Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    bike pamper-er
    Reputation: cakeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    61

    Hub sizing standards- boost 148, superboost 157 take over?

    Pivot has adopted the new "superboost" standard for their enduro and e-bikes, and Devinci's new Spartan 29 has it now too. Of course, a lot of people are of the opinion that this new standard is just another headache and unnecessary marketing ploy. And of course, lots of people will also be rushing out to buy a new frame that fits the new standard out of fear that their current bike is now obsolete and incapable of being fun since it's not NEARLY as stiff and strong as bikes with the new standard (sarcasm).

    My take on it is that 157mm is just too wide for 27.5" wheels. There are already numerous bikes for which people have complaints about heel clearance. Plus the smaller diameter wheels are inherently stiffer and stronger than 29" wheels, as stiff as I think we will ever need them to be, given that the rest of the bike design and wheel quality is up to snuff.
    But, I think the new standard SHOULD be applied to 29 inch bikes because larger diameter wheels are inherently more flexy and having a wider hub/bb spacing means that, like the new Spartan, a 29-inch wheeled bike can have sub-17 inch chainstays and still have wide tire clearance. The only problem with this would be that having short chainstays and superboost means that heel clearance will effectively be the same (just as bad) as superboost with 27.5" wheels, even though boost 148 already has that problem.

    What are everyone else's thoughts on this?
    Shorter seat tubes, taller droppers.
    Shorter chainstays, taller stacks.
    Shorter stems, taller BB's.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,083
    I think the rim and the build can have as much impact on the feel of stiffness as the flange spacing. And you can always use the Hope 157mm hub which has even spacing [drive and non-drive side] rather than just "as wide as possible" superboost.

    Plenty of info here; https://www.knollybikes.com/engineering
    Heel clearance shouldn't be drastically increased if designed right.

  3. #3
    bike pamper-er
    Reputation: cakeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    I think the rim and the build can have as much impact on the feel of stiffness as the flange spacing.
    I agree, stiffness can be achieved but I'm not so sure about overall strength. Any wheel that's stiff and strong with a 148mm hub should be even stiffer and stronger with a 157mm hub.
    Also, of course you can get around heel clearance with a good design, but at what weight/stiffness/strength cost? So far as I know, the only way to get around it is by using thinner tubes or increasing the sharpness of the bend in the tubes used for the chainstays and seatstays. From what I understand, the straighter a tube is, the stronger it is, and for a tube to be thinner and still be as stiff and strong would mean you'd have to take a weight penalty.

  4. #4
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,080
    There's some logic in being ambivalent about everything that's come after 142. Some of the new standards can be built up to be theoretically superior, but anything can be 'competitive' with an inconsequential weight penalty. An offset rim is much more desirable than X hub standard, and i think most all of the hub standards will be adequately supported going forward cuz there's not much difference between them.

    It's like how oval chainrings haven't disappeared or taken over- it doesn't matter and there's demand for it.





    Industry differentiation bullshit.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  5. #5
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,761
    As you can see here, it maintains pretty good heel clearance. Of course, for some reason they drew the "old boost" stays thicker, which makes it look as if the "new boost" has even more clearance...which it doesn't.

    Hub sizing standards- boost 148, superboost 157 take over?-superboost-tire-clearance-1517873742694-pyt7m4wg5fx0-630-354.jpg
    "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.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,271
    27.5 x 3.25 in tires is ridiculous. Too wide for trail riding and too narrow for snow. 157 mm rear end will start and die with just a few companies who jumped on the new standards band wagon.
    2016 Santa Cruz Hightower 29er
    2016 Chromag Surface 27.5+
    2013 Transition TransAM 29er
    2017 Motobecane Lurch FS 26 fat

  7. #7
    bike pamper-er
    Reputation: cakeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    I think most all of the hub standards will be adequately supported going forward cuz there's not much difference between them.

    It's like how oval chainrings haven't disappeared or taken over- it doesn't matter and there's demand for it.
    That's an interesting prediction. I know a lot of bike brands only just swotched to boost 148 in the past 2 years, so it's safe to say that THAT new standard is still causing a little ruckus. I wonder if once everyone calms down about hub standards, they'll be designated to certain disciplines. 142 XC/trail, 148 enduro, 157 downhill.

  8. #8
    bike pamper-er
    Reputation: cakeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Of course, for some reason they drew the "old boost" stays thicker, which makes it look as if the "new boost" has even more clearance...which it doesn't.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	superboost-tire-clearance-1517873742694-pyt7m4wg5fx0-630-354.jpg 
Views:	61 
Size:	53.9 KB 
ID:	1220743
    If you hold a ruler up to your screen, you'll notice they also didn't actually draw the superboost stays any wider than the 148 stays at the dropouts, they just made the stays straighter. I found that same picture on Bikeradar's website, my guess is that some company trying to push the new standard gave them the picture to use for the article.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,524
    I'll just point out that these are dropout spacing and chainline standards. They don't guaranty anything about tire clearance. It's up to the bike (and fork) designer to determine how much tire clearance will be provided.
    Do the math.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    865
    QR145, tandems have been using it all along Santanas are QR160, with no dish

  11. #11
    bike pamper-er
    Reputation: cakeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    I'll just point out that these are dropout spacing and chainline standards. They don't guaranty anything about tire clearance. It's up to the bike (and fork) designer to determine how much tire clearance will be provided.
    Very true. Most of the brands that have recently adopted boost 148 don't actually use the new standard to get "shorter stays, stiffer wheels and wider tire clearance." Or at least, instead of designing ALL of those things into a bike at once, they'll only design one or two of them into the frame ay a time. On the other hand, Devinci says it wouldn't be possible for their new Spartan to have clearance for 2.5" tires, a 38t chainring, 16.9" chainstaysn etc. Which, on a 29er, IS impressive.

  12. #12
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,770
    The 150mm tandem standard from decades ago would have sufficed nicely.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  13. #13
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,328
    157 spacing is just 150 with 7mm for slotted dropouts, analogous to 142 and 135. Itís been around a long time, and thatís where we should have gone in the first place. 148 is nonsense.

  14. #14
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,761
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    157 spacing is just 150 with 7mm for slotted dropouts, analogous to 142 and 135. Itís been around a long time, and thatís where we should have gone in the first place. 148 is nonsense.
    Marginal gains. Marginal gains are not worth it. If we were busting wheelsets left and right like Next cranks..maybe.
    "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.

  15. #15
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,080
    Quote Originally Posted by cakeba View Post
    That's an interesting prediction. I know a lot of bike brands only just switched to boost 148 in the past 2 years, so it's safe to say that THAT new standard is still causing a little ruckus. I wonder if once everyone calms down about hub standards, they'll be designated to certain disciplines. 142 XC/trail, 148 enduro, 157 downhill.
    I think folks who like to buy novelty wheelsets will be somewhat limited, but for the rest of us, and for premium manufacturers--- a single hub shell will cover most situations, and then a smart wheel build will optimize a hub with the rim and the axle standard. Really the only losers are people who want the latest standard. **** them; they're the problem.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  16. #16
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Marginal gains. Marginal gains are not worth it. If we were busting wheelsets left and right like Next cranks..maybe.
    Itís noticeable at 6í3Ē and 225.

  17. #17
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,041
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    157 spacing is just 150 with 7mm for slotted dropouts, analogous to 142 and 135. Itís been around a long time, and thatís where we should have gone in the first place. 148 is nonsense.
    Yes, nothing new unlike 148.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  18. #18
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,718
    The super boost will allow shorter chainstays so something something better.

  19. #19
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    4,996
    Quote Originally Posted by cakeba View Post
    Any wheel that's stiff and strong with a 148mm hub should be even stiffer and stronger with a 157mm hub.
    If your trashing wheels left and right then maybe there's a benefit for you. If not, like most of us, then stiffer and stronger is unnecessary.

    I get why your asking the question, but this has been well covered.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  20. #20
    bike pamper-er
    Reputation: cakeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    If your trashing wheels left and right then maybe there's a benefit for you. If not, like most of us, then stiffer and stronger is unnecessary.

    I get why your asking the question, but this has been well covered.
    Maybe super boost will give people more confidence to ride harder with more reckless abandon. Peace of mind knowing that the wheel is just that much harder to trash could mean more speed, if just going fast and actively not beating up your wheels is what you're into. Plus, depending on how much you weigh, stiffness could mean a lot to you, even just as a personal preference. I know I like my bikes to feel un-****with-able.

    But anyways, I was hoping this thread would provoke more predictions and speculation about what you think is going to happen with the new standard, not really to give it more technical coverage. It has indeed already been covered to death.
    Shorter seat tubes, taller droppers.
    Shorter chainstays, taller stacks.
    Shorter stems, taller BB's.

  21. #21
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,080
    Quote Originally Posted by cakeba View Post
    Maybe super boost will give people more confidence to ride harder with more reckless abandon. Peace of mind knowing that the wheel is just that much harder to trash could mean more speed, if just going fast and actively not beating up your wheels is what you're into. Plus, depending on how much you weigh, stiffness could mean a lot to you, even just as a personal preference. I know I like my bikes to feel un-****with-able.

    But anyways, I was hoping this thread would provoke more predictions and speculation about what you think is going to happen with the new standard, not really to give it more technical coverage. It has indeed already been covered to death.
    I think anyone who has been paying enough attention to have an opinion is probably suffering from new hub standard fatigue. It's really hard to care.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  22. #22
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,761
    Quote Originally Posted by cakeba View Post
    Maybe super boost will give people more confidence to ride harder with more reckless abandon. Peace of mind knowing that the wheel is just that much harder to trash could mean more speed, if just going fast and actively not beating up your wheels is what you're into. Plus, depending on how much you weigh, stiffness could mean a lot to you, even just as a personal preference. I know I like my bikes to feel un-****with-able.

    But anyways, I was hoping this thread would provoke more predictions and speculation about what you think is going to happen with the new standard, not really to give it more technical coverage. It has indeed already been covered to death.
    Yeah, 1.8% will definitely do that...
    "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.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,415
    Lol...the width of my hub is the last thing on my mind when deciding to go (or not go) off that drop.

    Have there been any third party tests out there comparing the different hub widths to see if they actually make a difference in wheel strength on a mountain bike? Do wheels really need to be "stiffer"...especially now with carbon rims being a lot more affordable?

  24. #24
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,718
    With carbon rims, wheels definitely do not need any help being stiffer, they are even reducing spoke counts. Pivot Cycles gets static for going to a Super Boost rear hub, they say for "stiffness and control", then specs 28 hole rims for the Firebird. SERIOUSLY?

  25. #25
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,276
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    157 spacing is just 150 with 7mm for slotted dropouts, analogous to 142 and 135. Itís been around a long time, and thatís where we should have gone in the first place. 148 is nonsense.

    I feel like I've heard this somewhere before...

Similar Threads

  1. Possibility of 148>157 End Caps?
    By PHeller in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-19-2018, 01:08 PM
  2. 148 to 157 Super Boost Adaptors?
    By Travis Bickle in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2017, 11:31 AM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-07-2017, 06:02 AM
  4. Boost Standards 110/148 and adapters
    By PHeller in forum 26+/27.5+/29+ Plus Bikes
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-13-2017, 09:20 PM
  5. Super Boost+ 157 Hub
    By Travis Bickle in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-27-2016, 03:25 PM

Members who have read this thread: 130

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

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.