-
Not so sure about that; while through axles are a thing because discs, ye olde QR interface is a bit on the undercooked side.
When folks talk about how a road bike handles, they might say stuff like, 'the tapered steerer makes it a more confident descender than the previous model' or whatever - which is about having flex where it's intended and rigidity where it isn't - controlled movement.
The QR interface became a thing when everything involved was made of steel. Like HG splines, I question whether moving away from steel is appropriate for that interface, or rather, if moving away from steel is a given, whether you should continue with that interface.
Sure, it's a relatively tiny improvement I'm talking for a whole lot of faff and incompatibility, but if it wasn't for that lock-in issue, IMO it'd be a no-brainer like the countersunk pedal interface Jobst Brandt advocated (which also never got anywhere despite actually having an upgrade path).
Kimmo-
I question whether moving away from steel is appropriate for that interface
It's fine, people have got away with Ti and even aluminium skewers. Modern hub axles are stiffer than old skinny steel ones, carbon forks are usually stiffer in lateral flexion than old lightweight steel ones, the QR clamping force holding the whole edifice together is more than adequate.
The only people who actually need QR wheels are pros with following cars, and they have abandoned them since the manufacturers forced disc brakes on them for commercial reasons. The only people who are not better off with disc brakes are pros with following cars...
gbj_tester
It'd be kinda pointless, one of the main reasons for thru axles is stiffening up forks and resisting forces created by disc brakes.