The only mtb standards to use....

[steve_sordy]

Article from Bike Radar magazine here, interesting.

Dear bike industry: these are the only mountain bike standards you should use

An open letter to all manufacturers out there

www.bikeradar.com

 

[Gary]

Shit article.

longer reply :
Narrowminded and ill informed article with many many poorly thought out reasons for their choices.
Can't even be bothered to point out their failings.

 

[stiv674]

I don't think it's supposed to be taken too seriously...

 

[Gary]

If it was meant to be funny the author is going to be very disappointed come this years comedy and humour litterary awards ceremony
Either way.
It certainly wasn't worth reading.
or writing.

 

[steve_sordy]

His point that there are too many standards was well made. He also had the temerity to suggest what standards should be accepted as, well... standard. He made quite clear that he was biased in certain areas. Not having a capacious knowledge of bottom bracket and headset standards, I found the links useful and I've bookmarked them for future use, just in case!

 

[Tim1023]

"The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from; furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just wait for next year's model."

 

[Gary]

His point that there are too many standards was well made. He also had the temerity to suggest what standards should be accepted as, well... standard. He made quite clear that he was biased in certain areas. Not having a capacious knowledge of bottom bracket and headset standards, I found the links useful and I've bookmarked them for future use, just in case!

Just incase what?
Not being a professional mechanic, you don't need to know every standard though Steve. only the ones relevant to your own bike
His point was not well made. The guy came across as an idiot.
Take his stupid section on seat post diameters as just one example.
Any decently informed cycle journalist should know internal seat tube diameters are dictated by Alloy/Steel tube diameter and wall thicknesses available for manufacturers to build frames with. The introduction of the dropper post has to some extent narrowed down the number of choices manufacturers choose when designing a frame. But not in all other bicycle categories.


The joke about no cycle industry "standard" having just one "standard" for anything is old and tired and has been done infinitely better than this lazy journalist's attempt.

eg.

 

[Mcharza]

Shit article.

longer reply :
Narrowminded and ill informed article with many many poorly thought out reasons for their choices.
Can't even be bothered to point out their failings.

If it was such a shitty article, please give examples of what was bad.(other than seatpost)
I think there are too many standards. Of course, development develops and always gets better

 

[Tonycube]

Article from Bike Radar magazine here, interesting.

Dear bike industry: these are the only mountain bike standards you should use

An open letter to all manufacturers out there

www.bikeradar.com

I tell you what i have noticed is that every time Steve_sordy posts something interesting he gets attacked by Gary Coates.

 

[steve_sordy]

I tell you what i have noticed is that every time Steve_sordy posts something interesting he gets attacked by Gary Coates.

I didn't believe that he was attacking ME. He disliked the article that's all.

 

[Tonycube]

Well in my opinion he has done this on a number of articles that involve tech content.

 

[Gary]

I have zero reason to attack Steve at all.
I just found the article terrible.
Steve's a big boy. He's not going to take my view of an article he did not write personally.

Others could learn from Steve's maturity and common sense approach to using the internet

 

[Gary]

Well in my opinion he has done this on a number of articles that involve tech content.

*sigh*

 

[Gary]

If it was such a shitty article, please give examples of what was bad.(other than seatpost)

The whole article was poor.

 

[Tonycube]

The whole article was poor.

I enjoyed that ha ha

 

[Gary]

I've enjoyed the odd Adam Sandler movie

 

[The Hodge]

As probably one of the least mechanically minded riders on this forum ..what I gleaned from the article was that it was just one man's take on what he thought should be industry standards ..I don't suppose for one minute he thinks "The Industry " are going to adopt them ..but he certainly seemed well qualified to offer an opinion..
If Steve found the article interesting and thought that other people might ..then where is the harm in that ?

 

[steve_sordy]

Just incase what?
Not being a professional mechanic, you don't need to know every standard though Steve. only the ones relevant to your own bike
................

The problem is Gary in knowing what standard it is I'm looking at! IF the bike came with a proper spec list, saying exactly which FSA bottom bracket was fitted, then I'd know what to buy. But when it looks exactly like a Shimano Hollowtech II, I naively assumed that it was the same, just by FSA. Bike technicians and probably most of those on this Forum probably already know that FSA don't make a copy of the Shimano Hollowtech II, just one that looks like it, but isn't in important ways. But I didn't know that then, although I do now.

When I took my Whyte T130 to the LBS and said "what on earth do I put in here?", he took me into the workshop and showed me a large board with forty or so bottom brackets on it, all labelled up. He said that this is what we use to decide what to fit.

The websites usually list a spec, but they are frequently wrong or corrupted in some way, or refer to another bike. And even when they are not in error, they are never complete. As an example, here is the spec for the rear hub on my Focus: "Race Face AR30, 32-spoke Novatec axle 148x12". That seems more like a wheel description to me. I left the punctuation in exactly as I found it, but I believe that there is a comma missing before and after "Novatec". A few extra words would have helped.

My current bike, a Focus Jam2, is not too bad in this respect. Every single bolt has the tightening torque printed on it, and my fork and shock have a reference number stamped or engraved upon them; even the Novatec hubs have a part number printed on. So why can't they print the reference number on every other important component, like the headset, callipers, levers, shifters, bars........?

I get the impression that this lack of detailed information is designed to make it hard for the DIY rider to make an informed choice. We do our best, get it wrong and end up paying more and/or going to the LBS to sort it out. If the bike manufacturers did their job properly and ensured the spec was accurate and complete, and the component makers marked up their goods, we would have zero doubt as to what it was we needed to buy.

 

[Gary]

You probably only have one or two bikes to worry about.
Each will have a certain BB shell, headtube and axle configuration.
That's only 4 things you need to know per bike.
Cranks and BBs just need to be compatible with each other and interface into your frame's threads/pressfit orifice.
headsets need to fit your bike's headtube standard and the forks steerer standard (luckily most are now simply tapered steerer)

that's really not a great deal to find out/remember.
Try fitting BBs/Headsets to 500+ different random punters bikes each year.

 

[steve_sordy]

You probably only have one or two bikes to worry about.
Each will have a certain BB shell, headtube and axle configuration.
That's only 4 things you need to know per bike.
Cranks and BBs just need to be compatible with each other and interface into your frame's threads/pressfit orifice.
headsets need to fit your bike's headtube standard and the forks steerer standard (luckily most are now simply tapered steerer)

that's really not a great deal to find out/remember.
Try fitting BBs/Headsets to 500+ different random punters bikes each year.

I agree, and I'm finding out as I go along. My point was why should I have to find out for myself? The bike manufacturer knows this stuff, after all they had to specify it, so why not tell their customers?

My challenge is simple compared to yours, and I can only imagine your irritation. But just think how much simpler your life would be if every component was labelled.

Here is a typical query, found a moment ago on this very Forum. Guy needs to know the shock mounting details.

DT Swiss R 535

Hi All, I have a 2020 6.7 Jam2, which I absolutely love, and I am looking to upgrade the rear shock. I have just purchased a DT Swiss R 535 shock and I believe they are spherical bushings as opposed to the DU ones... I just wanted to ask if anyone had the foggiest if the mounting hardware...

www.emtbforums.com

 

[smtkelly]

The article was tongue in cheek but I agree with the sentiment. Recently bought a disc brake adaptor for a 13 year old fork that a friend has loaned me it should have fit (according to the manufactures web site, order off the internet whom ever had it in stock) did it nope tenner down the drain.

Ideally some standards should be agreed on like brake mounts, seat tubes, hub spacing, bars. Or at least a system akin to the metric bolt sizing nomenclature (and stamped on the part), would make find parts a shattoon easier since 31.8" doesn't search well..

I'm assuming some people here never bought anything the wrong size for any of their bikes ever though...

 

[Gary]

I agree, and I'm finding out as I go along. My point was why should I have to find out for myself?

I've never once in 200+ personal bike purchases not known the bike's BB/Headset/axle standards

The bike manufacturer knows this stuff, after all they had to specify it, so why not tell their customers?

They're not hiding ths info in some secret high security instalation on the moon.
Simply email the manufacturer or speak to a dealer/shop of the brand

just think how much simpler your life would be if every component was labelled.

On they whole. they sort of mainly are.

Here is a typical query, found a moment ago on this very Forum. Guy needs to know the shock mounting details.

Guy has the answer infront of him
Once his vernier arrive

Not sure why his first port of call would be here rather than Focus

 

[Gary]

would make find parts a shattoon easier since 31.8" doesn't search well..

You do realise where the modern 31.8 and 25.4mm sizes came from, yeah?

 

[04fuxake]

I tell you what i have noticed is that every time Steve_sordy posts something interesting he gets attacked by Gary Coates.

If you click on a person’s profile, you can “ignore” them which hides their posts.

 

[Rosemount]

You probably only have one or two bikes to worry about.
Each will have a certain BB shell, headtube and axle configuration.
That's only 4 things you need to know per bike.
Cranks and BBs just need to be compatible with each other and interface into your frame's threads/pressfit orifice.
headsets need to fit your bike's headtube standard and the forks steerer standard (luckily most are now simply tapered steerer)

that's really not a great deal to find out/remember.
Try fitting BBs/Headsets to 500+ different random punters bikes each year.

From what I`ve seen on the Hambini channel even the standards aren`t standardised . lol .

This guy makes bottom brackets for Pro teams . Quite funny to hear him describe the engineering standards or lack of from big name manufacturers .

Hambini


CRAP Titanium MTB Bike gets Roasted on 5 year old's BBQ.


CESSPIT Engineering: $3000 Bike SCAM Exposed by Autistic Engineer. OPEN Cycle threaten to SUE!

 

[Rusty]

Try fitting BBs/Headsets to 500+ different random punters bikes each year.

Hell, back a couple years when I still owned 8 or 9 bikes there were I think5 or 6 different headsets in my bikes alone.

 

[smtkelly]

You do realise where the modern 31.8 and 25.4mm sizes came from, yeah?

You realise my point was about search engines struggling with poor nomenclature . Adding " " around a word it tells most search engines results must have this. By having a decimal point most search engines see it as 2 separate strings of text so if I wanted to find the elusive 46.1" Reach-around I might type in;

"46.1" Reach-around"

Instead the engine will mostly likely see my search as;
Must have 46 and 1 any order, results with reach and around featured more

And no I don't understand why they didn't just pick 32mm for a bar thickness maybe you can shine a light on why that .2 had to go?

 

[Shifty]

Article from Bike Radar magazine here, interesting.

Dear bike industry: these are the only mountain bike standards you should use

An open letter to all manufacturers out there

www.bikeradar.com

When I see the multiple changes to every part of the bikes I rode 30 years ago to my bikes today, the major change is marketing! If you change a component by size and call it a plus, or Pro or V2 then you can sell it as an upgrade! I am suprised the marketing guys have not tried to sell us rounder wheels!

 

[Gary]

Wow! You like to make things difficult for yourself, eh?
Simply don't put quotation marks around the size. So long as you have the correct component your search results will yeild plentiful relevant results.

And no I don't understand why they didn't just pick 32mm for a bar thickness maybe you can shine a light on why that .2 had to go?

"they" diddn't just pick a random number to piss YOU off
"they" converted already existing sizes to metric
25.4mm = 1 inch
31.8mm = inch and a quarter*

* rounded to 0.1mm

 

[GrandPaBrogan]

His point that there are too many standards was well made.

The humble bicycle as a vehicle that has a very delicate power-to-weight-to-performance ratio... human power being so limited. Motorcycle engineers for example do not have to be as fastidious in design decisions because saving a few grams here and there is not only irrelevant, but can also very quickly haemorrhage production cost unjustifiably. About a decade ago, Honda curiously embarked on a MTB research/design team project to learn or glean whatever they can to see if lessons in extreme design optimisation within the bicycle industry can be applied to motorbike production.

In the never ending quest for a "better bicycle," the art of innovation has become perpetual... and the premise of being innovative is to be willing to break the "rules" in order to reach a different (if not better) result. This is the underlying reason why bikes have so many variations and standards to which there will be no end in number. The author (although might be considered as the voice of reason) is actually preaching a lost cause. Decision makers in the bike industry are primarily concerned about market share and sales figures... standards be damned.