QR or 15mm Maxle forks?

absv

I could do with a quick bit of advice before I order my new forks tonight. Looking at getting some Rebas' for my Hardrock Sport but not sure whether to stick with QR or get a new wheel too and got for the 15mm option to try and future proof things.

Cheers,

benpinnick

Having a 15mm axle is definitely better than not having one, but not so much greater I would bother switching wheels if you're happy with them. However, if its the stock wheels they came with, then why not eh? Sure you could do better.

mrmonkfinger

20mm

I'd avoid QR if its feasible.

That's just my opinion though - I think QR is absolutely fine for rim brakes, but I'd prefer a solidly located axle for discs, 15mm or 20mm, either is fine.

cooldad

Bollocks, QR is enough for 99% of riding (reliable stat - made up on the spot).
And as for future proofing - QR will be around for the foreseeable future. Manufacturers seem to like messing around with other standards.

Anonymous

As said, it's not about future proofing. QR is cheaper and simple for the vast majority of bikes, so will be around for a very long time.

Maxle gives you the rigidity for potential axle damaging situations.

If you're going to bit hitting the downhills a lot or the alps, then maybe of benefit. QR is perfectly fine for almost all other situations.

Plus Maxle comes with problems. Not that they aren't nice looking. Big chunky axle makes it seem more sturdy, regardless of whether it is.

If you do get one, specifically Maxle, constantly check the release after every gnarly trail, and remember the lever should be tough to lock. Many assume, as I did, that you just screw it in and flip the lever to the lock position and it's fine (unlike a QR which usually has to lock tight). Result is it comes undone. To get it to lock tight you have to adjust the tiny bolt on the lever, but this has a habit (at least on mine) of coming undone.

mrmonkfinger

cooldad wrote:

Bollocks, QR is enough for 99% of riding (reliable stat - made up on the spot).

QR dropouts do have that (unlikely) nasty failure mode where the QR vibrates loose and braking ejects the front wheel from the fork. Its unlikely... but possible. A QR15 and 20mm axle design eliminates that. My guess is that fork manufacturers will push 15mm as a replacement for QR now that there has been a precedent set in court.

linky http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/ho ... k_release/

jehosophat

From reading into it it seems that the mags/industry seem to think a through-axle front makes a bigger difference than a tapered fork (the main benefit of which seems to be the frame stiffness not the fork) and a rear through axle lags behind in benefit. Most newer bikes seem to be moving to all three. How much benefit will depend on you and your riding.

I always assume that these sorts of things will not affect me, being a 70kg rider in the south of England on short travel bikes - but I have to say when I went from quite bendy 28mm stanchion Pace RC39 forks on my last trail bike (Blur Classic) to DT Swiss XMC's with much thicker, also carbon, stanchions the different was night and day, the front of the bike just felt so much stiffer and under control. I am about to go to a tapered carbon frame and tapered F120's with a QR15 front - I hoping for a similar improvement.

One other thing - I read in WMB that they do not recommend light Ti QR's - and again when I went to a chunkier alloy QR front and rear I swear I noticed a difference!

I am lucky in that I have two sets of wheels with Hope Pro2 Evo hubs, which are easy to swap over to through axles front and rear.

Anonymous

Doing the things up properly (and by that I mean it should leave an imprint in your palm when lock the thing), and checking it regularly during rides, especially before and after a gnarly descent, is all you need to ensure a QR wheel isn't going to come out.

There's been much argument about the QR braking force fallibility that one or two people have a mission about, but 99% (another reliable made up stat) have zero problem if the QR and bike are used correctly.

And a settlement doesn't prove anything was faulty, only that the manufacturer didn't want to drag it through court for time/cost and publicity reasons. They may have felt it was dodgy ground but then again they could have won in the end by proving the guy was at fault, but likely the odds would be against them with a jury looking at photos of injuries and a competent Injury Sue Your Ass Lawyer working for him.

andy_welch

deadkenny wrote:

If you do get one, specifically Maxle, constantly check the release after every gnarly trail, and remember the lever should be tough to lock. Many assume, as I did, that you just screw it in and flip the lever to the lock position and it's fine (unlike a QR which usually has to lock tight). Result is it comes undone. To get it to lock tight you have to adjust the tiny bolt on the lever, but this has a habit (at least on mine) of coming undone.

For it to fail then doesn't it have to unscrew? If, for example, you set it so that the level points up when it's locked then a quick look down should be enough to reassure you that it hasn't come lose. Or am I missing something?

Cheers,

Andy

YeehaaMcgee

andy_welch wrote:

deadkenny wrote:

If you do get one, specifically Maxle, constantly check the release after every gnarly trail, and remember the lever should be tough to lock. Many assume, as I did, that you just screw it in and flip the lever to the lock position and it's fine (unlike a QR which usually has to lock tight). Result is it comes undone. To get it to lock tight you have to adjust the tiny bolt on the lever, but this has a habit (at least on mine) of coming undone.

For it to fail then doesn't it have to unscrew? If, for example, you set it so that the level points up when it's locked then a quick look down should be enough to reassure you that it hasn't come lose. Or am I missing something?

Cheers,

Andy

Er, yes, you're missing something quite fundamental.
It's actually quite hard to look down at your front hub, and at the trail ahead whilst negotiating tricky terrain - the kind of where an unscrewing maxle will inevitably (sod's law) manifest.
Also, if you're constantly checking to see if your front axle has come loose, then it seriously undermines the rider's confidence in the bike, which kind of ruins the ride.

FBM.BMX

The stiffness required obviously applies to application.

You need to consider fork length, arch position, travel, dropout design, lower construction, upper construction, rotor etc.

I would not want to ride 180mm single crown forks with a 203 rotor and qr, just as you wouldn't need 20mm on a set of 80mm forks being used on toe paths.

But generally id say from experience and reading up on some tests-

80-120mm - Rockshox - QR good enough for most people
80-100 - Fox - Qr stiff enough for most
120-150 - Rockshox - 15
100-130 - fox - 15
150+ - 20mm

The investigation i've read also say 20mm gives a much better increase in stiffness over 15mm for minimal weight penalty, 15mm give some stiffness increase over qr, but it's not drastic.

IMO if it's short travel, qr is ok. If it's 130mm or more, suck up the minimal weight penalty and go straight for 20mm.

YeehaaMcgee

FBM.BMX wrote:

toe paths.

Ahem, it's "towpath" - just for future reference

felix.london

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

FBM.BMX wrote:

toe paths.

Ahem, it's "towpath" - just for future reference

I thought he meant a new kind of really small single-track...

Anonymous

andy_welch wrote:

For it to fail then doesn't it have to unscrew? If, for example, you set it so that the level points up when it's locked then a quick look down should be enough to reassure you that it hasn't come lose. Or am I missing something?

In my case lock down looks fine when looking down but the axle had come slightly unscrewed. On checking the lever itself was floppy, not tight and the axle needed screwing in again. It was tight when I was doing it up though.

It wasn't like it was easily going to come unthreaded entirely however, just it was loose. Could feel that in the wheel. After a while it may unscrew enough at the other end to be a catastrophic failure if I wasn't checking and hadn't noticed the wobbly wheel.

That's in my case with the Maxle (or Maxle 'Light' I think I may have, not sure).

Then I found out there's a tiny little bolt that needs a thin allen key, which you adjust behind the lever to add tension. It locks tight then. But I'm finding it keeps getting loose and needs tightening again. At least though it's not after every run!


Oh, and fyi - Santa Cruz say they don't do a through axle on the rear of my Nomad because they believe it's strong enough and it just adds complexity and is a weight penalty. Looks solid enough to me anyway with the QR and that's on a 160/170 bike (front has the Maxle though).

YeehaaMcgee

deadkenny wrote:

Oh, and fyi - Santa Cruz say they don't do a through axle on the rear of my Nomad because they believe it's strong enough and it just adds complexity and is a weight penalty. Looks solid enough to me anyway with the QR and that's on a 160/170 bike (front has the Maxle though).

It is much easier to make a stiff rear end since you have no telescoping bits to think about, and can generally use a fait bit more metal.
I've never liked the Maxle design principle. Fox's pinch bolt system is far more secure from an engineering standpoint.
But, I've yet to be satisfied with any of SRAM's products from a thoughtful design perspective.

supersonic

Fox 15QR is a screw through though, one lever.

Fox 20QR reminds me of the old RS Tullio system:

benpinnick

That was a good axle... Apart from the fact that the tension adjuster bolts were made from cheese. Pity the Psylo had a working lifespan of about 1 month.

supersonic

Lol, they had awful bushings - I had my Psylo XC double bushed, worked flawlessly until my ex crashed it into a car. Bloody flexy at full stretch too! Piece of piss to service the Hydracoil/air damper; Pure damper not so...