As 2011 bikes start to show up there's been some noise made about the new
12 x 142 mm rear axle spacing that many seem to be sporting, even the short travel XC bikes! There has been some confusion as to how we ended up with those numbers, as well as if the system makes any sense at all. Inside we take a closer look at the 'in between' standard and separate the wheat from the chaff to figure out if it makes any sense.
Watch the video, read the facts, and then decide for yourself.Read on...The new 12 x 142 mm axle size that has been popping up on the back of more and more bikes lately has been causing quite a furor among riders. Although the forum chatter hasn't quite reached the levels that the release of 15 mm fork thru-axles caused (
and still does, but we won't even go there), it is clear that many of you are a bit tired of new "standards", many with funny sounding acronyms, that seem to be thrust upon us. I've heard of all sorts of theories, ranging from some people claiming that it is obviously a conspiracy to force you to buy new and expensive parts for your bike, or even that the engineers responsible for all these new features that improve our bikes genuinely wanting to make their brand of bike better than the competition - GASP! It's all about progress, and these days our bikes are quite far along from an evolutionary standpoint, meaning that the performance gains that we see now will usually be far smaller than what we were getting excited about years ago.
Watch the video to learn about 12 x 142
So, is the new 12 x 142 axle size massively stiffer than a 12 x 135 thru-axle setup? Nope. Surely it must be lighter then, right? Doubtful. Is it easier to use? It sure seems like it. What it looks to be is a combination of a standard quick release's convenience and hub locating abilities with the stiffness and security of a 12 mm thru-axle. How ever you feel about it, there is a chance that the next cross-country or all-mountain bike that you buy down the road will be sporting the new standard. Trek, Lapierre, Rocky Mountain, Yeti, and many more manufacturers all offering 12 x 142 mm rear ends for the upcoming 2011 season.
12 x 142 mm Axle Details
- The goal of a 12 x 142 mm axle standard is to make thru-axles as quick and easy to use as a quick release system
- Stiffness of a 12 mm thru-axle, but with a quick release's wheel self centering feature
- 12 mm is the axle diameter, 142 mm refers to overall shoulder to shoulder width of hub (end cap to end cap)
- Cassette and disc rotor are in the exact same relation to the hub's centerline as a standard 135 mm QR hub
- Wheel dish remains the same as a 135 mm quick release wheel
- Frame dropout's have 3.5 mm of inset per side that hub endcaps fit into - just as with a 10 x 135 mm QR wheel
- There is not enough room on the driveside of a 12 x 135 mm thru-axle hub to build in the same hub locating ability, the extra 7 mm of overall width was required for the system to work
- Whereas 150 mm rear hub spacing requires the use of an 83 mm bottom bracket shell for proper chainline, 12 x 142 mm produces the same chainline as a standard QR rear wheel and works perfectly with any variation of B.B. that you'll find on modern XC or AM bikes
- Most hub manufacturers will simply make slightly different hub end caps to work with the new 12 x 142 mm spacing - no need to panic about having to buy a new rear hub or wheel
Certain designs should lend themselves to using 12 x 142 easier than others. The 2011 Trek lineup that you've been reading about over the last few days all use their ABP system that already requires the use of a long quick release skewer that needs to be completely removed in order for the wheel to be removed from the frame. Adapting ABP to accept a 12 x 142 mm Maxle was a relatively simple job that only requires Trek to use slightly different shaped ABP pivot hardware. It's worth noting that all of their bikes will also ship with the necessary hardware in order to use a standard 135 mm quick release wheel as well. Likewise, I can see most hub manufacturers keeping it very simple by making only different and interchangeable hub end caps that won't require you to buy a new hub or rear wheel.
Trek's bikes can accept both a standard 135 QR wheel and the new 12 x 142 mm size
- but how many other companies will be as flexible?
The goal of the 12 x 142 is
not to make a stiffer rear end, although it will be inherently stiffer than the equally convenient 135 quick release system that we're all used to, but to combine the best of both a quick release and a thru-axle design. Yes, we can all manage to install a thru-axle rear wheel on our current bikes without much hassle, but after playing with the new 12 x 142 layout I can honestly admit that it was even more effortless to use. The system's auto wheel centering feature meant that I didn't have to flip the bike over or struggle to line up the hub opening with the axle before pushing it through - just drop the wheel in and slid the axle home. I'm not saying that I'm all for it, but I think it's important to remember that a bike is the sum of it's parts and that if bikes never evolved, even if only in small steps that we're seeing now, we'd still all be using threaded loose ball headsets and cup and cone bottom brackets on our bikes. When it comes down to it, no one
needs the new 12 x 142 axle size, but there are benefits to it that are worth looking at.
Now that you know the facts tell us how what you think about 12 x 142 mm below!
... we Work on our bikes, We are not retarded.
Of course convinience is important but it should not be a reason to change axle standards for the ...th time if it has no performance benefits.
-1 it will require new rear triangle for the Mojo SL
-1 it will require new dropouts for the Jedi F1
-4 it will require reworking all of my rear hubs
-2 it will require buying a new axle for each bike
+4 it will standardize all of my wheelsets to be completely interchangeable between bikes
Seems like a good thing at first glance but the numbers just don't add up. I'm not changing until I have to yet, let's see if it catches. The jury is still out on the tapered headset "standard" this might take a while to be accepted as well.
All I did was state simple facts about what this new standard would require me to do to convert my current rides and wheels.
Simply put; unless you are a top eschelon professional rider I don't think the cost is worth the expense to convert current bikes. When a new bike is purchased that has the new standard, then it makes perfect sense to convert the wheels, not before.
IF it Does become a True Accepted "standard" THEN maybe Its a good thing.
Hey look, its a lot like Chub Hubs 'new' large diameter hubs *cough* Seismic *cough*.
And maybe in a few years we will see some 'new' 8-speed derrailers which offer lighter weight cassette options...
still all my other wheels will be a total write off..
if i would even/ever buy a frame with a 142mm rear end,, . thats point 2
ill be damned.. what an invention
"There is not enough room on the driveside of a 12 x 135 mm thru-axle hub to build in the same hub locating ability, the extra 7 mm of overall width was required for the system to work"
Still a waste of time and money as far as i'm concerned.
I am doing all the servicing for my bikes myself, never destroyed anything. I am bloody careful and precise, I never overtorqued a single bolt nor made it so it got loose while riding (ok once with the pedal without any bigger consequences - I learned my lesson).
Now yesterday I found a piece of the thread on my MAXLE on my Lyrik felling off, even though I always greased it and was super careful when taking the wheel on/off which is quite rare as i use UST system.
So screw MAXLE - it is as stupid as Microsoft Word autofill. I can't imagine doing that crap with my rear wheel...
plus as I wrote smwhr above: RS forks use like max 1.5mm offsetted metal piece to hold the wheel in place before sliding the axle in, so why on earth they need 3,5mm on each side?! 1.5mm is more than enough for the system to work, and more than enough for the 12mm axle hubs to support themselves on the frame.
Do Trek's 142mm frames make it harder to use your old 135mm hub? NOOOOOOO!!!!
Do Trek's 142mm frames allow for a better wheel insert, given you have a 142mm hub? YESSSSS!!!
I see an advantage without ANY disadvantages, which means BENEFIT (at least for those who think before they shout).
Everything's been said here - 142mm has come to stay, as does the 15mm fork, as does the disc brake, as does tubeless...with or without some of you.
I only see one more or less important advantage: Easier Installment of the Rearwheel, thats all!
Would this be same easy when you do that with Spacingcups? I guess no: I have Cups on my Frontwheel (Hub is changeable from QR 9 to 20mm Thruaxle) which is a Pain to built it in my Lyrik, which has also Guides to get proper Setup. Lighter? Stiffer? No! You need Cups for your recent Hub, how should this increase Stiffness and decrease Weight?
Its a nice little detail, but I don´t need it necessarily ...
I understand it's a plus for this specific frame since the axle goes through the upper link of the back frame, lower link of the back frame AND hub and it's got to be more "labour intensive" to hold all these 3 things to slide the axle in, but that's all.
I don't think it's really much of a progress.
lets say you were gonna buy a bike with the new 142 axle. its not costing you anymore money than if you were buying that bike without. all its doing is making it easier for you. and you dont need special hubs or wheels so i don't see why not.
- Liteville uses this standard since long time , and it is really good.
- Nice to have it explained, but i don`t like that there is no mention of Syntace who did the job and do share it whit other manufacturers for FREE!
Thanks! and have a nice day!
Just think of 15mm front axels... Has anyone had an issues getting the traditional 9mm or 20mm spec fork? No
Or what about tapered head tubes and getting non tapered forks? Nope, no problems what so ever.
Just because Trek is making something their new standard does not mean everything else is going the way of the dinosaurs.
I can't argue with the logic behind the idea, but there's a scepticism in me that thinks the increased axle width is purely to generate a new standard and the associated repeat purchases and licencing fees associated with it?
In fact, I'm just going to cut a washer in half and super glue each half to my dropouts. Job done! Thanks for the idea!
seems like some wheel manufacturers got bored with making hubs lighter to make them more expensive so they need a new standard...
BTW I HATE MAXLE! it is as stupid as Microsoft Word autofill. Helps once per 10 times and pisses you off big time on other 9. What's wrong with carrying a 5mm allen key FFS?!
Awesome, my 2011 bike will probably have this & hope will no doubt release a conversion kit of sorts. Seems fine by me.
If the old QR up front was enough then why did everybody change to 15-20mm?
Just seems logical to me.
a quick direct answer to your question:
Please don't confuse the Trek 142 x 12 mm standard with Syntace X-12. Syntace X-12 was presented long before TREK started using the 142x12 "standard". The Syntace X-12 has uses the 142x12 dimentions and was the first system to present these to the industry as a new standard, Treks design uses the same two measurement, but Treks design does not have all the features X-12 offers. What Trek has done, is taken a small part of the Syntace X-12 system, and implemented this on their bikes. In short, a 142 x 12 system (such as trek) is not necesarily a Syntace X-12 system, Syntace X-12 however was the inventor of, and uses these dimentions. Trek's design offers simplified use. Syntace X-12 offers simplified use AND reduced weight AND increased stiffness. Hope thats good for a short answer.
This is exactly how the front thru axle forks are, my older manitou 20mm's don't have these 'guides', while my friends totem does, and it most definitely makes putting the front wheel back on easier. Yeah, you can do it without, but why? It also seems like most of the 12x135 hubs out there already run end caps, so majority of the current 12x135 wheelsets/hubs are easily convertible to this standard.
Also, this isn't exactly a "new" standard, its been on Cube bikes since I think MY 2009.
And ISIS was a good idea on paper for the most part, but very poor in execution. I can't tell you how many people I end up replacing their bb every year at the shop. The X-type is better, but its more of a go around than anything. Its just funny that the MFG's will create all these new standard and components but will not address fundamental shortcomings in the design of the standard BB. Its just stupid and aggravating to a certain degree. Some times I wish I was an ME instead of a bike mechanic so I could affect more change, but then again its not necessarily about change so much as its about the bottom line.
So, as long as they keep supporting this standard I'm all for it (cause that's all I got).
This is just another standard that makes bicycles better bit by bit, and the smooth transition with the adapters is a great concept. Thumbs up!!!
Either 'tubeless' cancels '142 x 12' or 'tubeless' was a waste of time.
Therefore, since 'tubeless' DOES reduce punctures, '142 x 12' IS a waste of time since the only advantage is when mounting the rear wheel. There is no advantage to fix a problem that rarely occurs these days (punctures).
I'm pretty sure that stifness offered by the 135x12 is equall to this new standrad.
I was using that standard on my Stab Supreme and never had any problem with installing my rear wheel and any problems with the rear triangle stiffness.
Another innovation after front QR15 axle which is set to make people pay more and more for the bike parts.
And generally I don't get Trek...
First they killed Klein,then Gary Fisher and now this... :/
Remember when ISIS was the final word in BBs?
If bike manufactures want to be on the cutting edge of making mountain bikes better they would make a dropper seat that works. The best dropper seat out there, is made by a tool and die maker, the Black Momba this is the only bike part they make.
About RASE
RASE (Rapid Adjust Seatpost Equipment) is a ProDev, Inc. company. Incorporated in 1999, ProDev is a multifaceted product development company that offers a unique blend of engineering, manufacturing and marketing expertise, ranging from Computer Aided Design & Manufacturing to Strategic Market Analysis & Planning.
ProDev specializes in the design and manufacturing of various custom equipment and tooling for industries such as Electronics, Automotive, Medical, Marine and Recreational. For many years, ProDev has also been assisting its customers by improving the design and manufacturability of products that they currently have and by working collaboratively to develop their new product ideas from concept to prototype to effective market introduction.
These guy's see a need and fill it. The only reason I can see for bike manufactures not making these is it will make the cost of their bikes too high for most customers.???
Bring on the RockShox Reverb Height Adjust Seatpost. It should be out any day now a Real improvement. If it works???
PS It will be a shame when you can't buy 9 speed replacement stuff. Just like the 8 speed.
What is unclear to me is whether the entire 142 x 12 concept is Syntace's Intellectual Property, or is just their axle design? Does anyone know?
In other words, can a company build a 142 x 12 compatible rear end, use a different axle and not violate any IP law? d have a hard time believing Trek would pay them to license the design...
"Just like Srams new 30 speed triple or double if you believe that."
Well...looks like this wasn't a bad idea though
for most of the current hubs there is a conversion kit available now to voncert from 135mm to 142 x 12. So check with your manufacturer, chances are you only need the conversion kit which in many cases is simply two different end caps.
To read the full all the way 142 x 12 System go to www.syntace.com/index.cfm?pid=3&pk=1668
or read
the explanation from NORCO www.pinkbike.com/news/syntace-142mm-12-norco-2011.html
"1. add additional on topic info to the article that other users will find useful
2. add props and support/encouragement for the video/photo/article/product/story
3. add and explain constructive criticism for the video/photo/article/product/story"
if it aint broke why fix it? well would you just like to ride a beach cruiser with knobby tires? cause that was the begging of mt. biking. do you like cantilever brakes? because thats what you would have. if there was no innovation in biking. and
"The only people who are going to notice any positive from this are xc riders that don't ride hard enough to need it anyway." -That makes no sense.