|   ONE POINT FIVE STANDARD::YOUR THOUGHTS?? | JCP
Apr 2, 2002 3:57 PM | | I'm an industrial designer and believe strongly in change. However, I can't seem to justify this. Manitou has in the works for 2003 a 6" travel single crown fork. Frankly that much travel hanging out off of a single crown scares me. Hell, 5" single crown still frightens me. Anything over 5", i would rather go double.
Although it could make for some cool components. You could probably get one more "king" written around your headset.
Please post your opinions. Is it really necessary? |
| Another solution to a problem that doesn't exist? | Chip
Apr 2, 2002 6:22 PM | | I keep wondering what the benefits of a 6" travel single crown fork are... Weight savings?? A guess would be most people needing/wanting that much travel would rather feel safe on a double. Yeah, it'll make for a stronger interface, but what about the megabucks going in to R&D/Product Development?? Hell, look at Schwinn creating their "ultra-manipulated" aluminum for the new Homegrowns about a year or two ago... Now where are they???
Doesn't make sense to me... |
| THERE IS A PROBLEM... | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 2, 2002 7:40 PM | | Double clamp forks ruin frames in a hard crash, no matter what kind of of frame protectors you have! And frames are breaking at the head tube area. Some of them break there because of double clam damage. I see more breaks there than anywhere else. With todays technology it is possible to make 6" (and soon longer travel) forks in a single clamp format and still have very stiff forks. |
| sort of | Huh
Apr 2, 2002 7:59 PM | | The problem is the frames being to weak at the headtube area to handle a dual crown fork. 1.5 sounds great because it takes this problem away, but you still have to buy a new frame!! Why not just get a frame that can handle the added stress of a dual crown fork? Motorcycles use 1" headtubes!!! If I crash hard enough to severely damage a frame (as in unrideable) the last thing on my mind is my bike, as I would probably be in a hospital. Besides it is way easier to build a light dual crown fork than a light single crown. You have to beef up the crown area, the steerer is already beefed up, and then you have the extra weight of an oversized headtube, headset, and stem. I think I would rather get a dual crown, the design is just inherently stronger than a single crown fork. |
| LETS NOT COMPARE APPLES TO ORANGES! | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 2, 2002 8:53 PM | | Motorcycles have thick steel frames and, get this dude, steering stops!
So you are saying that if you go in the hospital it's ok that your bike gets screwed up? If I go in the hospital, which I have, I am still going to care about my bike. And if I can help it, I don't want it to get damaged. I have insurance in case I get hurt but my bike doesn't! I find it wierd that you brought up the fact that "you still have to buy a new frame." But if you go in the hospital you are not worried about your frame. Which would need to be replaced if it was damaged. And if it wasn't damaged it will in time still need to be replaced. Wouldn't you want to replace it with a frame that is more able to deal with the stresses placed on it? These companies are only trying to make better products for us. Why are so many people against that?
And dual crown forks? The problem there is that it doesn't matter how many crowns a fork has, it will not help a forks flex problem from the lower clamp down to the drop outs. |
| They could if they wanted to | Yeti_Rider
Apr 2, 2002 9:36 PM | | The bike frame could be properly designed so as not to sustain any damage from a double crown fork in a crash if the frame makers really wanted to. The frame could be strenghened in the areas of impact and better stops could be incorporated to prevent the damage in teh first place. |
| Mountain Cycle frames have fork stops but... | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 2, 2002 10:28 PM | | they add some weight and it limits the amount of steering in tight switch backs. So I went back to single crown forks. But with the BH rig you don't have a choice. |
| LETS NOT COMPARE APPLES TO ORANGES! | ToddM
Apr 2, 2002 10:15 PM | | The only reason a dual crown breaks head tubes is because it transfers more stress to the frame because it's stiffer. If you hit the same bump the physical force applied to the fork is the same, it's just that a dual crown transfers more of that force to the frame with less flex in the fork. Which tends to pry poorly designed head tubes off the frames.
Look at any data on forks and you will see in wheel deflection angular and lateral dual crown forks are MUCH more stiff. That means the stress goes to the headtube. If you make a stiffer single crown fork /frame interface by making it's steerer larger it too will transfer more stress to the headtube. Course it still won't transfer as much stress as a dual crown, and it won't be as stiff as a similarly built dual crown. Will it be more stiff as a 1 1/8" single crown....sure, but it still won't compare to stiff dual crowns.
Two crowns does help with lower leg flex because it reduces the crown flex itself. If dual crown forks did nothing for lower leg stiffness and wheel tracking no one would ride them. Anyone that's rode a Z1 and a junior T can tell you dual crowns are stiffer than a similar fork in a single crown.
Personally I see no reason why companies cannot make a headtube strong enough to deal with that stress in 1 1/8" measurements. But it does carve out a nice new nitche of the market for ad dollar motivated magazines to hype and so people will think they need to buy new frames and forks. I'm sure we'll be seeing larger BB shells too, maybe something in the 2" dia. range. |
| Dual crown forks are stiffer mostly... | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 2, 2002 10:45 PM | | because of the much bigger in diameter fork legs. They started using dual crown forks in the first place because they needed the upper part of the fork tube to house the long internals on long travel forks. The biggest problem in making long travel single crown forks is housing the long internals while keeping the fork only as long as it has to be for tire clearance. I think that companies can make 1.25 strong enough but using the same technology 1.5 will be stronger and there is nothing wrong with parts being overbuilt. And using larger diameter and thinner tubes, forks and head tubes and the frame welded to it can be made lighter and stronger at the same time |
| That's, um, not quite right | ohio
Apr 3, 2002 2:49 PM | | Most of the flex in a single crown comes from the crown itself. Thus the need for double crowns. Much stiffer stronger design... As scited above, look at a jr/super-t. until this year had the same stanchions as a Z-1. But is is much much stiffer. Is that just magic?
As for needing more room. Um... the early 5" travel double crowns used huge spacers, because the internals WEREN'T long enough... |
| No rebuttal huh? Do you ever get tired of being wrong? (nm). | CSB
Apr 3, 2002 10:33 PM | | . |
| Doesn't stop clary, why would it stop shawn? | DeeEight
Apr 4, 2002 12:09 AM | | |
| Another solution to a problem that doesn't exist? | ToddM
Apr 2, 2002 10:21 PM | | As to frame damage, I believe some makers weld in a much heavier section with a built in bumper in that area of the frame. I believe frank the welder has done this on a few frames. I"m pretty sure you'd destroy a fork leg before denting a top tube with one of those. Of course that means more $ for companies making frames, and it's easier to just try and get a new 1.5" standard through than modifing top and down tubes.
My view, if your riding so hard that your destroying top tubes with dual crown forks in crashes, you should be riding a heavy steel frame anyway. That would take care of the headtube and the top tube problem with a dual crown. |
| You don't have to ride that hard... | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 2, 2002 10:52 PM | | to have one bad fall and damage parts. And it doesn't matter how burly the frame is because something is going to give when your bar plows the ground at 20 mph or faster. Hopefully it will be the bar that gives, that would be cheaper than a frame or fork. |
| re: ONE POINT FIVE STANDARD::YOUR THOUGHTS?? | Yeti_Rider
Apr 2, 2002 9:39 PM | | I just think it's a marketing managers answer to creating a new market for a product. Yes, it will probably work. Will it work better than what's out there or offer significant advantages to what's already available? Probably not. The biggest thing to remember is it probably won't affect any of the XC bikes anyway becasue Answer is going after the freeride market with this so who cares if the freeride bikes have a 1.5" steerer and they can use a 6" travel single crown fork. If it comes out and people buy it, then so be it. If it flops, then so be it. It doesn't really matter to me becasue it won't end up on my bike now or in the future.
Michael |
| With the new shock and fork technology... | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 2, 2002 10:58 PM | | that allows you to pedal longer travel bikes with no bobing you will be seeing XC bikes in the future that have a lot more travel! |
| Why are you the only one responding that one.five is needed... | DeeEight
Apr 2, 2002 11:25 PM | | and which fork/frame company do you REALLY work for that is counting on this new standard to boost sales? |
| ***I DON'T WORK FOR ANY BIKE COMPANY*** | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 3, 2002 10:59 AM | | I just want to see bikes improve as much as possible. And I am willing to fork out the dough every couple of years if I see improvements that are worth my money. |
| With the new shock and fork technology... | Yeti_Rider
Apr 3, 2002 8:26 AM | | I disagree. At least in terms of competition race ready XC bikes. While the longer travel might infiltrate the comfort bike buying public, The standard for a true XC rig will always be relatively short (or no) travel. I ride a HT and I'm as fast or faster over technical descents as many of my friends riding quality FS. FS isn't needed to go fast, ability is. FS simply helps solmebody with ability achieve greater comfort. 1.5 isn't necessary on a XC bike. Hell, 1 1/8" head tubes probably aren't necessary either but at least they standardized that some years ago simply to make everything the same.
Michael |
| I AGREE 1.25 IS FINE FOR PURE XC RACING BUT... | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 3, 2002 11:17 AM | | for anything more than that it is needed. And remember with 1.5 you can use thinner steerer and head tubes which means those parts can be stronger and lighter which will appeal to the XC set. That's the whole idea of using big diameter thin tubes for frames, it's stronger and lighter. But I think it will take some time to trickle down to XC bikes. |
| Umm larger diameters and thinner = stiffer, not stronger. | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 1:29 PM | | Al frames use the larger diameters because the material lacks stiffness, not strength. |
| I have to agree with MC Shawn... | someguy1
Apr 2, 2002 11:40 PM | | At this year's Sea Otter the Flowriders showed up with some impressive equipment, one of which was a bike with the new 1.5" Manitou Sherman (6"?). After seeing the show, I am a believer that the 1.5 can and will work. I forget how high the big drop was, but I would never trust a typical single crown fork to handle such a drop (15'? 20'?).
People must understand, 1.5 will not affect most of us. I am guessing that 1.5 will be very popular with the dirt jumping and north shore crowd. IMO, it won't affect me and most of you. |
| Snake oil hot sauce | Applejuice
Apr 3, 2002 12:21 AM | | I'm no super freerider, huck my gnarly bike down a twenty foot ledge.
But I do see some merit in this concept. Essentially they are addressing what is a weak point for extreme riders. If this improves reliability and safety, great.
Is the 1.5 standard for most of us? No.
Is it a marketing gimmick? Well, marketing history is littered with the carcasses of companies that tried to introduce or change standards. It's a lot of time and money. It is prone to failure. Changing the inertia of an industry does not happen overnight. It's like steering a tanker, not a speedboat.
I do not think this is about money given all the R&D costs and the very small target market segment.
But if it eventually trickles down into better bikes for average Joes like you and me, then I'm all for innovation. |
| Also it'd be too much logic to just go back to Evolution steerer | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 9:06 AM | | sizing, and specify only CrMo steerers for super-travel singlecrown forks...
Hmmm, larger diameter that the industry already supports, and a stiffer/stronger material. Nah, not enough free advertising by claiming a wonder standard. Also then Fisher would get bragging rights for inventing the perfect steerer size for freeride bikes, accidently, 15 years before. |
| You'd have to start from scratch with Evolution anyway... | ohio
Apr 3, 2002 2:53 PM | | ... since nobody has produced a 1.25 headset or steerer tube for years. So you might as well allow for even more progression in bicycle use/abuse. |
| I guess Ritchey, YST, King and Tange count as nobody's then. | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 6:36 PM | | Also ActionTec STILL produces forks in 1 1/4" steerer, and frames too. |
| It's all bollocks | Dingleberry
Apr 3, 2002 2:35 AM | | Look at motorcycles, 1 inch steerers, dual crowns and Internationl standard style caliper mounts.
In my opinion Manitou are playing silly buggers. Don't encourage them.
Dingleberry |
| READ THE POST ABOVE CALLED... | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 3, 2002 11:21 AM | | Lets not compare apples to oranges. |
| ***YOU'LL STILL BE ABLE TO USE 1.25 FORKS WITH 1.5... | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 3, 2002 11:03 AM | | head tubes by using reducer headsets. Some companies already make them for Cannondales. |
| Stop yelling stupid, and the existing standard is 1.125 !!! | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 1:30 PM | | Hardly anyone uses 1.25 (which is also known as Evolution size) anymore. Its even rarer in use than 1" for mountain bikes. |
| If I had any lingering doubts... | CSB
Apr 3, 2002 10:44 PM | | that this was an idiotic, desperate idea marketed to feeble-minded shills, they have been completely annihilated by this thread. |
| |
