# Are thru axles necessary for road bikes or gravel bikes with disc?



## aclinjury

Came across this little mention about the Litespeed Ku-wa ti frame on Slowtwitch

New ti frames from Litespeed - Slowtwitch.com

In the comment section below, the respected Tom Kellogg (of Spectrum Cycles) said (in response to a poster):



> Unsuspended rear ends don't benefit from thru-axles











So is Tom right? or is the bike industry just trying to push everyone to go to thru axle? (and that means buy new stuff!).


----------



## Trek_5200

I just picked up my Gravel spec Firefly Titanium. Beautiful bike. With 32 mm tires the thru-axles are not stiffening up the ride in a bad way. The UCI has blessed thru-axles in their racing spec. Seems this is the future. Wasn't difficult to remove the tire although my set-up makes use of a hex key tool(no hand lever). Why are you wed to quick release which is old technology designed for caliper brakes? As far as reasons to push, it probably avoids some industry liability issues but with the additional force disc brakes put out on wheels seems to make sense to me. I don't think this is a way to make you buy new stuff. That would apply to disc brakes in general but not thru-axle. If you're specing a new bike go thru-axle. There's no downside.


----------



## kiwisimon

No downside but what is the upside? QR worked just fine for me in my road and XC MTB applications, I never ever felt that my forks at either end were too flexy and needed a stiffer axle. I just think it's forced obsolescence on the consumer. It works for Apple so why not everyone else? All those BB standards, are we really any faster?


----------



## Trek_5200

There is a safety benefit. one can argue how much. i'm with you on the bottom brackets. lots of people buying into they are a response for stiffness and not a way of engineering costs out of the bike. 

As far as the the push-back by you or the op. If its a new bike, why not get thru-axle. If its an old bike you can still buy wheels?

Why do you guys prefer quick release would be my question? At least with bottom brackets the new fangled improvements cause a host of issues that should preclude anyone from adopting most famously known as bb creek.


----------



## bikerector

I think thru-axles are unnecessary. They add some but not a lot security, especially in the rear where there is already a lot more tying the whole thing together. I think front thru-axles are nice for when you start hitting really bumpy terrain but even on my cross bike with QR, I don't experience much flex issues with a QR and I'm usually pushing 225-230 lbs during the cross season. As mentioned above though, there aren't much for downsides. QR is probably quicker for a wheel change but not a lot quicker, getting the rotor and pads to keep from hitting is usually what slows me down there.


----------



## Trek_5200

the bike shop i worked with on my bike recommended thru-axle up front and quick release in the back in fact. I went thru-axle on both however. seems your argument has merit.


----------



## Trek_5200

Have to go back to if there's no downside why complain?


----------



## kiwisimon

Trek_5200 said:


> Have to go back to if there's no downside why complain?


Cause without a noticeable upside why bother except to take cyclists money? Evolution thru necessity sure but evolution for it's own sake, no thanks. I'd prefer big cycling find a solution to dirty chains and derailleurs over a stiffer axle on my road bike that takes longer to remove a wheel.


----------



## Trek_5200

kiwisimon said:


> Cause without a noticeable upside why bother except to take cyclists money? Evolution thru necessity sure but evolution for it's own sake, no thanks. I'd prefer big cycling find a solution to dirty chains and derailleurs over a stiffer axle on my road bike that takes longer to remove a wheel.


I wasn't aware they were charging more for the thru-axle or is it like the bb thing where they save money on making it? I'm just not seeing this argument.


----------



## kiwisimon

Trek_5200 said:


> I wasn't aware they were charging more for the thru-axle or is it like the bb thing where they save money on making it? I'm just not seeing this argument.


okay so buy your new thru axle bike/ frameset. What are you going to do with that 2014 set of ENVE SES 4.5 that you paid 3K+ for? The upgrade will make the old standard obsolete. Upgrading is where this industry makes most of it's money not cheapening the manufacturing process. Look at how many perfectly usable 9 or 10 speed systems were retired early cause 11S was the latest and greatest. 11S wasn't cheaper.
Hope that gets my point across but it's just my opinion. :=)


----------



## willstylez

kiwisimon said:


> okay so buy your new thru axle bike/ frameset. What are you going to do with that 2014 set of ENVE SES 4.5 that you paid 3K+ for? The upgrade will make the old standard obsolete. Upgrading is where this industry makes most of it's money not cheapening the manufacturing process. Look at how many perfectly usable 9 or 10 speed systems were retired early cause 11S was the latest and greatest. 11S wasn't cheaper.
> Hope that gets my point across but it's just my opinion. :=)


All depends on the hubs. I called White Industries about retrofitting for my front CLD hub for a thru-axle, and they said, YES, no problem. I may be putting a new fork on my Moots this summer, hence the inquiry.

And, I already retrofitted my Hadley hubs to thru-axles, on my mtn bike. Easy peasy!


----------



## Trek_5200

Gotcha. Finally I understand the annoyance. This is the risk of being an early adopter. And for road bikes you were an early adopter. UCI just came out with their standards. It was almost a given that the manufacturers would follow suit. But to the best of my knowledge you can still buy plenty of bikes with quick release. There's always custom too.


----------



## tlg

> Are thru axles necessary for road bikes or gravel bikes with disc?


Nope. I have QR's on mine. No problems at all. My MTB's have them too. No problem at all.

Note that many of the new disc wheelsets are thru axles. And I imagine as time goes by it'll be harder and harder to find QR wheels. So take that into consideration.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

The question implies that someone actually thinks they are "necessary". I'd like to give cyclist credit and think that isn't the case but I'm afraid it probably is.


----------



## aclinjury

It was a little interesting to hear an opinion from a person who knows a lot about building bicycle.

I used to have 2007 Specialized Enduro with QR rear, and I hit 3'-5' drops all the times, basically on every ride, and never once did the rear wheel come close to loosening, and that bike had a 6" travel and 185mm rear disc. If anything, it was the suspension that was the weak link, not the QR system. Road, gravel, and even cx bikes won't ever see anything close resembling to that sort of abuse.


----------



## aclinjury

Jay Strongbow said:


> The question implies that someone actually thinks they are "necessary". I'd like to give cyclist credit and think that isn't the case but I'm afraid it probably is.


Marketing can make a lot of people think a lot of things are necessary. Probably true for most things in life too! It was still interesting hearing from a person who knows a lot about bicycle building, old school straight shooter.


----------



## Trek_5200

aclinjury said:


> Marketing can make a lot of people think a lot of things are necessary. Probably true for most things in life too! It was still interesting hearing from a person who knows a lot about bicycle building, old school straight shooter.



I remember seeing some recalls involving quick release. None with thru-axle. Here's one example. And yes, some are blaming the owners, but I never heard this happen with caliper set-ups.

Massive Quick Release Recall Expanded | Bicycling


----------



## Jay Strongbow

Trek_5200 said:


> I remember seeing some recalls involving quick release. None with thru-axle. Here's one example. And yes, some are blaming the owners, but I never heard this happen with caliper set-ups.
> 
> Massive Quick Release Recall Expanded | Bicycling


I've never heard of a quick release that was left open getting caught in a disc on a bike that didn't have a disc either. 

"The risk is that, when open, the lever can get caught in the disc rotor, stopping the wheel and causing a crash."


----------



## Migen21

Thru Axles are no more 'necessary' than disc brakes, 11 speed gearing, or tubeless tires. 

Are there benefits to them? It's probably subjective, and very situational, but certainly having a stiffer wheel/axle can't hurt, and will help under certain situations. It probably depends a lot on the type of riding, your weight, the strength/rigidity of your wheel, and many other things...

There probably isn't much downside, other than the previously mentioned limitations in available frames and hubs.

I recently hired a wheel builder to build me a budget set of thru-axle wheels for my gravel/road bike. There is not much on the 'low-end' side of the hub market that will support road/disc/thru-axle.


----------



## brucew

I have nine years and over 20,000 miles on my foul weather commuter with disc brakes. No thru-axles. No problems either.


----------



## ogre

I built up a gravel grinder in Dec. 2014 w/ 142mm thru-axle on back. Totally subjective, but I do think it feels very solid on back when climbing out of the saddle. I like to think better than what it would with QR. Again, totally subjective, possibly wishful thinking and I can only compare to my previous grinder w/ QR.

I also built up the bike w/ QR front and got the thru axle fork about 6 months later. Same Whisky Parts fork, just different axle setup. I couldn't tell a bit of difference after that change.


----------



## Hiro11

I personally really like thru axles. The next road bike I buy will have two thru axles and disc brakes. To me, it seems like a much stronger connection. Also, it makes aligning discs much less finicky.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

Hiro11 said:


> I personally really like thru axles. The next road bike I buy will have two thru axles and disc brakes. To me, it seems like a much stronger connection. Also, it makes aligning discs much less finicky.


Maybe it is stronger. Strong enough is strong enough though ain't it? Has there ever been a case of a non-defective properly used q/r causing problems because it wasn't strong enough?


----------



## Hiro11

Jay Strongbow said:


> Maybe it is stronger. Strong enough is strong enough though ain't it?


I'm not implying thru axles are "necessary", nor am I implying that QRs are inappropriate for rough usage. Please don't read that into my post. I mountain biked for years on rough ground on a bike with quick releases with no problems, they're obviously plenty strong. I just happen to prefer thru axles. I find them to be superior to QRs in essentially every way for my uses. I think stating that thru axles give "no benefit on non-suspended bikes" is incorrect.



> Has there ever been a case of a non-defective properly used q/r causing problems because it wasn't strong enough?


Sure. Lots of skewers have broken, I've seen it happen to people myself. Again, I'm not implying that QRs aren't plenty strong. I've also seen plenty of frames break, anything can break.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

Hiro11 said:


> I'm not implying thru axles are "necessary", nor am I implying that QRs are inappropriate for rough usage. Please don't read that into my post. I mountain biked for years on rough ground on a bike with quick releases with no problems, they're obviously plenty strong. I just happen to prefer thru axles. I find them to be superior to QRs in essentially every way for my uses. I think stating that thru axles give "no benefit on non-suspended bikes" is incorrect.
> 
> Sure. Lots of skewers have broken, I've seen it happen to people myself. Again, I'm not implying that QRs aren't plenty strong. I've also seen plenty of frames break, anything can break.


okay, got it.


----------



## Mike T.

Thru axles came into being originally due to some wheels being pushed out of open fork ends due to the force reaction direction of an applied disc brake. Of course, zillions of us did many miles with disc brakes and QRs on our mountain bikes without problems. I can't imagine any road bike being subjected to the forces applied to a mountain bike. As a secondary benefit maybe the thru-axle makes for a stiffer connection but I never felt any flex in my mtb setup. Is this just another marketing ploy?


----------



## kiwisimon

Thousands of us also got by without lawyer tabs as well. Yeah it sounds like marketing 101, create a problem to appeal to emotion and then provide the solution.


----------



## Mike T.

kiwisimon said:


> Thousands of us also got by without lawyer tabs as well. Yeah it sounds like marketing 101, create a problem to appeal to emotion and then provide the solution.


Solutions looking for problems.


----------



## Trek_5200

Mike T. said:


> . Is this just another marketing ploy?



Doubt it. If anything it is to shield the bike companies from liability. That and with the UCI spec it just makes sense that the market would gravitate toward this design. As others have said, there's no downside which makes thru-axle different than pressfit bb. I'd argue that EPS and disc brakes in general are more of a marketing gimick, but once the decision's made to go disc other than reducing potential liabilities, there's nothing in it for the bike companies.


----------



## aclinjury

Knowing how to operate a QR is akin to knowing how to operate the doors of your car.

One should always close the door before putting the car into gear. And if the car warning system somehow forgets to remind you to close the door, it's always a good and common sense practice to close the door before driving. And you don't open the door while driving, or sitting in traffic. If you're somehow dumb enough to open the door in these situation, resulting in your door getting blown off, the should manufacturers change the design of the doors so that they become sliding doors?

Trek's recall had more to do with "cya" then the weakness of the QR system.

On an unrelated note, operating a hair dryer in the bath is probably more dangerous, and I've read more stories about people getting electrocuted in the bath tubs. Is there anyone in this day in age who doesn't know that water and electricity don't mix very well?


----------



## Trek_5200

Sorry but this thread feels like someone took my old coke away and gave me new coke.


----------



## Mike T.

aclinjury said:


> Knowing how to operate a QR is akin to knowing how to operate the doors of your car.
> 
> One should always close the door before putting the car into gear. And if the car warning system somehow forgets to remind you to close the door, it's always a good and common sense practice to close the door before driving. And you don't open the door while driving, or sitting in traffic. If you're somehow dumb enough to open the door in these situation, resulting in your door getting blown off, the should manufacturers change the design of the doors so that they become sliding doors?
> 
> Trek's recall had more to do with "cya" then the weakness of the QR system.
> 
> On an unrelated note, operating a hair dryer in the bath is probably more dangerous, and I've read more stories about people getting electrocuted in the bath tubs. Is there anyone in this day in age who doesn't know that water and electricity don't mix very well?


It's the same with the recent (well within the last year) QR recalls on disc brake bikes. If some numpty doesn't close the QR properly, the lever can drop down and jam in the rotating disc. I've used MTB disc brakes since 1999, just after they hit the market. I was VERY active in disc brake forums (I even had a website about them) for ten years. Not ONCE did I hear or read about a disc brake wheel QR safety issue. But now that even Walmart sells disc brake equipped bikes we have legions of people who never did have a clue on how a QR operates, going over the handlebars because the lever did a nose-dive into the disc. Serenity now. We need saving from ourselves.


----------



## SwiftSolo

I think you have it right.

My take on thru axles:

The real benefit relates to the tradition of having skewer levers on the left side. With discs it becomes more important that levers are squeezed shut instead of pushed. This technique is not possible with levers on the left side because the disc will not allow you to get your fingers around the seat or chain stay in the vicinity of the lever. The problem is compounded by the desire to use tighter skewers with discs

No doubt that experienced disc users get around this by putting a large amount of downward pressure on the frame while pushing the lever shut. However, the number of people complaining about disc rub can be reduced to near zero with thru axels as they are more idiot proof.


kiwisimon said:


> Cause without a noticeable upside why bother except to take cyclists money? Evolution thru necessity sure but evolution for it's own sake, no thanks. I'd prefer big cycling find a solution to dirty chains and derailleurs over a stiffer axle on my road bike that takes longer to remove a wheel.


----------



## mfdemicco

Thruaxle on the front is important for safety. When applied, the moment from the front disk generates a force that pushes the wheel out of the dropouts. I wouldn't even trust lawyer lumps, in this case.


----------



## K Dub Cycle

I am thinking of getting a 2014 Giant TCX Advanced 1 with front thru-axle and rear QR. The 2016 TCX has thru-axle front and rear. Is this becoming the standard?


----------



## tlg

mfdemicco said:


> Thruaxle on the front is important for safety. When applied, the moment from the front disk generates a force that pushes the wheel out of the dropouts. I wouldn't even trust lawyer lumps, in this case.


Uhhh.... no.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Disc brake fork drop outs are angled forward at a right angle to forces generated by the brake. If you put your bike on a bike stand and lock your front disc with no skewer, you'll find that there is no possibility of rotating the wheel forward in a manner that would generate force parallel to the drop out slot.


mfdemicco said:


> Thruaxle on the front is important for safety. When applied, the moment from the front disk generates a force that pushes the wheel out of the dropouts. I wouldn't even trust lawyer lumps, in this case.


----------



## Trek_5200

K Dub Cycle said:


> I am thinking of getting a 2014 Giant TCX Advanced 1 with front thru-axle and rear QR. The 2016 TCX has thru-axle front and rear. Is this becoming the standard?


I was looking for the the UCI spec. I can't recall where I saved it, however I recall it being thru-axle front and back along with 160 size rotors. That said, if you aren't racing....you could choose a more pragmatic approach. As others have said the advantages of thru-axle are more apparent on the front wheel. My own view is on a new bike, no-downside to getting it on both. This isn't the bb debate where the manufacturers are pushing a standard with downside to the buyer.


----------



## aclinjury

Trek_5200 said:


> Sorry but this thread feels like someone took my old coke away and gave me new coke.


more like give you a diet coke!


----------



## aclinjury

Mike T. said:


> It's the same with the recent (well within the last year) QR recalls on disc brake bikes. If some numpty doesn't close the QR properly, the lever can drop down and jam in the rotating disc. I've used MTB disc brakes since 1999, just after they hit the market. I was VERY active in disc brake forums (I even had a website about them) for ten years. Not ONCE did I hear or read about a disc brake wheel QR safety issue. But now that even Walmart sells disc brake equipped bikes we have legions of people who never did have a clue on how a QR operates, going over the handlebars because the lever did a nose-dive into the disc. Serenity now. We need saving from ourselves.


I've been mtb'ing (mainly enduro, before they invented the term enduro) longer than road cycling. I've NEVER ever once seen or heard of anyone getting into a crash because s/he forgot to lock down the QR! Never once. I have seen guys who forgot to tightly lock down their rear QR (usually because they took their rear out the night before and never locked it down tight and then forgot to check it again before the next ride), but these guys are experienced enough to feel that something is not right with their rear wheel and stopped to check immediately before riding further. So all this talk in the roadie world that we need thru axle to save ourselves from ejecting wheels... has me scratching my head in wft fashion, asking why didn't I see all the crashes all these years in mtb.

Now in dirtjumping, BMX, track cycling, I've seen guys crashing out a few times, all of them resulting in spectacular crashes, because they didn't properly torque down their axle nuts on the rear-facing drops. Yet, I've never heard of any dirtjumper, or bmx'er, or tracker, blaming the rear dropouts. If anything, they're afraid of being labeled a f*cking noob for causing their own crash! lol


----------



## Hiro11

I don't understand the pushback here on thru axles. 

I understand not seeing enough incremental value in thru axles to "require" a new frame. I understand not seeing them as "necessary". I don't understand dismissing them as "marketing hype".

I don't think anyone would argue that a thru axle isn't stronger or stiffer. Again, maybe not to the degree that people care or feel motivated to buy a bike solely based on thru axles but measurably stronger and stiffer. Also, thru axles make alignment of disc brakes easier, that seems similarly inarguable. Lastly, it's not like thru axles are any harder to use.

All else being equal, if you're buying a brand new bike why not prefer one with thru axles over one with QRs?


----------



## mfdemicco

tlg said:


> Uhhh.... no.


http://yarchive.net/bike/disk_brake_qr.html


----------



## tlg

mfdemicco said:


> Disk brakes and quick-release unscrewing (James Annan; Jobst Brandt)


Well there you go. A newsgroup discussion from 2003  

And here we are in reality 12years later and disc wheels aren't popping out of forks.


----------



## mfdemicco

tlg said:


> Well there you go. A newsgroup discussion from 2003
> 
> And here we are in reality 12years later and disc wheels aren't popping out of forks.


They're not because the industry hushed it up and quietly moved to thruaxles for most bikes. I saw a mountain bike race on tv and the racer crashed because his front wheel came out.


----------



## kiwisimon

Hiro11 said:


> All else being equal, if you're buying a brand new bike why not prefer one with thru axles over one with QRs?


Cause it just encourages the bastards to find something else that "needs" fixing. Stem Bar interface must be about due for a universal upgrade. I do like my DEDA 35 system on my roadbike but I don't have a tapered HT.


----------



## Fajita Dave

kiwisimon said:


> Stem Bar interface must be about due for a universal upgrade.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K7AjJQmQkDE


----------



## looigi

I haven't read all the posts. The main function of through axles is to more firmly connect the left and right support structure together, i.e. the fork legs and the left and right rear triangles. With disc brakes, the braking force is placed entirely on one fork leg or on one side of the rear triangle. Rear triangles are pretty strong and rigid, but fork legs are less so. In suspension forks, lateral loads on the wheel try to compress one leg while extending the other. There's a bridge across the top of the legs to resist this, but adding a through axle at the bottom helps. It is also true that with front disc calipers mounted toward the rear of the disc, there's a reaction torque to the braking torque that is pushing the wheel's axle downward, which would be out of the dropouts. These are facts. What's debatable is the magnitude of these effects and their desirability with respect to any downsides.


----------



## tlg

mfdemicco said:


> They're not because the industry hushed it up and quietly moved to thruaxles for most bikes. I saw a mountain bike race on tv and the racer crashed because his front wheel came out.


Uh huh... they hushed it up for decades and millions of bikes. Sure. Even though they still make QR disc wheels.... which don't magically pop out of forks.  

Not sure what it proves that you once seen a wheel come off a bike on TV.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

I can just just imagine if the internet were around when Q/R's hit the market.

Some people would be predicting a 50% fatality rate using them and others would counter with stories about people getting caught in the middle of civil wars because they couldn't get their wheel off to change a flat where a Q/R would have saved them.


----------



## mfdemicco

tlg said:


> Uh huh... they hushed it up for decades and millions of bikes. Sure. Even though they still make QR disc wheels.... which don't magically pop out of forks.
> 
> Not sure what it proves that you once seen a wheel come off a bike on TV.


As Swifty said, they've mitigated the problem somewhat by facing the dropouts forward. Mountain bikes didn't have a huge problem because suspension forks had a counterbore that keeps the wheel from ejecting. There's a secondary issue with the skewer unscrewing because of movement. 

If you want to bury your head in the sand and deny there was a problem, what do I care? It's been well documented.


----------



## SwiftSolo

looigi said:


> It is also true that with front disc calipers mounted toward the rear of the disc, there's a reaction torque to the braking torque that is pushing the wheel's axle downward, which would be out of the dropouts. These are facts. What's debatable is the magnitude of these effects and their desirability with respect to any downsides.


If disc calipers on road bikes were in fact mounted near the rear of the disc you would be right--especially if the drop outs were vertical. Since the pads are mounted/span from roughly 1 to 2 o'clock and the dropouts are typically angled at 7 or 7:30 there exists zero force pushing the axle in the outward direction of the dropout slot open end. In fact the opposite is true when you look at the direction of force during braking related deceleration which is aft and upward toward the closed end of the angled fork drop out (upward component of axle force is a product of riders weight).


----------



## AvantDale

I recently switched to the thru axle on the rear of my mountain bike. I could not tell any difference when it came to "flex", but the ease of use was much better than the QR...especially on a bike stand. Once you slide the axle through, everything is lined up. No futzing with the QR. Before I had to take the bike off the stand, loosen the QR and make sure it was centered in the dropouts. Then put it back on the stand to run through the gears. With a TA...you slide the axle through and snug the lever. 

I used to always have to double check the QR's if I put them on while on the stand, now with the TA's front and rear...I know that everything is lined up once the axle slides through. 

For me the TA is easier to work with.

My road bike is still QR though...and going to stay that way for quite a while.


----------



## froze

My understanding, howbeit limited, is that thru axle design is necessary with bikes with disk brakes in the front because the disk brakes, which put enormous amount of torque on the fork, led to redesigning the fork to prevent fork failure problems they were having with regular forks, but once the fork weakness was resolved another weakness came up, and that was the difficulty that a standard QR had at holding the wheel in the dropout, so the thru axle design came along. 

Most standard QR's come loose, howbeit rarely, on the front, they rarely if ever come loose on the rear (assuming no operator error), thus a thru axle design on the rear would be a waste but then why make hubs that would be labeled front with the thru axle design and rear with the QR design? It would be cheaper in production just to make all hubs thru axle design and be done with it even though there would be no advantage to have the thru axle design on the rear. 

The bicycle industry is taking it's cues from the automotive industry, upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, which in turn drives prices and profits up. Most cyclists don't need carbon fiber wheels, but they bought them anyways only to find problems with stopping, so disk brakes came along to answer that problem even though most cyclists don't need disk brakes, then came better forks due to the disk brakes which were needed once you went that route, then the thru axle which is probably needed once you went whole hog into the carbon wheels and disk brake nonsense, then electronic wireless shifting came along even though most people don't need it. So the question now is what's the next piece of BS will they sell us? And how dumb will we be at accepting it? I think the cycling industry already knows the answer to the last question, thus the answer to the first question is whatever they can dream up and get pros to ride with it.


----------



## SwiftSolo

froze said:


> The bicycle industry is taking it's cues from the automotive industry, upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, which in turn drives prices and profits up. Most cyclists don't need carbon fiber wheels, but they bought them anyways only to find problems with stopping, so disk brakes came along to answer that problem even though most cyclists don't need disk brakes, then came better forks due to the disk brakes which were needed once you went that route, then the thru axle which is probably needed once you went whole hog into the carbon wheels and disk brake nonsense, then electronic wireless shifting came along even though most people don't need it. So the question now is what's the next piece of BS will they sell us? And how dumb will we be at accepting it? I think the cycling industry already knows the answer to the last question, thus the answer to the first question is whatever they can dream up and get pros to ride with it.


It's great that you're willing to expose this vast corporate conspiracy. It's clear that in 1929 Henry could have jumped from the Model T to what is now called the 2016 Expedition, but it would have eliminated all those useless iterations between and the massive profits.

Same with the jump from the penny farthing to di2 carbon disc bike. Those bass-turds could have eliminated all the BS scam models in between except for their greed.

Just be thankful that the hippies from the 60's took over the edoctrination system so we could become enlightened!


----------



## froze

SwiftSolo said:


> It's great that you're willing to expose this vast corporate conspiracy. It's clear that in 1929 Henry could have jumped from the Model T to what is now called the 2016 Expedition, but it would have eliminated all those useless iterations between and the massive profits.
> 
> Same with the jump from the penny farthing to di2 carbon disc bike. Those bass-turds could have eliminated all the BS scam models in between except for their greed.
> 
> Just be thankful that the hippies from the 60's took over the edoctrination system so we could become enlightened!


I was around before the model T so there.

But you are a prime example of true ignorance when it comes to built in product obsolescence. I remember back in the mid 70's to late 70's Consumer Reports said that the average life expectancy of a a household major appliance was 24 years, today it's just 12. I have friend who is a manager at Johnson Controls here in Fort Wayne Indiana that oversees the production of automotive batteries, they make batteries for all sorts of companies, Walmart, Advance Auto, Sears, Motorcraft, Interstate, and a few others. Depending on the price point of the battery they mix in a predetermined amount of a chemical that is designed to shorten the life of the battery, the Walmart battery gets the most of this chemical while the Interstate gets the least which is why the Walmart battery won't last as long as the Interstate, but even the Interstate has the chemical in it so it doesn't last a very long time; if they didn't mix this chemical in a cheap Walmart battery would last as long as a expensive Interstate battery and both would last about twice as long as the Interstate does now, thus there would be no reason to pay more for a Interstate battery. This suicide chemical is so exacting they can be assured that a battery will fail about 6 months after the warranty is over assuming no mechanical failure of the internal plates of the battery or car issues that discharged the battery too many times. A lot of stuff today is built to fail soon after the warranty expires which means a lot of stuff actually fails before the warranty expires which rarely occurred in the pre 90's era. 

But I know you're not going to listen to anything I have to say due to your snarky response, so instead read this: The odd business of intentional product failure: built-in obsolescence 

Apple?s Latest ?Innovation? Is Turning Planned Obsolescence Into Planned Failure « iFixit Blog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence


----------



## Opus51569

I guess I look at the thru-axle as part and parcel to making the switch to disc brakes on road bikes. It's an "innovation". It isn't necessary. The level of improvement over existing technology is certainly debatable. But it does enjoy the benefit of being new and different.

For me, if I buy a disc brake bike (and I'm not planning to do so any time in the near future), my current wheels won't fit it regardless. If it's already going to have its own proprietary brakes, mounts, and wheel hubs, it might as well have thru-axles, too.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Yep, you can believe your friend when he says all the "technology" since the pennyfarthing has been a a giant corporate conspiracy. 

I heard from a real good source that the tsunami in Japan was orchestrated by those corporate marketing bass turds in the auto industry.

Hey, is this you riding the last real bike before those sunz-a-bit-chas took over the industry? https://youtu.be/BuPJoA9gIro



froze said:


> I was around before the model T so there.
> 
> But you are a prime example of true ignorance when it comes to built in product obsolescence. I remember back in the mid 70's to late 70's Consumer Reports said that the average life expectancy of a a household major appliance was 24 years, today it's just 12. I have friend who is a manager at Johnson Controls here in Fort Wayne Indiana that oversees the production of automotive batteries, they make batteries for all sorts of companies, Walmart, Advance Auto, Sears, Motorcraft, Interstate, and a few others. Depending on the price point of the battery they mix in a predetermined amount of a chemical that is designed to shorten the life of the battery, the Walmart battery gets the most of this chemical while the Interstate gets the least which is why the Walmart battery won't last as long as the Interstate, but even the Interstate has the chemical in it so it doesn't last a very long time; if they didn't mix this chemical in a cheap Walmart battery would last as long as a expensive Interstate battery and both would last about twice as long as the Interstate does now, thus there would be no reason to pay more for a Interstate battery. This suicide chemical is so exacting they can be assured that a battery will fail about 6 months after the warranty is over assuming no mechanical failure of the internal plates of the battery or car issues that discharged the battery too many times. A lot of stuff today is built to fail soon after the warranty expires which means a lot of stuff actually fails before the warranty expires which rarely occurred in the pre 90's era.
> 
> But I know you're not going to listen to anything I have to say due to your snarky response, so instead read this: The odd business of intentional product failure: built-in obsolescence
> 
> Apple?s Latest ?Innovation? Is Turning Planned Obsolescence Into Planned Failure « iFixit Blog
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence


----------



## mfdemicco

I'm interested in the Giant Anyroad Comax, a carbon bike at a great price with clearance for wide tires and excellent standover height. However, it doesn't use thruaxles and the fork dropouts face down. I haven't seen one in a shop yet, but I'm concerned about wheel retention. Maybe they have massive lawyer lumps, which would be acceptable.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Take a close look at the fork first. The drop out should be angled down and forward at about a 35 degree angle. The rear drop out should be angled down and aft at about a 35 degree angle. Those angles are relative to vertical.

If they are truly plumb (doubtful) I'd look for a different bike.


mfdemicco said:


> I'm interested in the Giant Anyroad Comax, a carbon bike at a great price with clearance for wide tires and excellent standover height. However, it doesn't use thruaxles and the fork dropouts face down. I haven't seen one in a shop yet, but I'm concerned about wheel retention. Maybe they have massive lawyer lumps, which would be acceptable.
> 
> View attachment 313086


----------



## OldChipper

Hiro11 said:


> I don't understand the pushback here on thru axles.
> 
> I understand not seeing enough incremental value in thru axles to "require" a new frame. I understand not seeing them as "necessary". I don't understand dismissing them as "marketing hype".
> 
> I don't think anyone would argue that a thru axle isn't stronger or stiffer. Again, maybe not to the degree that people care or feel motivated to buy a bike solely based on thru axles but measurably stronger and stiffer. Also, thru axles make alignment of disc brakes easier, that seems similarly inarguable. Lastly, it's not like thru axles are any harder to use.
> 
> All else being equal, if you're buying a brand new bike why not prefer one with thru axles over one with QRs?


Oh FFS! There's not ONE SINGLE reason to want Thru-axles (or disc brakes for that matter). Quick releases work just fine (and are uh quick, as well by the way) so WHY THE HECK would you want something different that is not backwardly compatible when there is NO positive advantage (just like discs for 95% of cyclists).


----------



## OldChipper

mfdemicco said:


> I'm interested in the Giant Anyroad Comax, a carbon bike at a great price with clearance for wide tires and excellent standover height. However, it doesn't use thruaxles and the fork dropouts face down. I haven't seen one in a shop yet, but I'm concerned about wheel retention. Maybe they have massive lawyer lumps, which would be acceptable.
> 
> View attachment 313086


Now THAT is one UGLY F'ing bike. UGH!


----------



## SwiftSolo

You'll have to forgive the d/f's here of RBR. They hate that technology costs money and money usually results from effort.

It's easier to claim that technology is stupid than to get off one's ass and earn what it takes to participate. Those who do use new technology make them feel a bit guilty.


----------



## aclinjury

OldChipper said:


> Now THAT is one UGLY F'ing bike. UGH!


it's a womens bike man, what ya expect. But the women be like, oh that's lovely for the crotch "just in case".


----------



## mfdemicco

OldChipper said:


> Now THAT is one UGLY F'ing bike. UGH!


I like it. It doesn't look much different than any carbon bike these days. At least it doesn't have those ugly ENVE logos on it.


----------

