Hope HB 160

[Mongooser]

 

You better have the talent to match the price tag.

at that point you'd be on level to be sponsored by them tho

[stefmeister]

I personally like the bonded joints on the rear end.

Cars like Aston Martin's chassis is also bonded like this instead of welded.

 

Plus, if proving by concept that their new standards have more merit than bs boost and what else the rest of the industry claims to be innovation, then it's all worth it.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited August 25, 2017 by stefmeister

[BaGearA]

I personally like the bonded joints on the rear end.

Cars like Aston Martin's chassis is also bonded like this instead of welded.

 

Plus, if proving by concept that their new standards have more merit than bs boost and what else the rest of the industry claims to be innovation, then it's all worth it.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Boost is not BS and Boost here to stay 

[stefmeister]

Boost is not BS and Boost here to stay

Considering their take (130 x 17), as well as Cannondales offset rears, I'd call boost BS

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrahamS2]

Considering their take (130 x 17), as well as Cannondales offset rears, I'd call boost BS

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How so? From a basic geometry perspective boost is the best thing ever to happen to 29ers.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

How so? From a basic geometry perspective boost is the best thing ever to happen to 29ers.

Only because of the "extra stiffness" that the wider flange distance has. 

 

Which is... dun dun duuuuuun

 

Exactly what Hope have done with their 130x17 hub. 

 

The extra body width WAS NEVER NECESSARY. All it needed was a bit of a diet and a bit of a re-think, and the flanges to be repositioned within the same width.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Myles Mayhew

[Odinson]

Only because of the "extra stiffness" that the wider flange distance has. 

 

Which is... dun dun duuuuuun

 

Exactly what Hope have done with their 130x17 hub. 

 

The extra body width WAS NEVER NECESSARY. All it needed was a bit of a diet and a bit of a re-think, and the flanges to be repositioned within the same width.

 

Yip. Stand behind a Boost bike and just look at all of the wasted space between the stays. 

[stefmeister]

How so? From a basic geometry perspective boost is the best thing ever to happen to 29ers.

If you look at Hope's implementation vs boost, then boost just looks like a half arsed attempt. Boost also doesn't necessarily mean shorter chain stays. My '15 non boost enduro has some of the shortest and there's even room to run plus sized tyres (if you really want to go that way).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrahamS2]

Only because of the "extra stiffness" that the wider flange distance has. 

 

Which is... dun dun duuuuuun

 

Exactly what Hope have done with their 130x17 hub. 

 

The extra body width WAS NEVER NECESSARY. All it needed was a bit of a diet and a bit of a re-think, and the flanges to be repositioned within the same width.

Exactly, they all achieve extra wheel stiffness. 

 

So how does that make Boost BS?

Edited August 25, 2017 by GrahamS2

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Exactly, they all achieve extra wheel stiffness. 

 

So how does that make Boost BS?

because it could easily have been done inside the existing dropout space, and preserve wheel swappability between frames. Instead of making the space between the dropouts AND flanges wider, they could have just made the hub flanges wider apart. 

[GrahamS2]

because it could easily have been done inside the existing dropout space, and preserve wheel swappability between frames. Instead of making the space between the dropouts AND flanges wider, they could have just made the hub flanges wider apart. 

I don't see that happening so easily. For one thing, the clearances on rotors, particularly on XC-style bikes, would be extremely tight. Manufacturers are also running out of room in the rear with the high-count gear sets that are being launched, so some extra width is not a bad thing.

 

As a universal standard which can be applied to pretty much all styles of bikes (and has been well adopted so far), I think Boost is a decent solution.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

I don't see that happening so easily. For one thing, the clearances on rotors, particularly on XC-style bikes, would be extremely tight. Manufacturers are also running out of room in the rear with the high-count gear sets that are being launched, so some extra width is not a bad thing.

 

As a universal standard which can be applied to pretty much all styles of bikes (and has been well adopted so far), I think Boost is a decent solution.

Hope have just done it. With a SMALLER hub than normal 142. Same flange spacing as boost. 

[GrahamS2]

Hope have just done it. With a SMALLER hub than normal 142. Same flange spacing as boost. 

Has it been applied elsewhere or only this specific model? 

 

Either way, Boost has been adopted by the majority of manufacturers, Hope included. It's here to stay (till the next great idea comes along...).

Edited August 25, 2017 by GrahamS2

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Has it been applied elsewhere or only this specific model? 

 

Either way, Boost has been adopted by the majority of manufacturers, Hope included. It's here to stay (till the next great idea comes along...).

only on this model. They didn't want to introduce a different standard - this was their project, and they're only going to make it for this bike. 

 

Still - my point stands. It could have been done in the dimensions of the existing standards of the time, had they (TREK) wanted to. 

 

EDIT: Yes, it worked, but only due to the fac tthat by widening the whole hub interface they widened the distance between flanges. They could have done that with the existing hub width as well. And the argument for "more space for bigger tyres" also doesn't stand, IMO. Just look at how Cannondale, PYGA, Hope have designed in a different way. It's like design by committee, IMO. 

 

But - the rest of the industry followed, from fear of being "left behind" and without actually thinking about it. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Myles Mayhew

[BaGearA]

okay lets ignore hub flanges and stiffness and all just for A minute , the wider axles are they in themselves not A good thing ?

 

I.e. if you're contacting A bigger( wider ) part of the hub and there for have more leverage over the wheel for cornering / control at high speed , is that not A good thing ?

 

 

Regarding the " Gaps" my bike is boost font and rear and I don't really notice gaps , I do notice the wider fork but it just makes the bike feel like more of A tank ( I like that )

Edited August 25, 2017 by BaGearA

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

okay lets ignore hub flanges and stiffness and all just for A minute , the wider axles are they in themselves not A good thing ?

 

I.e. if you're contacting A bigger( wider ) part of the hub and there for have more leverage over the wheel for cornering / control at high speed , is that not A good thing ?

 

 

Regarding the " Gaps" my bike is boost font and rear and I don't really notice gaps , I do notice the wider fork but it just makes the bike feel like more of A tank ( I like that )

over the HUB, yes. But the stiffness of the wheel is directly related to the width of the flanges (distance apart) and the angle of the spokes (symmetric / assymetric) and the tension up to a point

 

So - the hope 130 shoudl build a wheel as stiff as or even stiffer than a boost, due to the fact that it has flanges as wide apart from each other, is more symmetric in the spoke orientation (wheel dependent - if your wheel is assymetrically designed then this point is moot) and has an axle 5mm larger than the boost axle. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Myles Mayhew