# Who's ready for 148x12?



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Looks like 142 only got to be the "standard" for about 18 months...

2016 Axle Standards, Part 1: Rear 148mm Thru Axle Coming Fast & It?s About More Than Just Better Wheels

Sigh. Another dummy axle? Really? I think DWF is behind this somehow.

-Walt


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

Ugh. Retarded. Can someone tell me the difference in strength between 559/584 and 622mm with standard flange width? All things being equal, spoke gauge rim etc?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I'm sort of in the "offset everything 5-6mm to the driveside for a dishless wheel and nice chainline and call it good" camp, but c'est la vie. But then again, I actually *like* fairly flexy wheels, so what do I know.

-Walt


----------



## adarn (Aug 11, 2009)

pleasee no. And Walt, I think I'm finally coming around to your "offset everything" thing. It makes sense.


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

Drivetrain is offset 3mm on 148, that's what will actually make a difference not wheel stiffness. I gather 142 is likely to stay as 'standard' for things that don't need the increased tyre/chainring clearance - ie 148 will be used on 29/27.5+ but 142 will be used for normal width tyres

Just another option imo and we are all able to ignore it as we see fit anyway

Matt


----------



## Rikebike (Feb 19, 2014)

It sounds like it's a miracle that my inexpensive and widely available 135mm hubs and 26" wheels haven't buckled and killed me.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

I am sorry about the intrusion, I wandered in here by accident, but anybody want to guess how many bikes at the next NAHBS feature 148x12 and 110x15? Put me down for 20.


----------



## afwalker (Apr 26, 2012)

At least 148x12 won't be too hard to make a dummy axle on a lathe. I've starting making one after the 120x9 I made for a track bike turned out fine. I didn't see myself making enough track bikes to justify a purchace, same with 148x12.
cheers
andy walker
www.flicker.com/photos/afwalker50
Walker Bicycle Company | | Walker Bicycle Company


----------



## unterhausen (Sep 28, 2008)

Walt said:


> Sigh. Another dummy axle? Really? I think DWF is behind this somehow.
> 
> -Walt


getting rich $35 at a time!

There is only so far you can go while maintaining reasonable q factors and a decent chainline. This is just one of those things where they felt like marketing something new


----------



## Meriwether (Jul 26, 2007)

DWF is definitely behind this 
I actually like the new wider hub for 29+ and since I am not too into offsetting, even though it totally works and makes sense. I tend to think for the 29+ (really a 30.5" diameter wheel) a wider hub will make for a better wheel without carbon hoops. But most importantly for us it'll give an easy way to make a shorter chainstay 29+ with a better chainline especially for xx1 without dimpling as much or paying for the pricey PMW yoke. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## afwalker (Apr 26, 2012)

Hey Don's got CNC, I just have a lathe













2$ of 3/4" and some time on the lathe, helps offset the purchase price
cheers
andy
www.flickr.com/photos/afwalker50
Walker Bicycle Company | | Walker Bicycle Company


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Interesting - you make 'em right at the desired spacing? I always use Don's +2mm ones, when I weld in the bridge they suck in a little.

For $35, ain't no way I'm spending my time making my own, but I must have like 25 of them at this point!

-Walt


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

i wish i understood the chainline thing a bit better: i have had to mess around endlessly with chainring spacing to get 1x10 shifting well on shimano stuff. 

from what i understand on the hollowtech 2 cranks, the triples are 50mm chainline. this equates to the inside/towards midline surface of the middle ring right? not the middle of the chainring - which is probably about 2-3 mm thick. so middle of the chainring on the middle is 51 -51.5mm (weirdly, if memory serves it measures a bit further out in reality...id have to check that)

so where is this in terms of the rear cogs? well, with 135mm spacing (or 142) it is 51mm from the midline. ie 67.5mm -51mm = 16.5mm from the end of a 135mm OLD hub - thats like the 8th cog or something? so why would the chainline not marry up more towards the *middle* of the cluster? ie about 45mm from midline? (or even further towards the midline?)

in this instance, the drivechain is offset 3mm, making the chainline a little better with normal chainrings, on a triple crank, better yet with a lower chainline shimano double (48.8 nominally and 46.8 with the xtr m980 double) but if you offset the rings more then you are back where you started...

or am i being daft?


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

more: some interesting thoughts here...
Six Speed MTB - Pvdwiki


----------



## afwalker (Apr 26, 2012)

oopps! I'll make another one +2mm.
It's an easy and fun lathe project.
How easy is it with Hope hubs to swap out axles for each "new" standard?
That seems like a selling point.
cheers
andy


----------



## unterhausen (Sep 28, 2008)

lots of hubs have replaceable endcaps nowadays, including Salsa


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Djorn, not sure how serious you nare, but there's been enoug of us on the SS/Trials hubs running 5,6,7 cogs for years _(me personally have been for 7 years_) and I just found the proper solution to what I was trying to achieve with that 135 SS/Trials hub - A better chainline and stiffer wheel. I found this by simply purchasing a set of the 150x12 drop outs for my Banshee and building a new wheel using a Nukeproof 150x12 hub. Now I can run a full 9spd cassette, have as near perfect chainline as I can using standard stuff and not fiddling with adjust chainrings on the cranks and no more messing with longer B-Limit screws and max cog size clearance etc, etc. Now not everyone is lucky enough to have a bike that has the versatility and ease of replaceable drop outs like on all Banshee FS bikes, but I'm glad I did and glad I gave it a go.

148 "boost" is just another way for Trek and those big manufacturers to try to make more money, if not they would have stuck with 150mm rears and admitted that the stupid 135 x that MTBs have been using since inception is really a road bike standard and should have been ditched years ago and the BS that you need to run an 83mm BB shell to successfully run a 150mm rear is just utter horse $hit.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

lynx: i use a 150mm rear end or singlespeed on most of my bikes...some ive had to mess around with spacers on rings etc, but its been all good for me.


----------



## golden boy (Oct 29, 2008)

Walt said:


> I'm sort of in the "offset everything 5-6mm to the driveside for a dishless wheel and nice chainline and call it good" camp, but c'est la vie. But then again, I actually *like* fairly flexy wheels, so what do I know.
> 
> -Walt


Walt, can you explain this further? I'd like to understand this process of offsetting and how it improves chainline.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

golden boy: im sure walt will be back, but theres a bit more info on the offset from him here:
http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/29-83mm-bb-899809.html


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Do people really want a full chainline/offset how-to? If so I can probably write it up, but it's really not too complex. It's a basic "you make this **** yourself so the world is your *****, do it how you want" kinda thing that we like around here. 

Very quickly:
-Ideal chainline is the middle (ok, nowadays usually only) chainring lining up with roughly the middle of the cassette. 
-Back in the old days, middle rings (from the centerline of the bike to the middle of the middle chainring) were around 47mm. Cassettes were also a bit narrower (back in the 6-7 speed days) and hub flanges were further apart. This meant a nice chainline, and relatively even spoke tension.
-As tires got bigger and wheels got bigger, chainline got moved out (to 50-52mm for 73mm BB cranks) to help make room. At the same time, we had 8/9/10/11 speed cassettes. 8-10 speed moved the lowest cog inboard about 5mm, then 11 speed added another one inboard of that (so SRAM moved their XX1 chainline back to 49mm to try to help a bit).
-Long story short, modern bikes have terrible driveside flange positioning/spoke angles, and they have crappy chainline. But they still work pretty well.

So if you want either better chainline, or more room to run big tires/short stays, or both, you can do all kinds of weird stuff. You can move your chainring to the outboard position (roughly 56mm chainline) and then move your whole rear hub over 6-10mm to fix the chainline and give you a more evenly dished wheel. You can run a 150mm rear hub (cassette moves right 7.5mm). You can do 145 or 170 or 190 or offset 142x12 or whatever you want. The world is your oyster because you're building it yourself! 

Bend your stays a little bit differently, or join to opposite sides of your dropout tabs, or just say f it and let the rear end be visibly offset. Asymmetry is beautiful, especially when it makes you a better bike.

-Walt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Oh, and DWF will sell you any offset/width of dummy axle you want. Tell him Walt sent you.

-Walt


----------



## TrailMaker (Sep 16, 2007)

Ha!

Walt's gettin a cut now! 

Thanks for the chainline treatise. Yet another one of the topics I've been too lazy to study up on. Simple and concise.


----------



## afwalker (Apr 26, 2012)

ok I feel better now. Yes a chainline treatise would be a big help, thanks Walt!







cheers
andy


----------



## golden boy (Oct 29, 2008)

Thanks for the explanation re: offset, Walt. I think this would be a nice addition to the FAQ.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

I've made a bunch of 135mm QR frames with the rear axle offset 6.5mm to the drive side. The end result is perfect chainline and even spoke tensions. Using a symmetrical rear triangle and 150 QR hub would give virtually the same result.

Add 7mm for "x12" and the best solution would be between 155x12 and 157x12.

142x12 chainline is a huge step down in smoothness from 157x12/ 150/ offset 135 qr.


----------



## MacLeod01 (Dec 29, 2012)

I am wondering will 142x12 dissapear after few years, because of the boost standard. If I have 142x12 bike, will I be able to find hubs after few years ?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I wouldn't panic about it. There are an awful lot of 142 bikes out there.

-Walt


----------



## hardmtnbiker (Feb 22, 2005)

Cannondale's FS-1 frame tech addresses dish but does not address triangulation. To me that's the bigger picture of the Boost 148 standard.


----------

