So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our...
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our household and they're all Boost which makes it easy to swap wheels for different uses and/or repairs. If we add a Superboost bike to the mix that no longer works and the performance boost (see what I did there?) at least for me, is negligible.
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider hub allow for a stronger rear triangle that can be shorter?
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our...
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our household and they're all Boost which makes it easy to swap wheels for different uses and/or repairs. If we add a Superboost bike to the mix that no longer works and the performance boost (see what I did there?) at least for me, is negligible.
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider...
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider hub allow for a stronger rear triangle that can be shorter?
I've never noticed that, but I have noticed that a lot of Superboost brands also use Dave Weagal designed suspension systems. Evil, Pivot, Devinci, and Salsa come to mind.
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our...
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our household and they're all Boost which makes it easy to swap wheels for different uses and/or repairs. If we add a Superboost bike to the mix that no longer works and the performance boost (see what I did there?) at least for me, is negligible.
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider...
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider hub allow for a stronger rear triangle that can be shorter?
yeah, Pivot marketed super boost as the thing enabling them to achieve super-short chainstays on the last-gen firebird. but as far as I know it's more due to the added tire clearance than rear triangle strength
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our...
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our household and they're all Boost which makes it easy to swap wheels for different uses and/or repairs. If we add a Superboost bike to the mix that no longer works and the performance boost (see what I did there?) at least for me, is negligible.
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider...
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider hub allow for a stronger rear triangle that can be shorter?
I’m fine with superboost if there’s a good reason. I think what WA1 has done with the arrival is really cool, and I think the idea of superboost for a good chain line in climbing gears has big potential especially on HP+I bikes.
Properly great looking bike, but its too big for a lot of people, is super boost, and has no official mullet option, which rules out quite...
Properly great looking bike, but its too big for a lot of people, is super boost, and has no official mullet option, which rules out quite a few potential customers
Edit: been beaten to it regarding super boost, but its still very annoying that they seemed to have made one step forward and two steps back
Just wait, there will be more coming.....
Superboost is fine, I have a Fugitive, Spire and a Sight. Two run 148, and the Fugee runs 157. Im not sure why people seem to care so much, its just something to get wrapped up in.
In reality, 148 never should have happened, we should have gone from 142 to 157 really.
The sizing is just different, the small is what would normally be classed as a medium and then it goes from there, the last iteration of...
The sizing is just different, the small is what would normally be classed as a medium and then it goes from there, the last iteration of the chilcotin was a 464mm reach on the medium and no small option available. a bit off topic but why does everyone hate on superboost? most hubs nowadays can go 148 and 157 just by changing out the hub spacers. Maybe it doesn't bother me because i have superboost on my enduro and dh bike so the rims are interchangale
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our...
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our household and they're all Boost which makes it easy to swap wheels for different uses and/or repairs. If we add a Superboost bike to the mix that no longer works and the performance boost (see what I did there?) at least for me, is negligible.
Curious,
We have two bikes with 148, and I have a Fugee with 157.
I have not run into any sort of issue, as the wheels from one arent going to be my choice on the others anyway.
As a side note, cause its the red headed step child of the hub world, I've been able to get great deals on used high end wheels for the Fugee. Selection is lower, but usually better quality for less....
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our...
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our household and they're all Boost which makes it easy to swap wheels for different uses and/or repairs. If we add a Superboost bike to the mix that no longer works and the performance boost (see what I did there?) at least for me, is negligible.
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider...
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider hub allow for a stronger rear triangle that can be shorter?
I’m fine with superboost if there’s a good reason. I think what WA1 has done with the arrival is really cool, and I think the idea...
I’m fine with superboost if there’s a good reason. I think what WA1 has done with the arrival is really cool, and I think the idea of superboost for a good chain line in climbing gears has big potential especially on HP+I bikes.
What do you mean "if" theres a coupkle pretty good reasons (chainline, wheel strength, wider bearing placement, etc) its just that 148 became so popular, and 157 was the Betamax to the VHS, arguably the better product, but poor timing and marketing.
The sizing is just different, the small is what would normally be classed as a medium and then it goes from there, the last iteration of...
The sizing is just different, the small is what would normally be classed as a medium and then it goes from there, the last iteration of the chilcotin was a 464mm reach on the medium and no small option available. a bit off topic but why does everyone hate on superboost? most hubs nowadays can go 148 and 157 just by changing out the hub spacers. Maybe it doesn't bother me because i have superboost on my enduro and dh bike so the rims are interchangale
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our...
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our household and they're all Boost which makes it easy to swap wheels for different uses and/or repairs. If we add a Superboost bike to the mix that no longer works and the performance boost (see what I did there?) at least for me, is negligible.
Curious,
We have two bikes with 148, and I have a Fugee with 157.
I have not run into any sort of issue, as the wheels...
Curious,
We have two bikes with 148, and I have a Fugee with 157.
I have not run into any sort of issue, as the wheels from one arent going to be my choice on the others anyway.
As a side note, cause its the red headed step child of the hub world, I've been able to get great deals on used high end wheels for the Fugee. Selection is lower, but usually better quality for less....
It's nice to be able to move things around if you break something.... I only have as many wheelsets as I have bikes and when I break a wheel it's nice to still have a choice of what bike to ride, even if the wheels mismatch.
Per your Betamax point: with the privilege of hindsight, it's pretty easy to see that we were just fine without Betamax, even if it was a marginally better product. Technology still progressed and we didn't all throw away our new VHS tapes and players right after buying them.
I'd be happy if 157 went the way of Betamax. When something significantly better comes around (the DVD in this metaphor), I'll consider adopting it. But I don't think it will be a new hub spacing standard.
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider...
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider hub allow for a stronger rear triangle that can be shorter?
I’m fine with superboost if there’s a good reason. I think what WA1 has done with the arrival is really cool, and I think the idea...
I’m fine with superboost if there’s a good reason. I think what WA1 has done with the arrival is really cool, and I think the idea of superboost for a good chain line in climbing gears has big potential especially on HP+I bikes.
What do you mean "if" theres a coupkle pretty good reasons (chainline, wheel strength, wider bearing placement, etc) its just that 148 became so popular, and...
What do you mean "if" theres a coupkle pretty good reasons (chainline, wheel strength, wider bearing placement, etc) its just that 148 became so popular, and 157 was the Betamax to the VHS, arguably the better product, but poor timing and marketing.
Yeah I have a VHS player and a bunch of VHS tapes so it’s gonna take something compelling to get me to switch to Betamax.
All the details on the new Ransom: https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/scott-introduces-all-new-ransom.
Looks like your mechanic will definitely hate you if you get this :)
What happened to Scott making light bikes? I realize it's ballpark with other bikes in its intended use category, but, Scott bikes used to be a...
What happened to Scott making light bikes? I realize it's ballpark with other bikes in its intended use category, but, Scott bikes used to be a good 2-3lbs lighter than the competition. I feel like a certain percentage of riders who purchased Scott bikes in the past were willing to look past their quirky features/integration because they were lightest in their respective categories.
i feel that in the latest years Scott made a lot of Bold moves and made some of the shittiest bikes on the market, horrible choices to some "meh" bikes that just made them worse.
i feel that in the latest years Scott made a lot of Bold moves and made some of the shittiest bikes on the market, horrible choices...
i feel that in the latest years Scott made a lot of Bold moves and made some of the shittiest bikes on the market, horrible choices to some "meh" bikes that just made them worse.
New banshee also seems imminent. Darkside as super enduro considering the sc fork?
New banshee also seems imminent. Darkside as super enduro considering the sc fork?
Looking again at this photo - that’s 1 biiig mullet bike. Other think that is curious - blurring the photo where the rear triangle is most likely exactly for this: not to see the rear triangle. But the blurring goes exactly to the derailleur, even part of it is affected, almost as if to completely cover how the chain goes over the chainstay - parallel to it directly to the chainring, or upwards like on a high-pivot towards an idler…
Don’t think Banshee’s into the high-pivot craze, but then again they do like to listen to the customers, and Rulezman showed everyone how an idler affects the current Legend which is no high-pivot - may be they knew it already or something…
Why is everyone bitching about super boost like it is some kind of small one off standard? It’s literally a DH hub. There is nothing majorly different. Grab your DH wheel and goes right in there. The reason pivot did super boost was specifically because it wasn’t a new standard but offered better strength etc. So, boost was in fact the silly new standard when super boost was using something that existed and instead did not add to the standards out there.
Why is everyone bitching about super boost like it is some kind of small one off standard? It’s literally a DH hub. There is nothing majorly...
Why is everyone bitching about super boost like it is some kind of small one off standard? It’s literally a DH hub. There is nothing majorly different. Grab your DH wheel and goes right in there. The reason pivot did super boost was specifically because it wasn’t a new standard but offered better strength etc. So, boost was in fact the silly new standard when super boost was using something that existed and instead did not add to the standards out there.
Yes, 157 existed when 150 was a thing! The term “superboost” cane to life when the industry decided to use 157 and just widen the spoke flanges of the hub for more rigidity!
What happened to Scott making light bikes? I realize it's ballpark with other bikes in its intended use category, but, Scott bikes used to be a...
What happened to Scott making light bikes? I realize it's ballpark with other bikes in its intended use category, but, Scott bikes used to be a good 2-3lbs lighter than the competition. I feel like a certain percentage of riders who purchased Scott bikes in the past were willing to look past their quirky features/integration because they were lightest in their respective categories.
From what I've heard their bikes were a bit prone to cracking ( some enduro racers running a downstroked gambler instead of the ransom), so they probably decided to beef it up some...
Also having a huge hole in the downtube and a six-bar layout (with all the associated hardware) can't help either
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our...
So then call it a Medium?
As for Superboost, it's not the standard itself, it's that it's a different "standard". We have multiple MTBs in our household and they're all Boost which makes it easy to swap wheels for different uses and/or repairs. If we add a Superboost bike to the mix that no longer works and the performance boost (see what I did there?) at least for me, is negligible.
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider...
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider hub allow for a stronger rear triangle that can be shorter?
yeah, Pivot marketed super boost as the thing enabling them to achieve super-short chainstays on the last-gen firebird. but as far as I know it's more...
yeah, Pivot marketed super boost as the thing enabling them to achieve super-short chainstays on the last-gen firebird. but as far as I know it's more due to the added tire clearance than rear triangle strength
No offense to Chris Cocalis and the Pivot team, but it really always was just about Pivot being a bunch of weirdos.
Not even joking: The real reason Pivot started using 157 Superboost on the 2017 Switchblade was to be able to fit a 27,5x2.8" plus-size tire into a frame with extremely short chainstays, while also having a front derailleur. That's the real reason. Because in 2017 they still thought plus tires, short chainstays and front derailleurs were the future of mountainbiking.
Properly great looking bike, but its too big for a lot of people, is super boost, and has no official mullet option, which rules out quite...
Properly great looking bike, but its too big for a lot of people, is super boost, and has no official mullet option, which rules out quite a few potential customers
Edit: been beaten to it regarding super boost, but its still very annoying that they seemed to have made one step forward and two steps back
Just wait, there will be more coming.....
Superboost is fine, I have a Fugitive, Spire and a Sight. Two run 148, and the Fugee runs 157. ...
Just wait, there will be more coming.....
Superboost is fine, I have a Fugitive, Spire and a Sight. Two run 148, and the Fugee runs 157. Im not sure why people seem to care so much, its just something to get wrapped up in.
In reality, 148 never should have happened, we should have gone from 142 to 157 really.
Meh. Both of them are completely nonsensical tbh. Neiter 148 Boost nor 157 Superboost should have ever existed. They are both nothing more than the result of a bunch of bad compromises. It just so happens that one of them sucks ever so slightly less than the other.
The only really good and technically sensible development that we've seen in the past decade (regarding rear hubs) was Hope's attempt at establishing a 130mm hub standard on the Hope HB.160 bike. The reasoning is as simple as it is compelling: Just take a Boost 148 hub and remove all the wasted space, especially on the non-drive side. Use the free space to center the hub flanges on the middle axis of the bike so that you get an even spoke angle on both sides. Still fits an 11-speed casette and has almost exactly the same chainline as Boost.
Unfortunately this new standard never went anywhere, but I swear, if I could change one standard in mountainbiking, I would just force everyone to use Hope's 130mm wide hubs.
Did Shimano have a viable 1x drivetrain at the time?
That is a great question and I do believe they didn't.
But by 2017 they (- Pivot) simply must have seen the writing on the wall. Some of the spec versions for the 2017 Switchblade even came with SRAM Eagle 1x11 drivetrains.
Did Shimano have a viable 1x drivetrain at the time?
Shimano XT M8000 was released in 2015 with 11-42 cassette if I'm not mistaken. For me that was vaible 1x11 back then, not really modern 500% range though.
Properly great looking bike, but its too big for a lot of people, is super boost, and has no official mullet option, which rules out quite...
Properly great looking bike, but its too big for a lot of people, is super boost, and has no official mullet option, which rules out quite a few potential customers
Edit: been beaten to it regarding super boost, but its still very annoying that they seemed to have made one step forward and two steps back
Just wait, there will be more coming.....
Superboost is fine, I have a Fugitive, Spire and a Sight. Two run 148, and the Fugee runs 157. ...
Just wait, there will be more coming.....
Superboost is fine, I have a Fugitive, Spire and a Sight. Two run 148, and the Fugee runs 157. Im not sure why people seem to care so much, its just something to get wrapped up in.
In reality, 148 never should have happened, we should have gone from 142 to 157 really.
Meh. Both of them are completely nonsensical tbh. Neiter 148 Boost nor 157 Superboost should have ever existed. They are both nothing more than the result...
Meh. Both of them are completely nonsensical tbh. Neiter 148 Boost nor 157 Superboost should have ever existed. They are both nothing more than the result of a bunch of bad compromises. It just so happens that one of them sucks ever so slightly less than the other.
The only really good and technically sensible development that we've seen in the past decade (regarding rear hubs) was Hope's attempt at establishing a 130mm hub standard on the Hope HB.160 bike. The reasoning is as simple as it is compelling: Just take a Boost 148 hub and remove all the wasted space, especially on the non-drive side. Use the free space to center the hub flanges on the middle axis of the bike so that you get an even spoke angle on both sides. Still fits an 11-speed casette and has almost exactly the same chainline as Boost.
Unfortunately this new standard never went anywhere, but I swear, if I could change one standard in mountainbiking, I would just force everyone to use Hope's 130mm wide hubs.
Quite sure Hope's approach was offset with the chainstays moved to the right to fit the cassette...
Progressive changes that utilize parts already on the market would be nice.
148 allow 142 with boost adapters. Ok, so what happens when I run boost adapters on 148 dedicated hubs? I get 152 hubs, which nobody uses. I'd be more inclined to run 157 if I could utilize a hub I had in my garage, and in some cases you could do that with old DH hubs, but it just felt like change for changes sake.
With forks you can run a straight steerer in a tapered head tube, but weren't able to backdate the tapered stuff into old frames. That was an ok transition I guess. There was a lot happening with bike geo at that time and it probably sense to upgrade the frame anyways.
I'm pretty stoked that the bike of today isn't much different than the bike of 10 years ago. I hope that industry doesn't rush towards required standards for electronic shifting like Transmission. Luckily all the current cable actuated standard hanger derailleurs are pretty good.
You can space the front hub on both sides and space the rotor and be done with it. On the rear you have to redish the wheel as you can't space the hub on both sides because of the cassette...
At this point we're likely going to have to accept Super Boost. All new SRAM Transmission chainlines are 55mm, which are suboptimal with boost spacing if you climb steep hills.
My crystal ball says in 6 years Boost 148 will be the weird orphan. Luckily adapter end caps should work for Boost to Super B****. Not sure if they'd need a re-dish. (edit, just saw above that redish req'd).
As a heel rubber, Super B**** annoys me, but not enough to impact a purchase.
At this point we're likely going to have to accept Super Boost. All new SRAM Transmission chainlines are 55mm, which are suboptimal with boost spacing if...
At this point we're likely going to have to accept Super Boost. All new SRAM Transmission chainlines are 55mm, which are suboptimal with boost spacing if you climb steep hills.
My crystal ball says in 6 years Boost 148 will be the weird orphan. Luckily adapter end caps should work for Boost to Super B****. Not sure if they'd need a re-dish. (edit, just saw above that redish req'd).
As a heel rubber, Super B**** annoys me, but not enough to impact a purchase.
SRAM says "All new SRAM Transmission chainlines are 55mm..." but I'm running mine at 52mm and it's been flawless for 2k miles...
Maybe I'm wrong on this but Ive noticed the companies that do super boost (evil, pivot, knolly) all have pretty short chain stays. Does the wider hub allow for a stronger rear triangle that can be shorter?
I've never noticed that, but I have noticed that a lot of Superboost brands also use Dave Weagal designed suspension systems. Evil, Pivot, Devinci, and Salsa come to mind.
yeah, Pivot marketed super boost as the thing enabling them to achieve super-short chainstays on the last-gen firebird. but as far as I know it's more due to the added tire clearance than rear triangle strength
Edit oops I misread the charts it but the large is 509mm reach up from 490mm. Chainstay length is up 446mm from 438 on a large.
I like the one piece rocker link and longer chain stays but I think they may still be off as they grew the front so much more.
I’m fine with superboost if there’s a good reason. I think what WA1 has done with the arrival is really cool, and I think the idea of superboost for a good chain line in climbing gears has big potential especially on HP+I bikes.
Just wait, there will be more coming.....
Superboost is fine, I have a Fugitive, Spire and a Sight. Two run 148, and the Fugee runs 157. Im not sure why people seem to care so much, its just something to get wrapped up in.
In reality, 148 never should have happened, we should have gone from 142 to 157 really.
Curious,
We have two bikes with 148, and I have a Fugee with 157.
I have not run into any sort of issue, as the wheels from one arent going to be my choice on the others anyway.
As a side note, cause its the red headed step child of the hub world, I've been able to get great deals on used high end wheels for the Fugee. Selection is lower, but usually better quality for less....
What do you mean "if" theres a coupkle pretty good reasons (chainline, wheel strength, wider bearing placement, etc) its just that 148 became so popular, and 157 was the Betamax to the VHS, arguably the better product, but poor timing and marketing.
Not the new bike we’re waiting for but still pretty good news in times where the little guys are closing up shop.
It's nice to be able to move things around if you break something.... I only have as many wheelsets as I have bikes and when I break a wheel it's nice to still have a choice of what bike to ride, even if the wheels mismatch.
Per your Betamax point: with the privilege of hindsight, it's pretty easy to see that we were just fine without Betamax, even if it was a marginally better product. Technology still progressed and we didn't all throw away our new VHS tapes and players right after buying them.
I'd be happy if 157 went the way of Betamax. When something significantly better comes around (the DVD in this metaphor), I'll consider adopting it. But I don't think it will be a new hub spacing standard.
I've always appreciated Banshee, and this makes me appreciate them more. I wish my shop sold them.
Yeah I have a VHS player and a bunch of VHS tapes so it’s gonna take something compelling to get me to switch to Betamax.
one must be really dumb to get this missed abort, awful to be kind, it belongs in the bin
i feel that in the latest years Scott made a lot of Bold moves and made some of the shittiest bikes on the market, horrible choices to some "meh" bikes that just made them worse.
Looking again at this photo - that’s 1 biiig mullet bike. Other think that is curious - blurring the photo where the rear triangle is most likely exactly for this: not to see the rear triangle. But the blurring goes exactly to the derailleur, even part of it is affected, almost as if to completely cover how the chain goes over the chainstay - parallel to it directly to the chainring, or upwards like on a high-pivot towards an idler…
Don’t think Banshee’s into the high-pivot craze, but then again they do like to listen to the customers, and Rulezman showed everyone how an idler affects the current Legend which is no high-pivot - may be they knew it already or something…
Why is everyone bitching about super boost like it is some kind of small one off standard? It’s literally a DH hub. There is nothing majorly different. Grab your DH wheel and goes right in there. The reason pivot did super boost was specifically because it wasn’t a new standard but offered better strength etc. So, boost was in fact the silly new standard when super boost was using something that existed and instead did not add to the standards out there.
Yes, 157 existed when 150 was a thing! The term “superboost” cane to life when the industry decided to use 157 and just widen the spoke flanges of the hub for more rigidity!
From what I've heard their bikes were a bit prone to cracking ( some enduro racers running a downstroked gambler instead of the ransom), so they probably decided to beef it up some...
Also having a huge hole in the downtube and a six-bar layout (with all the associated hardware) can't help either
No offense to Chris Cocalis and the Pivot team, but it really always was just about Pivot being a bunch of weirdos.
Not even joking: The real reason Pivot started using 157 Superboost on the 2017 Switchblade was to be able to fit a 27,5x2.8" plus-size tire into a frame with extremely short chainstays, while also having a front derailleur. That's the real reason. Because in 2017 they still thought plus tires, short chainstays and front derailleurs were the future of mountainbiking.
Did Shimano have a viable 1x drivetrain at the time?
Meh. Both of them are completely nonsensical tbh. Neiter 148 Boost nor 157 Superboost should have ever existed. They are both nothing more than the result of a bunch of bad compromises. It just so happens that one of them sucks ever so slightly less than the other.
The only really good and technically sensible development that we've seen in the past decade (regarding rear hubs) was Hope's attempt at establishing a 130mm hub standard on the Hope HB.160 bike. The reasoning is as simple as it is compelling: Just take a Boost 148 hub and remove all the wasted space, especially on the non-drive side. Use the free space to center the hub flanges on the middle axis of the bike so that you get an even spoke angle on both sides. Still fits an 11-speed casette and has almost exactly the same chainline as Boost.
Unfortunately this new standard never went anywhere, but I swear, if I could change one standard in mountainbiking, I would just force everyone to use Hope's 130mm wide hubs.
That is a great question and I do believe they didn't.
But by 2017 they (- Pivot) simply must have seen the writing on the wall. Some of the spec versions for the 2017 Switchblade even came with SRAM Eagle 1x11 drivetrains.
Ah. That would be my second question - did Pivot ever sell a bike with something other than Shimano and Fox equipment.
Shimano XT M8000 was released in 2015 with 11-42 cassette if I'm not mistaken. For me that was vaible 1x11 back then, not really modern 500% range though.
Quite sure Hope's approach was offset with the chainstays moved to the right to fit the cassette...
Progressive changes that utilize parts already on the market would be nice.
148 allow 142 with boost adapters. Ok, so what happens when I run boost adapters on 148 dedicated hubs? I get 152 hubs, which nobody uses. I'd be more inclined to run 157 if I could utilize a hub I had in my garage, and in some cases you could do that with old DH hubs, but it just felt like change for changes sake.
With forks you can run a straight steerer in a tapered head tube, but weren't able to backdate the tapered stuff into old frames. That was an ok transition I guess. There was a lot happening with bike geo at that time and it probably sense to upgrade the frame anyways.
I'm pretty stoked that the bike of today isn't much different than the bike of 10 years ago. I hope that industry doesn't rush towards required standards for electronic shifting like Transmission. Luckily all the current cable actuated standard hanger derailleurs are pretty good.
You can space the front hub on both sides and space the rotor and be done with it. On the rear you have to redish the wheel as you can't space the hub on both sides because of the cassette...
At this point we're likely going to have to accept Super Boost. All new SRAM Transmission chainlines are 55mm, which are suboptimal with boost spacing if you climb steep hills.
My crystal ball says in 6 years Boost 148 will be the weird orphan. Luckily adapter end caps should work for Boost to Super B****. Not sure if they'd need a re-dish. (edit, just saw above that redish req'd).
As a heel rubber, Super B**** annoys me, but not enough to impact a purchase.
SRAM says "All new SRAM Transmission chainlines are 55mm..." but I'm running mine at 52mm and it's been flawless for 2k miles...
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation