one more reason to stick to QR rather than through axle

ugo.santalucia

Today I changed the bearings to my front DT Swiss 350 disc hub. Because it's the QR version, the bearings are 6000 2RS, quite possibly the cheapest size on the market, 2 SKF for 7 pounds including delivery. Had I been on thru axle, the bore of the bearing would be greater and the cost significantly higher. For 15 mm thru axle, I would be looking at 20 quid for a lesser option (Enduro) and a less durable bearing, given the smaller ball size.

noodleman

Still totally unconvinced about thru axles.

meanredspider

noodleman wrote:

Still totally unconvinced about thru axles.

I'm totally convinced - that they're a complete waste of time.

hypster

I totally agree. I have through axle on the front of my GT Grade and my daughter's Trek Domane disc has them front and back. Totally unecessary and also the plethora of standards is a complete pain too when I have been looking for hubs to build a spare set of wheels.

I have been mountain biking for years and all my bikes have QR front and back and I have never experienced any problems with them and they get a much more rigorous pounding than road bikes.

How many other completely pointless "improvements" are manufacturers going to foist on us in the name of progress? Yet again a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

bbrap

I too have not had problems with QRs, however I also do not have problems with through axles. Time to get a wheel off and on is about the same, ease of doing it about the same. So what if some frames use through axles, most of my wheels (DT Swiss) accept either by changing the end bit. Are through axles an improvement? Who knows? Who cares? If you don't like them buy something else, plenty of choice out there, no point arguing which is best.

Ber Nard

bbrap wrote:

I too have not had problems with QRs, however I also do not have problems with through axles. Time to get a wheel off and on is about the same, ease of doing it about the same. So what if some frames use through axles, most of my wheels (DT Swiss) accept either by changing the end bit. Are through axles an improvement? Who knows? Who cares? If you don't like them buy something else, plenty of choice out there, no point arguing which is best.

End of thread.

meanredspider

bbrap wrote:

plenty of choice out there, no point arguing which is best.

There is choice out there but if, like me, you wanted a Jamis Renegade Elite because it was the best of the bunch, the only choice is TA. Now, it isn't a deal-breaker but TA are NOT as good as QR - TA take longer especially if you take wheels off to transport a bike then put them back on. It also means that, if I chose to, I couldn't use it on my Tacx nor will they fit in the frame for my Evoc bag. And what do they add? Absolutely nothing. I'm a great fan of innovation in cycling but TA adds complexity and absolutely nothing else.

frisbee

I prefer through axles but don't really mind quick releases. As long as they are internal pivot, external are the work of Satan.

hypster

bbrap wrote:

I too have not had problems with QRs, however I also do not have problems with through axles. Time to get a wheel off and on is about the same, ease of doing it about the same. So what if some frames use through axles, most of my wheels (DT Swiss) accept either by changing the end bit. Are through axles an improvement? Who knows? Who cares? If you don't like them buy something else, plenty of choice out there, no point arguing which is best.

But there isn't plenty of choice is there? Various different standards on different manufacturers' bikes means the choice is split. Then if you want to build some spare wheels up (as I do) the choice in what hubs you can use is even fewer.

QR is a standard which has been around for ages and if all the bike manufacturers had stuck to that then there would be no problem at all and we wouldn't keep having this conversation.

sloppyschleckonds

One more reason to stick with rim brakes

stueys

It's very unscientific but the few thru axle bikes I've ridden have all seemed to benefit from increased stiffness at the front. I can't conclusively point to the TA and say that's the reason though, too many other factors potentially at play.

Personally on my next disc bike I'd like them, the occasional alignment issue on my QR bike and subsequent squealing is annoying. I'm not racing so I'm happy to live with the extra second or two required to take the wheel off...

rolf_f

frisbee wrote:

I prefer through axles but don't really mind quick releases. As long as they are internal pivot, external are the work of Satan.

Whilst this is a sort of "given to those in the know" pseudo fact, external are not actually the work of Satan. They are not as good as internal if you are of a careless nature but I use external cam q/r on my Ribble day in day out and they have never caused any bother at all. But I do make sure that the cam and cup surfaces are properly aligned so they can't come loose - basically, you can get away with being more incompetent if you use internal cam.

As for TA - has anyone yet actually managed to identify a single advantage that they offer to road bikes?

bbrap

Rolf F wrote:

As for TA - has anyone yet actually managed to identify a single advantage that they offer to road bikes?

For disc road bikes, perfect wheel alignment every time. If the TA is in and done up the brakes do not rub. No need to check, it just is.

noodleman

I'd like to try them just to see if there's a difference. I've never had a problem with disc rub on qr's and I can't believe you can feel any increased front end stiffness on a road bike. Maybe on a mtb with front suspension but even then I doubt it.

homers_double

How dare you say that with only three posts to your name!

Anyway back on topic they are selling mini ones in Aldi, 99p for a pack of four. Bargain.

svetty

Plenty of retro-grouchs in here....

meanredspider

bbrap wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

As for TA - has anyone yet actually managed to identify a single advantage that they offer to road bikes?

For disc road bikes, perfect wheel alignment every time. If the TA is in and done up the brakes do not rub. No need to check, it just is.

Never once, with 5 years of QR disc road bike (and the same of QR MTB if we're counting) experience have I had the brakes rub. I have actually had a TA undo. So we are still yet to find an advantage of TA

Svetty wrote:

Plenty of retro-grouchs in here....

The funny thing is that "retro-grouch" is the last way I'd describe myself. Discs on a road bike? I'd be one of the first. Di2? I'd be one of the first. Gravel bikes? I'd (probably) be one of the first. But stuff actually needs to have something better about it. Or even be equal. But TA isn't. It's slower and pointless. There's no excuse for that.

apreading

My QRs didnt seem to grip so well on my Boardman road bike, had to do them up REALLY tight, in fact I switched to a pair of DT Swiss skewers that you had to screw down because they could be done so much tighter. In fact when I first got the bike, a pedestrian stepped out in front of my and I ran into her, at really low speed, nobody hurt, nor did anyone even fall over but as I went to cycle away I noticed the front wheel had almost popped out and been stopped by the lips just on the tip of the fork, one of which had cracked as a result. Luckily Halfords replaced the fork as it was only a week old (and I didnt tell them about the crash). New ones still didnt grip well, hence why I did things up REALLY tight ever since.

If discs are rubbing, thats not because the QR isnt secure though - its because the user didnt have the wheel properly inserted when they did the QRs up though.

I have Thru Axle front on the Whyte now and they work great.

I have never had a problem with the QRs on my mountain bikes though, so the experience with the Boardman may have been some design issue with those particular forks.

rolf_f

Svetty wrote:

Plenty of retro-grouchs in here....

You can be cynical about new stuff without being a retro grouch! If someone provides a new fangled solution to a problem that doesn't exist then being unimpressed doesn't mean you are a luddite. The new ways isn't always the best and the discerning customer will always need convincing. At one time, dinosaurs were the latest thing and look what happened to them!

(Mind you, my MTB does tend to suffer from random pad rubbing but no amount of fiddling with the QR ever sorts it - only resetting the caliper alignment works. Some people aren't meant to have discs...)

ugo.santalucia

Rolf F wrote:

Svetty wrote:

Plenty of retro-grouchs in here....

You can be cynical about new stuff without being a retro grouch! If someone provides a new fangled solution to a problem that doesn't exist then being unimpressed doesn't mean you are a luddite. The new ways isn't always the best and the discerning customer will always need convincing. At one time, dinosaurs were the latest thing and look what happened to them!

(Mind you, my MTB does tend to suffer from random pad rubbing but no amount of fiddling with the QR ever sorts it - only resetting the caliper alignment works. Some people aren't meant to have discs...)

You are talking to someone who belongs to the generation who thinks 2 years ago was the pleistocene... it's not worth it, they have no perspective and think that bicycle technology moves forward at the same speed of digital technology. They just don't understand mechanics... you are wasting your time arguing that point, I tell ya

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Svetty wrote:

Plenty of retro-grouchs in here....

You can be cynical about new stuff without being a retro grouch! If someone provides a new fangled solution to a problem that doesn't exist then being unimpressed doesn't mean you are a luddite. The new ways isn't always the best and the discerning customer will always need convincing. At one time, dinosaurs were the latest thing and look what happened to them!

(Mind you, my MTB does tend to suffer from random pad rubbing but no amount of fiddling with the QR ever sorts it - only resetting the caliper alignment works. Some people aren't meant to have discs...)

You are talking to someone who belongs to the generation who thinks 2 years ago was the pleistocene... it's not worth it, they have no perspective and think that bicycle technology moves forward at the same speed of digital technology. They just don't understand mechanics... you are wasting your time arguing that point, I tell ya

It'll be a different story when we take it outside and I hit em with a length of Reynolds 501 and all they have in response is a Pokémon Go Squirtle.

svetty

ugo.santalucia wrote:

You are talking to someone who belongs to the generation who thinks 2 years ago was the pleistocene... it's not worth it, they have no perspective and think that bicycle technology moves forward at the same speed of digital technology. They just don't understand mechanics... you are wasting your time arguing that point, I tell ya

Wtf are you on about? Are you presuming - with no foundation, and wrongly, - what 'generation' I belong to?

ugo.santalucia

Svetty wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

You are talking to someone who belongs to the generation who thinks 2 years ago was the pleistocene... it's not worth it, they have no perspective and think that bicycle technology moves forward at the same speed of digital technology. They just don't understand mechanics... you are wasting your time arguing that point, I tell ya

Wtf are you on about? Are you presuming - with no foundation, and wrongly, - what 'generation' I belong to?

Absolutely, in the same way you brand "retro grouch" anyone who doesn't think TA is better than the older QR.... WTF are YOU on about then?

rs6mra1

Ugo - What grease do you use in the ratchet on this hub?

ugo.santalucia

rs6mra1 wrote:

Ugo - What grease do you use in the ratchet on this hub?

I only have the front, but I had a rear in the past and always used standard bearing grease from a big Lucas Oil jar... the RPM of a hub doesn't lend itself to fancy greases

svetty

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Absolutely, in the same way you brand "retro grouch" anyone who doesn't think TA is better than the older QR.... WTF are YOU on about then?

I made a light-hearted (note the wink smiley) comment. You then made an incorrect and somewhat ill-tempered dig....

Whatever, I'm not going to expend energy on this, life's too short

ugo.santalucia

Svetty wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Absolutely, in the same way you brand "retro grouch" anyone who doesn't think TA is better than the older QR.... WTF are YOU on about then?

I made a light-hearted (note the wink smiley) comment. You then made an incorrect and somewhat ill-tempered dig....

Whatever, I'm not going to expend energy on this, life's too short

It's tiring... every time someone points out a drawback of something new, being that Di2, 11 speed, TA, hydraulic, tubeless, carbon monocoque... immediately somebody else refuses to discuss the topic and flags the "luddite" label... it's been done to death, it's not funny anymore, I can go as far as saying that it is offensive, little faces or no little faces... if you chip in and refuse to discuss the topic, just to throw some shoot to a few individuals, then the least you can expect is to be treated with the same currency... it is just fair... I could add faces if you want, but they don't change the substance.

Ber Nard

ugo.santalucia wrote:

.. it's been done to death

Much like the topic of through axles.

ugo.santalucia

Ber Nard wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

.. it's been done to death

Much like the topic of through axles.

I just brought a different perspective... bearings of the 15-20 mm bore size are horrendously expensive... AFAIK this topic is not covered anywhere.
I appreciate for some 25 quid is nothing, but for others it is meaningful money

Ber Nard

C'mon. This isn't a thread about bearings, is it? Who else has mentioned them?

ugo.santalucia

Ber Nard wrote:

C'mon. This isn't a thread about bearings, is it? Who else has mentioned them?

You might be surprised to know that I have an interest in bearings... so yes, for me it was about bearings. Bearings are under rated... they cause a huge deal of grief in hubs, bottom brackets and headsets... they are probably the single biggest mechanical headache... bearing size matters and wide bore bearings generally suck