Lenbrazil

Even the same brand uses various types for the same style bike. Wouldn't it be easier for everyone if there were a set number of standardized models? Or at most 1 or 2 types for each style of bike per manufacturer.

fietsbob

forty two

many "brands" dont even make the bikes they sell ..

how do you plan to take over the world's bike making corporations to have them bend to your will?

CliffordK

Perhaps patent issues.

At least the threading is just about all the same.

10mm x 1mm & 10mm x 24tpi.

I could imagine some debate about the best design for the hanger to break just before the frame breaks, and to do no damage to the frame.

I've had derailleur hangers on Fuji bikes that would wiggle every time one clamped down the QR (a little judicious filing helped). But, perhaps a manufacturer would also choose a connection that uses the rear axle as a clamp, but was less likely to move.

Marcus_Ti

It would also be much easier if there was ONE bottom-bracket standard...or ONE dropout spacing standard...or ONE cable-pull standard for brakes and ders...None of those are happening any time soon either.

HTupolev

rmfnla

The only exception to this I can think of is the USB.

I was in the electronics industry when it was introduced and I remember thinking it would never catch on...

Cougrrcj

There's USB, Micro USB, Mini-USB, and there's the mini-plugs that are kind of a modified mini/micro USB that are inverse, or have a fits-one-way tab on them...

Cougrrcj

That would assume that all derailleurs would be able to handle all sprocket sizes... SOme drop more than others just to keep the derailleur body or pulleys away from the 'small cog'.

LaughingLots

Reading comprehension is key.

The OP's naive question was about standardizing derailleur hangers, nor derailleurs.

Sy Reene

Don't forget Apple's Lightning connectors.
VHS or Betamax, BlueRay vs. HD DVD, Compact Flash vs SD vs XD, etc..

FBinNY 

The reason we have so many hangers is because people have to eat. Imagine the plight of designers at the various bike companies. If they told the bosses that the current version is fine and they could stay with well into the future, they'd be on unemployment.

So, they keep their jobs by "innovating", "improving" or refining" ad infinitum. Ultimately the bike companies don't care because the volume is high enough that there's no savings to them if they don't change, and no added cost if they do. What happens after they bike is sold isn't their problem.

Shimagnolo

Those are just the physical standards.

There is a whole nother rats nest of charging (non)standards.
First Apple came out with a USB interface that could charge at higher power than the standard for their iPad.
(iPad with display illuminated drew more current than standard could provide.)
Then Qualcom came out with "Quick Charge 1.0", then 2.0, then 3.0.
So now there is a whole menu of competing (non)standards for current draw on USB.

LaughingLots

It seems that you arguing for design stagnation vs. innovation. Sad.

CliffordK

We had come close as English (ISO) became the defacto BB & headset threading standard (with also JIS for headset cups).

Then there was some what of an explosion of new standards.

Dropouts for road bikes are mostly standardized, with Cross bikes being somewhere in the middle, and another explosion of new MTB standards.

It will probably settle down again in a decade or so with a few dominant standards.

Cougrrcj

Yes, but the different derailleur HANGERS put the rear derailleur at different distances from the axle centerline, mainly to handle the rear cluster sprocket size range that the particular frame is likely to have.

Cougrrcj

Yep, my Motorola Droid knows when a 'fast charger' is connected. A small text bubble opens that says "Turbo Charger Detected"

LaughingLots

No. You're wrong.

The differences in hanger size and shape are to accommodate frame design issues, axle size, and hub spacing.

For example, a very wide range of cassettes (using "sprocket size range" doesn't help your case) can be used with the same frame/hanger combo.

Cougrrcj

I use the term 'sprocket size range' instead of cassette because some of us still use FREEWHEELS not cassettes. The point I am trying to make is the distance from the axle centerline to the rear derailleur mounting pivot bolt. Those can differ -- a longer distance can accommodate a wider-range of gears because the derailleur body is spaced further away.

Axle size? Most are the same diameter. Or are you trying to say width? That is the same as hub spacing.

Hub spacing? Mine are older bikes with 120 or 126mm spacing. Even those can be cold set to handle a wider axle, and still use the same hanger.

Hanger shape? Are you referring to horizontal vs vertical dropout? Or shall I introduce track (rear opening) style as well? Horizontal vs vertical is more because of tight 'race' geometry with limited tire to seattube clearance, where the wheel cannot come forward enough in a horizontal without the tire hitting the seattube. Frames with longer chainstays can use a more horizontal dropout. The horizontal dropout does not rely on clamping force to hold the axle in place -- it can rest on the side of the axle instead.

LaughingLots

I get that. There are lots of retro freds out there but that doesn't bolster your inaccurate claims.

No, you're wrong. Again this is a function of your limited experience with what seems like only older bikes.

Example: one of my bikes has a 12 mm rear axle. The bike it replaced had a 10mm axle.

Again, your lack of experience is showing. My 20+ year old cross bike requires a 135mm wide hub. My 5 year old MTB requires a 142mm wide hub.

These are concrete examples that refute your erroneous claim that derailleur hangers vary in size mainly to handle the rear cluster sprocket size range that the particular frame is likely to have.

rydabent

As a life long service tech, I can tell you that things that are non-standard has always drive me nuts.

Not just parts but even tools. Take what should be a standard allen wrench. First we had a common allen wrench. Then we went to 4 flute bristo. Then to 6 flute bristo. Then to metric allen. Then to torx wrenches. That 5 wrenchs that all do the same thing, and I had to carry a set of all of them to work on machines of varying ages.

Cougrrcj

Reading comprehension is not YOUR strong suit, is it. I said that my 120 and 126mm-spaced bikes CAN be set to accommodate a wider wheel. But I don't need to -- a six-speed freewheel does the job just fine.

Yes, I do know that they went to a bigger DIAMETER rear axle when they went wider, because the 10mm axles were breaking because of too much unsupported load. Guess what. I don't need that 'new' technology because I get by just fine on my 30+ year old bikes.

Your limited experience in older bikes just tells me that you're a Latest-is-Greatest kind of equipment buyer. I have tens of thousands of miles of riding experience over 40+ years of riding as an adult. What I ride works, and works reliably.

You call me a retro-fred. Fine. As a newbie with a only half-dozen posts here on BF.net, I'll just call you a know-it-all young punk and put you on my 'ignore' list.

LaughingLots

You're trying to walk back the idiocy that you posted. I get it. You're embarrassed for being called out due to your lack of knowledge and the crazy claims you made. Like:
What you ride has nothing to do with your crazy derailleur hanger claims - other than proving that you don't know what your blathering on about.

FBinNY 

No, for two reasons.

1- you should have read from the tone that it was mostly a tongue in cheek response.

2- there's a difference between innovation and change for the sake of change, or willy-nilly design changes with no justification.

I don't and have never called for any kind of standard hanger, and would like to believe that if there were functional differences the better version would win in the marketplace. But hanger design isn't working that way.

The current cop are all basically the same, with the same features and, sadly, the same failings. The sheer number defies logic, and suggests that there may be some truth to my tongue in cheek explanation. That would be sad.

Unless there's a functional reason, there's no reason to proliferate large numbers of close but no cigar versions and using them OEM for so short a time. This just makes hardship and expense for consumers and the product support part of the industry, with absolutely no benefit to anybody.

Hangers aren't like seatposts where we see various sizes because they fit tubes with standardized ODs and various wall thickness. They vary because they do with no purpose that imposes the need. Imagine if we approached other parts of bicycles that way. Instead of 2-3 hex or torx keys, we'd need 30, many of which are similar enough to get confused, likewise every part of bikes. It would be a nightmare, which is why there are groups like ISO, JIS and ANSI.

LaughingLots

They vary for a good reason - starting with the size and shape of the dropout (specifically, the shape of the chain stay and seat stay interface), the width of the hub, the type and size of axle, the disc brake mount location(if applicable), the material of the frame, the size of the seat stay, the size of the chain stay, etc.

The variation is definitely based on the purpose.

rmfnla