Boost front, any real difference?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 39 of 39
  1. #1
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,442

    Boost front, any real difference?

    Anyone out there that's moved over to a boost front who can say they feel the difference out on the trail?

    Is it going to get you that much more control over a 275 with a carbon rim with an offset spoke bed? Maybe on a 29".

    Unless it's needed for a fat tire, I'm not sold on the idea yet, but would like to hear from others.

    More weight, more cost, more torque on the stantions.

  2. #2
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,532
    I agree with you except the more torque on the stancions. Not going to be any different. The distance between the hub and lowers is no different so no changes in torque load to upper areas of the forks except the crown.

    The added stiffness I'll bet is alot less than going down a wheel size. Or going from QR to thru-axle. It's a massive 5mm difference . I could see pro racers sensing a difference but if all other things are equal, no normal rider will notice a difference if their using good thru axle forks and stiff wheel.

    It's marketing mainly, they don't want to be stuck only selling the new standard in a niche. Plus size bikes need them as current non-fat fork options are very limited on clearance. Beyond that a 29er might see a small gain that most would never notice.

    Ps: You want to feel a difference, go full fat hub spacing. I wish manitou would make a fat fork (without the ridiculous fat tax). But I want to build a B+ using a 170 fat frame. My current fat bike is '11 Mukluk, won't work. But 45-50mm rims, 3" tires on 170 rear 135/150 front, that's stiffness you'd notice (and my fat a$$ would welcome).

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by tigris99; 03-07-2016 at 12:09 PM.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,519
    Front boost is 110 mm wide, needed for the 3" tires.

  4. #4
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,532
    10mm extra isn't needed for extra clearance at the hub. 3" tires by definition would only be 75mm wide. The clearance issue is the top of the lowers and sometimes the arch. The extra clearance could have been achieved other ways easily without a new hub standard.

    But as with all this other moronic marketing crap, it's all about new standards so people keep buying new parts/bikes because you can't use the previous standards on the new stuff.

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,577
    A Boost 110 fork offers more clearance to experiment with all the wider tires out with more coming. You need a wider rim anyway for those tires so new wheel build, might as well get a 110 hub.

  6. #6
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,532
    Wouldn't be an issue if there was a wide selection of hubs available. Some of us can't pay $200 just for a front hub, sell not easily and justifiably anyway.

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Davide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Anyone out there that's moved over to a boost front who can say they feel the difference out on the trail?

    Is it going to get you that much more control over a 275 with a carbon rim with an offset spoke bed? Maybe on a 29".

    Unless it's needed for a fat tire, I'm not sold on the idea yet, but would like to hear from others.

    More weight, more cost, more torque on the stantions.
    I personally think that they are making fun of us, and to answer your question don't think anybody will ever be able to tell the difference unless you are in a lab and measure the sub millimetric differences in deflections.

    But ... they do make a bike look like a chopper from the 60s.

    And yes! everything is bigger, larger, heavier and of course because of that bettererer!!!!!
    Last edited by Davide; 03-07-2016 at 08:32 PM.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    843
    Boost front is even less useful of a standard than boost rear... I mean we already had 20x110... so 15x110 seems superfluous

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DethWshBkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,426
    I will say though, I'd love to run a Chupacabra in the front of my Remedy (29x3.0) but it will not fit on my Fox 36 fork running a 20/110 axle.

  10. #10
    Yeah!
    Reputation: Flamingtaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick2cents View Post
    Boost front is even less useful of a standard than boost rear... I mean we already had 20x110... so 15x110 seems superfluous
    Seems superfluous to those that don't understand that the 15mm standard is beneficial to those that don't need a DJ or DH bike. Looking like 15mm is headed towards being the de-facto replacement for 9mm. Embrace diversity.

    Boost 148 enables 29" wheels to be built with nearly the same spoke angle as 26" wheels. This means stronger wheels at both ends. Or lighter wheels. Seems like a useful standard to me.

    I expect most won't notice a difference in feel, as we just aren't that sensitive. The impact will be in resistance to wheel failure.
    I will suffer no butt-hurt fools!

  11. #11
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    8,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingtaco View Post
    Boost 148 enables 29" wheels to be built with nearly the same spoke angle as 26" wheels. This means stronger wheels at both ends. Or lighter wheels. Seems like a useful standard to me.

    I expect most won't notice a difference in feel, as we just aren't that sensitive. The impact will be in resistance to wheel failure.
    not all boost hubs take advantage of wider flange spacing, negating any perceived benefit of a stiffer wheel.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,577
    Quote Originally Posted by tigris99 View Post
    Wouldn't be an issue if there was a wide selection of hubs available. Some of us can't pay $200 just for a front hub, sell not easily and justifiably anyway.
    More hubs are coming including a 6 bolt 350 this spring.
    $83 for a Hope Pro4 Boost until then.
    Hope Pro 4 MTB Boost Front Hub - 15mm Axle | Chain Reaction Cycles

  13. #13
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,213
    Snake oil
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  14. #14
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,532
    I was going to say there is actually an upside to boost rear, better chain line but seems there's cranks for boost now. Bike manufacturers it seems (unless something changed in the last year or so) still don't get it. 1x (or middle of a 3x) should NOT be inline with the center of the cassette. Wider rear which moves cassette out slightly would have improved on this.

    I gotta dig more into this boost thing only because that's how + bikes come now. It is annoying because to go b+ no new standard is needed. Instead I gotta dig up everything on this new set up.

    Freaking hate they can't leave well enough alone.

    BTW eb, thanks for that, seems there is some non-rediculous priced options now. Wish shimano would get in gear on these, honestly (probably get trolled for this) I prefer their cup and cone bearings. I don't care much about hub weight, I want reliable and easily serviceable instead of replacing parts every season.

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Anyone out there that's moved over to a boost front who can say they feel the difference out on the trail?

    Is it going to get you that much more control over a 275 with a carbon rim with an offset spoke bed? Maybe on a 29".

    Unless it's needed for a fat tire, I'm not sold on the idea yet, but would like to hear from others.

    More weight, more cost, more torque on the stantions.
    I just took out my new Santa Cruz 5010 this past weekend on a 4 day trip to Phoenix and the absolute bottom line is....NO, I can't tell any difference at all from every other mountain bike I've had.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,258
    I imagine if it's perceptible at all, it'd be less perceptible on a 27.5 than a 29.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 006_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,257
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Front boost is 110 mm wide, needed for the 3" tires.
    Lies.

    My monster T has fit 3" tires for well over a decade now.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,577
    Quote Originally Posted by tigris99 View Post
    I gotta dig more into this boost thing only because that's how + bikes come now. It is annoying because to go b+ no new standard is needed. Instead I gotta dig up everything on this new set up.
    Freaking hate they can't leave well enough alone.
    I looking forward to the probable fun tuning cornering/climbing grip with the wider rims and tires based on also playing with the air pressure. I'm already totally onboard with wide rims for more sidewall support with two seasons of experience. I'd never go back.
    A Panaracer Fat B Nimble 29x3.0 fits on my SID non Boost fork for dry riding on my 30mm id rim. Cost hardly anything to play with that soon as the weather changes.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,829
    Quote Originally Posted by 006_007 View Post
    Lies.

    My monster T has fit 3" tires for well over a decade now.
    Yup.
    I think I got my first Monster in 2000 and fit 3" no problem.
    Wasn't the only fork that did either.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  20. #20
    Yeah!
    Reputation: Flamingtaco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    not all boost hubs take advantage of wider flange spacing, negating any perceived benefit of a stiffer wheel.
    Can you cite a source for this claim?

    Spending a lot of money to spec new hubs and make new molds or code new CNC programs, but not bother incorporating the feature that's going to convince your customers these are a better product and worth the cost. That's the definition of insanity for a company right there. Companies may come up with stupid product ideas, but they don't walk past free money.
    I will suffer no butt-hurt fools!

  21. #21
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,532
    Which part, perceived claim or not all are wider flanges???

    If you think a couple mm is going to result in a stiffer wheel your smoking some good stuff and need to share. In a lab with ultra precision microscopic sensors you ll see a measurable difference. A rider on a bike on a trail, no way in he!!. But feel free to buy into it. It's that thought pattern causing the reason the rest of us have to deal with this mess when we don't have limitless bank accounts/credit cards.

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,060
    Quote Originally Posted by tigris99 View Post
    If you think a couple mm is going to result in a stiffer wheel your smoking some good stuff and need to share.
    I'm neither advocating nor demonizing boost but a couple of mm can often make a significant difference, Remember Mag 21's and their 25mm sanctions?

  23. #23
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    8,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingtaco View Post
    Can you cite a source for this claim?

    Spending a lot of money to spec new hubs and make new molds or code new CNC programs, but not bother incorporating the feature that's going to convince your customers these are a better product and worth the cost. That's the definition of insanity for a company right there. Companies may come up with stupid product ideas, but they don't walk past free money.
    here's one example. some good info on bracing angles and flange spacing/diameter. not all boost hubs are created equal.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/wheels-tires/...t-1000124.html
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,577
    American Standards new Boost wheelset also uses the space differently.
    American Classic Smokin' Gun Wheels: Intro

    -from the article-
    "Let us go away from the most obvious feature the rims and look at the no less exciting AMERICAN CLASSIC interpretation of the new and upcoming Boost standard. Our test wheel set came in the brand new AMERICAN CLASSIC Boost hub configuration ie for forks with 110 15 mm and rear triangles with 148 12mm OLD dimensions. If you remember our intro of Boost Technology with SRAM almost a year ago, you know that the greater hub width is primarily used to shift the hub flanges further apart 5mm on each side on the front and 3 mm on each side on the rear. The result of the wider hub flanges is a stiffer, and in theory, a stronger wheel.
    Bill Shook thought about this and came to the another conclusion how to use the additional space. For him, the asymmetry of the spokes angle (front left and rear right are much more acute an angle than on the opposite side) and the uneven spoke tension are the main obstacle to achieving a optimal wheel stability. So according to this train of thought a symmetric build was even more important to increasing the wheels stiffness then by spacing the flange to their possible max. In the end, Bill found that if he maintained the distance between the hub flanges and would use the additional width for a better symmetry he would achieve a more stable wheel overall."

    You can do this with one of the asym rims out there.....and get the expanded hub spacing too.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    393

    Cool-blue Rhythm

    I think its a good idea for the 29er wheels since they are so big. When I went to buy my bike they told me about 29er wheels being 700c road bike wheels but for mtb. I was like wow that's a big wheel. If they could do anything to make it stiffer then its a good thing, which they did. I bought a trek fuel ex 8 which came with 29er boost wheels. Me coming from a 26" wheels, I did notice wheel flex and tire rubbing on the chainstays from me flexing the wheels in technical inclines. OK, me knowing that most stock wheels are made in china or taiwan and aren't the best quality and don't last an aggressive rider too long I went and had a set of wheels built up for me from a shop out in california. A recreational will not notice the difference if you buy a bike with stock boost wheels or not. Today I rode for the first time my new 29er boost 30mm rims. Was like night and day. If I were to take these wheels and throw them on the recreational riders boost bike and say go ride your normal ride with these wheels, I guarantee you they will feel the difference. But not to many people will go out and spend money on an american built set off wheels after they just bought a new bike. The wheels were super stiff and a lot faster then my 26" wheels.

    Bottom line is the little extra width does help in stiffening the bigger 29er rim but you wont notice it until you swap out with a good set off wheel like I did. If it wasn't for me noticing the difference with the new set of wheels I wouldn't be writing this.

    FYI: If your thinking of going wider with your rims "Do It". You won't be disappointed. The same tire you ride now will open up and look like a fatter tire, more traction, a little less pressure if you want but traction galore hahaha. No more rear tire spinning out on you when riding those steep climbs.

  26. #26
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,532
    The stiffness you felt isn't the hub's spacing really at all. Bontrager rims are quite flexy. You went wide rims with a proper build, that's 99% of the difference you feel. I can guarantee if the same wheel setbwith standard spacing was built for you, your opinion would still be the same. I know that for a fact because my 29er is on the third wheel set because stock sucked, ordered a set in and it was better but still not what I wanted. Built up a set (after teaching myself how to build wheels with help of the book) of spank oozy rims and been the best thing I ever did.

    It's already proven boost does little, pro riders would be lucky to feel a difference all else being equal. Nothing compares to ditching stock wheels for a good custom built set. It's night and day regardless of a few mm of hub spacing

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    34,169
    Carbon 29er rims were massively stiffer and more rigid than my aluminum ones, I can't see there being any significant increase due to Boost. Of course, not everyone wants to build with carbon rims, but then again, I've built a lot of wheels (and then ridden them for years) and the increase in stiffness is dramatic. Alloy wheels feel like noodles comparatively and you can get carbon ones to a whole new level of "true" due to the difference.

    My specialized 29er had so much wheel flex the tire rubbed the stays a little in hard corners (tires were pretty close already). Carbon wheels totally solved that. Tightening up the stock wheels massively help a little too, but not on the order of the carbon rims.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    393
    Maybe you can't feel the difference between boost and non boost but I still can't see there being no benefit from a wider hub. Even if it just a bit stronger it's a benefit. It's gonna suck having to purchase new parts to take advantage of the little benefit but the industry is favoring the wider wheel theory.

    Sent from my SM-G360T using Tapatalk

  29. #29
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,532
    As said earlier in the thread, there is a "benefit" but tested in a lab its so small that it doesn't justify anything.

    The industry follows the market:

    Market wants wider wheels and tires (those ACTUALLY have benefits and compromises).

    The market started wanting 2x gear range crammed into 1x capability and wanted more cogs in the rear.

    Those are what caused boost. Because what ppl want gave the companies the opportunity to cram ANOTHER new standard down everyone's throat.

    Just wait 2 yrs, they'll do it again. Boost will be obsolete

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  30. #30
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    8,079
    Quote Originally Posted by tigris99 View Post
    Just wait 2 yrs, they'll do it again. Boost will be obsolete
    so true, and i'll still be laughing while i ride my 100/135 hubs that aren't broken.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  31. #31
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,532
    X2, well mostly, I want a b+. Just can't decide if I'm going to deal with this boost bs or just build one on a 170 fatty frame. That will actually have "benefits of a wider hub".

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Carbon 29er rims were massively stiffer and more rigid than my aluminum ones, I can't see there being any significant increase due to Boost. Of course, not everyone wants to build with carbon rims, but then again, I've built a lot of wheels (and then ridden them for years) and the increase in stiffness is dramatic. Alloy wheels feel like noodles comparatively and you can get carbon ones to a whole new level of "true" due to the difference.

    My specialized 29er had so much wheel flex the tire rubbed the stays a little in hard corners (tires were pretty close already). Carbon wheels totally solved that. Tightening up the stock wheels massively help a little too, but not on the order of the carbon rims.
    Music to my ears, mine are on order and being built now....can't wait

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    63
    I received one of the first Bronson v2's with boost 148 in the rear and it shipped with a non-boosted pike (100mmx15) - all I can say is IT FEELS WEIRD. Very unbalanced, almost twitchy in the front, while the rear feels wide and stable by comparison. Anyone else experienced this too?

    When I ordered, I didn't realize it would be shipping with an un-boosted fork and thought "eh, it won't make a difference"...but it has...

    I guess my experience is a bit different then most in this thread, in that I have a boosted rear with 100mm front. Per the original post, I really doubt you'd see any benefit from a boosted fork if you don't have the 148mm rear. In fact, I bet it would be detrimental to handling running a 110mm front with the 142mm rear.

  34. #34
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,532
    That sounds like a Geo issue, im pretty confident in saying its not because rear has boost and front doesn't. Chances of that making some noticeable difference in how the bike feels is slim and none

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

  35. #35
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    8,079
    Quote Originally Posted by tigris99 View Post
    That sounds like a Geo issue, im pretty confident in saying its not because rear has boost and front doesn't. Chances of that making some noticeable difference in how the bike feels is slim and none

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
    ^ +1
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by tigris99 View Post
    10mm extra isn't needed for extra clearance at the hub. 3" tires by definition would only be 75mm wide. The clearance issue is the top of the lowers and sometimes the arch. The extra clearance could have been achieved other ways easily without a new hub standard.

    But as with all this other moronic marketing crap, it's all about new standards so people keep buying new parts/bikes because you can't use the previous standards on the new stuff.

    Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
    absolutely correct, all these new standards are getting sickO. AT this time i really can't see how much MORE they can force on us. We are near perfection standard wise with all the "updates" i have seen over 30 yrs on MTB.
    Maybe the last stand is with suspension but other then that EVERYTHING has been thoroughly thought out !!!!
    Only thing i can think of is NEW "materials", otherwise `biking has SO many smart ppl that have added to a point i find has become "sell, sell, sell" what you don't need.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    11
    i still like 2x drive, you really don't save weight & if you are a "heavy weight" rider the 2x makes more sense like for me.
    Oh gosh, WTF has happened ? i feel like MTB has become BMX.
    Maybe i have seen & come full biking circle or this is just a circle JERK to another idiotic level !

  38. #38
    XC iconoclast
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    2,001
    Quote Originally Posted by OugaBooga View Post
    absolutely correct, all these new standards are getting sickO. AT this time i really can't see how much MORE they can force on us. We are near perfection standard wise with all the "updates" i have seen over 30 yrs on MTB.
    Maybe the last stand is with suspension but other then that EVERYTHING has been thoroughly thought out !!!!
    Only thing i can think of is NEW "materials", otherwise `biking has SO many smart ppl that have added to a point i find has become "sell, sell, sell" what you don't need.

    Boost does seem like a money-making grab. There are plenty of people on here who are doing 1/2+ and putting a wider tire and rim on the front, and they are doing just fine. Some of them still have 9mm front axles. And they are doing it on the cheap; you can have an LBS build a + wheel for under $200. Ask the guys doing 1/2+. You will get your answer.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,215
    Ive just gone from old school 26" steep head angle, 15mm non boost with envy carbon wheels. to long/low/slack 27.5 with alloy wheels. I dont notice any stiffness increase. quite the opposite. I feel more flex. Most likely in the alloy rim. My call Stiff as carbon rims are yeild a far better performance increase than extra hub width.

    But! I do have a glorious amount of extra tyre clearance! 2.35 minion gives me a min of 20mm clearance. Compared to the non boost of 10mm. For tyre clearance alone if there is no other performance increase i say its worth it.

    But it does render your non boost fruity wheelset useless for your next bike.

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 vs 2015 Jekyll Carbon 1 any real difference
    By LegionX in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-08-2015, 09:08 PM
  2. Big Apples - 2.15 or 2.35? Any real world difference?
    By edhombre in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-11-2014, 09:40 AM
  3. li-ion vs lithium ion , any real difference?
    By eggdog in forum Lights and Night Riding
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-08-2013, 01:35 AM
  4. rotor size - how much difference in real world?
    By gripper35 in forum Brake Time
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-16-2013, 01:25 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-07-2011, 04:11 AM

Members who have read this thread: 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.