Have Your Say on the Ever-Changing Bike Standards

 If you make a change, make it a big change, none of this millimeter here millimeter there business

 Can we get a standard for water bottle lids?

 can we all just admit that 142 spacing is all we really need, 35mm bars and stems are a nonsense, threaded bb is the correct standard, 6 bolt hubs only, 100 x 15mm for the forks, one cassette freehub body please. think that's us sorted....

 My conspiracy theory is different from everyone else's conspiracy theory.

I think the main strategy behind the shifting-standards isn't to make end users buy more bikes and wheels, it's to hurt smaller competitors. Trek and SRAM want to drive companies like Transition and Chris King out of business. If the little guys are constantly forced to redesign for new standards, and to stock multiple standards at once, those little guys suffer. If end users think twice before dropping money on an "outdated" design or a parts upgrade, those little guys suffer. Maybe they have less resources to develop new product, maybe they go belly up. Big guys win.

So, riders aren't the intended target, we're just the collateral damage. Thanks, Trek!

 "Of course, the bike industry is not a hippie commune." We can work to change that. It's just going to take a progressive attitude to sex and the right drugs. Come on people.

My hub spacing isn't on this page, who do I need to talk to about this?

 I would just like to take the opportunity to thank Chris King for not being one of the primary drivers behind this nonsense. The idea that boost spacing was some innocuous design update that had nothing to do with driving new interest and sales via new and exciting marketing is complete BS. 150/157 rear hubs achieve everything boost claimed to and then some. You'll realize this when they do it again in 2-3 years because the decisions are based on marketing releases and stagnant sales, not stagnant designs based in engineering. Listen to the podcasts vital did with sram marketing peeps. It's product release improvement, not product design improvement, plain and simple. And CK was not out there pushing it. Thank you.

Also, CK: sell your buzzworks offset headsets dammit.

 As a small bike brand we too are sucked into this cycle. Our new Mettle very nearly hit the market with an ‘old’ (pun intended) 142 rear axle spacing. Our production model was switched to 148 so that we didn’t appear to have an old model when stocked arrived and have to pay extra tooling charges a short way down the line to add 6mm and little performance gain.

It was also by complete luck and just in time that we found out about metric shocks and had a chance to implement them into our design. Fortunately we see a big performance gain with this latter change and we’re glad we did move to it.

These kind of side step standard changes continue to catch businesses like us - and much bigger ones - out.

My question is how does the industry expect the smaller brands to compete, survive, and thrive if the goal posts keep moving a few millimetres every year?

Pat @ Identiti Bikes

 It all started with cell phone plans.

 Taking existing technology and modifying the dimensions by 2 or 3% is not innovation. It's not progress. It's bullshit

A seatpost that can automatically adjust it's height with the push of a button is innovation. Tires that can run without tubes and seal themselves when punctured are innovation. A maintenance free drivetrain that doesn't dangle off the ass of the bike would be innovation.

 I am certainly holding off on a new ride. My 2013 Mojo HD still has more gas than I do. My future proofed 2010 CK hubs still work with the new axle, and I scooped up a 2015 27.5 Pike when my 2009 Fox 36 let go.

At the end of the day it’s the fat guy on the seat.

Unless the frame fails - I see no point in buying until the rapid pace of “evolving” standard slows.

 No way in hell will I think about building a new bike until all this bullshit slows down.

 Bike industry: I like parts with multiple uses. My 26" wheels and tires fit my hardtail, big bike, and commuter. The constant ongoing "obsolescence" of bike parts has made me realize the fruitlessness of chasing the newest shiny object, in bikes and in life. I haven't bought much more than tires and pedals in the last five years and have way more money to spend on travel and experiences. Thank you for opening my eyes!

 I think this is a novel (and very good idea), however you hit the nail on the head when you spoke to the fact that it's a bunch of business competing with one another. I don't know how sympathetic they will be to the consumer's voice... And no offense against Chris King, but I can't think of one bike where their hubs are OEM equipment. So how much weight can they really throw around against the big bike corporations who perpetuate the ever-changing standards? Time will tell. It's a noble cause, and certainly one worth championing. My quesiton is this: As far as discernable benefits to the rider on the trail, have we not hit the point of diminishing returns when it comes to hub width? It's like having a watch that's waterproof to 100m but selling it to get a watch that's waterproof to 200m. It is of absolutely no consequence as 100m is much deeper than you'll ever dive. Or in car speak, what can you do with 800+ hp that you can't do with 550 hp (looking at you Hellcat)? Same thing applies to hub width... What say you bike industry? I think the answer, if they are honest, has to do with being the first to market with "innovations" that we don't actually need.

 I was just thinking on my ride last night, if my wheel was 4% stiffer laterally, I'd have gotten the Strava KOM AND a higher reading on the RAD meter app.

 Strange how a standard only last for a couple of years? no longer a standard more innervation for the latest craze.
Personally never thought there anything wrong with these Standards:
20mm front hub non boost
142mm rear
threaded BB
iscg 05
Sad thing, I actually stopped my self from buying a new Transition patrol frame due to needing to replace the wheels and cranks, ended up buying an Airdrop.

 No one is addressing the elephant in the room. What about hub standards for DH tandem bikes?

They have to constantly race on puny hubs made for single rider bikes and need real solutions. Please stop leaving them out of the industry conversations.

 'Do you want the super boost plus?'
Just sounds like something a barista should be saying....

 I wonder if the bike industry realize how much their hardcore base (thinking about those who started riding 15 - 30 years ago, never stopped and own multiple bikes) are bitter about the standard shit show that happened in the past 5 year or so. I know we are quite a bunch of passionate riders who are still holding out to our old ride, refusing to drop big money on something that is likely to be obsolete 2 years from now.

You did sell many bikes to new riders and your sales figures are doing great, but there will be an end to this if buying a new bike continues to be a stressful, frustrating and wallet-draining experience. It used to be fun to buy a new bike; it isn't as much fun anymore. We used to easily be able to assemble a kick ass hardtail from the leftover parts as we upgraded our main ride. It isn't possible anymore and that sucks, big time.

I would like the bike industry to agree to stick for a few years to the current standards for the main bike parts: Boost spacing, 27.5, 27.5+/29 cross-compatible frames, 1.125 - 1.5 tapered head tube, etc. That way, we'll be able to build kickass custom bikes from the frame up or continuously upgrade a great complete bike for a while. #bringbackcustombikes

After a few years of stable standards, it will become clear what must me changed. We will actually be happy to see an innovation that will be a true improvement

 In recent years the bike industry collectively seems to have promoted standards in haphazard fashion. By that I mean micro-tweaks that seek micro-improvements without balancing the desired utility of having some positive change of the negative change of making an older part incompatible and/or orphaned.

It's difficult to escape the impression that these ever changing standards are driven purely by engineering-needs and consumer-wants without much consideration of the user-experience as a whole. Is this impression fair?

Do you collectively as industry give more then half-hearted consideration to whether or not the new standard solve more problems then it causes? Ie is the new standard worth it in the grand scheme of things? And how long is that grand scheme of things? A year? Two years? A decade?

Finally; the bike industry is sometimes accused of being a bunch of bro-brah hacks bumbling along from one "innovation" to "another". But another bro-brah industry somehow managed to rationalize standard for consumers. I reference skiing who's done that for downhill binding/boot and alpine-touring binding/boot interfaces. Why is the bike industry incapable of doing this? If it's a deliberate choice to have tens (if not hundreds) of competing standards instead why does the bike industry think this is a good thing?

 The only thing standard in the MTB world is, there is no standard.

 One thing that annoys the hell out of me is that they can't just pick a standard and use it over a wide variety of bikes. Why can't I put my V10 wheels on my Nomad? There's so many times a full DH set of rubber/wheels would be perfect on my Nomad (day of lift access in the morning and then out of bounds pedal off the top in the afternoon). Did we really need a 15mm axle for Boost when the 20mm DH hub would be just fine? And if 15mm is just fine on a single crown fork designed for Enduro'ing your ass down the Whistler EWS course, then surely it's perfect for a dual crown fork as well, no?
Specialized has used 135mm on modern DH bikes. Why can't 147mm be used? Or what's wrong with 157mm on a hard hitting trail bike? This is not a crack at SC, as it makes sense they'd use the 'industry standard' for trail bikes on their trail bikes, and vice versa for the DH. But why can't the industry as a whole go one way and stick with it?

 I'm constantly tempted to buy upgrades for my bikes. I like working on my bikes. I don't like spending hours online trying to figure out which parts are compatible. End result? I don't bother buying the parts, it's too much hassle.

You're losing out on my money. Either keep things simple or make me an awesome idiot proof app which tells me what parts are compatible with what

 My .02, I've been involved in mtb suspension innovation and design since the beginning. First as the rider, then the pro XC/DH racer, then in customer service, then development and now as the designer and head engineer. A lot of what we did back then was carried over from previous ideas, mostly from the road but then moto influence came into play with suspension fork designs, full suspension bikes, disc brakes, etc. This from a design stand point, in hindsite, is/was total blue ocean stuff. At first we doubted suspension, then we rode it and found out it made the ride better. Less fatigue, faster, more fun. Then full suspension bikes, God this was a mess at the beginning, again it made the ride better regardless. Slogan's like, "Suspend the rider not the bike" was a marketing line from Klien for years, huh? There was a whole era there, Beam bikes, URT, Klien's Mantra...Be glad a lot of you are young and missed that era. I was a suspension seat post rider. Hardtails and suspension posts were the ticket! Then disc brakes. The always revolving wheel size wasn't on the map until what 5 years ago? Now wrap all that up and throw 5 or 6 more rear cogs in the mix, add into the mix wider rims and you get what we had today. It's the constant with every design project to date, shove 10lbs of s#@T in a 5lb bag. We keep that bag full too! No extra room anywhere. Until lately in some regards. Some address things like Rear shocks only having 0.5mm gap prior to clashing metal on metal at bottom-out and parts so small they really are just gizmos, not really performance features, now we have metric standard rear shock designs. It gives us, the designers, a whooping 10mm more internal space to work with. Keep that 5lb bag full ! They start off as headaches but, also places for improvement if you are an optimist. We've been learning how to do it right for years. In contrast, back when I rode and got into racing I had one bike for everything. Now there's a bike for every aspect of riding. Progress! Boost could have happened years ago when I called Paul Turner and asked what size front hubs were they going to use for their DH fork. Turner says 120 x 20mm. In most cases today this would have been good to know for all involved, mainly the consumer right? Wrong, They changed to 110 x 20mm without saying a word. Fun, We had our fork done, 120 x 20mm 180mm X-Vert (rim brakes still!!). We chose to convert to try and create something standard, RS had the momentum here at the time. Let's not forget, Manitou and Rockshox were direct competitors back then. So looking back it was most likely a move on Paul's side to feed us bad info or their ideas changed in the process. On the other hand, We could have continued with a wider version. Boost front hubs were created mainly for the 29 market. In fact boost was a for thought of the 29 DH movement. A 110 x 15mm front wheel is awesome for 29". Also with boost came a change in brake spacing. It allowed the brake and spoke flange to move outward 5mm. This is the main reason boost came around. So now you have a stiffer wheel for 29 and down the line. At the same time, Fat bikes showed up, new tire sizes, Plus tires. For me Plus is the same as 29". Only issue there, tire and rim manufacturers measured their products differently and the information that wa savailable was vague. Why, because of competitiveness. Signing an NDA to get info on tire sizes so we could design suspension forks to fit it? I call it not playing nice. Nobody openly sharing the new design envelope. I mean back when we had the idea for 1.5" headsets we openly put it out there for all the share and so it could become a standard. Our competitors kinda laughed at it. I mean seriously, we just went thru 1" threaded, 1 1/4 evolution and back to 1 1/8". Now look where that landed because noby wanted to collaborate. We got tapered which I think is the best of everything. Again there's got to be somebody that goes with 1.5" lower 1 1/4" upper... I mean come on. All this does is create more work. Did it sell more bikes? I doubt it. Was it better? Negligible at best. The rear end of the bike pushing out multiple times seems to be a bit more complex. I just built up my first All boost bike. I had to run the wider 158mm q factor crank spacing and my heals still clip the chain stays. Press BB's, thankfully I have had no design influence in this area. I understand, no threads allows for this material and in turn lighter but I thought we had a good thing going with threaded. My guess is it is due to the whole carbon fiber frame evolution. Cheaper to produce, lighter, new marketing, fresh and new. My guess is the bike industry will flatten out in terms of these innovations and settle into a bigger "normal" then we had back in the day. I'm an XC / All mtn guy and there's a whole market of bikes and products for me as well as all the other genres of bike riders. I think were done learning how to build bikes write now. It's just a matter of time until all the extra fluff fades away. ...and then there's e-bikes. Have fun at you symposium Vernon. Any suspension companies going? I'd love to be there!

 I am a PC gaming enthusiast as much as I am into mountain bikes, and I have to say I am blown away by how well competitors get along in that world and how long those hardware companies stick to standards. It is common for a socket or component on a PC to stay the same format for up to 10 years! Sure, the tech that slots into those sockets improves rapidly, but they seem to understand that they need to keep things the same for a while to allow consumers to buy the existing products, and that way they don't have to wait for people to catch on. I feel like it's cheaper for them to continue to develop within a certain standard rather than re-tooling everything and hoping that people catch on. I am supportive of the innovations I've seen in the bike industry the last few years, but agree with people that sometimes it is excessive, or not worth the massive changes for very small performance benefits.

 What a minefield. Of comments. I'm going to try to answer the question in the article rather than do more ranting. There are some good points being made here.

The things I'm most concerned about are: (1) peer review; (2) Inter-compatibility; (3) legacy support; (4) experimental trickle-down; and (5) market review.

The bicycle industry has exploded in size in the last 10 years, and in so doing, seems to me to have lost touch on a more personal level with the people buying stuff - or at least failed to acknowledge the changing demographic. At the same time the profile of the buying public has changed; where once bikes were cobbled together and lovingly maintained by a niche demographic which was scrimping and saving to support a hobby, it's become mainstream, appealed to a much richer thrill-seeking group, and has just about left the original group on which it was founded behind entirely.

Let's assume for a moment that, given this conference is happening at all, there is an interest in reconnecting with people who buy bikes as more than open wallets. Wouldn't it be good for everyone if product launches were met with excitement rather than groans? When did that last happen? So, Industry - you need to rebuild a little faith. This will mean doing things to make your public feel good, and looked after, rather than scratching a meaningless statistical itch (3.8% stiffer, 9% lighter etc etc) just for the sake of product differentiation and sales. We're at a point where bikes are phenomenally capable, and all of the designers and customers and marketing agencies could really benefit from a breather. You should ask yourselves - at what point does consumer ethics surpass profit?

So to address the five points above, my questions are:

(1) Peer Review - and a consumer-focused, corporate membership scheme. This exists in so many other construction, design and manufacturing sectors; model approaches are readily available. Can you envisage an industry 'steering group' of sorts, perhaps this very one, based on voluntary membership and by necessity composed of a spectrum of brands and fabricators from the behemoths of Specialized to small-scale innovators and component manufacturers? Chris King is at this table; so too should be Paragon Machine Works, who make a staggering array of frame building parts and virtually single-handedly support grass-roots frame building. What remit and power do you think this group could have? What would its code of conduct and ethics look like, and how as a body could it promote membership as a valuable asset, allowing members to promote themselves as user-focussed groups with a real interest in enduring enjoyment of their product?

(2) Inter-compatibility. Using this group to bring together diverse engineering thinking, would it be possible to objectively assess emerging innovation against tangible benefit - and in so doing to remember specifically that the most beneficial component innovation for riders is always going to be one you can bolt to an existing assemblage of other components?

I'll give you an example. I have a set of American Classic hubs which started life as 100/135 9mm QR. With relatively cheap switches of internals, they've now moved to 100x15 and 142x12. In future, as and when I can afford or need a new chassis, AC now produce parts to change them to 110x15 and 148x12, and swap out the freehub for XD. That is frankly amazing - everyone wins. I can make incremental, low-cost improvement; AC maintain a revenue stream for upgrade parts and avoid costly re-tooling; and they've also built invaluable social capital because people like me will buy their hubs again, when they eventually do wear out. Was this accident or luck? I doubt it. They could/should be marketing the crap out of the idea. I see opportunities for this kind of future-proofing in all sorts of other spaces, from swappable rear dropouts, to adjustable back ends that let you tune BB height for different wheel sizes, to fork arches that accommodate virtually everything currently made... this is only possible through inter-brand cooperation. It creates market fluidity, avoids locked-in standards, and promotes choice without compromise. To achieve this, you need to trend forecast and work on best-case engineering solutions outside of the product delivery stream.

(3) Legacy Support. If, and only if, a new innovation truly necessitates incompatibility with an existing standard (e.g. the move from 1 1/8 to tapered), will members of this group commit to legacy support for a defined period, say a minimum of 10 years and preferably more, during which time top-quality engineering will continue to be available at sensible prices? For example - it's difficult if not impossible to get a charger damper in a 1 1/8 fork, even though there is no reason at all why that shouldn't be a simple thing to produce. A little product legacy analysis, a fine-grained understanding of which parts can be brought together into an assembly, and responsible attitudes to existing customers would make this quite possible.

(4) Experimental trickle-down. The industry seems to be in a constant rush to move competition-level R&D into consumer products as fast as possible. Again, a bit of breathing space would be a great benefit. Whilst 10ths of a second matter in competition, they really don't to the people buying bikes, and making incompatible parts to achieve this notional gain is frankly irresponsible. Is there scope for the group to review and comment on race product development BEFORE the knee-jerk conversion to consumer product?

(5) Market Review. This might be the most important of all, and gets to the heart of the purpose of this article. Given the explosion of standards in the last few years, are members of the group prepared to commit to a moratorium on new, differentiated development to allow time for market review - and make use of trend forecasters and best-case engineering ideation to predict and commit to a consolidated set of standards which give scope for incremental innovation without obsolescence? How might you sell this to a jaded consumer base as a way to rebuild social capital, and as a benefit of selecting one of your brands?

That's it. And quite enough. Good luck!

 A company often wins when they can differentiate themselves from their competitors and show a distinct advantage. I believe a lot of companies in the bike industry differentiate themselves but they don’t have a true advantage. Car companies, cellphones, computers, energy drinks, running shoes, outdoor camping gear, weight-loss products and thousands of other industries…. And now… bike manufactures are doing a hard sales pitch. I remember ads in the early 1990s were about riding your bike. Now ads are about bb height and head tube angles. (I guess riding your bike is assumed)

So, in a market of everything being the same how does the bike industry get US to purchase THEIR new bike or part? They might tweak this or that, widen here or there, go metric and label it something new that is a “game changer”, “extremely supple”, “stable”, “faster”…. AND they buy enough media to saturate the major media outlets bikers hang out in so bikers start drinking their kool-aid®. If we believe their new thing is the best thing (like they said)…they can get away with spending 500k on media instead of spending much more to actually MAKE a new product better.

Now bikers care about offsets, tube angles, external widths, internal widths, engagements points, cassette ranges and suspension tunes more than ever before. An educated consumer is a powerful consumer but we can’t confuse education and being sold. The newest thing isn’t always the best thing. The new standard isn’t always worth it. And riding your bike instead of getting caught up in the sales pitch will always win. Care about what’s happening but get your opinion from trying the product and coming to your own conclusion.

And, by the way….My 2016 cellphone lasted longer than my 2017 bike did.

 What's the feasibility of whenever a "minor" change is made to accompany it with adapters off the bat. Adapters have come along for boost wheels, but it took a while and would be nice if they were available from the start. This also works better as things get wider as opposed to narrower.

Other than that, how about a commitment from brands to support X standard for a minimum of 10 years. I don't even really believe this will work, but maybe it will help?

 The bottom line is whoever has the latest innovation can capture the most sales before everyone else. Then it takes another "innovation" to push the market again, so on and so forth. The OEM's don't make money on the used market, so they don't care that your 5-year-old $5,000 bike is now only worth $500.

 As an industry guy in the "inside" I can say I think the desire to make better products is truly the motivating factor. However, I do believe that more forethought needs to happen as we look at standards across the board. Is it really worth it or are we just making yet another frustrating buying experience for the consumer?

 Seeing as we had 135 x 9 then 142 x 12 then 148 x 12 and now super boost , one cant help but think that the bike manufacturers are actually making incremental changes for more money. My question is this:
What is the end goal for axle standards? Is it a specific measurment that the industry is creeping towards slowly to extend profits along the way? Or has this song and dance been an experiment?

 Question: Most other design industries participate in keeping to industry standards through external engineering groups, do frame and component companies have any sort of collaboration with external groups who create guidelines? For example, electronic appliance companies have CE mark, UL listing, etc guidelines so that things remain compatible between brands. The automotive industry has standards so that vendors products work for different designers. Standards limit creativity is some regards but also creates an environment where all companies can directly compete and be a part of the same game. Consumers need reassurance that standards are actual standards.

 Tell Shimano to swallow their pride and just adopt the XD hub standard on their new cassettes. It's a more mature move than demanding everyone switch, and gives them a better chance of having folks switch back to Shimano from Sram.

 Another one. The bike industry does not seem capable of supporting legacy standards or harmonizing and rationalizing standards for parts and components wholly within the domain of Bikes.

Enter ebikes where battery design and manufacture is supplied by third parties. What assurance and confidence should consumers have that battery supply will be supported for any reasonable length of time? What assurance can industry give that a consumer's ebike won't be pretty orphaned doorstop 5, 10 years down the road?

 New tech is fine by me.
My issue is what support will remain for the older designs?
I like my 142 rear hub and 15mm maxle front.

 If you are going to introduce any new standard, consider rolling out the necessary adapters for the rest of us right at product launch. At least then our old parts don't become obsolete so quickly.

 150/83 for enduro and DH.
142/73 trail and down.
I think most gravity riders are use to that spacing. Cross country and trailbikes don't need the spacing. We always hear how "a couple of millimeters for an engineer is like a mile" so give the room to work on the beefier bikes. They can build plenty of stiffness in the already existing hum standards. Hope was able to get great stiffness out of the narrow hub on their carbon bike. Engineers should be able to get something out of all the room afforded on the wider BB and wider hub.

 An informed and observant cyclist will easily decipher between what is truly an engineering advancement and what is a marketing gimmick. The majority of comments on this article will be from the more discerning customers, as the pinkbike community is, and at the end of the day we will still be the ones watching the consumer herd jump on every new bandwagon that comes by.

 Things that should be standard in no particular order (copying from some already posted comments)
Caution: may be unreasonably unrealistic.

1. Hub spacing (or at least like, only three standards (DH, fatbike, mtb?)
2. Water bottle lids
3. Marked tire widths (Maxxis.)
4. Bottom brackets
5. Headsets
6. Freehub bodies
7. Spokes (J-bend or straight pull. Really, pick one) also more standard lengths would be nice.
8. Spoke nipples (so you don't need like 7 spoke wrenches)
9. Bar clamp diameters (31.8 vs 35)
10. Bolts (especially cockpit hardware. pick a size. preferrably 4 or 5 or T25 torx or something reasonable)
11. Seatpost size (why do we need 31.6 and 30.9?)
12. Clamp-sharing stuff. (this probably isn't going to happen, but it would be nice to be able to mount Sram and Shimano stuff together without an aftermarket adapter)
13. Derailleur hangers!! it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to just pick one derailleur hanger and stick with it. Or at least keep them in stock. Jeez.
14. Shock sizes. Metric is better, but really
15. Front through-axles. 15? 20? 47?
16. Brake pads. they don't need to be the same compounds or anything, but same size and shape would be nice.
17. Fork offsets. Maybe 42 or 44 or 46 or 51 or 65 is better for 29ers or 27.5, but fricking pick one.
18. Making new standards at least somewhat compatible with old standards, and having adapters available from the start.
19. Timed releases of new standards. Maybe if companies had to wait a year or two to introduce a standard, they wouldn't some out so half-baked.
20. Standards! standards should be standard!

That's probably not a complete list, just everything I could think of at the moment.

 I agree with the article on the issue of too rapid of changes. I feel this is having a huge affect on bike sales. DH bikes in particular. DH bikes seem to be going through a massive identity crisis right now. 27.5 vs 29. super boost vs. 175dh. standard shocks vs. metric. Carbon vs alu. And now 203 vs 250mm rotors... Too much is changing way too fast. Most are gonna sit on what they have till it calms down a bit.

 I hope companies like Surly and Hope can provide input into the symposium as they've come up with clever ways to future-proof and adapt bikes and parts to these fast-changing standards (e.g., Surly's gnot boost drop-outs, work with 135,142 and 148mm standards). As much as possible, companies should engineer a new standard to be adaptable to previous iterations of past standards.

 @vernonfelton If enduro bikes are being ridden on downhill-esque tracks, and enduro frames are being designed to handle downhill abuse, why, oh why, do they just not use downhill standards?

Weight gain would be negligible on such a bike, and with 12x150/157 and 20x110 axles together with an 83mm BB, we'd have all the spacing and strength we could ask for. Find out, please!

 Is there bicycle industry version of SAE? A body that regulates requirements for certain types of parts and components, ensuring they meet design and engineering criteria, testing requirements, etc. Automobile manufacturers have absolute freedom to design a chassis and it's components however they see fit, but there are certain components which must meet certain standards. Wheels must have a certain bolt center diameter, brakes must be a certain size, and so on. This is important to ensure compatibility, ease of service, and competitive products from varying manufacturers.

A consortium or regulatory body for design and manufacturing in the cycling industry would be extraordinarily beneficial for parts that are regularly and commonly replaceable; hubs, brakes, seat posts, handle bars, forks, etc. Parts specific to the chassis or frame can be manufacturer specific. I don't expect to be able to get a front control arm for my Ford from Chevrolet.

A final point; standards do not stifle progress or innovation. A good, well thought out standard will force manufacturers to develop the best product to meet the requirements of that standard instead of giving them the freedom to come up with some half baked variant because following the standard was inconvenient. If everyone has to play within a certain range of criteria or variables then it becomes about how you do what you do rather than what it is. We need innovative standards that push design and manufacturing to design and build the best products.

 perhaps the problem isn't the continuous development of new parts, perhaps it is our perception?

we can be either for or against progress. we can't tell the manufacturers to hold on to standards for X years, and then all change at the same time. nobody would buy bikes for all the years in between and they'd all go broke.

we need continuous development. sure some of the updates people are seeing as unnecessary, for instance boost 148...lots of comments are suggesting it's not necessary, but maybe those people are looking at it from purely their 27.5" wheel view? but a few have pointed out that they're a great hub standard for 29ers.

and that's where I think the bike manufacturers are coming from. they're looking at every possible angle where we're generally only thinking about how something impacts us directly.

sure, perhaps there are some changes that might not be something we should have on our bikes, perhaps they're half way markers when the brands should have gone in the whole hog. nobody gets it right all the time.

but perhaps we also need to not view our current standards as old and obsolete, because then so does the second hand market. if the bike you're on now does the job perfectly for you, but still has 142hubs, only a 100mm dropper and a 10speed cassette, then why should it not do the job just as well for the next person to buy it from you?

we're angry about the constant development, suggesting it's unnecessary, but at the same time, it seems the market still wants it? otherwise we'd all be riding our bikes longer. i'm always seeing in my local market each year around this time, piles of last years bikes being sold to be replaced with this years...

 At what point do we stop? Standards and innovation walk a fine line. Without innovation we'd be stuck riding full rigid frames with v-brakes or for that matter not even mountain/biking at all. We'd be stuck ski touring in heavy clunky ski gear without avalanche rescue tools and have cars where you have to roll down the window yourself, and maybe still using an outhouse instead of a flush toilet. Granted it is nice when one toilet seat fits another but even there you need to be careful on which seat you buy.

Mountain biking is still in the design infancy stage with nothing but change in the future. Again look at skiing or even Snow MX Bikes as an example, still looking for better solutions. Yes, I feel some of it is tactical marketing but as an overall industry I love what engineers and designers are trying to do: make a better, faster, stronger, lighter product that is more fun to use. And maybe a new product that revolutionizes an industry results.

Without change in life, you are either done or dead, mentally and physically. Keep it up designers/engineers...you rule!! Can't wait to see what I can dream of next year.

Nothing is forever in life, except change itself.

 I know my spending on bikes and parts is a droop in the ocean,but for me to fund this drop is quite hard, I do think that constantly changing standards take out the pleasure of riding and building bikes. To begin with I'm not against innovation but a line should be drawn at constant changes. Unfortunately bike industry is the perfect example of consumer society we're fooled by new standards and we, let's face it, fall for them. I use an"old????"(2014) banshee legend with 26" wheels and I remember how upset I was when 27.5 wheels (now yes 29) came into trend. Yeah tough luck for me but without any bad feeling I can ask that "Do these new standards make me a better rider?" I think nope, I believe we should spend our hard earned money on those things which make sense.

 Innovation is incremental change, and there are a lot of players in the bicycle industry. To think that manufactures can innovate while simultaneously making sure every other manufacturer is on board seems unrealistic. As long as we want bikes to evolve, there are going to be new standards. I've never heard anyone complain that the wheels on their Audi don't fit on there Toyota, or that the engine in their Polaris won't fit in their Arctic Cat.

 at one point someone realized that if they change the standards...they will have more products to sell to consumers. then all they have to do is convince the consumer that the newer standard is the better one. not that difficult I'm sure.

as consumers/gear heads we gobble it up like hungry birds, and the bike industry is laughing all the way to the bank...while I have 1/2 dozen bikes in my garage with no interchangeable parts...smh.

f*ck you very much!

 Until people quit purchasing these ever-changing standards and make the bike companies realize we will not stand for it anymore they will keep doing it. The most powerful voice you have is with your pocketbook. At the end of the day not a single board meeting talks about if their customers are happy it's all profits and numbers people.

 To me there is a huge responsability for journalists in this problem : they never doubt that the latest relase is useless. Come on, get the engineer to explain their test protocol, the dimensioning.

All they see are the fancy heli drops, the Power Point announcing +0.0001% increase in yield/stiffness/radness. Then they get a free shirt and a beer. And all they have to do is write a 500 words infomercial with photos of pro riders and a couple of graphics to show the science. I'm talking to you @vernonfelton

 I think the industry has shot themselves in the foot. From my industry friends I keep hearing sales are flat. I’m not buying anything new, it’’s not that I don’t have the money, it’s just I’m tired of the new standards and I’m going to wait till at least they settle on an axle size. 148? 15mm front, what was wrong with 20mm? I think we can all predict 20mm is going to come back as the standard with all the long travel 29ers in play. As Mike Ferrentino noted in a Bike Mag article the 15mm vs. 20mm debate went on when long travel 29ers weren’t the rage. Add to the DVOs comments about 20mm x 110mm this year, It’s bound to happen. So guess what, I’m not buying shit from any bike company. I have cash burning a hole in my pocket for a new bike but I’m just gonna wait. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

Now since Chris King is hosting this. I really love your hubs, but for you to make a boost 110x15 front hub and leave it at that is shooting yourself in the foot. Boost is hear to stay and we all have to face the music. Your hubs are great but for my next bike I’m considering Hope or Industry Nine because their hubs are more easily upgradeable. You guys used to live by the motto “These are not disposable parts…” but 110x15 is it. While with i9 and Hope it’s one front hub and you can QR, 15mm, or 20mm.

Then the companies with their proprietary headsets and parts, yes Trek, and Cannondale, no thanks. I want to be able to pick up a frame, build my way, and if something breaks or creaks I can fix it of find a part for it easily.

Please make big changes that matter, not 1 or 2mm here and there.

 Keep the new standards coming. One person's leftovers for the "gotta have new stuff attitude" is another persons now affordable happiness.

That said, will we eventually be running our stems backwards with the top tubes growing each year? At what point, will the BB have to be moved fwd to accommodate proper center of mass within the base of support in the ready position.

 Why must manufacturers cheap out on many of the most important components with new bike builds?

It is so frustrating to buy a brand new bike and instantly have to put $1000 into wheels that aren't made of cheese, $500 into upgrading contact points (Pedals, bars/stem, saddle), as well as a couple hundred to have the bike vinyl wrapped etc. Never mind the fact it comes with a 125mm dropper post on a size L 29er made for racing down hills?

My 2017 Trek Slash 9.8 I bought this year retailed for $7300CAD and was advertised as a race bike. I can tell you the $40 rims and $30 stem are NOT race ready. My $7300CAD bike would cost the average consumer almost $10,000CAD by the time it's built up ready to handle a summer on the local race circuit.

Stop cheaping out on components. Give me a bike I can use for the intended use out of the box.

 135mm to 142mm is the same as 150mm to 157mm DH spacing. The hub itself is the same but with 3.5mm extra length of end caps to allow slots in the frame to locate your wheel to make it easy to fit the axle. You can swap end caps with the same hub and it works for both. That was a good change.
148mm Boost spacing was a bad change. A few mm of change to flange spacing resulting in 1 or 2mm difference in spoke lengths resulting in 2/ of bugger all increase in stiffness. Is is better? Marginally. Was it worth bringing in a new standard. Hell no. Why not just use the existing 157mm spacing like Pivot did?
110mm/15mm boost front spacing. Why oh why? Who was bending front wheels at 100mm? Why not just use the existing 110mm/20mm DH standard if you want stronger/stiffer wheels?
111mm/20mm "boost" with the brake mount moved over 5mm...... that just makes me angry.

The worst new standard has to be 35mm bar/stem though. No need for that whatsoever.

Press fit bottom brackets are all about saving money for frame manufacturers, so I get why they exist, but they suck. No performance benefit. BSA threaded all the way!

 As an engineer working in the industry, I think it is hard to understand from the outside how difficult it is for the industry to establish and agree on standards, especially if you do not want to go by small steps. Big problems are:
- Shimano will (almost) never agree on a standard first established by Sram, and they will try to protect their own standard.
- If brands find a better solution, they want to take advantage from it and either patent it or at least tell no one about it. This also means new "standards" need to be designed around patents.
- The technical evolution of the bike comes with new challenges that do not work well with old standards. Bigger wheels, wider tires, bigger chainrings, it will just not work out with the standards of old
- The biggest problem is to get everyone together before new standards are set up. So everyone comes up with a solution that suits their need, but does not necessarily plays nice with others. e.g. Shimano understands well what helps them to come up with better components, but not necessarily how they could help frame designers make better frames.
- IMHO, most new standards are actually an improvement over the old one, but they are not as good as they could be. If people would talk together, then bigger steps could be achieved.
- Most of the times, if new standards are discussed, it is not the relevant people discussing them. It is small, boutique brands like Chris King. But that does not help if the big brands are not adopting them.

 I bought a my first bike right at the wrong time - 2014. It's 26 inch and has modern geo (65 HA, long, low) and rides amazing. So for me bring back 26 inch non-boost 142mm frames back and I'll buy a new frame/fork/wheelset because I can move my best parts around between them then (won't happen, I know). I'd have had 3 new frames at least on impulse purchases by now if I could swap in my expensive components that I've spent loads of money tuning to perfection for me. As it is I can't make myself sink 3 or 4 big ones into a whole new setup (new wheel size / tyres / boost hubs / boost fork / metric shock) for something that WILL be junk in 1-2 years so I haven't. In fact... it's made me get the most out of my current bike. Now I wonder if a new wheel size or wonder hub size bike will actually be any better at all. New doesn't necessarily mean better. I'd have sunk thousands of pounds into new frames and parts had I been able to move components from one to the other so the latest one always had my best parts but the old one was still fully ridable and able to be sold on. As it is I bought a 2nd hand 26er frame and swap parts around with that. Sort it out bike industry. In theory it does look about settled right now but I'm still going to lose so much money getting rid of everything 26er related for peanuts. I feel sorry for 1st generation 27.5 non boost bike owners the most. You got screwed over twice. Once leaving 26 behind and then re-building your wheels again for the next boost frame.

 I agree with the premise of the article...I hate how fast things are constantly evolving and making bikes barely a couple years old "obsolete" by the new technology standards. Even when carefully maintained, riders have problems getting fair $ for their used bikes because buyers look at it and just see "old" technology. All about the $$$ with the bike & component makers.

Even worse? When the "old" tech comes back in vogue, like coil suspension. As an avid fan of coils, while replacing my last bike I had to accept pretty much no bikes with the spec I wanted came with coils anymore. Not 2 weeks after I bought it, I saw an article here on PinkBike about "The return of the COIL!!". AYFKM?? [acronym, you can figure it out ]

Its not the progression that is the issue, as someone noted above, its that they will stop supporting the older designs. Then what? More waste, more non-recyclable carbon bikes & components in the landfills, etc.

 I believe we should question the long term serviceability of components, and establishing a minimum timescale for obsoletion whereby manufacturers must provide spares and equivalent quality replacement parts for a defined timescale. This in turn should cause self regulation from manufacturers, and a more considered approach towards future proofing of bikes, keeping consumers happy and allowing smaller manufacturers to invest in development more confidently.

 It's not worth it to buy new parts and bikes every year. I just bought a 2012 Kona Operator. My last bike was a 2004 Kona Scrap 5 years ago. After the next new standards comes out you can get good deals on the old standards.

 All the changing standards just keep meesing with the local bike shop/recreational rider buying experience.. Bring in your 2011 barely ridden bike that you still feel is a wicked bike and not be able to get parts to get you back on the trail today.. Instead its a 3 weeek wait to get the ‘old’ parts that they cant afford to stock.. I for one just keep upgrading every few years to keep up with the standards, that being said I ride alot and would probably need to repair/replace most parts anyway.

 Great idea but unless you get Shimano and SRAM to the table you aren't getting anywhere.

Shimano doesn't have boost compatibility, useful single chainrings, a dropper post, or 12 speed drivetrains yet. They seem to be years behind SRAM who makes every component possible on the bike.

Props to CK but the bike industry is nothing like the motorcycle industry which it has tried to emulate (engineering wise) since the start. It is a hot mess.

Oh and just admit that your current focus is E-bikes and get on with it.

 Standardize certain components like: one pressfit/one external bb standard. 142/100 hubs for all mtbs , 100/130 for road etc etc. As a mechanic it is a real drain when you have to stock a million and one different headsets and bottom brackets to ensure you have all bases covered. Also think it would be beneficial to the manufacturers of components to not have to pay for expensive tooling and moulds, and use that money on improving in other ways.

 standards wouldn't matter as much if bikes came off the floor with more optimized spec. You bet I'm going to toss the garbage wheels that come on my next bike and boostinate my current carbon wheels with star ratchets. Just got pretty short life out of a 11speed road cassette, even keeping an eye on chain stretch. I like front derailleurs as they give me a wide range even if a bent hanger, or mud blocks off gears on either end of the cassette.

 When I bought my Kona in 2008, I had the opportunity to get a 29er. But it was pretty new and I was leery of adopting a new technology that hadn't proven itself yet. Fast forward 9 years and it is time to buy a bike again. (I know, I know, but I don't have the funds to change bikes like some people change shoes). In the time between, 29 gave way to 27.5, which has now given way back to 29 (and 27.5 some more) with wider/stiffer wheels, hub spacing has gone all over the place, wheel widths are still in flux, and axle spacing is STILL going wider and wider.

All these things are great innovations in cycling, where that technology had been a standard for DECADES. And there is the problem. It's like the Wild West of wheel dimensions. Up to the 29er revolution, you could go into any bike shop and buy a hub/wheel combo and it was guaranteed to work with your bike. Period. With the flavor of the week components that we now have, it becomes more difficult to get a part on the quick. It also means that with constantly changing widths, the scope of parts required to fit a given hub/wheel/frame becomes overly broad, which decreases the market for a given size. This in turn, will result in higher pricing for a given size due to companies having to maintain a larger catalog.

Maybe in the end, manufacturers won't see a difference in their bottom line, but as a consumer, expecting us to be on board with anything outside of even 148 is asking a lot. Think about it, only now are the boutique brands and majors getting their lineups to 148 boost sizes. How long has this size been out, only to be cast aside in favor of newer widths?

I think the correct course of action would be for manufactures to work together using new tech for race teams. Sort it out for a few years and when the dust settles, THEN introduce your findings as a standard. It would make things much easier for the consumer, and that is why they make product, right?

 It's just shortsightedness by the industry. Whilst changing these standards to hopefully make a little more profit, I don't think they realise that they are ruining the entire "cool bike dude" image so many manufacturers try to portray resulting in us consumers just plainly not trusting them. Would one of the "cool bike dude" manufacturers have been criticised by consumers for not taking up the whole boost bullshit? Nope. I conclude that there are no "cool bike dude" companies. Just corporate sharks who couldn't give a stuff about us riders.

 @vernonfelton My question to them would be: have they researched what the ideal size hub is for mountain biking? If not, how come? More specific, what size hub is best for 26, 27, or 29 inch wheels? Or, what size hub is best for xc, trail, or DH?

From my perspective, the MTB industry does things backwards. Rather than use science/engineering to find the ideal size, it seems things just drift along so what you get are things like "super boost plus," which is just an incremental change to an old size.

 I would like to see the following: Going back to 9 or 10 speeds using the current 12 speed chain width, casette spacing, and rear cassette ratio range, thereby freeing up some extra hub space to create a better, maybe even symmetrical, spoke angle. If they could keep the same range using fewer cassette cogs and still make it shift well, it woụld make a stronger wheel. The reduced number of gears would mean fewer shifts to get to the ring I need. Anybody with me?

 As an old timer coming around to by a new MTB after 18 years - it's mind blowing how many different standards there are and how fragmented the market is compared to 15-20 years ago. Prices have about doubled since then, and I believe the average bike company is probably less profitable than before. Better standardization will actually help allow the best products to surface to the top, rather than having one company trying to differentiate the other buy having a different standard. Prices due to larger production volumes will decrease will quality will increase.

It's really up to the big guys to drive this (Shimano, SRAM, Giants, Treks, Specialized, etc) - through agreement as consortium and probably acquiring upstarts that are coming up with good ideas. I have no doubt engineering talent dilution is a contributor as well...working in Silicon Valley myself...the lure of tech industry for engineering far overshadows the bike or even auto industry nowadays.

 I've stuck with my "old" bike because I don't know which bandwagon to jump on, I'm fine with 26" wheels and 135mm rear axle. Seems every time I see a new bike that interests me I just end up thinking that it's not got boost axles or is missing a metric shock and will be outdated in no time. I'm definitely spending less money due to the rate of change.

 The rate of new standards is dizzying. While hubs (shown) is a recent issue, I think Bottom Brackets are the worse offender. Partially, because I ride road a lot. But yeah, the lack of standards is pretty damn ridiculous.

So, here is my question to the industry panel:

Is there some sort of review process that we can put in place to ensure that A) we don't slow down innovation, B) we vet the idea before putting the thing into production, and C) Bicycle brands will realize that by rushing to adopt a new "standard" that ultimately won't be successful long term, they are hurting the community and themselves.

Looking right at you big S, with your 142+ hubs. Pfffff!

 As long as there are early adopter dentists willing to throw money at every new pointless standards big manufactures come up with. We'll never have actual standards that last a few years.

 With all these new standards, many of us have decided not to buy another bike until things settle down, even though we have cash to get a new ride. We don't want our new rides to be outdated by the time we build it. At what point does the negative impact of incremental changes out weight the positive impact?

 The very first thing to do is bin the word 'Standard'. Its grossly misused and is probably the most misleading of this whole discussion.

Yeah we have to progress but the blame lies with the clueless misinformed folk who gulibly lap up everything that manufacturers dream up. If the consumer. That's us. Will just stop for a minute, do some research and most importantly some CRITICAL thinking then ask around for advice we, the consumers can stop 90% off the bullshit that marketing departments come up with. At the moment it seems very much like a marketing bullshit driven industry but then customers whinge about all this new tech as they don't bother to actually evaluate if the new best thing is actually an advantage and if so by how much but gladly throw money at it regardless.

lastly this all comes back around to cost. Gone are the days of 'If you can't afford it you can't have it'. Everything is so finance, credit and debt driven these days manufacturers have free reign to overprice everything they sell because they can go hey look 0% APR. So what will the manufacturer then do. Dream up some hocus pocus smoke and mirrors tale that their new idea is awesome just so it seems like your getting the latest and greatest offering. So the next 24 months of paying for a bike that's MORE EXPENSIVE than a f*cking brand new car doesn't seem so bad.

 In my opinion, the standards that we see popping up every few months are a necessity for companies to stay "relevant". If a company was like, ok this is it, we stop here, then they would slowly lose market share because they aren't coming out with anything fresh and new. They're essentially keeping up with the Jones. The big "problem" that a lot of us have with the ever changing standard is not actually the standard itself, it's a problem that we can't control within; our desire to have that new thing. With that decision to go to the next standard we try selling a bunch a perfectly good stuff for next to nothing. SO, I personally feel that we are not butt hurt about the standard itself, we are butt hurt about our inability to resist and most people just don't know it because consumerism is engrained in us, and ESPECIALLY is the form of bikes, a hobby we all follow and cherish so dearly. Last example where I speak for myself but others may be able to relate: the new iPhone is released, I could honestly care less, i still use an old outdated and working just fine one, but people across the world are scrambling to come up with a grand to get one. A new axle standard comes out, I say meh whatever, a few people around me talk about it, I see it in the shop a few times, and see it enough on pb. Next thing you know I have a new fork, frame and wheels. The industry is good at marketing and we can't resist, that's the actual problem that everyone is pissing and moaning about. Please ride your bicycle.

 It was awesome when any frame you had fit with any hub you wanted. I don't like buying completes, cause there is always a compromise, or you're shelling out huge bucks at a time, which I rarely wanna do. None stop incremental changes mean a greater chance of buying completes and being left with "obsolete" gear that just sits in a bin or gets sold to logical people at a huge discount. I can't get behind any of it unless the improvements are monumental.

 When creating a new standard, ask yourself - What is the TRUE value added with this product? Is the value so great that it's worth the replacement cost, as someone who likely has a fixed budget to spend on a bicycle?

Some products knock this out of the park - the wide/narrow chainring, for example. The performance advantage is clearly worth the $40 a new chain ring costs.

Going from 20mm x 110 front axles to 15mm x 110 boost? Not at all worth the 200+ dollar investment in a new hub (at best), or a new fork (at worst).

I feel like companies don't ask themselves this question. It's instead- is there value added? If the question is (even remotely, on paper) yes, they run with it. There's little cost consideration on behalf of the actual consumers.

 Some more thoughts on all of this, more because I'm fed up rather than anything else.

35mm bars and stems: Pick up a 31.8mm Raceface SixC carbon bar in one hand and a 35mm one in the other. Tell me which one you'd rather ride. Better yet, bolt a 35mm carbon bar set up onto your bike, then a 31.8mm carbon set up, then an alloy set up and tell me which one you'd rather have. 35mm wins on every level. Don't like it? You can still get 31.8mm stuff. It's "significantly" (By 10 grams! but also 15mm narrower at its widest) heavier than 35mm stuff and feels harsher to ride, but it's still out there. 31.8mm isn't as good as 35mm not because the "industry" isn't trying as hard. It's not as good because the extra 3.2mm makes a noticeable difference in how bars can be put together and produced.

Sometimes stuff reaches the end of the line in terms of development. Like the 30 pin connector we all knew and loved, it's time for 31.8 to go away. Boost 148 though, that shouldn't go away.

135X9 and 142X12 = the same damn thing. Same exact hub width, spacing, and width between the flanges. One has a thru-axle, but they're the same damn hubs. 150 and 157mm, same thing. Only 150mm hubs floated around and didn't have a notch on each side of the frame to slot into, making putting a wheel in a hassle. An extra 3.5mm on each end made for 157mm hubs and that 3.5mm was used to interface into slots on the rear dropouts like you got with 135X9 and 142X12.

Boost is fundamentally better. Is it a huge difference? Not for everyone, but at least it doesn't mess with Q-factor, something 150 and 157 can't claim. Sure, Pivot will tell you that Super Boost Plus 157 is the way of the future, but if it were that good A- they'd be using their idiotic hub "standard" on more of their bikes, especially the new Mach 6, and B- they'd be selling more Switchblades than they are. A lot more. You don't want a trail bike with 150/157mm rear hub spacing and Pivot's internal sales numbers for the Switchblade more than likely back me up on that. I can guarantee that my local Pivot dealer's sales numbers for that bike sure do back that up.

See, thing is that I've been in this game on the back-shop tech, floor sales, and company sides of things, on and off, for a damn long time. I remember what it was like to ride bikes that had "standards." It's what made me quit mountain biking for other pursuits. That stuff sucked.

Don't believe me? Go buy a $700 Giant hardtail at your local shop. It features all the "standards" you know and love! 135X9 rear hub spacing, 100X9 front hub spacing, a nice threaded, square taper bottom bracket, 30.9mm round seat post, a straight 1 1/8 headtube and steerer, and a 31.8mm handlebar/stem. As many old, commonly available standards as you can possibly cram on one bike! The bike of your standards dream is available, and it's ONLY $700!!! OMG MIND BLOWN!!!!!!!!!!! Even better, it's got a "standard" 3X8 drivetrain as well. None of that pussy 11/12 speed stuff with those narrow chains and expensive cassettes, no way! Just $700 of chain-sucky, "standards"-loving hardtail!

It's called a Talon 3, and for most Giant dealers it's one of the most important bikes available because it actually sells. A lot. By the pallet load in fact. For every pallet load of Talon 3s sold, a good giant dealer might sell 2-3 mid range full suspension trail bikes if they're doing OK that week. For every two-three pallets of Talons sold, they might sell one of their boutique brand trail bikes. It sucks to ride, but the people buying them don't care and the bikes are easy and cheap to support. The sad fact is that if you're arguing about standards on Pinkbike you're the bleeding edge of bike consumption. You are the 1% of mountain bikes. The 99% of mountain bikes still are "standardized," so to speak. Same garbage that's been on bikes for years and that's OK.

Where new "standards" are killing high-end cycling is in parts availability and complexity. In parts pricing and the fact that shops have to stock 325346457 different bottom brackets now, which isn't even relevant because no matter how many you've got you still never have the right one and all of your distributors are sold out while Chain Reaction has about a billion of the bottom brackets you need retailing at less than your cost price.

Car companies are responsible for making sure parts are available for their bikes. In cycling, that responsibility is passed along to component manufacturers. It's a model that doesn't work, in that SRAM and Shimano's priorities are different from those of their bike-building customers. Can I call Giant to get a bottom bracket for one of their bikes? Santa Cruz? No and no, but I can deal with a bunch of different distributors that might have it if I'm lucky. Seeing as how top-end bikes now cost as much as low-end cars, I think it's time for a change in terms of parts, support, and whose responsibility it is to provide replacement wear items and parts.

Then again, I wouldn't have to worry about that if I bought that new Hope bike. You know, the one with "standard" nothing at all, because Hope decided standards were stupid and that they could do better. By all accounts they have, so why aren't more companies following their lead?

And if they can't, at least start by bringing prices down. My mobile phone spends 12 hrs/day on me, either in my pocket or in one of my hands. It's the most crucial piece of technology I own and it cost just over $700 retail, unlocked. My laptop was less than $1500 and it's one of my primary work tools, meaning that it gets me paid. My mountain bike, a thing I ride 3-4 times/week for a couple hours at a time, cost me $3500 and I could have easily spent $7000 had I been able to afford it. How does the bike industry expect new riders to come into the sport and current riders to stay in it when a semi decent, entry level full suspension trail bike package is at least $3000 out-the-door and ready to ride??

 I would really like to see a return to a "no bullshit" style of bike building. I understand change for the sake of improvement, but how does having 100 different bottom bracket standards make a bike better? Often times stupid revisions like that make a bike worse and end up hurting the consumer all for a very marginal short term gain for the manufacturer. I also understand that collaboration between manufacturers is largely a pipe dream, but what about collaboration through the component makers? If frame makers agreed to confer with component makers before making a standards change wouldn't that weed out most of the stupid ideas?

 Relevant:
imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png

 I do my talking with my wallet... I only spend my money with companies that aren’t pushing crappy products or pointless standards and have some sort of a moral compass. I’ll be adding Chris King to my list of preferred products now and will be watching the outcome of this with interest to rule in and rule out who I give my money. If we all do this (and exercise some patience when working out what to buy) we’ll shape the industry (based on true performance gains) not the other way round despite their best efforts. Then we should see change based on real life performance gains and consumer demand rather than micro gains and bullshit.

 With all the brilliant minds within the industry is there no way that when these new “standards” (Used very loosely) that they also introduce some way of making the outgoing “standard” compatible with the newer one with spacers etc? There’s nothing worse than knowing that all of your old components, especially wheelsets since most spend quite a lot of money on them, are now completely useless and not even worth a penny reselling. I know manufacturers really don’t care about the second hand market, but surely allowing for this could increase the amount of frame only sales they would make, as people could afford to buy that and reuse all of their perfectly serviceable componentry on their brand new frames. Consumers are happy because they get the opportunity to upgrade to the latest bling bling without a second mortgage and manufacturers are happy because it’s cash money in their pockets. My 0.02 ????

 I think its a mixed bag for sure, but who is really to blame - if anyone? There's no denying that bikes today are notably better than those of 10 years ago... and better bikes is a great thing. But, do we all need better bikes? I certainly don't need them, but I sure as shit want them and buy them. Bike companies are in business to stay in business. As long us suckers keep buying the new, incrementally better stuff they push out; guess what, they're going to keep pushing it out. I absolutely encourage the change, accept that this is an expensive sport, and realize if you want to keep chasing the next best thing its going to be even more expensive.

 Personally I feel that innovation and creativity are wonderful driving forces and should be encouraged. The diverse world we live in is because of our ability to develop new ideas. I believe this conference is a great step towards better communication among bike enthusiasts of all kinds. Change is a constant. without it we would be stagnant. But the change in the bike industry happens quickly, and so it should be talked about among peers and implemented if it proves to actually give a benefit to riders.

 I'm reading through a lot of comments on here saying that so many new standards are creaded by the big players which I totally agree with but don't see many solutions or incentives for them to stop if they're making money. So many of the standards are also created for the performance gains that are seen at the professional race levels. I might get a lot of crap for saying this but why not get the UCI or the EWS guys to put restrictions on the bikes allowed to race just like with racecars, albeit for a different reason. I'm don't know why they would be willing to do this but does anyone know why this has never been done? This would definitely put an end to all the new standards if their sponsored racer's can't ride the newest standards.

 I'd like standard changes to be more meaningful. Change multiple things at once, or change them in a way where the only reason to change them again is if the sport changes. Evolution needs to be more disruptive and less iterative.

 As an engineer and a coach for a high school mountain bike team, this whole thing about standards in the cycling industry is frustrating as heck. I have a few spare parts that I carry to races but I generally don't have what's needed beyond master links. I can't swap out wheels, forks, brakes, and so on. I wish that the fork manufacturers would pick a standard axle for XC, downhill, enduro/all mountain and stick with it. Same goes for the rear hubs. Seriously, why can't big brands like Specialized or Trek use one size across their general line? It would save so much on stocked parts, save dealers, and make the lives of cyclists so much easier. The designers would have it so easy. Why bother calling anything a standard if you only use it in under 10% of any given genre of bikes? As an example, try finding the right derailleur hanger for a 10 year old brand name bike. It's possible if look at them every day but the average Joe would never find it on Google. Discussion isn't collusion. Get it together.

 I think that we've reached a point where most bikes and parts are very well engineered to start with. At that stage, minute changes need to happen in order to improve it because the really big changes have already been made. We don't necessarily need new "standards," but experimentation is the only way to keep improving technology that's already dialed pretty darn well.

 All is about advantages, incredibly there is never anything negative in the new stuff. This is pure marketing.

Take a ruler and mess 6mm, there is no much space there for a great technical revolution but these 6mm bring lot of money to some people.

New doesn’t mean always “Innovation”. There is nothing new in the boost, well: using a bit of sarcasm, yes, the new frame that you have to buy to amply your horizons in 6mm

 All these proprietary standards are ridiculous. Every manufacturer has their own standard which is not compatible with anything else. We (bike shops and consumers) don't need, or want, 9 Bottom Brackets, 7 Direct mount chainrings, 8 hub widths, etc. It's impossible for LBS's to stock inventory which leads to everyone buying their stuff online. I have not and will not support standards I do not agree with. Vote with your wallet.

 to me, it seems like the "standards" change based on the type of bike. i'm not smart enough to know WHY a DH bike needs a 157 or Super 157 hub and an XC only "needs" a 142. i just assume it has to do with bike geometry. i don't mind "boost" for the rear, but i think it's stupid for the front. we changed an entire line of forks just for a few millimeters.
the "idea" of widening the rear hub a "touch" so you can move that wheel forward to shorten the chainstays is a good idea. it would be nice if the through axles are the same size, 15mm both front and back. then i would say for those bikes that point down a mountain do a 15mm rear and a 20mm front for axles. at least you can see a trend for the more beefy engineering for bikes that point down a mountain and light efficient engineering for bikes that go up the mountain.
i personally, ride the bike until it's broke! you don't have to upgrade everything. if it worked 5 years ago on the same trail, you don't need a whole new bike to do the same trail. maybe the new bike saves you 10 seconds, but are you actually racing where you are getting paid? no? then ride your current bike until it dies, then get a whole new bike.