Super Boost.

[Bearbonesnorm]

For those who love 'standards' and the industries never ending quest to change them, you'll be happy to hear that a 157mm x 12mm rear Super Boost spacing may soon be muddying the waters further ... so I believe.

[PaulB2]

They were announced way back in 2018 and Hope have produced super boost hubs for a couple of years now.

[ScotRoutes]

Hiper Boost anyone?

[Bearbonesnorm]

Or Hyper Boost even.

[ScotRoutes]

You and I both know it would be spelt with an "i".

[jameso]

'Road Boost' too - 12x110 fronts.

The roadies will complain about added drag. I think it's a good thing to have wider hubs in general but would spec a 15x110 MTB hub and not bother with 12mm weenie-ism.

[FLV]

dont salsa full suspenders use super boost since the latest updates?

Not sure who else does.

Having a 12 as well as a 15 x110 is a bit much really.

It would be interesting to know 'who' starts it all. For example, is it a particular brand that started using the 157 (DH bikes use it I think) then others follow suit.?

[ScotRoutes]

IIRC, Boost was Rocky Mountain and SRAM as RM was trying to get a better arrangement for B+ tyres.

[PaulB2]

I'm surprised they didn't call 12x110 gravel boost.

[FLV]

I'm surprised they didn't call 12x110 gravel boost.

Thats 15x112

[JohnClimber]

I think I'll wait until Mega Boost comes out

[lune ranger]

Or Hyper Boost even.

Wouldn’t Hipper Boost work in the context of gravel bikes?

[boxelder]

I've riding supercooled boost on my Spearfish for two years now. The bike is great and, apart from not being able to share rear wheel with the 'mere boost' HT, I've found no disadvantages. I think it gives more options for chainrings and tyre width.

[In Reverse]

I've had a super boost full sus (a Mondraker) since Nov 2017. Hope hub.

Pivot were doing them at the same time iirc but that was about it.

edit - looks like they were around in 2015 https://bikerumor.com/2015/12/22/mondra ... -rr-and-r/

[Alpinum]

I've riding supercooled boost on my Spearfish for two years now. The bike is great and, apart from not being able to share rear wheel with the 'mere boost' HT, I've found no disadvantages. I think it gives more options for chainrings and tyre width.

It should, but then it doesn't...

Both my full sus trail bikes can take 29 x 2.6 with ample room, both come in boost, both have not too long chainstays, the shorter being 432 mm. The one with the 432 mm chain stays can take a 32t ring. The one with the 436 mm chainstays can take a larger one, but don't know if it's 34 or 36t.

Stiff frames, stiff wheels, loads of feedback and precision, that how I like a bike to feel for fast paced trail biking and found it easy to get what I want (lightweight and stiff 29" wheels and chassis) with boost.

I run boost on all my bicycles (from the commute bike to the long travel trail bike), except for the fatbike and penny farthing. And it's quite fun to play around with slower/faster tyres, damage a rim and not have to wait for replacement, run experiments with the 27.5+ rim from the ssp HT on my full sus etc.

Not much of bother if super boost would replace boost, but then I want and even need (rarely) to swap wheels. That's why super boost has been no-go criteria for me, despite the option of getting hands on Pivot bikes easily (and likely for a very good price).

IIRC, Boost was Rocky Mountain and SRAM as RM was trying to get a better arrangement for B+ tyres.

It was in fact Trek in 2014 (product launch for 2015 models).

Rocky Mountain and it's first 650B+ (Sherpa, I think) was also launched in 2014 (2015 model) but was on 142 mm axle. I remember because some mates and I played around with the 650+ wheel in other frames with 142 mm.

Companies have their reasons to change things, but mostly it's to make things easier for them. Easier = cheaper. Charge the same price as before = higher margin.
That's probably the main driver behind such things.

I've had a super boost full sus (a Mondraker) since Nov 2017. Hope hub.

Pivot were doing them at the same time iirc but that was about it.

Mmhhhh Mondraker

[GregMay]

Superboost on my Spearfish. No idea if it does anything. Bike is faster than me most of the time.

[fatbikephil]

Given that boost clears 29 x 3 fine, and the industry is running away from 3" tyres, why??
And what does that make 197 x 12??

[Lazarus]

supermegamassive Boost ?

[boxelder]

And what does that make 197 x 12??

Bulge, or Super bulge?

[lune ranger]

Given that boost clears 29 x 3 fine, and the industry is running away from 3" tyres, why??
And what does that make 197 x 12??

My old Krampus fits a 29x3” tyre and 36t chainring into a 135mm QR rear without a problem.
The front tyre needs to be coaxed passed the brake calliper on the 100mm forks but once it’s in there there’s bags of room.

[johnnystorm]

IIRC, Boost was Rocky Mountain and SRAM as RM was trying to get a better arrangement for B+ tyres.

It was in fact Trek in 2014 (product launch for 2015 models).

Rocky Mountain and it's first 650B+ (Sherpa, I think) was also launched in 2014 (2015 model) but was on 142 mm axle. I remember because some mates and I played around with the 650+ wheel in other frames with 142 mm.

I've had a super boost full sus (a Mondraker) since Nov 2017. Hope hub.

Pivot were doing them at the same time iirc but that was about it.

Mmhhhh Mondraker

It was the Rocky Mountain Sherpa, 142 rear end but with a wider BB shell iirc to find the space.

I think Pivot introduced/invented Superboost.

It's doubly annoying that Focus or whoever calls 110x12 front axles Roadboost, Salsa were already using Roadboost to describe how they pair Road drivetrains with MTB boost rear ends on the cutthroat v2.

[fatbikephil]

Actually I was thinking about our moans about compatibility, standards etc the other day whilst working on one of my motorcycles and realised we've got it incredibly good. We can buy a bike frame and choose from a load of different components at various levels of bling and dosh. Motorbikes have no fork or swing arm standards, no shock standards, no brake standards no headrace or chain and sprocket standards. You are stuck with what it was made with and If anything breaks you have to go to the manu for spares or if your model is fairly popular there may be after market things like levers, sprockets, disks, indicator lenses etc.

So cheer up folks, new standards aren't an issue as its easy enough to figure them out (most of the time!) and we have tons of choice.

[Alpinum]

Given that boost clears 29 x 3 fine, and the industry is running away from 3" tyres, why??
And what does that make 197 x 12??

My old Krampus fits a 29x3” tyre and 36t chainring into a 135mm QR rear without a problem.
The front tyre needs to be coaxed passed the brake calliper on the 100mm forks but once it’s in there there’s bags of room.

The newer Krampus' with (gnot) boost seem to fit max 34t (which is what I'm running on mine, MY2017, and it's already tight), have a simpler yoke (surely quite a bit cheaper to make) and the boost front still asks for some tyre wiggling.
No idea if the chain stay became shorter though.

This is one of the reasons why I wrote

Companies have their reasons to change things, but mostly it's to make things easier for them. Easier = cheaper. Charge the same price as before = higher margin.
That's probably the main driver behind such things.

197 mm is a mobile horizontal bar. Handy to keep upper body strength on long riding trips. No idea how the industry names it.
Fun fact, I can fit my head inside my fatbike frame (well, that was also possible with 170 mm).
Taking the leap from 170 to 197 mm did change quite a few things for fatbikes, much more than going from 148 to 157 mm. It did just as much or even more than 135 mm vs. 148 mm.

we have tons of choice.

Indeed. Enough very good frames out there with boost, super boost or none of both.

[BigdummySteve]

Actually I was thinking about our moans about compatibility, standards etc the other day whilst working on one of my motorcycles and realised we've got it incredibly good. We can buy a bike frame and choose from a load of different components at various levels of bling and dosh. Motorbikes have no fork or swing arm standards, no shock standards, no brake standards no headrace or chain and sprocket standards. You are stuck with what it was made with and If anything breaks you have to go to the manu for spares or if your model is fairly popular there may be after market things like levers, sprockets, disks, indicator lenses etc.

So cheer up folks, new standards aren't an issue as its easy enough to figure them out (most of the time!) and we have tons of choice.

You’re not wrong, I remember buying a new disk for a Honda V4 which had inboard disks, a terrible idea. Honda bent me over and extracted £150, I was 18 that was 33 years ago!!!

[Bearbonesnorm]

Actually I was thinking about our moans about compatibility, standards etc the other day whilst working on one of my motorcycles and realised we've got it incredibly good. We can buy a bike frame and choose from a load of different components at various levels of bling and dosh. Motorbikes have no fork or swing arm standards, no shock standards, no brake standards no headrace or chain and sprocket standards. You are stuck with what it was made with and If anything breaks you have to go to the manu for spares or if your model is fairly popular there may be after market things like levers, sprockets, disks, indicator lenses etc.

Yes and compound that further by building one from scratch. I used to have an intimate knowledge of what bits would fit what bikes to achieve a desired result. At times, that knowledge was priceless as knowing what models shared the same diameter spindles, steering head bearing sizes or gearbox splines could literally save days.


Ooh cbx 550 Steve? One of my all time most despised bikes

Edit: no, can't be, you said v4, although I can't think which. Did the 500 have inboard discs?