You're limited on the outer diameter by the rotor 6bolt BCD or the centerlock interface. A 15 mm axle gives you the option to use a thicker...
You're limited on the outer diameter by the rotor 6bolt BCD or the centerlock interface.
A 15 mm axle gives you the option to use a thicker section bearing which means larger diameter balls which means a higher load capacity.
FWIW, 20 mm Maxle was effectively a floating axle as the DS part of it also had a wedge with a larger diameter, pushing the hub to the NDS dropout.
As for 150 vs 148, 157 is the correct comparison to 148 as 148 uses the 3,5 mm ledges on either side for the hub to sit in the frame, like 142 and 157, while 150 is like 135x12 where the hub drops through the frame.
Even standard hubs on Rock Shox forks compatible with torque cap are a problem for people, let alone rear hubs dropping through the frame besides getting cassette past the derailleur and inserting the rotor in the caliper.
Then, talking about 150 vs 148 (vs 142), you would come to the chainline issues you would have to deal with if you were to choose 150 over 148. 150 vs. 148 has to be looked at as 150 vs 141 regarding hub geometry/layout and chainline.
Regarding pinch bolts, I know I am weird to say the least, but hell no will I have pinch bolts on my fork to take my wheel off. I put a QR Maxle on my Zeb as I will _NOT_ use a hex key to freaking take my wheel off. So much so I had a custom Maxle made to fit into a UDH dropout for the rear. (I also would not be surprised if skewered QR through axles preload the hub more than a bolt on axle does if torque to a value where you can use a multitool to get it free).
Fair enough for the 6bolt limitation.
You took me back in time with the original Maxle, I forgot it used to be like that, which is a much better design than most (all ?) 15mm axles currently on the market.
As for the use of quick release, how often do we actually need to remove our wheels ? Unless you have to toss your bike in your car this is very rare, especially if you ride tubeless and most repairs are stuffing a bacon strip in the tire and pumping it back-up.
I agree 15mm is superfluous but there's a simple and cheap solution: just run Hope hubs on the front so you can switch between 15mm and 20mm with a simple end cap swap. (can anyone else chime in on what other brands have this?) I'm also lucky enough to be a RockShox fan, so my 15mm end caps are all torque caps leading me to have zero front axle interface complaints.
I agree 15mm is superfluous but there's a simple and cheap solution: just run Hope hubs on the front so you can switch between 15mm and...
I agree 15mm is superfluous but there's a simple and cheap solution: just run Hope hubs on the front so you can switch between 15mm and 20mm with a simple end cap swap. (can anyone else chime in on what other brands have this?) I'm also lucky enough to be a RockShox fan, so my 15mm end caps are all torque caps leading me to have zero front axle interface complaints.
hadley, i9, dtswiss immediately come to mind (i've done so with all 3 brands). i'm sure there's more.
nerd fact: my oldest hadley is a 20mm front hub circa 2002, long before 15mm hubs were a standard - and i was able to get a conversion kit for it.
I agree 15mm is superfluous but there's a simple and cheap solution: just run Hope hubs on the front so you can switch between 15mm and...
I agree 15mm is superfluous but there's a simple and cheap solution: just run Hope hubs on the front so you can switch between 15mm and 20mm with a simple end cap swap. (can anyone else chime in on what other brands have this?) I'm also lucky enough to be a RockShox fan, so my 15mm end caps are all torque caps leading me to have zero front axle interface complaints.
Will they still have the terrible customer service and poor parts availability that we grew to love back in their first foray? Time will tell!
This echos my thoughts when I read Iceman's post. Why would they be poised to try again when they clearly haven't cared enough the first couple of times.
This echos my thoughts when I read Iceman's post. Why would they be poised to try again when they clearly haven't cared enough the first couple...
This echos my thoughts when I read Iceman's post. Why would they be poised to try again when they clearly haven't cared enough the first couple of times.
Because they pissed off too many folx in the moto world and need a new market?
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid...
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid and widespread adoption of thru-axles across all mountain bikes, then road bikes, then gravel and CX bikes. If the axle choices in 2012 (or whenever) were viewed as a binary choice between lightweight XC-oriented QR axles and a heavy DH-oriented 20mm thru axle, I think it would have taken a lot longer for product managers to go out on a limb and spec better forks and axles. 15mm axles gave product managers needed cover (The best of all worlds!! Stiff and light!! No compromises!!) Weight was still king for most MTBers in 2012 in a way that it just isn't anymore. Example: the 2025 35-pound $10000 carbon trail bike from X, Y, Z high-end brand.
And realistically, the difference between a modern 15mm and 20mm axle is negligible. If modern DH fork designers were forced at gunpoint to switch over to 15mm axles, they could easily mitigate the marginal increase in flex by adding material to lowers, crowns, stanchion diameter, or whatever. I think some recent DH forks even offer the option to run 15mm axles? I know this issue has been beaten to death, and I agree that 15mm axles are dumb, but so are people and I think we needed 15mm axles as a bridge to move people over to the side of the river that values performance over weight. It's better over here, on this side of the river. Go ride a 27 pound trail or XC bike from 2011 and see for yourself.
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:
"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a Boxxer that was running 29” Lyrik lowers. And yes, that means some of the hardest chargers in the world were racing with a 15mm thru-axle. In fact, there were serious discussions about using a 15 x 110mm thru axle on the new Boxxer, which would have allowed riders to swap wheels from their trail bike to their downhill bikes."
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a...
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:
"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a Boxxer that was running 29” Lyrik lowers. And yes, that means some of the hardest chargers in the world were racing with a 15mm thru-axle. In fact, there were serious discussions about using a 15 x 110mm thru axle on the new Boxxer, which would have allowed riders to swap wheels from their trail bike to their downhill bikes."
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a...
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:
"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a Boxxer that was running 29” Lyrik lowers. And yes, that means some of the hardest chargers in the world were racing with a 15mm thru-axle. In fact, there were serious discussions about using a 15 x 110mm thru axle on the new Boxxer, which would have allowed riders to swap wheels from their trail bike to their downhill bikes."
I agree 15mm is superfluous but there's a simple and cheap solution: just run Hope hubs on the front so you can switch between 15mm and...
I agree 15mm is superfluous but there's a simple and cheap solution: just run Hope hubs on the front so you can switch between 15mm and 20mm with a simple end cap swap. (can anyone else chime in on what other brands have this?) I'm also lucky enough to be a RockShox fan, so my 15mm end caps are all torque caps leading me to have zero front axle interface complaints.
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a...
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:
"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a Boxxer that was running 29” Lyrik lowers. And yes, that means some of the hardest chargers in the world were racing with a 15mm thru-axle. In fact, there were serious discussions about using a 15 x 110mm thru axle on the new Boxxer, which would have allowed riders to swap wheels from their trail bike to their downhill bikes."
The 29 lyrik lowers allowed wheel clearance around the arch. Custom crowns were needed to accommodate the c-c of the bore on said lowers. We built two sets for the 2018 season. I think we had to limit the travel to 190 though
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air...
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air, but I'm not a huge fan that they're only available with a 20x110 boost axle. A larger diamater stiffer axle isn't a bad idea, but wheel availability isn't going the be good if you need to get a new one in a pinch.
Out of curiosity does anyone know if they have a legitimate reason for choosing a 39mm chassis over a 38 or 40mm one? Maybe we'll see some...
Out of curiosity does anyone know if they have a legitimate reason for choosing a 39mm chassis over a 38 or 40mm one?
Maybe we'll see some of this on direct to consumer OEM, semi-pro, and staff deal bikes for a bit. I'm certainly in the "never again" camp (I think my feelings about BOS may have come out in this thread once or twice already), but I'd hope my fellow consumer would wait a while before jumping into these, at least at- or close to the generally high MSRP with only the promise that BOS CARES about you because they established the BOS CARE department. Although even I'll admit that's a better name than the BOS ACTIVE DISTAIN FOR OUR CUSTOMERS department.
So u cannot use dustwhiper or any other spares from other brands when they stop their business in a year
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a...
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:
"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a Boxxer that was running 29” Lyrik lowers. And yes, that means some of the hardest chargers in the world were racing with a 15mm thru-axle. In fact, there were serious discussions about using a 15 x 110mm thru axle on the new Boxxer, which would have allowed riders to swap wheels from their trail bike to their downhill bikes."
The 29 lyrik lowers allowed wheel clearance around the arch. Custom crowns were needed to accommodate the c-c of the bore on said lowers. We built...
The 29 lyrik lowers allowed wheel clearance around the arch. Custom crowns were needed to accommodate the c-c of the bore on said lowers. We built two sets for the 2018 season. I think we had to limit the travel to 190 though
As i was intently scrolling thru to see if i could just pick up a cheep 27.5 boxxer and throw the 29' lowers off my creaking csu yari and have a yaxxer on my decoy. Oh well, back to work
Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really. In some circles of autoracing, there's a term 'motility' applied to a sorted combination of parts which is derivative of the movement of an organism. Which in a sense is what suspension does and is doing by manipulating the forces and effect of gravity.
There's no realworld basis for teh interwebz hosting free association of what's generally DH bikes and goings-on in Formula 1 racing. Is never the other way around however... have yet to watch an old race or tune into a current one where a voice is heard proclaiming '...this is the DH Bicycle of Motorsport' but I digress.
If it's all just pomp and fanfare then it is what it is. But most of F1 is meant to have a standard running gear to have engineers and designers apply a focus to and, there's just none of that with a Bicycle at all. The other crux of motorsport is mandated parts, some of which all parts are mandated. Again, little to none of that with the bicycle and to detriment of the rationale of such rule and regulation:
Cost Cap.
For UCI not enforce set schedules for parts like these to be fitted to bikes and then have the 'community' complain about a very abbreviated viewing schedule of only goes to reinforce a philosophical concept of the "Ship of Theseus" where no true originality can be made an argument.
These things, 'mass dampers' only highlight someone truly having lackluster wheel control. Exactly what the DH of Motorsport had over a decade ago w/ Team Renault except that was to quell tire rebound and gain an Aero advantage.
🧐Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really...
🧐
Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really. In some circles of autoracing, there's a term 'motility' applied to a sorted combination of parts which is derivative of the movement of an organism. Which in a sense is what suspension does and is doing by manipulating the forces and effect of gravity.
There's no realworld basis for teh interwebz hosting free association of what's generally DH bikes and goings-on in Formula 1 racing. Is never the other way around however... have yet to watch an old race or tune into a current one where a voice is heard proclaiming '...this is the DH Bicycle of Motorsport' but I digress.
If it's all just pomp and fanfare then it is what it is. But most of F1 is meant to have a standard running gear to have engineers and designers apply a focus to and, there's just none of that with a Bicycle at all. The other crux of motorsport is mandated parts, some of which all parts are mandated. Again, little to none of that with the bicycle and to detriment of the rationale of such rule and regulation:
Cost Cap.
For UCI not enforce set schedules for parts like these to be fitted to bikes and then have the 'community' complain about a very abbreviated viewing schedule of only goes to reinforce a philosophical concept of the "Ship of Theseus" where no true originality can be made an argument.
These things, 'mass dampers' only highlight someone truly having lackluster wheel control. Exactly what the DH of Motorsport had over a decade ago w/ Team Renault except that was to quell tire rebound and gain an Aero advantage.
🧐Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really...
🧐
Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really. In some circles of autoracing, there's a term 'motility' applied to a sorted combination of parts which is derivative of the movement of an organism. Which in a sense is what suspension does and is doing by manipulating the forces and effect of gravity.
There's no realworld basis for teh interwebz hosting free association of what's generally DH bikes and goings-on in Formula 1 racing. Is never the other way around however... have yet to watch an old race or tune into a current one where a voice is heard proclaiming '...this is the DH Bicycle of Motorsport' but I digress.
If it's all just pomp and fanfare then it is what it is. But most of F1 is meant to have a standard running gear to have engineers and designers apply a focus to and, there's just none of that with a Bicycle at all. The other crux of motorsport is mandated parts, some of which all parts are mandated. Again, little to none of that with the bicycle and to detriment of the rationale of such rule and regulation:
Cost Cap.
For UCI not enforce set schedules for parts like these to be fitted to bikes and then have the 'community' complain about a very abbreviated viewing schedule of only goes to reinforce a philosophical concept of the "Ship of Theseus" where no true originality can be made an argument.
These things, 'mass dampers' only highlight someone truly having lackluster wheel control. Exactly what the DH of Motorsport had over a decade ago w/ Team Renault except that was to quell tire rebound and gain an Aero advantage.
I read this twice and I still have no idea what you intended to say other than jaded garbage.
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:
This comment seems to be a convoluted attempt at drawing parallels between professional bike racing and motorsports, particularly Formula 1, but it’s a jumbled mess of loose associations and misplaced terminology. Let’s break it down brutally:
1. Chain Drive Skepticism: The commenter kicks off with skepticism about recent changes to bike racing due to “chain drive,” but gives no real details or context for what exactly they are skeptical about. It feels like they are grasping at straws, trying to sound knowledgeable while being vague about their actual critique.
2. Motility and Suspension Nonsense: They throw in the term “motility” from motorsports, trying to sound profound by equating it with bike suspension and the manipulation of gravity. This is a bizarre, over-complicated analogy that tries to link the biological term with bike mechanics in a way that doesn’t really make sense or add anything to the argument. It feels like an attempt to sound smart, but ends up being pretentious and confusing.
3. Useless F1 Comparison: The person rambles about how there is no connection between downhill (DH) biking and Formula 1, but goes on to compare them anyway, just to say there’s no point in comparing them. They even mention they’ve never heard anyone call a Formula 1 car “the DH Bicycle of Motorsport”—which is, unsurprisingly, irrelevant because no one in their right mind would make that comparison in the first place. It’s a strawman argument that detracts from any valid point they might have tried to make.
4. Cost Cap Irrelevance: They seem to miss the mark entirely on the concept of cost caps. In motorsport, cost caps are imposed to level the playing field between teams with different budgets. But how this is relevant to UCI or professional biking is left unclear. They seem to want UCI to enforce stricter part regulations, but don’t explain why or how this would improve the sport.
5. Ship of Theseus Tangent: They throw in some pseudo-philosophical garbage about the “Ship of Theseus” to imply that the constant upgrading of parts in biking removes any claim to originality. This is an overblown and irrelevant philosophical detour that doesn’t help their argument—whatever it even is at this point.
6. Mass Dampers and Renault’s Aero Advantage: They attempt to end on a high note by throwing in technical jargon about “mass dampers,” likening them to a decade-old strategy used by Renault in F1 to reduce tire rebound. The implication here is that people relying on mass dampers in biking are compensating for poor skills. But this comparison feels forced and unclear, as the two sports have very different engineering challenges.
In conclusion, the comment is an incoherent mess. The author tries to blend unrelated concepts from motorsport and biking to sound insightful, but instead they come across as someone with surface-level knowledge throwing around technical terms to mask the lack of a coherent point. It’s a hodgepodge of overreaching analogies and poorly articulated frustration that ultimately says very little.
Pretty cool concept. I remember first noticing this on Vali Höll's YT. She rode without the pulleys during practice and then they were added for the final. Rulezman also makes them for his Banshee bikes. He claims it completely removes pedal kickback.
Pretty cool concept. I remember first noticing this on Vali Höll's YT. She rode without the pulleys during practice and then they were added for the...
Pretty cool concept. I remember first noticing this on Vali Höll's YT. She rode without the pulleys during practice and then they were added for the final. Rulezman also makes them for his Banshee bikes. He claims it completely removes pedal kickback.
Here's a upper chain growth graph he published to back up his claims. My understanding is that he finds the X and Y coordinates of where to create a virtual high pivot for the chain. This would need to be designed for the target bike hence why he only makes it for his sponsor: Banshee
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:This comment seems to...
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:
This comment seems to be a convoluted attempt at drawing parallels between professional bike racing and motorsports, particularly Formula 1, but it’s a jumbled mess of loose associations and misplaced terminology. Let’s break it down brutally:
1. Chain Drive Skepticism: The commenter kicks off with skepticism about recent changes to bike racing due to “chain drive,” but gives no real details or context for what exactly they are skeptical about. It feels like they are grasping at straws, trying to sound knowledgeable while being vague about their actual critique.
2. Motility and Suspension Nonsense: They throw in the term “motility” from motorsports, trying to sound profound by equating it with bike suspension and the manipulation of gravity. This is a bizarre, over-complicated analogy that tries to link the biological term with bike mechanics in a way that doesn’t really make sense or add anything to the argument. It feels like an attempt to sound smart, but ends up being pretentious and confusing.
3. Useless F1 Comparison: The person rambles about how there is no connection between downhill (DH) biking and Formula 1, but goes on to compare them anyway, just to say there’s no point in comparing them. They even mention they’ve never heard anyone call a Formula 1 car “the DH Bicycle of Motorsport”—which is, unsurprisingly, irrelevant because no one in their right mind would make that comparison in the first place. It’s a strawman argument that detracts from any valid point they might have tried to make.
4. Cost Cap Irrelevance: They seem to miss the mark entirely on the concept of cost caps. In motorsport, cost caps are imposed to level the playing field between teams with different budgets. But how this is relevant to UCI or professional biking is left unclear. They seem to want UCI to enforce stricter part regulations, but don’t explain why or how this would improve the sport.
5. Ship of Theseus Tangent: They throw in some pseudo-philosophical garbage about the “Ship of Theseus” to imply that the constant upgrading of parts in biking removes any claim to originality. This is an overblown and irrelevant philosophical detour that doesn’t help their argument—whatever it even is at this point.
6. Mass Dampers and Renault’s Aero Advantage: They attempt to end on a high note by throwing in technical jargon about “mass dampers,” likening them to a decade-old strategy used by Renault in F1 to reduce tire rebound. The implication here is that people relying on mass dampers in biking are compensating for poor skills. But this comparison feels forced and unclear, as the two sports have very different engineering challenges.
In conclusion, the comment is an incoherent mess. The author tries to blend unrelated concepts from motorsport and biking to sound insightful, but instead they come across as someone with surface-level knowledge throwing around technical terms to mask the lack of a coherent point. It’s a hodgepodge of overreaching analogies and poorly articulated frustration that ultimately says very little.
I just hope one day we as a community will stop trying to compare DH or any form of bike racing to motorsports. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and try to figure out how to make high pivot moto suspension for ultimate enduro prowess.
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:This comment seems to...
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:
This comment seems to be a convoluted attempt at drawing parallels between professional bike racing and motorsports, particularly Formula 1, but it’s a jumbled mess of loose associations and misplaced terminology. Let’s break it down brutally:
1. Chain Drive Skepticism: The commenter kicks off with skepticism about recent changes to bike racing due to “chain drive,” but gives no real details or context for what exactly they are skeptical about. It feels like they are grasping at straws, trying to sound knowledgeable while being vague about their actual critique.
2. Motility and Suspension Nonsense: They throw in the term “motility” from motorsports, trying to sound profound by equating it with bike suspension and the manipulation of gravity. This is a bizarre, over-complicated analogy that tries to link the biological term with bike mechanics in a way that doesn’t really make sense or add anything to the argument. It feels like an attempt to sound smart, but ends up being pretentious and confusing.
3. Useless F1 Comparison: The person rambles about how there is no connection between downhill (DH) biking and Formula 1, but goes on to compare them anyway, just to say there’s no point in comparing them. They even mention they’ve never heard anyone call a Formula 1 car “the DH Bicycle of Motorsport”—which is, unsurprisingly, irrelevant because no one in their right mind would make that comparison in the first place. It’s a strawman argument that detracts from any valid point they might have tried to make.
4. Cost Cap Irrelevance: They seem to miss the mark entirely on the concept of cost caps. In motorsport, cost caps are imposed to level the playing field between teams with different budgets. But how this is relevant to UCI or professional biking is left unclear. They seem to want UCI to enforce stricter part regulations, but don’t explain why or how this would improve the sport.
5. Ship of Theseus Tangent: They throw in some pseudo-philosophical garbage about the “Ship of Theseus” to imply that the constant upgrading of parts in biking removes any claim to originality. This is an overblown and irrelevant philosophical detour that doesn’t help their argument—whatever it even is at this point.
6. Mass Dampers and Renault’s Aero Advantage: They attempt to end on a high note by throwing in technical jargon about “mass dampers,” likening them to a decade-old strategy used by Renault in F1 to reduce tire rebound. The implication here is that people relying on mass dampers in biking are compensating for poor skills. But this comparison feels forced and unclear, as the two sports have very different engineering challenges.
In conclusion, the comment is an incoherent mess. The author tries to blend unrelated concepts from motorsport and biking to sound insightful, but instead they come across as someone with surface-level knowledge throwing around technical terms to mask the lack of a coherent point. It’s a hodgepodge of overreaching analogies and poorly articulated frustration that ultimately says very little.
I just hope one day we as a community will stop trying to compare DH or any form of bike racing to motorsports. Now if you'll...
I just hope one day we as a community will stop trying to compare DH or any form of bike racing to motorsports. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and try to figure out how to make high pivot moto suspension for ultimate enduro prowess.
Have you considered putting a r1 engine in a yz 250? It might be more effective than high pivot.
Fair enough for the 6bolt limitation.
You took me back in time with the original Maxle, I forgot it used to be like that, which is a much better design than most (all ?) 15mm axles currently on the market.
As for the use of quick release, how often do we actually need to remove our wheels ? Unless you have to toss your bike in your car this is very rare, especially if you ride tubeless and most repairs are stuffing a bacon strip in the tire and pumping it back-up.
Point on removal, but still, I hate bolt on axles with a passion. Clearly, considering my hoop jumping for rear UDH Maxle 😂
I agree 15mm is superfluous but there's a simple and cheap solution: just run Hope hubs on the front so you can switch between 15mm and 20mm with a simple end cap swap. (can anyone else chime in on what other brands have this?) I'm also lucky enough to be a RockShox fan, so my 15mm end caps are all torque caps leading me to have zero front axle interface complaints.
hadley, i9, dtswiss immediately come to mind (i've done so with all 3 brands). i'm sure there's more.
nerd fact: my oldest hadley is a 20mm front hub circa 2002, long before 15mm hubs were a standard - and i was able to get a conversion kit for it.
P321 used to have this feature (15 or 20mm endcaps) on the older hubs, not sure about the new ones.
Vault hubs from Race Face can go between 20, 15 and 12 in front. The same hub design is used for RF mountain wheels and Easton road wheels.
This echos my thoughts when I read Iceman's post. Why would they be poised to try again when they clearly haven't cared enough the first couple of times.
Because they pissed off too many folx in the moto world and need a new market?
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:
"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a Boxxer that was running 29” Lyrik lowers. And yes, that means some of the hardest chargers in the world were racing with a 15mm thru-axle. In fact, there were serious discussions about using a 15 x 110mm thru axle on the new Boxxer, which would have allowed riders to swap wheels from their trail bike to their downhill bikes."
Any idea why they did that?
The 2018 Boxxer was 27.5 or 26
There was not yet a finalized and production ready casting for the 29er BoXXer is my assumption
And I was called crazy a couple of years ago when I told that the later generation boxxers could use a 15mm axle...
not the new ones
The 29 lyrik lowers allowed wheel clearance around the arch. Custom crowns were needed to accommodate the c-c of the bore on said lowers. We built two sets for the 2018 season. I think we had to limit the travel to 190 though
So u cannot use dustwhiper or any other spares from other brands when they stop their business in a year
Highly likely scenario from a company that has been up ad running for some 25 years lol.
As i was intently scrolling thru to see if i could just pick up a cheep 27.5 boxxer and throw the 29' lowers off my creaking csu yari and have a yaxxer on my decoy. Oh well, back to work
Where the hell were you when this exact issue with this exact company came up like 7 or 8 years ago?
Oh right, I remember, at the local o-ring store.
insta ban
Interesting...
🧐
Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really. In some circles of autoracing, there's a term 'motility' applied to a sorted combination of parts which is derivative of the movement of an organism. Which in a sense is what suspension does and is doing by manipulating the forces and effect of gravity.
There's no realworld basis for teh interwebz hosting free association of what's generally DH bikes and goings-on in Formula 1 racing. Is never the other way around however... have yet to watch an old race or tune into a current one where a voice is heard proclaiming '...this is the DH Bicycle of Motorsport' but I digress.
If it's all just pomp and fanfare then it is what it is. But most of F1 is meant to have a standard running gear to have engineers and designers apply a focus to and, there's just none of that with a Bicycle at all. The other crux of motorsport is mandated parts, some of which all parts are mandated. Again, little to none of that with the bicycle and to detriment of the rationale of such rule and regulation:
Cost Cap.
For UCI not enforce set schedules for parts like these to be fitted to bikes and then have the 'community' complain about a very abbreviated viewing schedule of only goes to reinforce a philosophical concept of the "Ship of Theseus" where no true originality can be made an argument.
These things, 'mass dampers' only highlight someone truly having lackluster wheel control. Exactly what the DH of Motorsport had over a decade ago w/ Team Renault except that was to quell tire rebound and gain an Aero advantage.
I read this twice and I still have no idea what you intended to say other than jaded garbage.
You definitely have truly lackluster diction.
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:
This comment seems to be a convoluted attempt at drawing parallels between professional bike racing and motorsports, particularly Formula 1, but it’s a jumbled mess of loose associations and misplaced terminology. Let’s break it down brutally:
1. Chain Drive Skepticism: The commenter kicks off with skepticism about recent changes to bike racing due to “chain drive,” but gives no real details or context for what exactly they are skeptical about. It feels like they are grasping at straws, trying to sound knowledgeable while being vague about their actual critique.
2. Motility and Suspension Nonsense: They throw in the term “motility” from motorsports, trying to sound profound by equating it with bike suspension and the manipulation of gravity. This is a bizarre, over-complicated analogy that tries to link the biological term with bike mechanics in a way that doesn’t really make sense or add anything to the argument. It feels like an attempt to sound smart, but ends up being pretentious and confusing.
3. Useless F1 Comparison: The person rambles about how there is no connection between downhill (DH) biking and Formula 1, but goes on to compare them anyway, just to say there’s no point in comparing them. They even mention they’ve never heard anyone call a Formula 1 car “the DH Bicycle of Motorsport”—which is, unsurprisingly, irrelevant because no one in their right mind would make that comparison in the first place. It’s a strawman argument that detracts from any valid point they might have tried to make.
4. Cost Cap Irrelevance: They seem to miss the mark entirely on the concept of cost caps. In motorsport, cost caps are imposed to level the playing field between teams with different budgets. But how this is relevant to UCI or professional biking is left unclear. They seem to want UCI to enforce stricter part regulations, but don’t explain why or how this would improve the sport.
5. Ship of Theseus Tangent: They throw in some pseudo-philosophical garbage about the “Ship of Theseus” to imply that the constant upgrading of parts in biking removes any claim to originality. This is an overblown and irrelevant philosophical detour that doesn’t help their argument—whatever it even is at this point.
6. Mass Dampers and Renault’s Aero Advantage: They attempt to end on a high note by throwing in technical jargon about “mass dampers,” likening them to a decade-old strategy used by Renault in F1 to reduce tire rebound. The implication here is that people relying on mass dampers in biking are compensating for poor skills. But this comparison feels forced and unclear, as the two sports have very different engineering challenges.
In conclusion, the comment is an incoherent mess. The author tries to blend unrelated concepts from motorsport and biking to sound insightful, but instead they come across as someone with surface-level knowledge throwing around technical terms to mask the lack of a coherent point. It’s a hodgepodge of overreaching analogies and poorly articulated frustration that ultimately says very little.
Pretty cool concept. I remember first noticing this on Vali Höll's YT. She rode without the pulleys during practice and then they were added for the final. Rulezman also makes them for his Banshee bikes. He claims it completely removes pedal kickback.
How does that work? I mean the claims.
Here's a upper chain growth graph he published to back up his claims. My understanding is that he finds the X and Y coordinates of where to create a virtual high pivot for the chain. This would need to be designed for the target bike hence why he only makes it for his sponsor: Banshee
I just hope one day we as a community will stop trying to compare DH or any form of bike racing to motorsports. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and try to figure out how to make high pivot moto suspension for ultimate enduro prowess.
Have you considered putting a r1 engine in a yz 250? It might be more effective than high pivot.