[demo 9]

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/trek-remedy-99-2011.html

"2011 sees the introduction of ABP Convert that allows the use of both the newer and stiffer 12 mm x 142 mm rear axle system,..."

Rear Wheel DT Swiss XM 1550 Tricon
•12 x 142 mm (convertible to 135 mm QR by using supplied ABP Convert hardware


Really, as if fox's 15mm wasnt dumb enough, we had to ruin the rear too

 

[4xBoy]

The 142 is just a pair of wide spacers on a 135 so the wheel locates into the frame so you can then slide the axle in easily.

Great for flexy swingarm designs.

 

[Transcend]

The 15mm axle on fox forks (as well as others), is much better than a QR and lighter than a 20mm. What exactly is the problem with it? Most 20mm hubs are convertible anyways.

 

[jonKranked]

i have heard from a first hand experience that the particular bike in that link is absolutely incredible

 

[demo 9]

The 15mm axle on fox forks (as well as others), is much better than a QR and lighter than a 20mm. What exactly is the problem with it? Most 20mm hubs are convertible anyways.

Having the 831, and luckily I9 wheels, there isnt a huge problem with it, it just seems like re-inventing the wheel, I THINK that 9mm quick release wheels wont go away, and that nobody complained about a 20mm axle, how much weight can it really save? I like the design, but it seems like just another standard to me. Now i cant just easily swap front wheels if something were to happen. It is on my DJ bike so not a huge deal, but if on a slalom race bike, who keeps spare wheels that only fit one fork. everyhing else is 20mm, why change

 

[dilzy]

The 15mm axle on fox forks (as well as others), is much better than a QR and lighter than a 20mm. What exactly is the problem with it? Most 20mm hubs are convertible anyways.

According to Jason from Spesh, a 9mm with an rws and a hub with decent end caps is stiffer than 15mm forks in the tests that they did. They only went for it because people who spend lots of money on high end bikes are fanboys.

 

[TheTruth]

Shut the front doooooooor!!! Well, I think that 139.42 x 6 is the best size. Nothing can compare to the lateral flex suspension that it gives on the frame. It gives you a new kind of control in corners. Its called corner damping. Just incase you were worried about frame flex in turns. Fear no more because it is here. No you can pop out of corners slower than ever ready to set up for whatever you want to crash into ahead of you.

 

[captainspauldin]

According to Jason from Spesh, a 9mm with an rws and a hub with decent end caps is stiffer than 15mm forks in the tests that they did. They only went for it because people who spend lots of money on high end bikes are fanboys.

I feel like that's what forced RS into doing it also.. Their Maxle Light 20mm are pretty comparable to Fox 15mm setups, right?

 

[KavuRider]

I feel like that's what forced RS into doing it also.. Their Maxle Light 20mm are pretty comparable to Fox 15mm setups, right?

Yeah, sorry, I think the change is retarded.
"oh, we can sell a new standard"

Of course, I'm not a weight weenie.

 

[buildyourown]

Does it seem silly now? Kinda. But for those too young to remember, we used to ride around on bikes with 126mm hubs, QR everything, and quill stems. Everything is new and when it's new. The only thing that seems a little silly about this to me is that they should have just gone all the way to 150mm. In 10 years, when we have 14 speeds, the will.

 

[mattmatt86]

This thread has a lot of good info about the 142 system. I'm still on the fence...

 

[al-irl]

surely the difference in stiffness between a 135 and a 142mm back end is pretty un noticeable. Orange ditched the 150mm back end and went back to 135 as there wasn't any major difference in stiffness and the increase heal clearance given by the 135mm rear end was favored by the test riders. It seems like making something different for the sake of being different.

 

[TheTruth]

surely the difference in stiffness between a 135 and a 142mm back end is pretty un noticeable. Orange ditched the 150mm back end and went back to 135 as there wasn't any major difference in stiffness and the increase heal clearance given by the 135mm rear end was favored by the test riders. It seems like making something different for the sake of being different.

This is interesting because now that you mention that, the benefits of a different rear end spacing seem obscure. I guess the spacing did not effect the orange frame, however, this 142 system kind of seems like just as pointless as the orange frame its self. I think this 142 seems like a gimmick to make people on the internet think that this new spacing is better than the other two which have been used for years. As if every other bike manufacturer looked over the fact that 135 and 150 are ****ty and they are hiding top secret information that 142 x 12 is actually the magic spacing which will make you win a world cup.

 

[captainspauldin]

This thread has a lot of good info about the 142 system. I'm still on the fence...

synopsis for the lazies:
How is 142mm better than 135mm AND 150mm rear?

1. Neither have the shoulders to rest the axle on, auto centering the hub and making wheel installation a breeze. That's where the extra 3.5mm on each end of the hub comes in. It rests in the shoulders, so no more screwing around trying to line up the hub in the dropouts and then firing the axle through. Anyone who's ever used a rear thru axle knows what I'm talking about.

2. 150mm requires an 83mm wide bb to function properly. 83mm cranks are only available in big, heavy, dh format. That misses the point.

3. 135 x 12 will be dead before the year is out. Mark my words...

 

[dropmachine]

Really? People can't install a 135 wheel? Those are people that should have a doctors note just to walk to the store.

As well, 15mm is marketing at its best. Better then QR for sure, but no reason they couldn't have done 20mm lite.

 

[weedkilla]

Really? People can't install a 135 wheel?

I think its only 135 x 12 through axles that are easier with the new standard. Same installation "hassles" as 150 x 12 for the struggle to walk and chew gum set, or anyone in a hurry to change a flat.

 

[eatmyshorts]

quick someone release a 157x12 back end...

The amount of standards is retarded but necessary to give the average guy the choice. He just may not have it in 3 years time..

I run the 135x12 - its great and actually saved weight in the frame design. Yes the shoulder would maybe make it easier to install but if thats the hardest thing I have to deal with on a ride....

- does this mean we will see a 157x12??

 

[primo661]

Every other industry in the world is specializing and standardising and here we are being made into marketing whores for an extra 3.5MM on each side. Come on. Same thing goes with headsets.

1-1/8 to 1.5 to tapered 1.5 to… 1.5 Zero Stack tapered.

When will it end? Standardizing is key to bringing production costs down and I bet half the people jumping on this(or 15mm or the millions of headsets, etc.) band wagon also complain about bikes costing too much. I wouldn't have a problem with an extra 200 grams if it meant my 20mm fork was cheaper and I bet most people wouldn't either. The apparent advantages of the 142 system are so subjective it barely warrants entertaining the idea. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Rant over

 

[eatmyshorts]

Every other industry in the world is specializing and standardising and here we are being made into marketing whores for an extra 3.5MM on each side. Come on. Same thing goes with headsets. When will it end? Standardizing is key to bringing production costs down and I bet half the people jumping on this(or 15mm or the millions of headsets, etc.) band wagon also complain about bikes costing too much. I wouldn't have a problem with an extra 200 grams if it meant my 20mm fork was cheaper and I bet most people wouldn't either. The apparent advantages of the 142 system are so subjective it barely warrants entertaining the idea. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Rant over

dude you dont even know the start of the headset specs (maybe you do).... last year I designed a bike around what was thought to be the standard tapered spec and by the end of the year it was discontinued!! Lucky we could change it before production!

Then there is BB spec, brake mounts, blah blah etc...

At the end of the day peoples wallets will do some deciding - I feel sorry for those who choose something that is no longer standard..

In the future I think there will be some money in people/ companies that specialize in making custom reducers, shims, random stuff that allows people to continue to use there non standard frames with current standards...

 

[primo661]

I only used that quote because I liked the way it was phrased and already had it open in another tab. I know that there are more headset specs than I can remember though, so you are right. I was just using it to emphasize a point, this whole bike industry with its millions of standards for everything is just getting stupid, especially when one does not offer a significant enough real world advantage over the other. If all these standards were really as good as the marketing says, every manufacturer would spec them on their bikes over competitor standards.

 

[binary visions]

Not to change the subject, but:

ABP = Split Pivot?

Is there going to be a patent argument here?

 

[jonKranked]

Not to change the subject, but:

ABP = Split Pivot?

Is there going to be a patent argument here?

you need to spend more time in the DH forum.

yes they are the same.

 

[binary visions]

you need to spend more time in the DH forum.

yes they are the same.

Ah.

Sorry for the repeat.

You may all go back to your discussions about the retarded standards that get introduced every year.

 

[Nick]

Not to change the subject, but:

ABP = Split Pivot?

Is there going to be a patent argument here?

you need to spend more time in the DH forum.

yes they are the same.

The two examples that BV posted are the same, but the 2nd is not what the new 'standard' is all about necessarily. AFAIK, the 142 design will simply include slotted dropouts, similar to many fork designs, into which the rear hub slides and is captured. The dropout design could be integrated into a single pivot swingarm as much as the APB example show above.


No?

 

[jonKranked]

The two examples that BV posted are the same, but the 2nd is not what the new 'standard' is all about necessarily. AFAIK, the 142 design will simply include slotted dropouts, similar to many fork designs, into which the rear hub slides and is captured. The dropout design could be integrated into a single pivot swingarm as much as the APB example show above.


No?

so now there are gonna be lawyer tabs on the rear dropouts too?

 

[HAB]

so now there are gonna be lawyer tabs on the rear dropouts too?

No, it's just a lip on the inside of the drop out so that people whose knuckles drag on the ground can get the wheel lined up right to slide the axle through. Or at least that's how I understand it.

 

[binary visions]

Is there really a widespread problem with people being unable to line up two holes and a tube?

<softball pitch>

 

[Bikael Molton]

serious question: are the Treks so flexy that it is harder than on other frames to run the axle through?

 

[weedkilla]

No - you just have to have the skewer or axle go through the dropouts on an ABP bike so it naturally lends itself to whatever is the current through axle setup. So even their xc bikes are as slow as a dh bike (with maxle, etc) to get the wheel in and out. I'm kind of for "this" new standard as it may spell the end of qr skewers on the rear.
The other new standards...... meh. 15mm is an answer to a question no one asked, and as for 10 speed - I wish I could still buy good 8 speed. I miss chains that lasted a full season and didn't break.
The new demo that comes with a BB that is ready for a new BB standard that no one makes yet just makes me laugh!
And as previously mentioned - headsets are a joke.
I tend to build all my bikes up from scratch and they tend to have a few different builds in their life, my next set of wheels will be chosen by what hubs can take all the standards - so far these the most likely are superstar switch evo's. God only knows if they're any good, but at least they'll fit whatever axle standard comes on whatever frame I buy next.

 

[time-bomb]

If you have a really hard time stacking blocks or playing Milton Bradley's Operation, this new standard may be for you.

 

[IH8Rice]

why not make it 10x142?

thankfully with adapters, you dont have to use their crappy hubs. but using adapters/spacers is typically a PITA

 

[HAB]

why not make it 10x142?

thankfully with adapters, you dont have to use their crappy hubs. but using adapters/spacers is typically a PITA

Stiffness, and because it's harder to adapt a 10mm hub to be wider than it is with a 12mm.

Also, last time I checked, XTR and DT hubs weren't crappy. Both come in 12x142 now.

 

[IH8Rice]

Stiffness, and because it's harder to adapt a 10mm hub to be wider than it is with a 12mm.

how is it harder to adapt a 10mm hub to be wider than it is a 12mm hub??
they are XC/AM bikes. im sure 10mm hubs are more than good enough for them

and when i think of high end hubs, i dont thin of DT

 

[HAB]

how is it harder to adapt a 10mm hub to be wider than it is a 12mm hub??

and when i think of high end hubs, i dont thin of DT

With a 12mm you make some spacers to slide over the axle, job done. Same works for a 10mm TA, but those are rare, and for a 10mm QR, not so much.


DT makes some really good hubs. Just because you "don't think of them when you think of high end hubs" doesn't mean they suck by any stretch. They're light, strong, and their bearings are really good.

 

[IH8Rice]

They're light, strong, and their bearings are really good.

they are light and there bearings are okay, but their engagement isnt as good as a I9, CK, Hadley....and from my experience, they are not strong

 

[jonKranked]

they are light and there bearings are okay, but their engagement isnt as good as a I9, CK, Hadley....and from my experience, they are not strong

from your experience nothing is that strong

 

[IH8Rice]

from your experience nothing is that strong

no comment

 

[HAB]

they are light and there bearings are okay, but their engagement isnt as good as a I9, CK, Hadley....and from my experience, they are not strong

True on the engagement, but it has gotten better of late. It's really not something I care about though, I've got a bike with Kings, and others with lower engagement hubs, like Hopes and Shimanos, and I barely notice when I move back and forth.

They've been pretty bulletproof in my experience. What have you had go wrong?

 

[slowitdown]

15mm is an answer to a question no one asked,

Absolutely true. 20mm existed; 20mm Maxle Lite is only marginally heavier than 9mm QR; the margin of increased weight DOES NOT MATTER, and I don't care what Joe XC Racer says, you don't lose a race because your front axle was 40gms too heavy.

I love Fox Forks but I'm not getting a 15mm axled halfway-house BS substitute for 20mm. Great idea, Fox and Shimano. "Hey, let's create a 15mm even though 20mm exists already. We can phoque with SRAM/RockShox that way!"

Childish games, causing rider headaches.

 

[Transcend]

I think what a lot of people have to remember is that the MTB market, and trainl/freeride/DH markets especially are finally growing up. They were still using a lot of ancient (in technology terms) standards and sizing stemming from an invention that is a over a hundred years old.

Press in BottomBracket cups to get larger and longer lasting bearings, tapered steer tubes for longer lasting headset bearings, but reduced weight (vs 1.5"), larger, stronger axles and interfaces etc. The MTB is growing up and may take a few years for things to finally stabilize. Remember that MTB is only really about 20 years old as a sport,and only about 5-6 years old as a real mass market sport.