Hi i´ve got an stumpjumper S-works XX1 2013. A few weeks ago i bought a set of Roval Control SL from an Epic S-works owner. I thought it was possible to convert the wheelset from X12 to standard QR. But it was not. The hub seized and has turned into a fixed hub.
I found this explanation today. "Our official stance is that you cannot make a 142+ hub into a 142mm. The reason being is that the driveside spoke flanges were pushed out to make a wider spoke base, and therefore a stiffer rear wheel laterally. So, a 142+ wheelset tightens up the driveside tolerance from the cassette to the frame. Our bikes are designed to have more room on the driveside stay so that the cassette lockring doesn't bind up against the stay. If you try to use a 142+ hub on a non-Specialized bike, when you tighten the QR down, the cassette lockring will contact the frame and cause drag and damage." http://specialized.desk.com/customer/po ... eehub-body
That is what happened to my wheelset. The hub has turned into a "fixie" hub.
So my question is this, is it really not possible to use a 142+ hub with QR on my stumpy? Is there any way to solve this problem? Or do I have to change the entire hub?
Convert Spec 142+ into a 142. Possible?
Moderator: Moderator Team
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
They also aren't telling you that they messed with the chainline by pushing the flange out and also pushing the rear cassette out. That is why Specialized is "Special". Basically, you can't do that because they took advantage of the wider spacing to move the flange out so that the wheel would be stronger or cheaper to build and still strong enough (this might lead to less than optimal shifting to the smaller cogs in the rear since they also moved the cassette out).
So they made yet another fork in the MTB rear hub universe that is "special" to them. I think the entire MTB industry could have made all our lives easier by adopting the 145 QR standard that has been around for decades and all the bike companies that make tandems use it except Santana that uses 165. The 145 standard moves the cassette and flange out even further than Specialized did and makes the wheel even stronger. Shimano, Hadley, Cris King and many others make hubs for this 145 standard and have for years. There are cranks available that use this standard (you need to move the chainline out 5mm from standard MTB's) and there would have been more if this was adopted. Then if they wanted more "beef" they could have made a 10mm thru axle or even a 12mm thru axle and all the spacing would have worked and it would have been an even stronger wheel and there could be conversion kits for hubs, etc.. Instead, the MTB industry created a new wider rear wheel standard that did not change the flange spacing or chainline so the wheels are no stronger. In fact, all they did was put a fatter axle and some spacers in a standard MTB wheel, that is why you can convert most newer wheels. I have found a 135 10mm DT thru axle to be about 98% as stiff as a 142 thru axle so what is the point?
Basically, the industry standard was to make a 142 out of a 135 without changing the chainline or the flange position on the hub that is why you can convert most modern wheelsets. Specialized made their own variation that moved the flange and the cassette out. (if the industry chose 145, you could still convert all convertible wheelsets just as you do now, you would just forfeit the gains in wheel strength as you do with the current standard and you would use the old chainline-just as you do now with the 142 standard) If Specialized wanted to innovate this way, they too would have been way smarter to use the 145 standard that has been around for decades and made modern and nicer parts for that. Again, the bike industry doesn't want to do that because then it would be too easy to use parts you already have or that are available from many sources (Hadley, Chris King, etc). The other problem is moving the chainrings out, but with the popularity of PF30 that is not an issue since you can make spindles any width with little trouble.
So now Specialized has a 142+ standard (unstandard in my opinion) that only they make parts to fit. This is why even though some of their stuff is nice, I won't even look at a Special bike. They are the Compac computer of the bike industry and we all saw what happened to them.
So they made yet another fork in the MTB rear hub universe that is "special" to them. I think the entire MTB industry could have made all our lives easier by adopting the 145 QR standard that has been around for decades and all the bike companies that make tandems use it except Santana that uses 165. The 145 standard moves the cassette and flange out even further than Specialized did and makes the wheel even stronger. Shimano, Hadley, Cris King and many others make hubs for this 145 standard and have for years. There are cranks available that use this standard (you need to move the chainline out 5mm from standard MTB's) and there would have been more if this was adopted. Then if they wanted more "beef" they could have made a 10mm thru axle or even a 12mm thru axle and all the spacing would have worked and it would have been an even stronger wheel and there could be conversion kits for hubs, etc.. Instead, the MTB industry created a new wider rear wheel standard that did not change the flange spacing or chainline so the wheels are no stronger. In fact, all they did was put a fatter axle and some spacers in a standard MTB wheel, that is why you can convert most newer wheels. I have found a 135 10mm DT thru axle to be about 98% as stiff as a 142 thru axle so what is the point?
Basically, the industry standard was to make a 142 out of a 135 without changing the chainline or the flange position on the hub that is why you can convert most modern wheelsets. Specialized made their own variation that moved the flange and the cassette out. (if the industry chose 145, you could still convert all convertible wheelsets just as you do now, you would just forfeit the gains in wheel strength as you do with the current standard and you would use the old chainline-just as you do now with the 142 standard) If Specialized wanted to innovate this way, they too would have been way smarter to use the 145 standard that has been around for decades and made modern and nicer parts for that. Again, the bike industry doesn't want to do that because then it would be too easy to use parts you already have or that are available from many sources (Hadley, Chris King, etc). The other problem is moving the chainrings out, but with the popularity of PF30 that is not an issue since you can make spindles any width with little trouble.
So now Specialized has a 142+ standard (unstandard in my opinion) that only they make parts to fit. This is why even though some of their stuff is nice, I won't even look at a Special bike. They are the Compac computer of the bike industry and we all saw what happened to them.
For certain parts stiffer is more important than lighter.
I run a specialized 142+ as a 135+ on my Niner.
All rear dropouts are different however I was able to use modified DT Swiss adapters for 10mm through bolt skewer leaving a little extra material on the drive side (just enough for cassette clearance) and all was well. Even the dishing was ok.
Don't give up on them. Or sell them to me
All rear dropouts are different however I was able to use modified DT Swiss adapters for 10mm through bolt skewer leaving a little extra material on the drive side (just enough for cassette clearance) and all was well. Even the dishing was ok.
Don't give up on them. Or sell them to me
I was able to make a couple adjustments to make a set of Roval Traverse SL 142+ wheels on my Yeti ASR-5.
1) Remove spacer on inside of cassette (you may not have one)
2) File down the face of the cassette locking (about 1/3 - 1/2 of the material removed). This lock ring does not have a lot of force applied to it so I'm not concerned with it failing due to the removed material.
This left me with a 1-2 mm gap between the lock ring and the frame.
Depending on your frame this solve may work for you as well.
1) Remove spacer on inside of cassette (you may not have one)
2) File down the face of the cassette locking (about 1/3 - 1/2 of the material removed). This lock ring does not have a lot of force applied to it so I'm not concerned with it failing due to the removed material.
This left me with a 1-2 mm gap between the lock ring and the frame.
Depending on your frame this solve may work for you as well.
