New standards and why we need/don't need them

[Chavo]

In light of the boost benefit for 29ers, would it be worthwhile getting a boost fork as an upgrade while still riding a frame with 142x12 rear (i.e. non-boost rear, boost front)? 

[Headshot]

In light of the boost benefit for 29ers, would it be worthwhile getting a boost fork as an upgrade while still riding a frame with 142x12 rear (i.e. non-boost rear, boost front)? 

 

Honestly i have no idea, but i can say that the boost hub on my new bike is noticeably wider than the old 100mm front hub. I think a lot depends on how the wheel manufacturer builds the wheels (Capricorn alluded to this earlier) i.e makes use of the extra width. The fork itself does look quite a bit more "moto" due to the width, especially from the top while riding.... 

[Odinson]

I think we can all agree that a Boost front wheel in a Boost fork is a good thing. You'll have a stiffer wheel, run meaty rubber and will still have sufficient clearance for when things get muddy. 

 

My favourite developments of the past few years have been 'Forward Geometry' (incl. shorter stems and wider bars) and dropper posts. I'll never again ride a bike with a fixed seat post. 

[GrahamS2]

In light of the boost benefit for 29ers, would it be worthwhile getting a boost fork as an upgrade while still riding a frame with 142x12 rear (i.e. non-boost rear, boost front)? 

If the only difference in the new fork is boost vs. non-boost, then no. If it's an upgraded fork that just happens to also be boost, then yes. Front wheel is where wheel stiffness really makes a difference, especially under hard braking. 

 

That said, I've also had more offs on the new steed than I've had in a LONG time. Extra stiffness can have a downside 

[Chavo]

Well I have managed to taco a non-boost 29er front wheel before...perhaps boost will help avert this

[jimmy hardtail]

Hmmm. Boost. So basically exactly the same hubs that are on my 10 year old morewood izimu. 110mm front and 150 rear spacing. As for 142, thw hub is exactly the same as 135. Same flange spacing, casette and disk spacing as well. So whats the benefit?

[marko35s]

nice meeting you Saturday, hope the old boys meeting went well

There was coffee, bikes and a ride in Tokai, how could it not go well?

[Simon123]

My 2.6 Addix Schwalbe tyres in 27,5  (Nobby Nic upfront and Rock Razor rear) literally weigh only a few grams more than the 2,35 versions I had.

 

Boost wheels front and rear, carbon rims and the above tyres are just over 3kg for the package on my trail bike excluding cassette and axles (KAbolt Fox front and through rear).

[Headshot]

Hmmm. Boost. So basically exactly the same hubs that are on my 10 year old morewood izimu. 110mm front and 150 rear spacing. As for 142, thw hub is exactly the same as 135. Same flange spacing, casette and disk spacing as well. So whats the benefit?

The benefit I think is the 12mm axle, allegedly stiffer than a QR and 9mm axle - it did nothing for the wheel strength.

[popcorn_skollie]

No arguments there although I think you can separate innovations that are universally beneficial like good brakes/suspension/tyres/geo vs those that provide such marginal gains, most of us don't even notice. 

 

I feel the same way. There's no doubt we've seen bikes leapfrog in the last 5 years with regards to innovation. But I also feel like we've somehow plateaued. Especially with regards to geometry. This coupled with a shift in wheel sizes at about the same time had us all wrapped up in this innovation bandwagon. Where so much has changed in such a short period of time that we expect further changes as an evolution of contemporary mountain biking. Now that we've settled on two wheel sizes and bikes are about as long, low and slack as they going to get. A whole host of other trivial improvements changes have emerged. Being touted as the next best thing. That is of course, until it's not...

[Duane_Bosch]

What I'm finding of interest at the moment is the adoption of MTB standards/innovation/marketing hype across towards the road.

 

Through Axles

Disk Brakes

Wider Tires

Tubeless

1X (I don't get this one)

Even 650b on smaller bikes

 

Willier even have pivots and Elastomer (remember that Sh*te?) suspension on one of their more exotic models.

 

It seems the bike company marketing departments have uncovered a whole new bunch of suckers market

[Headshot]

I feel the same way. There's no doubt we've seen bikes leapfrog in the last 5 years with regards to innovation. But I also feel like we've somehow plateaued. Especially with regards to geometry. This coupled with a shift in wheel sizes at about the same time had us all wrapped up in this innovation bandwagon. Where so much has changed in such a short period of time that we expect further changes as an evolution of contemporary mountain biking. Now that we've settled on two wheel sizes and bikes are about as long, low and slack as they going to get. A whole host of other trivial improvements changes have emerged. Being touted as the next best thing. That is of course, until it's not...

As you know I have just gone from a 26 Enduro with a standard shock  to 27.5 Enduro with a better shock, linkage and geo.

 

The biggest difference for me has been the rear suspension hands down. All the other stuff is great and may yet come into play more when I use the bike properly, but so far that's it really.

[Halfdoesyn]

Well I have managed to taco a non-boost 29er front wheel before...perhaps boost will help avert this

20150802_092752.jpg

Arches nogal. What have you done?

[lechatnoir]

Standards: if you don't like mine, that's OK, I have others...

 

also... the nice thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from...