header ad

Boost 140 hate – are you in or out for 2016

HOME FORUM RIDING FEELS GOOD FORUM TECH TALK Boost 140 hate – are you in or out for 2016

Tagged: 

This topic contains 14 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  lost kiwi 3 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
ENVE

  • Author
    Posts
  • #806702

    FastTimes
    Keymaster

    Just wondering who will be getting a Boost 148 bike for 2016 and who will be avoiding it. I think the standard is coming, whether we like it or not, but there are still plenty on non-boost options this year.

    Personally, even though the 2016 model has been leaked and has boost, I am getting a 2015 Santa Cruz 5010.. Mainly to avoid the new standard. I’m not opposed to it on a new 29er or even 27.5+ bike , if I were in the market for either, but I don’t see the performance gain on a standard 27.5 bike. This way I get the current bike at a reduced price (which is not common for Santa Cruz) and keep a wheel standard across all my bikes. Sadly I think my bike will take a big hit on resale value down the road but I plan to keep it for a while. So to a certain degree I am buying a bike I know I want and have wanted specifically to avoid the new standard being forced onto me.

    What are those of you also considering a new bike doing?

    Santa Cruz

    #806708

    Cracker
    Participant

    I might be in the market for a new ride soon and would take a serious look at Boost standards. The idea of running phat 27.5’s or fast 29 wheels is appealing to me.

    That being said, if I was caught up on tech (I have three 26er’s that can swap wheels back and forth) I wouldn’t want to introduce a new wheel standard into my quiver either.

    I’m a couple of generations behind with 20mm and regular QR… but at least I have redundancy in parts.

    #806709

    jcitizen
    Participant

    I think boost was a pre-emptive solution to a problem no one even had yet. No one knows if people will actually like 27+ yet. It could be fun, but it could also be a mega flop unless the weights come down on the rims & tires. Tires are close, but alu + rims are still way heavier than more traditional sizes, and personally, I’ve been working to get lighter rims & tires, not heavier. I really just don’t need wayyyy more grip than a 2.35 tire at a good pressure can offer.

    Also, there have been frame designs that don’t need boost to accomodate bigger tires, and personally, it’s hard to believe I’m gonna have that stronger a wheel based on this new hub standard. Maybe it will be, but again, it’s kind of a problem that didn’t need solving. My CK hubs build a pretty mean wheelset.

    #806713

    aerius
    Participant

    Boost 148 only makes sense on +size bikes, and even there it’s stupid because the existing 150mm standard is better. For everything else, you can get the same increases in wheel stiffness by moving the non-drive flange over about 5-6mm (there’s plenty of clearance between the spokes and brake caliper of every bike I’ve seen) and using an asymmetrical rim to keep the spoke tensions from becoming too unbalanced. And on the front we already have 20/110mm through-axles, which are also superior to Boost.

    #806717

    BlurredLines
    Participant

    When I see a CK boost hub I’ll start to care. When I see a 148 axle adapter comes out I’ll know what’s up.

    #806718

    Matty F
    Participant

    I find it funny that the “modern standards” for downhill bikes and trail bikes are going in opposite directions. Gwin and Brosnan cleaned up in the World Cup on 135mm rear ends, not to mention Blinky on a 142 spaced Norco. Yet apparently that’s not even enough for us everymen on our trail bikes.

    I don’t really care about one or the other. I suppose I have more problems smacking my frame/derailleur/rotor off rocks and roots than I do with rear wheel stiffness. So the clearance afforded by a 142 rear end is probably in my favour. But mostly I just want them to pick one or the other.

    #806719

    veteran_youth
    Participant

    Do you need Boost? No.

    Is it better? Yes.

    If you want to be mad about the industry pushing lateral ‘innovation’, be mad at 142×12. The percantage stiffness increase claims were nice in ad copy but in real life more of the flex is going on between the hub flange and the rim than the hub axle and frame. Pretty sure that most of these gains could have been achieved with a 10×135 thru-axle that would have fit any existing frame. Even when 142 came out I wondered why they would not increase the flange distance if they really wanted a stiffer wheel system. (And I had put my money where my mouth was for years running short block cassettes on SS hubs to build stiffer zero-dish wheels).

    I would not go so far as to say 142 solved a problem that did not exist, it just solved an existing problem very poorly, leaving the low hanging fruit so that manufacturers could produce something that required changing only the frames that were getting redesigned every year anyway and the internal axles of rear hubs (except the cases where only the end caps needed to be changed).

    It is much easier to convince me that 6mm less dish in a wheel will result in a stronger system than 2mm in axle diameter. Not to mention making the axle 7mm longer…..isn’t a longer lever going to result in more flex? Yeah, but you realize of course that those extra 3.5mm per side were only added to make installing the wheel easier, and the 135×12 standard existed for almost a decade before 142 came about.

    148 vs 150: Not a fair comparison. 148 uses the same extended axle ends as 142. 157 is to 142 as 150 is to 135. And on this scale, 148 is actually 141. This is a better way to analyse the differences. 142<148<157 (or 135<141<150). Does 150/157 build a stiffer wheel than 142 or 148? Definitely, but it also requires an 83mm bottom bracket to get a decent chainline, and that increased Q-factor is a non-starter for most riders that actually pedal uphill. 148 is about as far as they could go without yet another BB standard. (Note: I fully expect another BB standard within 3 years)

    15mm vs 20mm axle: This is kinda BS, but again, 20×110 hubs still used the same shell and flange spacing as 100mm. The extra 10mm only affects the axle and not overall wheel stiffness. Boost 110 widens the spoke bracing angle. Not that people weren’t moaning about the stupidity at the time, but 15×100 made a lot less sense as a new standard than 15×110.

    tl;dr
    Boost is a stupid marketing gimmick by the bike industry but is less stupid than the last set of ‘standards’ shoved down our throats that made virtually no difference to the stiffness/ride quality of our bikes. Redirect animosity toward 15×100 and 12×142.

    #806724

    jcitizen
    Participant

    I find it funny that the “modern standards” for downhill bikes and trail bikes are going in opposite directions. Gwin and Brosnan cleaned up in the World Cup on 135mm rear ends, not to mention Blinky on a 142 spaced Norco. Yet apparently that’s not even enough for us everymen on our trail bikes.

    But they didn’t have plus sized wheels, man!

    I’m actually pretty shocked these bikes had a 135mm rear end (not that I think it really matters), but because I just assumed all new mtbs aside from old man XC ti frames were running 142.

    I think companies that provide easy adaptability will do well in this no-standard-standard world we live in, while on the flipside big companies are gonna get so proprietary you’ll be stuck with their shit when you have to replace parts, like cars etc. All of it is sadly inefficient and not making mountain biking any more fun.

    #806731

    FastTimes
    Keymaster

    They knew this was coming. They have been looking at this issue well before 27.5 and have been developing it since the introduction of the 29er. 2014/15 were big years for many to upgrade bikes. Regardless of the new wheel size, there were other compelling reasons such as frame material, drivetrains and modern frame geometry that made these logical years for riders to sell their older rides and get something new. Many riders, myself included, purchased a bike with the new wheel standard. The part that really burns me is that it wasn’t introduced then.

    #806734

    jcitizen
    Participant

    I think the biggest problem with all the standards etc. etc. is that riders are left, irrationally feeling discontent. Anyone with a decent bike from the last few years rides an incredible machine that is more than capable of handling the trails most riders ride. It’s made riders grumpier, and that sucks. In the 90s, you could buy a bike and still think it was rad a few years later. In this new millenium, no matter what you buy it’s deemed a has-been within two years. Takes it’s toll on minds of people who are passionate about gear.

    #806737

    secret agent
    Participant

    It’s becoming like buying a computer or cell phone was a few years back when innovation was really moving fast. Advice at the time was just use the thing and stop looking at the new stuff and you will be happy.
    Funny thing is that I recently changed my saddle and it has made more of a difference to me than any hub spacing will ever do.
    It will not matter to me too much on my next bike. The stuff I have now handles what I do more than adequately enough for me. Gear is overrated in too many cases. The benefits are often marginal and only become apparent when pushing the equipment to extremes. I agree with jcitizen that most decent bikes these days will be more than sufficient for even aggressive riders.

    #806739

    Whynot
    Participant

    it all depends on how you look at it! I’m perfectly content riding my 3yo 26″ trail bike and 8yo downhiller. They still serve me well and I expect they will for years to come. But my old iPhone was made obsolete through app/OS updates effectively forcing me to upgrade – that’s far more of a piss off.

    I’ll never ride enough at the level required to enjoy the gains of all this “innovation”. But if I had bought 27.5″ just before Boost was announced I’d be a rather grumpy customer… as FT said, they tech was in development, and as I’ve said before marketing depts go ahead of the R&D team and royally pissed off much of the consumer market.

    #806741

    aerius
    Participant

    tl;dr
    Boost is a stupid marketing gimmick by the bike industry but is less stupid than the last set of ‘standards’ shoved down our throats that made virtually no difference to the stiffness/ride quality of our bikes. Redirect animosity toward 15×100 and 12×142.

    I’d agree that 15×100 is complete BS, a properly done 20×110 system would only be 2-3 ounces heavier for the entire fork & wheel while having about twice the stiffness at the hub & axle. Re-space the flanges and it’ll absolutely stomp 15×100 or Boost 110 in overall strength & stiffness.

    12×142 on the other hand does make sense compared to earlier 10×135 and 12×135 standards. Bending stiffness increases with the 3rd power of the diameter increase so that 2mm increase actually makes the darn thing about 70% stiffer. Which is a big deal on any FS bike where the seatstays aren’t made or tied together as a single unit (current Rocky Mountains for example) since that then dumps the bending loads onto the axle and rocker links. Compared to 12×135, it’s the same but easier to use, having the axle guided into frame slots makes wheel changes a lot faster.

    With that said, I do agree that it’s not the best solution to the problem of rear wheel flex. Step one there is to use a stronger rim or go carbon if the budget allows for it (I’ve often used different front & rear rims for this reason). Then space the left flange out wider and use an asymmetrical rim to keep the dish the same as a standard spaced rear wheel. There’s your stiffer rear wheel and I didn’t even have to mess with the frame, all it needs is a new hub shell & rims. But that would make sense, which is why we can’t have it.

    To summarize: clutch derailleurs are the only thing I have on my new bike which I miss on my 12 year old retro bikes.

    #806743

    fietser
    Participant

    To summarize: clutch derailleurs are the only thing I have on my new bike which I miss on my 12 year old retro bikes.

    Calling your bluff @aerius. You love your dropper posts!

    Sorry, back to tech talk that is WAY over my head.

    #806804

    lost kiwi
    Participant

    I will be avoiding it like the plague, in the process of getting my road/cross bike to the 15mm and 142 standars so all bikes have the same standard.

    I push my gear pretty hard and remember feeling flex in some wheel sets in times past, but even my lite weight xc 29er race wheels are stiff enough to push through corners hard enough to peel tyres off the rim with out noticing unwanted flex.

    Quality parts built buy a skilled wheel builder and this is pretty much all a non issue.

    Just my 2 cents

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

People Who Like Thisx

Loading...

People Who viewed ThisX