Grizzle profile

Weird that he Turq builds only come with SRAM, and Shimano is only available on the lower end frames with non-Factory suspension. Seems backwards, and I'd guess SRAM forced that on them with an aggressive OE contract, combined with Shimano not seeming to care about market share like they one did.

I don't think its been adequately covered at all. While I can't read every comment in a section this long, most of what I can see are arguments related to componentry and convenience, and not engineering or bike design. I see a lot of "my old bike is still good, so nothing new should happen that conflicts with the bike I really like". There are even some who own Knollys and argue that 142mm axles are fine. Because Noel Buckley doesn't know how to make a bike frame... [facepalm].

My Evil Following V3 disagrees with the position that SB157 doesn't solve anything. That model would not be the excellent bike it is without that standard. And it most certainly is not the only one. Can you design a good frame within the confines of 148 spacing? Of course, Rocky, Specialized, Santa Cruz etc. do just fine. But plenty of newer bikes would have to make some sort of compromise, exemplified in the Following V2 that preceded my frame, known for abysmal tire clearance. While you posit that the majority of existing 148 bike do not need to be wider, that ignores the emerging possibilities afforded to frame designers by having a bigger sandbox to play in. SB157 does not confine any of them, whereas 148 makes some design difficult.

Beyond convenience with existing parts, which is a less and less valid argument in the context of rapidly changing bike design, its hard not to see 148 as the "faster horse" that Henry Ford's customers wanted.

To all the Superboost nay-sayers, I pose this question: What is it about 148 spacing and the attendant chainline that makes it good, and 157 bad? I.e. yes, competing standards are certainly annoying, but what if 148 was the mistake, and 157 is the solution? Asking since 157 seems to solve other issues elsewhere on the bike, and people's biggest objection seems to be that their old stuff doesn't fit. To me that's a non argument, because during a period of rapid innovation we would expect that. It's the price we pay for awesome bikes. Is there an engineering or design based reason for 148 vs 157, all else being equal?

To all the Superboost nay-sayers, I pose this question: What is it about 148 spacing and the attendant chainline that makes it good, and 157 bad? I.e. yes, competing standards are certainly annoying, but what if 148 was the mistake, and 157 is the solution? Asking since 157 seems to solve other issues elsewhere on the bike, and people's biggest objection seems to be that their old stuff doesn't fit. To me that's a non argument, because during a period of rapid innovation we would expect that. It's the price we pay for awesome bikes. Is there an engineering or design based reason for 148 vs 157, all else being equal?

Seems to me like the better solution would be to semi-permanently integrate the wiring into the frame at the factory, and semi-standardize the fitments at the ends, so either Company X or Company Y's drivetrain bits could be at the other end of a lovely piece of 19th century tech that our grandmothers would recognize. But that requires sensible cooperation between frame makers and component makers, which has only ever begrudgingly happened in our industry, and only the to avoid catastrophe. Damn, when did I start to become this bitter?

Seems to me like the better solution would be to semi-permanently integrate the wiring into the frame at the factory, and semi-standardize the fitments at the ends, so either Company X or Company Y's drivetrain bits could be at the other end of a lovely piece of 19th century tech that our grandmothers would recognize. But that requires sensible cooperation between frame makers and component makers, which has only ever begrudgingly happened in our industry, and only the to avoid catastrophe. Damn, when did I start to become this bitter?

Pretty sure NSMB posted a press release from PNW on NSMB's website, so I don't know whether PNW has the ability to forget the links.

Just in case, here is the link

Yeah, I want to like the taking of chances, but these look too much like some $20,000 monstrosities Kanye would wear. We're talking weapons-grade ugly. Maybe the tech will be restyled in the 2nd gen...

I just realize why the mushroom like profile of the bead cross section looks familiar: Its similar to a Chromag aluminum rim, although its missing the internal hook. Still, interesting that these two companies with somewhat similar riding outlooks arrive at similar shapes. I've yet to get a chance to try either, but I'm curious as to whether those softened profiles can prevent flats when I ride.

Would love to get a leg over this thing, and I love the industrial early 2000s aesthetic. It seems like the (perceived?) resurgence in aluminum is driven by companies like Geometron, who are using the lower setup/production costs to take bigger chances on bike design. Even if I don't get to ride one, this still helps all of our bikes get better. Nice work.

Motorcycles tried bigger bars, and went back to a smaller bar. The general consensus was that the bigger bar allowed the same strength at a lower weight, but the added fatigue riders experienced outweighed any potential weight savings. Tuned flex is a real thing and stiffer stops being better at some point. I think our industry is really embracing that at the moment. I personally have pulled back from 35mm bars, and I'm perfectly happy with my aluminum and carbon bars, though I wonder if that's a placebo.