# Why quick release is a vastly superior design to thru-axle.



## Waspinator

*How is through axle stiffer than QR?*

Through axle is an idiotic design - one of several that have become popular in bicycles over the last two decades. 

People talk about the stiffness of the through-axle system because it's thicker. That's horseshit. Such arguments show a complete lack of understanding of the forces involved. Every Tom Dick and Harry who builds products for bikes assumes that bigger diameter automatically equates to greater stiffness. This is reliably true for tubes. But not everything else. 

First, the skinny quick release skewer doesn't support any weight to begin with. Its sole purpose is to squeeze the hub and dropouts together and keep everything in place via friction, hence, it need only have significant tensile strength, not stiffness. The hub itself has an axle of its own on which the dropout sits. It supports the dropouts vertically. While this QR axle is still narrower than the through-axle skewer, it also does not dictate the stiffness of the hub-dropout connection. When squeezed together with the skewer, the larger face of the hub's axle pressed against the inner surface of the dropout is large, as are the faces of the skewer's cam and acorn nut. The SURFACE AREA being squeezed against the dropouts is what ensures that the hub is held in place and unable to move relative to the dropouts, and vice versa. This is what dictates the stiffness of the system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the diameter of the axle traversing the dropouts.

Furthermore, thru axles must be screwed into place. And anyone with two connecting neurons knows that a cam is a vastly more secure method of maintaining tightness than a screw. The through axle by definition depends on screwing the thing tight enough to create significant friction between the axle and the dropout, which is more difficult to do. It also will produce more damage to the dropout each time it's screwed and unscrewed. A cam merely presses against the dropout.


----------



## factory feel

Shirley you can't be serious.


----------



## Marc

Waspinator said:


> People talk about the stiffness of the through-axle system because it's thicker. I don't get it. It doesn't make sense.





Waspinator said:


> The quick release skewer doesn't support any weight to begin with. Its sole purpose is to squeeze the hub and dropouts together and keep everything in place via friction. The hub itself has an axle of its own, on which the deop




Short answer: it isn't just the axle, it is how the system interlocks the frame which results in a stronger system....which becomes a bigger deal as you do rougher terrain. Of course, the simple-stupid disc-brake alignment is a nice thing as well.

Everything you need to know about Thru Axles - The Buzz


----------



## MMsRepBike

Is it better to clamp or bolt a bench vise to a table?


----------



## Migen21

I have two very similar bikes. BMC Gran Fondo GF-01 (QR) and BMC RoadMachine RM-01 (12mm Thru Axles). 

I'm a big guy (6' 5", 225lbs). I have an otherwise identical set of wheels for each bike (HED Belgium Plus on White Industries hubs, 25mm GP4000IIs tires, same inflation). I think the most obvious place I notice the thru-axles is in tracking on the high speed corners. I'm not sure I can explain why exactly, and some of it could be down to (very minor) geometry differences, but the Road Machine just feels much more locked in and steady on a high speed descending corner, and it's very noticeable.


----------



## Waspinator

*My through axles don't have cams.*

But even if they did, my point would remain the same.

Think about the connection points between the axle and dropout.

The actual axle of a QR hub (ie the center around which the hub/spoke/wheel rotates) is actually quite large, and this is what is pressed tightly against the inner surface of the dropout. The small extension that sits in the dropout merely suspends the dropout on the hub. But The stiffness comes from the large area of interface between the face of the hub axle and faces of the dropout.

Does anyone have any PROOF that through axle is stiffer? Research?


----------



## Marc

Waspinator said:


> *Through axle is an idiotic desi*gn - one of several that have become popular in bicycles over the last two decades.
> 
> *People talk about the stiffness of the through-axle system because it's thicker. That's horseshit.* Such arguments show a complete lack of understanding of the forces involved. Every Tom Dick and Harry who builds products for bikes assumes that bigger diameter automatically equates to greater stiffness. This is reliably true for tubes. But not everything else.
> 
> First, the skinny quick release skewer doesn't support any weight to begin with. Its sole purpose is to squeeze the hub and dropouts together and keep everything in place via friction, hence, it need only have significant tensile strength, not stiffness. The hub itself has an axle of its own on which the dropout sits. It supports the dropouts vertically. While this QR axle is still narrower than the through-axle skewer, it also does not dictate the stiffness of the hub-dropout connection. When squeezed together with the skewer, the larger face of the hub's axle pressed against the inner surface of the dropout is large, as are the faces of the skewer's cam and acorn nut. The SURFACE AREA being squeezed against the dropouts is what ensures that the hub is held in place and unable to move relative to the dropouts, and vice versa. This is what dictates the stiffness of the system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the diameter of the axle traversing the dropouts.
> 
> Furthermore, thru axles must be screwed into place. And anyone with two connecting neurons knows that a cam is a vastly more secure method of maintaining tightness than a screw. The through axle by definition depends on screwing the thing tight enough to create significant friction between the axle and the dropout, which is more difficult to do. It also will produce more damage to the dropout each time it's screwed and unscrewed. A cam merely presses against the dropout.
> 
> Lastly, need I even mention the issue of the threads in the opp


A) No. It isn't.

2) It is horseshit to claim the axle diameter is why it is stiffer (in all but extreme 15mm+ TA diameter and XC/MTB riding). BUT...your POV is horseshit that QR is just as stiff...because clearly you don't understand why thru-axle is the way it is.


In the last 1-2 hours you went from not knowing why TA was stiffer than QR...to suddenly being an expert. I'm sure I speak for the entire internet, in that we all bow to your superior wisdom and knowledge gained in the last hour.



And, quoted for posterity.


----------



## Tachycardic

Take your meds. Just sayin'...medicine is good.


----------



## duriel

Must have scratched his paint, somewhere where you can't see it.


----------



## Marc

duriel said:


> Must have scratched his paint, somewhere where you can't see it.


He must have been PISSED when Apple moved on from PowerPC architecture.


----------



## BCSaltchucker

Model T was actually a pretty good car, and most folks could figure our how to use it eventually. No need to change the whole way we shift the gears on an automobile like 3 pedal 1916 Cadillac wanted us to do

And really flip flop rear wheels enabled racers to complete many Tours de France just fine. Ridiculous idea to give them more gears with a derailleur to shift them.

Heck toe clips and straps were highly favoured by many pros after the clipless Looks appeared .. Heck Roche stuck with clips and did the triple crown. No one since has matched that feat ... must be because they are all on this clipless pedal nonsense.



I half agree with the OP. It is a very subtle advantage having thru axles on a road bike. It is a major difference on a mountain bike. I am more than happy with QR on my road bikes. for now. and yes one of my road bikes has disc brakes (well it is a gravel bike)


----------



## bradkay

One advantage to through axle setups is that the wheel will always be correctly aligned - which will help prevent the rotor from rubbing against the brake caliper or pads.


----------



## Pisgah2000

bradkay said:


> One advantage to through axle setups is that the wheel will always be correctly aligned - which will help prevent the rotor from rubbing against the brake caliper or pads.


Disc/wheel alignment isn't an issue with good QRs. The issue is that most bikes don't have good QRs (the closed cam Shimano or DT Swiss style, not the exposed plastic/aluminum setups). I ran my disc MTB with f/r regular QRs for years without issue, at least once I put XT skewers on it.

My road bike has regular QRs, but one of my MTBs has Boost thru-axles front and rear, and the other a 15x100 up front ('upgraded' from a regular QR). There's no tangible advantage to any of it. Sure, like BB30, it's technically stiffer. The issue is that 9/10mm QRs are plenty stiff already, especially for a road bike. I file this in "new and improved, but really to sell more things".


----------



## Devastazione

Since you're not backing up your stuff with scientific facts I will answer with a non scientific reply,just a very practical one. I love my TAs, my bike is a lot stiffer and an 83kg guy like me can totally feel the difference. And yes I run discs too.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

Waspinator said:


> And anyone with two connecting neurons knows that a cam is a vastly more secure method of maintaining tightness than a screw.


Perhaps my two neurons have disconnected but I'm pretty sure a quick releases has a cam AND screw holding it tight.

Excellent rant though.


----------



## Pisgah2000

Jay Strongbow said:


> Perhaps my two neurons have disconnected but I'm pretty sure a quick releases has a cam AND screw holding it tight.
> 
> Excellent rant though.


Both thru axles and standard QRs have cams and threads. In addition to just being thicker, a thru axle replaces the nut on the end of a regular skewer with threads in a frame fork. They're functionally pretty much identical; one is just bigger and beefier than the other. The only real difference that I've noticed is that thru axles (at least the half-dozen that I've owned) have a tension adjustment as well, be it an allen screw on the lever side or something built in to the threaded side of the fork. 

I guess one safety advantage of a thru axle is that it can't really drop out of a dropout like a loose QR can. If I recall correctly, this was the main reason why DH MTBers started using these things years ago. It's also supposed to stiffen up suspension systems (which makes sense), though I've never been able to tell a difference. Again, I'm sure it's measurably stiffer in a lab and probably more durable under extreme DH MTB race conditions. On a fully rigid, stiff-as-hell road bike that rides on mostly smooth surfaces though? Meh.


----------



## MMsRepBike

For the QR fans, I'm pretty sure you can buy thru axles that have QR cams in addition to their threads.

https://paulcomp.com/shop/components/skewers/thru-axle-quick-release/


Have the cake. Eat the cake. Still have the cake? You decide.


----------



## tlg

Waspinator said:


> Through axle is an idiotic design - one of several that have become popular in bicycles over the last two decades.
> 
> People talk about the stiffness of the through-axle system because it's thicker. That's horseshit. Such arguments show a complete lack of understanding of the forces involved.


Sigh. 
No need to read beyond here. Cause you clearly CLEARLY have no comprehension of the forces involved or reasons for the stiffness.

I have no dog in the fight. I'm an engineer. I have MTB & Cross bikes with Disc and QR's. They're fine for me and the majority of the population.... BUT there's no question that Through Axle is a superior design. 
The only issue with Through Axle is standardization... but that's a different topic.


----------



## Pisgah2000

tlg said:


> The only issue with Through Axle is standardization... but that's a different topic.


Just wait until Boost spacing makes its way over to road bikes.


----------



## indianajo

Sunday morning after Derby, saw two bikes chained to poles with the front wheels stolen.
QR invites theft. Axles needing tools are too complicated for thieves. I threw the QR hardware away from my bikes, and carry wrenches, tubes, a pump. Thieves can't be bothered to break into my tool kit to remove stuff.
I use a 10-32 x 5" SS cap screw through the axle with washers & elastic stop nut. Replaced the weird thread QR nut that fell off & required me to gingerly pedal home with a loose front axle, dodging holes and stopping for railroad tracks. 
On the *****y supply front, ordered some weird thread axle nuts from an internet supplier a week ago and still don't have a shipper tracking e-mail. They were allegedly in stock. Pay pal was debited right away. Mcmaster.com the industrial screw supplier doesn't debit until the box ships.


----------



## Waspinator

Clearly?

Well then, professor, why don't you educate me? Let's see if you do.


----------



## cxwrench

Waspinator said:


> Clearly?
> 
> Well then, professor, why don't you educate me? Let's see if you do.


You probably wouldn't have the ability to understand if he did. Just trust him because he is an engineer...do you require proof for everything you're told? The fact that thru axles guarantee you'll have consistent wheel positioning in the fork/frame and that your rotor will always be lined up properly in the caliper is reason enough to use them. There are more than one variable w/ a q/r that can affect the wheel being properly installed in the dropout. If a mechanical engineer were to tell me that they're better for other reasons as well, I'd most likely believe him.


----------



## tlg

Waspinator said:


> Clearly?
> 
> Well then, professor, why don't you educate me? Let's see if you do.


https://www.topuniversities.com/courses/engineering-mechanical/guide


----------



## Pisgah2000

cxwrench said:


> The fact that thru axles guarantee you'll have consistent wheel positioning in the fork/frame and that your rotor will always be lined up properly in the caliper is reason enough to use them.


I've never understood this issue, let alone experienced it when using quality items. Fully seat the wheel in the dropout and flip the lever closed. Done. It's not going to move, and it'll be centered every time, just like a thru-axle. 

The only time I've had an issue with a QR not holding a wheel securely or consistently was with a Gunnar steel frame and shitty Stan's QRs. The cheap, soft aluminum on the skewer couldn't get purchase on the frame. It was so bad that it'd even slip/move under power. On the thru axle side, it took a few rides to properly center the front wheel on one of my MTBs with a 15x110 front axle. The culprit was not enough tension dialed up on the tension adjuster built into the threads on the fork. Just like a regular QR, if it's not sufficiently tensioned, it'll have issues.


----------



## Lombard

bradkay said:


> One advantage to through axle setups is that the wheel will always be correctly aligned - which will help prevent the rotor from rubbing against the brake caliper or pads.



This.

Also consider that disc braking forces put tremendous torque on your hubs which can pull your axle right out of your fork on a QR. Not so with a thru-axle.


----------



## harryman

Having ridden the same bikes and same wheelsets both as QR and TA, I can assure you the TA is stiffer. How can I tell that isn't simply conjecture? Under heavy loading, there's less fork flex and disc rubbing. I could go on with how the bikes feel different, but you'd likely discount it.


----------



## 9W9W

MMsRepBike said:


> Is it better to clamp or bolt a bench vise to a table?


Depends. Are you riding upside down spider-pig style?


----------



## 9W9W

Migen21 said:


> I have two very similar bikes. BMC Gran Fondo GF-01 (QR) and BMC RoadMachine RM-01 (12mm Thru Axles).
> 
> I'm a big guy (6' 5", 225lbs). I have an otherwise identical set of wheels for each bike (HED Belgium Plus on White Industries hubs, 25mm GP4000IIs tires, same inflation). I think the most obvious place I notice the thru-axles is in tracking on the high speed corners. I'm not sure I can explain why exactly, and some of it could be down to (very minor) geometry differences, but the Road Machine just feels much more locked in and steady on a high speed descending corner, and it's very noticeable.


I would imagine that 99.99% of what you are feeling in high speed tracking is EXACTLY down to the geometry of each bike and the differences in what make each bike, well, different. It's not a design coincidence that the RM is better in this department than the GF.


----------



## Waspinator

Nobody gets a pass from the requirement of showing proof for their claims.

I may not be an engineer, but I've taken my share of math and physics. So I think I understand enough to grasp the engineering concepts here. Thru-axle simply doesn't make sense.


----------



## Waspinator

You know what I see when I read anecdotal evidence?

"Blah blah blah through axle. Blah blah blah...."

Anecdotal evidence should be reserved for UFO sightings, not as "proof" that one design is stiffer than another.

I want hard information, i.e. from experiments, providing quantifiable data that demonstrates improved stiffness from through axles over QR.


----------



## tlg

Waspinator said:


> Nobody gets a pass from the requirement of showing proof for their claims.
> 
> I may not be an engineer, but I've taken my share of math and physics. So I think I understand enough to grasp the engineering concepts here. Thru-axle simply doesn't make sense.


Which of these moment diagrams do you think is more rigid? You remember these from physics right?


----------



## Pisgah2000

While I agree that a thru axle doesn't make all that much sense on a road bike, and the rotor centering and other disc-related arguments are BS, that doesn't mean that they aren't stiffer. They're 33-100% larger, hollow, alloy tubes. They're going to be stiffer than a 9 or 10mm solid steel axle. With that said, my experience with several thru axles and several 9/10mm QRs is that there's no noticeable difference on the bike. I'm guessing the 12x148 on the back of my FS MTB has the most advantage over a 9mm QR, but road bike rear ends aren't made up of a half-dozen stiffness-killing pivots. It still flexes a lot back there.

Would I care if a new road bike came with them? No, as I have owned a few bikes with them. That 100mm XC bike has thru axle Boost hubs (so also a Boost crankset) and a tapered steerer. Talk about things that don't really matter. There are incremental improvements in there somewhere, I suppose. I don't see the axles as any sort of upgrade though. If anything, they're harder to use. But, they are probably the way of the future, so whatever. Just like PF BBs aren't any better (but hey, they're stiffer!), it's just something to accept and move on. Or not, because there are plenty of bikes without any of that stuff.

It would be interesting to see some lab tests with QR vs. thru axles, threaded vs. PF BBs, tapered vs. straight steerers, etc., just to see at what point the extra stiffness starts to show. I'm doubtful that it'll be at a point that will be seen by most riders. It's surprising that there aren't such tests, or maybe it's isn't...


----------



## Lombard

Waspinator said:


> You know what I see when I read anecdotal evidence?
> 
> "Blah blah blah through axle. Blah blah blah...."
> 
> Anecdotal evidence should be reserved for UFO sightings, not as "proof" that one design is stiffer than another.
> 
> I want hard information, i.e. from experiments, providing quantifiable data that demonstrates improved stiffness from through axles over QR.


And what hard information do YOU have to support all of YOUR claims? I'm all eyes and ears.  

I'm not an engineer either, but I can figure out that what you have said so far makes no sense.


----------



## dir-t

Bike magazine had an article about thru-axles a few years ago. Their belief was that the extra stiffness provided by the system, and the extra protection against the wheel pulling from the dropouts due to disc brake torque, were indeed real but probably not of the magnitude to make a noticeable difference for 99% of riders.

They concluded that thru-axles were developed in response to the apparently large number of riders who don't use regular quick releases correctly. They said, and I quote, "even a drunk monkey can operate a thru-axle skewer correctly".

The thing that puzzles me about that statement is that I only see thru-axles (cammed or not) on high end bikes that are unlikely to be ridden by someone who doesn't correctly use the cam action of a normal QR.

That all said, I think this discussion is like yelling at clouds. Thru-axles exist and if you like other features of a bike you're not going to say, "wow, this bike is rad I think I'll buy... Wait a minute, are those thru-axles?!?!? No way". 

You may as well start a thread about whether black or white paint on a bike is better because of heat radiation issues.

Edit to add: The whole "vastly superior" claim is hyperbole at its finest. Perhaps "for some folks, in some cases, a traditional QR might make more sense. Or at least would not be detrimental". 

I for one really appreciate that I can tighten my thru-axles with one hand instead of leaning over my bike like an ape trying to reach the QR lever AND nut on a traditional system.


----------



## duriel

WTH, stop messing with the scewers/TA, just leave it alone. I take mine off maybe 12 times a year/bike. Is it really that much of big deal?


----------



## mik_git

Has anyone ever heard/seen a disc brake pulling a wheel out? Not, oh there's so much extra force it'll do, but it actually happening?

I have 3 mtb's:
Ti frame with Manitou R7 80mm and v brakes on 26in wheels QR, some flex in there (especially noticable if I've come from riding my road bike)
Alu frame with Marzocchi SL, 100mm, XT discs, 26in wheels QR. Not flexy at all, the next best thing to rigid forks.
Carbon frame with Fox float 32, 120mm, XT discs, 650b wheel, TA. Flexy, somewhere between the Mazr and Manitou.

However having said that, don't know what contributes to the flex of the TA fork, the fork design, the amount of travel, the size of the wheel or the setup of the fork.. so TA doesn't magically make things stiff,its the whole system combined.

One thing I do hate, having come from many many years having no lawyer tabs on forks, TA surly do make me sad when it comes to wheel in/out procedures. Yea gads they suck. And if you have issues with the disc alignment with QRs then you're doing it wrong.


----------



## aclinjury

Until recently, I had a 2007 Specialized Enduro with a 15mm TA front fork and a 9mm x 135mm QR rear end. While I'm no clyde, but let me assure you guys that I have taken 5-7 drops and 8-10ft jump with this thing plenty of time. And though I'm light weight, I also abuse it more than ANY of the clydes on their roadies, for sure! And guess what, not even one time has my rear wheel fall out, or that I canned a jump due to the flimsy 9mm QR as being the reason (if I canned a jump, it was because I sucked).

But back to talking road bike. I can't say that the flex in my front QR-based style fork is the limiting factor. I mean, I've bombed down long descent at over 50 mph with them, sometimes passing SUVs and motorcycle crusiers. And Tour guys like Sagan and Cancellara can go even faster. So it is a little confusing to me to hear regular guys on RBR saying a TA fork help them in the stiffness department and thus their bike handling skill. Really? Makes me wonder what are they basing their statement on? because it sounds pretty....subjective. Are RBR members regularly sweeping corners at 40 mph? or bombing down the Alps at 55 mph? such that they can feel or appreciate the difference between a QR and a TA fork?


----------



## cxwrench

Pisgah2000 said:


> I've never understood this issue, let alone experienced it when using quality items. Fully seat the wheel in the dropout and flip the lever closed. Done. It's not going to move, and it'll be centered every time, just like a thru-axle.
> 
> The only time I've had an issue with a QR not holding a wheel securely or consistently was with a Gunnar steel frame and shitty Stan's QRs. The cheap, soft aluminum on the skewer couldn't get purchase on the frame. It was so bad that it'd even slip/move under power. On the thru axle side, it took a few rides to properly center the front wheel on one of my MTBs with a 15x110 front axle. The culprit was not enough tension dialed up on the tension adjuster built into the threads on the fork. Just like a regular QR, if it's not sufficiently tensioned, it'll have issues.


You've never worked in a bike shop have you? You wouldn't believe what people, left to their own devices, can do. People will **** up the most simple device time after time.


----------



## mik_git

^which mean they can still screw up a TA


----------



## Marc

tlg said:


> Which of these moment diagrams do you think is more rigid? You remember these from physics right?


Even that moment diagram leaves out the compressive force thru-axles have (as well). Which per the torque rating on my bolt-head front thru-axle is 10-14Nm.


----------



## bradkay

duriel said:


> WTH, stop messing with the scewers/TA, just leave it alone. I take mine off maybe 12 times a year/bike. Is it really that much of big deal?


I use a fork mount roof rack setup, so I take off and put on my front wheel hundreds of times a year.


----------



## Pisgah2000

cxwrench said:


> You've never worked in a bike shop have you? You wouldn't believe what people, left to their own devices, can do. People will **** up the most simple device time after time.


Fair point. 

At the same time, my MTB with thru axles was bought from a shop. The techs there couldn't figure out how the front thru axle worked, or how to tension it properly (this was a pretty big Trek store). After I test rode the bike, I noted that the front rotor rubbed under power. They put it in the stand, looked it over, said it'd go away as it broke in, and that it was normal behavior. Really? That's the answer? This was after they explained the incredible advancements in stiffness from Boost and thru axles. Sure thing guys. Or, you know, the goofy Fox tension wheel needed to be adjusted and the caliper wasn't aligned correctly. 

So, my point is that people are going to screw up thru-axles too. There are probably more ways to do that than there are with a QR. I wonder how many people have cross-threaded their frame or fork.


----------



## Marc

Pisgah2000 said:


> Fair point.
> 
> At the same time, my MTB with thru axles was bought from a shop. The techs there couldn't figure out how the front thru axle worked, or how to tension it properly (this was a pretty big Trek store). After I test rode the bike, I noted that the front rotor rubbed under power. They put it in the stand, looked it over, said it'd go away as it broke in, and that it was normal behavior. Really? That's the answer? This was after they explained the incredible advancements in stiffness from Boost and thru axles. Sure thing guys. Or, you know, the goofy Fox tension wheel needed to be adjusted and the caliper wasn't aligned correctly.
> 
> So, my point is that people are going to screw up thru-axles too. There are probably more ways to do that than there are with a QR.* I wonder how many people have cross-threaded their frame or fork.*


Cross threading an axle would take a ton of effort.....also some axle-systems, like Shimano's E-Thru Axle, have user-replaceable threads (there are no threads tapped into the frame). E-Thru is quite the clever Shimano way of doing things, too bad it is uncommon....and most OEMs use DT Swiss's system.


----------



## zephxiii

Come one now, even a thru-bolt skewer (in QR dropout) is superior to QR skewer. By this I mean I could feel the rear triangle stiffen up and become more inline with the front triangle of my FS 29er when i switched the rear hub endcaps from QR to Thru-Bolt. Also noticed more stiffness on the front end.


----------



## Pisgah2000

Marc said:


> Cross threading an axle would take a ton of effort.....also some axle-systems, like Shimano's E-Thru Axle, have user-replaceable threads (there are no threads tapped into the frame). E-Thru is quite the clever Shimano way of doing things, too bad it is uncommon....and most OEMs use DT Swiss's system.


They are very coarse threads and I imagine the axle is softer than the frame (or I hope so, anyway), so yeah, it'd take some doing. I could see some stubborn owner getting it done though. 

I've never used the Shimano style; only Fox and RockShox branded setups on MTBs and CX bikes. None of them save the rear pivot on one of the Treks have replaceable threads. I've never come close to cross-threading or damaging the threads, even under less-than ideal conditions, but it would certainly suck.


----------



## Lombard

mik_git said:


> One thing I do hate, having come from many many years having no lawyer tabs on forks.......


What is it so many people loath about "lawyer tabs". Do they really inconvenience you that greatly?



mik_git said:


> ....TA surly do make me sad when it comes to wheel in/out procedures.


Yeah, the tool you need to carry to loosen a TA really weighs so much it will slow you down.  



cxwrench said:


> You've never worked in a bike shop have you? You wouldn't believe what people, left to their own devices, can do. People will **** up the most simple device time after time.


I don't work in a bike shop, but I have led probably 300 or so club rides. I can't count the number of times I have corrected what could have been potentially catastrophic mechanical issues on bikes.

For example, someone comes to me at the start of a ride complaining of brake rub. I find the QR is not only seated wrong, but is loose. I then ask "who installed this wheel in the fork?". Answer: "my husband". My next question: "Does he have a good life insurance policy on you?". 

Joking aside, I have changed quite a few flats for people and found loose QRs. I was even on a club ride once where a rider's wheel came out of his fork while riding! Luckily, he wasn't injured. Granted this rider in general was, to put it mildly, a few inch pounds short of a full torque.

The imprint on hand method works for QRs - if the QR doesn't leave an imprint on your hand when you tighten it, it's too loose. In helping other riders out, I find many that are much looser than this.



mik_git said:


> ^which mean they can still screw up a TA


Does TA solve this? Of course not. No system is fool proof. But you will have to agree there is less that can go wrong with TA if installed incorrectly. Or rather, if a TA comes loose, you will have more warning before potential calamity.



Pisgah2000 said:


> Fair point.
> At the same time, my MTB with thru axles was bought from a shop. The techs there couldn't figure out how the front thru axle worked, or how to tension it properly


And that would be the last time I visit that shop.


----------



## bradkay

"What is it so many people loath about "lawyer tabs". Do they really inconvenience you that greatly?{"

Yes, when it used to take five seconds to pop out your wheel it now takes a great deal more time - and even more to put it back on. Unfortunately, the majority is paying for the stupidity of the minority (as usual).


----------



## Lombard

bradkay said:


> Yes, when it used to take five seconds to pop out your wheel it now takes a great deal more time- and even more to put it back on.......


Like around 10 seconds?  Oh the humanity!


----------



## Jay Strongbow

bradkay said:


> "What is it so many people loath about "lawyer tabs". Do they really inconvenience you that greatly?{"
> 
> Yes, when it used to take five seconds to pop out your wheel it now takes a great deal more time - and even more to put it back on. Unfortunately, the majority is paying for the stupidity of the minority (as usual).


I just timed myself taking off a front wheel. 3 seconds. 3 is not a great deal more than 5.


----------



## bradkay

Jay Strongbow said:


> I just timed myself taking off a front wheel. 3 seconds. 3 is not a great deal more than 5.


I never timed myself doing it, so that was a shot from the hip. I bow to your superiority.

As someone who has used QRs forever - and no through-axles on any of my bikes - I find the lawyer tabs (or Ralph Nader dropouts as I call them) to be a pain in the butt. Do I grind them off? No, but I do wish they weren't there.

BTW: I never lost a skewer nut in the old days before lawyer tabs. It has happened a couple of times since then (so I keep an extra in my car's bike tool kit nowadays).


----------



## duriel

I'd rather fall on my face at 30mph, than waste 3 seconds putting my front wheel on. And I only change it 12 times a year.


----------



## Lombard

bradkay said:


> As someone who has used QRs forever - and no through-axles on any of my bikes - I find the lawyer tabs (or Ralph Nader dropouts as I call them) to be a pain in the butt. Do I grind them off? No, but I do wish they weren't there.
> 
> BTW: I never lost a skewer nut in the old days before lawyer tabs. It has happened a couple of times since then (so I keep an extra in my car's bike tool kit nowadays).


How the hell do you lose a skewer nut?? 5 revolutions counterclockwise, boom, it's out! It takes more turns than that to lose the skewer nut.

There are much, much worse pain in the arse designs in the name of safety than lawyer tabs on QRs. Like those stupid "safety valves" on gas cans. I have spilled more gas with those than with cans that didn't have them. So much for safety. Lawyer tabs pale in comparison.


----------



## tlg

bradkay said:


> BTW: I never lost a skewer nut in the old days before lawyer tabs. It has happened a couple of times since then (so I keep an extra in my car's bike tool kit nowadays).


I'm confused. What is it about lawyer tabs that requires you to remove the nut?


----------



## BCSaltchucker

Pisgah2000 said:


> Fair point.
> 
> At the same time, my MTB with thru axles was bought from a shop. The techs there couldn't figure out how the front thru axle worked, or how to tension it properly (this was a pretty big Trek store). After I test rode the bike, I noted that the front rotor rubbed under power. They put it in the stand, looked it over, said it'd go away as it broke in, and that it was normal behavior. Really? That's the answer? This was after they explained the incredible advancements in stiffness from Boost and thru axles. Sure thing guys. Or, you know, the goofy Fox tension wheel needed to be adjusted and the caliper wasn't aligned correctly.
> 
> So, my point is that people are going to screw up thru-axles too. There are probably more ways to do that than there are with a QR. I wonder how many people have cross-threaded their frame or fork.


There is this one thru axle which comes with the newer Suntour forks which is confusing and clunky. It does not thread in, it relies wholly on the cam mechanism, but features a safety which totally prevent the axle coming out. 
Came on my Spec Fuse comp MTB. I have figured it out, but still a pita. Maybe you have the same one which confused your bike shop?

my wife's rear Maxle (TA with a cam lock) on her Spec Rhyme mtb has come loose approx every 4th ride. One time it unlocked AND unthreaded all the way out of the threads as we discovered half way through a ride! That could have damaged the end of the threads, but it didn't. Now she knows to check it before every ride.

Difficult to cross thread the thru axle because it is always aligned by the opposing hole. That pretty much guarantees it will never be cross threaded.


----------



## DaveG

duriel said:


> I'd rather fall on my face at 30mph, than waste 3 seconds putting my front wheel on. And I only change it 12 times a year.


Just remove the QR completely. Problem solved!

None of my older steel bikes have tabs, so they do sort of annoy me in a minor sort of way


----------



## Doug B

Jay Strongbow said:


> I just timed myself taking off a front wheel. 3 seconds. 3 is not a great deal more than 5.


...unless thou are employing the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.


----------



## Pisgah2000

BCSaltchucker said:


> There is this one thru axle which comes with the newer Suntour forks which is confusing and clunky. It does not thread in, it relies wholly on the cam mechanism, but features a safety which totally prevent the axle coming out.
> Came on my Spec Fuse comp MTB. I have figured it out, but still a pita. Maybe you have the same one which confused your bike shop?
> 
> my wife's rear Maxle (TA with a cam lock) on her Spec Rhyme mtb has come loose approx every 4th ride. One time it unlocked AND unthreaded all the way out of the threads as we discovered half way through a ride! That could have damaged the end of the threads, but it didn't. Now she knows to check it before every ride.
> 
> Difficult to cross thread the thru axle because it is always aligned by the opposing hole. That pretty much guarantees it will never be cross threaded.


The 12x148 on the back of one of my bikes is actually pretty hard to line up. It usually takes a light smack to get everything to go together. But, with the history if that bike, I wouldn't be surprised if it was slightly bent from the factory.

The Fox thru axle tension adjustment is a little numbered and toothed wheel on the non-brake side of the fork. It's more difficult than it needs to be. The rear axle is tensioned via an allen bolt accessible by the lever, which is easy. It's a huge, clunky thing though, and I've been considering replacing it with a bolt-in Carbon-Ti axle (the brand, not the material... it's aluminum)










https://www.ridefox.com/fox_tech_ce...ng/Content/Forks/32MM/InstructionsQR32mm.html

Loosening up on a ride and then backing out a bit is no good. Good call on checking it before each ride. Can you adjust the tension? Perhaps it's just not tight enough.



Lombard said:


> And that would be the last time I visit that shop.


I'm only going back there for frame warranty issues. Already been back once, but they only touched the bike with their eyeballs to verify that Trek's version of Loctite doesn't work.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

bradkay said:


> I never timed myself doing it, so that was a shot from the hip. I bow to your superiority.
> 
> BTW: I never lost a skewer nut in the old days before lawyer tabs. It has happened a couple of times since then (so I keep an extra in my car's bike tool kit nowadays).


My point wasn't that I'm Super Wheel Changer as I'm sure just about everyone but you can do it in 3 seconds, it was that your experience of talking a great deal more time is bizarre.

The fact you lose skewer nuts changing a wheel, or even take them off, confirms your experience with skewers is indeed bizarre. Very bizarre.


----------



## 9W9W

Who takes off the skewers completely? Just gotta know which way yo yank it, yo.


----------



## Fredrico

Jay Strongbow said:


> My point wasn't that I'm Super Wheel Changer as I'm sure just about everyone but you can do it in 3 seconds, it was that your experience of talking a great deal more time is bizarre.
> 
> The fact you lose skewer nuts changing a wheel, or even take them off, confirms your experience with skewers is indeed bizarre. Very bizarre.


I think brad's referring to having to unscrew the skewer nut in order for the wheel to clear the lawyer lips. 

No tabs: flip the quick release lever, wheel drops out. No adjustment necessary when putting the wheel back on. Clip the lever shut and it returns to the tension it had before.

I bet you can't change a wheel in 3 seconds having to tension the QR each time. It takes at least two tries to get it right, about 8 seconds. So much for "quick release." I hate lawyer lips.


----------



## porterhouse

Worst thread ever


----------



## Marc

porterhouse said:


> Worst thread ever



No...not by a long shot.


----------



## MoPho

Fredrico said:


> I think brad's referring to having to unscrew the skewer nut in order for the wheel to clear the lawyer lips.
> 
> No tabs: flip the quick release lever, wheel drops out. No adjustment necessary when putting the wheel back on. Clip the lever shut and it returns to the tension it had before.
> 
> I bet you can't change a wheel in 3 seconds having to tension the QR each time. *It takes at least two tries to get it right, about 8 seconds. So much for "quick release." I hate lawyer lips*.



Yup. Love the thru-axles on my current bike, so much better than dealing with not-so-quick release lawyer tabs. 
Pop off handle is a nice feature too 











.


----------



## Fredrico

MoPho said:


> Yup. Love the thru-axles on my current bike, so much better than dealing with not-so-quick release lawyer tabs.
> Pop off handle is a nice feature too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


You still have to twist the nut onto the other end, right? How heavy is the tool used? Oh, or you hold the nut in place and twist the lever on the other side?

I've ridden standard QR wheels without lawyer lips for years. Never had brake rubs climbing or accelerating or felt any uncertainty scribing around corners. A solid CRMO axle, held in place between two CRMO dropouts with moderate pressure on the chromed steel Campy skewer ends, and internal adjusting cams, has worked great for all my road riding. 

With mountain bikes riding off road using disc brakes, fine, go for it. But on road bikes, same as disc brakes, I see little advantage, instead handicaps. I'll stick with the tried and true.

The nice thing is a well engineered simple bike gets you down the road with finesse and style just as well as the high tech complicated version. Have to wonder how often riders get chain skip on these 11 speed cassettes. I've got 6 speeds, all the gears I'll ever need, and never miss a shift. I can adjust the chain on the fly loosening the wing nut on the down tube shifter and move it wherever I want it. Nobody's gonna tell me that's more complicated than click shifting. When it fails, its the other way around. When click shifters came out in the late 80s, they had manual overrride. Twist the wing nut one click and rider could adjust the chain with the shift lever, because sooner or later the click detents would go out of synch and the chain would skip. 

Riding a bike is a manual activity. On road bikes with rim brakes, true QR without lawyer tabs is still the elegant solution. 

Frankly, now that manufacturers are pushing disc brakes on road bikes, thru axles are probably introduced, like the lawyer tabs back in the 80s, to avoid liability issues when some kid forgets to tighten the QR skewer enough, and the wheel slips out of the dropouts when braking hard. Also probably to compensate for lesser quality aluminum dropouts and skewers, market driven to get the weight as light as possible. They aren't as solid as good old steel.


----------



## MoPho

Fredrico said:


> You still have to twist the nut onto the other end, right? How heavy is the tool used? Oh, or you hold the nut in place and twist the lever on the other side?


Huh? Thru-axle threads into the frame/fork, no nuts, no tools, no fussing with getting the tension right with quick release on a bike with lawyer tabs
The picture is of a DT Swiss axle with a detachable lever. You can leave it in, or take it out for a clean look and put it in your pocket/seatbag for when you need it. Or you can also use a standard 6mm hex (which you should already have in your kit).





> The nice thing is a well engineered simple bike gets you down the road with finesse and style just as well as the high tech complicated version. Have to wonder how often riders get chain skip on these 11 speed cassettes. I've got 6 speeds, all the gears I'll ever need, and never miss a shift. I can adjust the chain on the fly loosening the wing nut on the down tube shifter and moving it wherever I want it. Nobody's gonna tell me that's more complicated than click shifting. When it fails, its the other way around. When click shifters came out in the late 80s, they had manual overrride. Twist the wing nut one click and rider could adjust the chain with the shift lever, because sooner or later the click detents would go out of synch and the chain would skip.
> Riding a bike is a manual activity. On road bikes with rim brakes, True QR without lawyer tabs is still the elegant solution.


If you're going to play the luddite card, a fixed gear with no brakes is the elegant solution. 

And more than 30k miles on 11-speed, never a skip, never needed an adjustment on the fly ( even better with Di2 ) 



.


----------



## mik_git

Lombard said:


> What is it so many people loath about "lawyer tabs". Do they really inconvenience you that greatly?


It's not like its some great tragedy, its just a little bit more inconvenient. I mean I rode 10 years on mtb's without and never had a front wheel, or back suddenly eject itself. Is it the end of the world, no but at the moment, between 4 bikes, i have 3 different levels of lawyer tabs, so you fiddle with the QR, nope, little more, nope, now it's off, then putting back on, fiddle fiddle, too much, not enough. It's a minor pain, that I didn't have years ago.



> Yeah, the tool you need to carry to loosen a TA really weighs so much it will slow you down.


No idea, neither of my TA have a tool, it' all built in, I find t the next level of annoyance over lawyer tabs. Will I not buy a bike because it has a TA, no of course not, but as I have a suspension fork with a QR that stiffer than a fork with a TA, I pretty much don't care about them.

At the end of the day, it's small things to complain about, we're on a forum talking about stuff, voicing opinions. I hate getting flats too,especially when combined with having to deal with lawyer tabs, or even worse TA, but I'm not going to top riding because I hate flats... but at least I get less flats running tubes than tubeless... because I hate tubeless...


----------



## Fredrico

MoPho said:


> Huh? Thru-axle threads into the frame/fork, no nuts, no tools, no fussing with getting the tension right with quick release on a bike with lawyer tabs
> The picture is of a DT Swiss axle with a detachable lever. You can leave it in, or take it out for a clean look and put it in your pocket/seatbag for when you need it. Or you can also use a standard 6mm hex (which you should already have in your kit).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to play the luddite card, a fixed gear with no brakes is the elegant solution.
> 
> And more than 30k miles on 11-speed, never a skip, never needed an adjustment on the fly ( even better with Di2 )


30,000 miles? Very impressive! That's at least four or five chains, right?

Thanks for explaining how this newfangled scheme works. 

And yeah, purists love single speed! :yesnod: Trouble is, as light as single speeds are, normal people do need a few gears, you know, to handle the terrain. And most single speeds have a front brake, just in case. So adding a freewheel, front and rear mechanical derailleurs, rear brake, fenders, are modest logical finesses, still tied to fully manual operation. No batteries, no computer software, GPS, Strava, electric assist motors, elastomer shocks, on and on. That's all great for the sport and lots of fun to play with. It adds to the experience, for sure. But its equipment. Different strokes for different folks, customized to the desires and ambitions of the rider, and the places he rides.

Come to think of it, a thru axle threaded with a standard allen wrench directly into the fork is indeed an elegant solution! No cams to wear down, springs to rust out, thumb nuts to lose in the grass changing a flat in the middle of nowhere, no adjustments necessary. Just slap it on there, screw it tight, done. I'm convinced. :yesnod: 

Now if they'll standardize the parts. Never mind.


----------



## bradkay

Fredrico said:


> I think brad's referring to having to unscrew the skewer nut in order for the wheel to clear the lawyer lips.
> 
> No tabs: flip the quick release lever, wheel drops out. No adjustment necessary when putting the wheel back on. Clip the lever shut and it returns to the tension it had before.
> 
> I bet you can't change a wheel in 3 seconds having to tension the QR each time. It takes at least two tries to get it right, about 8 seconds. So much for "quick release." I hate lawyer lips.


Bingo. And some forks have deeper lawyer tabs than others and require you to unscrew it even further. My 2009 Trek 520 is one of those - there is only a couple of threads still in the nut when it clears the tabs. Now, lay that wheel down in the truck of an old car and the vibration of a couple hundred miles of highway means that nut is likely to fall off... keep a trunk as messy as the one I had on that car and you're making a trip to a bike shop to buy a new skewer. 


Anyone who spent decades dealing with removing wheels prior to the development of lawyer tabs most likely dislikes the new setup. How much one dislikes them is going to vary, but I know that I certainly prefer not having them. Especially when dealing with the roof rack. In the old days it was easy: pop the bike up there and close the QR. Now you have to hold the bike up with one hand while tightening (or loosening) the lockable skewer - a serious pain in the butt if the car isn't parked on level terrain.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

Fredrico said:


> I think brad's referring to having to unscrew the skewer nut in order for the wheel to clear the lawyer lips.


I don't care what he's referring to. Taking off the nut (and losing it) to take off a front wheel is not typical regardless.


----------



## tlg

bradkay said:


> Bingo. And some forks have deeper lawyer tabs than others and require you to unscrew it even further. My 2009 Trek 520 is one of those - there is only a couple of threads still in the nut when it clears the tabs. Now, lay that wheel down in the truck of an old car and the vibration of a couple hundred miles of highway means that nut is likely to fall off...


That's really really odd. In all the bikes I've ever owned, the dozens and dozens of QR's I've owned, I've never once had that happen.


----------



## Pisgah2000

Jay Strongbow said:


> I don't care what he's referring to. Taking off the nut (and losing it) to take off a front wheel is not typical regardless.


Yeah, that seems unnecessary. I will say that a recent Trek Crockett that I owned had massive lawyer tabs. Like, twice the size of typical tabs, which did make it pretty annoying. The dropouts on that fork are positioned slightly differently than most forks, which may have been why. 

I made a mistake in an earlier post regarding the 9mm QR. It's a 5mm tension axle that goes through a 9mm axle (part of the hub), and that 9mm axle is what sits in the fork dropouts. 

It also seems that some people are confusing thru axles with bolt-in axles. They can be the same thing (like that slick DT), but typically a thru axle has a QR-like cam lever on one side. The lever operates exactly like it does on a traditional QR; it's just all bigger and threads into the frame/fork instead of a nut.


----------



## DaveRider

BCSaltchucker said:


> There is this one thru axle which comes with the newer Suntour forks which is confusing and clunky. It does not thread in, it relies wholly on the cam mechanism, but features a safety which totally prevent the axle coming out.
> Came on my Spec Fuse comp MTB. I have figured it out, but still a pita. Maybe you have the same one which confused your bike shop?
> 
> my wife's rear Maxle (TA with a cam lock) on her Spec Rhyme mtb has come loose approx every 4th ride. One time it unlocked AND unthreaded all the way out of the threads as we discovered half way through a ride! That could have damaged the end of the threads, but it didn't. Now she knows to check it before every ride.
> 
> Difficult to cross thread the thru axle because it is always aligned by the opposing hole. That pretty much guarantees it will never be cross threaded.


Maxles (rear wheel) have a hex screw in the cam that need adjustment every once in a while. That will fix her problem.


----------



## cxwrench

DaveRider said:


> Maxles (rear wheel) have a hex screw in the cam that need adjustment every once in a while. That will fix her problem.


Which many people, mechanics included, either aren't aware of or don't know how to adjust. They then try to make up for any 'looseness' by over tightening the axle and damaging the aluminum 'cup' on the older style Maxxle where the q/r lever sits in the notch. They're very easy to use, effective, and safe..._if you know how they work._


----------



## faulker479

So, no one else has used a dremel tool to grind down their lawyer tabs? I wouldn't do it on my mountain bike with disk brakes. But on my road bike, the brake pads are too narrow for my tire(28mm) to clear without the rubbing.


----------



## MercRidnMike

For a road bike without disc brakes, sure a TA is probably overkill. But...a trapped axle with higher moment of inertia is stronger, will help stiffen the fork and will better resist the forces applied. 

Don't believe me....here's a really simple example. Grab an 8.5x11" sheet of plain paper. Hold it between your finger and thumb at the middle of a short edge. What happens...it bends. Roll it into a tube (no overlap required) and hold where the sheet edges meet. Same flop? Nope! Higher moment of inertia of the member (or axle on the bike) leads to a stiffer structure. There's no magic here...it's the same cross-section of paper....just arranged in a different shape. 

Sure, TAs have their own concerns, but in regard to strength / stiffness, they are superior to QR's.


----------



## Lombard

mik_git said:


> I hate getting flats too,especially when combined with having to deal with lawyer tabs, or even worse TA...


I think you will have to agree with me that a flat is a lot more inconvenient than lawyer tabs or TAs.


----------



## Lombard

Why does this thread remind me of this?


----------



## Pisgah2000

MercRidnMike said:


> For a road bike without disc brakes, sure a TA is probably overkill. But...a trapped axle with higher moment of inertia is stronger, will help stiffen the fork and will better resist the forces applied.
> 
> Don't believe me....here's a really simple example. Grab an 8.5x11" sheet of plain paper. Hold it between your finger and thumb at the middle of a short edge. What happens...it bends. Roll it into a tube (no overlap required) and hold where the sheet edges meet. Same flop? Nope! Higher moment of inertia of the member (or axle on the bike) leads to a stiffer structure. There's no magic here...it's the same cross-section of paper....just arranged in a different shape.
> 
> Sure, TAs have their own concerns, but in regard to strength / stiffness, they are superior to QR's.


I don't think that anybody is arguing that a 15mm axle isn't stiffer than a 9mm axle. What seems to be unclear is that if that extra stiffness matters. At what point is a 12/15/20mm thru axle stiffer, and where is that point relative to the forces actually applied on a bike by a rider and terrain? That's what I want to know, and anecdotally, people are 50/50 on if there's any advantage. I'd imagine that advantage is even less likely on a road bike. 

The increased safety of a fully-enclosed axle, on the other hand, is a potential benefit. (assuming it's installed correctly, which isn't as obvious as one would hope).


----------



## zephxiii

If it makes the frame stiffer overall and a sharper handler...as well as preventing brake or tire rub...yes it matters, and matters a lot. And those are things I have seen be improved by getting away from 9mm QR. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## BCSaltchucker

DaveRider said:


> Maxles (rear wheel) have a hex screw in the cam that need adjustment every once in a while. That will fix her problem.


hmm .. seems in this case her rear is not a cam type Maxle, it is a Specialized simple thread-on axle with a single lever. It comes loose periodically. However I see there is a hex head on it also, which perhaps means I can accurately torque it instead of relying on hand pressure on the lever. But maybe the lever should have been made longer

now with my front 15mm cam-type Maxle ... recently had one explode in my hand when tightening. Never had a old school QR break in 40 years using every known make of QR (as mechanic, racer etc).

Then there is the clumsiness of the Suntour front thru axles - can tell the design is an attempt to speed up wheel removal/install but in reality it is slower than threaded axles.

I swear the engineering of these modern through axles is NOT being thoroughly engineered yet. When innovations come fast and furious the follow-up refinement gets compromised.


----------



## Marc

BCSaltchucker said:


> hmm .. seems in this case her rear is not a cam type Maxle, it is a Specialized simple thread-on axle with a single lever. It comes loose periodically. However I see there is a hex head on it also, which perhaps means I can accurately torque it instead of relying on hand pressure on the lever. But maybe the lever should have been made longer
> 
> now with my front 15mm cam-type Maxle ... recently had one explode in my hand when tightening. Never had a old school QR break in 40 years using every known make of QR (as mechanic, racer etc).
> 
> Then there is the clumsiness of the Suntour front thru axles - can tell the design is an attempt to speed up wheel removal/install but in reality it is slower than threaded axles.
> *
> I swear the engineering of these modern through axles is NOT being thoroughly engineered yet. * When innovations come fast and furious the follow-up refinement gets compromised.



Depends on who the OEM is of the axle.

I had a Rockshox Maxle I quit using, simply because it interfered with my front pannier rack....I could imagine the swivel cam popping off under 10-15Nm of torque. Was replaced with a hex-head.

My Shimano E-Thru OTOH is a well designed bit of kit...the cam is every bit as good if not better than their internal cam QR skewers.


----------



## BCSaltchucker

true - Shimano is one company that has good rep for engineering things well. I went back to Ultegra after Rival and Red for a couple year on road bikes. Just in MTB, Shimano is a laggard in innovation, most Mtn bikes I've looked at come SRAM equipped incl all 6 of our most recent MTB purchases (wife and I)


----------



## SwiftSolo

The advantage of thru axles on the front is likely a thing. The aft braking force of the disc is taken by the left leg. The axle is forced to drag the right leg aft with it. That connection sees a good deal of tortion and I suspect that the thru axle accomplishes that task better than a skewer.

The rear wheel/axle is captured by the rear triangle which likely sees very little flex caused by braking.

Disc centering issues are caused by a lack of deductive reasoning skill. There is no need to ever experience this issue once a rider pulls his head out and learns how to close a skewer properly.


Pisgah2000 said:


> Disc/wheel alignment isn't an issue with good QRs. The issue is that most bikes don't have good QRs (the closed cam Shimano or DT Swiss style, not the exposed plastic/aluminum setups). I ran my disc MTB with f/r regular QRs for years without issue, at least once I put XT skewers on it.
> 
> My road bike has regular QRs, but one of my MTBs has Boost thru-axles front and rear, and the other a 15x100 up front ('upgraded' from a regular QR). There's no tangible advantage to any of it. Sure, like BB30, it's technically stiffer. The issue is that 9/10mm QRs are plenty stiff already, especially for a road bike. I file this in "new and improved, but really to sell more things".


----------



## den bakker

faulker479 said:


> So, no one else has used a dremel tool to grind down their lawyer tabs? I wouldn't do it on my mountain bike with disk brakes. But on my road bike, the brake pads are too narrow for my tire(28mm) to clear without the rubbing.


plenty have. that makes the fork in violation of being used for racing.


----------



## Lombard

BCSaltchucker said:


> true - Shimano is one company that has good rep for engineering things well. I went back to Ultegra after Rival and Red for a couple year on road bikes. Just in MTB, Shimano is a laggard in innovation, most Mtn bikes I've looked at come SRAM equipped incl all 6 of our most recent MTB purchases (wife and I)


I like Shimano too. But as you said, they are laggards in innovation and not just in mountain bike components. It appears they like to let others dip a toe in the water first before they jump on the technology. 

Shimano is generally reliable, which is good enough for me. But they are not sexy. They are the "Ms. Sensible Shoes" of bike components. They also aren't too good at marketing.


----------



## factory feel

Hilarious


----------



## Waspinator

tlg said:


> Which of these moment diagrams do you think is more rigid? You remember these from physics right?


That diagram is not an accurate description of a quick release axle/dropout interface.


----------



## cxwrench

Waspinator said:


> That diagram is not an accurate description of a quick release axle/dropout interface.


Says who? Show me some proof, _Nobody gets a pass from the requirement of showing proof for their claims.
_


----------



## Waspinator

cxwrench said:


> Says who? Show me some proof, _Nobody gets a pass from the requirement of showing proof for their claims.
> _


That's like asking me to show some proof that the grass is green.

Use your eyeballs, dude.


----------



## cxwrench

Waspinator said:


> That's like asking me to show some proof that the grass is green.
> 
> Use your eyeballs, dude.


I'm seeing a fairly accurate/simple force diagram. What am I missing? The upper diagram shows an axle fully enclosed in the fork like a thru-axle. The lower is showing normal axle ends sitting in normal dropouts...no support on the bottom, clamping force from the sides. 
As for your original premise, I totally believe that you're much more intelligent than the majority of engineers in the bicycle industry, especially after an entire hour of research. You know wayyyy more about how things happen differently when disc brakes are involved and that there is absolutely no advantage to the thru-axle. 


Which happens to be the same way wheels are attached to motorcycles. 

Not.


----------



## mfdemicco

I like this Waspinator dude. Promote him!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## tfinator

Waspinator said:


> That's like asking me to show some proof that the grass is green.
> 
> Use your eyeballs, dude.


Draw us a picture of how it actually works in Ms paint.

They did that other one with like six arrows and some rectangles, it should be easy enough.

Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard

Waspinator said:


> That's like asking me to show some proof that the grass is green.
> 
> Use your eyeballs, dude.


Not all grass is green.


----------



## Migen21

Waspinator said:


> That's like asking me to show some proof that the grass is green.
> 
> Use your eyeballs, dude.


\

It's just like asking you to demonstrate that you have a basic comprehension of an engineering diagram, which apparently you don't based on your comments above.


----------



## DangerousDan

Y'all:
unless I misread the diagram, it shows a downward force on the axle inboard of the forks. If I am reading this as intended, it is wrong. The downward force is the earth's gravity pulling the mass of the bike and rider towards the earth with the force vectored through the forks themselves.

The equal and opposite force (this is Newtonian so there has to be one) is played upwards through the wheel into the axle at the contact point of the bearings. This force on the axle is upwards. Both drawings seem to show a downward force at that point.

There are a whole host of additional forces that come into play when you tug on the bars or apply the brakes. These are what the T/A is trying to address. But the drawings only seemed to speak to the above, and they got it very wrong.

Both the T/A and the Q/R compress the fork ends between the fork and the axle flange on both sides. My last Motocross motorcycle had pinch bolts which grabbed the axle. It is a very different beast than a T/A on a bicycle.

The bike also weighed 450 lbs including me and a full tank and it had 60 BHP. The axle on it was also at least 20 mm and made of a steel alloy. And that wheel spent a lot of time in the air.

As far as which is stiffer, I took a Hope Pro 4 wheel off my tandem where it had a Q/R and I moved it to my winter commuter which uses T/A. The actual axle is unchanged. Only the axle flange and the device used to compress the fork ends (Q/R for T/A) changed.

I am not sure which has a greater clamping force. Probably it depends a lot on the quality of the Q/R skewer. The T/A is a fairly standard device. The T/A would require the axle to come completely out before the wheel can fall off, which will not happen. The Q/R would require the skewer nut to back off and the wheel to be off the ground for the wheel to fall off. It has never happened to me.

Now for the surprise. Both are good designs. I have ridden a lot of miles on a Q/R with no issues. My winter commuter uses a T/A because it is a modern hardtail MTB and that's what it came with. It takes maybe 20 seconds to pull the axle. No big deal for me.

My tandem with a Q/R, which can easily be loaded with 500 lbs. and is equipped with 203 mm Hope 4 piston disk brakes, has done a panic stop fully loaded on a 10% slope from 45 mph to 0 with no issue other than heat soaking the rotors and pouring smoke off the pads.

There is no way the Q/R can be pulled out by the braking force. The lawyer lips are quite large. Besides, the angle that the axle slips in would play the braking force into the back of the dropouts.

The only way the wheel could come out is if the Q/R skewer loosened enough to clear the aforementioned lawyer lips and the wheel came off the ground. I suspect that I would notice a loose Q/R on the bike.


----------



## cxwrench

DangerousDan said:


> The only way the wheel could come out is if the Q/R skewer loosened enough to clear the aforementioned lawyer lips and the wheel came off the ground. I suspect that I would notice a loose Q/R on the bike.


Wrong. When the brake is applied and the wheel is on the ground the force will try to pull the wheel out of the dropout. That's one reason the dropouts on mtb suspension forks were angled forward before they went to thru-axles. That was step one in trying to keep wheels in forks when disc brakes started becoming popular.


----------



## kapusta

This thread is hilarious.

One thing I really get a kick out of on road biking forums is seeing the same debates being a re-hashed that were settled a decade ago in the mountain biking forms.

QR vs TA
Disc or rim
Wide tires vs narrow
Low vs high pressure

And the arguments against TA, disc, wider tires and lower pressure were pretty much exactly the same (though to be honest, I don't think I ever saw anyone try to argue that QR was actually BETTER).

Here are a few things that a 14 years or experience with a TA forks and 2 years with a TA rear have made abundantly clear to me:

TA makes a stiffer and better tracking fork and rear triangle. I think it is debatable whether most people would notice the difference on a road bike, but it is there.

The TA axle bolts I use (20mm Maxle and DT Swiss RWS) are more convenient to use than QR, especially if you are dealing with discs.

But don't let people's actual experience get in the way of armchair conclusions.


----------



## Lombard

kapusta said:


> .....though to be honest, I don't think I ever saw anyone try to argue that QR was actually BETTER.


Then I guess you never met the Waspinator.


----------



## CharlieRN

I'm a little ashamed to a) admit that I read through this whole thread and; b) resurrect it from it's fairly shallow grave. For the record, as a relatively impartial observer, the arguments in the thread have convinced me that there is a slight advantage to TA, mostly due to the potential for obsolesce associated with QR skewers.

My purpose is not to add to the debate (which was certainly amusing, if at times more than a bit snarky), but to pose a question related to the great QR-TA argument.

I'm in the process of doing a bike build around an endurance/gravel disc frameset that has an "interchangeable dropout system for 9mm QR or 12x142 TA" and a fork that can only handle 9mm QR. I'll be having a wheelset built, so the question is: Better to have both hubs as 9mm QR or have a front QR hub and and a rear TA?


----------



## cxwrench

Better to have both thru axle.


----------



## Migen21

CharlieRN said:


> I'm a little ashamed to a) admit that I read through this whole thread and; b) resurrect it from it's fairly shallow grave. For the record, as a relatively impartial observer, the arguments in the thread have convinced me that there is a slight advantage to TA, mostly due to the potential for obsolesce associated with QR skewers.





CharlieRN said:


> My purpose is not to add to the debate (which was certainly amusing, if at times more than a bit snarky), but to pose a question related to the great QR-TA argument.
> 
> I'm in the process of doing a bike build around an endurance/gravel disc frameset that has an "interchangeable dropout system for 9mm QR or 12x142 TA" and a fork that can only handle 9mm QR. I'll be having a wheelset built, so the question is: Better to have both hubs as 9mm QR or have a front QR hub and and a rear TA?




Since your fork is QR only, you should probably just go QR all around. The benefits to TA don't apply as much to the rear as the do in the front (TA can really stiffen up an otherwise floppy fork). 

If you haven't chosen your wheel components already, I might suggest that you have the wheels built using hubs that can be converted between any modern system (QR/TA-12mm/TA-15mm). This will future proof them and make them adaptable between different bikes.

I know DT Swiss hubs have interchangeable end caps that allow conversion without the need for any tools. Some other hubs can be converted but are a a bit more involved (Chris King for example). I think White hubs can be converted fairly easily as well (only requires a small allen key if I recall correctly). These are hubs I have personal experience with, and they are all excellent. There are probably many others out now that offer this feature - I'm sure others will chime in with details.


----------



## CharlieRN

Migen21 said:


> . . . Some other hubs can be converted but are a a bit more involved (Chris King for example). I think White hubs can be converted fairly easily as well (only requires a small allen key if I recall correctly). These are hubs I have personal experience with, and they are all excellent. There are probably many others out now that offer this feature - I'm sure others will chime in with details.


I'm using T11 hubs with Achetype rims on my current bike and am very pleased. My preference is to stick with White; I'm going to contact them on the question of convertibility.


----------



## Migen21

CharlieRN said:


> I'm using T11 hubs with Achetype rims on my current bike and am very pleased. My preference is to stick with White; I'm going to contact them on the question of convertibility.


They sell the conversion kits on their website.

CONVERSION KITS — White Industries


----------



## 11spd

factory feel said:


> Shirley you can't be serious.


I thought the saying went, You can't be serious Shirley. 

OP, many alternative designs occupy bicycles. Many are frustrated by press fit BB's for example. Or proprietary seatposts.

Simply purchase the bicycle which has the design features you prefer. Coming from the world of design, ever single design ever conceived has both benefit and drawback.


----------



## studbike

i can't help myself. I need to jump in to the fray.

the lawyer tabs really are a problem. i worked at a bike shop for many years, and have helped countless lay-people with their bikes on the side.

At least 50% of the population can not figure out how a quick release works without some guidance. on the rear axle, it's because of the chain, and on the front axle it's because of the lawyer tabs. 

it's not obvious that you need to screw the nut on the opposite side several turns before engaging the lever. in fact, if you have the humility to remove yourself from your own body and imagine you've never installed a wheel before, you'd realize that it's counterintuitive. the intuitive thing to do would be to just flip the lever, and not mess with an "adjustment".

without the lawyer tabs, 99% of the time you'd just drop the wheel in and flip the lever. far fewer people would ride around on loose wheels. 

call them idiots all you want. it's the truth.


----------



## factory feel

sometimes I enjoy a quick release...


----------



## duriel

Hmmmm, you might be the only one. 

My buddy thought those tabs were for wossy'es, so he filed his off. Later, he was driving around a corner and looked out his window and the bike had come out of the rack on the front fork mount, it was still attached on the rear with the strap. But it was dangling and banging around till he could find a place to pull over. Holarious.


----------



## Lombard

studbike said:


> i can't help myself. I need to jump in to the fray.
> 
> the lawyer tabs really are a problem. i worked at a bike shop for many years, and have helped countless lay-people with their bikes on the side.
> 
> At least 50% of the population can not figure out how a quick release works without some guidance. on the rear axle, it's because of the chain, and on the front axle it's because of the lawyer tabs.
> 
> it's not obvious that you need to screw the nut on the opposite side several turns before engaging the lever. in fact, if you have the humility to remove yourself from your own body and imagine you've never installed a wheel before, you'd realize that it's counterintuitive. the intuitive thing to do would be to just flip the lever, and not mess with an "adjustment".
> 
> without the lawyer tabs, 99% of the time you'd just drop the wheel in and flip the lever. far fewer people would ride around on loose wheels.
> 
> call them idiots all you want. it's the truth.


So do you really think removing lawyer tabs would help people learn how to mount a quick release? I think not. I can't count the number of times I have helped people change a flat and their QR was dangerously loose. Without lawyer tabs, these idiots would be dead.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

Lawyer tabs can be easily filed off (not recommended if your fork has carbon tips)..Even though it is technically illegal, I've never seen (or heard of) an official checking lawyer tabs before a race......If you have disc brakes, it's safer to have a thru axle front and back. Not sure if it's possible to lose your wheel if you have your QR "properly" fastened.....(Note properly)


----------



## cxwrench

studbike said:


> i can't help myself. I need to jump in to the fray.
> 
> the lawyer tabs really are a problem. i worked at a bike shop for many years, and have helped countless lay-people with their bikes on the side.
> 
> At least 50% of the population can not figure out how a quick release works without some guidance. on the rear axle, it's because of the chain, and on the front axle it's because of the lawyer tabs.
> 
> it's not obvious that you need to screw the nut on the opposite side several turns before engaging the lever. in fact, if you have the humility to remove yourself from your own body and imagine you've never installed a wheel before, you'd realize that it's counterintuitive. the intuitive thing to do would be to just flip the lever, and not mess with an "adjustment".
> 
> without the lawyer tabs, 99% of the time you'd just drop the wheel in and flip the lever. far fewer people would ride around on loose wheels.
> 
> call them idiots all you want. it's the truth.


^Ban this guy^


----------



## Fredrico

35 years riding in all kinds of conditions, never lost a wheel. So nice to slip off the front wheel with one hand when loading bike in car. Rider feels when the grip is sufficient closing the lever. I've witnessed way more QRs adjusted too tight than too loose.

Two good reasons for lawyer lips, however:

1. Naive riders who don't tension lever to hold the wheel in a panic stop. They close the QR to get rid of play, but there's no grip. That's what the lawyers are worried about.

2, Disc brakes transfer heavy torque on the axle possibly enough to twist the wheel out of the dropouts. For this, thru axles are the solution. They're also more idiot proof, as rider just hand tightens them as far as they'll go. No guessing how much tension is required. Thru axles make more sense than lawyer lips, IMO. As a safeguard against loose wheels they're fool proof.

In the meantime I'll keep my 2 bikes with true QR dropouts. Luv 'em when transporting the bike or fixing a flat. :thumbsup:


----------



## BCSaltchucker

thru axles aren't designed to be a solution to wheels being pulled out with discs. they are a solution to overflexing/twisting of the fork under disc braking. more of a problem with mtn bike suspension forks though

if I was still racing and wanted to be able to use pit wheels in crits .. file those lips off baby

I like the idea of thru axles. but I have all QR wheels. so I am building myself a new bike using disc wheels from my stash. and they have QR. such a pain to have to buy entire new wheels to get the newer tech. (OK dont flame me, it is a new cross bike!)


----------



## TmB123

studbike said:


> i worked at a bike shop for many years, and have helped countless lay-people with their bikes on the side.
> 
> At least 50% of the population can not figure out how a quick release works without some guidance.


It would be nice if bike shops actually spent a few minutes with a customer when they buy a new bike to show them how a QR works, adjust the brakes and maybe oil a chain. Would prevent a lot of unnecessary issues...


----------



## Marc

TmB123 said:


> It would be nice if bike shops actually spent a few minutes with a customer when they buy a new bike to show them how a QR works, adjust the brakes and maybe oil a chain. Would prevent a lot of unnecessary issues...



Some people don't want taught. Others wouldn't remember it.

One person on our state cycling tour had a flat. Rode it flat for the rest of the day, when called on it by SAG she had them fix it...She didn't know what was wrong or how to fix it. They sincerely offered to take the extra time to teach her---she didn't want to learn.

As for the rest....it is exactly like all the rest of that one-time-use knowledge you're taught and forgot you ever read or learned. Most people never remove a wheel, let's be honest.


----------



## TmB123

Marc said:


> Some people don't want taught. Others wouldn't remember it.


 That doesn't mean shops shouldn't at least try to educate people - I'm sure if they said "pay attention, if you don't get this right your front wheel could fall out" that at least some people might remember it.



> Most people never remove a wheel, let's be honest.


I would say that 100% of people that are having issues with QR and Lawyer Tabs are removing wheels


I do agree that a lot of people just don't want to know and are happily ignorant to a lot of things in life


----------



## Fredrico

TmB123 said:


> That doesn't mean shops shouldn't at least try to educate people - I'm sure if they said "pay attention, if you don't get this right your front wheel could fall out" that at least some people might remember it.
> 
> 
> I would say that 100% of people that are having issues with QR and Lawyer Tabs are removing wheels
> 
> 
> I do agree that a lot of people just don't want to know and are happily ignorant to a lot of things in life


The three shops I worked in, it was standard procedure to check first time buyers out on quick release. We'd show 'em how to do it and then have them do it so we could see if they got it. It was part and parcel of fitting and explaining the gears, Presta valves, proper tire pressure. We felt it was a liability issue, so were pretty strict about it.


----------



## fronesis

On the general thread topic, my experience is as follows:

1. I have about 6,000 miles on a hydro disc brake bike with QR. I initially had the problem of having the QR skewer shift/twist in the fork under hard braking. It would move enough to make the pads rub the rotor and was a real pain. I upgraded to much stronger and more reliable Shimano XT skewers, and this prevented the shifting. But I could still feel a bit of torque and twist on hard braking. 

And it is consistently a pain in the butt to deal with pad/rotor alignment when removing and replacing the wheel. The nature of the way the QR tightens the fork onto the hubs means that it doesn't always line up the same, and hydro pads are not adjustable, so at best it requires redoing the QR multiple times, and at worst it requires realigning the caliper. I got used to this, but it's still a pain.

2. Just got a new bike with thru axles. The feel under hard braking is very different – no torque/twist. Perhaps this is due to the stiffness of the forks, but I suspect the QR vs thru axle also makes a difference.

The difference in lining up rotors and pads is night and day: because the thru axle threads in, it puts the rotor in the middle of the pads every time. SO much easier.


----------



## Lombard

fronesis said:


> On the general thread topic, my experience is as follows:
> 
> 1. I have about 6,000 miles on a hydro disc brake bike with QR. I initially had the problem of having the QR skewer shift/twist in the fork under hard braking. It would move enough to make the pads rub the rotor and was a real pain. I upgraded to much stronger and more reliable Shimano XT skewers, and this prevented the shifting. But I could still feel a bit of torque and twist on hard braking.
> 
> And it is consistently a pain in the butt to deal with pad/rotor alignment when removing and replacing the wheel. The nature of the way the QR tightens the fork onto the hubs means that it doesn't always line up the same, and hydro pads are not adjustable, so at best it requires redoing the QR multiple times, and at worst it requires realigning the caliper. I got used to this, but it's still a pain.
> 
> 2. Just got a new bike with thru axles. The feel under hard braking is very different – no torque/twist. Perhaps this is due to the stiffness of the forks, but I suspect the QR vs thru axle also makes a difference.
> 
> The difference in lining up rotors and pads is night and day: because the thru axle threads in, it puts the rotor in the middle of the pads every time. SO much easier.


Fron, your experience re: TA and QR is that of the majority of riders. The thread topic is Waspinator's contrarian opinion which does not line up with the rest of the world.


----------



## SPlKE

Thanks for this thread dredge! I missed this thread when it was new. This is such an interesting topic to debate.

Seeing this thread in my New Posts... it's like a christmas miracle.

I have no dog in this hunt other than to say that Campy QRs are better than all other QRs, and probably better than 99% of TAs out there.


----------



## crit_boy

Lombard said:


> Fron, your experience re: TA and QR is that of the majority of riders. The thread topic is Waspinator's contrarian opinion which does not line up with the rest of the world.


Also note that waspinator bought a thru axle disc bike after making this thread.


----------



## BCSaltchucker

SPlKE said:


> I have no dog in this hunt other than to say that Campy QRs are better than all other QRs, and probably better than 99% of TAs out there.


1983: ain't that the truth


----------



## SPlKE

BCSaltchucker said:


> 1983: ain't that the truth


Damb straight.


----------



## Lombard

crit_boy said:


> Also note that waspinator bought a thru axle disc bike after making this thread.


I guess he finally saw the errors of his ways and is a reformed man.


----------



## mik_git

Lombard said:


> I guess he finally saw the errors of his ways and is a reformed man.


Yeah but it has 6/5 bent Ti sheet to make up for the lack of QR's


----------



## CyclingLymie

Waspinator said:


> Through axle is an idiotic design - one of several that have become popular in bicycles over the last two decades.
> 
> People talk about the stiffness of the through-axle system because it's thicker. That's horseshit. Such arguments show a complete lack of understanding of the forces involved. Every Tom Dick and Harry who builds products for bikes assumes that bigger diameter automatically equates to greater stiffness. This is reliably true for tubes. But not everything else.
> 
> First, the skinny quick release skewer doesn't support any weight to begin with. Its sole purpose is to squeeze the hub and dropouts together and keep everything in place via friction, hence, it need only have significant tensile strength, not stiffness. The hub itself has an axle of its own on which the dropout sits. It supports the dropouts vertically. While this QR axle is still narrower than the through-axle skewer, it also does not dictate the stiffness of the hub-dropout connection. When squeezed together with the skewer, the larger face of the hub's axle pressed against the inner surface of the dropout is large, as are the faces of the skewer's cam and acorn nut. The SURFACE AREA being squeezed against the dropouts is what ensures that the hub is held in place and unable to move relative to the dropouts, and vice versa. This is what dictates the stiffness of the system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the diameter of the axle traversing the dropouts.
> 
> Furthermore, thru axles must be screwed into place. And anyone with two connecting neurons knows that a cam is a vastly more secure method of maintaining tightness than a screw. The through axle by definition depends on screwing the thing tight enough to create significant friction between the axle and the dropout, which is more difficult to do. It also will produce more damage to the dropout each time it's screwed and unscrewed. A cam merely presses against the dropout.


They should have kept you locked up at bikeforums net. This is the kind of stupid shite that gets posted over there.


----------



## CyclingLymie

Lombard said:


> I can't count the number of times I have helped people change a flat and their QR was dangerously loose. Without lawyer tabs, these idiots would be dead.


I see that as a good thing. Darwin at work.


----------



## kapusta

CyclingLymie said:


> They should have kept you locked up at bikeforums net. This is the kind of stupid shite that gets posted over there.


That is spot on.

I am a member of RBR and Bike Forums, and every time I get a notification of activity on this thread, I always assume it is from BF at first.


----------



## cyclostam

I wonder why, motorcycle manufacturers don't use QR???


----------



## factory feel

cyclostam said:


> I wonder why, motorcycle manufacturers don't use QR???
> 
> 
> View attachment 322324


go back to lurking.


----------



## VeloAngle

I’m an occasional lurker who came across this discussion on a search of QR designs. Decided to sign in and weigh in, as in addition to being a mechanical engineer with 30 years experience, and an owner of both QR and TA bikes, I started then sold a company specializing in the design, test and Validation of bolted joints (Archetype Joint, now Peak Innovations Engineering). In addition I’ve written trade articles and testified as an expert witness in product liability cases on the subject. 

While not traditional bolted joints, the primary objective of both QR and TA are the same, both of each other and of all structural joints. The mating components (in this case forks and static hub shaft) should not move relative to one another at all during use. The reasons are related to both performance and safety. When this joint gets loaded enough that it slips, stiffness changes which in turn can impact handling. What is usually more problematic is that this movement increases the potential for loosening and component failure through fatigue fracture and other mechanisms.

Is TA stiffer than QR? The component itself certainly is, both laterally (bending) and axially (stretching). However that isn’t the controlling factor. If one makes the assumption that the static (non-rotating) portion of the hub acts like it is welded to the fork arms, which is the objective, the hub assembly stiffness should override relative TA / QR stiffness. When cornering, the lateral (side) stiffness of the fork, wheel and tire is much less than the hub/fork interface, and therefor dominates handling impressions.

Because the QR rod has a much smaller cross-section, it will either stretch more for a given force generated from the QR cam, or require much less force on the QR lever to achieve a given amount of stretch (two different considerations). The QR acts more like a structural bolted joint because the clamping force that holds the joint together is created by stretching the rod, just as a bolt stretches when it is tightened. On the other hand, the clamping action of the cam lever on the TA largely prevents the TA from unscrewing, rather than preventing joint slip. Slip is prevented by the close fit between the machined TA and the machined bore on one side and the mating threads on the other. If that slip fit were not maintained this joint would likely be problematic.
But then a forum thread doesn’t go six pages over year arguing over engineering details. Who is right and who is wrong? Well, I’m not a bike engineer, am not employed in the bike industry and have never done testing on this joint, but feel I can offer the following informed opinions:
The QR is a perfectly adequate, light and low cost approach for normal road use with rim brakes when properly designed and installed as intended. The “as intended” is important because the design leaves the operator in control of how much clamp force is generated. The “properly designed” is important because inattention to design details can lead to a greater tendency for the joint to relax after installation and reinstallation. Also poor control of friction at the lever interface can vary resulting clamp force.

The QR’s long thin rod may be of inadequate stiffness to maintain fork-to-hub contact on side-loading and hard impacts possible off road, particularly with stiffer wheels. The reliance on a largely uncontrolled clamp load would also be dangerous with the greater forces generated by disk brakes, as the reaction force on the wheel acts in the general direction of the open slot (possible wheel ejection). The TA design better addresses these applications. 

I think the introduction of lawyer tabs has eliminated convenience as an inherent benefit of the traditional QR over the TA, leaving only cost and weight to offset the greater safety risk. I came upon this thread in search for QR designs as I have some ideas for increasing both safety and convenience. 

Based on my frustrations with bubble levels, plumb bobs and tape measures to set up my bikes when adding to the stable or changing components, I’ve just introduced a measuring device that uses length and angle rather than X and Y (distance and height) to document or duplicate setups. The cost starts at $199, so it’s accessible to the enthusiast as well as the industry. RBR has a sample for review, but not sure when it will be published. Please take a look at https://www.veloangle.com/ . Please feel free to drop me a note or give me a call.
Dave


----------



## crit_boy

Many words with unsolicited product plug.

Fyi, OP bought a thru axle bike.


----------



## OldZaskar

This forum could use a word count limiter like Twitter. Maybe once one accumulates enough rep points, the word count goes up. But, I'm just going to read a small novel from an unknown source.


----------



## VeloAngle

There are 132 posts on this thread with differing opinions about a subject that isn't purely opinion, but in fact is based on science. I was hoping to explain that, because I thought it would be helpful and I know what I'm talking about. The unsolicited plug wasn't necessary, but might be of interest.


----------



## VeloAngle

Twitter is good for some things (I guess). Understanding the bikes hub/fork joint isn't one of them.


----------



## dir-t

VeloAngle said:


> Twitter is good for some things (I guess). Understanding the bikes hub/fork joint isn't one of them.


Agreed. I work with a lot of engineers and have a the attention span of someone older than a millennial. I like listing to good explanations of how stuff works.

That said, I've ridden QR bikes on and off road for 30 years and TA MTBs for about 8 without EVER having an issue with EITHER. My opinion is that this whole thread is much ado about nothing unless you're a Red Bull Rampage contestant.

What I REALLY want to know is your opinion of whether it's necessary to replace schnorr washers when reassembling inner CV joints onto the transaxle of a VW Vanagon assuming the CV bolts are torqued to proper spec.


----------



## SPlKE

dir-t said:


> Agreed. I work with a lot of engineers and have a the attention span of someone older than a millennial. I like listing to good explanations of how stuff works.
> 
> That said, I've ridden QR bikes on and off road for 30 years and TA MTBs for about 8 without EVER having an issue with EITHER. My opinion is that this whole thread is much ado about nothing unless you're a Red Bull Rampage contestant.
> 
> What I REALLY want to know is your opinion of whether it's necessary to replace schnorr washers when reassembling inner CV joints onto the transaxle of a VW Vanagon assuming the CV bolts are torqued to proper spec.


"schnorr washer"

I just learned something. 

Thread... success! :thumbsup:


----------



## VeloAngle

dir-t said:


> What I REALLY want to know is your opinion of whether it's necessary to replace schnorr washers when reassembling inner CV joints onto the transaxle of a VW Vanagon assuming the CV bolts are torqued to proper spec.


As a general statement, plain disk springs would seem to provide questionable benefit in that application, while the serrated type will help provide resistance to loosening in that kind of racking load in a joint with proper restive hardness to allow it to bite in. It's an important joint so just put them to make sure you get that 70? 80? HP to the wheels. Also eliminating a washer or changing its finish can change friction and therefor alter bolt tension for the same torque. With this reply I feel I've paid my penance for my unsolicited https://www.veloangle.com plug and will retire from Dr Joint consultation. My test company got "Whats the head bolt torque on a '85 Chevy Citation" all the time (answer - doesn't matter - get rid of it).


----------



## SwiftSolo

cyclostam said:


> I wonder why, motorcycle manufacturers don't use QR???
> 
> 
> View attachment 322324


Mostly because they're not very bright!


----------



## ceugene

The reality is it's a lot easier for me to get the right amount of clamp force every time with a TA. With QR levers, going by feel on a set of DA skewers is a whole lot different from a set of Velocity open-cam skewers. Also I vastly prefer using my lightweight, hex TAs...minimal aesthetic, less frontal area.


----------



## Lombard

ceugene said:


> The reality is it's a lot easier for me to get the right amount of clamp force every time with a TA. With QR levers, going by feel on a set of DA skewers is a whole lot different from a set of Velocity open-cam skewers. Also I vastly prefer using my lightweight, hex TAs...minimal aesthetic, less frontal area.


TAs are definitely better for disc brakes. Since there is very little clearance between the pads and disc, TA allows you to get exact positioning. Let's also not forget the torsional forces disc brakes put on the hubs. There isn't the danger of pulling the the wheel out during braking like there is with QR. Trust me, I have seen way too many people who didn't have their QRs tightened sufficiently to the point it made me cringe.


----------



## BCSaltchucker

never had a QR come loose on me

my wife's rear ThruAxle on her $5k mtn bike keeps coming loose on rides. and yes I get that thing cinched properly tight. I also busted my front Maxle TA on my mtn bike last year getting it a bit too tight. Never busted a QR.

another downside to QR is fork-mounting the bike on my roof rack, lol. easy with QR, a bit of a pita with TA. But I am perhaps a rare bird fork mounting thru-axle bikes.


----------



## BelgianHammer

BCSaltchucker said:


> *never had a QR come loose on me*


BCSaltchucker, have you ever owned one of the early 90s chromed rear horizontal dropout steel frames? I do, still own it in fact and ride it frequently (1994 Colnago Technos). And on that bike, there is no skewer in the world, no matter how much teeth and/or serated and/or the chrome itself roughed up, that has been able to hold the back wheel in when high sprinting/attack wattage is laid down. I've tried them all, believe, because it was the only frame I raced on in the early to mid 90s. 

I am just throwing this out there.....I have no skin in this debate/game other than the fact I own no new axle systems. Every bike (steel ones, aluminum ones, and Titanium ones) I own still has skewers. But there are instances when they fail....


----------



## Lombard

BCSaltchucker said:


> never had a QR come loose on me


You and I haven't. But keep in mind that I lead some beginner rides sometimes. It's a lesson in patience.



BCSaltchucker said:


> my wife's rear ThruAxle on her $5k mtn bike keeps coming loose on rides. and yes I get that thing cinched properly tight. I also busted my front Maxle TA on my mtn bike last year getting it a bit too tight. .


Umm, did you use a torque wrench? :idea:


----------



## factory feel

Lombard said:


> But keep in mind that I lead some beginner rides sometimes.


I needed a good laugh, thank you.


----------



## Lombard

factory feel said:


> I needed a good laugh, thank you.


I'm glad you are so easily amuzed.


----------



## cxwrench

factory feel said:


> I needed a good laugh, thank you.


It's funny because?


----------



## ceugene

BCSaltchucker said:


> never had a QR come loose on me
> 
> my wife's rear ThruAxle on her $5k mtn bike keeps coming loose on rides. and yes I get that thing cinched properly tight. I also busted my front Maxle TA on my mtn bike last year getting it a bit too tight. Never busted a QR.
> 
> another downside to QR is fork-mounting the bike on my roof rack, lol. easy with QR, a bit of a pita with TA. But I am perhaps a rare bird fork mounting thru-axle bikes.


There is zero precession happening at the TA, so why would it come loose if not for user error? Do you have other bolts coming lose on your (wife's) bikes too?


----------



## Lombard

ceugene said:


> There is zero precession happening at the TA, so why would it come loose if not for user error? Do you have other bolts coming lose on your (wife's) bikes too?


Yep. Tighten to 15Nm, good to go.


----------



## ceugene

Lombard said:


> Yep. Tighten to 15Nm, good to go.


15n-m, damn. I use around 6-8.


----------



## Lombard

ceugene said:


> 15n-m, damn. I use around 6-8.


My TA says 15Nm on it, so that's what I torque it to.


----------



## cxwrench

Lombard said:


> My TA says 15Nm on it, so that's what I torque it to.


15nm on a thru axle?!?


----------



## SwiftSolo

cxwrench said:


> 15nm on a thru axle?!?


My guess is that it says 15mm


----------



## Marc

cxwrench said:


> 15nm on a thru axle?!?



Sounds on the higher end. My bolt-head 15mm TA says 9-13.5Nm on it.


----------



## ceugene

Looks like the coarser thread TAs can take between 12-16 n-m apparently. My Shift-Up lightweight hex TAs say 8n-m max however. Never had a problem with handtight and then a tiny bit more.


----------



## Lombard

SwiftSolo said:


> My guess is that it says 15mm


Nope. It says "Max 15Nm". Which I take it means a little less would be fine.


----------



## BCSaltchucker

ceugene said:


> There is zero precession happening at the TA, so why would it come loose if not for user error? Do you have other bolts coming lose on your (wife's) bikes too?


seems you have a screw loose again, crusty crank

her bike is a full sus Spec mtn bike, all carbon swing arm. I think there is an engineering defect in this set up, causing the TA to come loose on her. Just enough flex and impact force to loosen it - NO MATTER WHO TIGHTENS THE TA, the specialized shop mechanic, or myself (a pro bike mechanic in my own right, many years ago in the 80s). weird, I know. OTOH, we have four other TA bikes and none of them have even come loose, just the rear TA on her 1 yr old Specialized Rhyme. I do use a full set of calibrated torque wrenches on my bikes, but her thru-axle is a lever-type, and no way to impart a measured torque


----------



## exracer

VeloAngle said:


> My test company got "Whats the head bolt torque on a '85 Chevy Citation" all the time (*answer - doesn't matter - get rid of it*).


Hahahahahahaha, good answer. Hopefully they have been all melted down into something useful like paperclips or staples.


----------



## davesupra

BCSaltchucker said:


> seems you have a screw loose again, crusty crank
> 
> her bike is a full sus Spec mtn bike, all carbon swing arm. I think there is an engineering defect in this set up, causing the TA to come loose on her. Just enough flex and impact force to loosen it - NO MATTER WHO TIGHTENS THE TA, the specialized shop mechanic, or myself (a pro bike mechanic in my own right, many years ago in the 80s). weird, I know. OTOH, we have four other TA bikes and none of them have even come loose, just the rear TA on her 1 yr old Specialized Rhyme. I do use a full set of calibrated torque wrenches on my bikes, but her thru-axle is a lever-type, and no way to impart a measured torque


I have a buddy with a similar Spec bike and similar issues. It turned out that the bearing in the rear hub was going bad. He actually had the axle fall out during a ride, and when he put it back in and tightened it, there was noticeable friction in the hub. Something to check.


----------



## Fajita Dave

My mtb has a lever that expands the axle into the non-threaded side which works well. Recently I got a disc road bike and I was very surprised they just thread in with no backup to secure them. Seems like using left hand threads would have been a good idea.

No issues of the TA on my road bike backing out yet but we'll see after the hub bearings get a few thousand miles on them. Especially once they go through winter conditions.


----------



## martyJenson

MMsRepBike said:


> Is it better to clamp or bolt a bench vise to a table?


How often do you remove the vise? If never, then bolt. When your vice gets a flat or you change out vices often, then clamp.


----------



## martyJenson

Waspinator said:


> You know what I see when I read anecdotal evidence?
> 
> "Blah blah blah through axle. Blah blah blah...."
> 
> Anecdotal evidence should be reserved for UFO sightings, not as "proof" that one design is stiffer than another.
> 
> I want hard information, i.e. from experiments, providing quantifiable data that demonstrates improved stiffness from through axles over QR.


It is also hard to tell stiffness when fork has suspension, tires are not hard, ground is soft, handlebars and stem flex. So many factors in IRL riding.


----------



## martyJenson

zephxiii said:


> Come one now, even a thru-bolt skewer (in QR dropout) is superior to QR skewer. By this I mean I could feel the rear triangle stiffen up and become more inline with the front triangle of my FS 29er when i switched the rear hub endcaps from QR to Thru-Bolt. Also noticed more stiffness on the front end.


If the quick release is not slipping, how could you tell the difference. Maybe you are just feeling the different frame designs.


----------



## martyJenson

MoPho said:


> Yup. Love the thru-axles on my current bike, so much better than dealing with not-so-quick release lawyer tabs.
> Pop off handle is a nice feature too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


File your lawyer tabs off if it is a problem.


----------



## martyJenson

BCSaltchucker said:


> true - Shimano is one company that has good rep for engineering things well. I went back to Ultegra after Rival and Red for a couple year on road bikes. Just in MTB, Shimano is a laggard in innovation, most Mtn bikes I've looked at come SRAM equipped incl all 6 of our most recent MTB purchases (wife and I)


shimano xt works great


----------



## martyJenson

studbike said:


> i can't help myself. I need to jump in to the fray.
> 
> the lawyer tabs really are a problem. i worked at a bike shop for many years, and have helped countless lay-people with their bikes on the side.
> 
> At least 50% of the population can not figure out how a quick release works without some guidance. on the rear axle, it's because of the chain, and on the front axle it's because of the lawyer tabs.
> 
> it's not obvious that you need to screw the nut on the opposite side several turns before engaging the lever. in fact, if you have the humility to remove yourself from your own body and imagine you've never installed a wheel before, you'd realize that it's counterintuitive. the intuitive thing to do would be to just flip the lever, and not mess with an "adjustment".
> 
> without the lawyer tabs, 99% of the time you'd just drop the wheel in and flip the lever. far fewer people would ride around on loose wheels.
> 
> call them idiots all you want. it's the truth.


All bikes came without lawyer tabs until some jerk had to sue someone. You can always file off a lawyer tab if its that much of a problem.


----------



## martyJenson

CyclingLymie said:


> I see that as a good thing. Darwin at work.


 Well you know quick releases were actually designed for racing where speed of wheel changes are important. Designed for people who know what they should be doing. If John or Mary Doe is just riding around town, they could use a town bike with axles and nuts. The problem often is how bike shops don't educate the consumer to what they are buying and how to use it properly if they are a newbie.


----------



## martyJenson

BelgianHammer said:


> BCSaltchucker, have you ever owned one of the early 90s chromed rear horizontal dropout steel frames? I do, still own it in fact and ride it frequently (1994 Colnago Technos). And on that bike, there is no skewer in the world, no matter how much teeth and/or serated and/or the chrome itself roughed up, that has been able to hold the back wheel in when high sprinting/attack wattage is laid down. I've tried them all, believe, because it was the only frame I raced on in the early to mid 90s.
> 
> I am just throwing this out there.....I have no skin in this debate/game other than the fact I own no new axle systems. Every bike (steel ones, aluminum ones, and Titanium ones) I own still has skewers. But there are instances when they fail....


Nobody really uses chrome dropouts anymore on modern bikes.


----------



## martyJenson

MMsRepBike said:


> Is it better to clamp or bolt a bench vise to a table?


What type of clamp are you using?


----------



## kapusta

Well after a two year lull, someone sure has a lot to say.


----------



## Lombard

I wonder what ever happened to that guy Dr. Waspinator who used to post all these nutty theories.


----------



## cxwrench

martyJenson said:


> What type of clamp are you using?


Hey new guy, no one needs to make 9 posts in their first 6 hours, especially in a thread that everyone else was perfectly happy _was _dead. There is a 'multi quote' feature as well you might want to look in to.


----------



## Bobbyob

I am not an expert not do I pretend to know any answers, but I saw this:


----------



## pmf

Remember how he used to post about his Litespeed and all the advances Litespeed had made in titanium fabrication over the last decade? God, it was laughable.


----------



## Lombard

pmf said:


> Remember how he used to post about his Litespeed and all the advances Litespeed had made in titanium fabrication over the last decade? God, it was laughable.


Was Waspinator the one who thought Ti was vastly superior to carbon?


----------



## pmf

It is.


----------



## SPlKE

Lombard said:


> Was Waspinator the one who thought Ti was vastly superior to carbon?


What? It's not? Man, did I ever screw up, shedding all my CF and buying up Ti.


----------



## zephxiii

martyJenson said:


> If the quick release is not slipping, how could you tell the difference. Maybe you are just feeling the different frame designs.


It was the same frame, the rear hub was converted to thru-bolt from QR and yes the difference was night and day with strength and stiffness on a full suspension bike. A 9-10mm thru-bolt is going to be stronger/stiffer and provide more torque vs. 5mm QR.


----------

