacturers.
  • + 1
 I guess the upside of super boost plus, is I'll finally be able to run the same wheels on my DH bike and trail bike again. Just like 1996.
  • + 1
 Fuck Boost and fuck SRAM for it Fuck 15 thru axle and Fuck Shimano and Fox for it Fuck PF92, BB30, and every other non threaded BB...the list is too long on these offenders
  • + 1
 i like not having a pull shock, or a "brain," or something else i can't swap in the aftermarket to customize the build as i get better/worse/fatter
  • + 0
 Make sure you have someone from hope, I like the rb160 narrow rear end. Shame the rest of the geo is a bit 2014. And gearbox box please, even narrower rear ends, with a motor !
  • + 2
 Bike companies make the most profit planning obsolesence.
  • + 1
 SRAM is the anti-christ. They are a juggernaut hell bent on being a tyrant in the mtb market place.
  • + 1
 All these innovations are pricing people out of the market. Thank goodness for Calibre Bikes and Shimano Deore.
  • + 1
 If you get any of that change on me I'm going to punch you in the f#@king face.
  • + 1
 Any new standard must be backward compatible with the equivalent previous standard. Simples.
  • + 0
 how do you fit 148mm in a 142 frame??
  • + 4
 @ismasan: grinder
  • + 0
 @ismasan: that situation would never come about if it wasn’t possible. That’s the whole point. But it’s not impossible.
  • + 1
 @ThomDawson: 'evolution' so far is things getting bigger, so...
  • + 2
 @ismasan: if we take boost as an example - something that isn’t an advancement, just a planned obsolescence - if ‘they’ had to comply with a backward compatibility order from the start they could have done quite easily but they wouldn’t have been able to achieve the main goal of making 142/ 15x100 obsolete. And therefore probably wouldn’t have bothered because boost is just a dick move, nothing more and nothing less. We’d have one less pointless, incremental standard. Maybe they get away with shit like this in the road world but steaming horse crap like this has no place in the MTB arena.
  • + 2
 @properp: f*ck this made me laugh! Thanks
  • + 1
 Backwards compatibility is the reason for half-assed progression. I'd rather have something entirely new and well thought out than something that is sort of better and works with old stuff.
  • + 1
 @notenduro: you have a good point and I agree with the sentiment to a degree but I don’t believe backward compatibility is the reason for incremental progression. Taking boost as an example again - it isn’t backward compatible (except some config using 3rd party adapters etc which came about after the fact) and was never intended to be. Yet it does represent insignificant ‘progression’ for the sake of nothing more than planned obsolescence.
I’m kinda stuck on axle widths now so I’ll run with it...as far as axles are concerned I think we’ve already got the best we’re gonna get. At least in that department manufacturers could agree to continue to develop better products based around what we already have. And I’m not including Boost in that.
  • + 1
 The best bike is the one in your garage, we don't need the latest and greatest
  • + 1
 just K.I.S.S (keep it simple, smartasses) it!!!!
1 standard to rule them all!
  • + 1
 I would put in my two cents, but i need to go hang myself first after reading "super boost plus"
  • + 0
 I am curious how much further hub spacing can be pushed. I had a horrendous experience with 148mm and heel clearance. I'm plenty happy to be on 142.
  • + 2
 no 135mm rear hub in your pic?
  • + 2
 This is why I come back to Chris King products.
  • + 1
 Exactly. Between them and Hope, you can't go wrong!
  • - 2
 I'm of a different opinion of a lot of Pinkbike it seems. My father was a senior chassis engineer at an automotive company before he started his own business consulting with aftermarket companies like Tuff Country, Rancho and Pro Comp to build aftermarket suspension systems. When I talk to him about the evolving standards in the bike industry he simply laughs. In his experience and opinion, trying to standardize anything is not only pointless, but also a major limiting factor in performance. In a world where bikes are already perform quite well, there are fewer ways to improve performance within a standardized framework for interchangeable parts. If you are stuck to a certain dimension, there is only so much you can do with materials science, manufacturing processes and design to make your part perform in any way significantly different from those of your competitors.

Yes, large companies are setting the pace for the industry. Tough shit, that happens in EVERY industry. Do you think that Ford gives a shit about the needs of the aftermarket? Do you honestly think that Yamaha, BMW, KTM or Honda care that Husky and GasGas have a hard time keeping up with the progression in motorcycles? Many smaller car manufacturers died out through lack of ability to finance rapid product development cycles.

My point is, we are reaching the point in bicycle performance where standardization is going to end. Players like SRAM, Shimano and Fox are going to go the route of OEM suppliers to larger bike companies with parts designed to fit specific bikes. I wouldn't be surprised to see large companies like Trek, Giant or Specialized buy up smaller suspension manufacturers like Xfusion or MRP to design and build in-house suspension for base model bikes and have aftermarket companies like SRAM, Ohlins and Fox provide parts for the premium model bikes. I'm sorry to say, but tooling for something like a custom hub spacing is pretty damn easy to do. My dad has a full HAAS machining center in his shop that could make both boost and 135mm hub bodies at the same time using the same tools, it isn't hard. For things like fork lowers and uppers, a permanent metal casting mold is only $10-20,000 on the high end for something like a fork crown, lowers might be closer to $25,000 if the mold needs to split in more than 2 directions to accommodate intricate voids. Still, not crazy.
  • + 2
 I get what you're saying, but in the automotive example, there are still standard bolt patterns for wheels, and sizes for tires. There's volume enough that the aftermarket is creating innovation ( "like Tuff Country, Rancho and Pro Comp"), some of which may even find it's way into the OEM product (like ARB lockers and the Atlas transfer case). I'd love to see the large company set pace, but to do so with some sense, rather than small steps that don;t seem to make the significant difference that their marketing would suggest. Continuing on with the comparison between the automotive and bicycle markets, think of all of the manufacturer's dealer as well as all of the other support for your automotive repair and parts needs, and compare that to the bicycle's channel to market. There are very few bicycle dealers and shops in comparison, however I believe they have to exist to sustain that market. Perhaps the big brands will have to have and support their own factory dealers, but what does that do to their price model? Will they provide the current and/or better support? Will the cyclist be able to afford it, and/or how many zip codes will even have dealers?
  • + 1
 @ntmjeep: I have to respectfully disagree with you on automotive standards. There are many different bolt patterns, different hub center diameters (hence the reason you need centering rings on aftermarket wheels), and tire sizes are a joke if you consider them standardized. Not only are there wheel diameters currenly on the market in 1" intervals from 15 to 22 inches. Each of these diameters have between 3 and 100 different tire sizes. Yes, some are interchangeable but not most of them. Furthermore, there are dozens of wheel offsets that can't be readily interchanged.

Just because some people don't WANT this kind of change to happen doesn't mean it doesn't make economic sense. If the bike manufacturers stop putting out incremental changes they will stop putting out anything new altogether. And of course they play up the benefits. I can't think of a single person that would go buy a new bike if the marketing material said "now, 0.25% better than last model."
  • + 1
 I see what you're saying, but not how I meant it. There are all of the bolt patterns, back spacings, diameters and widths, and market demand driving that for a huge market, but the 5 on 5 pattern that has roots so many decades ago, is still being used. I can still get 15" tires to fit any such application as it hasn't been made obsolete by the 18" or 20" introduction. I try to keep up my first mountain bike, but it uses a JIS 1" headset, which I either need to special order the most expensive headset you can think of, or it so happens that the cheapest crappiest headset happens to include a compatible crown race, but again, special order. Speaking of vintage bikes, try to find quality rubber for the 26 at under 2", it's typically the low end, if even available. The bike and automotive markets remain quite different, but due to size, the aftermarket fills in the gaps, even if with crappy spacers. As this hub standarding illustrates, those driving these changes aren't doing so to a market channel willing and able to adapt. How can the LBS keep us riding, when these changes force everything to be a special order. If everything needs to be ordered, will riders pay the shop overhead/markup? Or just go online for price, and have it just as quickly? I love new bikes, the evolution, and all of the roadie being bred out of the mountain bike, but have a reason, a real reason and not just marketing fluff, for that extra 2.5mm difference, and get some buy-in from the industry.
Try a different industry, like electrical. NEMA, probably a hundred years ago, figure out they needed to come together with some standards. A 15 amp plug for your toaster, needs to be compatible with the outlet at the wall.
  • + 2
 Make standards great again
  • + 2
 boost is stupid ,my old 20mm axle was perfect!
  • + 1
 can we get a change that becomes a standard for more than 2 seconds before a change becomes a standard...
  • + 2
 how about telescopic or inflatable rear hub?
  • + 1
 I'm just here waiting for single speed guy, saying that's all anybody really needs
  • + 1
 Do you understand that most riders aren't being held back by 142 rear or 15mm front?
  • + 1
 *peeks out of cave* holds up 26" bike the straight steerer, qr rear end... Retreats to 2007
  • + 1
 Gear boxes. Time to move out of the 19th century tech!
  • + 1
 just make a standard 152mm hub and be done with it
  • + 0
 I don't really care about hub size, but I do like to be able to carry a full size water bottle for rides under 3 hours.
  • + 1
 Kiss... Keep it simple stupid.
  • + 1
 If you read this far down you should get out and ride more.
  • + 1
 In life, the only constant is change.
  • + 1
 Wait, there's a Super Boost Plus now?!
  • + 1
 just give me EBoost 29'er+
  • + 2
 9/139mm 4 life
  • + 0
 Why can't Mountain biking be kind of like BMX. Almost everything is universal
  • + 1
 Just go big, stay big, and get it over with.
  • + 1
 Enough of change for the sake of change.
  • + 1
 Just.... Bruh
  • + 0
 How about a making a solid, light, wide rim (30mm) for 26 inch wheels??
  • + 2
 Ibis makes a 30mm 26" aluminum rim.
  • + 1
 Can we say "f*ck" here?
  • + 0
 Huck ya
  • + 1
 Never mind
  • + 1
 At last !!!! Aleluia
  • + 0
 bigger wheels, Super Boost 157 plus is brilliant. period
  • + 1
 FUCK OFF!!!
  • - 3
 I love standards.
  • + 3
 But which one most?
  • + 4
 I've found I can never live up to them. Just ask my wife and father.
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 0.313469
Mobile Version of Website