Hands on with the Hope Crankset, Plus New Fat Bike Spindle and Boost 148 Hub

@groghunter You must be joking about the flange spacing of their 150mm hubs, or are missing a critical piece of information. The 150mm rear hub has symmetrical spacing. How would YOU improve upon that? Making the NDS flange further from center would only introduce tension disparity. The DS flange spacing is constrained by the length of the freehub body.

You can even look for yourself http://www.hopetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-UPDATED-HOPE-HUBS-SPOKE-OFFSET-AND-PCD-v2.pdf

While L/R tension disparity, below the 60/100 threshold, has a negligible impact on wheel strength, even distribution on each side is what determines reliability. What you should be asking is why we’re even going to 148, and not simply using the existing 157(150×12) spacing.

I second the 150 spacing. What’s the point of 148? They say it may be the perfect chainline with wider tires but those wider tires are going to probably get even wider. 1mm on each side won’t hurt anything and will allow use of available space and give an extra MM of spoke clearance for the inevitable 12spd cassette(sucky but its gonna happen and will probably need a noticeably narrower chain)

You don’t HAVE to. There are already road cranks made for 135 spaced hubs(the chainrings are dishhed outboard a bit) with similar road Q Factors. That’s 1mm, you can’t account for it when you consider gear selection. Also, with single rings become more and more common, its easy to space the chainring out with spacers or when it comes to SRAM…they sell rings with different dishing.

Neither this way or that but…

@groghunter “If the way Hope does it is so superior, then why is almost every other 150mm hub out there…”

Just because ‘everybody’ else does it, does not mean it’s right. The bike industry in general is a perfect example of this rule.

Sigh… do I really have to explain why widening the base of a triangle improves it’s strength, in an article about boost148, which was specifically designed to widen the base of the triangle, because 29″ rims lengthen the legs of the triangle, throwing off it’s proportionality? Really, your answer to basic geometry is @Antipodean_G “well, just because everybody else does it don’t mean nuthin.” No. the basic geometry is why everybody else is doing it right. It’s the same reason why dropout widths changed with each gear count increase up to 8. because it allowed the wheels to preserve the same base to leg ratio. Boost148 is really the last 15 years of cramming more gears into 135mm hubs, finally coming home to roost, along with MTB deciding they wanted to use 30-40mm longer spokes on their wheels(29ers.)

@groghunter dude, yes that’s true, basic geometry, I understand it pretty well having designed a lot of stuff over the years. 142 -> 148 = 6mm, 3mm per side; sit down and measure it out. When you factor that into the additional 1.5″ or 3″ in overall wheel diameter, hence additional spoke lengths, 6mm will do jack s*.

“…in an article about boost148..” As was once said – ‘don’t believe the hype’ .

Qfactor for 170 spaced rear? Available for 2x?

Fsr_dh, all new generation hope hubs have got 40t pickup rather than the old 24t.

i really dont understand all the whining about rear hub spacing myself…i quite regularly jam oldschool 150mm x 12 hubs into 148×12 spacings (ok so it only works for some hubs, but it works for mine), and i swap out my 142×12 with my CX tire for my 135×12 bolt-thru with my trail tire on it to save me changing the tire every time i wanna go hit some trails. you just bolt it up tight and away you go…simple as that