You have a spec drawing for 15x110 you can share?
If no funky trickery was done with the rotor/disc location is't kinda a moot point as it's just end caps to solve the problem.
No drawing to share, but the brake mounts are in the same position on the lowers, so relative to a 15x100mm fork, moved 5mm outboard. The 110 hub adds 10mm in the middle, so the brake tab to disc mount distance is the same. If you use a 100m hub, you need to keep the exact same end cap on the disc side to maintain that distance, and possible retrofit a end cap that is 10mm longer on the non-disc side. That is a solution that I doubt many manufacturers will offer since it offsets the hub dramatically and might even result in the need for a wheel relace since the non-disc side spokes would likely too short to re-dish the wheel.
right, for now. but regardless of their merits (or lack thereof), these new "standards", initially presented as providing more choice (always a good thing!), end up edging out older standards (see: 26" wheels), reducing choice and the relevance of older components
one of the things i've always loved about bikes is that, unlike so many consumer goods, it was possible to preserve the lifespan of a bike for decades by replacing components as they were damaged or wore out. this made the bicycle an incredibly resilient, economical and sustainable tool/vehicle
now, whatever its intentions and motivations, the industry seems to hell bent on making bikes more akin to other, more disposable or consumable items: "sorry, we can't get a fork for that wheelsize" or "that axle standard isn't supported anymore; you'll have buy new wheels/hubs"
yeah, there are gains to be realized through innovation and experimentation. but if not managed properly, those small, individualized gains threaten the overall health of the industry and alienate consumers/cyclists - thereby threatening and undercutting the status and viability of the bicycle itself:
- long time/dedicated cyclists get sick of the direction the industry is moving in (see: this whole thread)
- new customers are intially drawn in by marketing hype (oooh, shiny!) - but in two years when the try to get something serviced or replaced, they're faced with the increasinly likely prospect of being told the part is no longer available or supported, and faced with a much higher than anticipated charge for what they want/need: likely reaction? "screw this, the sport is too expensive" (sound familiar?)
edit: totally not picking on you ken, just using your comment as a segue…
For some applications, there is a legitimate need for 15x110. If you reference our Sherpa prototype, you see that we used a WTB Trailblazer 27.5x2.8 tire, but with a 29er Fox 32. The side clearance is not ideal, and would not pass safety standards. With the wider pitch fork, you may as well use a wider hub, hence 110. Yes it is possible to build the wider pitch fork with 100 spacing, but then you add material to the fork to take up the spacer. Why not go for more improvements by using wider spaced flanges?
I don't have a position on 15x110 for regular mountain bikes using up to 2.5" tires, but for something that requires a bigger tire, I don't see any fuss using a different hub.
As stated earlier, I do see an issue with heel strikes on 148 rear end using traditional q-factors. This ugly problem will present itself quickly I think. I think if 148 sticks around, then it would be wise to rethink what q-factors are possible/comfortable on a mountain bike. Research has shown that narrow q-factors are more efficient and reduce the likelihood of knee injuries, but I see lots of guys pedalling around on flats with the feet hanging off the sides of the pedals. Worth considering what is possible, maybe a 174mm q-factor is still comfortable.
Food for thought.
