[Damo]

What are the differences between a 135x10mm and a 150x12mm rear axle/hub (apart from size!)?

Are there advantages for using one over the other?

I have noticed frame manufacturers offering both, so it can't be frame-specific...

Cheers

 

[karpi]

suposidly, 150:12 stiffens the rear up, but I guess that has more to do the the 12 axle being thicker and with 150 your rear rim is easily centered and true, spokes are straighter adding to stiffness

 

[DownCycles_Stef]

This isn't always the case as many hubs are made to convert between a 9mm QR and up to a 12mm through axle but assuming that you are comparing a dedicated 9mm QR hub and a 12mm through axle hub, the through axle hub will generally have larger and stronger bearings. Other than that Karpi pretty much outlined the only other differences.

 

[Jim Mac]

suposidly, 150:12 stiffens the rear up, but I guess that has more to do the the 12 axle being thicker and with 150 your rear rim is easily centered and true, spokes are straighter adding to stiffness

That doesn't explain 135X12 mm hubs, though.

 

[DownCycles_Stef]

That doesn't explain 135X12 mm hubs, though.

Actually it does, a 12mm through axle (or any through axle) will be stiffer than a QR, and the bigger the through axle, the stiffer it is. That statement is completely independent of hub width. In general the thought is that a 135mm hub spacing increases the angle of the spokes to the point that it isn't as well suited to aggressive riding as a 150mm spacing is.

In fact, a 135mm hub will be a stiffer link between the dropouts than a 150mm hub (simply because there is less material). The reason you'll hear many people claiming the exact opposite has more to do with swingarm bearings. Generally speaking, wider spaced swingarm bearings will be stiffer than narrower ones. Since a wide swingarm pivot would require more angled stays (i.e. more material) in that case a 150mm hub spacing allows for an overall shorter amount of material (stays and axle combined) which leads to less flex.

The stiffest design will be one that incorporates a wide swingarm pivot (i'm using a single-pivot design here as it's the easiest to discuss, linkage involves many more variables) a hub with a large diameter through-axle and as little stay & axle material (in terms of length) as possible. All designs are simply an attempt to get the best of all worlds, and the reason DH bikes tend to run a 150mm hub spacing and XC bikes a 135mm, is simply a result of compromise and consideration of what is really neeeded for each type of riding.

 

[jvnixon]

Additionally there is the chainline factor/bb spindle width to consider in the grand scheme of 135/150 as well as tire clearance / fd & chainguide clearance. There's a lot to it when you really boil it down.

 

[jonKranked]

the biggest single difference between a 150 and 135 mm hub is the dishing of the wheel.

135 mm hubs need to be dished, that is, the spokes on the drive side are shorter than the spokes on non-drive side (there has to be more space to accommodate for the cassette than the disc, or whatever is on the other side). This asymmetrical design causes uneven stresses to the wheel build as a whole, and therefore 'weak points'.


150 mm spaced hubs eliminate this problem. the additional 15mm is added to the non-drive side to allow for a symmetrical wheel build. the drive side spokes are the same length as non drive side. this eliminates the uneven 'weak points' in a 135mm hub, resulting in a stronger wheel build.

 

[Jim Mac]

Actually it does, a 12mm through axle (or any through axle) will be stiffer than a QR, and the bigger the through axle, the stiffer it is. That statement is completely independent of hub width. In general the thought is that a 135mm hub spacing increases the angle of the spokes to the point that it isn't as well suited to aggressive riding as a 150mm spacing is.

In fact, a 135mm hub will be a stiffer link between the dropouts than a 150mm hub (simply because there is less material). The reason you'll hear many people claiming the exact opposite has more to do with swingarm bearings. Generally speaking, wider spaced swingarm bearings will be stiffer than narrower ones. Since a wide swingarm pivot would require more angled stays (i.e. more material) in that case a 150mm hub spacing allows for an overall shorter amount of material (stays and axle combined) which leads to less flex.

The stiffest design will be one that incorporates a wide swingarm pivot (i'm using a single-pivot design here as it's the easiest to discuss, linkage involves many more variables) a hub with a large diameter through-axle and as little stay & axle material (in terms of length) as possible. All designs are simply an attempt to get the best of all worlds, and the reason DH bikes tend to run a 150mm hub spacing and XC bikes a 135mm, is simply a result of compromise and consideration of what is really neeeded for each type of riding.

This makes sense. On a personal note, I need to ask FTW on the Sinister board why he chose a 135X12 set up for the R9 if it isn't necessarily the stiffest setup.

 

[jonKranked]

This makes sense. On a personal note, I need to ask FTW on the Sinister board why he chose a 135X12 set up for the R9 if it isn't necessarily the stiffest setup.

150xanything spaced hubs are harder to come by than 135x12. So you have more options. I'm sure Frank has some more reasons, but this is the first that came to my mind.

 

[Jim Mac]

150xanything spaced hubs are harder to come by than 135x12. So you have more options. I'm sure Frank has some more reasons, but this is the first that came to my mind.

Actually, I had a harder time finding a quality 135 X12 hub last year, the 150 options were more plentiful.

 

[jonKranked]

Actually, I had a harder time finding a quality 135 X12 hub last year, the 150 options were more plentiful.

really? hadley rears are convertible. 10, 12, 14, 15. whatever axle size you want. i think that's a quality hub


edit: I9 has a 135x12 offering too. another quality hub.

 

[Jim Mac]

really? hadley rears are convertible. 10, 12, 14, 15. whatever axle size you want. i think that's a quality hub


edit: I9 has a 135x12 offering too. another quality hub.

Going through my bike shop(s) discount, my options were limited to what I could get in QBP and BTI. I don't recall Hadley offering a 135X12, at least on BTI.

 

[jonKranked]

Going through my bike shop(s) discount, my options were limited to what I could get in QBP and BTI. I don't recall Hadley offering a 135X12, at least on BTI.

Hadley's are interchangeable. All you have to do is call them for the conversion kit, its about $20+shipping.

 

[trailhacker]

Off the shelf I would have to say 150x12 would be more readily available than 135x12. Plus, you would have more (read - cheaper) options in the 150x12.
Not saying they are not available but I would think I could go into any "mainstream" shop and have a better chance of finding or getting a 150 vs. 135 as most "mainstream" manufacturers are specing them in DH/FR applications.

I am not a wheel builder but I understood that wheel strength has a lot to do with "triangulation" of the spokes. The wider hub flange spacing allows wider triangulation of spokes.
So in theory the 150 would be wider than the 135.
That is one of the reasons why the dishing on the drive side of the 135 is supposed to be bad. No triangulation?
But I am no wheel builder.

 

[ThePriceSeliger]

The flanges in the hub will be further apart, meaning a stiffer, stronger wheel. But on the flipside, there will be more flex because the distance from each side of the swingarm will be greater. Honestly, has anyone actually felt the flex difference between a 135 to a 150?

 

[Damo]

Also another advantage, if the spokes are the same length either side, would be there will only be one size needed for the spares box...

So therefor, if given the choice, go for the 150x12mm?

 

[A.P]

Since 150mm is wider there is less clearance for your derailleur or rotor, especially once you get the bike leaned over. The wider it is, the closer to the ground when it is leaned.

Same goes with cranks, an 83mm shell is more likely to result in clipped pedals or crank arms for the same reason.

Some people have problems with this, others dont. Personally I dont and I like 83mm shells for the extra wide stance, and its worth the trade off for me.

 

[batts65]

150xanything spaced hubs are harder to come by than 135x12. So you have more options. I'm sure Frank has some more reasons, but this is the first that came to my mind.

Chain line I thought was a main reason Frank stuck with 135x12. The 83mm BB has only been around for a few years and that gives an optimal chain line for a 150 rear hub where as the 135 hub works best with the 68 and 73 BB shell sizes. Correct me if I am wrong.

I had a 2006 Intense M3 with the 73 BB and getting a good chain line was almost impossible, it would work. Then the next batch had an 83mm BB.

 

[DownCycles_Stef]

This makes sense. On a personal note, I need to ask FTW on the Sinister board why he chose a 135X12 set up for the R9 if it isn't necessarily the stiffest setup.

FTW probably chose it because it is the stiffest setup for the R9, the bearings on the R9 are pretty big and where they are mounted on the triangle has a lot of material. This means there is very little flex at the pivot's current width and the additional stiffness would probably reduce the overall flex so little that it doesn't benefit the design to go wider and sacrifice the 135 spacing for a 150.

 

[Jim Mac]

Here's the word from FTW:



You are exactly right. In my mind it is a compromise. The narrower your cranks are the more power you will put down and the longer your knees will last and the more **** you can squeeze through on the trail. Years ago we started a trend to go to 160mm in the rear, Ringle designed a wide flange hub for us and we had great chainline with Profile cranks (keep in mind we were still using square taper cranks)

We couldn't get anyone to go along with the program (I think lawill and a couple of other small-timers went for it)

anyway fast forward to today, bikes with low linkages and fat asses need a bit more room so we get the new "standards" of 83mm and ICGS 05 to fit a few bikes in need of the room.

I still think about 150/83 quite a bit. It could be time for a change soon and it would be a slam dunk if the hub builders would take advantage. Only for DH though and it ain't all roses.