Iwan Kemp Posted June 12, 2014 Share And yet why not just go 150mm and have all that compatability from the DH wheeled side of things. Because SHUT UP! That's why. Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwan Kemp Posted June 12, 2014 Share From Trek: 1. 150 Requires Q-Factor change, 148 doesn't. (was reason behind 142 as well!)2. 6 Companies already working on 148 hubs3. Massive increase in 29er wheel stiffness 4. Won't be proprietary ( Get ready for LOTS of marketing hoo-hah) Would like to give it a go. Longer travel 29ers suffer massively from wheel flex and deflection. To the point where they benefit most from carbon rims and stiff wheels like those offered by Industry Nine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted June 12, 2014 Share From Trek: 1. 150 Requires Q-Factor change, 148 doesn't. (was reason behind 142 as well!)2. 6 Companies already working on 148 hubs3. Massive increase in 29er wheel stiffness4. Won't be proprietary ( Get ready for LOTS of marketing hoo-hah) Would like to give it a go. Longer travel 29ers suffer massively from wheel flex and deflection. To the point where they benefit most from carbon rims and stiff wheels like those offered by Industry Nine. Cool. The main fear was that there's just another standard... meh. But I'm sure that with proper design, they could have gotten around the Q factor problem whilst retaining the 150mm standard... More hydroforming, yeah, but to open up the stays by an extra 1mm, while keeping the junction the same? Seems a bit of a fudge tbh. As for the increase in stiffness - no doubt there. There's a larger base from which to mount the spokes, so the lateral stiffness would be increased dramatically by those extra 3mm per side. Capricorn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowta Posted June 12, 2014 Share Great getting guys like Penske involved in the sport. Looking for more info on their 148mm rear spacing...found anything on that? Why not just make it 150mm???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted June 12, 2014 Share Why not just make it 150mm???? Reasons shown above... but yeah, I agree with you. Should be a way around it with adequate design and construction. It's just another 1mm. And can be achieved by offsetting dropouts a bit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowta Posted June 12, 2014 Share And yet why not just go 150mm and have all that compatability from the DH wheeled side of things.I see Cap beat me to it From Trek: 1. 150 Requires Q-Factor change, 148 doesn't. (was reason behind 142 as well! hmmm, that 1mm is going to make a HUGE difference 2. 6 Companies already working on 148 hubs soooo, they're going to shave 1mm off the end of a 150mm hub? sounds like a lot of work 3. Massive increase in 29er wheel stiffness,agreed much more than 142mm where the flanges stayed essentially in the same place and they basically just added endcaps. Still trying to figure out how that is stiffer4. Won't be proprietary ( Get ready for LOTS of marketing hoo-hah) Would like to give it a go. Longer travel 29ers suffer massively from wheel flex and deflection. To the point where they benefit most from carbon rims and stiff wheels like those offered by Industry Nine. Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowta Posted June 12, 2014 Share Reasons shown above... but yeah, I agree with you. Should be a way around it with adequate design and construction. It's just another 1mm. And can be achieved by offsetting dropouts a bit... a file to the ends of 150mm hub will sort it out chop chop.... sorry file file ... Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted June 12, 2014 Share Pretty much exactly my thoughts, Dave. But then the 27.5 version still goes on 142mm hubs, so it's fine! 29er needs the additional stiffness for sure. No getting around that. But to forego an existing standard just because it'll necessitate them moving the dropouts 1mm further out each side!? GoLefty!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted June 12, 2014 Share a file to the ends of 150mm hub will sort it out chop chop.... sorry file file ... Yeah, but then you don't get the added stiffness on the separation of flanges. Or do you!? Do 150mm hubs have a wider separation factor on the flanges? Google to my rescue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowta Posted June 12, 2014 Share Yeah, but then you don't get the added stiffness on the separation of flanges. Or do you!? Do 150mm hubs have a wider separation factor on the flanges? Google to my rescue... Depends on the hub most have a wider space between the flanges than 135mm/142mm. Some keep those and just extend the axle and move the disc mount surface out Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted June 12, 2014 Share Depends on the hub most have a wider space between the flanges than 135mm/142mm. Some keep those and just extend the axle and move the disc mount surface out ze Hope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vangar Posted June 12, 2014 Share Cool. The main fear was that there's just another standard... meh. But I'm sure that with proper design, they could have gotten around the Q factor problem whilst retaining the 150mm standard... More hydroforming, yeah, but to open up the stays by an extra 1mm, while keeping the junction the same? Seems a bit of a fudge tbh. As for the increase in stiffness - no doubt there. There's a larger base from which to mount the spokes, so the lateral stiffness would be increased dramatically by those extra 3mm per side. XKCD about standards is the best: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png Flowta and Captain Fastbastard Mayhem 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwan Kemp Posted June 12, 2014 Share XKCD about standards is the best: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png :clap: :clap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowta Posted June 12, 2014 Share ze Hope? Yup (haven't done the measurements, but that's what it looks like) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted June 12, 2014 Share Yup (haven't done the measurements, but that's what it looks like)Just confirmed superstar has a bigger flange separation on their 150mm hubs. its quite large as well... 58mm on the 135/142 (36/22 non drive/drive) vs 70mm (40/30) so it's actually a mahoosive difference in width. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capricorn Posted June 13, 2014 Share to bring the thread back on topic.. this is a good read on the Penske regressive damping setup. The concept is the most important thing for us. Will be interesting to see how big a hit the damper setup can handle without the shock feeling very notchy after the blow-off, as they are using F1 and nascar as a draw card, but last i checked, the biggest bump on those tracks are not much bigger than a thick-ish root on a typical trail, not half meter or higher drop offs.But i'm sure they can tune the blow off to better handle those sorts of trail conditions. edit: just remembered that they did say the shock has a switch for descending. Edited June 13, 2014 by Capricorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now