Open letter to all manufacturers

This game is now over

I am both a technical editor and a casual person. I receive, read and understand a large number of technical specifications, new developments and newly introduced "standards" with an amazing frequency. However, when purchasing new parts for the bicycle, I often choose incompatible components.

After a particularly frustrating morning, I was unable to complete any of the three tasks planned for various bicycles. This was mainly because something was not quite right, and I found myself looking back at me thoughtfully The early days of mountain biking, and recall those much simpler times.

The choice of bottom bracket almost boils down to Shimano's UN55 or UN72 models with 68 mm or 73 mm BB shell width-both models may survive the particularly muddy end of the world. The V-brake arm is simply bolted to the frame and front fork, and a 27.2 mm seatpost is given.

When it comes to handlebars, I just have to choose between black or gold Answer Pro Taper (golden obviously). Although the earphones are one size, they are all mounted on the same damn head tube, and the wheels are fixed with a simple lever, regardless of how wide they are.

Before we go deeper, let me explain one thing straightforwardly-I think the development of mountain bike technology (and road bike technology, because we all know that mountain bikers develop good things first...) is usually a very good thing. .

In any case, I don't like old bicycles. Every day of the week, give me a modern off-road bike that can sing and dance. But boy, oh boy, do I want this industry to stick to only one set of standards?

I would like to ask the bicycle industry to take a quick look at the word "standard" in the dictionary, and then perhaps consider the following: Standards should make our lives easier, not harder.

It is possible (and I believe the people in the review will) think that the standard is not necessarily perfect, but it means that we are all working on the same foundation. This means that we can walk into a bicycle shop and go out without having to have an encyclopedic knowledge of each of the different "standards" and how they interact with other "standards".

Therefore, the following is a set of standards that I hope to become standards. You might argue that the "standard" should be a different version of the standard, but hey, unless you are actually a World Cup racing professional, I can almost guarantee that the "other" standard will do little to you.

The bottom bracket housing should all be 73 mm wide and have inch threads.

Why is it 73 mm? Well, using Boost spacer wheels will be slightly better (more on that later), if necessary, you should use ISCG05 chain guide mount, and I have to choose between 73 mm and 68 mm, the wider the better .

Why is it thread? Well, this is obvious.

When replacing the BB, do I want to unscrew it from the carbon fiber frame or remove it from the carbon fiber frame in a Neandertal-like way, because like most normal people, I don’t have a bearing pull (Or bearing press))?

You might argue that press-in bottom brackets (and their equivalents) are "technically" better-if the frame is manufactured with appropriate high-quality controls, this is absolutely correct-but I assure you, Your average home mechanic is more likely to have the motor skills to release the BB more successfully, rather than knocking out and pressing in the PF BB without compromising their self-esteem and joy. They may also have the much cheaper tools needed to do so.

In addition, it’s interesting that threaded BB housings tend to be more reliable, don’t creak, and are less prone to poor (cheap) frame manufacturing tolerances-no, I have never faced and chased BB housings in my life, by the way Mention.

Oh, when we are doing it, there should be a standard tool interface on BBs. There are five in my garage, but still can’t cover all of them.

In fact, after a recent rant on Instagram, James Huang, who was in this parish and now at CyclingTips, sent me a message and mentioned that Abbey Tools has 13 different BB tools, but it does not cover all of them. crazy.

If you are also confused by all the different bottom bracket standards and want to learn more, why not make a (strong) coffee and read our (very) in-depth guide?

Every crank manufacturer should adopt Shimano's Hollowtech II system.

Sorry for everyone else, but the HT II is better; it is simple to install, easy to understand, and does not require extreme torque to work. The 24mm spindle is strong enough (I challenge you to prove me otherwise), which means that larger bearings can be squeezed into the thread BB mentioned above.

SRAM's DUB system is actually close to perfection, but the fact that you often need to place a scaffolding tube at the end of the hex wrench to remove the DUB crankset will downgrade it to second place.

Everything else is just a means of delaying your riding time, and there is no obvious benefit in my most humble opinion.

From now on, everything except 110 × 15mm on the front and 148 × 12mm on the back should become history.

Whether you like it or not, Boost will continue to exist, and this is how it should be. If your wheels are not hard enough and you "need" Super Boost, sorry-just add more spokes or make a wheel with harder rims.

In addition, given that from now on we are insisting on using 73mm BB housing, threaded BB, Shimano’s HT II crank system, Boost shaft spacing and 1× transmission system (I don’t even intend to defile this article by mentioning anything except 1×), can we make the chain line of each crank the same, so that we don’t need to get our set of squares and the Pythagorean theorem to ensure that our gears really work?

Of course, we can give up multiple crank spindle lengths, which will only make us choose wrong...

As for the shaft diameter, yes, 20mm front axles are a good thing, but they have not become commonplace, so for the sake of simplicity, we stick to 15mm.

The front fork will have a 180 mm post mount, while the frame will only have a 160 mm post mount.

IS mounts can be written down in history. This shocking new fashion of using plain calipers on mountain bikes should soon be kicked into the grass, please.

The post is easy to install and use, and through the 180/160 mm mix, most XC and off-road riders can simply bolt the calipers directly to the frame and fork without messing up.

If you want more power (which is fair...) then 20mm or 40mm adapters are easy to purchase, easy to connect, and the choice of rotor is very, very simple: 160/180/200/220-only four sizes, no 183 / Worried about the stupidity of 203 mm.

If you are an XC Whippet and are afraid that the 180mm front rotor is too heavy, please train harder and enjoy better brakes.

Obviously, the brake rotor will be a six-bolt with T-25 Torx head bolts, which is the only place on the bicycle where Torx head bolts are allowed.

The stem and stem should have a combined diameter of 31.8 mm.

The original "OS" (Extra Large Size) standard achieved the best compromise between weight and stiffness. The 25.4 mm diameter handlebars were not bad at the time, but the increase of a few millimeters had a significant impact on the strength of the front end of the bike-and it was a good way. No one wants to guide through the medium of noodles.

However, you may have too many good things. If we want to abandon everything except one standard, we must abandon the 35mm rod. The 35mm handlebars I have ridden are too hard, not the 31.8mm handlebars are too flexible.

A 31.8mm rod can be made hard enough to fit anyone, and they are easy to make so that you don't gnash your teeth often (unlike many 35mm rods nowadays).

Sticking to the 31.8mm light bar also means that the light set I have been using for the past few years is still suitable, so we are gone.

The headset will be integrated and use angular contact bearings, and both the frame and the front fork will be designed for the most seamless integration.

When I was 15 years old, my father went to work in the United States, and I shipped Chris King headphones (jewels in bicycle parts) to his hotel at a discounted exchange rate at a high price of £60. There is no doubt whether it is suitable.

The diameter of the steerer tube is 1 1/8 inch, and the head and steerer tube are a straight tube.

These days, this is a minefield. Low-key this, integrate that, Hiddensets, ZS's, 46/32/49.6-I don't know.

So complicated that companies such as Park Tool have an online "recognition system" that can more easily determine which may be correct, and we at BikeRadar have our own ultimate headset guide.

Although tapered steerers (1 1/8 inches at the top and 1 1/2 inches at the bottom) are now the first choice, the 1.5-inch straight standard (such as a 20mm shaft) never took off correctly, so we can forget this. The same is true for the rare 1 1/4 inch top and 1 1/2 inch bottom diameter steerer tube standards.

The simplest system is to place 45-degree angular contact bearings in prefabricated cups on the top and bottom of the head tube, which can be put in and taken out during replacement.

Conveniently, the lower angular contact bearing should be easy to install on the preformed crown race on the front fork. The seal can be handled by well-structured bearings, you never have to worry about the suitability of the earphones or replacement bearings you buy, and you never have to participate in the crown game with a rusty old screwdriver to open or close the fork.

All clampless pedals should use Shimano's (not multi-release) cleat pattern.

I think this will upset about half of the gripless riders. I think Shimano's splint has become the industry standard for two important reasons.

First of all, this is the system I use, so it means I don't need to change all the pedals and shoes. And, given that I am deciding on this, I can choose.

Second, although products such as Crankbrothers pedals are popular and many of them are equally effective, Shimano's system is more widely used by multiple pedal manufacturers. Ritchey, Nukeproof, SRM and Look, to name a few, use almost the same (and fully cross-compatible) cleat design.

It is true that other systems have their benefits, whether it is cleat floating or mud shedding ability, etc. However, as I mentioned before, this is not necessarily a list of the best standards, just the ones I think should be used.

The diameter of future seatposts is 34.9 mm.

27.2, 30.9, 31.6, 34.9. No, not an international phone number, but a list of all the different seatpost diameters you may need to know before buying a new seatpost post.

I have two questions here:

So why is 34.9 mm (or 35 mm, in fact it should be), the newest of all standards, and is basically Specialized's own standard? Well, despite a decade of development (no matter how many years the office chair has existed), the dropper is still inexplicably unreliable. As stated in the 73mm BB shell width, the wider the better.

It provides more space for internal components, which means they can be manufactured to tolerances more easily, and means that the tubes can be harder, better, and so on. Basically, a lifting seatpost with a larger diameter should be more reliable, which is a good thing given that the bicycle industry has not been able to produce a reliable lifting seatpost so far.

In addition, I am not unrealistic here. I know that when my industry standards come into effect, not everyone will immediately go out and buy a bicycle that meets the requirements. You have bits and pieces that you like and cherish. I mean, if you spent almost £700 on the RockShox AXS Reverb dropper, you would not replace it, would you?

Therefore, by choosing the most extensive standard currently available, those who want to keep your favorite saddle support can simply pad the seat tube on the bike with a spacer and continue to use the outdated components.

Wait, isn't this something standardized in the bicycle industry? ! Incredibly, it is almost (except for the different depths of the saddle rails, which actually rarely cause problems). However, I still think it is wrong.

Tom Marvin is the technical editor of BikeRadar.com and MBUK magazine. He pays special attention to mountain bikes, but also spends a lot of time on gravel bikes. Tom has written for BikeRadar, MBUK and Cycling Plus, and was previously the technical editor of What Mountain Bike magazine. He is also a regular host of BikeRadar's YouTube channel and BikeRadar podcast. With more than 20 years of mountain bike experience and nearly a decade of mountain and gravel bike testing experience, Tom has ridden and tested thousands of bicycles and products, from ultra-light XC race cars to the most powerful brakes on the market. In addition to testing bicycles, Tom has also participated in a wide range of mountain bike competitions, from multi-day endurance races to 24-hour endurance races in the harsh winter of Scotland-pushing bicycles, parts and legs to the limit. He also calculated that when testing aerodynamics in a wind tunnel, shaving leg hair can save 8 watts. When he is not riding a horse, he will appear on the climbing wall, in the garden or cooking food.

Subscribe to Cycling Plus magazine to enjoy a 30% discount on the store price and get an Altura Nevis Hi-Vis jacket! 

Sign up to receive our newsletter!

Thanks! You have subscribed to our newsletter.

Already have our account? Sign in to manage your newsletter preferences

By entering your details, you agree to the BikeRadar terms and conditions and privacy policy. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Subscribe and choose your bonus reward!

Subscribe to Cycling Plus to enjoy 30% off RRP Altura Nevis jacket