when did 130mm spacing start?

[bicycletricycle]

I am curious, when did 130mm spacing first appear? For the frame builders here, when did you guys start building 130mm spaced frames?

[rain dogs]

Didn't it coincide with 8 speed?

... because the over locknut dimension needed to be increased to fit 8 cogs on the rear cassette.

This may be a chicken vs the egg question, but I think it was with 8 speed.

[slowpoke]

BikeForums C&V: when did builders start using 130mm spacing? (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/555704-when-did-builders-start-using-130mm-spacing)

While there were some outliers that started earlier, it seems like the major players made the switch around the late 80s / early 90s.

"130 came in with 8s. Shimano's Dura Ace went to 8 in 1988 with a freehub and cassette design unique to that year. Trust me everyone who owns a set of those hubs will not forget any essential detail."

"Waterford says the rear dropout OLD spacing on Schwinn Paramounts was changed from 126mm to 128mm in 1988 so the frames would accommodate either 7-speed or 8-speed freehubs, and finally made the change to 130mm in 1992."

[Kirk Pacenti]

20+ years ago? That seems long enough; time to go to 135.

[bicycletricycle]

propaganda Kirk?

20+ years ago? That seems long enough; time to go to 135.

[thendenjeck]

would there be a disadvantage to 135 for road bikes? slightly wider clearance at the pedal circle diameter?

[Chance]

http://sheldonbrown.com/upgrade.html

Sounds like 130 with 8 speed and beyond.

[Chance]

would there be a disadvantage to 135 for road bikes? slightly wider clearance at the pedal circle diameter?
Does this mean crank to chainstay or does it mean something else?

[bicycletricycle]

wider q factor is the most significant impact of wider rear spacing.

[bicycletricycle]

anyone know when 120 to 126 took place?

[oliver1850]

Campagnolo's 1988 catalog shows 130mm hubs, specifically for 6/7 speed freewheels. I assume this was to decrease the dish necessary for 7 speed freewheels, even though it's pretty common to see 7 cogs on a 126 mm hub. Their 8 speed stuff first appeared for the 1991 model year, was probably introduced sometime in 1990. Shimano was supplying 7400 8 speed cassette hubs for bikes built in the 1989 model year.

Chainstay clearance shouldn't be an issue with 135mm hubs (unless you need clearance for really big tires). S bend stays can flare out to the hub width once they're clear of the crank arms.

[David Kirk]

wider q factor is the most significant impact of wider rear spacing.

I hear this thought put out there often and while it's certainly true the change would not be much if at all. If you move the dropout out by 2.5 mm at the axle (to make 5 mm total) the spot where the crank passes will move out less than 1/2 that - call it 1 mm or 2 mm in total. On most cases the crank arm splay wouldn't need to change and even the chainline wouldn't change much.

I just don't see the Q or chainline to be a big enough deal to prevent the change from 130 to 135.

What do you think?

Dave

[oliver1850]

Campagnolo catalog 17, from 1974, shows Super Record hubs in 120mm width. There's a note that states: "Upon request furnished with rear hub suitable for 6 sprockets, width 125 mm"

[oliver1850]

I hear this thought put out there often and while it's certainly true the change would not be much if at all. If you move the dropout out by 2.5 mm at the axle (to make 5 mm total) the spot where the crank passes will move out less than 1/2 that - call it 1 mm or 2 mm in total. On most cases the crank arm splay wouldn't need to change and even the chainline wouldn't change much.

I just don't see the Q or chainline to be a big enough deal to prevent the change from 130 to 135.

What do you think?

Dave

I measured the stay/arm clearance on my Atlanta with Daytona, and my carbon bike with Rival. Both had 12 mm + clearance. A bigger problem for me is heal clearance. Relatively big feet combined with short stays and long cranks can put the heal close to where the stays flare out.

[ultraman6970]

All the old stuff is 120 mm in the back, then from mid 70's or so (maybe even earlier) up to 90 something 126 mm was the standard, then 130 mm came up up today.

Would be funny to see 135 mm rear ends and like 13+ cogs, I imagine chains will be way more flexible than nowaday's

[Wilkinson4]

The Rivendell Rambouilett was spaced at 132.5mm!!!

mIKE

[Chance]

I measured the stay/arm clearance on my Atlanta with Daytona, and my carbon bike with Rival. Both had 12 mm + clearance. A bigger problem for me is heal clearance. Relatively big feet combined with short stays and long cranks can put the heal close to where the stays flare out.
At most you'd have to increase your Q factor by 5 mm. Would that be much of a problem for you?

OTOH it's not clear why 135 spacing is being proposed for road bikes unless it's to accomodate even more cogs. If wheel dish is the biggest problem there are other ways to deal with that limitation. Not that there is anything wrong with 135.

[David Kirk]

At most you'd have to increase your Q factor by 5 mm. Would that be much of a problem for you?

OTOH it's not clear why 135 spacing is being proposed for road bikes unless it's to accomodate even more cogs. If wheel dish is the biggest problem there are other ways to deal with that limitation. Not that there is anything wrong with 135.

I'd like to see rear spacing go to 135 so wheels could have hub flanges spaced as far apart as possible and to reduce dish. I also think we may end up going to disc brakes on the road in the next 5 years and those extra 5 mm will be a big deal when squeezing a disc in.

How would you deal with wheel dish if we stayed at 130?

dave

[oliver1850]

At most you'd have to increase your Q factor by 5 mm. Would that be much of a problem for you?

OTOH it's not clear why 135 spacing is being proposed for road bikes unless it's to accomodate even more cogs. If wheel dish is the biggest problem there are other ways to deal with that limitation. Not that there is anything wrong with 135.

No, I'm already running a 135 hub along with more Q factor on one of my bikes. I really can't say I've noticed the extra Q factor. I mentioned heal clearance only because I think it's more of a limiting factor on hub width than crank arm to stay clearance.

[vjp]

I have this Brodie Romax

http://www.brodiebikes.com/2010/bikes/romax.php

It has 135mm rear spacing because there is a rear disc mount although I am using the cantilever brakes it is spec'ed with. It is 10 speed and the dish with the XTR hub is minimized.

[Kirk Pacenti]

I am the first to tell people 3mm can make a big difference in frame design and can be felt (in certain places). After all, getting the fit of the frame just right requires that kind of precision and that is what "custom" is all about.

But I think we (myself included) look a spec sheets and sometimes over-estimate what impact a 'number' has on bike design. Imo, looking just at the numbers on a spec sheet has a tendency to skew our perspective. Bumping the OLD from 130 to 135 is one of those numbers.

The 'pros' to the rear wheel (reducing the dish) outweighs the 'cons' of slightly higher Q and slightly reduced heal clearance (I am dubious of both of these points) . As DK points out, these numbers add up to maybe a mm here or there, and will not have any measurable impact, for better or worse, on the frame.


Cheers,
KP

[oldpotatoe]

At most you'd have to increase your Q factor by 5 mm. Would that be much of a problem for you?

OTOH it's not clear why 135 spacing is being proposed for road bikes unless it's to accomodate even more cogs. If wheel dish is the biggest problem there are other ways to deal with that limitation. Not that there is anything wrong with 135.


135 for disc brake hubs otherwise the rear wheel, with inboard flange to accomodate the rotor, will suffer. BUT with carbon and fat stays, just like on some cross bikes, small ring clearance to the stay will have to be addressed. Combined with non adjustable cranks/BB spindles.

I guess road discs are coming, different subject for another thread, I guess(roll eyes). Like so much 'bicycle' these days, really wonder about the necessity of this. Carbon wheels, teeny overall market, shouldn't drive this, but I'm afraid it is going to.

[sg8357]

My Trek 520 from 1996 or so, was 135mm, the Riv Atlantis was 135mm back in '97 or '98 when it came out.
I had my Kvale roadie built for 135mm in 2005.
Those bikes all had square taper BBs, so chain line was easy to get right.

[bicycletricycle]

with the cog spacing that campy 11 speed has introduced we could be riding around on nice 9 speed bicycles with the dish of old 7 speed systems.

I like 9 speed.

no need for 135mm

maybe we should go to 160mm and 20 speeds?

[Kirk Pacenti]

The bicycle industry is funny... There is at once an incessant demand from consumers for new and innovative products, combined with a latent desire (or maybe not-so-latent) for nothing to change. :confused:

Fwiw, whether we need them or not, whether we like it or not, there is near 100% certainty that 12-13 speed drive trains are coming soon. I'd just as soon be ahead of the curve...

Cheers,

KP

[bicycletricycle]

innovation is not more of the same thing.

Adding more of the same kind of cogs by making spacing wider is not innovative.

[Mark McM]

The bicycle industry is funny... There is at once an incessant demand from consumers for new and innovative products, combined with a latent desire (or maybe not-so-latent) for nothing to change. :confused:

Believe me, it's not just the bicycle industry. I've worked as a product design in a few different industries now, and we get the same directives from the product managers and marketing people for every new product design: "The new product must be completely new and different, but exactly like our present product because that's what customers are used to."

I guess every industry can't have their own Steve Jobs

[Kirk Pacenti]

Believe me, it's not just the bicycle industry. I've worked as a product design in a few different industries now, and we get the same directives from the product managers and marketing people for every new product design: "The new product must be completely new and different, but exactly like our present product because that's what customers are used to."

I guess every industry can't have their own Steve Jobs


That is easy to imagine... and I figured as much. You have wonder if it's motivated by "fear"? Fear that they don't want to be too different, yet still able to claim they've done something new? CYA design?

Steve Jobs had a interesting approach and one that I happen to identify with (for the record I am no Steve Jobs). But the idea that he believed he knew what people wanted and didn't need a focus group to validate his ideas, is an attitude I think more designers should adopt. It reminds me of a Henry Ford quote... "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

What does this have to do with bikes or this thread for that matter? I don't know. As BT points out a wider rear end and more cogs isn't necessarily innovative, but it is 'new' and more importantly sale-able, which unfortunately is sometimes good enough.

PS: I'd also like to say that just because I feel 12 & 13 speed drive-trains and disc brakes for road bikes are a near certainty, it doesn't mean I'm an advocate for them...


Cheers,
KP

[Chance]

135 for disc brake hubs otherwise the rear wheel, with inboard flange to accomodate the rotor, will suffer. BUT with carbon and fat stays, just like on some cross bikes, small ring clearance to the stay will have to be addressed. Combined with non adjustable cranks/BB spindles.

I guess road discs are coming, different subject for another thread, I guess(roll eyes). Like so much 'bicycle' these days, really wonder about the necessity of this. Carbon wheels, teeny overall market, shouldn't drive this, but I'm afraid it is going to.
What do you mean by suffer, and in what way? Can’t follow why the wheel would suffer to a significant level. It’s understandable that the non-drive flange may be moved inboard a little to make room for the disc but how does this make the wheel suffer?

As to dish, as long as the ND dish is not less than the drive side dish then how can it be that big a problem? As long as we are comparing wheels with equal number of spokes on both sides it doesn’t seem it would be that critical. Yeah, it may require slightly heavier spokes on ND for those people who are using lighter ND spokes at present, but compared to extra weight of disc that doesn’t seem to be much of a penalty.

And Q factor doesn’t have to be an issue at all unless someone uses greater chainline. Standard cranks work fine with 135 wheel spacing even though centerline chainlines are not the same. On one of my bikes it just means I can use the big ring on largest cog but small ring can’t be used on smallest two cogs. If anything offsetting shifting one cog towards big ring seems like an advantage.

If there is a move towards 135 spacing for road bikes my guess is that it will be driven by longer freehubs to accommodate more cogs. That obsoletes both frames and groups so it’s a win-win for the industry.

[Chance]

innovation is not more of the same thing.

Adding more of the same kind of cogs by making spacing wider is not innovative.
Very wise words. Although some people have to have the latest of whatever is out there.

[Chance]

I'd like to see rear spacing go to 135 so wheels could have hub flanges spaced as far apart as possible and to reduce dish. I also think we may end up going to disc brakes on the road in the next 5 years and those extra 5 mm will be a big deal when squeezing a disc in.

How would you deal with wheel dish if we stayed at 130?

dave
Don't get the question. Are 130 discs not already available?