|just when you were getting used to 1 1/8th...||gtx|
Dec 20, 2001 8:59 AM
Dec 20, 2001 11:13 AM
|Those pictured are a group of mountain bike fork crowns and steerer tubes. How do they handle compared to smaller diameters? Shock absorbsion? Steering control? Bearing wear? Would they work as well with solid forks as with shock absorbers? Mountainbike inventions always spill over into road bikes.
But wait a minute! Those guys are just hyping their name. There is no "1.5 standard." They just want to sell their product.
Dec 20, 2001 12:52 PM
|I think they're really trying to solve a problem. I don't think it is marketing hype, in this particular case. They go to great lengths to qualify the people that they think could benefit from 1.5"- long travel, triple clamp MTBers. They don't indicate that they think 1.5 should be the standard for all bikes. I think they're trying to come up with a standard for DH and DS bikes- where weight is the least important consideration.|
Dec 20, 2001 2:27 PM
|Okay, I went to their website and read:
"Increasing diameter provides an opportunity to make a dramatic increase in both stiffness and strength in all steering and head tube components with minimal weight gains."
They just pushed the envelope a little and need other manufacturers to get on their bandwagon. We roadies might get a trickle down effect.
Dec 20, 2001 2:31 PM
|I'll be curious to see how soon it comes to XC mtbs. And then once it comes to XC mtbs, how long before it comes to road bikes? The whole thing is pretty amusing.
(btw, not trying to have the last word!)
Dec 20, 2001 4:40 PM
|Yeah, gawd knows we've killed far too many cyclists with piss-poor headset designs. I think I'm going to go to the gym and lift more so that I'll be able to take advantage of the dramatic improvements. |
Sure the claims are true, but it's still a solution looking for a problem. Help us identify the problem.
Dec 21, 2001 8:00 AM
|I don't think it's a problem on road bikes- and I don't think the people selling the system are even pretending that it would be useful on road bikes. They seem to have limited themselves to downhill, triple clamp forked, bikes- and there is a durability issue there.|
Dec 21, 2001 9:15 AM
|sinse invention of suspention fork MTB frames don't crack alone headtube no more /unless fork is set up to bottom out on every bump/
DH bikes are so overbuilt (~40-50lbs) and see so little miles (run lasts 2-6 minutes not hours) doubt you can crack one before it becomes obsolete.
if anything bikes with rigit forks /singlespeed MTBs, cyclocross and road/ would benefit more from wider Head tube. Rigit 1speed MTBs make up less then 1%, and cyclocross/road are kinda in process of getting bigger 1 1/8" headtube which is 26.6% stronger then 1".
So.. where is the problem?
Dec 21, 2001 9:25 AM
|I would have said the same thing about DH bikes before I spent the weekend at the collegiate national championships. Those guys were breaking stuff all over the place- and having routine 'oh my god is he alive?' crashes. I think the 1.5 is just another way to overbuild the DH bikes- but I hope to never see it on a cross country bike or a road bike.|
|Problem.. where?||Mel Erickson|
Dec 21, 2001 10:12 AM
|Downhillers have definite problems in the headtube area. Low seating depths cause ovalized head tubes. Headtube failures, although not a regular occurence, happen often enough to lead to a need for increased strength in this area. These bikes may not see alot of miles but the punishment they take is severe, more than any road bike would see in a lifetime. The proponents of this standard make no bones about it being aimed at the DH/Freeride crowd. I doubt we'll see it for road bikes, unless the designer/manufacturer already makes an oversized headtube like Cannondale. Lest we forget, the market is now driven by the MTB crowd. Innovations/improvements are most often aimed at them, not us on the road side.|
|speaking of ovalizing||cyclopathic|
Dec 21, 2001 7:53 PM
|was in LBS other day saw guy working on Jekyll 1000?swapping front triangle under warranty. Headtube ovalized second time in 1.5 years. "Hey" I thought, "that's the guy who would benefit from 1.5".. no.. wait.. he's already got 1.5 he just needs to learn in how to set up that Lefty."
ovalizing = fork is not set up properly = blows through all travel
simple formula I'll stick to it
Don't take me wrong I am all for 1.5" at least I would have an option to buy 4-bar frame and fit it with Lefty.
I just seriously doubt that it'll ever take off there're no real need. You have to be Shimano to shovel something like that down our throats. Headtube story is not knew though remember Gary Fisher tryed to convert everyone to 1.25?
|from one who've been riding 1.5 for a few years||cyclopathic|
Dec 20, 2001 8:52 PM
|Cdale have been making MTB frames (and road frames with silk) for quite a few years now.
They claim that 1.5 yields stronger and lighter headtube. I suppose they know what they're talking about.
Most of frame failures I've seen happen either alone Head Tube (less common) or in BB area, sometimes at seatstay attachment area.
in era rigit forks /and before they started putting reiforcement Bontrager style welds/ Head Tube separation was the most common MTB frame failure
|Right up there with ISIS||grzy|
Dec 20, 2001 1:03 PM
|It's a solution looking for a problem. Essentially you're only possible problem is if you do big drops. |
The DH crowd could almost be satisfied with buying a dirt bike and removing the engine. The bikes look more and more like this everyday.
|ISIS is a good thing...||ohio|
Dec 20, 2001 2:07 PM
|... square tapers suck, and have always sucked. They give you an inconsistent chain line, for 40 years people have debated whether or not to grease them, they're difficult to manufacture accurately (ever try to machine a 2 deg. taper?) and on MTBikes they WILL develop creaks eventually whether you do drops or not.
Nobody's pushing ISIS on roadies (though it is now available), but it's kind of nice when you can get a lighter, stiffer, stronger, more durable system for the same price or cheaper. Kind of like the aheadset. Boy did it suck when MTBikers started oppressing roadies with that pointless invention, eh griz?
As for the 1.5" standard, It makes sense for DH bikes but I don't think you'll ever see it on road bikes (except maybe cannondales...)
|ISIS is a good thing...||grzy|
Dec 20, 2001 4:36 PM
|Inconsistent chainline? Do tell. This must have something to do with the tremendous flexing of the interface - one wonders how anyone could have won anything riding one. No doubt the larger section of the BB allows for a stiffer design - all else being equal. |
Machining a 2 degree taper isn't much different from say a 3.5 degree taper or a Morse #2 taper and machinists have been doing it for a very long time. Once you have the tooling and the knowldege it's not very hard. Actually splines are harder to manufacture. Of course the beauty of the ISIS design is that it can be cobbed out by anyone with a CNC vertical milling machine and doesn't need to be broached. this really benifits the small shop cranking out a few dozen units at a time. Funny thing is that not that many people use the "new standard". they either run a Shimano Splined BB or run a square taper designed unit. That many manufacturers are dragging their feet coming out with ISIS compatible parts is telling. Or then one could look at the fact that Cannondale is licensed to produce cranks to the Shimano spline design.
I totally oppose your notion that you WILL develop creaks from a square taper. Got 30 years that says you're wrong and there are millions of other data points out there to back me up. One must remember that ISIS is just a reaction by the bike industry realizing that they can't rip-off Shimano's patented design. Or the other side of the coin would be that Shimano is using it's position and power to sew up the holes in the aftermarket world.
One must recognize that "standard" doesn't mean "better design". In fact "standards" are usually not among the best designs out - they're standards usually b/c of volume and marketing clout. It's the Beta vs. VHS VCR tape format thing. Most people agree that Beta is technically better, yet VHS is the standard. Size matters.
Ahead style systems make sense b/c of the limitations in a threaded/quill system when MTBing developed. that they carried over into the roadbike world is a testiment that a problem was being solved and that there was a better mouse trap. The "standard" was pushed by the bicycle manufacturers, not so much the after market high end crowd. The Ahead system actually saved money, inventory and time in manufacturing.
So one has to ask themselves, just exactly what buring issue does a 1.5" steerer solve?
|It really is...||TJeanloz|
Dec 21, 2001 8:06 AM
|Let's make a few basic assumptions- all else being equal, the Shimano splined system is better than a square taper BB- it's significantly stiffer at similar weight. The ISIS system was developed as a result of this fact. Shimano wasn't playing nice with the rest of the industry, and refused to license the spline pattern to anybody else. (The is SOP for Shimano, and the reason that they still don't make an A-Headset). The ISIS system isn't superior to the Shimano spline- it's heavier and it uses the same friction interface as the square taper. BUT the threat of a competing system lead Shimano to license their design, and thus, we owe the fact that there are non-Shimano cranks that fit Shimano bottom brackets to the ISIS threat.|
|ISIS is a good thing...||ohio|
Dec 21, 2001 12:36 PM
|True that any decent shop can handle 2 deg tapers, but the plethora of horrendous aftermarket MTB cranks from the early 90's should point to the fact that bike parts aren't always made by decent shops. The inconsistent chainline I was referring to is not from flex, it's is from the fact that the final press fit position of the crank on the spindle is highly dependent on both the amount of torque used to tighten the crank bolts, AND any wear that might have occured on the crank tapers.
Cannondale, FSA, and AC licensed the shimano design because they could afford to do so (ACs were a miserable failure; couldn't build them strong enough), and it kicks the pants off of a square taper system. I also don't see too many dragging feet in the aftermarket crank world... in MTBiking every reputable crank and BB manufacturer is producing a product compatible with either ISIS or Shimano. Road riding doesn't put cranks through the same abuse, which is why you don't see the same failure rate, which is also why aftermarket companies don't focus on the road market. There are no aftermarket cranks that have ever seen wide on-road usage simply because shimano and campy square taper has always been "strong enough." Even shimano wouldn't have switched if they hadn't developed the XTR spline for MTBiking. Which brings me to the next point.
I stated that IN MTBIKING square tapers will eventually creak. This is true. Road cranks rarely see the kind of impact forces generated by someone just bunnyhopping with the cranks at 9 and 3, let alone the force of a 6 foot drop. There is simply not enough material in the right places for the aluminum socket on a square taper crank to handle that force without some plastic deformation. Eventually it leads to creaks and/or bottoming the crank out on the BB.
Road bikes don't need ISIS, and I don't advocate making square taper unavailable to the road market. However, the technology and tooling are already there as a result of its NECESSITY in mountain biking, so if it CAN provide an appreciable benefit with no downside why not use it?
As for the 1.5" steerer, no one is proposing that road bikes use it. It's only application is freeride and downhill MTBikes where it does provide definite benefits. To be honest I think 1.5" is ridiculously large, and they'd be better off paying homage to the two Gary's of MTBiking and using a 1.25" steerer
Dec 20, 2001 7:52 PM
|Here's what the MTB crowd has to say||Mel Erickson|
Dec 21, 2001 7:40 AM
|(Taken from Pinkbike.com ...)
Thu Dec 20
Our good friends over at Rocky Mountain and Race Face along with a partnership of industry heavy-hitters, unveiled a new 1.5 inch standard steerer. The new oversized standard is built around a 1 1/2" steerer tube and will provide for a dramatic increase in performance, strength and durability of bicycles built for long travel forks and extreme use. The OnePointFive standard was developed not only by Race Face and Rocky, but Chris King, Answer/Manitou, and Cane Creek, while Intense and Park Tools provided their technical expertise. According to the group, the beefier standard is aimed at the freeride and long travel crowd. It is said to be 44% stronger and 134% stiffer than the current 1 1/8" steerer used by the industry. The standard further calls for minimum 25.4mm bore depth for headset cups (compared to 14mm today) which should eliminate ovalized headtubes. Bikes with the new standard should be available for the 2003 product year, and parts could be picked up much sooner. Visit www.onepointfivestandard.com for more information.
As the article says it's aimed at the DH crowd which does have issues with 1 1/8". It also solves a problem with inconsistent/variable bore depth and/or bore depths that are too shallow, primarily for downhill applications. I doubt this will leak over anytime soon, unless a manufacturer already has massive headtubes like Cannondale. Sounds like a solution to a problem rather than a solution searching for a problem to me.
|I love these discussions....n.m.||koala|
Dec 22, 2001 6:50 PM