One of the bikes that I have shortlisted for when I eventually get around to buying a gravel bike is the Sonder Camino. My only concern is that the wheels are traditional QR rather than a more modern thru axle. I've used traditional QR for years on rim brake bikes and never had a problem. The mountain bike that I bought last year has both (QR rear and thru axle front) and both ends seem to work equally well with the hydraulic disc brakes on the bike.

Are QR axles significantly worse when used with disc brakes that thru axles, or are thru axles just a nice to have?

Given that I'll be spending a significant amount of money and don't want to spend it twice, any real world experience would be appreciated.

Are QR axles significantly worse when used with disc brakes that thru axles,

No. They're *edit, TAs that is, as slarge points out, ta* safer (mainly on the front) and when you see some of the things I've seen on returned bikes or accident reports you'd understand why companies are quick to move to thru-axles for liability reasons. QR operation is just beyond a fair few people. That really is the main reason for them, that would apply to rim or disc brake bikes.

In all honesty I'd use QRs and discs quite happily, I still do on both my bikes, and though there's maths that proves the ejection risk with some fork dropouts (that suprisingly some brands still use) the reality should be different for a competent user and forward fork dropout slots.
Consistent alignment can be a bit easier with a thru-axle but I don't struggle with that on QRs.
T-A will be a stiffer hub-frame interface, good for disc alignment. Marginal benefit on most bikes.
The main advantage of T-A now is wheel availability, but again, get good hubs and it's no issue. Most wheels are convertible anyway.

Just to clarify Jameso's post - Thru axles are safer than QR.

QR can (if not done up correctly, or if the spindle snapped (can happen but V. rare) allow the front wheel to come out of the dropouts, normally under braking as the brake caliper acts as a sort of pivot.

Thru axle eliminates this risk (or at least greatly reduces it)

I have seven bikes. Four are QR and three of those are disk braked. I don't give it a second thought.

Thanks gents. I'm an experienced user of QR wheels, but I'm particularly interested in significant differences in performance. As I won't be breaking any records (apart from the unofficial "hungriest cyclist" and "Who looks worst in lycra" awards)minor differences shouldn't affect me.

The Camino (V3 at least) has 12mm thru axles.

Aside from safety concerns (I'm one of those not concerned), I doubt you'll notice any or anly a tiny performance difference and that may depend on how you're measuring performance.

On one of our bikes we run dt swiss rws skewers, the 9mm and 10mm ones in qr dropouts, as we had hubs that we could change the end caps on. This works as a nice halfway house for us.

The Cumbrian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:52 am Thanks gents. I'm an experienced user of QR wheels, but I'm particularly interested in significant differences in performance. As I won't be breaking any records (apart from the unofficial "hungriest cyclist" and "Who looks worst in lycra" awards)minor differences shouldn't affect me.

No perceptible difference in performance imo. If you're a heavy or hard rider you may get a tad less disc rub / 'shing', that's about it. TA certainly a benefit on Sus forks but I read your post as talking about rigids? Functionally it's marginal ime.

its one of thise where lab test can show an incease in strength etc but in reality its imperceptible

I have QR and bolt through on bth suspension and rigid forks

Its not something i even consider when getting a bike unless I have a QR only wheel to use on the fork. Any 15 mm wheel can be converted to QR * but not all QR can be converted to bigger axles
I also thought most forks no whave "suicide tabs" so even with the QR undone the wheel should wobble/go loose but not actually be capable of falling out the dropouts. Certainly all mine have this and the QR forks are at least 10 years old

* my ebay 15 mm to QR [ dynamo hub used on MTB [15mm] and the cross bike which is QR was about £3

One of the people I was riding with at the weekend hadn't tightened the QR lever on her through axle. I spotted it when the axle was a couple of inches out of the fork. She said she wondered why the front wheel was making a knocking noise.

Re thru axles just a very minor point which some may snort at but do consider the implications of the 'Stealth' version over the 'Maxle' version.
With the Maxle you can always drop a wheel out without delving into your onboard tools or picking up your Allen Key set to do something not bike related only to find you robbed the 6mm key to carry on your bike.
My new (to me) 12x142 axle has a serrated threaded nut not fixed to the bike so potentially a disaster in waiting. I am sure the Spearfish had a tapped hole on one side of the chainstays.
On the plus side the thru axles are easier to fit certainly at the rear with the bike in a stand.
My RS forks came with Stealth and I specified 12x142 rear but had no option of Stealth or Maxle. I will probably switch to the DT Swiss type with the fixed lever when I have some money to burn.

jameso wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:29 am If you're a heavy or hard rider you may get a tad less disc rub / 'shing', that's about it.

This is pretty much it. I get a disc rub when I'm up on the pedals on QR that isn't there on TA. Mild annoyance but no effect on performance. I'm 90kg plus change.

I've had QR and TA axles come loose because I just never think to check them

QR for a dynamo hub every time if that's a consideration for you
My QR dynamos just keep on going

Just had the bearings changed on a two year old SON hub with a six year warranty, had to go back to Germany. they might regret that warranty on such tiny bearings

I think this is one of those areas where tradition seems to have trumped functionality. If we were to start from scratch and design an axle/frame interface and we assume that a (very) quick way of removing the wheel wasn't a requirement, then we wouldn't end up with what we know as a QR system. I'm not denying that the QR works fine but thru-axles and the benefits they bring (bigger bearings, bigger contact surface and stiffer axle) seem like a sensible step in the right direction with no real downsides (other than backwards compatibility).

The Cumbrian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:52 am.....As I won't be breaking any records (apart from the unofficial "hungriest cyclist" and "Who looks worst in lycra" awards)minor differences shouldn't affect me.

Errrrr..... the fact that both Mike and I exist means that you'll never be either the hungriest or the person who looks worst in lycra - if I were you I'd enjoy that tiny life victory while it lasts

stevenshand wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:48 pm I think this is one of those areas where tradition seems to have trumped functionality. If we were to start from scratch and design an axle/frame interface..

Yes, 100%.

jameso wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:00 pm

stevenshand wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:48 pm I think this is one of those areas where tradition seems to have trumped functionality. If we were to start from scratch and design an axle/frame interface..

Yes, 100%.

It’s the same for a lot of bike stuff - derailleur gears for example but that doesn’t stop people designing ever more ridiculous set ups - 42t 12 speed cassette anyone?

lune ranger wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:02 pm It’s the same for a lot of bike stuff - derailleur gears for example but that doesn’t stop people designing ever more ridiculous set ups - 42t 12 speed cassette anyone?

Can opened and the worms are out

(great design is some of the past, some where we could be in future and a lot of what we want, or something like that?)

lune ranger wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:02 pm

jameso wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:00 pm

stevenshand wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:48 pm I think this is one of those areas where tradition seems to have trumped functionality. If we were to start from scratch and design an axle/frame interface..

Yes, 100%.

It’s the same for a lot of bike stuff - derailleur gears for example but that doesn’t stop people designing ever more ridiculous set ups - 42t 12 speed cassette anyone?

Closer gearing for a gravel bike. I can see why people would buy it.

closer gearing what like say a smaller rear casette and a double chainring

People will buy anything if the industry can persuade them they need it [or stop selling the alternatives] and most of us just like spending on our bikes so we end up with all the new standards whether we want them or not. I draw the line at massively wide bars and the single minded obsession that a 1 x set up is better for all scenarios
These casettes now weigh double what my 9 speed XTR casette does

If you're spending significant amounts of money then through axle makes most sense as slowly all the 'sensible' (or should that be 'supposedly cheaper' )standards seem to be getting harder to source and dying out.

Take for example non boost forks. Last I looked I was getting more boost than non boost showing up in yhe online stores. Just get the throughAxle and future proof your gear (but not a daft width that only one manufacturer has gone with... Sonder sensibly priced rigid and a Marin steel rigid come to mind). Otherwise you'll be on here or maybe even (extreme case) RetroBike, in a future date asking for suchNsuch...

Edit: Sonder Frontier and Marin Pine mountain I believe I am referring to regards wierd thruAxle spacing

I believe the new Frontier (V2?)has gone 148x12mm now, It was never going to be a popular version of boost axle.

Lazarus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:42 am I draw the line at massively wide bars and the single minded obsession that a 1 x set up is better for all scenarios
These casettes now weigh double what my 9 speed XTR casette does

You fool, don't you know that 1x is lighter and front derailleurs need a Cytech qualification and 10 years time served experience to set up?

I'm not really sure where the line should be drawn with regards axle standards, I'm not exactly a heavy user and have got on with QR forever, as a standard it ticks a lot of boxes: releases quickly, lightweight, is easy to use and most importantly everything remains as one piece after removal. No axles to get set down somewhere before driving off and forgetting it, no stupid cams that will unwind and spread themselves along the road when you're driving home (yes QR20+, I'm looking at you).

Everything else, probably above 15mm and 12mm rear is just marketing fluff. Stiffer this and that is great but if everything is stiff where is the give? Something has to flex and if it can't then it will find the next weakest link, usually to terminal effect once all other options are exhausted.

Pleased to hear lots of healthy cynicism - I usually keep quiet in case it's just me . I like your points above, SK. Never understood all that "stiffness" business, what ith everything else going on around the bike and your body during a ride, surely a nicely tightened QR is, well, tight. Far more give in the fork legs. In fact, never understood the whole "stiff" v "plush" v "compliant" stuff. People seem to mix n match various components "having to be" supposedly one of the three, with everyone having different views. Sometimes, apparently, a bit of equipment is both stiff AND plush. Some sort of wonder material presumably. Makes a good read in a magazine perhaps, or as pointed out makes a good selling point. In fact, it's all bollocks really for BP. There, I've said it.

Reg 'Likes A Nice Cold Hard Piece Of Steel Between His Legs' Perrin.