Explanation of 135QR and 142TA dropouts
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 959
From: South Jersey
Explanation of 135QR and 142TA dropouts
It seems that some people, who haven't built frames with them, misunderstand the difference between 135QR and 142TA dropouts. In order to help explain how the dropouts are attached to the stays in the exact same location on both, I have taken some pictures of one of my frames that was built for 142 thru axle.

This recessed slot is the only reason why thru axle hubs are 142mm wide. The slot is 3.5mm deep on each side, so the hub end caps were widened by 3.5mm on each side to allow it to self locate in the dropout, similar to a QR dropout.

The distance between the inside faces of the dropout is still 135mm, so the dropout attaches to the stays in the same location and the stays are the same width on both 135 and 142.

The distance between the faces of the dropout slot is the only thing that is 142mm wide. Obviously the outside face of the axle hole is wider, but that does not affect the placement of the dropout on the stay.

This recessed slot is the only reason why thru axle hubs are 142mm wide. The slot is 3.5mm deep on each side, so the hub end caps were widened by 3.5mm on each side to allow it to self locate in the dropout, similar to a QR dropout.

The distance between the inside faces of the dropout is still 135mm, so the dropout attaches to the stays in the same location and the stays are the same width on both 135 and 142.

The distance between the faces of the dropout slot is the only thing that is 142mm wide. Obviously the outside face of the axle hole is wider, but that does not affect the placement of the dropout on the stay.
#3
Thread Starter
Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 959
From: South Jersey
You're not the only one. I've seen questions regarding brake mount locations being different because of the different width (they are the same, measured from the dropout face). I've also seen erroneous claims that 142TA allows for wider tires, have less crankarm clearance, etc. I just thought the easiest way to show how they compare is with pictures.
#4
Senior Member
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 599
Likes: 14
From: Bakersfield, CA
Bikes: BAHL Giro, BAHL Uno, BAHL GVL, Cuevas
I've been looking at this same thing but for wider rear ends such as Boost 148, and Super Boost 157. I've seen specs on 157 having a 150 flange to flange width but nothing for 148. I would assume 141 for flange to flange, but I don't assume anything anymore especially with all of these "standards".
#5
Randomhead
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 25,930
Likes: 4,825
From: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
So far, there is almost always a QR version of all the different rear spacings. I just looked this up for my Mukluk, which is qr although it probably should have been TA. I think it's 7mm different with that too.
#6
Thread Starter
Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 959
From: South Jersey
I've been looking at this same thing but for wider rear ends such as Boost 148, and Super Boost 157. I've seen specs on 157 having a 150 flange to flange width but nothing for 148. I would assume 141 for flange to flange, but I don't assume anything anymore especially with all of these "standards".




