frostbike roundup hope (4)

After teasing us with the beautifully machined and anodized crank arms at a few different trade shows, Hope finally released their new crankset earlier this year. Adding to the expansive line of aluminum parts made in the UK, the modular crankset adds another option to give your self some drivetrain flexibility. Able to run either spiderless Retainer chainrings, single spiders for 104 BCD chainrings, or double 64/104 BCD spiders, the crankset also uses a swappable axle standard that we guessed would allow the crankset to be used on a number of different frames even though the initial launch was limited to 68/73 and 83mm options.

It didn’t take long before Hope made it to Frostbike where the new crankset was shown with an interesting new spindle…

frostbike roundup hope (3)

Not much has been said about this fat bike crankset, but the FatSno logo laser etched onto the spindle gives it away. According to Hope the fat bike cranks are available now and simply have a longer spindle meant for a 100mm bottom bracket shells. Fat bike crank pricing is no different than standard 68/73 or 83mm spindle pricing with the crank arms and spindle selling for $350.

frostbike roundup hope (1)

frostbike roundup hope frostbike roundup hope (2)

All of the crank spindles use the expanding spline system in place of more traditional friction fit. Hope states that this allows the crank arms to be installed and removed repeatedly without any change in the security of the crank arm’s mount to the spindle. All of the necessary tools are included with each crankset which includes the special bolt needed to tighten the internal wedge. Once tightened the wedge secures the spindle against the inside of the crank arm and then an additional fixing bolt is installed.

Complete sets of arms, an axle, and a spider will run $400, while the arms and axle alone will sell for $350. Additional spiders will be available for $65, and spiderless chainrings at $90 each.

frostbike roundup hope (6)

frostbike roundup hope (5)

The other shiny new object Hope had on hand is their Boost 148 compatible Pro2 Evo rear hub. Using a dedicated hub shell to actually take advantage of the wider hub spacing, the rest of the hub’s internals are the same you’ll find in other Pro2 hubs. If Boost 148 catches on, Hope and a few other manufacturers will be ready. Hope is selling the 148 Pro2 Evo hubs for $275.



  1. need more pics of the disc side of the boost 148 hub… Hope, for some reason, is still one of the manufacturers that makes their 150 hubs with a 135 flange spacing

    Much as I love their other stuff, they need to prove that they’re actually going to widen the flanges, instead of just spacing the disc tabs farther from the flange. Their 150mm rear hub is something they should be ashamed of.

  2. @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

    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.

  3. Mtb parts are looking and being built more and more like what Bmx companys have been doing for a while. now if only they could get more into their price points.

  4. 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)

  5. @Veganpotter – with 150mm you still have to run a wider BB shell. With 148 all you have to do is slightly modify the chain line from the crank end.

  6. 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.

  7. 150mm hubs are a different animal than 148mm. 148mm hubs use slotted dropouts like 142 does, while 150 uses a plain flush dropout, with a 12 mm axle. now, I will say, they could have made 148 2mm wider, & old 150mm hubs would have been incompatible, but you could have made hubs that fit both standards going forward.


    If the way Hope does it is so superior, then why is almost every other 150mm hub out there done with the NDS flange close to the disc mount? Properly designed 150mm rear ends don’t need games played with the flanges to achieve even spoke tension: 150mm rear ends are supposed to be asymetric, in order to allow dishless wheels.

  8. 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.

  9. @grog I suspect that a lot of companies don’t fully understand how to make strong wheels. If the spacing is wider, that “bigger” number looks “better” on paper. The other advantage(although it may rarely be utilized), is increased caliper–>spoke clearance. With the spacing on Hope’s hubs, there’s virtually no limit to the width of brake calipers.

    If wider is better, just get it done with already.

    I’d say a lot of us are plain sick and tired of an additional 2-3mm every year.

  10. 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.)

  11. @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’ .

  12. 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

COMMENT HERE: (For best results, log in through Wordpress or your social media account. Anonymous/fake email comments may be unapproved or deleted. ALL first-time commenter's posts are held for moderation. Check our Comment Policy for full details.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.