your frame is crap

You forgot:

150 front (fat bluto)

170 rear (fat)

190 x 10 rear fat

190 x 12 rear fat through axle

here is the bike most of you seem to want. you can still ride this just like you did in 1990.

Nice ,
not only did i cut my teeth on a bush pilot . That same steed got me through four more years of delivering newspapers. The money i made went to Ski passes and my first Kona

With a 30T I've got at least 6mm between the chainring and chainstay. Already at least as much room to play with as will be achieved by this new standard.

? do you mean you are running a 30 tooth ring on a 104 bcd crank arm? if so the offset on the 30tooth is about 2mm inward. but I would guess that if that's the case you are also running 2x xt cranks which have the chain line outboard of center. unless of course you have a 1x 104bcd spider on a sram crank arm. either way your chain line sucks. some just suck more then others.

? do you mean you are running a 30 tooth ring on a 104 bcd crank arm? if so the offset on the 30tooth is about 2mm inward. but I would guess that if that's the case you are also running 2x xt cranks which have the chain line outboard of center. unless of course you have a 1x 104bcd spider on a sram crank arm. either way your chain line sucks. some just suck more then others.

XO1. 94mm BCD.

I've been riding mountain bikes for 20+ years and there have been lots of attempted new "standards" during that time.

Somehow my strategy of riding bikes for a few years, not chasing the latest and greatest, getting high-quality stuff (parts and frames) that's adaptable (DT Hubs, threaded BB's, swappable dropouts, adapters, Shimano drivetrain and brakes, etc.) and waiting to see which "standard" actually becomes a standard has worked alright. I haven't had to ditch "obsolete" parts before they're thrashed anyway and I haven't found myself tossing whole bikes in the bin because they're non-maintainable any longer.

Just like disc brake mounting standards, incremental drivetrain improvements, changes in wheel size and whatever other improvements the industry has come up with over the years I think that if you don't jump on this new idea right away you won't end up getting screwed.

Or maybe we will, just like the guys who like 26's. I kinda feel for them as the whole 650b thing sounds like BS to me (although I haven't ridden one soooooo…)

You forgot:

150 front (fat bluto)

170 rear (fat)

190 x 10 rear fat

190 x 12 rear fat through axle

I think he specifically left fat bikes off the list, but I'd be surprised if these different approaches don't shake out to an actual standard in the next two years or so. Fat bikes are still a pretty new kind of bike. I'm thinking about getting one to keep in Edmonton for when I'm there but since the standards clearly are still evolving I won't be plunking down much $$ on one 'till they do.

Personally, I'm looking forward to road and CX bikes shaking out to 15mm TA's on the front and 142x12mm rears and disc brakes. Until then I'll just ride my rim-braked road and CX bikes and be happy getting destroyed by dudes who are faster than me no matter what bike either one of us is on.

I'm just trying to think what hub 'standards' there have been over the years for MTBs (so not road or fat bikes). I'm sure I'm probably missing loads.

Front:
100mm x 9mm
100mm x 10mm solid axle
110mm x 20mm
110mm x 20mm QR20 (Marzocchi ones where you can't slide the axle out)
15mm thru axle for ENNNNNDDDDUUURROOO
24mm Maverick
27mm Rockshox RS1
Cannondale Lefty…

Rear:
130mm x 10
135mm x 10
135mm x 10 bolt thru
135mm x 12 botl thru
140 x 15
142 x 12 Maxle / Syntace / Shimano / whatever
142 x whatever stupid standard Special Needz have got.
145 x 10
148 x bloody Trek
150 x 10
150 x 12
157 x 12
160 x 14
165 x ?

Fucking hell.

You forgot:

150 front (fat bluto)

170 rear (fat)

190 x 10 rear fat

190 x 12 rear fat through axle

And you forgot:

135 x 10 QR front fat bike

142 x 15 thru axle front fat

177 thru axle rear fat

197 thru axle rear fat

Ref:
http://carverbikes.com/parts/wheels-rims/fat-bike-front-hub/
http://carverbikes.com/parts/wheels-rims/fat-bike-rear-hub/

I'm thinking about getting one to keep in Edmonton for when I'm there but since the standards clearly are still evolving I won't be plunking down much $$ on one 'till they do.

150 x 15 thru axle (due to Bluto)
and
190 x QR or thru axle (due to ~5" tires)
seem to the standards for 2014/15

I was purposely just mentioning conventional mountain bikes. No gravel racers, monster crossers, off road unicycles, trikes, cross bikes, fat bikes etc.

150 x 15 thru axle (due to Bluto)
and
190 x QR or thru axle (due to ~5" tires)
seem to the standards for 2014/15

I sure hope so, wide seems to be the most versatile.

I was browsing bikesdirect ('cause they're cheap) and Surly ('cause they've been doing fat bikes for a while and tend to make versatile, practical bikes) for fatbikes today and the vast array of wheel sizes (27.5+?) and axles was making my head swim.

first gen V10 had a 160mm x 12mm rear spacing no? Anyone confirm? Or was it 165?

first gen V10 had a 160mm x 12mm rear spacing no? Anyone confirm? Or was it 165?

I think it was 160x10 with a solid rear axle?

165x10 was Iron Horse (pre-Sunday) and Be-One (various models). Be-One combined that with the - now a Fat Bike standard - 100mm BB Shell.

I'm sure Foes had a bike that was 165x10 or 160x10 as well.

The thing about the V-10 is I'm pretty sure the only company that made hubs that fit was Hadley, so really it doesn't matter if it has it's own size because the hub will outlast the frame in terms of being SOL for replacement.

Speaking of Chainline. Worst in history has to be the Giant Team DH bikes with 100mm BB shells and 135mm rear hubs?

First V10s where 140mm x 15!

And to throw another one into the mix while drinking my morning tea….Yeti had 20mm rear axles for a while :headexplodes: