If You Could Change One Current MTB Standard...

I always hear this argument, never ever happened to me or anyone I know. These 6 tiny screws with a thread locker are just a pain. The socket is so shallow that it's easy to damage. If you have to travel with a plane from time to time, it's annoying. Also, as engineering nerd I'd rather have a single huge screw rather than 6 tiny ones, it's just a nicer solution in regards to manufacturing and design. So centerlock is a solution for my problems, I believe it's technically superior. 

Also, you probably don't carry a cassette tool with you in case your cassette becomes loose. I'm glad we don't use 6 m5 screws for that.

I've had one come loose, I promptly got rid of that wheelset and only own 6 bolt.  Bonus, if you run clipless, a rotor bolt works as a cleat bolt should one of those go missing mid ride.  

I’d change all headtubes to the same diameter top and bttm so we could run reach adjust headsets that didn’t add any stack.

Potentially unpopular opinion. Some of the newer cable routing systems where you just slide the housing into the chainstay and have it come out at the headtube is the best to me. Yes you have to cut your brake lines to install but that has to happen most of the time anyways. External routing isn't bad but fussing with zip ties(which break and scratch up your frame) aren't my favorite. Neither is the GG/Canyon solution because you spend more time messing with the covers and getting the cables to lay flat than you would zip ties. 

Headset cable routing can die though. 

As for standards that I want to change, Chainlines have really chaffed me lately. 3 different ones commonly being used on MTBs is too many. If it needs to be 55mm going forward, fine but lets just be consistent with it.

The 203/223mm rotors things does also seem like low hanging fruit that brands could easily get rid of. 

I love centerlock. The problem is those assholes have developed multiple different types of centerlock, and different centerlock tools for each type of scenario they shoehorned it into. Now I'm the proud owner of multiple tools for the same damn thing.

Oh, I can't believe I left this one out... how about integrated headsets.  Pressed in headset cups really help with owner quality of life and the ability to modernize a frame a bit and extend the life expectancy.  I haven't had issues with head tube's creaking and pressed in headset cups since the early 00's.  I guess maybe integrated headsets are the standard because it allows shorter head tubes and lower stack heights on smaller sizes... but there have been a few frames in my past ownership journey that I would have kept for another 1-2 years if I could have just pressed a -1 or -2 headset into them.  

Same.  Had one come loose mid-ride.  Tightened it by using a rock to hammer the flathead on my multitool into the splines.  Was happy to get rid of that wheelset.

But I guess if I wanted my rotors to cost more, weigh more, not be serviceable on the trail, and not fit on the vast majority of the wheels in existence, I'd be pretty excited about centerlock.

In order

Boost

Thread in bottom brackets with same friggen tool for removal, diameter, and width

Press in headsets - I like adjusting HA, reach if needed.  If I was being picky, make one for trail bikes allowing upwards of 10mm reach adjust and 2 degrees of change. 

Standard chainline that works.  Just choose one as long as it works with boost.  52 seems fine. 

One chainring connection interface.  Cinch seems great to allow clocking. 

Right now I have 3 different bikes with standards that vary from the last ~10 years.  3 different hubs (142, 148, 157), chainlines (49, 52, 55) and hence chainrings (cinch, sram), 3 bottom bracket types, 2 different rotor mounts.  Its stupid, 10 years!

How many people here go all in on standardizing their own fleet?  I have 3 bikes myself and my wife has two.  In order to keep my life simple, spare parts under control and service procedures simple, I've standardized the following in the fleet:

-All SRAM brakes with metallic pads.  Code RSC on my bikes, Guide/G2 on my wife's bikes.  200mm hs2 rotors across all bikes

-All SRAM drivetrains, all 12 speed and all 10-50t cassettes

-All dt350 hubs

-30mm IW wheels on everything to ensure tires/casings act the same on each bike

-Oneup seatposts on every bike

-Dub cranks and dub bottom brackets on every bike

-3 fork styles, RS 35mm stanchion models, Fox 36 and rs 38mm models. 

This allows me to obviously keep spares at a minimum.  It also allows me to do certain maintenance tasks as assembly line style for example, I bleed all of the brakes at the same time and just fill the syringes once and crack open a fresh bottle of fluid.  I tend to do fork lower leg services in groups as well.  

Hubs and cranksets are a big one IMO - those are big ticket items and the bearings are consumables so some standardisation here would really make it worthwhile investing in good bearings or parts that will last and can be carried from bike to bike. Or power meters! Looking up replacement BB's or chainrings is a nightmare right now.....I thought it was bad 10 years ago when I dealt with it daily but every time I go to look up one of these parts I'm just speechless at how insane it is!

Suspension wise - standard hardware would be nice. Not for ball bearings though, either commit to sphericals or just use Plain DU bushings which work fine if you consider my next point-

Bring back frame prep tools for facing, reaming and tapping. Hear me out! James @ escape collective posted about the classic campy tool kit and how those are entirely obsolete now. But it got me thinking, and one of the major issues with a lot of bikes and why I think there are so many standards is usually to make up for variations in frame tolerance. Things like BB's need preload adjustment because the actual frame width can vary by over a mm. Shock hardware needs to be fitted much better than it currently is - thats why the newest fox and rockshox spacers have some kind of crush washer built in. But the reducers need quite a specific amount of preload but it relies on the frames being within a few hundreths of a mm to do so. And they are certainly not made to that level! So there needs to be better systems and tools in place to custom fit things like hardware to an individual frame. Think thats too much work? Look at all the custom tools people already need - have you tried replacing the cups in a fox eyelet roller bearing? Cheaply replaceable parts that fit perfectly will last a lot longer and make it worth the time. Maybe not worth it for an entry level bike but considering you can easily pay 15 - 25K NZD on a new bike its a small price to pay really.

I could be wrong but most car engine parts are sold oversized and need to be machined  to some degree before installing. It wouldn't be that hard to do with push bikes since as I said - it used to be common place to face and ream surfaces before things were installed

I do.

I have the bikes that I ride plus some older bikes that I keep for friends to ride and sometimes I rent. Pretty much all of them have Shimano BB's and cranks or compatible ones (Race Face), for cross compatibility. I actually changed the new GX DUB cranks on my Foxy to 4-arm XT because of this and I don't regret it. All my ”serious” bikes are 29”/30 mm iw with 148 mm rear and my front hubs can be converted to either 20 or 15 mm Boost. They are all 12-speed XG, except for the DH bike that is 10 speed HG, but I have HG/XG casettes for all hubs. Brakes on these bikes are all Magura with excellent Storm rotors. Wheels are all cross-compatible between enduro bike, DH bike, e-bike and future hardcore hardtail, but I honestly never used wheels from another bike, as I didn't have to.

The older bikes are all 26”, 20 mm front and 135 mm rear and run Shimano brakes and the same good Shimano cranks and BB's and can all mix and match, if needed. Some wheels were borrowed between these bikes. The wheels from my DJ bike are compatible too.

Mx

Great question. My understanding is that 35mm was invented to give more surface area for stems to clamp onto slippery carbon handlebars to prevent unwanted rotation. This has never been a problem with 31.8mm aluminum bars, and stiffness (too much or too little) has never been a problem as far as I know for 31.8mm aluminum bars, whereas the general consensus on 35mm alloy bars is they feel like a jackhammer. If I could snap my fingers and uninvent carbon bars I would, but that's not realistic, so let's just let the carbon handlebar crowd have 35mm bars and they can let us have 31.8mm. I think most carbon handlebar customers have the money to always buy a carbon handlebar, and I think there are a lot of people who will never buy a carbon bar due to cost or safety, so I don't think there's a lot of crossover customers. A bar clamp standard for each material seems like a reasonable compromise.

Kill integrated headsets, ZS only 

203, 223, 246 mm rotors. For the love of god, why does a company STILL have a 203 rotor in the lineup next to 160, 180 and 220 mm rotors??

Bring back quick release through axles on forks and frames. Want a stiffer bike? Go cam-and-lobe QR instead of the bolt on axle. Unless you want to bring your shop 6 mm allen key with you on your ride. Also, I will NOT bring out a multitool to take my wheel off.

I wasn't aware of the clamping issue. Technically if you assume purely frictional contact (Coulomb friction), surface area has no influence on friction if a defined force is applied like when tightening the screws on your stem. With carbon this doesn't work apparently so you have to use the special assembly paste that creates some kind of a form fit between the particles and the mating parts, there could be a dependency from surface area like say in car tires. Basically you clamp an epoxy tube with an aluminium part, this is just not nice. Hence the efforts to create composite one-piece solutions by some manufacturers, this makes sense actually if the shape is right. With metal one-piece solutions make less sense. I'll stick with metal for my cockpit and cranks, no thanks.

Btw Syntace, a German company that was one of the pioneers of carbon handlebars, has always used 31,8 and Newmen, which is an offspring of Syntace, don't even have 35 mm bars because the say it's nonsense.

For high rise bars like 50 mm or something 35 mm may be beneficial actually because these are weaker/softer due to shape.

Aren't people bringing a multitool anyway? I mean, SWAT and OneUp solutions are cute, but a multitool does the same job, has more surface and fits in any goddamn pocket. I have a set of Allen keys from Bondhus which are meanwhile something like 18 years old and I have ridden 90% of the time with it in my pocket and it didn't bother me one bit. There are more lightweight solutions that do the job, though, and it is always useful to have one with you, because you never know what bolt on your bike chooses to get loose.

Anyway, regarding rotor size, I am totally with metric sizing, but I don't see it so much as a disaster, because most times you can use washers to make the brake work. It is trickier indeed if the adaptor is too big (203) and the rotor to small (200), but you still have some braking surface, it's not like it is vanishing.

How about all fork lowers for suspension above 130 mm with direct 200 mm mounts? Who uses 180 mm on the front these days, when everybody is on 29”?

Mx

Which multitool gives you the leverage and the resulting torque of a standard 6 mm Allen key?

And yes, I do have a multitool with me, always. That's not the point 😂

Also, front 180 mm rotor, Santa Cruz Hightower 😂

Trunnion shocks, that shit can get in the bin. Would also like to see more frames with spherical mounted shocks, more so in the long travel enduro/DH area.

MTB forums. Why do we need more than one?

Absolutely get rid of 203/223mm rotors. Recently got a flat and couldn't swap wheels from my enduro bike to my e-bike without also swapping braking components even though the rotors are basically the same size 200mm vs 203mm. Idiotic.

I wholly agree with nixing 203 rotors. It's easy enough to space out a 200mm mount to accept a 203 rotor, but obviously not the reverse. Headset routing, while not a standard in the truest sense, removes any desire for me to break out the credit card. Definitely in the minority with this one, but I am onboard with supa boost. Currently have bikes with 142 (cross), 148(trail and freeride), and 157 spacing (hardtail/fat). The hardtail's rear wheels have needed the least amount of truing of the lot, and it's been ridden on much of the same terrain as the trail bike. It also sees those trails when they're frozen solid, so it's not like the soil is damping anything. And finally, yes to getting rid of tiny screws holding brake lines on forks. It's easy enough to use reusable zip ties. Considering the porous nature of Mg lowers, tiny threads are an issue waiting to happen. While I'm blabbing about forks, how about making bushings that are end user serviceable without needing specialty tooling? It's so wasteful to have to trash a lower because the bushings did their job.

I want one rear axle size (148 is fine), no internal hose routing cause maintenance, 20mm fork axles, and dual crown forks down to 170mm. This is my big personal one frames need to come stock with higher quality better water resistant bearings. I want to be able to blast mud off a bike. Oh and no torx fasteners at all / metric hex under 3mm. Oh and open bath forks for better lubrication. 

Im still pulling for gearboxes too

Sure I'll think of more. 

ham fists are always maximum torque.

I don't understand the mentality of complaining about what standard a manufacturer uses. With the massive number of bike manufacturers out there you have more choices than ever. Just pick the features that you want and quit complaining.

https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/125-mtb-companies-too-many-heres-li…

it's more a trend than a standard, but this whole urge to integrate thins (integratet stem, headset routing, hidden shock, internal cablerouting, etc.) can straight forward go *** itself. fun fact, the pinacle of this, the new scott ransom will be released just tomorrow..

I see alot of anti IS headsets here - IS headsets are much like Pressfit BB. It all depends on the frame, if you buy an expensive brand and you say "this brand is nice quality because it cost XXXX amount" You are kidding yourself - Ive had some expensive frames that have Unaligned 'Threadedness' so it used to ruin BB's.. - same with IS headsets where the fork is hard to install because one of the seats are all wonky.
On the other hand i've had some cheap frames with Pressfit and they've lasted forever.. because? the damn hole is round and aligned.

If i could really change anything it would be the consumers acceptance of quality - this would fix most of the industries shotty quality. Something to consider: Merida's own frames are much, much nicer than what they make for other brands(IMO one of the nicest made alloy & carbon frames i've had the enjoyment of working on, despite headset routing and some other crazy german idea's)

I’d love to see a standard size for bottom brackets all with the same tool, definitely prefer threaded to press fit. I’d love to see 1 headset standard as well. Press in inset preferably. One chain line would be nice as well. ISCG Tabs for a guide and bash on all frames except XC race bikes. I don’t always run a guide but I always run a bash. Super boost should die. I didn’t buy a few bikes because of it and I’m definitely not the only one. Headset routing should go away. Standard shock hardware would be great. Torx is no better than Allen. Do away with all Torx bolts. I don’t change brakes often but having the rear brake line externally routed would be fine by me. Tube in tube for everything else. I haven’t had a single issue with center lock in over ten years of use, but I haven’t had any issues with 6 bolt either. We don’t need both so we should pick one and ax the other.  The 200/220 203/223 Rotor nonsense has created issues for me so let’s settle on a size and eliminate the other.  The Allen size for the fork and rear through axel should be the same size. 

I haven’t had problems with Centerlock or 6bolt but I agree we don’t need both. 

Speaking of inconvenient industry "standards," the Bold Unplugged is 40% off right now! The only downside is you have to ride a Bold Unplugged:

Most of you probably don't even know this standard, but my Giant ebike has a 1.8" lower headset, aka ZS66 standard. What makes this even more frustrating is that this is the second time in 10 years that Giant has attempted this bull#$%^ as they tried 1.25 straight steerers not that long ago.

NO!