Accessibility Widget: On | Off

The Battle Of Axle Standards!

Related:
Create New Tag

4/2/2015 4:13 PM

Picture this, you have the power to eliminate ALL axle standards EXCEPT yours, so what standard would you have for front and back? This does not include fat bikes but for all other bikes including: road, cyclocross, xc, trail, enduro, free ride, dh, and dirt jump, you must choose the axle standard!

You can stick with the standards or choose new ones!
Current front: 20x110, 15x110, 15x100, and qr
Current rear: 150, 148, 142, 135x12, and 135x10

Let the axle wars begin

|

4/2/2015 5:15 PM

I've been running 20x110 on all my bikes since the DHO was released. So I'm definitely gonna stay with that. I've got too many front wheels to go back now. For the rear, I'm gonna have to max it out at 150mm so that the maximum number of options are open. You can always shim things down. My only problem with 150 is shoe/heel clearance. It caused me a wicked crash straight to the dome. Sexy, curvy chain stays are in the future.

|

4/3/2015 9:02 AM

Fun question! I'm going to get some kickback for my answer, but here it is: if I choose from current standards, Boost is my choice without question. Yeah, I know I'm supposed to hate it because it's new and "WTF, bike industry," but years ago, I was one of small group who got to participate in a blind taste test of current axle standards and potential offerings, and in the end, I unknowingly chose Boost, which had no name at the time. The wider flanges do improve stiffness where it matters most: laterally. The improvement was noticeable.

I am also a fan of 15mm axles. I've ridden 15mm and 20mm back to back with the same front wheel and I honestly can't tell the difference. 15mm allows for lighter bearings and a lighter axle assembly, so I choose it over the 20mm standard.

I like that current standard of providing a "shoulder" for the hub flanges with thru axles, so that's a must.

Add that together and my unquestionable choice is Boost, or 15x110mm front and 148x12mm rear.

If I were creating my own standard, I'm not sure I would deviate from Boost. Two reasons for this: despite what we/I want to believe, there are some really smart people whose only job is to improve bikes, so if they came to the conclusion that 15x110 and 148x12 are the right dimensions, I trust them -- they unquestionably know more about this than me. Secondly, my custom standard would likely involve wider flanges, but I already clip my heals on the chainstays of the DH standards (157 and 150), so there is definitely a limit and we are very close to it. I do not clip my heals on 148x12.

|

4/3/2015 11:29 AM

142 and 20mm. Easy question. 150 or 157 would suck on trail bikes, and 148 means you need a different chainring or spider. As for 20mm, if you can't feel the difference in stiffness between 15 and 20mm good for you, but don't make the rest of us suffer because you're slow and(or) weigh 140 pounds. Suck it up and carry the extra 15 grams so us big guys don't have to die on 15mm front ends.

|

4/3/2015 11:41 AM

6'4" and 205 lbs, actually... but still slow. cool Truthfully, you can tell the difference between 15mm and 20mm? Are you really a robot?

|

4/3/2015 12:12 PM

I want a wider crank axel, by maybe 20-30mm. I tend not to ride fully on my pedals (flats), so I think a wider Q factor would suit me and make me use all my pedal. That means I could go with a wider rear axel (154?) and use a 20mm up front, which could be wider. I'm wide-ish, so I guess that's where this is coming from.....

|

Beer, Plants, Bikes, Family

4/3/2015 12:30 PM

I've twisted 15mm fork lowers, permanently ruining the casting and also causing me to nearly eat shit. I've never done that with 20mm fork lowers.

In the case of the Fox 36, where both the 15mm and 20mm options use pinch bolts on the axle, no it isn't that big a deal. But most 15mm axles don't use pinch bolts, they use 15QR where the axle floats freely in the dropout. This arrangement is complete horseshit for aggressive riders, and yes I can totally feel it.

|

4/3/2015 12:43 PM
Edited Date/Time: 4/3/2015 12:52 PM

That's such a roboty response. Knew it! wink

It could be that we were on two different companies' forks as well. My experience is with RockShox. It sounds like yours is with Fox. I'm sure there are differences between the two 15mm thru implementations that would contribute to the different experiences -- axle bore tolerances, for example -- not to mention lower leg designs and castings, or CSU designs.

|

4/3/2015 12:52 PM

I'd choose 20x110 front, and 12x142 in the back.

|

4/3/2015 1:12 PM

Front: 20x110
Rear: 12x142

|

4/3/2015 2:23 PM

Robot for president.

|

4/3/2015 2:28 PM

20x110 front. 12x148 rear. what i have read about boost sounds good to me.

|

4/3/2015 2:30 PM

I have to say I disagree with everyone! We should have a 25x125 front and a 20x160 In the rear, along with that the bb would need to be like a 100 to achieve a good Q factor. These choices are for a few reasons, I'll start with roadies, I think we need to widen everything on road bikes because there should be no more road bikes they should all be cyclocross bikes, second for the xc and trail riders this could change the way races are won, instead of pushing petal strokes out the stiffer frames and forks could now be used to double and pump certain sections allowing for more interesting racing, and third for dh dj and enduro this could lead to lighter bikes because of the increased stiffness of the bikes allowing for more frame flex meaning less meterial!
I completely agree though with Nicholast, the people who make these standards know what they are doing and we as a mtb community need to understand that and let change happen!

|

4/3/2015 3:05 PM

20x110 and 12x142 for everything.

|

4/3/2015 3:48 PM

Spomer! Post some useful photos like the one in the header of the post for this. It would be a hell of a lot better to understand the actual difference in the spoke spacing, rotor mounts, etc... Diagrams broooosefff!

|

4/3/2015 5:22 PM

20x110 front 142x12 rear for everything

|

4/3/2015 5:24 PM

whisper wrote:

Spomer! Post some useful photos like the one in the header of the post for this. It would be a hell of a lot better to ...more

Whisper, what kind of diagrams are you looking for? I'm confused

|

4/3/2015 6:42 PM
Edited Date/Time: 4/3/2015 6:42 PM

As an avid fat bike enthusiast, I can tell you that merely tossing aside the concerns for these engineering masterpieces is only selling the cycling world short.

We need every dumb piece of crap marketed to us because we've already made it obvious we're gullible as shit.

And if half a millimeter in flange helps me stiffen up my 6" wide tire filled with my own farts you can be damn sure I'm going to notice it. Because that's what wheels with a marshmallow stuck on the outside of it are all about.......PRECISION.

|

4/3/2015 7:26 PM

Kidwoo, I didn't mean to insult anyone, I'm a fat biker too but it is not feasible to have the same spacing for a fat bike as the rest of bikes

|

4/3/2015 8:19 PM

This is where bikes like the Banshee Prime shines as an example. Swappable dropouts allow 157x12 rear, if you want the strongest wheel, but you still have a 73mm BB. Can run a 1x if you put the chainring on the outer position on a triple.

If the Fox 36 came out with a swappable fitting that allowed 15x110, I wouldn't mind running it. I honestly think the Lefty Supermax's axle is best, but unless their damper gets better creds I wouldn't really consider running it.

|

4/3/2015 9:23 PM

I want a thru axle with dropouts to hold the hub in frame/fork for installation of axle.
I want wide hub flanges.
I want thru axle 20mm with a clamping mechanism at the least on one side.
Do it with 110mm front, and somewhere wider than 135mm and narrower than 150mm and don't change it again.

|

4/4/2015 1:39 AM

Why does the Q factor never get mentioned when talking about rear axle width, surely this has an affect on what is possible. Who came up with the current Q factor (152mm i think) and why is it so rigidly stuck to ?
If the Q factor was widened to say 160 or 165 then 150 rear axles wouldn't be a problem.

So for me it would be 150x15 rear and 120x15 front, but i would also widen the bottom bracket to 90mm and increase the Q factor.

|

4/4/2015 4:25 PM

142rear qr15 front.

|

4/4/2015 6:52 PM
Edited Date/Time: 4/4/2015 7:15 PM

connnordoll21 wrote:

Kidwoo, I didn't mean to insult anyone, I'm a fat biker too but it is not feasible to have the same spacing for a fat bike as ...more

I'm definitely not a fat biker and I know it's not feasible to have the same standards between fast bikes and fat bikes.

Which is exactly why screwing with solid, proven and available standards just so they're compatible with plus sized bullshit deserves a knife in the eye.

Fat bike hubs, fat bike forks, and fat bike frames......keep them together and separate from the rest of the world that wants to roll at an acceptable pace, as well as not have to buy a new set of wheels every time someone comes out with a frame or fork that looks good.

There's a reason you keep seeing the same answer of 142/20 over and over again. Because they're solid, ubiquitous and proven. No one wanting high performance mountain bikes gives a crap about fat bike compatibility. If they do they can buy fat bike parts.





|

4/4/2015 7:10 PM

Well said Mr. Woo.

|

4/5/2015 5:03 AM

connnordoll21 wrote:

Kidwoo, I didn't mean to insult anyone, I'm a fat biker too but it is not feasible to have the same spacing for a fat bike as ...more

kidwoo wrote:

I'm definitely not a fat biker and I know it's not feasible to have the same standards between fast bikes and fat bikes.

...more

This is how people acted when 27.5 came out, change is what keeps humans sane. Without change the world would not be where it is, same with mtb.

|

4/5/2015 5:07 AM

|

4/5/2015 8:09 AM

Nicholast wrote:

Fun question! I'm going to get some kickback for my answer, but here it is: if I choose from current standards, Boost is my ...more

"...there are some really smart people whose only job is to improve bikes"

More like cause all consumers to have to switch to a new standard just so they can make more money off them. All producers these days are trying their best to squeeze every last cent out of their consumers because they know there will be people who give into the bs

|

4/5/2015 9:48 AM

TEAMROBOT wrote:

142 and 20mm. Easy question. 150 or 157 would suck on trail bikes, and 148 means you need a different chainring or spider. As ...more

Agreed, 142 mm and 20 mm.

|

4/5/2015 11:08 AM
Edited Date/Time: 4/5/2015 1:26 PM

1.Shimano could have made boost dinensionong, when they were releasing 15 and 142, they had all resources and reasons to do it (it was right begore 29er explosion)
2.15mm was a PR project to sell thru axles to XC riders.
3.In vast majority of cases 15mm saves no weight to 20mm. In best case you save 56g (Tune hub + this stupid red anodized axle)
4.150 was never really necessary as DH and huck bikes never needed wide cassette. In 150 A big chunk of hub spacing is wasted on non drive side due to regular width of the freehub. Specialized proved that with Hill/Brendog Demo.
5. As Team Robot Pointed out, clamping type (pinch, vs threaded) has dramatic influence on stiffness and strength - basic understanding of structure is necessary to grasp that wide a tight clamped 12mm axle will be stiffer than threaded 25mm. If you get both, pinch bolt clamping and 20mm it's win win + micro win for bearing life.
6.threaded axle clamping is done for easy wheel removal (XC race - like, Enduro race , DH race, Strava challenge, all day trip - Who cares?). Then it is lighter off course. wheel removal bit is solved by a very clever and elegant solution in Fox 36, and used to exist on Z1 Marzocchis.
7.Wider flange spacing is irrelevant for bikes with "regular" 2,2-2,5" tyres, you just cannot benefit from it, particularly in the era of carbon rims.
8.Boost is not necessary to fit 2.5" tyre with decent tyre and chain ring celarancy while maintaining stupid short chainstay lengths - look at Enduro 29 or Kona Honzo. Again: especially with use of carbon, allowing high stiffness and durability at tight sections. It is necessary for fat tyres.
9.we can't do anything about Industry making lots of different shit and companies like Hope will always provide an easy and cost effective way around such issues. So blabla bla good night.
10.If majority of components on your bike are from 2010 up, you are highly likely owning something that is not behind 2016 bike of same type, nothing that cannot be compensated with tiny bit of deliberate practice and trainig, or just riding with a faster guy you can learn from.

YOU KNOW THAT I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOUR CURRENT BIKE IS AWESOME.

11.Do not take anything from the text above seriously, please go and buy new bike with new bells and whistles, respect people called sheep and trend sluts - I enjoy a fruitful second hand market.
12.Is Vital having traffic issues to start this topic?
13.Hey Vital, fix your shit! Spell check underlines the word "Enduro".



|