Yeah, the half-measure-becomes-the-default thing could easily eclipse this.
But only because all the frame manufacturers pounced on Boost to not get left behind will chuck a tanty. Fingers crossed.

Not gonna buy a new frame in the foreseeable anyway, I'll just sit back and eat popcorn.

Velocipedestrian wrote:Yeah, the half-measure-becomes-the-default thing could easily eclipse this.
Not gonna buy a new frame in the foreseeable anyway, I'll just sit back and eat popcorn.

This was something I seriously contemplated before I got my bike. I knew that Specialized were going 650B from 26" later in the year. I'd ridden a 29" Enduro, and had no issue with it other than I have tires for Africa and preferred 26". My bike obviously has some batty Specialized elements, the shock yoke and 142+, which isn't so much an issue as tweaking deraileur limits if you change to a 142mm wheel.
But surely the writing was on the wall some time ago with trying to strengthen the bigger wheels. I'm sure I've asked why they didn't go straight to 157 and was told the Q factor would be too wide for trail riding, or something like that.

Honestly why would anyone buy a new bike right now. Tapered headtubes did seem to offer some genuine benefits as well being aesthetically pleasing as headtubes seemed to get shorter. But 15mm axles were a cop out, it really didn't seem necessary. I never had an issue with 20mm axles and pinch bolts, and I'm sure someone would've or may have done a maxle for them.

The reality is for me, is my previous bike lasted 10 years, I figure this one will be similar, so it may moot as far as I'm concerned.

20mm maxles are defo a thing. The story that I've seen banted around a few times is that xc scrubs etc had a mad sook and were like omg thats heavy dh wheel stuff omg(I think it was from the bloke who did the marketing for iron horse trying to sell the mk3 as a trail bike). So they made 15mm because people are dumb and believe it was heaps lighter

I think Dougal can chime in. I'm sure he said it had something to do with Fox having their legs too narrow and would have to redesign their lowers, so 15mm was born. In truth I don't think I can tell the difference in terms of stability between 20mm and 15mm, but the problem is that all the 20mm forks I had were heavy, Travis, 66, Super T's (though they had a weird QR 20mm), all about 3kg, whereas my Pike and Mattoc are under 2kg I think. So if they'd put 20mm on a lighter fork (say the Pike) then it would be possible to compare more directly.

I like 20mm, I have a threaded axle that's clamped in by two pinchbolts on each side. Gives me a stiffy

There are 5 forks with 20mm axles in our house, a few QR units, and no 15mm. 4 of the 20s have some form of tool free axle system.

15mm does seem a good contender for half measure taking over, is there a real weight saving from the axle? Or is it just optimising while designing new lowers?

15mm is fucking stupid, but I have had conversations at my lbs where xc guys buying trail bikes were scared of 20mm. They needed some sort of thru-axle to market to those guys otherwise you'd still be suffering with 140mm trail forks with QR on OEM bikes I think.

20mm axle with pinchbolts please.

AgrAde wrote:I heard you guys liked new hub standards. Behold! Super Boost Plus 157!

(I'm not even kidding)

(No really, this is happening)

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/pivot-swit ... -look.html

So a quick breakdown.

135mm with the 2x 3.5mm extensions became 12x142mm.
The normal boost extra width version was the 12x148mm.

This new size is the old DH 12x150mm with the 2x3.5mm end-caps fitted? I can't work out from the pictures if the disc position has changed or not.

Dougal wrote:

AgrAde wrote:I heard you guys liked new hub standards. Behold! Super Boost Plus 157!

(I'm not even kidding)

(No really, this is happening)

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/pivot-swit ... -look.html

So a quick breakdown.

135mm with the 2x 3.5mm extensions became 12x142mm.
The normal boost extra width version was the 12x148mm.

This new size is the old DH 12x150mm with the 2x3.5mm end-caps fitted? I can't work out from the pictures if the disc position has changed or not.

157x12 has been around for a while and is exactly as you state... But still only using the old flange spacing like 135/142.

My bike's rear axle has quite a lot of wasted space between the drop out and the disc mount. I assume it's too provide clearance for the disc, but the flange could be brought out quite a bit.
20160528_214802 by Chazz Michael Michaels, on Flickr

Dougal wrote: I can't work out from the pictures if the disc position has changed or not.

Using the existing 157mm DH axle and hub width future-proofs the Super Boost Plus concept. The brake rotor location, cassette location and hub spacing is interchangeable

157 super boost, to the 157 DH not the 150

speaking of axle confusion, this made me lol

Wobbler wrote:

lolderp.png

speaking of axle confusion, this made me lol

Anyone got a Futureshock with its 24mm standard they want to swap this guy?

shmoodiver wrote:157x12 has been around for a while and is exactly as you state... But still only using the old flange spacing like 135/142.

With the 150/157DH there was no reason to space the disc side flange out as it wouldn't help the problem with the tight side. So is this 157mm hub intended to be run offset? Because that's the only way they'll help spoke angles.

Dougal wrote:

shmoodiver wrote:157x12 has been around for a while and is exactly as you state... But still only using the old flange spacing like 135/142.

With the 150/157DH there was no reason to space the disc side flange out as it wouldn't help the problem with the tight side. So is this 157mm hub intended to be run offset? Because that's the only way they'll help spoke angles.

Looking at the flange spacing compared to 157dh... You'd hope so hu
You should Czech out the hope 7sp dh hubs... BIG flanges spaced very wide.