Italy’s Fasten has developed a Switch Wheel System (SWS) that makes front and rear wheels interchangeable and allows for ultra-fast wheel changes with the disc brake rotor and cassette remaining attached to the frame. If adopted, SWS would radically alter wheel design and would impact frame design too… although, at this stage, that’s a big if.
How does SWS work, then? Well, you’ll get the idea most easily by checking out Fasten’s video…
Fasten says, “With SWS, [we have] developed a system that enables ultra-fast wheel changes while ensuring perfect interchangeability between the front and rear wheel. At the heart of this technology is an innovative structure where the brake disc and cassette remain anchored to the frame, while the wheel hub can be removed effortlessly – without ever touching the chain or drivetrain.”
The SWS comprises a disc support that’s mounted on the non-driveside of the frame, a cassette holder that’s fixed on the driveside, and a single wheel hub that’s held in place with a 14mm central axle.
What’s the point of SWS? This is straight from Fasten:
Thanks to its innovative architecture, SWS offers numerous benefits:
• Ultra-fast wheel changes without realigning the disc or chain
• Perfectly aligned brake disc, eliminating misalignment issues
• Total interchangeability between front and rear wheels
• Universal compatibility with Shimano, SRAM, and any disc diameter
• More affordable and durable spare wheels, as they don’t include a disc or cassette
• Easier bike transport, with no risk of brake pistons closing accidentally
When you remove the rear wheel, the disc brake rotor and cassette remain attached to the frame. You change the wheel without touching the transmission or braking system.
Fasten says, “The dovetail shape adopted for the main components contributes to a stable and self-aligning mechanical interface, ensuring torsional rigidity and precision in all conditions.”
That’s the concept, then, and Fasten says that it has confirmed the reliability of the system in the most technical of conditions, including on the gravel roads used for Strade Bianche.
Fasten’s CEO Stefano Costamagna says, “With SWS, changing a wheel becomes a simple and instant operation, improving efficiency and reducing downtime. We aim to establish this technology as a new industry standard, offering cyclists an unprecedented solution in terms of convenience and performance.”
You’re wondering about wheel dish and spoke angles?
Stefano Costamagna says, “The camber of the spokes is the same on both the right and left sides of the wheel and this is made possible by the fact that the wheel is no longer misaligned with respect to the centre of the frame, but is positioned exactly in the centre.
“On the right and left sides of the bicycle, there are supports which we have called sleeves, which support the brake disc and the [cassette] and ensure that the wheel hub is exactly in the centre of the bicycle. The camber is slightly narrower than on a traditional wheel and this also makes the front wheel more aerodynamic, as it has less frontal impact.”
One hurdle to overcome is that SWS requires specifically designed framesets, with bearings integrated into the chainstays and fork. Fasten says that it is “working with several manufacturers to integrate SWS into the next generation frames”, although it hasn’t named those manufacturers, so we’ll just have to wait and see if anything comes of this.
What do you reckon? Does the Fasten SWS have potential?
45 thoughts on “Could the Fasten Switch Wheel System revolutionise wheel design?”
I kind of love it 😍 Wheel
I kind of love it 😍 Wheel swaps with rim brakes and quick release were somewhat annoying. Wheel swaps with disk brakes and through-axles are perhaps my biggest annoyance of modern cycling. 😒
For racing, I can see why you
For racing, I can see why you’d want fast wheel swaps, but I can’t see much advantage for other cyclists.
One disadvantage would be that when washing your bike, the disk rotor would still be attached and so would get covered in soapy water etc.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Even better for neutral rider support, all spare wheels become equal regardless of front/rear and 10/11/12 speed etc.
But without a wheel stuck behind the disk cleaning it properly becomes much easier and less damaging to your knuckles!
I seem to remember a similar idea back in the 70’s that never took off maybe this one will have better luck.
Intruiging. Shimano should
Intruiging. Shimano should buy them up as it gives them an alternative standard to UDH – right now all the innovation in this area seems to be coming from SRAM.
See my post above. Shimano
See my post above. Shimano has a patent covering a similar system.
For me I’m a true believer
For me I’m a true believer that the brake rotor should be securely bolted to the rim.
Hmm maybe 28 Inch disc rotors
Hmm maybe 28 Inch disc rotors are a bit too heavy. They would also pick up too much dirt at the rim. I prefer my rotors bolted to the hubs😉
I prefer my brake rotor to be
I prefer my brake rotor to be the rim 😀
For racers its a no brainer
For racers its a no brainer as they travel a lot, change wheels often and update equipment regularly. For normal cyclists who barely travel or service their bike and just invested in the switch from rim to disc this is another huge investment in order to solve a problem which isn’t actually that big for them. Ist’s a great innovation but I am afraid that the combination of niche market and huge cost will mean that it will take a significant amout of time to gain traction or never make it to the stores at all.
Dunnoeither wrote:
Although they’re also the people most likely to want to stick their bike on a turbo, and that’s going to be problematic with current designs.
Dunnoeither wrote:
Lets have a look at the whole bike industry. What do we NEED vs what we actually WANT?
Do we NEED brake discs? Do we NEED to use clipless pedals? Do we NEED to use electronic shifting? Do we NEED Carbon frames? Deep Secion Rims, Aero inegrated handlebars, power meters? Do we non racing types NEED any of that to enjoy riding our bikes or are we just following what professional race teams and riders do?
This is the bike industry. NEED isnt a term that travels well. TO say it only makes sense to racers is a little bit naive.
Yawn. I didn’t say it does
Yawn. I didn’t say it does not make sense to recreational riders. I said it’s unlikely to be commercially succesful any time soon.
I’m making the point that no
I’m making the point that no one anywhere forced you, me or anyone else to buy anything. If you own a disc brake bike with electronic gears. Deep section rims and a power meter they are all conscious choices nothing is forced upon you. But trends in what pro teams want will always filter to the masses. That’s a fact
I don’t see this taking off.
I don’t see this taking off.
Even if it works perfectly as described, the benefits seem pretty marginal to most people. I daresay the vast majority of cyclist very rarely remove/swap wheels, and when they do have occassion to, the current system works ok. The puported benefits of this system might be nice to have, but definitely aren’t deal breakers.
Given this system requires specific frames and wheels, I can’t see many people choosing to invest in the system, which will presumably (initially at least) have very limited options and be expensive (lacking economies of scale). This does of course create a viscous cycle – people don’t buy it, so it remains a niche product with the accompanying drawbacks, so people don’t buy it. I think a product needs to offer a significant benefit over the status quo to break out of that cycle, and I don’t see this meeting that.
Early adoption will presumably also be hampered by a lack of bike shops/mechanics with knowledge of the system, or access to any specific tools or parts required for maintenance.
On top of that, it’s unclear how well the product will perform in the real world. It appears they have moved all the moving parts of the wheels into the frame and fork, which would seem to be a not-insiginficant engineering challenge, and may suffer from e.g. small spaces in which to fit bearings. In a world of marginal gains, engineering frames and forks to fit these parts may also impose weight and/or aerodynamic penalties – probably not enough to bother the average amateur, but given this system would seem ideal for pro racing, if it can’t infiltrate that market either then that would impose another barrier for widespread adoption.
I think you’re over egging
I think you’re over egging the engineering challenges. Manufacturers have been putting bearings into frames (which is essentially all this appears to be) for ages, starting with the bottom bracket and including 3 decades worth of suspension pivots.
I dont think the mechanics bit holds water – its no more complex than half a dozen other bike engeering challenges.
I think you have hit on the *why* well – its a solution looking for a problem for most people – that said – it only needs to get top end adoption initially then slowly trickle down to a certain level. So for example *if* it decreases the difficulty of making the tolerances for (forthcoming?) 13, 14 and 15 speeds work (bit like UHD does) then that might be enough for a big manufacturer to push it.
Maybe you’re right about the
Maybe you’re right about the engineering challenge, but your comparison with bottom brackets and suspension pivots doesn’t do much to alleviate my concern. Suspension pivots have quite a different job to do compared to bearings in the drivechain. The bottom bracket is a better comparison – but frame manufacturers don’t always get that right, despite what seems (to my untrained eye) a much easier job (ample frame real estate).
On mechanics, I’m sure that there’s nothing in principle that would be more complex than any other bike. But if special tools are required and/or special parts are needed, unless or until there is widespread adoption, some mechanics might simply be unable to carry out the job (or, maybe more accurately, unwilling to invest the time and money involved in getting set up to be able to do the job).
OnYerBike wrote:
I would disagree. I see this being a huge advantage in racing. Punctures would be easily remidied quicker than in the days of rim brakes and QR spanners. Also, the ability to swap out a wheel based on the terrain or conditions would really suit teams looking for marginal gains. Have a stage thats faily flat but then ramps up? No problem, swap out the deep section rims for a set of ultra light climbing wheels.
And since when did the average rider NOT get influenced by what pros are doing?
Also this would remove such issues as freehub compatabilty, having to own multiple cassettes per wheelset. I own 2 bikes with different groupset brands, I could use wheels on both bikes without the messing about takingfreehubs off etc. Some of these things could help reduce production costs. Most of the money in a decent set of wheels is in the hubs and if you can take that part away and leave just a rim that has to be cheaper option for upgrading or just having more options for different scenarios.
Of course it would effect so many different parts of the bike and also accessories ie indoor trainer compatability, but disc brakes were thrust upon an unsuspecting cycling community and we just got on with it. This could happen and if enough people (by which we mean pro teams) are allowed to use it (UCI approval pending) then it would probably establish itself fairly swiftly.
Smoggysteve wrote:
https://xkcd.com/927/
And of course before thiscame
And of course before thiscame along we had standards Nirvana?
There will always be competing standards, this isnt offering something unique there. There are still rim brake bikes, there are still mechanical gears, there are still different freehub designs, there are still different tyre systems. Thats cycling.
Smoggysteve wrote:
I’ve got nothing against improvements to cycling and I generally like new, improved things. However, wanting a new standard to stop there being competing standards is unlikely to work unless it’s backed by either legislation or a much better design.
The benefits of this system seem a bit underwhelming for me, but then I’m not interested in racing.
The new standards happen
The new standards happen whether you like it or not. You are under no obligation to follow it. Same with any other piece of cycling hardware. But you and I both know, if it suits pro teams, people will want it. And there will be a market. Enough people buy it, it becomes the new norm. Thats exactly how disc brakes came about. And here’s the kicker. The bike brands couldn’t give a shit what you want they just want your money and enough people will happily part ways with it. So they win.
Smoggysteve wrote:
The crucial difference is that disk brakes are much better than rim brakes with obvious advantages.
It would seem that the newish
It would seem that the newish standard of the Universal Gear Hanger is getting widely adopted, especially with the off road community. And Scwlabe’s new valves seem ingenious.
I waited a couple of iterations of XTR before adopting 9 speed which of course I can no longer source parts for. Thank goodness I never went to the reverse gearing thing or the flappy brake levers. The Rohloff community appears large enough for total redundancy to not be imminent
My parents did get us a Betamax…
I certainly see some benefit
I certainly see some benefit for pro racing, especially fast puncuture repairs – even more so if neutral service carried some compatible wheels. I’m sceptical about the changing terrain use case – most pros would simply change bikes at that point (as has been seen in various TT stages).
But I don’t see pro teams adopting it unless both the frames and wheels are otherwise at a level that is on par with traditional offerings. This brings me back to the vicious cycle – you would need one of the frame/wheel manufacturers that sponsors a pro team to go all in to develop a pro level frame and wheelset built around this tech. And I can’t see any of those big name bike brands going for it at the moment.
But if it is worthwhile they
But if it is worthwhile they will. And when they do, that’s pretty much the way the industry will follow. It happened with disc brake wheels. It’ll happen with this too if the pro element feel it’s worthwhile.
Swap your wheels round.
Swap your wheels round.
Not sure why – not really like swapping car tyres due to wear.
Actually for road cycling a
Actually for road cycling a lot of people recommend when your rear tyre wears down you should move your existing front tyre to the rear and give the front the fresh one every time because it needs the most traction. So the wheels being interchangable in this system would make it a bit simplier and less messy if sealant is involved.
Love this, super innovation.
Love this, super innovation. Would need to be low or free barrier access design to encourage adoption by existing manufacturers
I wonder if there’s a risk of
I wonder if there’s a risk of misalignment if you remove the rear wheel when the chain is on the largest sprocket. The chain tension will be providing a bending force on the stub axle going through the cassette. Probably not a big deal, and tbh I’ve no idea how much this force would be – it’s just the strength of the springs in the rear derailleur so probably not much, but I’m curious if this makes removal and reinsertion a bit more fiddly.
A modern version of Cinelli’s
A modern version of Cinelli’s bivalent hubs. If it works well, it sounds good. Leaving the rotors and cassette in place does make sense.
You beat me to it! Cheers.
You beat me to it! Cheers..Absolutely 200% correct. A superior design except that was designed for a different kind of ‘through axle with open dropouts and also rim brakes 👍🏼. Thank you for sharing the image. I’ve only seen diagrams in a book.
It seems there is not left
It seems there is not left and right side difference. There are few things that piss me off more than realizing I’ve just put on a tire with the rolling direction going the wrong way – especially during a tubeless setup. This standard would make the correction much easier – just flip the wheel! And just for that, I’ll give my thumbs up for this.
And those that do circuits
And those that do circuits always in the same direction could get even left/right wear on their tyres by swapping them around.
Only if they ignore the
Only if they ignore the rolling direction printed on the tyre (I’m not a racer, maybe some full slicks aren’t directional?)
I don’t see any real benefit
I don’t see any real benefit here, but I can see significant downsides.
–It separates the rear hub assembly (hub, rotor, cassette/freehub) into separate parts, and that means more opportunities for water or dirt intrusion and then squeaking
–more bearings to maintain
–useless with rims that have different internal widths between the front and back
–for those worried about weight, it’ll be heavier
–no more lower spoke count front wheels
–zero reason for hub makers, wheel makers, frame manufacturers, and others to invest in such a huge change.
Other drawbacks include
Other drawbacks include
— More difficulty changing cassettes
— It looks like it’s limited to pawl and ratchet in the freehub- star ratchets and other freewheeling mechanisms that go in oard of the spoke flange won’t fit
— Likewise, the Classified Powershift isn’t going to fit
— The 14mm thru axle makes it incompatible with UDH and Transmission
The video also doesn’t show how the wheel is aligned with the thru axle.
And how well will this work with cassettes that overhang the hub flange like 11 and 12 speed mountain bikes and 12 and 13 speed road bikes? You’re going to have to spread the dropouts a bit.
Every now and then a more or
Every now and then a more or less similar system pops up. (A couple of years ago there was a French company. And I have a similar prototype in my garage.)
Personally I know of a number of patents, amongst others of Shimano, that will make this system very hard if not impossible to commercialize.
FFS, really…
FFS, really…
It’s the last place it’s
It’s the last place it’s likely to happen, but a system like this would be most useful on a Dutch / Omafiets style bike, or cargo bike, where there’s a mudguard and chaincase and it’s a real faff to change the rear tube or tyre.
Any additional weight would also matter a lot less.
Indeed – but single-sided
Indeed – but single-sided axles are already available and haven’t caught in in that application (apart from Mike Burrows’ concept bike / small production 8-freight cargo bike I’m not aware of any).
Probably not enough benefit that manufacturers think people will stand the cost?
I think in NL people just pull out inner tubes to patch them, or take bikes to the shop!
Perhaps on one of those ebikes they’re trying to upsell everyone on though…?
Cannondale have persisted
Cannondale have persisted with their Lefty.
And Adam Hart Davis.
I understand the advantage
I understand the advantage for racers but I see things I like for many others.
There are a few things that make me sceptic, mainly is the wheel strong enough to be used at the back, will it have to be overengineered=heavy to not be assymmetric? It is a mechanically less strong shape, will it need trueing more often? The tooling does not worry me much it should be designed so that everybody can be able to change a disk, hubs, cassettes with simple tools. The fitting to turbo trainers could be an issue though.
Of course as mentioned it has to start from the top, pro racers have to endorse it and then, if successful, it will trickle down to us mortals. Even if it is great it will take a few years anyway, so most negatives will have been dealt with. And yes I would like one standard, all wheels to fit all bikes (just 2-3 widths/axle lengths).🤣
You forgot: more expensive
You forgot: more expensive/heavier frames.
As someone who owns 15 wheel
As someone who owns 15 wheel sets — 14 with tires mounted and most with cassettes — I am probably in the target market for this system, or at least adjacent to it. (I did sell 2 sets today, so I’m getting better. )
My first impression was that this would be very useful and that it’s extremely clever. But then I wondered when I would actually utilize it, and didn’t find many scenarios. Would it be neat to be able to easily throw 28mm road slicks on my hardtail? Sure. But would I do it, other just once, for kicks? Probably not. Would I start building wheels with more spokes than necessary just so I can use front wheels on the rear? Again, probably not. Am I going buy even more wheel sets and tires and swap them on one bike based on that day’s weather? Probably not.
I use center lock brakes almost exclusively, and rotors are cheap anyway, so swapping rotors is not a big deal. Cassettes have a relationship to the tires with which they are paired, so that’s not a huge advantage, either. In the above example of the hardtail with road tires, I’d probably want longer gearing to go along.
I’d like to see a video of installing the cassette and rotor to the frame, before finalizing my opinion, but I don’t see a tremendous utility here.
Absolutely no appeal for this
Absolutely no appeal for this q.r., rim brake-loving retrogrouch.
However one advantage that I don’t see mentioned is replacing s broken spoke on the drive side for tourists.