Thru axles and QR

[freiston]

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not chasing the perfect bike. But I do know what I want (well I did until thru-axles became part of the mix - hence this thread), I don't have the room for a collection of bikes (I'm struggling with just the one tourer and one folder at the moment) and money is usually something I have very little of.

At the moment, I have the money but I'm waiting on events which might make my casual work more regular and permanent - in which case I will feel able to spend some of my money. My main drive in this is for a bike that can take wide tyres to give better off-road capability and be used for touring (my current frame is specced by manufacturer as 32mm max even though I think it could take bigger). I've never felt a need for disc brakes but if I'm going for something with big wide tyres, I might as well go for discs at the same time (plus I got shivers hearing the crud grind my rims when braking this winter). As I know what I want, this made my choices straight-forward - no chasing perfection or excellence - I know what I like and I know what I want. Then came the spanner in the works - thru axles - so I felt it prudent to seek counsel on this forum.

The money is still a big deal to me and I don't want to blindly make a blunder. As things stand, I am very happy with my current tourer except for the tyre width, which deters me from exploring some of the rougher tracks and tow paths, and keeps me away from some not so rough tracks when we've had wet weather. The likelihood is that I will stick with the current bike for some time yet until thru-axles become more of a known, established entity - or I will disregard thru-axles and stick to QR and my original plan (Spa Wayfarer frame).

Another avenue that I'm exploring is a third bike cheaper than building a new tourer to my spec - something that will take wide tyres and a fair bit of luggage but won't be my single "do-it-all" - so giving me more freedom in choice/omission of various components (such as gearing, drop bar and dynamo hub). Currently the biggest problem with this approach is finding the space to store the bike. If I go down this route, I would be very interested in the On-One Bootzipper.

[rareposter]

Then came the spanner in the works - thru axles

Thru axles aren't going anywhere - they've been in use on MTB for years and more recently have found their way onto gravel bikes then road bikes, mostly because of the increased use of disc brakes.

The thru axle comes with the frame - it's marginally (like a second or two) slower to get a wheel out but the whole thing is far stiffer, stronger and safer than a QR system which is the main point for use with discs (and to a certain extent suspension forks too although that won't apply in your case).

I'd say there are far more off the shelf wheels for thru axle now than for QR - and you can, with end-cap changes, drop a TA wheel down to use QR but you can't do it the other way around.

Note as well if you go with disc brakes it gives you the option to run both 650b and 700c wheels.

The Bootzipper that you linked to - they're nice but they are renowned as being a bit of a tank to ride. You can get something from the Sonder Frontier range for similar price.
https://alpkit.com/collections/sonder-frontier

[TheBomber]

From a purely theoretical pov:

QRs are an excellent system for rim braked bikes. When disks came along they were modified to work with them - stronger/stiffer blades plus lawyers lips became essential. TAs are the solution from when the wheel attachment method was reconsidered for disks. They’re designed for them. Sharing the braking forces better between the fork blades should allow a more comfortable fork to be used too - though I’ve no idea whether this happens in practice.

My bike is old and hence has disks and QRs. They work ok with no show stopping problems. But for a new bike? The redesigned system just makes more sense.

[Jupestar]

All my disc braked bikes are QR (2 MTB and 2 ROAD), but having ridden a few with thru axles, My next frame (if i ever bother) would 100% move to thru axles, Its so easy and feels so solid.

Only downsides i can see is limited number of Single Speed specific hubs. and IGH's are mostly QR. But that may not bother you.

**EDIT** IGH not QR but fit the same drop outs.

[cycle tramp]

Leaving Internal hub gears to one side, for the moment - there are a number of websites and you tube videos showing that it's possible to convert qr axles to thru' axles...

..depending on the hubs..

..certainly it would seem that alot of the newer hubs may use both types axle.

[cycle tramp]

It,s easy to fall into the line of thinking "there,s one perfect bike" out there for me.Ok,I see the appeal of researching and seeking out each component thats ideal for you but not only is this the most expensive way of doing it,you may still end up with a bike that you,re not quite happy with.

^^ This.

Worrying about and pursuing the perfect bike is near to, if not, a mistake. IMHO it’s far better to roll with what you either have or can easily have.

Four decades ago I was told that 27” inch wheels and tyres would be gone within a few years … I’ve still got them on one of my bikes and can find bits as needed. Traditional QR hubs aren’t going away anywhere and even if they fall into decline parts will be available for a very long time - almost certainly beyond what further decades of cycling you might hope to enjoy.

I don’t believe in having either the best or the newest but rather am happy with lesser items that do the job well enough to meet my needs. As a rule of thumb that guide has worked well for me and I wish I’d stopped chasing ‘excellence’ years ago.

Personally speaking I'm with Carlton Green.
I've built my last few bikes - trying everything from 3 speed hubs, single speeds, multi-spreed derailleurs, hydrostatic hubs and even a rolhoff. I've used 700 wheels, 26 inch wheels, 20 inch wheels and 16 inch wheels, I've had flat bars, dropped, and pull backs, .... there ain't any such thing as the perfect bike - not never. You'll get close, mind... but you won't ever nail it..

Personally I'd go with using technology i can understand, that's robust to do the job, and has enough history that I can go and pick up the parts second hand..

True story, during the 27.5 inch mountain bike boom, no one wanted their 26 inch wheels.. I think I ended up buying enough rims and wheels to last me the rest of my natural. They're in my second shed... I've been using drum brakes in my last two builds, but I reckon the next build will use a front rim brake, just so I can use up all my rim brakes front wheels, before I shuffle off.

[rjb]

True story, during the 27.5 inch mountain bike boom, no one wanted their 26 inch wheels.. I think I ended up buying enough rims and wheels to last me the rest of my natural. They're in my second shed... I've been using drum brakes in my last two builds, but I reckon the next build will use a front rim brake, just so I can use up all my rim brakes front wheels, before I shuffle off.

And now 29ers are the new standard theres lots of s/h 27.5" around.

[PH]

I don’t believe in having either the best or the newest but rather am happy with lesser items that do the job well enough to meet my needs. As a rule of thumb that guide has worked well for me and I wish I’d stopped chasing ‘excellence’ years ago.

It seems an odd stance to reject something because it's the best or latest!
The OP is getting a new bike and asking about axle types. if the conclusion is that thru axles are better, what would the disadvantage be in choosing them?
I understand your second point better, but there's a huge difference between chasing something and choosing when the opportunity presents itself.

[NickJP]

Leaving Internal hub gears to one side, for the moment - there are a number of websites and you tube videos showing that it's possible to convert qr axles to thru' axles...

..depending on the hubs..

..certainly it would seem that alot of the newer hubs may use both types axle.

A set of DT Swiss wheels I purchased about half a dozen years ago came with two sets of axle endcaps, so that they could be used as either QR or thru axle.

[Carlton green]

I don’t believe in having either the best or the newest but rather am happy with lesser items that do the job well enough to meet my needs. As a rule of thumb that guide has worked well for me and I wish I’d stopped chasing ‘excellence’ years ago.

It seems an odd stance to reject something because it's the best or latest!
The OP is getting a new bike and asking about axle types. if the conclusion is that thru axles are better, what would the disadvantage be in choosing them?
I understand your second point better, but there's a huge difference between chasing something and choosing when the opportunity presents itself.

It might appear an odd stance but, if so, reconsider the context and wider picture. ‘Best’ and ‘latest’ are typically driven by marketing and profit rather than serviceability and value to the customer. In addition each customer has non identical needs, aspirations and resources - aspirations are dangerous things for whilst they inspire us they can also misguide us too.

What functional advantages do through axles have over QR? Through axles will be arguably better at doing some things than QR but as far as I’m concerned the differences in ability between the two doesn’t have functional value to me. What does have functional value is the vast pool of experience and spare parts - used or otherwise - that comes with sticking with existing designs, lower costs are nice too. As they say: ‘if it ain’t broke then don’t fix it’.

[PH]

I don’t believe in having either the best or the newest but rather am happy with lesser items

It seems an odd stance to reject something because it's the best or latest!

It might appear an odd stance but, if so, reconsider the context and wider picture. ‘Best’ and ‘latest’ are typically driven by marketing and profit rather than serviceability and value to the customer. In addition each customer has non identical needs, aspirations and resources - aspirations are dangerous things for whilst they inspire us they can also misguide us too.

Some valid points. I'm still going to promote the idea of buying on merit. Rejecting the best and newest makes as little sense to me as insisting on it.

[Carlton green]

It seems an odd stance to reject something because it's the best or latest!

It might appear an odd stance but, if so, reconsider the context and wider picture. ‘Best’ and ‘latest’ are typically driven by marketing and profit rather than serviceability and value to the customer. In addition each customer has non identical needs, aspirations and resources - aspirations are dangerous things for whilst they inspire us they can also misguide us too.

Some valid points. I'm still going to promote the idea of buying on merit. Rejecting the best and newest makes as little sense to me as insisting on it.

Buying on ‘merit’ is no bad idea but why not buy on ‘sufficiency’ - plus a reasonable margin for error and change - instead? What really matters is the satisfaction of functional requirements and virtually all else is unnecessary. Of course merit is no bad thing in that it assists us to critically look at the ability and relative abilities of items and it might be that only the better or even best of the items available actually satisfies particular functional requirements. Obviously - surely it should be so - there is never any need to buy the best and the newest designs, both are typically relatively costly, unless only they meet your functional requirements at which point they become the only item that is useful to buy.

[rareposter]

What functional advantages do through axles have over QR?

Stronger.
Stiffer.
Safer (wheel can't ever be ejected from the dropout or come out in a crash).

I mean, you're faced with two perfectly valid systems - yes QR has been around far longer and is not obsolete as such, it's just that most new frames (and almost all forks), certainly at mid/upper end now have thru axle so in that respect, you're getting a better degree of future proofing for hubs/wheels by buying into the "new" system.

Buying on ‘merit’ is no bad idea but why not buy on ‘sufficiency’ - plus a reasonable margin for error and change - instead?

You ARE buying on sufficiency. There are already more options for TA hubs/wheels than there are for QR ones off the peg. Sure you can go and buy QR hubs (and probably will be able to do so for a decade or more) and get them built up but in terms of both merit and sufficiency, the market already says TA.

This isn't far off the debate that drones on and on about any "new" tech - electronic gears, disc brakes, 8sp -> 9sp -> 10sp -> 11sp, carbon...
There's invariably a bunch of people going on about how XXX is perfectly good and it's done me for 37 years and I don't see any benefits to YYY... And then they find that the few options of XXX left to them are so limited as to be near useless.

[slowster]

You are considering two bikes (Wayfarer and Bootzipper) which are really very different. That suggests to me that you are not clear in your own mind about what you want and need in the bike. From your comments, it seems that you have not done much riding on those tracks and in those conditions for which you want the bike. I think you may be in a bit of a Catch 22 situation: you don't know exactly what you need, and will not do so until you have experience of riding on those tracks and in those conditions. For example, if you bought a Wayfarer I think you might find that whilst it is better than your current tourer for those tracks, its clearance for 47mm tyres might still be less than ideal.

A few years ago I was in a somewhat similar situation to you, in that I wanted a bike that could cope with local gravel and off-road tracks not only in summer but also in winter, and could also take fully loaded panniers. However, I was already riding on those routes in summer and winter on an old 26" wheeled rigid MTB fitted with a rack and panniers. That experience meant that I had a good idea of what bike would be best for me for such riding, and I came up with a number of specific requirements for the bike that replaced that MTB. In the end I narrowed it down to only one frame that fitted my requirements. Thru-axle or QR was not something which featured in my decision making, and was trivially unimportant to me compared to the things that were on my list of requirements.

[freiston]

You are considering two bikes (Wayfarer and Bootzipper) which are really very different. That suggests to me that you are not clear in your own mind about what you want and need in the bike. From your comments, it seems that you have not done much riding on those tracks and in those conditions for which you want the bike. I think you may be in a bit of a Catch 22 situation: you don't know exactly what you need, and will not do so until you have experience of riding on those tracks and in those conditions. For example, if you bought a Wayfarer I think you might find that whilst it is better than your current tourer for those tracks, its clearance for 47mm tyres might still be less than ideal.

A few years ago I was in a somewhat similar situation to you, in that I wanted a bike that could cope with local gravel and off-road tracks not only in summer but also in winter, and could also take fully loaded panniers. However, I was already riding on those routes in summer and winter on an old 26" wheeled rigid MTB fitted with a rack and panniers. That experience meant that I had a good idea of what bike would be best for me for such riding, and I came up with a number of specific requirements for the bike that replaced that MTB. In the end I narrowed it down to only one frame that fitted my requirements. Thru-axle or QR was not something which featured in my decision making, and was trivially unimportant to me compared to the things that were on my list of requirements.

As far as thru axle or QR being part of the decision making goes - I am happy with QR on my current rim-braked bike and cannot see any reason why QR would not do the job on a new bike - but when I bought that bike, TA wasn't a thing and now it is. It is enough of a thing for some commentators to say it's a no-brainer to go TA on a new bike. It is with that in mind that I solicited for opinions on this forum.

I do have limited experience of the sort of track I want to ride - ergo my wanting something more suited - particularly tyre width - my 32mm smooth tyres slip and spin too easily on the soft going and are not so forgiving on the hard bumpy gravel track. A few rides ago I ended up with my shoes caked in mud and lifting my bike over a few fences/styles, after exploring a route that wasn't quite as expected and I had to make a detour. Lifting over styles aside, the Wayfarer with wide tyres (and the Bootzipper with the same wide tyres) would have been more suitable.

I certainly wasn't comparing the Wayfarer and the Bootzipper (rigid fork) as like-for-like but as a different way of getting some off-road capability - a different avenue altogether, as in ditching the original plan. On top of that, I'd dispute that they're very different inasmuch as they're both rigid steel, they're both designed to take wide tyres, racks and mudguards, both intended to be used with flat or drop bars. One is very much of a "road" heritage and the other a "mountain" heritage but ultimately both cross over from different directions. Really, I want a road touring bike capable of the rough-stuff and so the Wayfarer style is my preference. The Bootzipper consideration is/was as an exploration into a 2nd bike solution to getting more rough stuff capability - not an alternative to the Wayfarer but a supplement to my current road touring bike. Ultimately, the Bootzipper would not be my choice - what I really want is something suited to the more "unsuitable" sections of the NCN and towpaths - but as part of a route that has a lot of road too. The two-bike avenue doesn't really fit that brief but was just me trying to think outside the box, so to speak.