Results 1 to 99 of 99

Thread: Boost Rant

  1. #1
    Ahhh the pain....
    Reputation: Raybum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,422

    Boost Rant

    Ughh...so I'm sure everyone is tired of the constant standards proliferation. I have 3 bikes, all SS, 2 that are full rigid, and one with a suspension fork. On 2 of the bikes, I have some nice carbon wheels that have been built by Dave at Speeddream that have been ROCK solid for bikepacking, racing, and everything I can throw at them...One of the SS bikes that I run rigid, has a Specialized Chisel fork that fits my 3" Chupacapbra....love that setup and love that someone at the big S had the foresight to build in that kind of width.
    I'm now in a spot where I'm considering a new SS frame and the question is boost or not? I love being able to move wheels between bikes...complete interchangeability is AWESOME. But boost f*cks that up unless I use some sort of spacer kit...
    I also have a nice set of DT240 hubs sitting on the shelf, one is a SS Centerlock rear and the other is a 15mm x 100 front...and have carbon rims sitting in plastic...but I'm hesitant to invest 220 bucks to build them...
    Ughh....

  2. #2
    Ahhh the pain....
    Reputation: Raybum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,422
    Oh and before someone starts in on the whole, "boost wheels are stonger due to increased bracing angles", I have yet to bang a carbon wheel out of true and don't find my current sets lateral flexible...

  3. #3
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,795
    Aren't DT's rears convertible with endcap/axle swaps and a rotor spacer? The front hub could swap with spacers.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  4. #4
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,738
    so use a spacer kit or don't buy a boost frame. Why is this hard?

  5. #5
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,021
    Have some foresight, go strait to super boost.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: The Boz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    497
    This little blurb on ENVEís blog about boost helped me understand it clearly:

    ďBy increasing the width of the bike frameís chainstays the manufacturers have the ability to shorten the chainstays without sacrificing tire clearance. Optimally short chainstays allow your weight to be positioned closer to the rear axle which means the bike will generally feel far more nimble, be easier to manual, and climb more confidently. In addition some bike frames with the boost treatment will be capable of accommodating plus size tires.Ē

    So itís not really just about keeping your wheels true, I rode my last set of carbon hoops on a 135mm QR frame for 6 years and those wheels also never went out of true. The wider wheels are stiffer and feel really solid, but a boost frame is able to have shorter chainstays, and wider tires are icing on the cake. Shorter chainstays, longer top tube length, shorter stems, etc. Of course for you, these marginal gains come at a cost of compatibility and thatís frustrating. Looking at the bright side, itís the sign of a vibrant and financially healthy industry when there is a consumer base that supports innovation. Iíve seen the opposite situation in other industries and you sit there and pull your hair out because the tech doesnít keep up and you feel like things are stuck in the Stone Age...

    But I get the frustration. Your choices now are possibly (1) bite the bullet and get a boost frame, and give up the ability to swap wheels with your other frames, or (2) dig in and buy a frame with the older standard, keeping your interchangeable wheels but probably setting yourself up for even more frustration down the road because youíre quadrupling down on the old school tech.

    No great choices here, but personally Iíd pick option #1 and just deal with the fact that my fourth bike canít share wheels. Itís just a (arguably good) fact of life that bike tech changes fast, and compatibility across a stable of bikes over different eras unfortunately just isnít realistic. Pocket the marginal gains from the boost frame and wheels and ride on...

  7. #7
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,058
    I would buy a frame that allowed me to continue playing swapsies. Im not sure ld call a 142 rear spaced frame "old tech", and as you said yourself you are not having issues with wheel flex.
    Hell if you were thinking about Boost, do what I did, skip it and go to 197mm rear spacing , it allows more tyre width choices than boost.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Optimally short chainstays allow your weight to be positioned closer to the rear axle which means the bike will generally feel far more nimble, be easier to manual, and climb more confidently.
    What? Boost allows me to climb better because it allows me to get my weight further backwards?
    that means I've been doing wrong all this time...........
    Last edited by cmg71; 03-25-2018 at 10:51 PM.
    always mad and usually drunk......

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,271
    Don't see the problem, you've ridden what you have, you haven't found anything wanting, so what's the question again
    Pick yourself up a new Monkey, Unit, or any other frame from a company with a brain who hasn't abandoned 135/142 and continue to enjoy a very mix and match bike stable FYI, a true SS hub built 135/142 wheel is dishless and as strong or stronger than a 148 regular boost wheel, as to the BS stays must be as short as possible crap, well, to me it's just that mainly exposed by Hobbitesque height people, not regular height ones

    I just tried and fit a 29x3" Chronicle into the rear of my '18 Unit with the stays slammed all the way back to 18" and you just know I can't be having any fun on it and that it must handle like a tank because of that
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,569

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    319
    I lean more towards the standard rear spacing. Boost offers no advantage for wheel-strength for a dedicated SS hub, and the standard spacing allows you to use/swap your existing hubs and wheelsets. Furthermore, what is your preferred Q-factor? If you prefer narrow (156mm), will the boost frame you're considering require you run a wider Q-factor, and is that a deal-breaker for you (it would be for me...)?

  11. #11
    Mr. Buck E. Fikes
    Reputation: Oh My Sack!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,426
    Get a Monkey! Gnot boost does all of 'em...135/142/148 and runs a standard crankset.

  12. #12
    Always in the wrong gear
    Reputation: ARandomBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,221
    I was given the option for boost spacing when Tom delivered my Verhauen, and I went though the same process you are. I ended up choosing 142 because I really love my wheels (I built them myself) and don't see the need for a boost frame on a dedicated SS bike.
    I wouldn't get overly worked up about boost. I know you're a tried and true, ride or die singlespeeder with nice wheels, so the lack of 148 SS hubs is gonna be a stumbling-block. I suppose someone could put out a boost-width SS hub tomorrow and prove me wrong, but given how popular boost rear spacing is becoming, the niche of the SS frame, and the fact that most SS'ers just us a cassette hub in a boost frame, I just don't see CK, I9 or anyone else rolling out a 148mm SS only hub anytime soon. If they were, it'd already be out, ore at least rumored.
    Someday, probably. But you'll have moved on to another bike by then.

    regarding the spacer-thing:
    I'm using those spacers on my front wheel on the infrequent occasion I ride with a suspension fork, and while they're OK up there for a "work-around" using them as a permanent solution seems like a hassle you don't need. I can't remember what hubs were on your bike last time I saw you, but AFAIK, DT is the only hub that doesn't have parts that fall to the ground when you pull the axle. It might be worth a boost frame to build the DT with boost spacing caps and know that it's the only wheels for that bike.

    Or run a 148mm cassette hub.

    Lastly- boost IMO is really only a real benefit if you're going to stuff in a 3.0 rear tire. You and I have had that conversation as well- my chain stays are much happier with a 2.6-2.8 tire, which limits which ratios I can run without my Bomboloni's rubbing. I've seriously considered going to something like a Vee TraxFatty 3.0 that actually measures 2.75-2.8 or something like a Terrene McFly 2.8 and stop limiting my sliders to only the 'long half'.
    I don't know what your plan is, but I know you've had a 'traditional' rear tire thus far. If that continues, boost clearance is a non-point.
    Donít modify the trail to match your skills, modify your skills to match the trails.

  13. #13
    I am Walt
    Reputation: waltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,357
    Quote Originally Posted by ARandomBiker View Post
    I was given the option for boost spacing when Tom delivered my Verhauen, and I went though the same process you are. I ended up choosing 142 because I really love my wheels (I built them myself) and don't see the need for a boost frame on a dedicated SS bike.
    I wouldn't get overly worked up about boost. I know you're a tried and true, ride or die singlespeeder with nice wheels, so the lack of 148 SS hubs is gonna be a stumbling-block. I suppose someone could put out a boost-width SS hub tomorrow and prove me wrong, but given how popular boost rear spacing is becoming, the niche of the SS frame, and the fact that most SS'ers just us a cassette hub in a boost frame, I just don't see CK, I9 or anyone else rolling out a 148mm SS only hub anytime soon. If they were, it'd already be out, ore at least rumored.
    Someday, probably. But you'll have moved on to another bike by then.

    regarding the spacer-thing:
    I'm using those spacers on my front wheel on the infrequent occasion I ride with a suspension fork, and while they're OK up there for a "work-around" using them as a permanent solution seems like a hassle you don't need. I can't remember what hubs were on your bike last time I saw you, but AFAIK, DT is the only hub that doesn't have parts that fall to the ground when you pull the axle. It might be worth a boost frame to build the DT with boost spacing caps and know that it's the only wheels for that bike.

    Or run a 148mm cassette hub.

    Lastly- boost IMO is really only a real benefit if you're going to stuff in a 3.0 rear tire. You and I have had that conversation as well- my chain stays are much happier with a 2.6-2.8 tire, which limits which ratios I can run without my Bomboloni's rubbing. I've seriously considered going to something like a Vee TraxFatty 3.0 that actually measures 2.75-2.8 or something like a Terrene McFly 2.8 and stop limiting my sliders to only the 'long half'.
    I don't know what your plan is, but I know you've had a 'traditional' rear tire thus far. If that continues, boost clearance is a non-point.
    I9 makes an SS-specific Boost rear hub, which I had built up on my new plus wheelset from Tom (sunRingle Duroc 40's and I9's). On that wheelset, I'm running Ranger 3.0's, which have plenty of room in the Boost OpTi frame.
    Ride more; post less...

  14. #14
    Rides all the bikes!
    Reputation: Sidewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,365
    Why don't wheels just slide into my 127mm dropouts on my 1985 Bridgestone? amn changing standards are so annoying!

    The only thing more annoying than changing "standards" are the people complaining about them.

  15. #15
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidewalk View Post
    Why don't wheels just slide into my 127mm dropouts on my 1985 Bridgestone? amn changing standards are so annoying!

    The only thing more annoying than changing "standards" are the people complaining about them.



    Bullshit. Boost, Superboost aren't needed for 99% of the mountain bike market. Sheeple that actually buy into the ever changing standards and then complain about the people that see through it are the real annoyance.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  16. #16
    Always in the wrong gear
    Reputation: ARandomBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by waltaz View Post
    I9 makes an SS-specific Boost rear hub
    Well... damn. That muddies the waters a bit. If one does it, there's bound to be more to follow.

    I don't regret staying with 142 on my bike, but I'll admit I'd have considered boost more strongly if I knew that 148 SS hubs are starting to happen.
    Donít modify the trail to match your skills, modify your skills to match the trails.

  17. #17
    Rides all the bikes!
    Reputation: Sidewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Bullshit. Boost, Superboost aren't needed for 99% of the mountain bike market. Sheeple that actually buy into the ever changing standards and then complain about the people that see through it are the real annoyance.
    In my garage, I have bikes with:
    127
    130
    135
    148

    That doesn't include the fact that one of them is a Lefty.

  18. #18
    I am Walt
    Reputation: waltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,357
    Quote Originally Posted by ARandomBiker View Post
    Well... damn. That muddies the waters a bit. If one does it, there's bound to be more to follow.

    I don't regret staying with 142 on my bike, but I'll admit I'd have considered boost more strongly if I knew that 148 SS hubs are starting to happen.
    My last two non-Boost rears were Hope SS-specific, and I just prefer it, regardless of whether there are any benefits or not.

    Here is my I9, which they just came out with at the end of last year.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ride more; post less...

  19. #19
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,867
    Someone bought parts and standards changed. Probably the first time. Better put it on the interwebs or no one will care.

  20. #20
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidewalk View Post
    The only thing more annoying than changing "standards" are the people complaining about them.
    If you don't like the conversation, feel free to show yourself to the door...

    The OP came here to get opinions for his new frame. People weighing the pro's and con's are part of the conversation.

    You coming here and telling us we're annoying is not contributing to the conversation.
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  21. #21
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidewalk View Post
    In my garage, I have bikes with:
    127
    130
    135
    148

    That doesn't include the fact that one of them is a Lefty.


    Thanks for proving out my assertion.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  22. #22
    Rides all the bikes!
    Reputation: Sidewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    If you don't like the conversation, feel free to show yourself to the door...

    The OP came here to get opinions for his new frame. People weighing the pro's and con's are part of the conversation.

    You coming here and telling us we're annoying is not contributing to the conversation.
    True, I can do that.

  23. #23
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,021
    Quote Originally Posted by ARandomBiker View Post
    so the lack of 148 SS hubs is gonna be a stumbling-block.
    SS specific boost hubs:
    Paul Disc Word
    Onyx
    I9
    Profile Racing
    Pinion
    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: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,747
    I like boost just because it makes people mad, and that warms my cold, dead heart.


  25. #25
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,867
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    I like boost just because it makes people mad, and that warms my cold, dead heart.

    This makes me sad....







    ...that I didn't think of it first.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,854

    Boost Rant

    Quote Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    This little blurb on ENVEís blog about boost helped me understand it clearly:

    ďBy increasing the width of the bike frameís chainstays the manufacturers have the ability to shorten the chainstays without sacrificing tire clearance.Ē
    How does that work? If it means that the cranks have to be farther apart, well that's just stupid when it comes to pedaling efficiency.

  27. #27
    West Chester, PA
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,466
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    I like boost just because it makes people mad, and that warms my cold, dead heart.

    Can't +rep you again.

    If the bike companies didn't invent new stuff for me to buy I'd be spending all of my money on hookers and blow. Then I'd just be a dead guy with an infection on my junk 😗

  28. #28
    I am Walt
    Reputation: waltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,357
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    I like boost just because it makes people mad, and that warms my cold, dead heart.

    FTW


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Ride more; post less...

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Optimally short chainstays allow your weight to be positioned closer to the rear axle which means the bike will generally feel far more nimble, be easier to manual, and climb more confidently.
    I find that shorter chainstays are NOT good for steep climbs, because they make it hard to keep the front wheel on the ground.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,270
    Why did they not just use 150mm spacing? That way, you could use a 150mm hub with conventional chainline, or a Boost hub with Boost chainline. Would not the main difference be chainline?

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,271
    1000% fact Short stays may make a bike feel a bit more lively and manual a bit easier, but it definitely doesn't help on super steep, technical climbs. Can't believe how good my rigid Unit, running 29+ F&R climbs with the stays at 18", unreal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MudSnow View Post
    I find that shorter chainstays are NOT good for steep climbs, because they make it hard to keep the front wheel on the ground.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  32. #32
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    I like boost just because it makes people mad, and that warms my cold, dead heart.

    Even better, it makes people mad that people are mad about it.

    Also funny that the aforementioned someone would be mad about people being mad about the subject when it's discussed in a thread with the most literal description of said topic possible, 'XXXXX rant'.

    A++++++, would buy again.

  33. #33
    Class Clown
    Reputation: dundundata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,384
    it just makes me not want to buy a new bike and get stuck with an old standard a year later

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,747
    Why not? If the standard changes, are you going to go run out as fast as possible to replace your frame only, just to outdate your own components?

    The standards changing really has no impact on anyone unless you're doing frame only swaps, often. If you keep bikes for 3 or 4 years, is it honestly that huge of a deal to change a hub cap set or screw on a little adapter every 10 years?

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,656
    Boost sucks, but my new "walmart bike" is boost and so are the wheels that I have put on it. So not much I can do other than suck it up. When I am finished my 3 bikes will have different wheels. 27.5/29 normal / 29 boost. Ugg.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  36. #36
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    Why not? If the standard changes, are you going to go run out as fast as possible to replace your frame only, just to outdate your own components?

    The standards changing really has no impact on anyone unless you're doing frame only swaps, often. If you keep bikes for 3 or 4 years, is it honestly that huge of a deal to change a hub cap set or screw on a little adapter every 10 years?
    Standards have impact, LBS used to stock stuff I bought.

    LBS also used to be successful....

  37. #37
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Standards have impact, LBS used to stock stuff I bought.

    LBS also used to be successful....



    Coincidence?
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  38. #38
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Coincidence?
    Not sure.
    I think there were a lot of coincidences happening over the last five years or so.

    Besides, causal is for statisticians to fight over...

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,747
    Brick and mortar locations are going under in all industries. Own up to it, you guys don't even believe the nonsense you just posted about boost killing lbs's

  40. #40
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,795
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    Brick and mortar locations are going under in all industries. Own up to it, you guys don't even believe the nonsense you just posted about boost killing lbs's



    No, boost is just the symptom of the largely unnecessary ever changing standards that haven't helped keep them open.
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    No, boost is just the symptom of the largely unnecessary ever changing standards that haven't helped keep them open.
    A lot of the good shops are thriving and many that go under failed to adapt. Ever changing standards can be an opportunity.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  42. #42
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,795
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    A lot of the good shops are thriving and many that go under failed to adapt. Ever changing standards can be an opportunity.



    True but that doesn't make them good business. "Opportunities" crashed the economy how many times?
    It ain't supposed to be easy.

    Make
    America
    Gravel
    Again

  43. #43
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    Brick and mortar locations are going under in all industries. Own up to it, you guys don't even believe the nonsense you just posted about boost killing lbs's
    People not patronizing LBS's is what kills them.
    Boost, among other things, just gave them a good reason to stay at home.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,747
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    No, boost is just the symptom of the largely unnecessary ever changing standards that haven't helped keep them open.
    Why should they be helped to keep open?

    Bike shops suck, and operate on a terrible business model. A small percentage of shops are innovative and doing well. Most are failing because they insist on a model that does not work.

    Ive worked in the bike industry. It was tons of fun, very profitable, and I had more business than I could handle. I sure didnt run a LBS though! People actually putting money on the table seemed to enjoy improvements in gear and would gladly, and eagerly pay for them.

    Anyone whos actually built a set of wheels will tell you the tension imbalance kind of sucks. Its sucked for a long time, but it is what it is because thats a function of the hub dimensions. They finally addressed that well known issue with bicycle wheels by pushing the drive flange out... and people are complaining about the improvement. Thats weird!

  45. #45
    J:
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,128
    4pedalwasher+2prestanutz=deboost'r

    Don't worry, be happy
    video=youtube;][/video]...

  46. #46
    Flappity flappity flap
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    Anyone whos actually built a set of wheels will tell you the tension imbalance kind of sucks. Its sucked for a long time, but it is what it is because thats a function of the hub dimensions. They finally addressed that well known issue with bicycle wheels by pushing the drive flange out... and people are complaining about the improvement. Thats weird!
    Right after the industry did a half ass job of exactly that with 142, and right before the newer iteration of 'SUPER BOOST' did the opposite by adding dish.

    Great point, thanks for reminding me.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,747
    Super boost does move the wrong flange. Its not catching on right now, so we'll see how that goes.

  48. #48
    Class Clown
    Reputation: dundundata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,384
    @OnePivot, I'm still rollin 26ers waiting for things to settle lol

  49. #49
    SVO
    SVO is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    285
    I'll parrot: boost only makes sense with 3.0" tires. That said, I have a 29+ rigid rig and a 29er trail bike and I'm happy they both have boost so I can swap wheelsets. Now if we could banish Centerlock from the face of the planet...

    New standards with limited benefits are misdemeanors; proprietary interfaces are felonies.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,271
    100% agree on Boost for 3" tyres, ran into this when I got my new Unit, no trouble running a double ring setup with 2.8" Rekons, put a true 3" tyre on and in the granny ring, could only go to the 3rd largest cog or chain was actually on the tyre. So, going to order a Boost crankset and play with ti to get chainline and tyre clearance sorted.

    As to centre lock rotors, I used to sort of feel that way about them, but if you're a person who travel a lot, the make a lot of sense, so much easier to install and remove rotors.

    Quote Originally Posted by SVO View Post
    I'll parrot: boost only makes sense with 3.0" tires. That said, I have a 29+ rigid rig and a 29er trail bike and I'm happy they both have boost so I can swap wheelsets. Now if we could banish Centerlock from the face of the planet...

    New standards with limited benefits are misdemeanors; proprietary interfaces are felonies.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  51. #51
    .
    Reputation: RustyIron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybum View Post
    But boost f*cks that up unless I use some sort of spacer kit...
    Then don't buy anything Boost. Problem averted. No need to thank me.

  52. #52
    SVO
    SVO is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    100% agree on Boost for 3" tyres, ran into this when I got my new Unit, no trouble running a double ring setup with 2.8" Rekons, put a true 3" tyre on and in the granny ring, could only go to the 3rd largest cog or chain was actually on the tyre. So, going to order a Boost crankset and play with ti to get chainline and tyre clearance sorted.

    As to centre lock rotors, I used to sort of feel that way about them, but if you're a person who travel a lot, the make a lot of sense, so much easier to install and remove rotors.
    Right. I pack a bike on occasion- never found the need to remove rotors tho.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,271
    Really? Never pack a bike to travel on an airline without removing rotors, proper case or packing into the smallest possible box I can. Seen too many bent rotors from transporting.
    Quote Originally Posted by SVO View Post
    Right. I pack a bike on occasion- never found the need to remove rotors tho.
    Last edited by LyNx; 04-04-2018 at 12:45 PM.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    711
    Boost was invented for the +tire fad. Now people are starting to realize +tires are sluggish heavy and overall not that great for endurance riding or hucking and chucking. What they are good for is a nice cushy ride over the rough stuff. I see a lot of newbies get hooked on the idea of being able to swap bigger and smaller wheels. The problem with swapping wheel sizes is the bike's characteristics get all wonky when you do that.

    I guess it's nice to have options, but like someone said, for 90% of us it's not something we really need.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,747
    Most bikes are sold complete. The vast majority, by a pretty big margin.

    If you buy a complete new bike, upgrades are handled exactly like they were before. You can go buy a complete new wheelset, or a complete new fork. Nothing about having a new bike with new standards is a pain or any different.

    The only thing these new, minor standards do is make it so you cant cobble together a used bike from craigslist anymore. Isnt it pretty understandable that thats not an industry goal?

    Dont get me wrong, I cobble together all my bikes from weird used parts I run across! Its fun for me, but I *totally* understand why the industry isnt catering to my frankenstein bike collection. They're in it to sell complete bicycles because thats what the overwhelming majority of riders want to buy.

    Ive saved SO much money not buying completes... if every 10 years I have to change a standard, I think thats kind of fair. Im looking at a new boost banshee frame and the only thing I have to do is slap a spacer on my existing hub ive had for 10 years. This standard change didnt even force me to unlace an old, old hub.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,271
    It has been around for the past 5 years, and tyre selection is only increasing, would not call that a fad. I've got to remind myself next time not to take out my 29+ Unit on my next long, endurance ride, but I forgot today, silly me, 24 miles round trip to the trails and 4.5 hours of trail clearing in between It may not work for you, but it sure does work for a whole lot of others

    You might call it wonky, others might say it gives them 2 bikes in one with quite different characteristics, so they can choose depending on what type of ride or trail they're going to be doing

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonaid View Post
    Boost was invented for the +tire fad. Now people are starting to realize +tires are sluggish heavy and overall not that great for endurance riding or hucking and chucking. What they are good for is a nice cushy ride over the rough stuff. I see a lot of newbies get hooked on the idea of being able to swap bigger and smaller wheels. The problem with swapping wheel sizes is the bike's characteristics get all wonky when you do that.

    I guess it's nice to have options, but like someone said, for 90% of us it's not something we really need.
    Well said and that's the basic truth right there. Wish Banshee had continued to offer the 150x12 drop outs like they did on previous generations, I would like to upgrade my frame, but don't feel like putting a perfectly good hub to sit useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    Most bikes are sold complete. The vast majority, by a pretty big margin.

    If you buy a complete new bike, upgrades are handled exactly like they were before. You can go buy a complete new wheelset, or a complete new fork. Nothing about having a new bike with new standards is a pain or any different.

    The only thing these new, minor standards do is make it so you cant cobble together a used bike from craigslist anymore. Isnt it pretty understandable that thats not an industry goal?

    Dont get me wrong, I cobble together all my bikes from weird used parts I run across! Its fun for me, but I *totally* understand why the industry isnt catering to my frankenstein bike collection. They're in it to sell complete bicycles because thats what the overwhelming majority of riders want to buy.

    Ive saved SO much money not buying completes... if every 10 years I have to change a standard, I think thats kind of fair. Im looking at a new boost banshee frame and the only thing I have to do is slap a spacer on my existing hub ive had for 10 years. This standard change didnt even force me to unlace an old, old hub.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  57. #57
    Always in the wrong gear
    Reputation: ARandomBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonaid View Post
    Boost was invented for the +tire fad. Now people are starting to realize +tires are sluggish heavy and overall not that great for endurance riding or hucking and chucking. What they are good for is a nice cushy ride over the rough stuff. I see a lot of newbies get hooked on the idea of being able to swap bigger and smaller wheels. The problem with swapping wheel sizes is the bike's characteristics get all wonky when you do that.

    I guess it's nice to have options, but like someone said, for 90% of us it's not something we really need.

    I don't think boost is reactionary to plus, I think it's more an answer to spoke bracing angles and a perceived need for a stronger wheel, possibly driven by the rise of the 29er. increased tire clearance is icing on the cake.

    As for plus, there's obviously a geo-centric confirmation bias. Those that live in rocky, loose desert areas without a lot of tight switchbacks find that 29+ works really well. I live in an area where 26x2.2 died a long time ago. Narrow race tires, even 29er get out performed by 3.0 every day of the week. I ride with a guy that recently took the overall win in a 4hr XC race riding a rigid 29+. Those that live in a smooth area with soft dirt, or where trails are very tight don't see the need for plus because it isn't suited for their terrain. I don't fault them. wheels are probably the most location-specific part of a bike, more than suspension, more than gearing choice.

    Not everyone who doesn't chase 'hucking' or progression is a newbie or not interested in being challenged. Theyve chosen the tool they feel is best.

    I'd strongly argue that 29+ works well for endurance. Half the battle of a very long endeavor is energy conservation- both body fatigue, and momentum. 29+ is very good at both.
    Donít modify the trail to match your skills, modify your skills to match the trails.

  58. #58
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,812
    Quote Originally Posted by ARandomBiker View Post
    I don't think boost is reactionary to plus, I think it's more an answer to spoke bracing angles and a perceived need for a stronger wheel, possibly driven by the rise of the 29er. increased tire clearance is icing on the cake.
    And if wheels were breaking due to this, I would agree.
    "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.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CFoster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonaid View Post
    Boost was invented for the +tire fad. Now people are starting to realize +tires are sluggish heavy and overall not that great for endurance riding or hucking and chucking. What they are good for is a nice cushy ride over the rough stuff. I see a lot of newbies get hooked on the idea of being able to swap bigger and smaller wheels. The problem with swapping wheel sizes is the bike's characteristics get all wonky when you do that.

    I guess it's nice to have options, but like someone said, for 90% of us it's not something we really need.
    This is why Super TURBO Boost Plus 159.4 is already in development for MY 2020. With new disc spacing, 5 bolt mount, and a new freehub design. Can't wait!

  60. #60
    Always in the wrong gear
    Reputation: ARandomBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    And if wheels were breaking due to this, I would agree.
    A wheel doesn't need to break for someone desire a stronger build.

    If 148mm hub spacing was invented to make plus tires easier to fit into a frame, why are there so many boost-spaced frames that only fit 29x2.4 tires? Many will incidentally fit a 27.5x3.0 but they weren't designed with that in mind. Look at all the Specialized, Yeti, Intense and Ibis enduro bikes that come with 29" wheels, fair bit of chatter here on MTBR about what 27.5 wheel will fit, 2.6, 2.8 or 3.0.

    When boost spacing was new all anyone ever talked about was spoke bracing angles and tension equalization. It wasn't until the HighTower did anyone care about wheel swaps.

    There's quite a few plus bikes out there that are 142 spaced and have no problem.
    Donít modify the trail to match your skills, modify your skills to match the trails.

  61. #61
    Always in the wrong gear
    Reputation: ARandomBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,221
    I let this thread get me all spun up. I actually know Ray, and ride with him (ok, far behind him because he's a damned machine) on occasion. He's probably not coming back to this thread, because he's made the decision and the problem is solved. I'll let him spill the beans on the solution if he chooses.

    Enjoy the hub-spacing debate, gents. I'm off to lube the chain for a night ride. It's 76 degrees here.
    Donít modify the trail to match your skills, modify your skills to match the trails.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,822
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    ...They finally addressed that well known issue with bicycle wheels by pushing the drive flange out... and people are complaining about the improvement. Thats weird!
    But they also completely missed the point on the front by pushing out both flanges. Why not go 6mm on the disc side and get a dishless front wheel?

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,747
    I can't confidently say a dishless wheel would be better than a fairly even but wider flanged wheel. I think it's easy and fair to say either is better than the 100mm standard. Maybe it could be better, but either way it's improved.

    It's not perfect, it's just a bit better.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    23,271
    You mean that said same width we had some like 15 years ago in the 20mm TA system 15mm and now 15mm Boost is just so much BS, we already had the best and now there's lots of people with nice hubs that can't be used, although I guess manufacturers could now off retrofitable end caps if the hubs allow it to let older 20mm hubs fit 15 Boost And yes, I absolutely think a dishless front wins overs slightly better bracing and tension, but then again, you could already achieve that with 15x100 by using an offset rim As with boost cranks, the only thing they benefit is someone running 3" plus rubber and looking for clearance solutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    I can't confidently say a dishless wheel would be better than a fairly even but wider flanged wheel. I think it's easy and fair to say either is better than the 100mm standard. Maybe it could be better, but either way it's improved.

    It's not perfect, it's just a bit better.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  65. #65
    one chain, two sprockets
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by MudSnow View Post
    I find that shorter chainstays are NOT good for steep climbs, because they make it hard to keep the front wheel on the ground.
    Much like "small wheels", climbing with short chain stays require skill...

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,747
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    You mean that said same width we had some like 15 years ago in the 20mm TA system 15mm and now 15mm Boost is just so much BS, we already had the best and now there's lots of people with nice hubs that can't be used, although I guess manufacturers could now off retrofitable end caps if the hubs allow it to let older 20mm hubs fit 15 Boost And yes, I absolutely think a dishless front wins overs slightly better bracing and tension, but then again, you could already achieve that with 15x100 by using an offset rim As with boost cranks, the only thing they benefit is someone running 3" plus rubber and looking for clearance solutions.
    20mm TA wasnt any different than 100mm QR, in terms of the hub shells dimensions. There were tons of hubs out there that would convert from 9, to 15 to 20mm with nothing but a end cap swap.

    Boost is better than 20mm TA. The bracing is better, the tension balance is better, and the hubs are lighter. Im 210lb and rode a 20mm axle until last year, I cant say its even remotely less stiff, even in 100mm form.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    70
    Wouldn't the "ideal" chainstay length depend heavily on how much climbing traction that one's trails provide?
    I can always climb faster when adequate traction allows me to stand and lean forward into my pedaling.

    Wider hub-flange spacing (even as offset increases) makes for a stiffer wheel structure, so somewhat reduces the bending stresses in the rim.

    What about today's extreme chainline angles? I look at all of the new boosted bikes in the shop and see that the chainring is nowhere near centered with the wide spread of 11 or 12 cogs.

    I'm currently running 27.5x2.4" tires (on dishless 135mm wheels) with i51mm rims, and there is still room for a triple!
    Chainline is centered up with the cassette, er, freewheel (though the chainstays could have easily been made shorter on this budget frame).

    Mostly I don't like to see boosted cranks where they put the chainline at such an extreme offset, unless it's really needed with full-size "plus" tires. Even with a Boost rear hub, the chainline is still extreme .

    Now just don't get me started on why/how wide handlebars don't work for me!


  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,220
    I am going through something similar to the OP w/ regards to changing standards. Switching over to a Hightower from a TB2, and starting to look at what will not work on the new HT. The bike industry know how to create hype and sell new parts.

    What happened to 150mm hubs anyways?

  69. #69
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,058
    Quote Originally Posted by jonshonda View Post
    What happened to 150mm hubs anyways?
    they are on the front of Fatbikes
    always mad and usually drunk......

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ColinL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,555
    Quote Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    This little blurb on ENVEís blog about boost helped me understand it clearly:

    ďBy increasing the width of the bike frameís chainstays the manufacturers have the ability to shorten the chainstays without sacrificing tire clearance. Optimally short chainstays allow your weight to be positioned closer to the rear axle which means the bike will generally feel far more nimble, be easier to manual, and climb more confidently. In addition some bike frames with the boost treatment will be capable of accommodating plus size tires.Ē
    I didn't see that anyone commented on this nugget I've put in bold.

    I am not an engineer. Of any sort. But I build bikes and ride them. Boost makes the chainstay wider, easily understood. How does it growing in width have any effect on the chainstay length?

    I call bullshit. Chainstay length is determined by tire diameter - obviously 29+ is the tallest, 29x2.6 is pretty tall, and anything 27.5+ or 27.5 is shorter. Then you have the suspension linkage design - where the linkages are located has a big effect on the chainstay shape and clearance. If there's no rear suspension, you can make the seat tube curved and the chainstays really short ala Trek Stache.

    So... how does boost help shorten chainstays? When we killed the front derailleur, I could easily understand how that altered frame design and made several things possible.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,220
    I think because the chainline is increased by 6mm or whatever they make up, you can push the chain stays out just a bit where they meet the seat tube, as they won't run into the chainring as easily, this adding just enough room for that wider tire.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,656
    Boost is just a way to Boost sales by selling new wheels/hubs/frames/forks. All the while saying it "better" Super boost even just more Boost of sales, by yet another standard. And if you are looking at fork width and plus tires there is no reason you had to change BOTH front and rear. After all we went from 9mm QR to 15x100 thru without changing the rear too. No reason you need 110 front and 148 back except for the fact this how the industry is packaging up parts and bikes.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  73. #73
    SVO
    SVO is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    Boost is just a way to Boost sales by selling new wheels/hubs/frames/forks. All the while saying it "better" Super boost even just more Boost of sales, by yet another standard. And if you are looking at fork width and plus tires there is no reason you had to change BOTH front and rear. After all we went from 9mm QR to 15x100 thru without changing the rear too. No reason you need 110 front and 148 back except for the fact this how the industry is packaging up parts and bikes.
    Boost is mostly useful in the rear with more than one chainring, true. Still applicable with touring/bikepacking. But if you want a 29x3 on a 50mm rim, chain clearance (with room for mud) can be an issue even with 1x. Boost is useful in the front to clear the brake caliper- some calipers will not clear a 3" tire on any appropriate rim, most won't clear on a 50mm rim.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: huckleberry hound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    723
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    I didn't see that anyone commented on this nugget I've put in bold.

    I am not an engineer. Of any sort. But I build bikes and ride them. Boost makes the chainstay wider, easily understood. How does it growing in width have any effect on the chainstay length?

    I call bullshit. Chainstay length is determined by tire diameter - obviously 29+ is the tallest, 29x2.6 is pretty tall, and anything 27.5+ or 27.5 is shorter. Then you have the suspension linkage design - where the linkages are located has a big effect on the chainstay shape and clearance. If there's no rear suspension, you can make the seat tube curved and the chainstays really short ala Trek Stache.

    So... how does boost help shorten chainstays? When we killed the front derailleur, I could easily understand how that altered frame design and made several things possible.
    I guess you have never heard of the Trek Stache 29+ then. It has the largest diameter tires with the shortest chainstays on a bike when released back in 2016. The chainstays are 420mm that are adjustable down to 407mm. This would not be possible without boost 148. As someone who owns one of these bikes I can say that it is absolutely incredible. The geometry could not be more dialed in. It is stable as can be but as nimble as a ballerina or gymnyst.
    You might want to check out this video that explains the how and why's of boost and plus from the people who are engineers themselves.


    Change begins by doing something different.

  75. #75
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,812
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    I didn't see that anyone commented on this nugget I've put in bold.

    I am not an engineer. Of any sort. But I build bikes and ride them. Boost makes the chainstay wider, easily understood. How does it growing in width have any effect on the chainstay length?

    I call bullshit. Chainstay length is determined by tire diameter - obviously 29+ is the tallest, 29x2.6 is pretty tall, and anything 27.5+ or 27.5 is shorter. Then you have the suspension linkage design - where the linkages are located has a big effect on the chainstay shape and clearance. If there's no rear suspension, you can make the seat tube curved and the chainstays really short ala Trek Stache.

    So... how does boost help shorten chainstays? When we killed the front derailleur, I could easily understand how that altered frame design and made several things possible.
    ColinL has been selected for Termination.
    "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.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    828
    Boy was I excited to install my BOOST 148 29 DT EX1501 only to find out it's 142...

  77. #77
    tire to rim ratio tester
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybum View Post
    Oh and before someone starts in on the whole, "boost wheels are stonger due to increased bracing angles", I have yet to bang a carbon wheel out of true and don't find my current sets lateral flexible...

    I'm so glad you posted this. I've decided to stick with 100/135 as long as possible. Why? BECAUSE IT WORKS without wasting several hundred dollars on 'improved' wheels.
    Coffee, Ted?
    Ted's from a dysfunctional family.
    Oh...so no coffee...
    ---Samuel L. Jackson, Loaded Weapon I

  78. #78
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,738
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    I didn't see that anyone commented on this nugget I've put in bold.

    So... how does boost help shorten chainstays? When we killed the front derailleur, I could easily understand how that altered frame design and made several things possible.
    Basically, Boost pushes the cassette out 3mm, which allows chain rings to be pushed out 3mm, which allows the tire to be moved toward the bb more without the danger of hitting the chainring. So that's a shorter chainstay.

    Does the consumer care about that? Some do. I don't care at all.

  79. #79
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,738
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    I'm so glad you posted this. I've decided to stick with 100/135 as long as possible. Why? BECAUSE IT WORKS without wasting several hundred dollars on 'improved' wheels.
    100/135 was great on my 26er hard tail with XTR9 rapid rise, aluminum rims, and 1.8mm db spokes.

    I then skipped to Boost 27.5 on a fs with carbon rims. The ta is better for full suspension stiffness and the wider flange spacing allows a 1.5mm spoke at the same lateral stiffness, so that is 100g savings in spokes.

    I am not complaining or going on internet rants because 1. Boost didn't cost me anything more than a second bike with the old system would have and 2. I could (and can) still buy the old system if I want to.

    Raybum's Rant does not have a single defensible point.

  80. #80
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,021
    We're still arguing the merits of Boost? What is this 2015?

    135 for life... except that everything is boost now and my last two new bikes are boost, only one of which actually benefits from the wider standard. It's 29x3" tire with reasonably short chainstays.

    148 for life... until they decide they need something new to sell us that we didn't ask for.

    Sounding like a retro-grouch. I should probably build a steel SS just to give the finger to the man... oh yeah, I have another one in the works...
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ColinL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,555
    Man, it's been a while since I've seen so many green dots be so wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by huckleberry hound View Post
    I guess you have never heard of the Trek Stache 29+ then. It has the largest diameter tires with the shortest chainstays on a bike when released back in 2016. The chainstays are 420mm that are adjustable down to 407mm. This would not be possible without boost 148.
    Hilarious. I actually said Stache IN THE MESSAGE YOU QUOTED.
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    If there's no rear suspension, you can make the seat tube curved and the chainstays really short ala Trek Stache.
    Regarding your second point about it not being possible without Boost - yes, I get that Boost enabled wider front and rear tires. I mean, not really, changing the dimensions of the rear triangle and the fork is what did that, which should be self-evident: giving clearance for 3.0" wide tires compared to 2.4" cannot be achieved through a paltry 6-10mm axle increase if nothing else changed. Duh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    Basically, Boost pushes the cassette out 3mm, which allows chain rings to be pushed out 3mm, which allows the tire to be moved toward the bb more without the danger of hitting the chainring. So that's a shorter chainstay.
    Boost moving the chainring outboard (away from the center of the bike) 3mm does not give additional clearance between the tire and the seat tube or the center of the chainstay.

    What it does do is let you run a WIDER chainstay, allowing for wider tires. Notice a theme? Boost lets you run wider tires. Boost changed the bracing angle for spokes. Those are all great. Boost lets you run a shorter chainstay? - No, it does not. Redesigning the frame and removing provisions for a front derailleur did that. It just happened to coincide with Boost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    ColinL has been selected for Termination.
    Wait! Don't kill me, Bike Industry! I bought Boost wheels! I'm in the herd with the rest of the sheep.

    ...Of course... I'm not running Plus tires, I just happened to buy a bike that had Boost spacing because I wanted the bike.

  82. #82
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,738
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post

    What it does do is let you run a WIDER chainstay, allowing for wider tires. Notice a theme? Boost lets you run wider tires. Boost changed the bracing angle for spokes. Those are all great. Boost lets you run a shorter chainstay? - No, it does not. Redesigning the frame and removing provisions for a front derailleur did that. It just happened to coincide with Boost.
    .
    oh sorry, I thought you were here to learn, not to try to infect me with your stupidity. I won't make that mistake again.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ColinL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    oh sorry, I thought you were here to learn, not to try to infect me with your stupidity. I won't make that mistake again.
    Really?

    You're the one who said the tire won't hit the chainring. Exactly how, at any time, could a tire hit the chainring?

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: huckleberry hound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    723
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    Man, it's been a while since I've seen so many green dots be so wrong.


    Hilarious. I actually said Stache IN THE MESSAGE YOU QUOTED.


    Regarding your second point about it not being possible without Boost - yes, I get that Boost enabled wider front and rear tires. I mean, not really, changing the dimensions of the rear triangle and the fork is what did that, which should be self-evident: giving clearance for 3.0" wide tires compared to 2.4" cannot be achieved through a paltry 6-10mm axle increase if nothing else changed. Duh.


    Boost moving the chainring outboard (away from the center of the bike) 3mm does not give additional clearance between the tire and the seat tube or the center of the chainstay.

    What it does do is let you run a WIDER chainstay, allowing for wider tires. Notice a theme? Boost lets you run wider tires. Boost changed the bracing angle for spokes. Those are all great. Boost lets you run a shorter chainstay? - No, it does not. Redesigning the frame and removing provisions for a front derailleur did that. It just happened to coincide with Boost.

    ...Of course... I'm not running Plus tires, I just happened to buy a bike that had Boost spacing because I wanted the bike.
    First forgive for overlooking where you contridicted yourself. When I first saw that you had stated that chainstay lenght is determined by tire diameter and that boost has no effect on chainstay lenght I skimmed the rest of the post. I didn't see that you mentioned the Stache. I know that you realize that a 29 x 3.0 tire is not only wider than a 2.4 tire but it is also a full 1 1/2" taller than a 2.4 tire. That translates to a 3/4" radius difference between the two. The Stache has over a full inch difference of lenght on the chainstays verses my 29er which has 439mm chainstays. Both are hardtails. So what I mean by contridicting yourself You say that tire diameter determines chainstay lenght then you mention that the Stache has short chainstays. The Stache has the shortest chainstays of any bike when released and it has the largest diameter tire, all of which is only possible because of boost.

    If you can find a 29er with 420mm chainstays and 135/142 spacing I'll eat crow. I bet you can't. However there are now plenty of them now because of boost. The Trek Full Stache full suspension has 427mm chainstays. Once again that is with a 30.5" diameter tire and only possible because of boost.


    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    So... how does boost help shorten chainstays? When we killed the front derailleur, I could easily understand how that altered frame design and made several things possible.
    If you watched the video I posted earlier both the Sram engineer and the Trek engineers say that boost enables a bike to have shorter chainstays. It alows shorter chainstays on conventional (2.0-2.4) tire bikes to run 2x systems and it allows wider tires on 1x systems.
    Change begins by doing something different.

  85. #85
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,812
    **** boost and especially super boost. That is all.
    "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.

  86. #86
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,738
    Quote Originally Posted by huckleberry hound View Post
    If you watched the video I posted earlier both the Sram engineer and the Trek engineers say that boost enables a bike to have shorter chainstays. It alows shorter chainstays on conventional (2.0-2.4) tire bikes to run 2x systems and it allows wider tires on 1x systems.
    Why waste your time with this guy?

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ColinL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,555
    Quote Originally Posted by huckleberry hound View Post
    First forgive for overlooking where you contridicted yourself. When I first saw that you had stated that chainstay lenght is determined by tire diameter and that boost has no effect on chainstay lenght I skimmed the rest of the post. I didn't see that you mentioned the Stache.

    If you can find a 29er with 420mm chainstays and 135/142 spacing I'll eat crow. I bet you can't. However there are now plenty of them now because of boost. The Trek Full Stache full suspension has 427mm chainstays. Once again that is with a 30.5" diameter tire and only possible because of boost.

    If you watched the video I posted earlier both the Sram engineer and the Trek engineers say that boost enables a bike to have shorter chainstays. It alows shorter chainstays on conventional (2.0-2.4) tire bikes to run 2x systems and it allows wider tires on 1x systems.
    You guys just believe anything the bike industry says. Which is typical, almost everyone does. I did not contradict myself.

    Here's your crow -
    2015 Canfield Yelli Screamy - not boost - 29er - 424mm chainstay in any frame size
    2015 Specialized Evo 29er - not boost - 430mm chainstay in large.

    HOW DID THEY EVER DO THAT WITHOUT BOOST?? Look at the seat tube on both bikes. Look at it on your Stache. There's your answer.

    Look, if you guys have nothing to offer but insults and horrific misspellings, I'm done. I really don't care if you believe Boost changed the world. The fact is that it's here and all bikes are using it... for now, until the next thing comes along and the Bike Industry needs a reason to change the standards again so they can sell more frames, more forks, more wheels.

  88. #88
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,021
    Quote Originally Posted by huckleberry hound View Post
    If you can find a 29er with 420mm chainstays and 135/142 spacing I'll eat crow. I bet you can't.
    KONA BIKES | 2015 BIKES | TRAIL 29" HT | HONZO
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: huckleberry hound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    723
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    I totally forgot about the Honzo. I thought I had an out with the Yelli Screamy with its 424mm chainstays but the Honzo has 415mm so here I go.

    Name:  EatCrow.gif
Views: 308
Size:  2.6 KB
    Change begins by doing something different.

  90. #90
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,021
    Huckleberry hound: crow eater
    Rigid SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

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

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,421
    Canfield EPO?

  92. #92
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,812
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
    You guys just believe anything the bike industry says. Which is typical, almost everyone does. I did not contradict myself.

    Here's your crow -
    2015 Canfield Yelli Screamy - not boost - 29er - 424mm chainstay in any frame size
    2015 Specialized Evo 29er - not boost - 430mm chainstay in large.

    HOW DID THEY EVER DO THAT WITHOUT BOOST?? Look at the seat tube on both bikes. Look at it on your Stache. There's your answer.

    Look, if you guys have nothing to offer but insults and horrific misspellings, I'm done. I really don't care if you believe Boost changed the world. The fact is that it's here and all bikes are using it... for now, until the next thing comes along and the Bike Industry needs a reason to change the standards again so they can sell more frames, more forks, more wheels.
    Yup, and that 2014 Enduro 29er ran 2.5 minion tires just fine! That's big meat for a 29er enduro bike. The only reason they had to have that wacky front-derailleur mount was that the bike was designed in the transition-era between double and single ring setups. The main issue was that it was difficult to squeeze a front derailleur in there on a 29er bike without lengthening the stays. It could be done, but it took more exotic hydroforming/machining, etc. 1x removed the constraint.
    "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.

  93. #93
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Oh My Sack! View Post
    Get a Monkey! Gnot boost does all of 'em...135/142/148 and runs a standard crankset.
    I like this concept and how this guy does Math!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkhc0D-yB_8

    Most frames, like Surly, have about 3mm of flex, so you can adapt the hub size to the frame....brilliant!

    BUT, it IS another hub standard damnit!

    https://singletrackworld.com/2016/07...-hub-standard/
    17 Stache 29+
    17 Moto Ti gravel
    14 GT Zaskar 9r
    15 Moto NT fat & 27.5+
    08 BMC Trailfox
    06 C-dale Rush
    99 GT XCR

  94. #94
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by jonshonda View Post
    I am going through something similar to the OP w/ regards to changing standards. Switching over to a Hightower from a TB2, and starting to look at what will not work on the new HT. The bike industry know how to create hype and sell new parts.

    What happened to 150mm hubs anyways?
    Get yourz right here! Thinking this 150mm would be fine in a normal "boost" or 148 spaced frame with some flex, like a Surly... YES!

    Closeout Special: MTR Boost 150 Rear Disc Hub 32H
    17 Stache 29+
    17 Moto Ti gravel
    14 GT Zaskar 9r
    15 Moto NT fat & 27.5+
    08 BMC Trailfox
    06 C-dale Rush
    99 GT XCR

  95. #95
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by PUNKY View Post
    Boy was I excited to install my BOOST 148 29 DT EX1501 only to find out it's 142...
    Well that's an easy fix too!

    https://www.velofuze.com/boost-hub-a...boost-spacing/

    17 Stache 29+
    17 Moto Ti gravel
    14 GT Zaskar 9r
    15 Moto NT fat & 27.5+
    08 BMC Trailfox
    06 C-dale Rush
    99 GT XCR

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    44
    3.55 "nobody asked for suspension...?"
    Ahoy there! Suspension was into consideration way before you imagine! (way before even mountain bikes appeared in the bike world...)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Boost Rant-1930-spring-s-frame-60.jpg  


  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,270
    Quote Originally Posted by huckleberry hound View Post
    .
    If you can find a 29er with 420mm chainstays and 135/142 spacing I'll eat crow. I bet you can't.
    I know you already ate, but here's dessert: 29+ tires with a 400 mm chainstay. I don't think he used a boost crankset.


    https://forums.mtbr.com/26-27-5-29-p...e-1078271.html

    Carver makes the 420 frame.

    The Salsa Timberjack can be fitted with Alternator dropouts for 142, 135, or 148mm hubs and has a 420mm chainstay.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,854
    Quote Originally Posted by uncajohn View Post
    3.55 "nobody asked for suspension...?"
    Ahoy there! Suspension was into consideration way before you imagine! (way before even mountain bikes appeared in the bike world...)
    Looks more noodley than a Slingshot bike.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: huckleberry hound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    723
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    I know you already ate, but here's dessert: 29+ tires with a 400 mm chainstay. I don't think he used a boost crankset.


    https://forums.mtbr.com/26-27-5-29-p...e-1078271.html
    I'll pass on the dessert especially since Walt's bike uses a 157mm rear hub. I still haven't seen any 29+ sub 420 CS bikes with 142 hubs not to say that there might not be a custom out there. But it has been established that there are some regular 29ers out there so I'm plenty full now.
    Change begins by doing something different.

Similar Threads

  1. 2017 Pike Non Boost vs. 2018 Pike Boost....Boost worth it?
    By bwj75 in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-09-2017, 02:21 PM
  2. To Boost or not to Boost....
    By hack10 in forum Ibis
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-28-2017, 10:12 PM
  3. I see Boost xt cranks... Is there xtr Boost cranks?
    By SB Trails in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-16-2016, 09:57 AM
  4. HOPE HUBS Pro 2 Evo/Pro 4 BOOST IS NOT BOOST!
    By yamaha46 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 02-12-2016, 08:48 AM
  5. Bike Shopping Rant: Womens FS bikes (small rant)
    By SuperSlow35th in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-09-2012, 05:42 PM

Members who have read this thread: 391

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.