super boost plus

anyone else feel like we're being trolled?

http://m.pinkbike.com/news/pivot-switchblade-first-look.html

what they should have come up with first (and skipped boost 148 ).

"super boost plus" though? i could only imagine that name brainstorming session. a late night "ah, fuck it" scenario it seems.

but the - oh no, it's not a new standard. but here's some new hubs, and we're working with more manufacturers to build compatible cranks… come on.

anyone else feel like we're being trolled?

http://m.pinkbike.com/news/pivot-switchblade-first-look.html

I read the article and for once a bike manufacturer modified an existing "standard" but made it backwards compatible and better overall.

Wide axle + wide flange spacing = stiffer wheel (all using an existing "standard")

I have boost super duper extra plus on my Kawasaki.

:crazy:

The bike industry is just getting more and more retarded with new "standards" every couple months.

Switching to gearbox builds means I get to sit back, watch the gongshow, and laugh, as everyone gets pissed off every few months. :)

Um none of it's a new standard. It's a smart way of utilizing existing parts, it's what a number of people said should be done when boost 148 came out. Props to Pivot for doing it.

Also the 157 hubs that never spread out their flange dimensions was just lazy. Why did these guys hold on narrow flanges on a 150 hub?

Um none of it's a new standard.

that would only be true if it didn't strongly suggest a new hub. i like that this new configuration is compatible with existing parts, but if you think anyone is going to be digging out a 157 dh hub with narrow flanges to stick on one of these frames, or building a bike with this axle configuration and spec'ing it with an old 157 dh hub, you're barmy

i'll quote myself from my stumpjumper 650b review: the only lesson to be learned by the recent proliferation of new standards/designs/configurations/whatever in the mtb industry is this: “no matter how ambivalently a new standard is received, get on the bandwagon ASAP!”

it seems like the rate at which new configurations are being released is increasing. we had (for mtb in the modern era) 135qr for decades, then -[HTML_REMOVED] 135x10 or 12 thru, then -[HTML_REMOVED] 142 for a few years, to -[HTML_REMOVED] 148 boost for all of a year?, now this

when i was in law school i heard a million lawyer jokes that were a varriation on this classic: Q what do you call a million lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean? A a good start. i'm starting to feel like the mtb industry might need make a concerted effort to reign its engineers and product managers in. of course there are better ways to design a moustrap/bb/hub/fork/frame/whatever - but that doesn't mean that each variation needs to be released. go into the lab, mess around for a while - maybe even talk to each other - and decide on the best way to skin a cat rather than putting every single idea you have into production like some ADHD afflicted kid

Also the 157 hubs that never spread out their flange dimensions was just lazy. Why did these guys hold on narrow flanges on a 150 hub?

this perfectly illustrates my point. "Hey, lets widen the axle!" [HTML_REMOVED]puts hub and bikes into production[HTML_REMOVED] "Hey, lets widen the flanges!" [HTML_REMOVED]puts hub and bikes into production[HTML_REMOVED] slow the f down. The industry either needs to invest in ritalin for their engineers, or hire some new project managers

i had a buddy recently tell me he had no problem with the rate of change mtb design was undergoing - he was just stoked the bikes were getting better and better. while i can't argue with that fact/trend, i also had to keep in mind that he was a physician nearing middle age in a double-income-no-kids household. ladies and gentleman, the mountain bike industry's ideal consumer

for once a bike manufacturer modified an existing "standard" but made it backwards compatible and better overall.

agreed, its a good approach. maybe someone should make cocalis the mtb industry's czar or ombudsperson or whatever - no new standards unless he designs/approves them

/rant

all I can say is :lol:

/rant

That new Pivot has too much/not enough travel for today's/tomorrow's trend anyway.

Consumers should revolt. Don't buy anything except for cruisers and klunkers. Who's with me? It's got to start somewhere! Here goes….
:high:

You know what I'm excited about? Turning an old mtb into a city bike/commuter. And there's not going to be anything but 9 speed tranny and qr hubs. And rigid steel fork. How'd ya like that, bike industry?? Ha!

You know what I'm excited about? Turning an old mtb into a city bike/commuter. And there's not going to be anything but 9 speed tranny and qr hubs. And rigid steel fork. How'd ya like that, bike industry?? Ha!

What's that new fangled 9spd shit? And QR's?

People gripped about both of those when they were released.

"Longer, lower, wider…."

/rant

Why does it seem to be so important to mountain bikers on high end bikes for everything to be cross compatible with everything else?

Honda engineers don't sit down with Toyota engineers and discuss coming up with a standard interface between engine and transmission.

KTM and BMW don't ensure that you can swap wheels between a 1190 Adventure R and the R1200GS.

Think of the bike as a complete system and none of this is a problem.

Buy a whole bike, sell a whole bike. Just like cars and motorcycles and dishwashers and everything else. It's the new paradigm in cycling, get used to it.

Feel free to take up knitting if you don't like it.