The Battle Of Axle Standards!

It bums me out when I read this. Do you really believe that; that new standards are born out of company greed to sell more product? I can promise you that in most cases, new standards are typically born during whiteboard sessions in rooms full of engineers discussing what it will take to meet the new product spec for the next generation thing they are designing. I've sat in them for other industries before, and if you can keep up with the dry, technical content, they are fascinating. The mountain bike industry is no different.

142
15

It's what I have now, works for me, don't want to spend any more money/have my bike obsoleted.

9mm quick release f/r

20mm x 142mm is my vote but this argument is too loaded not to elaborate...

Richard Cunningham is, and has been, the sports most vocal journalist regarding industry tech for over two decades. He has railed against and rallied for many of our "innovations." I put that word in quotes because our sport's milestone innovations throughout the years have been merely a trickle-down of moto technology. Time and time again our sport has tried to reinvent the wheel every possible step of the way when in the end, the product and technology that made sense was --duh-- the one that moto has been using all-along.

Elastomers: great idea? Nope. Unified rear triangles: idiotic? Yup. Moto has had the wheel size and hub standard thing figured out for a while now. As usual, the mtb industry still struggles to nail it down.

I usually agree with Mr. Cunningham. I agree with the virtues of wide rims (35mm+) that he has mentioned several times over the last five years that is inextricably linked to this whole Boost idea. So his article in Pinkbike left a sour taste in my mouth. His usual pragmatism seems to be compromised a bit and allowing some room--maybe about 3mm--for marketing dogma to kick in because there are simpler solutions to gaining 3mm in flange width.

For starters, the whole 10% stiffer argument is laughable. You can easily make a wheel 10% stiffer or softer by virtue of any chosen rim, spoke, nipple, spoke tension, tire, tire pressure, the list goes on. That number, right out of the gate, is rubbish enough to throw right in the shitty idea bin...

Hub dimensions are a huge way to create stiffness. Take, for instance, a Hope hub versus an American classic hub. The Spoke Circle Diameter is 10mm larger on the AC hub than the Hope. That equates to less spoke length, and where the flanges travel straight up, also an increase in effective flange width. (I am not going to do the geometry on how many mms that is.)

Another option is to get rid of so many damn gears in the rear. Go back to a 9-speed cluster with the current spacing used for 11-speed and make the cassette narrower.

Yet Another option would be to space brake rotors outward another 1-2mm since all of my bikes have ample room between the frame, spokes, rotors, and calipers.

These solutions make it so that you can get that precious 3mm and all people have to buy is a different hub and cassette in order to get that spacing that supposedly makes all the difference in the world. Supposedly.

RC is a sensationalist journalist. By stating that you usually believe in him, but don't this time, emphasizes the fact that what he publishes is questionable, which is how I see everything he writes. If you speak to him candidly, face to face, you'd get a more believable opinion. What he writes is shaped by his profession and his reputation.

Wish I could upvote you for that. You are spot on.