|   ***ONE POINT FIVE STANDARD NEWS*** | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 3, 2002 11:54 AM | | WHAT'S NEW FROM MANITOU?--APRIL 2
Meet Sherman and the 1.5 Standard
By Chris Firth
Once again Manitou has been hard at work designing an entirely new fork line for 2003, but they have something extra up their sleeve for us this season. A totally new standard in steerer tubes for the booming freeride market. This new one and a half inch steerer standard has been public for a while now and has met with mixed opinions from frame builders, rival fork manufacturers, media and the freeriders it was created for. The new Sherman line of long-travel single crown forks from Manitou are the first designed around these oversized steerers. Here's the downlow on the new standard and Sherman forks.
DO WE NEED ANOTHER STANDARD?
Why would Manitou and a host of companies backing this new idea bother to develop a steerer tube bigger than the current 1 1/8-inch standard? Their thinking was that 1 1/8-inch (normal) steerers were developed back when two-inches of travel was considered a lot. Since then, front travel has jumped up to five-inches on single crown forks. Running any more suspension in a single crown fork will seriously compromise performance, precision, strength and durability. Because of the recent boom in the popularity of thirty-five pound plus freeride bikes that need to handle harsh flat drops and Northshore stunts, while still retaining the ability to be pedaled back up the hill, Manitou saw that riders were severely overstressing what they consider to be overbuilt cross-country componentry. In addition to the stress on forks, we've seen a dramatic rise in broken headsets, flared headtubes and overstressed stems. The OnePointFive system steerer would have several obvious advantages: the larger diameter tube would be stronger without adding too much additional weight, headtubes built to accommodate it would be beefier and have more surface area connecting top and down tubes, wider headsets would mean more contact area with the stem making a stiffer and stronger interface. Certain bicycle companies really liked the idea because it would make a visible differentiation between freeride and cross-country bikes, hopefully cutting down on the number of bikes they see back for warrantees from riding them in situations they were never designed to hold up for.
Watching local riders and numerous Freeride videos the natural question would be, Why not just run a triple crown downhill fork if you're worried about durability? The simplest answer is weight. A well-designed six-inch single crown fork would weigh about two pound less than a full-blown downhill fork (that doesn't need the bigger steerer because of the additional support of the second crown). The single crown fork also allows riders to negotiate tighter terrain than with a triple-crown fork because it can be turned underneath the frame (and who wants to loose the ability to do X-ups?).
ALL OF THIS SOUNDS GOOD SO WHY THE OPPOSITION?
Any time someone introduces a new standard into our industry there's immediate opposition. Especially when the company trying to introduce the new standard has been noticeably guilty of not following current industry standards (Manitou's post brake mounting). Adapting this standard means frame, fork and component manufacturers will have to produce all new offerings in addition to continuing to make current 1 1/8-inch products. Frames designed to fit 1 ½ steerers will have to be completely redesigned. If they're not, the bigger headtube will actually decrease the amount of contact between the frame and headtube. Frames will have to feature bigger diameter down tubes at least. The new bigger forks will not be able to be retrofitted to older, sized frames. This means if someone wants to get into the newer standard they'll have to buy a new frame, fork, headset and stem. Then there's the group of people that simply don't see the need. Their thinking is if you want to do big drops you should just ride a triple-crown |
| ***CONTINUED*** | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 3, 2002 12:01 PM | | If you want to pedal up the hill and do light stunt riding there's nothing wrong with the current crop of five-inch single corn forks. Simply put "Choose the right tool for the job".
SO WHERE DID MBA STAND?
When it was first introduced most of the office didn't see the need for yet another standard (don't too many standards defeat the purpose of them in the first place?) They didn't see the point since a properly designed frame shouldn't have many of the problems the new standard claims to address (the people who have actually built frames) or just thought it was a marketing gimmick to sell more forks and frames (motorcycle's one-inch steerers are under much more stress and almost never break). These were all pretty standard thoughts industry-wide. Manitou still stood strong on their new standard and invited us to their press camp in Tempe, Arizona to see the fruits of their work with the OnePointFive system.
INTRODUCING SHERMAN
The Sherman line, built to take advantage of the OnePointFive system, has four different forks. The breakout is the Flagship model that uses all of the new developments below and is the fork that we tested in Arizona. The Firefly features less travel, 110/130, but has the same features as the Breakout. The Flick is the low-end of the line that uses a less expensive solid forged crow, TPC damping and steel steerer. The Slider is the 152mm travel triple crown fork in the line that shares all of the Breakout's features minus the Rapid Travel Adjustment. All Sherman models are disc specific and lack cantilever bosses for vee-brakes. Here's a quick rundown on the new technology developed for the Sherman line.(Photo right is the old 1 1/8 Standard)
Evil Genius Seals: These are a semi-bath seals that have a foam wetting element inside to lubricate the fork. This allows Manitou to run lighter fork oil to damp the fork because it doesn't have to serve double duty lubricating the fork. This should increase the overall durability and extend the time between service intervals
RA Technology: Reverse arch technology was introduced last season with the Black line. The RA on the Sherman fork has enough clearance to run full-size downhill tires, while drastically increasing the arch mass at its base to stiffen up the fork. This arch on the Sherman forks looks seriously beefy compared to the smaller Black arch.
Rapid Travel 2 Adjustment: A small lever on the left side of the fork allows it to be lowered 20mm (less than an inch) for climbing.
Hex Lock Through-Axle: This is the same through-axle that was used last season on the Dorado downhill fork. It eliminates the need for tightening both sides of the axle when installing a wheel and prevents any possible slipping that's inherent in some other through-axle designs.
TPC + Dampening: This is Manitou's patented Position Activated Dampening system. It automatically changes to correspond to the forks position in travel. With this system they can provide initial low resistance bump sensitivity, yet add dampening to resist bottoming. Being a low pressure, high volume system, it eliminates cavitations and heat related problems.
HOW'S IT RIDE?
(Photo right is the new 1.5 Standard )
Tempe is the perfect spot to test the new Sherman line. The trails are littered with sharp square edged rocks, sudden dropaways and steep switchbacks. We rode the first production Cannondale Geminis with Breakouts installed. Sherman forks easily mount up to the slightly bigger Cannondale headtubes with a special Cane Creek Headset. All of our test forks had sublimated camouflage graphics but they'll also be available in textured silver by production.
After throwing a leg over the test bike you immediately notice that it raises the front of the bike almost as much as a downhill fork. The bottom bracket was high and the head tube was slack (pretty standard for most freeride rigs). After some quick cockpit adjustments and swapping springs for the proper spring rate, our international group of journalists were off for a day of shuttle runs (although some sadistic riders insisted on pedaling to the top on the paved road).
About two hundred feet after we dropped into the trail we sampled firsthand one of the biggest advantages of the Sherman forks. There were a series of 180-degree steep switchbacks littered with rocks and waterbars. Without the ability to turn the fork underneath the frame there would be no way to negotiate through these, especially on long wheelbase bikes. Triple-crowns would have had us dabbing our way through every corner. As our confidence in the fork built, so did our speeds. Our test trails were littered with flat-faced rocks and drop-offs that put you in-between rockpiles ready to rip the wheels from underneath you. The stiffness of the fork was immediately evident. It steered precisely and didn't deflect from flexing. The front to back stiffness of the Breakout rivals most of the current downhill forks on the market. Once you realize what it can handle you'll charge into technical sections and hit drop-offs just like you had a heavy downhill fork instead of a 5.1-pound single crown fork. The damping was super fluid and there was no detectable friction. The Position Activated Dampening did a great job of preventing the fork from bottoming by increasing the dampening at the bottom of the stroke before it could run out of travel. |
| ***LAST PART*** | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 3, 2002 12:03 PM | | When we went to fine tune the rebound damping, we found that there wasn't a big change through the whole range unless you fully closed the system. When we ventured out to some more pedal oriented trails, we also found that the Rapid Travel adjustment wasn't even noticeable. Lowering a six-inch travel fork less than an inch is negligible. A little more range in both cases would be a noticeable improvement.
FINAL VERDICT
Seeing the larger headtubes in person made us realize that it can be executed cleanly on nearly any frame design. Besides the Cannondales, Manitou had Intense SLX's and Foes Fly's (with several manufacturers committed to follow suit for 2003). When placed next to OnePointFive system bikes, normal headtubes really did look spindly. People who worried that the new bikes would look like they had beer cans attached to the bike had their fears settled. The front of the bikes looked finished and burly. The solid Raceface stems added to the beefy setup. If you were worried about retrofitting a normal steerer fork to a OnePointFive system frame, several companies (Cane Creek, Chris King, FSA and Raceface) have committed to providing OnePointFive headsets that will allow you to run normal sized steerers without reducers.
Because of the availability of different size headsets, clean execution, minimal added weight, structural benefits and seeing how well a fork designed for the new OnePointFive system can perform, the wrecking crew has had a significant change in opinion (a rarity for us). Whether or not 1 ½ inch steerers are the future of freeriding remains up to the consumer. If you demand that other fork companies follow Manitou's lead they will. If you're looking at a new freeride bike or frame in 2003 take a good look at the bikes that should be out with the standard by then. By purchasing a bike that follows the OnePointFive system, you aren't limiting yourself, you're adding another option. An option that is in the best interest of freeriders who plan to abuse their bikes. The potential for the abuse of this system is large, however. If the bigger headtube becomes trendy like it definitly has the potential to, we'll start to see them showing up on trailriding bikes where they have no business. Don't expect production companies to be responsible with this new technology once they figure out they can sell bikes based on the look of the head tube. The consumers and media will have to shun bikes that have no business using the standard. We don't need three-inch travel bikes with air shocks running around with giant head tubes. It looks like the specialization of our sport may have just taken another giant leap. Now a giant headtube could become the freeriders badge of pride over the small headtubed, spandex clad cross-country set.
__________________
Later,
Tucker |
| motorcycles only need a 1" headtube but freeriders need 1.5? | Phat Head
Apr 3, 2002 3:09 PM | | funny how they reviewed how nice all the features were of the new "standard" however the features were independent of the stearer size. i can see frame makers liking the idea because it gives them more surface to work with, but other than that no real benefits. |
| I'm a morron | The Weasel
Apr 3, 2002 12:11 PM | | ok, I'm not an mtb idiot (though you may disagree after this), but would someone please explain single vs double vs triple crown forks. Here's my understanding: single crown, normal forks you see like a Manitou Mars, double crown - boxxer, triple - no idea (example please).
if I'm right, it seems beefier lower tubes would make a bigger difference than more crowns. Ok maybe a larger steerer tube, but if your bike frame seperates at the head tube, how does a larger diameter cut down on these problems, it's still whatever material welded to whatever material. I guess it's in the welding surface. Please help me understand further. |
| Well its partially because the industry can't agree on... | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 1:47 PM | | what to call the forks to begin with. Triple-Clamps are usually called dual crowns, and vice versa, though some insist on calling single-crowns a triple clamp because the early MTB suspension forks used bolted crowns that held three tubes in a clamp. Meanwhile the motorcycle set had been calling forks with two crowns and the dropouts triple clamps because the parts of the fork were joined at three clamp zones. The hub/dropouts, the lower crown and the upper crown.
As to the beefier lower tubes, most of the fore/aft flexing in the fork occurs at the leverage point between the lower legs and the steerer (which is the bit anchored inside the frame), and this happens to be the fork crown. All the stress from front impacts and the suspension moving ends up going somewhere. Its not all being absorbed and dampened by the fork mechanism. A dual-crown spreads the loads over a larger area (the entire headtube) instead of just focussing it near the bottom end of the headtube. This is why frames designed for dual-crown forks should have a reinforced overall headtube structure and can't simply get away with a gusset or two between the headtube and downtube like single-crown fork designed frames use.
One simple gusset design that solves this is a flat plate on either side of the frame, reinforcing both the top and down tube to the head tube (as seen on many motorcycle frames, BMX frames, some dual slalom frames, many DH frames, etc). Also the gusset plate if placed right, and thick enough, can be designed to absorb the impact of the stanchion tubes of a dual crown against the frame during a crash situation.
Of course the proponents for this fancy new single crown standard seem to be EXCLUSIVELY the freeride/north shore bike jumping/hucking set. Ya know, riders who think pushing a bike up a hill 20 times to setup for some stunt is fun. Riders who don't care how slack their geometry is just so long as they can control it while pointed downhill. And of course they complain about restrictive steering angles with two crowns. Load o' crap. With a dual crown fork you still have about a 150-170 degree arc to steer the front wheel though, and 75 degrees off dead center, at ANYTHING other than a snail's pace will usually mean an endo anyways. Or a severe LEAN, to ride and steer with that much of a turn. |
| I'm a mormon too!!! | ldf
Apr 4, 2002 3:28 AM | | Church of Later Day Saints!!!
Rock on my brotha' !!! |
| Your paycheck must be dependant on 1.5's success considering... | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 1:33 PM | | how much ranting yer doing about the subject, and how much creative
lieing you're doing to convince others there's a need for the thing.
Already companies are claiming mythical weight savings for this new standard. Reminds me of Diacompe's famous claims for weight savings when they introduced threadless headsets. Trouble was the savings was all a myth, dependant on switching from the HEAVIEST threaded parts to the lightest threadless parts. |
| Your paycheck must be dependant on 1.5's success considering... | ohio
Apr 3, 2002 2:16 PM | | You're right that there's no weight savings. A 6" single crown w/ 1.5 will weigh about the same as a 6" double, given similar construction and tech. However, it has definite benefits for frame design.
I definitely posted a lot about how I didn't like the idea a couple of months ago. I started work on a new bike project about a month ago, and have since changed my tune. It makes frame design MUCH easier when you have to cope with the abuse that North Shore style riding dishes out. I don't really see much significant in terms of what it will do for forks: you'll have more knee clearance and be able to take switchbacks. It will make FR and DH frames stronger whether or not they're using single crown forks.
And yeah, I tihnk Manitou is struggling and really hoping this new line of forks will put them back in the running... It's a shame they let their customer service and production ruin some perfectly good technology over the past 2 years. Hopefully this'll get them back on track. |
| Want a lighter fork, have Dan Hanebrink design it. | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 3:42 PM | | He's done 5 1/2 pound dual crowns before... super thin and super oversized diameter aluminium tubes for the legs, oversized and milled out billet crowns, all joined with a positively skinny in comparison 1 1/8" steerer. And with 6" of travel or more to boot. And because he offsets the LEGS forward in the crown the 1.5" that's standard on suspension, instead of using offset dropouts, you can turn the thing 180 degrees side to side.
If you ever need to turn the wheel more than 90 degrees left or right, to steer, get off and walk. |
| oh yeah, those were great forks (HA!!!) | ohio
Apr 3, 2002 4:05 PM | | what was you're point? I was agreeing with you that 6" single crowns won't be that light. Hell, my Judy XL weighs in at under 5 lbs, that doesn't mean its not a total POS.
I'm still confused: what were you trying to argue with by bringing up Hanebrink forks? |
| I was bringing up hanebrink because... | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 6:52 PM | | he's built decent forks (especially for the price) that are both stiff and light (and thanks to offset crowns, solve the limited steering angle problem on most dual crowns). In other words, he's done something Manitou hasn't. Also in their day when the various hanebrink forks were new designs, did Manitou or Rockshox really have anything competitive for the price for full on DH/Freeride models? A Bullet Bros Zzyzx Freeride, designed by Dan, was 5 1/2 pounds, 4 to 6" adjustable travel, with a stack of about a dozen different MCU elastomers and ya know what, if you tuned the stack right for your weight and riding style, worked damn well. That was 1998. What did rockshox have in 1998 for a freeride fork? DHO? Judy XL? Both weighed more and had less travel and weren't as stiff. And the suspension action wasn't really any better (I've owned all three of those forks).
I have a Judy XL currently also, with Englund total air internals, 4 Ibs even. ok for a trail fork today but remember when they were new in 1998, people were still thinking 6" was plenty fine for DH forks. Boxxer's were still using 6" travel until 2001 right? |
| I'm still missing your point... | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 9:40 AM | | Is it that a lightweight, 5" travel DC fork is do-able? Because noone is arguing that it isn't.
I think I've said a couple of times that weight is not the issue. It's the strength of the headtube that is, and dual crown forks are even worse for headtubes. Aluminum is just not strong enough to take that much force over that small amount of surface area, and not ovalize or shear off at the welds... If we want to keep building DH and FR bikes out of aluminum, we need bigger headtubes.
A large part of it is marketing, no one will deny that, but if the benefits don't outweigh the downsides, it won't succeed. Look at Zima... |
| No, point is that lightweight dual crown freeride/DH 6" forks... | DeeEight
Apr 4, 2002 10:01 AM | | are doable already. We don't need a 1.5 steerer standard to be able to offer lightweight 6" travel forks. Which seems to be part of Manitou's advertising, that they'll be offering 6" travel forks for less weight than their dual crown forks. Whoopy. Not everyone makes dual crowns as heavy as Manitou.
If bigger headtubes is all you want, custom order the frames with them. IT IS possible to get larger diameter head tubes from tubing suppliers. Larger diameter top and down tubes also. Don't need to upsize the headset and steerer to have beefier tubing. |
| You're still compromising... | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 10:16 AM | | ... with the frame we're working on right now, before we decided to switch to 1.5 I explored the option of what you talk about above to cure problems of shearing, and/or crushing downtubes: a larger headtube, that either had to be milled from stock to accept a 1.125 headset, but be relieved between the contact areas, or be shimmed down to 1.125. Neither solved the problem of destroying headsets, or ovalisation of the headtube at the contact patch. With the shimmed headtube, at least you could replace the shims in the case of ovalisation. In the other case, it didn't help at all in terms of ovalisation.
If you read my posts from a couple of months ago, you'll find that I was against the 1.5. Saw no need for it, as a double clamp fork is inherently SO much stronger... I started work on a new frame just a couple of weeks ago. In the initial stages of design, I quickly realized that for THIS frame, using 1.5 would be very very helpful. If we weren't using aluminum, and a 6-8" fork, I probably wouldn't have come to the same conclusion.
Admittedly I have selfish interests here. 1.5 makes it much easier for me to build a strong, light frame. Wouldn't that be a shame... |
| And of course, doing something simple like... | DeeEight
Apr 4, 2002 10:43 AM | | using a 1 1/4 headset size, larger tubes, and a King Devolution headset would be too simple (or didn't occur to you) eh?
If you're going to the trouble of custom designing a frame, CHANGE the material. Nowhere is it written in stone than suspension frames have to made from aluminium. |
| And of course, doing something simple like... | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 11:29 AM | | Since this is now off the page, I don't know who's reading it anymore, but I'll reply anyway...
Using a Devo headset is hardly a solution, and how is limiting the buyer to ONE headset a better option than a new standard that lots of people will use, and lots of manufacturers might make. Sure you could get people to RE-adapt the Evo standard, but there's no saying if that one won't prove too weak in a year or two. And since people would effectively be adopting a new standard (even though it's been around for a while, you might as well engineer in a safety factor. 1.5 might be overkill, I think 1.375 would have definitely done it, but it cost very little to go to that size...
And you're right, nowhere does it say that suspension bikes have to be made of aluminum. A lot of manufacturers are switching to chromo, because it's the only way to cope with the forces given the current standards. However, bikes can be built lighter and stronger with aluminum IF you adopt some new standards. Using aluminum instead of steel is the reason we switched to 1.125, why should that be any different now? |
| You're still compromising... | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 10:28 AM | | ... with the frame we're working on right now, before we decided to switch to 1.5 I explored the option of what you talk about above to cure problems of shearing, and/or crushing downtubes: a larger headtube, that either had to be milled from stock to accept a 1.125 headset, but be relieved between the contact areas, or be shimmed down to 1.125. Neither solved the problem of destroying headsets, or ovalisation of the headtube at the contact patch. With the shimmed headtube, at least you could replace the shims in the case of ovalisation. In the other case, it didn't help at all in terms of ovalisation.
If you read my posts from a couple of months ago, you'll find that I was against the 1.5. Saw no need for it, as a double clamp fork is inherently SO much stronger... I started work on a new frame just a couple of weeks ago. In the initial stages of design, I quickly realized that for THIS frame, using 1.5 would be very very helpful. If we weren't using aluminum, and a 6-8" fork, I probably wouldn't have come to the same conclusion.
Admittedly I have selfish interests here. 1.5 makes it much easier for me to build a strong, light frame. Wouldn't that be a shame... |
| THE BIGGEST PIECE OF SH!T I EVER OWNED WAS... | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 3, 2002 9:45 PM | | a Dan Hanebrink fork! Hasn't he gone out of business yet? |
| Sounds like MBA had some crow to eat... | kristian
Apr 3, 2002 2:06 PM | | Manitou must have agreed to a new advertising campaign or something...
It's kinda funny--I am completely ambivelent to the 1.5" headset. I can see how it would be easier to build a more durable headset/fork/frame interface with more surface area, but I honestly don't have any complaints about my 1 1/8th headset. Still, if everyone adopts 1.5, I wouldn't hesitate to buy one.
What I don't get is the concept of a 6" travel single crown fork. Unless there is about 4" of crown holding on to 40mm stanchions, there is no way that a single crown can handle that kind of leverage without being a noodle. The a 5" travel single crown is a bad idea--the concept of a 6" single crown is just stupid! Looks like yet another brain fart from Manitou... |
| Sounds like MBA had some crow to eat... | Yeti_Rider
Apr 3, 2002 2:22 PM | | but I honestly don't have any complaints about my 1 1/8th headset.
And that is exactly the point. The new 1.5 isn't necessary but is rather a marketing created need. Sure, it might be necessary on the freeride bikes, but the bread and butter of all bike companies is the cross country spectrum. The numbers of people freeriding while growing is still a fairly small segment of the market.
The orignal poster of this thread just seems to think that 1.5 is absolutely necessary for all riding. Fine, he can have an opinion but most people think it's a load of hooey. The frame makers will go along with it because they can, headset makers will go along with it becasue they want their parts on these frames, and other fork makers will go along with it becasue they want to sell their forks. So in the end you will have a bunch of people making and selling product so then people will use the argument that if people didn't want it then these companies wouldn't make it. However, they just want their slice of the pie whether they think it's necessary or not.
I have one word for everybody who thinks 1.5 is 100% necessary.......Bio-Pace!
Michael |
| Well we can just blame manitou for fragile forks... | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 3:48 PM | | and the inability to accept the fact that freeriders WILL put up with more fork weight to have a fork that won't snap in usage. THAT's why Marzocchi forks still dominate the freeride/big hit marketplace. They build their forks to meet a strength target, and who cares what the thing ends up weighing.
Manitou has been building forks for TEN years to meet weight targets. Not strength targets. They always brag about how much lighter their forks are for given features than the other guy's, but then lag behind in the durability department. |
| no, don't think so... | gonzostrike
Apr 3, 2002 4:29 PM | | it's a phony niche.
a serious freerider will use dual-crown forks. that's it.
1.5 is a ploy to help Manitou compete with Marzocchi and Fox for the longer-travel single-crown market.
I can't believe nobody else sees that. |
| See one of my other messages... | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 6:45 PM | | I already said Manitou proposed it to get some free advertising and boost lagging sales (much as Raceface did with ISIS, especially in the freeride market as they were loosing crank sales to Profile, Kooka, and others). The fact that Marzocchi and Fox both design their forks for a strength target, and therefore earn the favour of freeriders/bighit riders, vs Manitou who designs for a weight target (and thus look good in catalogs and to weight weenies) is just part of it.
Its like Fisher's invention of Evolution size steerers. Why'd he do it? Because rigid forks needed stronger steerers? Nope. Fisher bought a large batch of forks with defective steerer tubes, and a lot failed. So he blamed the failures on 1" steerers, instead of correctly investigating what was wrong with JUST the forks he bought.
Ritchey STILL makes nice, durable frames with 1" steerers. 1 1/8 is plenty fine for all freeriders if the fork makers just made better steerer tubes (as Fox and Marzocchi already do). |
| 1.5 IS NOT ABOUT FORKS MAN, DUH!... | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 3, 2002 9:57 PM | | Its what the forks due to the frames, they break at the the headtube weld and double crown forks damage frames. Thats what 1.5 addresses. |
| I guess I'm a moron too--explain to me... | kristian
Apr 4, 2002 7:06 AM | | ...how a bigger steerer tube is going to help me from damaging my frame? It's true that there is more area on the head tube to weld to the frame which can't hurt, but otherwise I see no benefit (and don't give me the "you can use a single crown" because I will quit riding my bike before I put another four-plus inch travel single crown on it--been there, done that, it was dumb).
And if it's really about the frame, how come EVERY ARTICLE talking about the 1.5 standard is really only talking about how great 6" single crown forks are going to be???
Unless you live in North Vancouver or Bender's Utah, most people AREN'T going to need that kind of frame. If you pop a DH style headset and a dual crown fork that is designed for your frame on your bike and you won't have a problem! |
| sure I'll explain... | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 9:46 AM | | ... every article you read touts the forks because Manitou is putting more money into advertising than any other party involved. Ask frame-builders why they're doing and they're not going to say it's just so that they can use ONE SINGLE FORK that MIGHT be good. Hell no, they're going to tell you that it will mean decreased failures from ovalization and shear of headtubes, as well as torsionally stiffer frames, whether you're on single or dual crown forks. |
| you, sir, are an idiot and a charlatan | gonzostrike
Apr 4, 2002 9:00 AM | | do you always accept as gospel truth the pap that advertisers spring on you?
1.5 will NOT prevent a head tube from shearing off the top and down tubes. obviously you don't understand physics or metallurgy. it's the shear force from the fork leverage that causes head tubes to separate from the rest of the frame. It's not the head tube diameter, and it SURELY isn't the fork's steerer tube diameter.
of course you're wrong. what else should we expect from a dolt whose name is spelled the phonetic way to ensure nobody mispronounces it. poor fool. |
| now that kind of talk is just unnecessary... | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 10:01 AM | | ... especially when you're wrong. The larger headtube offers a significantly larger weld area, which is exactly where headtubes seperate. More weld area = less chance of shearing. |
| Why won't you accept the fact that you don't need a new standard | DeeEight
Apr 4, 2002 10:04 AM | | for steerer tube sizing to have larger diameter frame tubes?! |
| Sure, I accept it. | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 10:28 AM | | We don't NEED a new standard. We didn't NEED the aheadset, we didn't need splined BBs, we didn't NEED 20mm through-axles, and we don't NEED 1.5" steerer tubes.
But if I'm building using larger diameter tubes, and that allows fork companies to experiment with some new designs as well, what's the harm?
And if all of a sudden, our headsets become stronger and longer lasting, oh geez, wouldn't that just SUCK?!!!
How about 100mm bottom bracket shells, and 150mm rear hubs? how about BMX size BBs? Do you think manufacturers are purposefully using non-standard sizing just for sh**s and giggles? NO it's because these larger sizes have significant advantages for their intended uses.
Why try to adapt an old standard for an new application? That's bad engineering. It doesn't cost much (in this case) to engineer it from scratch, to start fresh, with a more appropriate design.
We've reached a point, where it has become just as easy/cost-effective to build something new than to try and shoe-horn a design that wasn't intended for our application. Bonus: it's backwards compatible. |
| bwaaaah hah hah hah you're kidding, right? | gonzostrike
Apr 4, 2002 1:04 PM | | you think that tiny increase in head tube diameter will make the difference?
you're an even bigger eedjit than I thought. Design, not acreage. Well-made, well-designed and properly incorporated gussets will do much more than a 3/8" increase in diameter.
but of course, you already knew that and just can't face up to it. |
| uh, no. Do the math... | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 2:28 PM | | ... if the problem is weld failure, and you increase the area of the welds by 30%, using identical construction, you will see a 30% increase in strength. Last time I checked, 30% was pretty significant.
You can achieve that same increase by adding more gussets, but then you're adding welds and labor. You think it's all that easy to add gussets that will increase the weld area by 30%?
1.5 and an Easton RAD tube-set beats having to put on two wrap-around gussets at 2-4 welds apiece, in addition to two downtube-to-toptube plate gussets at 3-5 welds apiece... |
| duh again! typical engineer, sees only one solution... | gonzostrike
Apr 4, 2002 4:20 PM | | let's see... there's YOUR solution of increasing weld area,
and there's MY solution of using gussets, which have the same effect.
if 1.5 is so necessary and wise, why don't motorcycles use it?
you may have shown others how "smart" you are, but to me, you are a narrowminded supporter of "newness"
are you, by any chance, a "futurist" or a big fan of "progress"? |
| Is Ohio related to M.C.S. ?! Share the same brain? | DeeEight
Apr 4, 2002 4:41 PM | | Blind devotion to 1.5 it seems. Of course he seems to forget that Al framed motocross bikes with 1" steerers and headsets DON"T have a problem with ovalizing the frames. Hmmm... oh right, better design skills than Ohio possesses. |
| where'd you come up with that ISIS line? | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 9:57 AM | | RaceFace came out with ISIS because Shimano had (FINALLY!) solved all the problems MTBers have been having with square taper cranks and BBs, since we first hit the dirt. I'm sure RF would have gladly switched to the SHimano OctaLink standard if Shimano had allowed it, but they didn't. RF could continue making inferior cranks that cost more, or they could come up with their own system. As far as losing sales to Profile and Kooka... uhhhh, Kooka hasn't been doing so well since maybe 1996. They;re getting by, but barely. Profile chromo cranks, are and probably always will be the strongest system, but they're too heavy to ever be truly successful among a wide range of MTBers. ISIS covers the rest of the MTB arena from Profile down... It's stronger, at the same price and weight, with simpler set-up and maintenace, than square-tapered. So what are you complaining about?
And yes ritchey does still make nice 1" steerers, but you'll notice that they're all made of STEEL. If you want to use Aluminum steerers (uh, stiffer and lighter...) 1" won't cut it. You might be right about Fischer's motivation for Evolution, but have a look at Bradbury and Klein, two very good engineers that were also using way oversized steerer tubes to achieve stiffer lighter systems...
So what are you so against? What are you so angry about? This will cost the consumer almost nothing. If it's a failure, then the folks with 1.5 frames will still be able to use 1.125 forks, just on stronger frames with less risk of ovalization... If it's a success, it means that 3 years down the road if/when you break your FREERIDE BIKE, your new frame will be alittle different (big suprise). You can still use your old fork if you want to... |
| 64.12.104.153 | Mountain Cycle Shawn
Apr 3, 2002 10:29 PM | | IT REALLY GETS ME HOW SOME PEOPLE JUST CAN'T... |
| Marzocchi's stopped at 5" for single crowns for a reason... | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 3:43 PM | | and that's that the forks are stressed enough as is. Want more travel, dual crowns do it better. Better overlap, better fork length, stronger, stiffer, lighter. |
| once again, it's not about the fork. | ohio
Apr 3, 2002 4:07 PM | | it's about the frame. 1.5 gives frame builders A LOT more to work with. |
| They could have made better frames before... | DeeEight
Apr 3, 2002 7:02 PM | | but seemed to lack the basic grasp that freeriders want bigger/beefier looking parts that they think will be longer lasting. Nothing says that a framebuilding using a 1 1/8" steerer has to limit himself/herself to thinner XC-ish wall tubing and smaller gussets. There were hardtail frames over a decade ago that used more massive tubes than freeride bikes use today. |
| They could have made better frames before... | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 10:03 AM | | you're still not solving the problem of ovalisation on aluminum frames... and if they can build them stiffer and stronger with 1.5 than 1.125, then why not?
And I don't think anyone would accuse current freeride bikes of being built with thin-walled XC tubing... |
| So change the material !!! | DeeEight
Apr 4, 2002 10:49 AM | | The key limitation here isn't the headset sizing or steerer tubes, its the material. There's a reason a lot of off-road motorcycles still use steel for the frame structure, and yet, they still manage to build as light as aluminium framed bikes.
If the choice is 8 pounds of high strength chromoly vs 8 pounds of aluminium. I'll take the chromoly thanks. Ever heard of Aermet 100? Did you know its still available in larger tubing diameters with thin walls? Pretty close to the perfect size for freeride bikes too. Factor in the strength to weight ratio well exceeds that of aluminium used in bike frames, not to mention the stiffness is way better. |
| So change the material !!! | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 11:35 AM | | Aermet's impossible to work with. There's a reason no frame builders are using it anymore. And you're wrong about the strength to weight ratio. AND Aluminum is a whole lot easier to machine, which is pretty useful for linkage and shock mounts.
Some motorcycles use aluminum, some use steel each with different advantages and different limitations. Aluminum has advantages in some areas. A lot of areas.
There are also aluminums that approach the strength of 4130 (90ksi or so). These wouldn't necessarily need the 1.5 standard, but it still helps with the construction and design. It just give more freedom... |
| Actually that's NOT why framebuilders stopped using it. | DeeEight
Apr 4, 2002 12:59 PM | | They stopped because Carpenter stopped producing smaller diameters tubes for the sports industry. They won't bother with anything smaller than about 1.5" anymore. Not enough demand for it. And most frame builders won't use anything that big for steel frames as they're trying NOT to create hardtails that ride harsher than aluminium hardtails do.
Also how was I wrong on strength to weight ratio? 330ksi tensile and
.295 Ibs/cubic-inch density for Aermet vs about 60ksi and .100 for Easton's Cold Worked & Heat-Treated 7005 aluminium. Hmmm, 5 1/2 times as strong for less than 3 times the density. Sounds like a better ratio to me. |
| Actually that's NOT why framebuilders stopped using it. | ohio
Apr 4, 2002 2:23 PM | | There's not enough demand because it's a bitch to work with, and doesn't ride as nice as cheaper metals that can be butted to be just as light (nivacrom, 853, OX Gold/Platinum). In terms of strength to weight, Aermet is the exception, not the rule, and it doesn't apply since it's pretty much unworkable for bicycle applications. The best USABLE steels are just barely breaking 200ksi (853 ranges from 190-210ksi) and even those are hard to work with and only recently available in a full range of sizes, and Reynolds won't sell it to just any dude with a TIG welder... 4130 is around 110ksi, maybe 120.
Actually now that you point it out, the 1.5 standard might allow for Aermet mainframes... since you won't need anything smaller than 1.5 except for the seattube (which I'm sure someone can figure out a way around...) |
| Yes, solution around the seattube is to braze in a different... | DeeEight
Apr 4, 2002 4:38 PM | | steel alloy, that's one of the wonderful things about steel frames. You DON'T have to use only one kind of tubing.
And you don't seem to have a clue about framebuilding and aermet. Arrow, Curtlo, True North and MANY others all seemed to find the stuff easy enough to work with. And all complained when supplies of the tubes dried up. Also you DON'T need to butt the stuff to keep the weight down as Carpenter was providing tubes with thinner walls than
most high-end steels currently are offered in. Arrow and Curtlo has steel hardtails under 3 pounds with the stuff only used for the main frame.
If you actually knew anything about machining, like proper machinists training, you'd know Al is actually a bitch to work with compared to most steels. The stuff fouls up the cutting tools. Titanium is actually easier to machine if you know the procedures than aluminium.
Just because a material has a high surface hardness doesn't mean it need be hard to machine. Invest in the proper equipment and its easy. |
| |
