Thru axles and QR

[freiston]

Just canvassing for opinions and reasoning (and still dreaming, hoping to one day have the funds to build a new bike).

If you were to build a new disc braked touring bike with the expectation of it being your (do-it-all) bike for life (context: I'm almost 60), how much importance would you put on going for a frame with thru axle dropouts over QR ones? Somewhere online in the last few weeks (can't remember where), some bloke commented on thru-axle being the only way to go to "future-proof" the bike. At first I dismissed this, partly because there's never guaranteed future-proofing, partly because (with bikes at least) there's usually some way to get things working, whether that being NOS components, "niche" producers making "old parts" or adapters for them; also, I'm not convinced that QR hubs are on their way out (though I'm not convinced that they're not either - especially in all varieties of spoke hole count etc.). Now, I'm wondering if it can be dismissed.

[531colin]

As a card-carrying cup and cone Luddite, I would go for through axles.
https://spacycles.co.uk/m20b0s117p3947/ ... e-FH-R7070
....this is a 105 rear hub, definitely a road group, but its 142mm OLN....which will mitigate the dish caused by ever-increasing numbers of gears.
....and the certainty of getting the wheel seated exactly right on the critical disc brake side can't hurt.

[scottg]

Before q/r hubs, we had solid ends.
These days you can't spread a rear triangle to fit over a solid axle,
so we have thru axles instead. Old ways are new again.

So q/r hubs were a passing foreign fad.

[freiston]

Thanks, Colin - that's certainly food for thought (and a bit more research into frames and maybe a bit more strain to the heart when I see the prices ).

[531colin]

Thanks, Colin - that's certainly food for thought (and a bit more research into frames and maybe a bit more strain to the heart when I see the prices ).

Unless you are actually "ready to spend" I wouldn't worry, wait and see where it all settles down to......scroll down for a table of (MTB) hub widths here https://www.bikeradar.com/features/mtb-axle-standards/

[slowster]

As a card-carrying cup and cone Luddite, I would go for through axles.
https://spacycles.co.uk/m20b0s117p3947/ ... e-FH-R7070
....this is a 105 rear hub, definitely a road group, but its 142mm OLN....which will mitigate the dish caused by ever-increasing numbers of gears.
....and the certainty of getting the wheel seated exactly right on the critical disc brake side can't hurt.

My understanding is that the dishing of 142mm thru axle hubs is no better than 135mm quick release, because the extra 7mm fits into recesses in the 'drop outs' on a thru axle frame (3.5mm per side). Moreover, most (all?) thru axle rear hubs will now have 11 speed freehubs (I think even Hope's MTB hubs have the wider 11 speed road freehub, so require a spacer if used with the slightly narrower MTB 11 speed cassette). In contrast it is still possible to buy 135mm QR hubs with 8/9/10 speed freehubs.

As for the OP's dilemma, I would look at it this way:

Surly Disc Trucker with thru-axles, stock build currently £1950 at Spa

Wayfarer 9 speed cable disc build £1390 / D'Tour 9 speed cable disc build £1340

Cost of a spare pair of Deore QR hubs approximately £50, or £80 for XT. If you really wanted to push the boat out, get two sets of spare hubs.

By the time the QR frame or spare hubs needed replacing, 142mm thru axle might also be an out of date standard. In other words, it's not worth worrying about - just get whatever takes your fancy.

[531colin]

Have you been looking in my bike shed?

[PH]

I don't have any issues with my QR disc bikes, I wouldn't rule another out. However the one thru axle I have, on the fork of my E-bike, puts the wheel in place with such ease and accuracy that if I were choosing between otherwise similar bikes it might influence me. It also removes the possibility of a front wheel ejecting, I know that only happens in extreme circumstances or because of carelessness, it's still better for it not to be possible.

[rjb]

Some 142 oln rear hubs are QR as opposed to through axles. Will be very useful for my 145mm oln tandem. Just needs a 1.5mm washer behind the lockout both sides and it's a perfect fit.
A better fit than the usual arrangement of adding a 10 mm spacer to a hub designed for 135 oln and because the 142 is designed for this the bearings are further apart reducing the risk of axle breakage.

[VinceLedge]

My newish Cube road bike has through axles and I actually prefer them to QRs, easy to locate the wheel exactly, only take a few seconds to unscrew and look very neat. Also means someone needs an Allen key to nick your wheels, so might slow them down a bit.

[freiston]

Unless you are actually "ready to spend" I wouldn't worry, wait and see where it all settles down to......scroll down for a table of (MTB) hub widths here https://www.bikeradar.com/features/mtb-axle-standards/

Thanks for the link Colin - I need to do a bit of swotting.

Thank you to other posters too - more food for thought. The plan is to build a bike up from a bought frame. Some time ago I put together some parts lists based on the Spa Wayfarer frame - the idea is a do-it-all bike capable of fully loaded touring and of taking wide tyres for some off-road riding. I'm no expedition rider but I do load up like one for even a couple of nights on a campsite. I might put together some more parts lists based on the Spa Rove 725 and the Surly Bridge Club frames - but this is pushing the price up too; the price of the Disc Trucker frame is really hard to justify to myself. I'm also keen to have drop bars and I'm not sure how well the geometry of the Rove and the Bridge Club will work with drops. The more I think about this, the harder it gets. Sometimes I think I should just stick to my current tourer but I do crave the wider tyres (manufacturer of my existing frame cited 32mm max but I reckon I could go a bit wider).

Edit: Don't know why I thought the Bridge Club was a thru-axle frame but I've just seen that it is conventional dropouts.

2nd edit: I've had more of a chance to digest what Colin has said and agree that it's probably best to wait and see how things settle. I'll just have to put up with that wide tyre itch and any heat generated by cash in my pocket.

[Hartwoodman]

Through axles have the advantage of increasing the strength of the fork and wheel set up, they are safer. But I can’t help agree with Slowster’s point about standards. The cycle industry churns standards to drive sales. It is almost certain that standards will change again before your bike has worn out.

On the other hand, we can still buy spares for bikes that were built 50 years ago, so perhaps it doesn’t really matter what road you go down. I would choose through axles, having bought a “forever“ bike with disc brakes and quick release just before through axles came on the scene.

Marcus

[PT1029]

I asked for 135/100mm QR dropouts on my new frame.
I was told they now always use through axles on the front as they are so much better with disc brakes.
The rear is 135 QR, but then it is for a Rohloff hub, so QR keeps it simpler.

Re standards, there is more than 1 design of through axle. For my front axle I encountered std 100mm width and 110mm width ("Boost"?).
Initially I was sent the wrong axle (110mm, would not screw in enough to tighten a 100mm hub), When I went to buy a replacement (to save waiting for the corect one to arrive), the shop only had one with a tapered interface/seat at the head end, not square seat as mine has. At least these 2 had the same thread!

[cyclop]

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.My last brand new bikes (which I still have)are 17yrs old!Both my current road bikes are 2nd hand,acquired through ebay for a fraction of their new price.They,ve all been modified to suit my 70yr old body.I,ve also got a £40-00 shopper which I,ve adapted for towing a trailer to the tip and I,d be happy taking it on an extended tour.I love riding all my bikes so,if you,ve got room,have fun seeking out those gems .

[Carlton green]

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.My last brand new bikes (which I still have)are 17yrs old!Both my current road bikes are 2nd hand,acquired through ebay for a fraction of their new price.They,ve all been modified to suit my 70yr old body.I,ve also got a £40-00 shopper which I,ve adapted for towing a trailer to the tip and I,d be happy taking it on an extended tour.I love riding all my bikes so,if you,ve got room,have fun seeking out those gems .

^^ 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. On the other hand many new ways of doing things have come and gone leaving early adopters with little hope of spare parts.

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.