Cyling industry and standards...

[_im_from_earth]

As if the cycling industry needed another "standard". I mean I certainly see the purpose, but is 12mm the standard which has been around for many years not sufficient? Was 20mm not sufficient for front forks? And are regular ball bearings really necessasry to be replaced on Shimano wheels? Is this not the sole reason anyone buys Shimano wheels?

 

Read this and weap!

 

[Johan Bornman]

My knee-jerk reaction is that we don't need another standard. But then I'm of the opinion that several of the standards on modern sports bicycles need revision.

 

I agree that the front on MTBs have to go through-axle, even if just to get the quick release back. I think there's nothing more tedious than a QR and a suspension fork.

 

As for a through-axle on the back, I dunno. I'll sleep on it. If this means that Shimano hubs will go cartridge bearings, I weep. So should you. Prices and service cost will go up with no benefit to the bearing itself.

 

Things that must change:

 

1) BB size. BB 30 is on its way and I haven't seen one yet. But we need a bigger BB shell on the frame so that we can have bigger bearings and inboard bearings. It can be make lighter but stronger.

 

2) The pedal/crank interface needs work. The left hand thread must go and the pedal axle needs a conical interface like a car's wheelnut. This will eliminate the need for left hand threads and eliminate all the fretting at the crank eye.

 

3) The BB/BB shell interface needs work. The left hand thread must go and one way to get rid of the threads will be a pinch bolt system. A conical wheel-nut arrangement could also work if someone could find place there for it.

 

4) The QR on road bikes must stay the same. In fact, it must be made quick release again. Those lawyers lips must go. Screw the intellectually-challenged who don't know how to use it.

 

5) Standardise on 2mm for spoke nipples. There is no place for 1.8mm spokes and nipples.

 

6)Cassette splines should unify and become all-compatible.

 

7) Gear shifting indexing should become compatible. Any shifter on any cassette is what we want.

 

Some recent changes of standard helped us a lot and proves that new standards aren't all that bad.

 

1) Move from threaded to threadless stem - big improvement in many ways.

 

2) Move from all sorts of communciations ranging from telepathy, through wires, IR and RF for bicycle gadgetry to Ant+.

 

3) Move from cantilever to V-brakes (still not obsolete).

 

3) Earlier moves from the 1970s I can think of is the 700c tyre standard for sports bikes, 26 inch for MTB (1980s) and....I've run out of examples.

 

 

[GoLefty!!]

as long as the rear axle std is adopted and std across the entire inductry then it's agoodthing. Thru12 has been around a long time and it works brilliantly so that would an ideal std since many hub manufacturers already offer 135mm thru12 hubs.

QR15 for the rear wheelreally is just ridiculous

 

[onebynine]

BB30 has actually been around for the last15 odd years. Cannondale bought it out in the mid 90's but the rest of the industry did exactly what we're doing now...saying we don't need another standard! but now the rest of the world has woken up to the fact that it works and has embraced it. I have worked on BB30 bikes and they are the easiest things to operate and service.

It does away with the BB threads JB so problem solved...

 

As for cassette splines, its only Campy that are different is it really such a huge problem? If you're going to ride Campy you accept this and move on...Same with the shifting issue, a Shimano cassette will work with Sram shifeters so I don't really see this as a valid point.

 

Your mention of spoke sizes doesn't seem valid either cuz as a wheel builder you should carry a stock of both sizes? and just by looking at the thread on the spokes see what size it is? The made 1.8mm sizing for weight reduction (rotating weight at that).

 

So in conclusion its all about progress otherwise we would all still be eating raw meat and living in caves. Bring on new technology!

onebynine2009-06-04 00:33:52

[_im_from_earth]

1x9 i hear you, I'm all for pushing the envelope and advancing tech but there is so much cross-over BS:

 

Disk Brakes: PM , IS [international Standard], Fox40, Boxxer [pre 2010], Marzocchi 888

 

thats five "standards" for mounting a simple disk brake. I'm not even getting into rotors...

 

BB's: Itallian, British, BB30, GXP Pressfit [bB83]

 

thats five "standards" of bottom bracket shells let alone BB interfaces, crank splines, BB widths etc

 

As for wheels:

 

9mm QR, 10mm Thru Bolt, 15mm Bolt Thru, 20mm Bolt Thru, 24mm Maverick... How many more do we need? I can understand 10mm Thru Bolt, this makes perfect sense to me. I can understand 20mm Bolt Thru, this has been the standard for many years but 15mm? Why? Its no lighter than 20mm and being only 100mm wide its certainly no stronger and does not make for a stiffer wheel. so WTF? And now we want to go down this road for rear wheels? Freehub bearings in 12mm Bolt Thru wheels are already pushing the limits!

 

Why do companies all want to establish their own "standards"? Simple, because they are too dam cheap to purchase existing patents and mfg rights. They feel this money is better spent on marketing the BS hype behing their own "standards" in the hopes that their marketing investment will pay off in dividends when others buy into it. Utter nonsense!

 

Phew... that was a rant. Think I need coffee...

 

 

[Johan Bornman]

BB30 has actually been around for the last15 odd years. Cannondale bought it out in the mid 90's but the rest of the industry did exactly what we're doing now...saying we don't need another standard! but now the rest of the world has woken up to the fact that it works and has embraced it. I have worked on BB30 bikes and they are the easiest things to operate and service.

It does away with the BB threads JB so problem solved...

 

 

I learn something new every day.

 

As for cassette splines' date=' its only Campy that are different is it really such a huge problem? If you're going to ride Campy you accept this and move on...Same with the shifting issue, a Shimano cassette will work with Sram shifeters so I don't really see this as a valid point.

  [/quote']

 

You forgot new new Shimano spline with deeper grooves.

 

Your mention of spoke sizes doesn't seem valid either cuz as a wheel builder you should carry a stock of both sizes? and just by looking at the thread on the spokes see what size it is? The made 1.8mm sizing for weight reduction (rotating weight at that).

   

 

Nope. There is no rational reason for 1.8mm spokes. Spoke holes in hubs range from 2.2mm to 2.5mm and a 2mm spoke fits just fine and snug' date=' which is important for preventing fatigue.

 

As it is, there are too many spokes to carry, not even the distributors can have stock of them all. There's straight-gauge (which should be outlawed for sport cycling) in silver. Then there's double-butted 2-1.8-2 in silver and black. Then there's double-butted 2-1.5-2 in silver and black. Then there is bladed in silver and black.

Now you want 1.8mm ends as well?

 

For a range from 260 to 302 mm in 2mm incriments, you need 22 lengths in several permuations. 22 x 4 x 2 = 176 stock items at a holding cost of R500 per item.

 

Besides, there's no engineering argument for 1.8mm spokes.

 

 

So in conclusion its all about progress otherwise we would all still be eating raw meat and living in caves. Bring on new technology!

 

I'm all for new technology, but I'm also for elegant solutions and realistic stock lines. Bring on new technology where it makes sense.

 

[shanejvv]

Do download the .gif diagram of the new standard. Have agood look.

 

If you have a look at/think about, the current crop of Campag hub axles, and then think slightly larger....then there is no reason for Shimano to abandon their design of loose ball-in-race with adjustable cone setup. An oversize axle with smaller loose balls, say 3/16" should work just fine.

 

You could still fit the QR15 type axle through it.

 

Another thing....it is rather tiresome with every robber and his dog coming up with some "new standard", often because....for instance a company is too proud to pay royalties for patent use of a certain brand pivot (that anybody that knows there oats knows some other guy invented and gave his name to) and hence has to develop some clever, complicated over-pivoted system.

 

Sometimes, like the Magic Motorcycle cranks (That's who first made the BB30 style cranks that Cannondale now call Hollowgram Si SL crankset)  , a company or individual comes up with a really good idea and it does not take root because they are ahead of their time or because its too niche-style. Then some years later, another entity with a big name and big money claims it as their innovative new thinking.

 

 

Anybody remember Pulstar?

 

Rock Shox Mag 21 had the first threshold/platform style damping too.

 

GoLefty, you should remember

 

Maybe too much of a rant from my side....

 

 

[ngala24]

I already have this option with the bikes i have ordered but opted for the standard 9mm with my order as although i had already done my research on it nobody here knew about it. Its an option on the 2010 fox forks which my bikes are being supplied with already.

 

 

 

[_im_from_earth]

Yes, 15mm on forks is now old news: fox, marz are both using the standard. 15mm on the rear however is something altogether different and new.

[Slowbee]

one day when I am big and dont drink so much I might understand all this - but for now, I'd  rather pay the bike shop to think about this stuff and then come onto the hub and complain. Far easier. 

[Mudsimus]

And seatposts. What would the optimum size be? 27.2?

[AndreZA]

And seatposts. What would the optimum size be? 27.2?

 

 

 

that will never happen. Some manufacturers even have different sizes for the same models depending on frame size. Look at Commencal. They use thinner tubing on their smaller frames because of the riders being smaller and lighter.

[_im_from_earth]

30.9 IMO.

 

27.2mm is/ was the most common size but it is difficult to build a strong and light seatpost around this diameter. Additionally many bike flex along the seat-tube on the frame and as a resut of this is it beneficial to have a larger diameter seat-tube.

 

So why not bigger than 30.9? I just think it looks silly

 

[Mudsimus]

27.2mm is/ was the most common size but it is difficult to build a strong and light seatpost around this diameter.

 

I disagree. Santa Cruz built some of their bikes with 27.2. As do Giant, Rocky Mountain and many other brands. I've never noticed any of these bikes that failed because of the seattube being to narrow.

 

[droo]

27.2mm is/ was the most common size but it is difficult to build a strong and light seatpost around this diameter.

 

?

 

I disagree. Santa Cruz built some of their bikes with 27.2. As do Giant' date=' Rocky Mountain and many other brands. I've never noticed any of these bikes that failed because of the seattube being to narrow.

 

?

[/quote']

 

I have a mate with a Cannondale Prophet, 27.2mm post - the only one he's managed not to bend so far is a Thomson. He's a big chap, but still...

[_im_from_earth]

 

Giant is actually bigger and uses a shim to go down to 27.2mm. This is an archaic standard, thinner is lighter and thinner + stronger + lighter can all be achieved using a larger diameter. Ever seen a 27.2mm carbon post longer than 350mm? Nope? Thats because its risky enough at 300mm let alone 350mm. I have no problem running an EC90 400mm post with plenty of extension on my AM bike though and its thanks to te larger diameter of te 30.9mm.

morewoodkid2009-06-04 03:21:10