[BikeMike]

After a 2.5 hour race, on a real track (think MSA), in 30c heat and 90% humidity...all those little 40g changes add up and could very well cost someone in a sprint finish, something that happens quite often at WCs.

Suppose for a second that this is fairly plausible. What, exactly, is the relation to the rest of the MTB market?

Oh, right, Joe will have more fun on his new "standard" bike, because really his old bike sucked (mostly because it weighted 200g more, but also because it was too flexy). This year's standards are much better at making riding easier and more fun, and it's the bike that makes riding fun, right?

To put weight into perspective, it just so happens that 40g is also the weight of 40ml of water. Which is about 6% by volume of a standard bottle. Which is well within normal variance when filling water containers. How many people weigh their water before they go for a ride, to make sure they have the right amount? If they took too much, they might not maximize their fun. Not only will they loose in a sprint finish, but all that weight sloshing around might throw them off lines while descending. Seriously, if a few hundred dollars for this year's new standards is money well spent, $40 for a digital kitchen scale to weight water ought be the deal of the century.

I'm sure the companies are really looking out for everyone's best interest with all of the "standards". It has nothing to do with trying to corner more sales by capitalizing on the techno-status seeking nature of the typical mountain biker or forcing obsolescence and more expensive upgrades. I am all for improving designs, making things work better and last longer, but the number of "standards" that get foisted on this industry is totally stupid.

Contrary to Transcend's belief, I don't think this is a teleological story. Six years from now, we are not going to have all agreed on an ideal set of standards for the off road bicycle.

 

[mandown]

Welcome to evolution 101. Small, incremental steps, hopefully forward. DH bikes didn't just wake up sub 40 one day. Racers kept moving to lighter parts, testing their merit and keeping the ones that worked. The trickle down changed the market. Yes, it sucks if you have a great ISIS BB you liked, but outboard is where it is at. If you want new, you have to buy from the market. Do you need to convert? No. Is it better? Maybe a little. Will it change again? Yes.
SIUP. This hobby ain't cheap, but it sure is fun.

 

[demo 9]

It seems to me that the main "awesomeness" behind this stupid 142 spaced hub, is that the frame has a half moon on the top to catch the wheel and line it up, we coudlnt have done that to a 135 wheel?

And as somebody mentioned before, every hub end would have to be EXACTLY the same

 

[BikeMike]

Welcome to evolution 101. Small, incremental steps, hopefully forward. DH bikes didn't just wake up sub 40 one day. Racers kept moving to lighter parts, testing their merit and keeping the ones that worked.

Even if you want to use the evolution metaphor, it's still not teleological. There is no end. Evolution is not even directed--much less directed towards things getting better. And it sure as heck is not an efficient process.

If there was real selection by real testing, that would be awesome. However, it's not like that. I get something from a company, and it's different and supposedly better. How about that placebo effect? How many things are actually better? Then, how many things are better enough to justify the price of change? The company can effectively spin this new stuff as better, and this will attract consumers.

What determines which bicycle products are successful? Mainly, it's the marketing and availability. Generally, consumers don't have the option to select for true incremental changes. Manufacturer A stops producing something I like. Can I buy the old-style, less expensive thing elsewhere? In most cases, the answer is no.

Do you need to convert? No.

So it's like totally still easy to find 8-speed XT gear at the LBS when a drive train wears out? What about all the other stuff? Eventually, it's a forced conversion if you want to continue with the sport.

I think it would make a great deal of sense if the industry would design a "standard" without half-assing it and deciding it needed to be re-designed every few years or split into 5 slightly different niche "standards." While it would make marketing slightly tougher, it would allow lateral market expansion as costs came down a bit. In the end, nobody would be having any less fun on bikes, and perhaps more people would be having fun on bikes!

 

[primo661]

I think it would make a great deal of sense if the industry would design a "standard" without half-assing it and deciding it needed to be re-designed every few years or split into 5 slightly different niche "standards." While it would make marketing slightly tougher, it would allow lateral market expansion as costs came down a bit. In the end, nobody would be having any less fun on bikes, and perhaps more people would be having fun on bikes!

I agree completely. I find myself hard pressed not to mention that whole great minds quote.

 

[Dogboy]

It seems to me that the main "awesomeness" behind this stupid 142 spaced hub, is that the frame has a half moon on the top to catch the wheel and line it up, we coudlnt have done that to a 135 wheel?

And as somebody mentioned before, every hub end would have to be EXACTLY the same

No, it could not have been done to an existing 135mm wheel - that is the point. There is no room on the drive-side - the cassette does not allow enough room for the frame to have a shelf for the axle to sit in.

Do you guys not get that this is exactly like most (if not all - I haven't looked at a current Manitou or Marz) current 20mm forks? The hub end caps have to conform to the design standard of those as well.

 

[alexrex20]

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

wow. great story.

 

[alexrex20]

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.

is it really that hard for you to install a rear wheel with a thru axle?

 

[alexrex20]

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.

the tapered steerer tube was introduced to have the strength and durability of the 1.5in lower race, but the standard interface of the 1-1/8 steerer because 99.9% of all MTB stems are for a 1-1/8 steer tube.

 

[dilzy]

the tapered steerer tube was introduced to have the strength and durability of the 1.5in lower race, but the standard interface of the 1-1/8 steerer because 99.9% of all MTB stems are for a 1-1/8 steer tube.

Or you could make the whole damn head tube 1.5, use a reducer headset in the top and be on your way, at the same time reducing bar height. You could also use a full 1.5" fork if you wanted, or a 1/18th or a tapered, but currently tapered is the new hip thing.

1.5 to 11/8 tapered is ****ing pointless, as are 1.5 steerers. Fox insisted for a long time that 11/8th was plenty stiff (and it is) but they eventually caved for sales.

God I love my Demo 9.

 

[daisycutter]

PInk bikes take

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/12x142-explained.html

 

[mandown]

PInk bikes take

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/12x142-explained.html

looks like the dish is the same as 135.

 

[4xBoy]

looks like the dish is the same as 135.

 

[MDJ]

Considering our Tracer29 (which is selling like wildfire) was marketed as a 142x12 bike and most if not all that have gone out have been ordered with 135mm, i'd say there are a lot of people not ready for 142?

I will say in running both setups and coming from 20+ years of riding with traditional skewered 9mm wheels, the 142 setup is nicer to assemble and perhaps its a placebo effect, but I do feel it is more rigid.

Not that the Intense rear ends need to be more rigid or anything...

 

[Bikael Molton]

I vote this thread is moved to a more suitable forum, since ease of rear wheel swaps is not relevant to Downhill.

 

[mandown]

right, adding spacers to the end of the hub body doesn't widen the points/base for spoke connection. though you could have a situation where you add spacers to the left side only, in order to better center the hub, but you'd be fvcking up the chainline. not having seen one in person, i'd imagine the hub flanges for the spoke connection are spaced a bit wider on a pure 142 hub.

4Xboy, I was posting up about dish to admit I was wrong for the above quote.

Welcome to evolution 101. Small, incremental steps, hopefully forward. DH bikes didn't just wake up sub 40 one day. Racers kept moving to lighter parts, testing their merit and keeping the ones that worked. The trickle down changed the market. Yes, it sucks if you have a great ISIS BB you liked, but outboard is where it is at. If you want new, you have to buy from the market. Do you need to convert? No. Is it better? Maybe a little. Will it change again? Yes.
SIUP. This hobby ain't cheap, but it sure is fun.

^^^ my post

I'm not saying that I'm all for it, but I think it's important to remember that a bike is the sum of it's parts and that if bikes never evolved, even if only in small steps that we're seeing now, we'd still all be using threaded loose ball headsets and cup and cone bottom brackets on our bikes. When it comes down to it, no one needs the new 12 x 142 axle size, but there are benefits to it that are worth looking at.

^^^ proof the pinkbike guy read my post

Even if you want to use the evolution metaphor, it's still not teleological. There is no end. Evolution is not even directed--much less directed towards things getting better. And it sure as heck is not an efficient process.
If there was real selection by real testing, that would be awesome. However, it's not like that. I get something from a company, and it's different and supposedly better. How about that placebo effect? How many things are actually better? Then, how many things are better enough to justify the price of change? The company can effectively spin this new stuff as better, and this will attract consumers.

What determines which bicycle products are successful? Mainly, it's the marketing and availability. Generally, consumers don't have the option to select for true incremental changes. Manufacturer A stops producing something I like. Can I buy the old-style, less expensive thing elsewhere? In most cases, the answer is no.



So it's like totally still easy to find 8-speed XT gear at the LBS when a drive train wears out? What about all the other stuff? Eventually, it's a forced conversion if you want to continue with the sport.

I think it would make a great deal of sense if the industry would design a "standard" without half-assing it and deciding it needed to be re-designed every few years or split into 5 slightly different niche "standards." While it would make marketing slightly tougher, it would allow lateral market expansion as costs came down a bit. In the end, nobody would be having any less fun on bikes, and perhaps more people would be having fun on bikes!

^^^ he starts off getting it, then forgest about it and/or becomes frustrated with it by the end of the post