Opinion: Don't Shoot the Messenger
The news about SRAM's latest hub standards went over about as well as I'd expected, with plenty of outrage and questions about the need for yet another small change. What surprised me were the number of responses that somehow suggested that I was shirking my duties as a journalist by not publicly decrying all things Boost. Here's the thing – the Boost train has already left the station, and it's not in my power to stop it, whether or not I agree with it. Decisions about things like axle and bottom bracket standards are made years in advance, and by the time a press release crosses my desk, product managers are already working on sorting out the details for bikes that won't be available until 2017 or 2018. That doesn't mean that I'm somehow obligated to lay back and say nice things about SRAM, Shimano, FOX, or any company for that matter, but it does mean that it's best to pick my battles, or risk wasting my time tilting at windmills.
This is what it's all about, axle size be damned.
In real, non-internet life, I'm a pretty even-keeled guy – it takes a lot to get me really, truly angry, which is part of the reason why the announcement that bike hubs were going to change by a few millimeters left me non-plussed. Maybe it's because I've seen all of this before – when disc brakes first came out, when full suspension began to gain popularity, the introduction of 29ers, 15x100mm spacing, 12x142mm spacing, the introduction of 27.5” wheeled bikes – in each instance, the reactions were similar to the furor that Boost has created.
Are new standards frustrating? Absolutely, for bike shops and riders alike. Shops need to keep even more parts in stock, and all of a sudden a portion of their current inventory is outdated. Riders that had hoped to be able to swap parts from their bike to a new frame are suddenly faced with compatibility issues, ones that require purchasing new wheels and cranks, costs that add up quickly. If you'd just shelled out a pile of money to purchase what was supposed to be the best bike on the market, only to be told a week or two later that it was outdated, anger and frustration are totally justifiable reactions. At the same time, it's crucial to remember that not having the latest cutting-edge technology on your bike isn't going to diminish how much fun you have out on the trails. Railing a turn or flying downhill feels good on any bike, whether it's a clapped out beach cruiser or a carbon fiber dream machine.
I'm well aware that there's a solid contingent of riders out there who seem to feel that by remaining neutral about this new standard my masculinity is somehow diminished, that instead I should be raging on my soapbox, shouting about how I'm tired of all this new technology being shoved down my throat. But you know what? I'm genuinely curious about how the next generation of mountain bikes will perform. Are 27.5 x 3.0” tires going to work well on steep, technical terrain? What about matching up a fat 27.5+ front tire with a narrower 29” rear wheel on a slack angled big wheeler like Kona's Process 111 or Trek's Remedy? I have an inkling it could be a ridiculously good time, but until I get my hands on a setup like that it's purely speculation. Maybe it's because I like to tinker and experiment that new standards don't anger me, or it could also be that I know it's still possible to purchase brand new parts for a bike with an 8 speed rear derailleur, square taper bottom bracket, and cantilever brakes, which makes me think that fears of suddenly not being able to find parts for 15 x 100 or 12 x 142 hubs are unfounded.
Now, if you need me, I'm going to go for a really long ride deep in the woods.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
How to Watch the 2024 Mountain Bike World Cup [Update: Staylive Offering Access in New Zealand, South Africa & More]
59447 views
59447 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
As to E-bikes... I just want more of them! Let people see for themselves how great is to ride ebike. What do you think is a chance of winning EWS race on a electric MTB? N+0+N+E?
F@CK E-BIKES!
but just ignore it and go ride!
cheers dude
I feel so much better
Yeah, hardly controversial.
Nobody has made a convincing argument for how the new 15 x110 is an improvement over the very similar 20 x 110, so that is an obvious criticism of the front hub.
Mike Kazimer: "Are 27.5 x 3.0” tires going to work well on steep, technical terrain?"
A better question is ' will anybody ever ride 27.5 x 3.0 tires?' Probably not. Nobody even rides 2.7's anymore. The new rear hub is more justifiable, though you didn't do a good job of justifying it like BikeRumor did.
www.bikerumor.com/2014/12/19/2016-axle-standards-part-1-rear-148mm-thru-axle-coming-fast-its-about-more-than-just-better-wheels
Mike Kazimer: "it's best to pick my battles"
Your next one will be your first one. Face it, you aren't controversial. But I like most of your work on here.
His multiple responses to the sram post absolutely define his stance.
Which is fine. I'm all for change.
When needed.
27.5
29
11 spd
With lowlow gear
Narrow wide
Clutch dérailleur
All good
But I've never heard anyone complain about how unstiff their front wheel was. Or that their back wheel could be a little wider at the axle so it could be laced wider.
Jumps in technology need to be worth it.
This jump is bullshit. Like many of you said, a new standard with new compatability and new prices.
Sell me something worth buying SRAM
That was another few years where if you didnt choose right you were destined to buy an outdated frame, lets not even start with 1" threaded going to 1 1/8 threadless.
Then as I thought I remember watching "strength in numbers" and Gee Atherton mentioning the changes being minute. Then Rachel discussing how racing does have a knock off effect on the rest of mountain biking.
Progression, not only in how to ride, but also how to build bikes is not linear, especially considering how simple of a sport mountain biking really is. I will not claim to be an expert, but maybe we are reaching the point of minute returns? If so people buying new bikes can rejoice, as there will be much less major breakthroughs in mountain bike technology in the coming years as there have been in the decade past! ....Oh, wait...
You compare introducing disc brakes to mountain bikes to adding 3mm to each side of a hub? I'm not a total bike nerd, although I do love everything about the sport, but I'm gonna guess that very few people would be able to guess if they were riding a 135 or a 148 bike. Vbrakes vs Disc? Come on. Night and day.
6" travel fork?
More travel didn't change anything else. Just gave you more travel.
1.5 head tubes came on the scene with plenty of options for headsets to adapt. Or at the least press in cups to step down.
148 doesn't let you use your current wheels.
You can't retrofit jack.
And I have to add this in.
135
142
150
157
148 Boost?
What are we fukcin morons who need a cute name to sell us the next best thing?
Boost. That's funny.
Is it marketing? Yes. Is there science behind it? I am under the belief that yes, there is. Is it going to change the way we ride as in the early days? No.
However maybe rather than look at your bike as outdated every season now, though you can keep it a few more years before it feels that way, the "advancements" being more minute mean your bike will ride like a new one for even longer!
Overall I find not being as angry over the little things helps . Dont take it from me though, I'm just some trend setter that rides a 26" ALine, a 26" Trek Fuel with QR hubs, and has a first gen Sherman that is waiting to be mounted on that fuel and have some fun with er
As I understand wheee they are coming from with it (I've been one of them), C their action indicate evil behavior but it can be worked on. D all that because there is no evil.
I am trying to highlight processes going in our heads, because we say one thing and do other.
As to your marketing bit, the obvious answer is that at early stage of product design a target group is being set and thing like those hubs or a bike from. A major company do not take into account such niche and unstable group of customers as forumers. Buying force could not give a tiniestcrap about it, they buy and munch anything with good story attached to it because they like new toys. And it's understandable. Also most people don't get innovations they want because they don't know what they want, if they were good at imagining it and putting into reality, we would not need bike companies, therefore design process is overwhelmingly proactive and costomers are overwhelmingly reactive. So simply: if you want something good and different: make it yourself, too bad you can't, is this the reason for anxiety?
Crunchy. Low-fat. Normal fat. Natural. Smooth. Creamy. Mixed with jam. Mixed with preserves. Mixed with Nutella. Low sodium. Extra sodium. Extra crunchy.
What is the world coming to? I mean for real. If Peter Pan and his cohorts don't stop trying to swindle me of my hard earned dollars I'll chop off my own hand and feed it the crocodile.
If I'm understanding your point, I need to ride a bike with 27.5 wheels 15mm front and 142 rear end and an 11 speed rear cassette in order to have an opinion on the subject of bikes changing standards quickly?
Talk about hypocrisy.
Now the industry is focusing on producing as many standards as possible and see which of them stick. I'm pissed because it really reminds me of how it works in my line of work. It's more expensive and less convinient for small shops and customers. The benefits may be there on paper but in reality 99% of the riders will not feel it. Wheels on regular bikes are stiff enough, 142mm was only convinient for people who are braindead and can't align their wheel on old standards and as for boost - fat bikes never go fast, there are no super hard lateral forces and the tire probably floats more than the wheel. So the benefit of boost hubs is probably only visible on paper.
Still even changes only visible on paper wouldn't be a problem. Over the years they could translate to noticeable changes, even if some of them are dead ends. The problem is most of them hurt the customer, make him less likely to buy new stuff (used to be a total gear hound, not anymore. I was one of the people who had the have the newest and greatest and the inustry lost me. Hell I've bought stuff to replace parts I got for free). It may also put some shops out of business since the margin that keeps them profitable is very small.
And here we go back to comparisons with the movie industry. We antagonised customers by chasing short term profits and we only grow because of the emerging markets. Old markets all loosing viewers to online straming and torrents.
Trying to justify yourself only makes you seem that much more guilty of something & does nothing to change the fact that even though you can't do anything about the industry directly, you can cast a public vote. These giant corporations already have way too much inertia heading in the wrong directions. If your job is just to report the news, then it's unfair to hit you for just doing that. If it's best to pick your battles, don't pick this one because it's one you can't win, even if unfortunately, the toxic MTB industry can. Honestly, if your last name was Levy I might be inclined to think you would be in favor of this kinda dumb shit, but I think it's more likely that you know it's as stupid as the rest of us, but bidnits will be bidnits no?
I can see more types of bikes, from trail to free-ride, having more common axles.
At first glance this appears to benefit the mfr more than the consumer lending credence to your point that this axle standard change cant be compared to the change to hydraulic disc brakes, which was a huge benefit to the rider. But, in the long term this appears to be a change which will benefit mfr/consumer equally. Hopefully this is the "future proof" standard we need. I really admire Trek's record on taking chances like this, but i've still got my fingers crossed.
Marketing and bean counters will change it.
The bigger the company, the more they will want to change and have a pipeline of changes to sell to the public. It's how they make money.
The challenge as an engineer is to refine and improve whilst cutting cost, therefore keeping the bean counters happy.
The marketing people still want something new unfortunately.
Just because another bike company is attempting to invent a new standard, doesn't mean it has to be reported on. By choosing what to write about, you help shape the culture of the sport. As readers, we get to tell you what we think of your choices.
Here is an idea for an article Mike. Compare mountain bikes to skateboards. Skateboards haven't changed in over 20 years. Parts from the 80's still mesh with parts today. Nobody is complaining about it. The sport is still progressing. More focus is put on personal ability, and creating places to skate, than on the gear. When companies attempt to introduce new ideas, no one pays attention, and they are quickly dismissed. Also the price of a skateboard also hasn't changed in this time. Perhaps they are onto something.
If we just want the announcement repeated, we can talk to the company directly. The point of a journalist is to evaluate the announcement in today's world, and how it will affect and benefit us (or not). We want that industry experience applied to the news to filter out the marketing speak. That's the value everyone seeks out.
That did not happen, and that's why people are upset. This article above is just a half-hearted excuse.
Please Mike, can we stick to writing about bikes and cut out the news stories with yourself as the subject matter...?
These new designs are an outright push to obsolescence, sending good parts to the dump, for no reason other than a few mm's...
But as a consumer... might as well order it from chain reaction for half the price and have it on my doorstep within a week.
Oh wait, that's what Waki-leaks is and pb often features it on the main page.
"Robot Company X Management - "f*ck we got lots of people working here and need to make money. Lets keep doing more stuff."
Robot Company X Market/Research - "f*ck, people think riding bikes is hard.... We know..... what if we made them easier to ride like a soccer mom SUV's and f*ck it if they don't ride as fast. BOOOSH! expanding the market size bitches!"
Robot Company X Engineer - "Shit, I just realized that I'm essentially a sustaining engineer..... or f*ck, I could reverse engineer an existing technology before someone else or we could implement a license agreement on some other blokes technology. BAM!!! Game Changer!
Robot Company X Marketing - "Hey marketing outlets. Check out this hot new shit. You bitches better all copy & pasta this shit and make the web links go live within 10 minutes of one another!"
Robot Internet Bike "Journalist" - "f*ck I actually get paid for this shit! Don't rock the boat!"
I have 3 bikes less than 4 ys old all from Trek and all between $1200 & $2200 and all 3 have different hubs/axles. My bad for buying the lower level spec i guess. I hope this new axle/hub will trickle down to the $1500 bikes.
That said I agree with Mike; don't shoot the messenger. I doubt Mike's write up will change a thing in the comment sections though
I appreciate your article here. And it is true, I'm sure- you are the messenger. You have nothing to do with development directly with new standards such as this.
It is just about the experience. I recently was inundated with questions from a friend whom was about to drop an exorbitant amount of cash on a mountain bike- this person was so completely obsessed with technical info that he had completely lost the whole idea of being on a bike, out in the woods, as you say.
As a person that reports on the industry (this is not a sarcastic question) do you ever shoot back an email to the manufacturer to tell them "listen, I have to tell you, this isn't going so well over here. The natives are restless." And I can say that I get a little restless because I can't afford to keep up with new standards at the rate they are being produced. It is troubling.
As the messenger, I can say (and you'd likely agree) you're going to take a beating from time to time, because that's what you signed up for. It's not personal on my end, I'll be clear about that.
Next time you're at Boundary Bay and a Stout comes sliding toward ya, it'll be from me. Hope you had a good ride out there.
-Chad
Props to fox this year for the 36 as it's available for all wheel sizes and you can even still get a 1 1/8 steer tube.
That elephant would be the previous "standard" for front hubs 20x110. Why didn't SRAM go back to using that if they are using the 110mm spacing? Why didn't you, as a "journalist", question SRAM on that? Yes, they plan several years out and you have no sway over what is produced. But as a supposed journalist don't you have the duty to question these companies as to why they are doing this and to find out what is really going on behind the marketing BS?
Mike K didnt question them on that, because he knows his stuff!
@keystonebikes Are you saying there is no room for critical thinking and asking hard questions?
Now, understanding it is a business and there is risk to biting or even a sideways glance at the hand that feeds you, which makes choosing one's battles so important, PB could take a symmetrical stance by releasing point and counter-point type articles/reviews when controversial product announcements cross the desk.
There are ways to work through these situations. I suggest that this was one to stand up and raise at least a bit of ruckus about… as as said in the above piece, this move will likely make a full generation of bikes non-compatible, severely depreciate some used bikes create headaches for parts stocking throughout the supply chain… it's just a cluster for micro gains as a rider.
At this moment, on mtbr using its forums alone...
Currently Active Users
There are currently 19854 users online. 1767 registered members and 18087 guests
Here on pinkbike, total for the entire site....Users Online:1354 registered members.
I said during the move to 650B that even if the entire site's membership (even the multiple fake profiles of scammers) rebelled and refused to buy any 650B bikes of any sort, that it wouldn't matter to the bike industry as a whole all that much as 800,000 stubborn consumers are far outnumbered by millions who'll buy the bikes without feeling the need to lose their marbles about new tires/wheels/forks/frame standards. More of the new things for us non-stubborn folks to buy and not have to wait months on orders of.
Do I buy a sweet new 5" travel MTB with XTR Di2? Or will Di2 wires look like a joke in a year or two when the industry moves to wireless electronic shifting, like SRAM is doing this year on road bikes? I'll wait until a standard emerges.
Is it foolish to buy an MTB in 2015 with a front derailleur? I'll wait until a standard emerges.
I want to buy a set of wide carbon rim tubeless wheels for my 29" hardtail, do I pull the trigger or see what happens with 27.5+? I'll wait until a standard emerges.
I would happily spend $10k+ to buy new MTB and CX bikes for me & my wife if I had ANY confidence that they would have much resale value in 5 years. As it stands, the industry is gonna have to wait to get my money until these "standards" start to show any semblance of sticking around for a while.
I love this new standard stuff though because then I buy one or two year old stuff that is outdated and going cheap. I have a 29er and thought about doing the 27.5 thing to compliment my 26", I'd have the whole lineup. However, I realized that I could buy up 26er parts dirt cheap so I now have a 26" build in progress.
If the new axle size means I can buy some nice wheels dirt cheap because they won't fit on the latest and greatest that someone "needs" right now then I am okay with it. However, it will be costly if you like re-using your parts and buying new frames every year. If the masses didn't buy a new bike or frame until axle size got standardized and kept maybe there would be a quick change because like any other business, it all comes down to money.
Frame is a two years old steel hardtail... so I'm definitely not talking about 8 speed or cantilever.
Should journalists support their readership? I suppose it depends who they see their clients as. If it's the sponsors, then no and I'd expect to see articles like Mikes. If we are the client, then yes, damn right I expect someone in the media to say "hang on, you're taking the piss now".
I get 29ers. They offer a sufficient difference to be able to co exist with 26. So whatever our preference of wheel be it big or small, we are a catered for.
Manufacturing obsolesence to stimulate sales at the cost of the consumer (for minimal/disproportionate performance increase) is a disgrace, which is what 650b was and is exactly what this boost dogshit is. SRAM should be ashamed and I hope that some manufacturers and journalists stand up for themselves and us.
"Here's the thing – the Boost train has already left the station, and it's not in my power to stop it, whether or not I agree with it"
Whoa! Mike, too much logic and critical thinking going on there! Gonna have to ask you to stop right there! Don't you know? PB readers don't want logic, they want you to single-handedly rip Boost from Trek's evil corporate hands and render them powerless while shouting "By the power of Grayskull!". How is that too much to ask??
the industry is getting darker these days:
The Taipei show seems to kill existing standards for the sake of selling bikes versus innovation. But we knew that when they decided to get rid of a wheel size that was winning races while being called slower at the same time.
The more standards I see, the less likely I am to buy a new bike. Pressfit= more profit.
Widening a hub size by 2mm= more profit.
Making a wheel size bigger by 1/2" and then deciding to simultaneously to eliminate the existing size= more profit. Calling a half carbon bike a carbon bike= more profit.
I see more profit instead of more bike for my
money.
Bikes cost 5k-10k, but I am not sure that consumers are getting their money's worth.
However, at some point though respected institutions like Pinkbike should be inclined to bite the hand that feeds and review things like this for what they are and call companies such as SRAM/Shimano out for providing no tangible benefit at the expense of making components incompatible with riders existing bikes.
Do moto people bitch as much as the bike community? I don't think so. Let the Freds drop the bookoo bucks on Boost hubs, I'll be out on my trusty 135's having a blast.
"Maybe it's because I like to tinker and experiment that new standards don't anger me".
I too, like to tinker. I enjoy reading about the latest advances and (the diminishing returns of) constant product development. Long may it continue. I have done with the angry phase, and am now at exasperation junction where I slowly become resigned to not being able to tinker so much as before..So, from that perspective, if you have time, your thoughts on these two would be interesting.
Could it be the case, that for a not insignificant number of the readership here, who will and do have compatibility issues thanks to changes in sizings, coupled with financial restrictions, that a far more understandable position would be that new standards will anger people?
To what extent, if any, does your being a journalist who does get to see and use more of this stuff than the average rider be affacting your ability to get over any feelings of anger do you think?
Cheers.
Maybe Mike has seen all this before.
MTB magazines generally announce new "standards" in the industry wether they are trivial or revolutionary, it's just what they do.
To Mike Kazimer: I really appreciate your bike reviews and I hope you don't get the shortest staw in 2017 when they need someone to break the news to consumers that the 148mm axeled bike they just ordered has been eclipsed into obsolescence by the next big thing.
Enjoy your ride dude.
So there you have it - how can this be a response to rider demand when it was planned years ago and its ship has sailed before the press release. It's almost like the technology being sold right this second is 'planned for obsolescence'...hmmm...
Nobody minds great new tech that can be integrated as and when you like, such as dropper posts but I like to have a good FS AM/enduro bike, the only way I can do that is to buy components when needed such as a frame every few years. If I'm then forced to buy new hubs and wheels and forks at the same time things get unaffordable and annoying. I feel I'm being bullied into 27.5 and bullied into new hub standards, the expense isn't worth the gains on the trail. I'm quite happy on 26 inch wheels and 9 speed transmission, but the industry will play dirty and withdraw tires in 26 and possibly forks too, to push 27.5. Our local Giant dealer has 27.5 in 3 meter high letter down the side of it with 27.5 propaganda in store.
#1 You're too late. SRAM actually developed and released the 15x110 standard over a year ago on the Rockshox RS-1 Inverted carbon 29er XC forks. The RS-1s are incidently inherently 650B+ compatible thanks to being inverted. Also the standard is already trickling down to other Rockshox model platforms and over to other brands as Fox and Marzocchi have announced already. Trek may have been the first to announce/adopt on the 12x148 standard for the Remedy 29er platform but they will not be the last. Sea Otter happens in a few weeks and that's going to be when a lot more bikes get revealed for mid-season model launches.
#2 Because Marzocchi in particular are producing a 15x110 version of their 350 series fork, which in the regular version goes up to 170mm travel now, and Rockshox has announced a Pike using it, and Fox the new 34 series using it, its clear that big name manufacturers have demanded good quality suspension forks for whatever models they're about to reveal. If not for those sales, Fox and Marzocchi would not have spent money designing and tooling up to build the things.
#1 You're too late. SRAM actually developed and released the 15x110 standard over a year ago on the Rockshox RS-1 Inverted carbon 29er XC forks. The RS-1s are incidently inherently 650B+ compatible thanks to being inverted. Also the standard is already trickling down to other Rockshox model platforms and over to other brands as Fox and Marzocchi have announced already. Trek may have been the first to announce/adopt on the 12x148 standard for the Remedy 29er platform but they will not be the last. Sea Otter happens in a few weeks and that's going to be when a lot more bikes get revealed for mid-season model launches.
#2 Because Marzocchi in particular are producing a 15x110 version of their 350 series fork, which in the regular version goes up to 170mm travel now, and Rockshox has announced a Pike using it, and Fox the new 34 series using it, its clear that big name manufacturers have demanded good quality suspension forks for whatever models they're about to reveal. If not for those sales, Fox and Marzocchi would not have spent money designing and tooling up to build the things.
www.bikerumor.com/2015/03/18/tpe15-marzocchi-espresso-dropper-post-drops-in-plus-new-enduro-xc-shocks-and-more/#more-97389
How did we ever ride anything with 135/10mm QR eh?