15mm axles are here to stay

[stuart@nsmb.com]

Originally Posted by Dirk

GOD!!! I'M GOING TO EXPLODE!!!!! IT MAKES ME SO CRAZY!!!!

Geez, Dave, don't go and do that. It's only bikes.

[Wayne P]

My last bike was a XC hardtail built sorta light, nothing extravagant, but it did have a 5" travel 20mm axle fork. The bike was 25lbs even and could have easily been built lighter. 150 grams? lol.... that sure will make a difference!

[FlipFantasia]

Originally Posted by Wayne P

150 grams? lol.... that sure will make a difference!

no kidding, have an extra cup of coffee and take a big dump! "oh man, I totally would've made that climb if I dropped 5mm off my axle diameter!"

[UFO]

Originally Posted by stuart@nsmb.com

So if you apply that logic to the continuum of mountain bike product development, how do we decide which innovations are worth keeping and which aren't? Threadless headsets - pain in the ass or valid advancement? Quill stems? V-brakes, then disc brakes?

Plenty us have been riding long enough to remember when those things were introduced. There were a lot of naysayers at the time, but they've all become foregone conclusions. Can you even imagine buying a bike with a threaded headset? Or a quill stem? No, because they have become widely accepted standards - over time.

If you're going to give the fork companies shit for 15mm, why not rail against bike companies for making OnePointFive head tubes? Or tapered head tubes?

For all of the advancements you listed, there is a clear and distinct improvement and advantage offered by the newer product, which did not require 20/20 hindsight to see.

V-brakes: killed off canti's by offering significant power increase and needed nothing more than the brakes and levers to take advantage of. An average v-brake worked way better than the best canti.

Threadless headsets: easier for aftermarket consumers to upgrade existing forks as they did not have to worry about steertube lengths and exposed thread; allows stores and distributors to keep less identical stock in different thread lengths. Easier to service and maintain. No need for threaded steerers, no need for quil stems.

Disc brakes: high cost of upgrading, but offered a distinct performance advantage once some of the early kinks were worked out.

I thought 1.5 was a crock from a fork standpoint, and it seems like there is a general consensus that 1.5 forks are not needed, that tapered steerers offer all the advantages at less weight (something 15QR cannot claim). You could argue tapered steerers would never have happened without 1.5 though. There seems to be a resounding advantage for 1.5 headtubes from a frame manufacturer's standpoint though and the various headset configurations and options available to tailor geometry which I did not anticipate at first.

29'ers, I honestly expected that to die off after a couple of years.

I think all of the above 'standards' were developed and eventually imposed because they offered significant improvements over their predecessors and there were no better alternatives at that time, so they needed to start from scratch. In the case of 15QR, I understand that comparing it to 20mm is unfair. It is clear that 'we' want to accept it as a replacement for 9mm. The issue most seem to have is that it has been shown that you can have the benefits of jumping up to 20mm at the same weight or 50-100g penalty over 15mm. Is this demographic really asking for a new fork/hub interface standard to save maybe 50g? By the extremes I've seen some weight weenies go to, maybe... but how big is that demographic? Maybe they'd rather have 9mm axles to save even more weight

This has been a great read so far, and I must say I never really drew my conclusion on 15mm until after reading this thread mainly because I'm not in the market for a new fork and currently and don't really care... who knows what the 'market standard' will be in 2-3-4 years when it is actually relevant to me. Maybe that in and of itself tells where my bias is on this topic.

[*Pepe*]

Originally Posted by biggles604

give me one honest answer why 20mm wouldn't work for trail or XC.

it's not that 20mm won't "work", it's because XC and trail guys don't want 20mm. it's a "DH" standard in their view. they want their own thru axle system and 15mm provides it. also, you know what 15mm can do that 20mm can never do? kill 9mm. it's not more complicated than that. there's no consipracy to fuck the consumer. the fork companies are simply trying to get rid of 9mm and 15mm can do it because it's a system that its target market has embraced.

not specifically at you biggles, but isn't ironic that the naysayer argument is to force 20mm on the XC guys? am i the only one seeing this?

[Tom]

If they're making 15 mm to kill 9 mm...why are they still making 9 mm? Kind of makes that claim seem like bullshit. I'm a trail/xc guy and run a magura thor 140 mm with 20 mm axle. If fox made a 32 talas with 20 mm axle I'd buy one today.

[cam@nsmb.com]

Originally Posted by *Pepe*

it's not that 20mm won't "work", it's because XC and trail guys don't want 20mm. it's a "DH" standard in their view. they want their own thru axle system and 15mm provides it. also, you know what 15mm can do that 20mm can never do? kill 9mm. it's not more complicated than that. there's no consipracy to fuck the consumer. the fork companies are simply trying to get rid of 9mm and 15mm can do it because it's a system that its target market has embraced.

Yep!

[sAFETY]

How much money is spent pandering/marketing to these mysterious consumers who want what 20mm offers but are too thick headed to accept something that they wrongly perceive as 'DH specific'?

Now what if the money wasn't spent retooling hub and fork product lines, distribution, and support collateral, and instead spent it on a little consumer education? It's only perceived as a 'DH standard' because of how it's been marketed by these same companies. That same marketing machine could fix the issue with a whole lot less effort than deploying a whole new standard, but they don't for reasons outlined above.

[FlipFantasia]

Originally Posted by sAFETY

How much money is spent pandering/marketing to these mysterious consumers who want what 20mm offers but are too thick headed to accept something that they wrongly perceive as 'DH specific'?

Now what if the money spent retooling hub and fork product lines, distribution, and support collateral, and spent it on a little consumer education? It's only perceived as a 'DH standard' because of how it's been marketed by these same companies. That same marketing machine could fix the issue with a whole lot less effort than deploying a whole new standard, but they don't for reasons outlined above.

Yep!

(sorry Cam! )

[Wayne P]

As proven time and time again in this industry, you can market and sell anything to anyone and they will be convinced its better. It would be super easy to market a lighter 20mm axle to xc weenies. I bet it would be easier to market than 15mm.

[biggles604]

Originally Posted by *Pepe*

it's not that 20mm won't "work", it's because XC and trail guys don't want 20mm. it's a "DH" standard in their view. they want their own thru axle system and 15mm provides it. also, you know what 15mm can do that 20mm can never do? kill 9mm. it's not more complicated than that. there's no consipracy to fuck the consumer. the fork companies are simply trying to get rid of 9mm and 15mm can do it because it's a system that its target market has embraced.

not specifically at you biggles, but isn't ironic that the naysayer argument is to force 20mm on the XC guys? am i the only one seeing this?

Your argument doesn't disprove my comments, it reinforces them. The XC riders see 20mm as a DH standard: That's an perception issue, and like I said before, image and fashion drive the industry. If any XC rider was to stop and think for a second, then they would realise that 20mm doesn't offer a single disadvantage over 15, except the marketing becomes a little more limited forcing people to actually think.

I think this is the third time I've said this in the thread now, but if I was buying a new fork, then there is no such thing as too stiff, so why would 20mm be a bad thing for XC? There's no seperate standard for rear hubs, which pretty much destroys any argument you could make about XC specific standards.

[*Pepe*]

Originally Posted by biggles604

Your argument doesn't disprove my comments, it reinforces them. The XC riders see 20mm as a DH standard: That's an perception issue, and like I said before, image and fashion drive the industry. If any XC rider was to stop and think for a second, then they would realise that 20mm doesn't offer a single disadvantage over 15, except the marketing becomes a little more limited forcing people to actually think.

I think this is the third time I've said this in the thread now, but if I was buying a new fork, then there is no such thing as too stiff, so why would 20mm be a bad thing for XC? There's no seperate standard for rear hubs, which pretty much destroys any argument you could make about XC specific standards.

image, fashion, incremental difference in performance, etc. drive many industries. where have you been? the examples are almost limitless. in your opinion, you think 20mm doesn't offer a single disadvantage over 15mm. good for you. the xc/trail guys think otherwise. it's made for them. that's an advantage the system offers that 20mm can't.

no separate standards for rear hubs? is that a joke?

[walleater]

Originally Posted by *Pepe*

in your opinion, you think 20mm doesn't offer a single disadvantage over 15mm. good for you. the xc/trail guys think otherwise.

Yeah, they read it on teh internetz. What is an 'XC / trail' guy anyway? I've never woken up and exclaimed "I'M ALL MOUNTAIN!!"

[Oldfart]

Originally Posted by Wayne P

My last bike was a XC hardtail built sorta light, nothing extravagant, but it did have a 5" travel 20mm axle fork. The bike was 25lbs even and could have easily been built lighter. 150 grams? lol.... that sure will make a difference!

Yeah IF that is the only place one is looking to save weight although 150 gm is significant. Your hardtail weighs 25 pounds, Wendy's is far less, xt shifters pedals and cassette and the rest is xtr. Guys do that though in both directions. One guy will buy stuff that is 50 grams lighter here, 75 grams lighter there whereas the other looks at it as only 150 grams more 60 grams more there. One guy has a 20 pound hardtail the other has a 25 pound one. One probably costs way more but I'll bet both guys enjoy what they have and that's the point. taprider is racing. Racing takes commitment if you want to do your best. Part of the commitment is getting the bike as light as you can and retain enough durability and function.

[biggles604]

Originally Posted by *Pepe*

image, fashion, incremental difference in performance, etc. drive many industries. where have you been? the examples are almost limitless. in your opinion, you think 20mm doesn't offer a single disadvantage over 15mm. good for you. the xc/trail guys think otherwise. it's made for them. that's an advantage the system offers that 20mm can't.

no separate standards for rear hubs? is that a joke?

I know image drives many industries and it's as transparent in them too. So if I make a new standard for one user group, then you are saying that it will trump all other standards because it makes them feel special? I'm really not sure what you are trying to say.

As for the rear hub issue, yes, there are many different hub sizes, but as an example, I can take my XTR rear wheel and easily put it into a Demo 9, even though the wheel was never meant for that kind of bike. Oh wait, I can't because the Big S decided to be different and use dishless wheels because it will give them something to differentiate their bikes in a magazine. .