Shimano Ultegra Di2 6800 rim brakes obsolescence?
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,330
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 353 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20611 Post(s)
Liked 9,283 Times
in
4,597 Posts
Wow.... so many people bent out of shape when being faced with the cold reality that the bike industry went to road discs for commercial reasons.. Discs involve a significant cost (profit) upgrade, and also bind even somewhat competent riders to their shop for maintenance. Most riders can change a set of rim brake pads, but bleeding hydraulics? Nope. So its all good: the manufacturers and retailers win, plus it causes a wholesale changeout of the bike fleet, which is needed every few years to spawn new buzz and sales. Adding one more cog to the cassette every 7 years just wasn't enough to cause whole generations of bikes to become 'obsolete', but discs would serve to wipe out everything that came before. Win!
Keep in mind that most new road riders come from a MTB background, so they expect expensive, heavy and irrelevant features on road bikes, such as fat tires, suspension, dropper posts and discs. First rule of marketing: do not try and change your buyers first desires and perceptions - sell them what they want. Or think they want, even if it is misguided.
Bike builds: I build up several high-end bikes per year, based on rim-brake frames and wheels. Great times right now, especially due to cast-offs from sponsored teams and Walter Mitty riders. Yes, you can procure and then revive a UCI (team) level bike for $1k. High-end 10-speed wheels sell for nothing. Best value: 10-speed gear such as the amazing SRAM Red and Campy Chorus and Record gruppos. Or Dura-Ace 7800, the best of all the Shimano systems for shifting, or before Shimano inexplicably stuck the shifter cables under the bar wrap.
So 16-pound road bike for $1k. At that weight, a new bike with discs will cost you 5 x that much.
Keep in mind that most new road riders come from a MTB background, so they expect expensive, heavy and irrelevant features on road bikes, such as fat tires, suspension, dropper posts and discs. First rule of marketing: do not try and change your buyers first desires and perceptions - sell them what they want. Or think they want, even if it is misguided.
Bike builds: I build up several high-end bikes per year, based on rim-brake frames and wheels. Great times right now, especially due to cast-offs from sponsored teams and Walter Mitty riders. Yes, you can procure and then revive a UCI (team) level bike for $1k. High-end 10-speed wheels sell for nothing. Best value: 10-speed gear such as the amazing SRAM Red and Campy Chorus and Record gruppos. Or Dura-Ace 7800, the best of all the Shimano systems for shifting, or before Shimano inexplicably stuck the shifter cables under the bar wrap.
So 16-pound road bike for $1k. At that weight, a new bike with discs will cost you 5 x that much.
#27
Junior Member
Bike builds: I build up several high-end bikes per year, based on rim-brake frames and wheels. Great times right now, especially due to cast-offs from sponsored teams and Walter Mitty riders. Yes, you can procure and then revive a UCI (team) level bike for $1k. High-end 10-speed wheels sell for nothing. Best value: 10-speed gear such as the amazing SRAM Red and Campy Chorus and Record gruppos. Or Dura-Ace 7800, the best of all the Shimano systems for shifting, or before Shimano inexplicably stuck the shifter cables under the bar wrap.
So 16-pound road bike for $1k. At that weight, a new bike with discs will cost you 5 x that much.
So 16-pound road bike for $1k. At that weight, a new bike with discs will cost you 5 x that much.
For components, you refer to Dura-Ace 7800, which there are some group sets that are well used available online as low as $500, with many being well above that for excellent condition parts. This is not something to be directly compared against a brand new bike with all new components.
Based on your final comments there, you simply like old stuff and aren't interested in progress. I'm sure 20 years ago there was an equivalent of you claiming that the new fangled integrated shifters and too many speeds, when a cheap old used 10 speed bike with downtube shifters was a much better bargain. There's nothing wrong with being perfectly happy sticking with the equipment that you're used to. However, to dismiss everything newer as simply marketing hype that has no benefit is pretty narrow minded and you back it up with general opinion and not any actual facts.
#28
Full Member
Wow.... so many people bent out of shape when being faced with the cold reality that the bike industry went to road discs for commercial reasons.. Discs involve a significant cost (profit) upgrade, and also bind even somewhat competent riders to their shop for maintenance. Most riders can change a set of rim brake pads, but bleeding hydraulics? Nope. So its all good: the manufacturers and retailers win, plus it causes a wholesale changeout of the bike fleet, which is needed every few years to spawn new buzz and sales. Adding one more cog to the cassette every 7 years just wasn't enough to cause whole generations of bikes to become 'obsolete', but discs would serve to wipe out everything that came before. Win!
Keep in mind that most new road riders come from a MTB background, so they expect expensive, heavy and irrelevant features on road bikes, such as fat tires, suspension, dropper posts and discs. First rule of marketing: do not try and change your buyers first desires and perceptions - sell them what they want. Or think they want, even if it is misguided.
Bike builds: I build up several high-end bikes per year, based on rim-brake frames and wheels. Great times right now, especially due to cast-offs from sponsored teams and Walter Mitty riders. Yes, you can procure and then revive a UCI (team) level bike for $1k. High-end 10-speed wheels sell for nothing. Best value: 10-speed gear such as the amazing SRAM Red and Campy Chorus and Record gruppos. Or Dura-Ace 7800, the best of all the Shimano systems for shifting, or before Shimano inexplicably stuck the shifter cables under the bar wrap.
So 16-pound road bike for $1k. At that weight, a new bike with discs will cost you 5 x that much.
Keep in mind that most new road riders come from a MTB background, so they expect expensive, heavy and irrelevant features on road bikes, such as fat tires, suspension, dropper posts and discs. First rule of marketing: do not try and change your buyers first desires and perceptions - sell them what they want. Or think they want, even if it is misguided.
Bike builds: I build up several high-end bikes per year, based on rim-brake frames and wheels. Great times right now, especially due to cast-offs from sponsored teams and Walter Mitty riders. Yes, you can procure and then revive a UCI (team) level bike for $1k. High-end 10-speed wheels sell for nothing. Best value: 10-speed gear such as the amazing SRAM Red and Campy Chorus and Record gruppos. Or Dura-Ace 7800, the best of all the Shimano systems for shifting, or before Shimano inexplicably stuck the shifter cables under the bar wrap.
So 16-pound road bike for $1k. At that weight, a new bike with discs will cost you 5 x that much.
Looking at this from a weight perspective, and I would agree with you. I didn't understand why road bikes needed discs - after all, I can lock up my 2004 Bianchi's rear wheel easily with Ultegra 6500 calipers. What's the point in the bloat and expense? Well, I was looking for a new bike a few years back - my Bianchi was 15 years old, and I wanted to get a titanium bike because... well, I wanted a titanium frame. I settled on the Lynskey R270, and got the disc version - not because I wanted to spend more money, but because I saw where the industry was going and I figured I'd have an easier go at getting replacement parts further into the future.
First, the downsides: Yes, the discs are heavy. As delivered, my 2019 Titanium Lynskey was almost exactly the same weight as my 2004 steel Bianchi - both Ultegra equipped. And the discs make noise if the disc is even *slightly* out of true, or warmed, or looked at the wrong way. I wondered if I had made a mistake and should've gone with the rim brake version. It's even annoying to put in the trunk - the thru axles are much slower than quick release levers, and the alignment is never exactly what it was before you took the wheels off - resulting in rotor zing until you get the wheel perfectly back in again.
And then piece by piece, the benefits started to come out.
- The front tire on my Lynskey fills out to nearly 32mm. It's big. It's fat. And at ~80psi, is both more comfortable, and corners more confidently, than the 25mm on my other bikes. I'm less skittish on fast descents, and less beat up 30mi in. I tried putting the same tire on my 2016 Cannondale CAAD 8, with SRAM Force rim brakes. No can do - tire rubs the top of the caliper.
- I'm now running 45mm carbon rims on the Lynskey. The Lynskey was already slightly faster than the Bianchi, but the deep section wheels makes cruising feel practically effortless. Why do I say this is a benefit of disc? Well, I don't want to run a deep dish carbon rim with rim brakes - I've heard bad stories about descents and wet weather braking. I don't want to run a deep dish alloy rim, either - that'll just add mass where it's most likely to be felt on accelerations and hills. There are deep dish carbon rims with alloy brake tracks, but there you get nearly the weight of alloy and all the expense of carbon all rolled into one.
- Thru-axles are annoying, but they're much stiffer than quick releases - I have to adjust how I expect my rim brake bikes to respond out-of-the-saddle after riding disc for a while. I don't think I've ever seen a rim brake bike with thru-axles.
Are disc brakes perfect? No. They add in headaches where there weren't any. Do they allow for more flexible choices in tires and wheels? Yes. Do those choices in tires and wheels allow more people to go faster under more conditions? I would say definitely.
#29
Senior Member
First, the downsides: Yes, the discs are heavy. As delivered, my 2019 Titanium Lynskey was almost exactly the same weight as my 2004 steel Bianchi - both Ultegra equipped. And the discs make noise if the disc is even *slightly* out of true, or warmed, or looked at the wrong way. I wondered if I had made a mistake and should've gone with the rim brake version. It's even annoying to put in the trunk - the thru axles are much slower than quick release levers, and the alignment is never exactly what it was before you took the wheels off - resulting in rotor zing until you get the wheel perfectly back in again..
https://cyclingtips.com/2022/06/a-co...o-disc-brakes/
I have 7 bikes (2 are road bikes) all with disc brakes. I have zero disc brake noise on any of the bikes and I've spent plenty of time looking at my disc brakes the wrong way.
Thru axles are slower than QR levers. However...The alignment IS exactly what is was when taking off and putting on the wheel. QR levers and disc brakes have the alignment issues. Not thru axles.
#30
Full Member
Disc brakes are only about 200g heavier. Not a big deal.
https://cyclingtips.com/2022/06/a-co...o-disc-brakes/
I have 7 bikes (2 are road bikes) all with disc brakes. I have zero disc brake noise on any of the bikes and I've spent plenty of time looking at my disc brakes the wrong way.
Thru axles are slower than QR levers. However...The alignment IS exactly what is was when taking off and putting on the wheel. QR levers and disc brakes have the alignment issues. Not thru axles.
https://cyclingtips.com/2022/06/a-co...o-disc-brakes/
I have 7 bikes (2 are road bikes) all with disc brakes. I have zero disc brake noise on any of the bikes and I've spent plenty of time looking at my disc brakes the wrong way.
Thru axles are slower than QR levers. However...The alignment IS exactly what is was when taking off and putting on the wheel. QR levers and disc brakes have the alignment issues. Not thru axles.
The alignment tolerances on thru-axles are much tighter than on QR - but there's definitely a bit of wiggle room there, and I often have to try re-seating my wheels into the dropouts to get it right.
#31
Senior Member
You don't need discs to run fat tires such as 32mm+. My 'cross bikes with V-brakes can easily handle these tires. TRP 8.4 rim brakes offer outstanding modulation and stopping power, and are compatible with road brake levers.
Thru-axles - I forgot to mention what a fussy time-consuming PITA these are. With standard quick-release wheels, you flip the lever, and the wheel drops out, just like Tullio Campagnolo meant it to happen. That is, after you do a little grinding on the lawyer tabs, which the industry was forced to adopt due to ambulance-chasing lawyers, and the broad industry conclusion that the riding public is incompetent.
To be clear, thru-axles are not axles, they do not bear rider forces, nor do bearings rotate around them. They are strictly wheel retention devices, which actually generate LESS axial wheel retention force than a standard QR lever when properly applied. I have never experienced a situation when a QR-equipped wheel shifted due to inadequate clamping forces.
This is how the sorry bike industry got to thru-axles:
Thru-axles - I forgot to mention what a fussy time-consuming PITA these are. With standard quick-release wheels, you flip the lever, and the wheel drops out, just like Tullio Campagnolo meant it to happen. That is, after you do a little grinding on the lawyer tabs, which the industry was forced to adopt due to ambulance-chasing lawyers, and the broad industry conclusion that the riding public is incompetent.
To be clear, thru-axles are not axles, they do not bear rider forces, nor do bearings rotate around them. They are strictly wheel retention devices, which actually generate LESS axial wheel retention force than a standard QR lever when properly applied. I have never experienced a situation when a QR-equipped wheel shifted due to inadequate clamping forces.
This is how the sorry bike industry got to thru-axles:
- 1930's: Tullio Campagnolo's great invention
- 1980's: somebody hurt themselves using a QR wheel. Legal mayhem follows. Obviously in the US.
- 1980's: Butt-covering: lawyer tabs or 'wheel retention' tabs installed on all bikes, first in the US, and then the rest of the world caves in.
- 1980's onwards: now riders no longer attach wheels by clamping the QR, but they spin the QR lever. This results in inadequate retention forces.
- 1990's: discs take over MTBs, and discs eject front wheels due to extra braking forces at the fork ends. If users clamped their QR properly, then this would not be an issue.
- 2010's onward: The bike industry gives up on the assumption that users can figure out a QR when applied to discs. So an utterly foolproof system is needed: the thru-axle. This allows users to spin the lever to attach the wheel (like they were doing inappropriately with the QR).
- Onward: this has now spawned a chaos of incompatibility in the industry. Plus wheel changes are glacial.
#32
Full Member
You don't need discs to run fat tires such as 32mm+. My 'cross bikes with V-brakes can easily handle these tires. TRP 8.4 rim brakes offer outstanding modulation and stopping power, and are compatible with road brake levers.
Thru-axles - I forgot to mention what a fussy time-consuming PITA these are. With standard quick-release wheels, you flip the lever, and the wheel drops out, just like Tullio Campagnolo meant it to happen. That is, after you do a little grinding on the lawyer tabs, which the industry was forced to adopt due to ambulance-chasing lawyers, and the broad industry conclusion that the riding public is incompetent.
To be clear, thru-axles are not axles, they do not bear rider forces, nor do bearings rotate around them. They are strictly wheel retention devices, which actually generate LESS axial wheel retention force than a standard QR lever when properly applied. I have never experienced a situation when a QR-equipped wheel shifted due to inadequate clamping forces.
Thru-axles - I forgot to mention what a fussy time-consuming PITA these are. With standard quick-release wheels, you flip the lever, and the wheel drops out, just like Tullio Campagnolo meant it to happen. That is, after you do a little grinding on the lawyer tabs, which the industry was forced to adopt due to ambulance-chasing lawyers, and the broad industry conclusion that the riding public is incompetent.
To be clear, thru-axles are not axles, they do not bear rider forces, nor do bearings rotate around them. They are strictly wheel retention devices, which actually generate LESS axial wheel retention force than a standard QR lever when properly applied. I have never experienced a situation when a QR-equipped wheel shifted due to inadequate clamping forces.
Thru-Axles are used for alignment. They had disc brake bikes with QRs, and they didn't work very well for the very reason prj71 and I were discussing. QRs are absolutely abysmal at making sure a wheel is perfectly centered. Thru-axles have significantly less room for error in this regard.
#33
Super-duper Genius
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Muskrat Springs, Utah
Posts: 1,311
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 584 Post(s)
Liked 646 Times
in
329 Posts
Seems to me that a lot of folks exaggerate situations (in their own minds and in BF discussions). There's usually a kernel of truth, but it gets overblown.
"Disc brake bikes must be heavier, to deal with the increased stresses." Maybe the brakes themselves are a few ounces heavier, but the wheels, frame, and fork do not have to be. The fork is the only part that gets stressed more. Make it out of carbon fiber and it can handle that stress while also having better aero qualities and actually being lighter. Oh, and rims take much less wear, and you can stop faster in wet conditions, and other factors that you failed to weigh in your overall evaluation.
"The bike industry only switched to disc brakes to rake in more profit." Actually, they are quite good at discovering what will continue to bring profits in the long term. If disc brakes truly have all the drawbacks that are often cited and none of the benefits, consumers in our (mostly) free market economy will catch on, and the industry will return to rim brakes. I don't foresee it happening.
"Bikes today are harder for the average owner to maintain, and are also more expensive." They are indeed more expensive... as is everything. The reasons for this should be discussed in a politics sub-forum (over in Foo?). The average Joe-box-of-donuts has never had the skill, tools, or desires to maintain a bicycle beyond the most basic lubrication and adjustment tasks. Dedicated amateurs have always been capable of most repairs, and that's still the case, even with the most high performance, high tech bikes.
My favorite is "A bike with [whatever was state of the art when the commenter got into cycling] has everything you need and nothing you don't. It was perfectly situated on the cost/benefits graph. All the developments that came out since then are a pointless waste." But the guy a generation before you said the same thing about his state of the art. And young people today see your bike as an obsolete clunker, and so on.
"Disc brake bikes must be heavier, to deal with the increased stresses." Maybe the brakes themselves are a few ounces heavier, but the wheels, frame, and fork do not have to be. The fork is the only part that gets stressed more. Make it out of carbon fiber and it can handle that stress while also having better aero qualities and actually being lighter. Oh, and rims take much less wear, and you can stop faster in wet conditions, and other factors that you failed to weigh in your overall evaluation.
"The bike industry only switched to disc brakes to rake in more profit." Actually, they are quite good at discovering what will continue to bring profits in the long term. If disc brakes truly have all the drawbacks that are often cited and none of the benefits, consumers in our (mostly) free market economy will catch on, and the industry will return to rim brakes. I don't foresee it happening.
"Bikes today are harder for the average owner to maintain, and are also more expensive." They are indeed more expensive... as is everything. The reasons for this should be discussed in a politics sub-forum (over in Foo?). The average Joe-box-of-donuts has never had the skill, tools, or desires to maintain a bicycle beyond the most basic lubrication and adjustment tasks. Dedicated amateurs have always been capable of most repairs, and that's still the case, even with the most high performance, high tech bikes.
My favorite is "A bike with [whatever was state of the art when the commenter got into cycling] has everything you need and nothing you don't. It was perfectly situated on the cost/benefits graph. All the developments that came out since then are a pointless waste." But the guy a generation before you said the same thing about his state of the art. And young people today see your bike as an obsolete clunker, and so on.
#34
Super-duper Genius
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Muskrat Springs, Utah
Posts: 1,311
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 584 Post(s)
Liked 646 Times
in
329 Posts
Thru-axles - I forgot to mention what a fussy time-consuming PITA these are. With standard quick-release wheels, you flip the lever, and the wheel drops out, just like Tullio Campagnolo meant it to happen. That is, after you do a little grinding on the lawyer tabs, which the industry was forced to adopt due to ambulance-chasing lawyers, and the broad industry conclusion that the riding public is incompetent.
Last edited by Broctoon; 08-26-22 at 05:28 PM.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 14,485
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7091 Post(s)
Liked 2,510 Times
in
1,373 Posts
I used to build bikes for fun. I quit because the price of parts inflated ridiculously.
When Shimano went to its global pricing scheme and groupsets gain a 50-100 percent cost bump ..... when i could no longer get brand-new Ultegra from the UK for $500 and 105 for $375 or whatever (now both trending at twice that for mechanical) .... then building bikes, even with $500 frames, became less efficient than buying bikes.
Wheels I don't build, so I have to buy wheels. You can get super-cheap Ali-Express wheels I guess .... and you can trust them too .... if you want. Basically, $1500 was about as little as i could pay for a sub 17-pound (with pedals) ready-to-roll bike ... with new parts. And that is using bargain-basement cockpit gear, which usually worked out okay .... no fancy names, but i am not laying down 1000+ watts so I am not breaking stems or bars.
I want to see the receipts and the parts lists for those "$1000 16-lb bikes." I mean it. Don't just make the claim---back the claim. Because if you are paying $500 for the frame, you are getting a groupset and wheels for $500 .... and either you are buying junk, buying used, or lying.
$200 for the wheels .... $200 for the group set .... $100 for the cockpit, cabling, barrel adjusters, headset, tires, tubes? yeah, i want to see the documentation. If i am wrong, I will say so .... but if you cannot post pics of the receipts .... well .....
When Shimano went to its global pricing scheme and groupsets gain a 50-100 percent cost bump ..... when i could no longer get brand-new Ultegra from the UK for $500 and 105 for $375 or whatever (now both trending at twice that for mechanical) .... then building bikes, even with $500 frames, became less efficient than buying bikes.
Wheels I don't build, so I have to buy wheels. You can get super-cheap Ali-Express wheels I guess .... and you can trust them too .... if you want. Basically, $1500 was about as little as i could pay for a sub 17-pound (with pedals) ready-to-roll bike ... with new parts. And that is using bargain-basement cockpit gear, which usually worked out okay .... no fancy names, but i am not laying down 1000+ watts so I am not breaking stems or bars.
I want to see the receipts and the parts lists for those "$1000 16-lb bikes." I mean it. Don't just make the claim---back the claim. Because if you are paying $500 for the frame, you are getting a groupset and wheels for $500 .... and either you are buying junk, buying used, or lying.
$200 for the wheels .... $200 for the group set .... $100 for the cockpit, cabling, barrel adjusters, headset, tires, tubes? yeah, i want to see the documentation. If i am wrong, I will say so .... but if you cannot post pics of the receipts .... well .....
#36
Full Member
I used to build bikes for fun. I quit because the price of parts inflated ridiculously.
When Shimano went to its global pricing scheme and groupsets gain a 50-100 percent cost bump ..... when i could no longer get brand-new Ultegra from the UK for $500 and 105 for $375 or whatever (now both trending at twice that for mechanical) .... then building bikes, even with $500 frames, became less efficient than buying bikes.
Wheels I don't build, so I have to buy wheels. You can get super-cheap Ali-Express wheels I guess .... and you can trust them too .... if you want. Basically, $1500 was about as little as i could pay for a sub 17-pound (with pedals) ready-to-roll bike ... with new parts. And that is using bargain-basement cockpit gear, which usually worked out okay .... no fancy names, but i am not laying down 1000+ watts so I am not breaking stems or bars.
I want to see the receipts and the parts lists for those "$1000 16-lb bikes." I mean it. Don't just make the claim---back the claim. Because if you are paying $500 for the frame, you are getting a groupset and wheels for $500 .... and either you are buying junk, buying used, or lying.
$200 for the wheels .... $200 for the group set .... $100 for the cockpit, cabling, barrel adjusters, headset, tires, tubes? yeah, i want to see the documentation. If i am wrong, I will say so .... but if you cannot post pics of the receipts .... well .....
When Shimano went to its global pricing scheme and groupsets gain a 50-100 percent cost bump ..... when i could no longer get brand-new Ultegra from the UK for $500 and 105 for $375 or whatever (now both trending at twice that for mechanical) .... then building bikes, even with $500 frames, became less efficient than buying bikes.
Wheels I don't build, so I have to buy wheels. You can get super-cheap Ali-Express wheels I guess .... and you can trust them too .... if you want. Basically, $1500 was about as little as i could pay for a sub 17-pound (with pedals) ready-to-roll bike ... with new parts. And that is using bargain-basement cockpit gear, which usually worked out okay .... no fancy names, but i am not laying down 1000+ watts so I am not breaking stems or bars.
I want to see the receipts and the parts lists for those "$1000 16-lb bikes." I mean it. Don't just make the claim---back the claim. Because if you are paying $500 for the frame, you are getting a groupset and wheels for $500 .... and either you are buying junk, buying used, or lying.
$200 for the wheels .... $200 for the group set .... $100 for the cockpit, cabling, barrel adjusters, headset, tires, tubes? yeah, i want to see the documentation. If i am wrong, I will say so .... but if you cannot post pics of the receipts .... well .....
Just a little more than $1k, and nowhere near 16lbs. Where did I go wrong?

Likes For aliasfox:
#37
Senior Member
You don't need discs to run fat tires such as 32mm+. My 'cross bikes with V-brakes can easily handle these tires. TRP 8.4 rim brakes offer outstanding modulation and stopping power, and are compatible with road brake levers.
Thru-axles - I forgot to mention what a fussy time-consuming PITA these are. With standard quick-release wheels, you flip the lever, and the wheel drops out, just like Tullio Campagnolo meant it to happen. That is, after you do a little grinding on the lawyer tabs, which the industry was forced to adopt due to ambulance-chasing lawyers, and the broad industry conclusion that the riding public is incompetent.
To be clear, thru-axles are not axles, they do not bear rider forces, nor do bearings rotate around them. They are strictly wheel retention devices, which actually generate LESS axial wheel retention force than a standard QR lever when properly applied. I have never experienced a situation when a QR-equipped wheel shifted due to inadequate clamping forces.
This is how the sorry bike industry got to thru-axles:
Thru-axles - I forgot to mention what a fussy time-consuming PITA these are. With standard quick-release wheels, you flip the lever, and the wheel drops out, just like Tullio Campagnolo meant it to happen. That is, after you do a little grinding on the lawyer tabs, which the industry was forced to adopt due to ambulance-chasing lawyers, and the broad industry conclusion that the riding public is incompetent.
To be clear, thru-axles are not axles, they do not bear rider forces, nor do bearings rotate around them. They are strictly wheel retention devices, which actually generate LESS axial wheel retention force than a standard QR lever when properly applied. I have never experienced a situation when a QR-equipped wheel shifted due to inadequate clamping forces.
This is how the sorry bike industry got to thru-axles:
- 1930's: Tullio Campagnolo's great invention
- 1980's: somebody hurt themselves using a QR wheel. Legal mayhem follows. Obviously in the US.
- 1980's: Butt-covering: lawyer tabs or 'wheel retention' tabs installed on all bikes, first in the US, and then the rest of the world caves in.
- 1980's onwards: now riders no longer attach wheels by clamping the QR, but they spin the QR lever. This results in inadequate retention forces.
- 1990's: discs take over MTBs, and discs eject front wheels due to extra braking forces at the fork ends. If users clamped their QR properly, then this would not be an issue.
- 2010's onward: The bike industry gives up on the assumption that users can figure out a QR when applied to discs. So an utterly foolproof system is needed: the thru-axle. This allows users to spin the lever to attach the wheel (like they were doing inappropriately with the QR).
- Onward: this has now spawned a chaos of incompatibility in the industry. Plus wheel changes are glacial.
#38
Senior Member
To recap: the thru-axle is not an axle, but simply a wheel retention device. It generates less compressive retention forces than a old-school quick-release axle properly applied. With a slight amount of attention and skill, QR hubset will drop into a frame with vertical dropouts and a standard fork perfectly every time, with zero alignment issues.
The only reason thru-axles exist, and their associated slow and fussy wheel changes, is the insulting assumption that the riding public is too incompetent to use a simple mechanical device.
#39
Senior Member
Let's hope this isn't the case, as it would be really bad engineering. Obviously, you design the (real) axle inside the hub to take all forces, and do not depend on some secondary backup reinforcement which is skinny and made out of aluminum. This would imply that if you have to change your thru-axle (due to inevitable loss at some trailhead), then the replacement thru-axle may or may not be properly designed and constructed and could result in hub failure.
To recap: the thru-axle is not an axle, but simply a wheel retention device. It generates less compressive retention forces than a old-school quick-release axle properly applied. With a slight amount of attention and skill, QR hubset will drop into a frame with vertical dropouts and a standard fork perfectly every time, with zero alignment issues.
The only reason thru-axles exist, and their associated slow and fussy wheel changes, is the insulting assumption that the riding public is too incompetent to use a simple mechanical device.
To recap: the thru-axle is not an axle, but simply a wheel retention device. It generates less compressive retention forces than a old-school quick-release axle properly applied. With a slight amount of attention and skill, QR hubset will drop into a frame with vertical dropouts and a standard fork perfectly every time, with zero alignment issues.
The only reason thru-axles exist, and their associated slow and fussy wheel changes, is the insulting assumption that the riding public is too incompetent to use a simple mechanical device.