New posts

your frame is crap

Dec. 20, 2014, 2:41 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 20, 2006

I've got issues with heel rub so that 148mm rear end did not make sense to me in that regard.

Wheel weight and stiffness:
The added weight, let's say 20grams, from a wider hub could be put into a 142mm hub to increase the flange diameters netting the same wheel stiffness benefit. Offset rims can improve spoke angles. Shorter spokes are slightly (very small weight savings) lighter.

The real benefit that can't be argued is the chainstay length and front derailleur clearance at the tire.

Chainstay length can be quite short if the wheel path is vertical but this can pose other compromises in anti-squat and anti-rise characteristics.

FD clearance is a huge bonus. 1x and side-swing FDs fix this problem but those technologies are still on the expensive side of bike spec.

Last, drivetrain clearance for bigger tires. The odd thing is the BB or the crankset q factor aren't changing so heel rub rears its ugly head again.

It will be interesting to see how the product landscape will change in the next couple of years.

Dec. 20, 2014, 4:18 p.m.
Posts: 1885
Joined: Oct. 16, 2005

I've got issues with heel rub so that 148mm rear end did not make sense to me in that regard.

Wheel weight and stiffness:
The added weight, let's say 20grams, from a wider hub could be put into a 142mm hub to increase the flange diameters netting the same wheel stiffness benefit.

I have the same issue.

This was my thought exactly. Why not just taller flanges? That's what Chris King did for their CX hubs to stiffen up wheels vs. their road hubs -- take it to the next level IF wheel stiffness is really that much of an issue.

I'm not a big Specialized fan (their lawyers are all hamsters and their proprietary shock mounting smells of elderberry) but running 135mm hubs on their DH bikes for clearance makes tons of sense to me (a perpetual heal rubber with my massive size 42 shoes)… they are now using special hubs that are wider and in theory 3-ten-speed-cogs stiffer (7-spd specific) but when they first started out it was a standard 135mm hub.

About the only positive thing I can think of about 148 -- a sound engineering solution to a problem that no one had? -- is that it is a level of ridiculous below Overdrive-2 and Cannondale's proprietary offset (6mm?) SI Cranksets//Frames

Mean People SUCK! Nice People SHOVEL!

Trails For All; Trails For Weather

Dec. 20, 2014, 4:47 p.m.
Posts: 4627
Joined: July 23, 2004

when you reach a certain age, most of your humour comes from laughing at yourself

explains why I spend so much time laughing…

Loud Hubs Save Lives

Dec. 20, 2014, 6:59 p.m.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Nov. 27, 2002

The real benefit that can't be argued is the chainstay length and front derailleur clearance at the tire.

The E29" has an already too short 430mm RC, you can mount a FD, and as far as I know tire clearance is adequate.

Maybe all that's needed is good engineering? Or is it just a pointless standard by a component manufacturer to allow them to corner the OEM market for a year?

"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"

- Morgman

Dec. 20, 2014, 8:53 p.m.
Posts: 3564
Joined: May 23, 2006

So , am I going to have issues with clipping my heels on the chain stays? or does the BB shell/ BB spindle also get wider in this new "standard"?

There's money in that thar "Q" factor! eh?

Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.

Dec. 21, 2014, 3:57 p.m.
Posts: 2009
Joined: July 19, 2003

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

Just a speculative fiction. No cause for alarm.

Dec. 21, 2014, 5 p.m.
Posts: 663
Joined: Feb. 20, 2005

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

actually my riding has come a long way since 1990 so I bet I could rip on that bike now.

ps cool bike. A lot nicer than a yuppie 650b carbon fiber full travel one by eleven.

only 35 but still beat the 30-39 BC cup Champion 4 out of 6 races

Dec. 21, 2014, 5:06 p.m.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Nov. 27, 2002

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

Nah the bike we want has sound engineering principles behind it rather than drip fed marketing ideas.

"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"

- Morgman

Dec. 21, 2014, 5:24 p.m.
Posts: 137
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

incremental improvements that result in wheels becoming obsolete because of mm's change in hub width because of some miniscule hub stiffness improvement claims, and of minimal actual benefit to the consumer means, yeah, people are going to be pissed. it's not like this is a one off time, they do it every 1.5-2 years, and it's bullshit.

Dec. 21, 2014, 6:06 p.m.
Posts: 4329
Joined: Oct. 24, 2005

I'm tired of this shit, too.

Someone needs to get the marketing and engineering twits from the 3 big frame companies and Shimano/SRAM together at Interbike or Eurobike, and have them Thunderdome it out to settle on "standards" that are actually standards.

What's the point of buying nice parts if you can't move them frame to frame?

The dropouts on my frames are inserts because of stuff like this… My ti frames will last a long time, but the standards don't. Every time a new "standard" comes along (every 2 years, seemingly) I can have new inserts built to plug in, whenever I want to change wheelsets.

The best things in life all start with the letter B
Hooray for: Bacon, Bikeys, Boobies, Boards, and Beer!

Dec. 21, 2014, 7 p.m.
Posts: 2009
Joined: July 19, 2003

so don't buy it. I have 2 nice 135mm hubs, one single speed and one geared that I can keep lacing up as long my frame will last. yeah I got the memo, 135 sucks. so what. its really only a problem if you want to buy a new bike every year (or in 2016) and swap parts from your current bike. I am guessing most consumers keep their bikes for 4 or 5 years and buy complete bikes when it time to upgrade.

one thing that article does not address is that if you run a 1x11 your chain line sucks. no really it sucks. when you are in the lowest gears applying the most torque your cross chaining and destroying your $500 cassette and $100 X sync chain ring. moving the freehub body out is part of the solution. though they ramble on about tire clearance, you guys are not about to buy 650b+ are you? getting rid of the dish is also a good thing. it makes sense to me. but i don't care. I will just keep running the same shitty 135mm hub till I get bored with my bike. not likely to happen any time soon.

Just a speculative fiction. No cause for alarm.

Dec. 21, 2014, 7:01 p.m.
Posts: 1045
Joined: May 30, 2004

The dropouts on my frames are inserts because of stuff like this… My ti frames will last a long time, but the standards don't. Every time a new "standard" comes along (every 2 years, seemingly) I can have new inserts built to plug in, whenever I want to change wheelsets.

You're likely screwed with 148. At some point your stays will be too far inboard to handle the cassette and chain clearance and 148 is likely it.

Dec. 21, 2014, 7:27 p.m.
Posts: 967
Joined: Feb. 28, 2014

Shimano, SRAM, someone? Please design an internal gear box that is as efficient as our current system so we don't have to come up with spacing afterthoughts every few years as a way to band aid fix chainline issues.

Dec. 21, 2014, 7:59 p.m.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Nov. 27, 2002

one thing that article does not address is that if you run a 1x11 your chain line sucks. no really it sucks. when you are in the lowest gears applying the most torque your cross chaining and destroying your $500 cassette and $100 X sync chain ring. moving the freehub body out is part of the solution. though they ramble on about tire clearance, you guys are not about to buy 650b+ are you? getting rid of the dish is also a good thing. it makes sense to me. but i don't care. I will just keep running the same shitty 135mm hub till I get bored with my bike. not likely to happen any time soon.

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. As others have said the extra wheel stiffness could be matched by taller flanges or extra spokes but is lateral stiffness a huge an issue as the article states? If so there are better ways to address that issue.

It's all just a load of shite.

"I do like how you generally bring an open-minded and positive vibe to the threads you participate in"

- Morgman

Dec. 21, 2014, 8:32 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Aug. 12, 2007

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
25mm Specialized
27mm Rockshox RS1
Cannondale Lefty…

Rear:
130mm x 10
135mm x 10
135mm x 10 bolt thru
135mm x 12 botl thru
135? x 20 - old Yeti and possibly Foes.
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.

treezz
wow you are a ass

Forum jump: