Originally Posted by
smontanaro
Thanks, Mark. Now I get it. I see 100/120/130/135 and 100/110/135/142 versions. I understand what the 100, 120, 130, and 135 dimensions are for. I assume the 142 is something to do with tandems or fat bikes. I'm puzzled at the lack of a 126, and what's 110 for? Maybe fat bike forks? And maybe my assumption of 120mm only applying to five-speed rear triangles is off as well. I'm so limited in my view of the bike world (basically road bikes from the late 50s to early 80s) that some dimensions which will be immediately obvious to the rest of you just leave me scratching my head.
142mm is the standard rear spacing for thru axle frames. 110mm is used for a newer MTB standard for front forks called boost spacing. 120mm is the current track standard for rear spacing. I don't know why anyone would build a new frame with a 126 spacing but if they did there are ways to figure that out.
I know I used the term standard several times above and I completely understand the absurdity in the use of that term in the industry but it made the most sense to use.
__________________
I'm not one for fawning over bicycles, but I do believe that our bikes communicate with us, and what this bike is saying is, "You're an idiot." BikeSnobNYC