Home > Bike Types > Fatbike

NAHBS 2015: Quiring boosts 29+ mountain bikes beyond 148 w/ clever parts use

28
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

Quiring 29er-plus titanium mountain bike with 157mm rear axle spacing and offset chainline

With all the hullabaloo surrounding the new Boost 148 rear axle standard, one could be tempted to think that was the only way to accomplish goals like improved wheel stiffness, more clearance and ideal chain lines, all while remaining lightweight.

Well, Scott Quiring thought differently, and he managed the hat trick without it, using off the shelf standards to create a 29+ bike with an insanely short chainstay of just 17″…with 29×3.0 tires!

Here’s how he did it…

Quiring-29er-plus-titanium-mountain-bike05

Two of his booth bikes had this set up, so you’ll see pics of these two mixed together to illustrate the design.

Quiring-29er-plus-titanium-mountain-bike06

He stared with a 157mm rear thru axle, something that’s been around for DH bikes for years. “What 157 lets you do is have a true dishless wheel,” Quiring said, “putting even spoke tension and angles on both sides of wheel. Scott Quiring says they measured it and it gives a true 25% increase in stiffness over a 135/142 spaced rear wheel.”

Quiring-29er-plus-titanium-mountain-bike03

The tricksy part is that it still has a standard 73mm bottom bracket shell, so it uses standard cranks and maintains a standard Q-factor. However, to get the chainline out to 57mm so it’s inline with the wider cassette placement, he simply switches the chainring to the outside of the spider.

Quiring-29er-plus-titanium-mountain-bike08

It’s a simple hack of using a triple chainring spider, then just mounting a 104bcd narrow/wide chainring on the outside of the spider where the big ring would normally go. He ground down the granny gear mounts to tidy up appearances.

“They didn’t have to come up with boost 148,” he says. “They could have just used existing standards and accomplished the same goals.”

The only potential issue could be heel clearance on the chainstay for some riders. Otherwise we thing it’s a pretty clever concept!

Quiring-29er-plus-titanium-mountain-bike04

The bike with the matte Whisky fork and red decals can go as short as a 17″ chainstay even with 29×3.0 tires. In addition to creating his own chainstay yoke and the clearance provided by the wider drivetrain placement, clearance is added by bending the seat tube.

Quiring-29er-plus-titanium-mountain-bike02

It even has an Angleset so he can adjust the head angle to the trails at hand.

Quiring-tandem-fat-bike01

The rest of his booth could be summed up as all-fat-all-the-time. This fat bike tandem was joined by…

Quiring-29-plus-tandem-fat-bike01

…a 29+ tandem.

Quiring-travel-fat-bike-with-frame-couplers01

This travel fat bike has 190mm rear spacing, but can also be set up as a 29+ in the warmer months.

Quiring-travel-fat-bike-with-frame-couplers03

Yep, frame couplers means this fat bike is ready to be packed into a trunk or one really, really big suitcase. The shift cables both have inline threaded couplers, and the rear brake hose runs through these opposing guides so it can simply be unbolted from either end (lever or caliper is removed) and quickly pulled loose from the other end of the bike.

Quiring-travel-fat-bike-with-frame-couplers04

Everything’s custom, and Ti frames start at $2,700. Steel at $1,600.

QuiringCycles.net

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

28 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David
David
7 years ago

Very cool. I was reading online (MTBR) that the combo of 150 rear hub and 73mm BB “wouldn’t work”, and that boost 148 was the only way to get the standard BB width to function. Hopefully manufacturers get the memo. Nice to see somebody thinking outside the box.

AOK
AOK
7 years ago

Nothing against Quiring but pretty much every anti-148 comment starts out by nothing that they could have just used existing 150/157 spacing. This is not exactly a new thing.

There are existing FS bikes with 150 rear spacing that work with 73mm BBs (Banshee Prime comes to mind).

Mr. P
7 years ago

I dig it too. This isn’t just creative thinking, it’s creative doing.

I have a single speed wide flanged hubbed wheel with the same rim/spokes as a 10s cassette wheel I have. The single speed wheel is consistent and laterally stiff, while the cassette wheel would flex on high lateral strain moments (Flow rim). I would love to get to more wheel stiffness on a FS bike without resorting to cracky carbon rims.

P

Veganpotter
Veganpotter
7 years ago

I’d love to see someone go with a 1x only bike, built around the idea of having this chainring on the outside and going as wide as possible on tires. I think you may be able to get away with a 3.5″ 650b tire if you go this route if you know you’ll never mount an inner ring to the bike. I love riding my fat bike but my hips don’t like the q factor after a few hours

Poncho
Poncho
7 years ago

We currently have a prototype 157/83 using B+ 3.25 tires. Built it then we heard about boost.

It’s a bit of a shame to be adding yet another new standard.

Are they new standards for good reason or simply enforced redundancy strategies?

J N H
J N H
7 years ago

@Poncho, I think the answer is that Specialized already came up with 142+ and Trek wanted the same thing without getting sued. I sincerely hope it goes the way of Giant’s ‘slightly less tapered’ head tubes though, if they want wider wheel spacing 157 is the future.

Poncho
Poncho
7 years ago

Seems like it it’s already embedded in the manufacturing.

Prominent hub makers have already acquiesced to boost so I’m guessing several brands will feature boost in the coming season.

Rico
Rico
7 years ago

It’s insane how much the trends are constantly morphing in the mountain bike scene.

anonymous
anonymous
7 years ago

So it’s a 1x with the Q-factor of a 3x. I’m not exactly sure that’s something to be proud of.

Alb
Alb
7 years ago

Fine if all you want to run is 1x (single ring on a std triple chaninset give ~55mm CL). 2x would need either the corresponding 83mm BB (and v. limited, overbuilt, DH-spec chainset offerings)… or a Boost compatible +3mm CL chainset (but arguably chainline at the front would then be too narrow for the 157mm rear end).

Prime_Owner
Prime_Owner
7 years ago

@Alb, no, a 2x setup will work just fine on a frame properly designed for it with a 150mm rear hub. I’m running a 2×10 drivetrain on my Banshee Prime with a 150mm rear hub, and it works beautifully. I completely agree with Scott Quiring when he said, “They could have just used existing standards and accomplished the same goals.”

Alb
Alb
7 years ago

@Prime_Owner – w/ 3.0″ + tyres?

Ryan
Ryan
7 years ago

Happy to see sliders, I would set these up single in a heartbeat.

FullFaceKenny
7 years ago

“So it’s a 1x with the Q-factor of a 3x. I’m not exactly sure that’s something to be proud of.”

Q-Factor is measured to the outside of the crank arms. It has nothing to do with chain ring placement.

AOK
AOK
7 years ago

@alb – my banshee phantom fits 3″ Knards on a 35mm rim with 142 rear spacing. A “true” 29+ setup with wider rims would not fit.

Alb
Alb
7 years ago

@AOK – that’s sorta my point!

Derek
Derek
7 years ago

Leave it to a custom builder to think practically, use existing parts, and enact some bicycle common sense.

I was going to use DH spacing on my next custom bike. Glad to see somebody made it work before I dove in head first.

i
i
7 years ago

I would argue that the reason this approach isn’t mainstream is that Trek/Spec/Giant aren’t willing to commit to 1x only quite yet, and this wouldn’t work with more than one ring.

It’s a lot easier to design for one user than for all possible users…

duder
duder
7 years ago

More companies need to be willing to drop the front d. As a Giant fan, I would love an Anthem X 29 with shorter chainstays and a slacker head angle like the 27.5 has.

Why don’t people want to use 83mm BBs? Q factor?

anonymous
anonymous
7 years ago

@FullFaceKenny
False, completely and totally false.

Fewer rings means you don’t need to make space for the rings, or the FD cage, which means, if you have the chainstay clearance, you can bring the arms in.

Colin M
Colin M
7 years ago

@anonymous

FullFaceKenny isn’t false. The Q factor isn’t going to get smaller on that particular bike with those chainstays.

anonymous
anonymous
7 years ago

M
Because the bike uses a wide axle and resorts only only having proper chainline in a single chainring in the outermost position, and then claims to solve the problems 148 solves, without actually solving them.

So the guy made a 1x with the Q-factor is a 3x. That’s still the fact of the matter.

CP
CP
7 years ago

The Q-factor of the cranks on the Quiring bike is 168mm (standard mtb crank width).
This 157mm rear hub bike setup can also be used with a 2x crank and a front derailleur. Mount a 30 tooth 104 BCD at 50 mm chainline, and then mount a 38 tooth at the 57 mm chainline. Take an XTR 11-36 tooth cassette (CS-M980) and add the Wolftooth GS 42 cog. That would give a 30/38 combo in the front and an 11-42 in the rear. This would result in lower and higher gears than is found on a typical 2x setup (typical SRAM 2x setup is 12-36 in the rear and 26/39 combo in the front.) And these would be all off the shelf parts! Yeah, I am guessing what “anonymous” will say is that “….the 50 mm chainline isn’t optimized”. However, a small ring only serves as a bailout on long steep climbs and you are never really in the smaller cassette cogs while in this ring anyway (due to poor chainline). So, in other words, the 157 mm rear end with a standard Q-factor crank would do just fine. Of course the argument could be used about how tight the rings should be in the front, etc. For example, using a 30/36 or something like that might be better suited to your area of riding and the larger 29’er+ wheels blah, blah, blah….. At any rate, the advantage of this design is really for using it as a 1x anyway (most people are moving away from front derailleurs). And after seeing this Quiring bike at NAHBS, it is clear that if done in Boost 148 even using a 1x crank, the bike design would have been sub-optimal and could not have achieved the same type of tire clearances and as short of chainstays.

anonymous
anonymous
7 years ago

So basically, you’re saying you have to make lots of compromises in order to achieve the same effectiveness as another setup that makes a different set of compromises.

It’s still a 1x with the Q-factor of a 3x, no matter how you try to slice it.

That’s the compromise that was made to make this setup work.

CP
CP
7 years ago

The Q-factor of a 1x crank is 168 mm (e.g. Sram BB30 XX1). The Q-Factor of a 3x cranks are also 168 mm. Thus, from a Q factor standpoint, there is no compromise between a 1x and 3x in a standard crank.

james
james
7 years ago

@anonymous- pretty much every mountain 1x or 2x, has the q-factor of a 3x. They’re all the same cranks with different chainrings installed. The limiting factor is chainstay clearance, especially with 3″ tires. What is your point?

Boost 148 has NO advantage over this setup. You would also be limited to 1x if you wanted to have short stays and 3″ tires, with a 148 setup. In fact, there would actually be less clearance for a front der.

Ol' Shel'
Ol' Shel'
7 years ago

157 fixes the chainline, and then he goes and moves the chainring to the outside, wrecking the chainline he just fixed.

29+ needs a BB wider than 73mm, period.

Kerry
Kerry
7 years ago

Has anyone thought about using 160mm OLN? Good number of rear hubs in that size as they are used by some tandem builders and are available for sale at most tandem parts sources. Just think’in

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.