your frame is crap

Bogey. here is something i don't understand despite trying to get my head around it. maybe you can 'splain me. take 2 frames (real frames/measurements, not hypothetical) with nearly identical top tube and seat tube dimensions (74/74.5 EST and 650/647 ETT) measurements. now the first bike has a reach of 465mm and the second bike 483mm. how can this be? how can the seat tube angles, effective, and then the top tube effective be nearly identical, and their be so much difference in the reach dimension? for the record the first bike has a WB of 1201 the second 1217 and is a degree slacker. norco shinobi/transition smuggler
most perplexing!

Here is a pretty good/recent article that really helped me condense my thoughts on reach and ett.

15x110 - as if I need yet another reason to never buy a fox fork

Here is a pretty good/recent article that really helped me condense my thoughts on reach and ett.

Good write-up and the pictures help immensely. Although they certainly stick handle around the issues created by a massively curved seat tube … unless that's in the next instalment.

Good write-up and the pictures help immensely. Although they certainly stick handle around the issues created by a massively curved seat tube … unless that's in the next instalment.

Agreed. I'm looking forward to "Part 2".

i had the "bikemag roundtable video review" of the new trek fuel ex on as i was playing with spreadsheets, pretty much ignoring the whole thing until someone mentioned its chainstays were 25mm shorter than the previous version

http://www.bikemag.com/videos/2016-trek-fuel-ex-29-roundtable-reel/

if that's just trek late to the "short chainstays = FUN" party then whatevs, better late than never i guess. but if that's "Boost lets everyone make chainstays mad short" then, suddenly, i have a lot less trouble with it. i got to spend a few months on last year's version and if the new 34 is decent, the shock is actually as good as the reviews suggest, and the boost axles allow lighter wheels to be spec'd across the board, the new fuel should be a ripper

^
2016 Devinci Troy is coming with Boost 148. According to geo charts it is 4mm shorter CS length than the 2015 model in both settings.
Interesting that Trek is only Boosting the 29ers at the moment.
650B Kona Operator will be a Boost bike as well.
Not many Eurobike big splash releases have a Boost rear end. From web browsing Hope hub flange spacing CAD sketch comparing 148 to 142 and I9 are ready to party. DT will be on board soon but where is CK???

Boost 148
These ever changing standards
Rub my gonads raw.
:(

^
2016 Devinci Troy is coming with Boost 148. According to geo charts it is 4mm shorter CS length than the 2015 model in both settings.
Interesting that Trek is only Boosting the 29ers at the moment.
650B Kona Operator will be a Boost bike as well.
Not many Eurobike big splash releases have a Boost rear end. From web browsing Hope hub flange spacing CAD sketch comparing 148 to 142 and I9 are ready to party. DT will be on board soon but where is CK???

Oh CK is on board:

Chris King Boost 148 Rear Hub
-148x12mm axle spacing
-Compatible with Centerlock™ rotors
-Patented RingDrive™ system with 72 simultaneously interfaced points of contact for unmatched hub engagement.
-28 and 32 spoke hole drilling options
-Available in 9 beautifully anodized colors
-320-325g (standard driveshell), 347-352g (XD driveshell)

CK are pretty conservative about jumping into new format (remember the wait for their bb?), so it's a sign-post to all the punters that 148mm boat is leaving with or without you. Buying an expensive new 2016 29er FS frame that isn't 148mm-ready should give you pause if you read the tea leaves…

I poked around the CK website and FB last week and didn't see any mention of Boost 148. Oh well can't be everywhere I guess. Wonder if the CK CL front hubs will be 20mm axle compatible?

I'm just not gunna worry about it. I have DT's, they always seem to figure out an adaptor kit for whatever new standard comes along.

I'm just not gunna worry about it. I have DT's, they always seem to figure out an adaptor kit for whatever new standard comes along.

You add 6 mm to the non drive side and redish the wheel for a better spoke angle on the freewheel side but that's too simple. Boost is fine I suppose if the goal is fatter rims and tires. Until I get to actually ride one though I'm not sure if 2.8 tires is something I would like. For really loose surfaces like gravel or sand a fatter tire is better. For hard surfaces I think having all the rider and bike weight more concentrated on a smaller contact patch would give more bite. Like the edge pressure for 160cm slalom ski is greater than a 193 GS ski.

The Hope drawing.

Spoke flange distance from hub centre has increased by 3mm per side.

I'm not really interested in wider rims or tires but the shorter chainstays is relevant to my likes and interests. Giant should adopt Boost 148 for the Trance 27.5 get outta the 17.3" CS on a trail bike

Any report of frame mfgr's coming out with 148mm dropouts that replace bolt-on dropout made for 142mm ? Do we know if the cassette would clear the stays if set further outboard by just 3mm?

Until I get to actually ride one though I'm not sure if 2.8 tires is something I would like. For really loose surfaces like gravel or sand a fatter tire is better. For hard surfaces I think having all the rider and bike weight more concentrated on a smaller contact patch would give more bite. Like the edge pressure for 160cm slalom ski is greater than a 193 GS ski.

Trust me, you'll like them alright.

I admit I haven't ridden them in tacky conditions but a knobby 2.8" at 20psi will be okay I think :)