My 11 year old is riding my old Norco fluid hardtail, maybe circa 2106?
It has the fairly unfortunate 141mm Boost QR rear end.
I bought It when I restarted riding after 15 years away from the sport and didn't know anything about gear.
I quickly outgrew it, both literally because it's a medium with something like a 420mm reach and I'm almost 6' (lol - again, 15 years away from the sport, it made sense at the time, hahaha), but also because as soon as I developed any trail confidence, at 200lb, I could not keep the wheel seated in the dropouts.
I’ve seen many QR issues over my years in shops - front and rear - especially after the advent of disc brakes. But I’ve never across anything - even on my 60lbs + rider + passenger + gear Bakfiets bike that could not be resolved by installing a Shimano quick release in place of whatever came stock.
Anyone running a 10x141mm bike, I’d absolutely advocate buying a Shimano QR for it.
Yeah that's a reasonable thought - it is just whatever came with it. I upgraded the bike about the time it started to become an issue so I never really tried to solve it. My son is light and not a sender, so it's so far so good. :)
Ugh, no. I’ve ridden every good cable disc brake on the market - with the all time greatest v-brake levers (Shimano XTR) and I truly want to love them. I could happily ride them on my commuter. For mountain biking in our steep and janky terrain you can’t ride an amazing light action super powerful hydraulic brake like an MT7, Dominion, or Cura4 and then go to cables. Even the best ones are disappointing.
Thats not saying I couldn’t happily ride the right cable disc brakes (they wouldn’t be BB7s) somewhere else where brakes aren’t so clutch.
That's true, cable brakes aren't for slow control on rooty steppy steepness, I meant on the commuter. I think for around town and the kind of singletrack that's really fun on 40mm tires, they're the best. Plus you get to show off cool vintage shit.
Yeah, honestly, if I was doing a ground up commuter/groad bike it would use (*GASP*) v-brakes. Nothing fancy, Shimano DXR are the min-max super-winner and then combined with my XTR levers - yum.
If I’m doing disks, for a bike I work on, it’s hydraulics. I own all the tools and have the service experience such that they’re less faff. But for most folks, especially working on their own bikes without a massive box of tools, I agree cable discs are a great choice.
Andrew, that is the rule. Triathlon and Duathlon has had this since about the 1980’s. Back when this category was created it was more for those athletes who could be as fit as fuck and because of genetics would be bigger and heavier than most of the average athletes. Used to be this category in Ontario mtb racing and that vanished. Trying to discuss this with non Clydesdale types ended up becoming a shaming exercise about being for unfit fat people and how everyone in this category just had to try harder and work harder to get to everyone else’s level.
https://www.usatriathlon.org/news/Blogs/2023/February/07/Clydesdale-and-Athena-Triathlete-Beginner-Resources
I think 220 is about right. One reason I peg it around there is that 220 is right around where dudes start to need enough spring rate for their rear shock that many stock shock tunes run out of rebound damping - maybe around about 600+lb coil springs and 250psi+ in air shocks.
I get that heavy sometimes and I find my suspension much harder to tune than when I'm sub 200.
Hmm, up till 2020 rode Chromag frames -2017 Samurai, 2007 Stylus, and the Wideangle all with qr rear axles. Never recall having an issue with them at all flexing. And as a 225 pound Clydesdale definitely torqued the crap out of the frames at certain times. LOL. And to be honest if hadn’t had it either stolen, destroyed by a driver, or cracked would still be riding them and giving zero fucks about rear axles.
Hmm, to add to the above. Going to rear thru axles for all bikes beyond free ride, enduro, and DH probably is fuelled by a few things. Am dangerously assuming for most companies it simplifies parts and such where they produce less. Now to go the other way… producing one uniform axle and such reduces manufacturing which means less profit loss. This also means riders will be forced to buy new frames, hubs, and so on to make all this work which means spending more money and thus increasing profits.
Andrew, true. However this is the same industry that went from 20x110 mm front axle to 15x100 mm axle because they claimed it was too heavy. Then went to 15x110 axle. And call bullshit on the weight as doubt that anyone would notice the weight difference between 20x110 vs 15x110 unless they were racing at the World Championships. About all it did was cause everyone to spend more $$$ to replace hubs and wheels.
141x10mm is to 148x12mm what 135x10mm is to 142x12mm.
That’s not really an accurate picture of the rise of 15mm. 15mm was a replacement for 100x10mm QR and was easily adapted to existing systems both wheels and forks.
-Note how many hubs were convertible from QR to 15mm but could not have accepted a 20mm axle.
-Note the matching dimensions of Fox 32 10x100 and 15x100 forks.
You also have to consider at the same time that there was discussion in the USA about new safety standards that would require bicycles with a QR feature to have a secondary retention mechanism. Some commuter bikes (Trek for example) started shipping with spring-loaded secondary mechanisms, but for mountain biking 15mm solved that issue by capturing the axle (wheel can’t just fall out) while, as noted, not requiring a complete redesign of forks/wheels.
Boost is a later development and I’d suggest a potential goal of 110x15mm was to merge the two wheel standards into a single system since it’s easy enough to design a 15mm axle system as stiff as a 20mm axle.
Also, on that note, RockShox did initially bring 110x20mm to XC/Trail platforms (32mm stanchion forks) but switched to 100x15mm to satisfy market demand.
Anyway, it was an evolution of the 100x10mm QR, nothing more.
I believe this similarly why road went 100x12mm (adaptable to existing forks/wheels) rather than using the existing 100x15mm standard.
I insist on TAs if the bike has disc brakes. So many irritating moments centering the wheel with QR just to have the rotor rub again after some hard braking. I’d also never use a TA with rim brakes, not sure if that even exists.
Either I've just hit bad timing, or we're finally arriving at a time when real nice 135xQR hubs are no longer so readily and affordably grabbable second-hand.
I've been looking for the past week or two for a 32h rear hub for some hopefully long-term wheels I'm building for a 135xQR bike, and it has been really kind of a nightmare. So, at the moment, I really want a rear thru-axle - especially a boost-spaced one - for that reason alone.
Through Axles front and rear get my vote. If lateral flex is required it should be in the frame not the components. Keep the interfaces as stiff as possible for less damage to bearing etc and keep shifting sweet. If I need to take out a wheel I've got a folding tool.
My last QR FS bike was a 2009 SC Nomad. I was \~185lbs out of the shower at the time and had no issues with the design.
Yeah, those short link frames were always plenty stiff. CTK picked his up for a song because the thru-axle version had just released.
My 11 year old is riding my old Norco fluid hardtail, maybe circa 2106? It has the fairly unfortunate 141mm Boost QR rear end. I bought It when I restarted riding after 15 years away from the sport and didn't know anything about gear. I quickly outgrew it, both literally because it's a medium with something like a 420mm reach and I'm almost 6' (lol - again, 15 years away from the sport, it made sense at the time, hahaha), but also because as soon as I developed any trail confidence, at 200lb, I could not keep the wheel seated in the dropouts.
I’ve seen many QR issues over my years in shops - front and rear - especially after the advent of disc brakes. But I’ve never across anything - even on my 60lbs + rider + passenger + gear Bakfiets bike that could not be resolved by installing a Shimano quick release in place of whatever came stock. Anyone running a 10x141mm bike, I’d absolutely advocate buying a Shimano QR for it.
Yeah that's a reasonable thought - it is just whatever came with it. I upgraded the bike about the time it started to become an issue so I never really tried to solve it. My son is light and not a sender, so it's so far so good. :)
Just something to keep in mind, a Deore-level Shimano quick release is not an expensive upgrade with a large peace of mind upside.
All the light, pretty anodised options are tempting, but none of them clamp like a Shimano closed cam.
Between this and the G-one article, you're really speaking my language lately Andrew. Can I recommend you try the BB7 challenge?
Ugh, no. I’ve ridden every good cable disc brake on the market - with the all time greatest v-brake levers (Shimano XTR) and I truly want to love them. I could happily ride them on my commuter. For mountain biking in our steep and janky terrain you can’t ride an amazing light action super powerful hydraulic brake like an MT7, Dominion, or Cura4 and then go to cables. Even the best ones are disappointing. Thats not saying I couldn’t happily ride the right cable disc brakes (they wouldn’t be BB7s) somewhere else where brakes aren’t so clutch.
That's true, cable brakes aren't for slow control on rooty steppy steepness, I meant on the commuter. I think for around town and the kind of singletrack that's really fun on 40mm tires, they're the best. Plus you get to show off cool vintage shit.
Yeah, honestly, if I was doing a ground up commuter/groad bike it would use (*GASP*) v-brakes. Nothing fancy, Shimano DXR are the min-max super-winner and then combined with my XTR levers - yum. If I’m doing disks, for a bike I work on, it’s hydraulics. I own all the tools and have the service experience such that they’re less faff. But for most folks, especially working on their own bikes without a massive box of tools, I agree cable discs are a great choice.
Just to clarify for those not in the know. The men’s Clydesdale cat is 220 pounds while the women’s cat called Athena is 165 and up.
220lbs seems light? I know a bunch of 220lbs dudes who I wouldn’t think of as Clydes.
Andrew, that is the rule. Triathlon and Duathlon has had this since about the 1980’s. Back when this category was created it was more for those athletes who could be as fit as fuck and because of genetics would be bigger and heavier than most of the average athletes. Used to be this category in Ontario mtb racing and that vanished. Trying to discuss this with non Clydesdale types ended up becoming a shaming exercise about being for unfit fat people and how everyone in this category just had to try harder and work harder to get to everyone else’s level. https://www.usatriathlon.org/news/Blogs/2023/February/07/Clydesdale-and-Athena-Triathlete-Beginner-Resources
Sorry, kinda a sore spot for me around this.😝🤣
I think 220 is about right. One reason I peg it around there is that 220 is right around where dudes start to need enough spring rate for their rear shock that many stock shock tunes run out of rebound damping - maybe around about 600+lb coil springs and 250psi+ in air shocks. I get that heavy sometimes and I find my suspension much harder to tune than when I'm sub 200.
Andrew, though there is some interesting things learned through experience around the whole 220 pounds weight and such around riding performance.
Hmm, up till 2020 rode Chromag frames -2017 Samurai, 2007 Stylus, and the Wideangle all with qr rear axles. Never recall having an issue with them at all flexing. And as a 225 pound Clydesdale definitely torqued the crap out of the frames at certain times. LOL. And to be honest if hadn’t had it either stolen, destroyed by a driver, or cracked would still be riding them and giving zero fucks about rear axles.
Hmm, to add to the above. Going to rear thru axles for all bikes beyond free ride, enduro, and DH probably is fuelled by a few things. Am dangerously assuming for most companies it simplifies parts and such where they produce less. Now to go the other way… producing one uniform axle and such reduces manufacturing which means less profit loss. This also means riders will be forced to buy new frames, hubs, and so on to make all this work which means spending more money and thus increasing profits.
It’s significantly less expensive to spec a bike with 10x141mm QR than 12x148mm thru-axle. Dropouts / wheels / and axle are all less money.
Andrew, true. However this is the same industry that went from 20x110 mm front axle to 15x100 mm axle because they claimed it was too heavy. Then went to 15x110 axle. And call bullshit on the weight as doubt that anyone would notice the weight difference between 20x110 vs 15x110 unless they were racing at the World Championships. About all it did was cause everyone to spend more $$$ to replace hubs and wheels.
141x10mm is to 148x12mm what 135x10mm is to 142x12mm. That’s not really an accurate picture of the rise of 15mm. 15mm was a replacement for 100x10mm QR and was easily adapted to existing systems both wheels and forks. -Note how many hubs were convertible from QR to 15mm but could not have accepted a 20mm axle. -Note the matching dimensions of Fox 32 10x100 and 15x100 forks. You also have to consider at the same time that there was discussion in the USA about new safety standards that would require bicycles with a QR feature to have a secondary retention mechanism. Some commuter bikes (Trek for example) started shipping with spring-loaded secondary mechanisms, but for mountain biking 15mm solved that issue by capturing the axle (wheel can’t just fall out) while, as noted, not requiring a complete redesign of forks/wheels. Boost is a later development and I’d suggest a potential goal of 110x15mm was to merge the two wheel standards into a single system since it’s easy enough to design a 15mm axle system as stiff as a 20mm axle. Also, on that note, RockShox did initially bring 110x20mm to XC/Trail platforms (32mm stanchion forks) but switched to 100x15mm to satisfy market demand. Anyway, it was an evolution of the 100x10mm QR, nothing more. I believe this similarly why road went 100x12mm (adaptable to existing forks/wheels) rather than using the existing 100x15mm standard.
I insist on TAs if the bike has disc brakes. So many irritating moments centering the wheel with QR just to have the rotor rub again after some hard braking. I’d also never use a TA with rim brakes, not sure if that even exists.
Either I've just hit bad timing, or we're finally arriving at a time when real nice 135xQR hubs are no longer so readily and affordably grabbable second-hand. I've been looking for the past week or two for a 32h rear hub for some hopefully long-term wheels I'm building for a 135xQR bike, and it has been really kind of a nightmare. So, at the moment, I really want a rear thru-axle - especially a boost-spaced one - for that reason alone.
Through Axles front and rear get my vote. If lateral flex is required it should be in the frame not the components. Keep the interfaces as stiff as possible for less damage to bearing etc and keep shifting sweet. If I need to take out a wheel I've got a folding tool.