# Any thoughts on new Manitou Travis 8" Single Crown fork



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Hi all,

Just wondering what your thoughts are on Manitou's idea of running a single crown, 1.5" steerer with 200mm travel? Would any of you buy this? Is there even a market for such an idea?

I know what some of you think of Manitou (aka Manipoo, to some people), but please keep your comments about them, out. I am strictly talking about the concept of a 1.5" steerer matted to a single crown with 200mm of travel.

Thanks
JJ


----------



## j6105 (Apr 10, 2004)

I think if someone needs 8 inches of travel, they will also be looking for a double crown fork.

The only reason I can see for its existance is lighter weight, but it will have to have a large weight savings to be worth it......... or save mucho $$$, take your pick.


----------



## Air Supplier (Feb 1, 2005)

Why have single crown when you can have a stronger fork with a double crown. It's not like you can be more nimble, it is just another way the fork can break!


----------



## Chikity China (May 3, 2004)

i personally would puke if i ever saw one in person. 8in for a single crown 1.5 steerer or not is just disgusting. who cares bout the pound u save? u could do that with some carbon fiber crap and lighter components


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

Im putting one on my session the day it comes out. Now I can throw X ups off every rock!


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

Innovation is good.

Try riding one instead of forming preconceived notions about how weak, stupid, or disgusting it is.


----------



## hardcore newbie (Nov 6, 2004)

alot of travel for a single crown!


----------



## Sombrio69 (Apr 21, 2005)

personaly i think it looks awsome. and if its bot strong and reliable, who cares if its a single crown or not


----------



## hughairboy188c (Mar 16, 2005)

Sombrio69 said:


> personaly i think it looks awsome. and if its bot strong and reliable, who cares if its a single crown or not


ya thats sick lookin. dc forks are just more of a hastle


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Its not like this fork is going to be prone to breaking. Manitou obviously engineered the fork to the point that they feel it is more than strong enough to hold up to the rigors of riding. Personally, I don't want one because I don't like the Travis forks. If there was a 8" single crown 40 or 888 I would be all over that. The concept of the 8" single crown is probably only really concieveable with a 1.5 headtube. The only other fork company that makes forks with a 1.5 that I can think of is Magura. So, if my choices are the Manitou Travis or some over-priced and hard to find Magura fork (probably won't ever exist anyway) then no, I'm not interested. But a 8" Fox or Marzocchi, or maybe even a new RockShox fork, then yes, I would be highly interested. The idea itself is a good one, luckily technology has finally caught up with us to the point where this is feasible. Its the same thing with air shocks. For some reason, most downhillers are afraid of new technology, and insult it or avoid it instead of giving it a fair chance. DC forks are going to go the way of rim brakes eventually, I'm sure of that. Its just a matter of time.


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Chikity China said:


> i personally would puke if i ever saw one in person. 8in for a single crown 1.5 steerer or not is just disgusting. who cares bout the pound u save? u could do that with some carbon fiber crap and lighter components


But get this: if you save a pound with the fork and with "some carbon fiber crap", you save.....

TWO POUNDS

oh my god!!!!


----------



## dante (Jan 12, 2004)

Chikity China said:


> i personally would puke if i ever saw one in person. 8in for a single crown 1.5 steerer or not is just disgusting. who cares bout the pound u save? u could do that with some carbon fiber crap and lighter components


anything bigger than 4" on a SC is just dumb. I mean, you have Judy XLs which are light enough and more than enough travel for today's riding.  God I'd puke if I ever saw a 5"+ SC. Ugh.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> But get this: if you save a pound with the fork and with "some carbon fiber crap", you save.....
> 
> TWO POUNDS
> 
> oh my god!!!!


I am sure that some of us can afford to loose 2 pounds from our bellies. Good point Andrewpalooza.


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

Some of you guys seriously think a 8 inch single crown with a 1.5 tube is goinf to be weak? hahaha!

Let's see, Manitou has a 7 in single crown with 32mm stanchions, it isn't weak. How is adding 1 inch of travel along with larger stanchions going to be a weak fork? Some of you guys are smoking crack.

Marzocchi has a 210mm fork with a 1-1/8 steerer and single crown, it isn't weak. The 66 only has 170mm of travel but the ride height is still equal to a 210 mm fork!!!!!!!!

As long as the crown is strong enough (I haven't seen any snapped sherman crowns, have you?) and they use the 1.5 tube, it should be every bit as strong as a dual crown fork. Dual crowns are there for stiffness, they don't do jack squat for making the stanchions stronger. Seeing as how these new single crowns are just as stiff and strong, there are no downsides. Having less weight, better turning, trick ability and equal strength ARE BIG improvements. I think moving to larger stanchioned long travel single crowns is a smart move and pretty soon we will have no need for DC forks.

Check out this video link. I think he's riding one of the new travis forks. I can't think of any other fork with black stanchions, single crown, and reverse arch, can you?
http://www.adidas.com/eyewear/homesite/index.asp


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Air Supplier said:


> Why have single crown when you can have a stronger fork with a double crown. It's not like you can be more nimble, it is just another way the fork can break!


How does an increase in turning radius and less weight NOT make a fork more nimble?


----------



## jp3d (Oct 9, 2004)

I think some people must just have some sort of wierd DC fetish. Or maybe they are just singlecrownaphobic.


----------



## Posernewbie (Jan 13, 2004)

anything bigger than 4" on a SC is just dumb. I mean, you have Judy XLs which are light enough and more than enough travel for today's riding. God I'd puke if I ever saw a 5"+ SC. Ugh. 


I hope you're kidding about the Judy XL.


----------



## RobsterCraw (Oct 19, 2004)

When I bought my bullit I ended up buying a 66RC because I couldn't afford a 888 and I was not about to get the crappy damping. In hindsight, I probably would still bought the 66 if I had the money for the 888. 66 is bad ass. Its just as stiff as the 888 and for those of us who occasionally pedal our bikes up a hill or two its nice to have the fork out of the way of my knees. 66 is sick and when I build up a trail bike i'll probably be picking between the z1 and the new lighter versions of the 66 coming out in 06.

Don't knock it till you try it, or till you see one snap at the steertube.


----------



## RED5 (Jan 4, 2004)

I'd rock one or something similiar.

Now what I want to know is when are the 7-8" travel SC air forks coming out????


----------



## mtnDescender (May 31, 2005)

I think it will be fine and jibber types will appreciate the ability to do more tricks off drops. 

Personally I like the moto look of DC forks. But if perfomance is the same why not go SC.


----------



## ajw8899 (Jan 28, 2004)

Zedro holy crap, just clump all these threads into one already.


----------



## Red Bull (Aug 27, 2004)

Well, from what i heard from Aaron Chase, a SC can never get as much oil flowing therefor never feel as good. But he also said that it might be a good idea for those who can only have one bike but want to be able to ride everywhere and do everything...


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

Red Bull said:


> Well, from what i heard from Aaron Chase, a SC can never get as much oil flowing therefor never feel as good. But he also said that it might be a good idea for those who can only have one bike but want to be able to ride everywhere and do everything...


Can you say bullsh!t. Tell AC to keep riding bikes and leave the tech talk to the engineers.


----------



## Raptordude (Mar 30, 2004)

I really like the new Travis, 8 inch on a single crown is a sketchy idea (Since most will buy a dual crown anyway). But as companies progress and push single crown to the limits, people that have a all purpose bike that want to huck and do downhill, will be happier.

What do I think about it? Great fork, bad system. 1.5 Headtube elimites the possibility of me getting one for my current bike, along with tons of other riders. Should I think about purchasing a 1.5 headtube on my next frame? Maybe. But fact is, all the other companies (Fox, Marzocchi, Rock Shox) all use 1 1/8th. I don't see the need for me to get 1.5 when I have loads of options with the standard headtube.

So I have the same epidemic, with ALL the Manitou forks. I want a Sherman Breakout, but its 1.5 Travis? 1.5 Their good forks, if they even work on your bike....so that leaves a lot of us in crappy situations.


----------



## BJ- (Jan 28, 2004)

TheSherpa said:


> Can you say bullsh!t. Tell AC to keep riding bikes and leave the tech talk to the engineers.


(laughing)

the poor lost soul needs role models, but anyways as far as im concerned they seem like a good enough idea, if lighter guys want forks with more travel but not the weight associated with it, then now they have options to consider. the 1.5" steerer sucks and as far as buying one goes, if i ever purchase another SC fork which i might in late 06' then it will be a 66rc, unless the height of the fork has been dramatically reduced...


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2005)

When is someone going to make a 8 inch single crown inverted fork


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Robot Chicken said:


> Some of you guys seriously think a 8 inch single crown with a 1.5 tube is goinf to be weak? hahaha!
> 
> Let's see, Manitou has a 7 in single crown with 32mm stanchions, it isn't weak. How is adding 1 inch of travel along with larger stanchions going to be a weak fork? Some of you guys are smoking crack.


Well, a marzocchi 66 has 35mm stanchions, and in 2006 it has a greatly reduced ride height too.

I sure hope manitou has moved past the 32mm chassi...


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Well, a marzocchi 66 has 35mm stanchions, and in 2006 it has a greatly reduced ride height too.
> 
> I sure hope manitou has moved past the 32mm chassi...


Travis' have 34mm stantions. n00b


----------



## Ohio_Huck (May 13, 2004)

no, actually, AC was right. if you have two identical forks, with the same diameter stanchions, ect, and one is single crown, one is dual crown, the dual crown one definatly has a larger interior volume, which most certainly can play a factor into the tunibility of it, and the smoothness of its travel. that being said, 35 mm stanchions offer alot more interior volume than something like a 30 mm stanchion (like the old super Ts). so the fork will definatly still feel great, but a DC version may be SLIGHTLY nicer feeling. 

as for strenght, as someone said earlier, DCs have nothing to do with strenght, and everything to do with stiffness. (if the fork bends, its gonna be right below the lower crown, and a DC or SC wont make a drop of difference). i have ridden sherman breakouts, and they are WAY stiffer than the marzocchi Super/Junior T forks. obviously, manitou has got the Single crown thing dialed, and even if you dont like the SPV dampening, you have to agree that those forks are wicked stiff. 

now, onto the whole 1.5 thing. it makes sense. ALL frames designed for even moderately abusive ridding should come with one. WHY? 

A. it would convince more manufactures to make 1.5 forks
B. if you want to run a 1.125 fork, feel free to. infact, reducer cups like the E13 ones actually make the headtube a shitload stronger, and pretty much impossible to ovalize. (theres a reason the IH sundays have 1.5 headtubes, and thats pretty much it)


so yeah. the travis line is gonna blow peoples minds. its gonna be an amazing fork, no matter which one you buy. the new open bath dampening, HUGE tire clearance, axle to crown length of a 888 with go ride crowns, A 6 LB WEIGHT! (vs 8+ lbs for the DC version), and all the benifits of a single crown (better turning radius, bar spins and a ton of tricks possible, no more hitting your knee on your fork, less risk of frame damage in a crash, ect ect. and oh yeah, lets not forget the price. these things are gonna actually be semi affordable. im absolutely getting one.


----------



## BJ- (Jan 28, 2004)

Ohio_Huck said:


> no, actually, AC was right. if you have two identical forks, with the same diameter stanchions, ect, and one is single crown, one is dual crown, the dual crown one definatly has a larger interior volume, which most certainly can play a factor into the tunibility of it, and the smoothness of its travel. that being said, 35 mm stanchions offer alot more interior volume than something like a 30 mm stanchion (like the old super Ts). so the fork will definatly still feel great, but a DC version may be SLIGHTLY nicer feeling.
> 
> as for strenght, as someone said earlier, DCs have nothing to do with strenght, and everything to do with stiffness. (if the fork bends, its gonna be right below the lower crown, and a DC or SC wont make a drop of difference). i have ridden sherman breakouts, and they are WAY stiffer than the marzocchi Super/Junior T forks. obviously, manitou has got the Single crown thing dialed, and even if you dont like the SPV dampening, you have to agree that those forks are wicked stiff.
> 
> ...


yeh if you can find a frame you like with a 1.5" head tube...


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 7, 2004)

Yeah inovation sucks. I remember when they said 5 inches of travel in the rear was "TOO MUCH...OMG IT MUST BE SO FLEXY...I bet so many of them are going to break"...innovation is a good thing in our sport, will I buy one...nope, not my style...but they are sexy.


----------



## DanD (Jan 15, 2004)

TheSherpa said:


> Can you say bullsh!t. Tell AC to keep riding bikes and leave the tech talk to the engineers.


 not just engineers, but teenagers on internet forums too


----------



## Majestix (Oct 5, 2004)

I just don't see the need for them...Who wants to be like a feather hucking a cliff? This is why Bender rides his billion lb/" fork. He wants to be sure he kills himself, not his fork..


----------



## Ace_Jellyfish (Dec 12, 2004)

according to knollybikes "The axle to crown length of the Travis 203 single is 595mm" which is the same as a 170mm 66rc.


----------



## RobsterCraw (Oct 19, 2004)

I think I'll be the first to say, I'm gonna wait and see before saying anything about this


----------



## freeride junkie (Feb 28, 2005)

*im shocked*

i like the idea of a single crown 8 inch but i dont see the point of them the fork looks mad but there is no point if you need 8 inchs of travel your not gunna give a stuff about the wieght and why sacrfie the tunablity and stiffness for a pound but like i said i like the idea and the travis looks the bomb i wood like to be riding one of these over most dcs anyday if you talk about astheticaly


----------



## RaD (Jan 12, 2004)

I personaly like the idea of a 8" single crown fork.
I think this technology could push our sport more progressively up to the edge.
I just imagine Rampage-like riding where riders are able to do Tailwhip-drops,Backflip to barspin, 360 barspin , etc, etc and other weired stuff with an 8" fork while they are going really huge in nasty terrain.
This could possibly lead Freeriding to the next level.
Just my thoughts...

Later
RaD


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

RaD said:


> I personaly like the idea of a 8" single crown fork.
> I think this technology could push our sport more progressively up to the edge.
> I just imagine Rampage-like riding where riders are able to do Tailwhip-drops,Backflip to barspin, 360 barspin , etc, etc and other weired stuff with an 8" fork while they are going really huge in nasty terrain.
> This could possibly lead Freeriding to the next level.
> ...


I think the problem most people will have is getting the "DC is stronger" myth out of their heads. Single crowns can be made every bit as strong.

I don't like the fact that DC forks limit turning on stunts, bash your frame on crashes, bash your knees, and weigh more.

As mentioned before, air/oil volumes are not even an issue with 34+mm stanchions.

IMO, the burly long travel single crowns look WAY cooler than DC forks.

That M3 is to die for! 

On the note of 1.5 head tubes. I think it's wise to make any single crown over 170mm a 1.5 fork. There's just less risk of the steerer snapping and ovalizing the head tube. These are critical issues with long travel forks. There are too many 1 1/8 head tubes out there that won't take such a force and stupid people are going to put these forks in them. By making it 1.5 they ensure that no one puts it into a frame not designed for big forks.


----------



## dream4est (May 21, 2003)

the two places a sc fork can fail easily on a big hit/landing/mistake is the base of the steerer and the stanchions right below the crown. the double crown fork is designed to stop a shear failure at those two critical spots by offering back up fore/aft support. they also handle side loads better.
this is why you see shear failures and twist failures on sc forks (like the sherman, a notorious twist failure fork.). 
i can do a big drop on a z150. but its not the same as a dh fork. lets see some freeride/dh results from pros first before passing too much judgement but imo dual crowns handle crashes and big hits better.


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

dream4est said:


> the two places a sc fork can fail easily on a big hit/landing/mistake is the base of the steerer and the stanchions right below the crown. the double crown fork is designed to stop a shear failure at those two critical spots by offering back up fore/aft support. they also handle side loads better.
> this is why you see shear failures and twist failures on sc forks (like the sherman, a notorious twist failure fork.).
> i can do a big drop on a z150. but its not the same as a dh fork. lets see some freeride/dh results from pros first before passing too much judgement but imo dual crowns handle crashes and big hits better.


You're saying people have broken the sherman? I would like to see proof of that! I've only seen shermans with broken lowers, NOT broken crowns, stanchions, or steerers. I bet you can't back that up with a single picture can you?

You are confused, I think. DC forks tend to snap below the crown at the stanchion. Single crowns tend to bend steerer tubes and snap crowns (on weak forks).

I doubt there's a single 1.5 sherman out there that has broken at the steerer, crown or stanchion. Sure there's some that break the lowers and internals, BUT NEVER THE UPPER PARTS!!!!

Given the Sherman's excellent track record for crown, stanchion and steerer strength, I can't imagine that a beefier 34mm, 1.5, burly crowned fork is going to be "weak" by any stretch.

Until someone shows scientific proof testing that single crowns are "weaker", I'm gonna have to call BS on the whole DC is better theory. The only people who know these numbers are the guys at Manitou. I'm confident they over built these forks EVEN MORE than they did with the Shermans (which never break above the lowers). I can't imagine how strong those 34mm stanchions are going to be!


----------



## upNdown (Jan 12, 2004)

*I think it looks goofy...*

I think it looks like the fake photoshopped forks people used to post as a gag.

As far as the SC vs DC argument, I don't think anybody will ever convince me that a SC can be as strong as a DC, all things being equal. It is entirely possible however that a SC would be strong enough for ME.

But the whole 1.5" heatube is a total dealbreaker.


----------



## mtnDescender (May 31, 2005)

Robot Chicken said:


> Until someone shows scientific proof testing that single crowns are "weaker", I'm gonna have to call BS on the whole DC is better theory.


It is not that SC are weaker in the current implementation of the design as done by Manitou.

However is it more difficult to engineer the same strength, durability, and stiffness for some metal rods that are at held at one end (single crown) than a longer rod held in place at two points (dual crown). So dual crowns have an inherent design advantage. This can be overcome with good design, manufacturing, and materials producing a SC that is strong enough for the loads a bike rider is expected to exert on a fork. But the thing is, if you apply the same level of quality design, manufacturing and materials to the DC chasis, it will produce a stronger fork. So DCs will still have an advantage. However, this advantage may be negligible given the forces involved, and SC will be more than strong enough. I think that we are probably at this point now.

DC forks have the following attributes which make them my choice for DH: 
-	You can fine tune the head angle and BB by moving the stanchions up and down within the crowns. This is an awesome feature. You can dail the A-C length exactly how you want it. 
-	Larger internal air volume. More room for oil, air, springs, dampers, etc. 
-	Some DC forks like the 888 actually have a smaller diameter stanchion in between the top and bottom crown. In the event of catastrophic loads, this provides a point of failure that won't ruin the bike frame, or the whole fork. 
- Lower A-C height for a given amount of travel. 
-	They look moto and super-rad!


----------



## freeride junkie (Feb 28, 2005)

long travel single crowns kick the arse of any dc forks astheticaly unless the dc is on a ht


----------



## dream4est (May 21, 2003)

Robot Chicken said:


> You're saying people have broken the sherman? I would like to see proof of that! I've only seen shermans with broken lowers, NOT broken crowns, stanchions, or steerers. I bet you can't back that up with a single picture can you?
> 
> You are confused, I think. DC forks tend to snap below the crown at the stanchion. Single crowns tend to bend steerer tubes and snap crowns (on weak forks).
> 
> ...


no like i said i have seen a couple of twist failures, resulting in bent crowns, stanchions and steerers. and they were both at the dj's on simple throwaways. they were bent and had they been jumped one more time i bet parts would have broke. sc forks are cool for playing around or djing but when it gets fast or huge dh forks win.


----------



## Severum (Sep 9, 2003)

Ohio_Huck said:


> as for strenght, as someone said earlier, DCs have nothing to do with strenght, and everything to do with stiffness. (if the fork bends, its gonna be right below the lower crown, and a DC or SC wont make a drop of difference). i have ridden sherman breakouts, and they are WAY stiffer than the marzocchi Super/Junior T forks. obviously, manitou has got the Single crown thing dialed, and even if you dont like the SPV dampening, you have to agree that those forks are wicked stiff.


I thought that dual crowns help spread the load of impacts to the upper and lower headset cups more equally than a singlecrown would. If this is true, I would never expect someone to huck huge with one of these travis 8" singlecrown forks.


----------



## austinb89 (Nov 6, 2004)

its a cool looking fork dont get me wrong. but it costs the same amount of a dual crown fork, why not get the etxra support with a second crown. also its only gonna be able to go on dh, fr bikes, and some hardtails. but the hardtails that it will be able to accept it, will be the same as the hardtails that can take the dual crown. why not just go dual? 

do i have a point? or am i wrong. this is my take on it lol


----------



## freeride junkie (Feb 28, 2005)

i want THAT m3


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Big single crown forks are going to catch on. That is why last year the market was suddenly flooded by 6 inch travel, light freeriding single crown forks. The Pike, Z1 FR1, Fox 36, and the 2005 Sherman Firefly are all evidence of that. There is also available 7 inch single crowns, the Sherman Breakout, and the Marzocchi 66. So why are people freaking out about an 8 inch single crown? Marzocchi made the 66 work without the 1.5 standard even. Eventually, the standard downhill fork will be a single crown with over 200mm of travel. Downhillers will be able to go much faster as the forks will be lighter and more maneuverable. I don't see this becoming the absolute standard for freeriding though, some big huckers might want the insurance of a double crown, but many will convert, and advance the sport with tricks that weren't possible before the creation of these forks, such as x-ups and barspins off of north shore trails. Regardless, the natural benefits of these forks will apply to everyone. Everyone likes to save weight, whether they admit it or not. Lighter bikes are superior to heavier ones if they can both perform at the same level. I don't think strength is going to be an issue with these forks either. People have broken plenty of DC forks, including weaksauce 40s, and I think that the new single crowns will prove to be just as strong and reliable as the current crop of forks. I am personally not that excited about the Manitou Travis (I am going to be getting its new XC brother, the R-Seven though  ). Once Fox, Marzocchi, etc., come up with some products in the same class, things will get interesting.


----------



## Ohio_Huck (May 13, 2004)

austinb89 said:


> its a cool looking fork dont get me wrong. but it costs the same amount of a dual crown fork, why not get the etxra support with a second crown. also its only gonna be able to go on dh, fr bikes, and some hardtails. but the hardtails that it will be able to accept it, will be the same as the hardtails that can take the dual crown. why not just go dual?
> 
> do i have a point? or am i wrong. this is my take on it lol


its cheap. the top of the line 200 mm SC versions are under a grand. by a decent amount. and yeah, they may not be for everyone. (thats why they make DC versions too) but for people who need the lower wieght, tighter turning radius, trickability, ect, its a sweet fork. plus its alot shorter than a 888


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> Big single crown forks are going to catch on... Once Fox, Marzocchi, etc., come up with some products in the same class, things will get interesting.


Do you really think that conservative Marzocchi is going to accept Manitou's new "standard"? Why would Marz. worry about such a design? Marzocchi has already perfected the long travel single crown fork, there would be no reason for them to start slamming 1.5" steerers into fork crowns. Have you seen the lower section of the steerer tube on the 66? Marz., damn near, uses a rod inside the fork crown. So, the 66's have plenty of strength and plenty of travel(170mm), what else do they need?

My guess is that Marz. and Fox will let Manitou ride the 1.5" steerer out for a couple more years, just until more frame manufactures pick up on the 1.5" standard. Why would Marz. and Fox waste money on a new steerer when they can let Manitou feel the market. The ball is definetely in the frame manufactures court on the whole 1.5" steerer concept. Manitou is definetely going to have to have very large margins on those forks in order for frame manufactures to accept the new design.


----------



## RideTURNER128 (Jun 7, 2005)

Chikity China said:


> i personally would puke if i ever saw one in person. 8in for a single crown 1.5 steerer or not is just disgusting. who cares bout the pound u save? u could do that with some carbon fiber crap and lighter components


I run a FOX 40RC2 on my DHR and love it but the one that sucks about dual crown forks is smashing your knees against the crowns


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

RobsterCraw said:


> When I bought my bullit I ended up buying a 66RC because I couldn't afford a 888 and I was not about to get the crappy damping. In hindsight, I probably would still bought the 66 if I had the money for the 888. 66 is bad ass. Its just as stiff as the 888 and for those of us who occasionally pedal our bikes up a hill or two its nice to have the fork out of the way of my knees. 66 is sick and when I build up a trail bike i'll probably be picking between the z1 and the new lighter versions of the 66 coming out in 06.
> 
> Don't knock it till you try it, or till you see one snap at the steertube.


Aha - you are on point! I keep seeing comments as to how the stanchions will fail on an SC - DC's dont strengthen the stanchions, they strengthen the steer tube. If anything an SC would be less likely to fail at the stanchions because the steer tube deflects some absorbing a portion of that force.

Why the hate.. SC is the future, maybe not 1.5, but bless manitou for having the balls to get us to 6,7 and now 8 with the Single Crowns! (although I will b e rocking the 66, they still 'blazed the trail/way')


----------



## Red Bull (Aug 27, 2004)

BJ- said:


> (laughing)
> 
> the poor lost soul needs role models, but anyways as far as im concerned they seem like a good enough idea, if lighter guys want forks with more travel but not the weight associated with it, then now they have options to consider. the 1.5" steerer sucks and as far as buying one goes, if i ever purchase another SC fork which i might in late 06' then it will be a 66rc, unless the height of the fork has been dramatically reduced...


Umm, or i was just Qouting him...


----------



## Red Bull (Aug 27, 2004)

BJ- said:


> yeh if you can find a frame you like with a 1.5" head tube...


Umm, Turner DHR, Iron Horse Sunday, Iron Horse 7 point 7, Intense Uzzi VPX...


----------



## austinb89 (Nov 6, 2004)

Ohio_Huck said:


> its cheap. the top of the line 200 mm SC versions are under a grand. by a decent amount. and yeah, they may not be for everyone. (thats why they make DC versions too) but for people who need the lower wieght, tighter turning radius, trickability, ect, its a sweet fork. plus its alot shorter than a 888


really thats interesting aboutbeing shorter than an 888. i think its a cool fork, and i would take one if i had the chance. buttttt i have a thing for dual crowns lol


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> Do you really think that conservative Marzocchi is going to accept Manitou's new "standard"? Why would Marz. worry about such a design? Marzocchi has already perfected the long travel single crown fork, there would be no reason for them to start slamming 1.5" steerers into fork crowns. Have you seen the lower section of the steerer tube on the 66? Marz., damn near, uses a rod inside the fork crown. So, the 66's have plenty of strength and plenty of travel(170mm), what else do they need?
> 
> My guess is that Marz. and Fox will let Manitou ride the 1.5" steerer out for a couple more years, just until more frame manufactures pick up on the 1.5" standard. Why would Marz. and Fox waste money on a new steerer when they can let Manitou feel the market. The ball is definetely in the frame manufactures court on the whole 1.5" steerer concept. Manitou is definetely going to have to have very large margins on those forks in order for frame manufactures to accept the new design.


Where in the hell did I mention Marz using a 1.5 headtube? In fact, I clearly stated that Marz does just fine making long travel single crowns with the 1.125 steerer. Read the whole post next time. I was talking about the concept of a 8 inch single crown, not the steerer tube. 

Anyway, you do make a good point about 1.5s catching on. Although I think that it is already starting to happen. There are a good number of companies out there that already make 1.5 frames, and I think the next step is for higher end companies like Turner, Foes, etc. "(just examples, don't get technical on me) to start offering a 1.5 headtube as an option to frame buyers. Once most frames have a 1.5 headtube, I would imagine that some fork companies switch too. Wouldn't be surprised if some stayed with 1.125. Also, when is Chris King going to make a 1.5 headset...that will be a huge step forward. I believe that the technical specs and drawings are available for anyone to access, so, yeah, the proverbial ball is in the frame builders court.


----------



## SpecialBrew (Apr 4, 2005)

God...where is my 15" single crown fork, DC forks are for ball-lickers and road bikers


----------



## Red Bull (Aug 27, 2004)

Andrewpalooza said:


> are a good number of companies out there that already make 1.5 frames, and I think the next step is for higher end companies like Turner, Foes, etc. "(just examples, don't get technical on me) to start offering a 1.5 headtube as an option to frame buyers.


I guess you havent seen a DHR lately...


----------



## knollybikes.com (Jan 8, 2004)

*Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!*



Huck Banzai said:


> Aha - you are on point! I keep seeing comments as to how the stanchions will fail on an SC - DC's dont strengthen the stanchions, they strengthen the steer tube. If anything an SC would be less likely to fail at the stanchions because the steer tube deflects some absorbing a portion of that force.
> 
> Why the hate.. SC is the future, maybe not 1.5, but bless manitou for having the balls to get us to 6,7 and now 8 with the Single Crowns! (although I will b e rocking the 66, they still 'blazed the trail/way')


Cheers for the most intelligent post in this thread! Exactly correct about the failure methode of SC Vs. DC forks, all things being equal...

Increasing travel from 7" to 8" is nothing major - it's the ENTIRE lever length of the fork which detemines torque on the steerer/crown/stanction area, not the amount of travel. The 8" Travis can probably generate about 11-15% more torque on that area over the 7" Sherman - due to the extra travel and the stiffer 34mm stanctions. This is a small strength difference requirement and easily designed into newer crown designs.

Sure, a DC fork is almost certainly going to have better torsional and for/aft rigidity: however for all but the heaviest, strongest riders, the SC versions are going to be plenty stiff enough. And, the reduction in weight is noticeable. Manitou is going to have an 8" SC fork that weighs almost 2 pounds less than the same offering by Marzocchi - with a lower AC length as well.



JohnyJammer said:


> Do you really think that conservative Marzocchi is going to accept Manitou's new "standard"? Why would Marz. worry about such a design? Marzocchi has already perfected the long travel single crown fork, there would be no reason for them to start slamming 1.5" steerers into fork crowns. Have you seen the lower section of the steerer tube on the 66? Marz., damn near, uses a rod inside the fork crown. So, the 66's have plenty of strength and plenty of travel(170mm), what else do they need?
> 
> My guess is that Marz. and Fox will let Manitou ride the 1.5" steerer out for a couple more years, just until more frame manufactures pick up on the 1.5" standard. Why would Marz. and Fox waste money on a new steerer when they can let Manitou feel the market. The ball is definetely in the frame manufactures court on the whole 1.5" steerer concept. Manitou is definetely going to have to have very large margins on those forks in order for frame manufactures to accept the new design.


I totally agree with your second paragraph here - I think you're right about other companies letting Manitou vet out the 1.5" market - _as far as forks are concerned_. However, MANY frame companies are doing 1.5" head tubes now. Sure, perhaps not the biggest ones (i.e. Specialized and Giant), but the Trek session series now sports them, as well as IH 7.7s and Sundays, Cannondales, Devincis, etc... Also, a lot of the smaller companies are on board as well (Evil, Turner, Intense, even ourselves!). It IS the way of the future for any bike designed for somewhat abusive riding and beyond. As has been said many times before, NOT because of forks but because of the whole head tube / head set ovalization issue. It is simply a stronger interface and you can use ANY fork on the market.

I also disagree strongly with the statement about Marzocchi having "perfected" the long travel single crown fork. Certainly the 888 and it's single crown cousin the 66 feel awesome - I have an 888 on my bike and love it - however, the 66 is WAY heavier than Manitou's offerings, and has a huge AC (axle to crown) length disadvantage. Yes, the AC issue is supposedly going to be fixed for 2006 (at least in the DC designs), but this still negatively affects the geometry of a lot of bikes. 1.5" head tubes actually HELP Marzocchi here by the fact that they accept zero stack headsets, which can reduce the AC length by about 8-10mm.

1.5" is a no-brainer for any FR/DH frame manufacturer. There is no downside (apart from perhaps having to retool) and the upside is great: Stronger head tube / head set interface, greater weld area between the head tube and the main frame tubes, option to run ANY fork on the market, lower AC lengths for tall forks, bigger headset bearings... All for perhaps a 50 gram weight penalty, which in the case of SC forks is more than made up by the 500-600 gram penalty for having to use a 1.125" STEEL steerer as opposed to a 1.5" aluminum one...


----------



## Andrewpalooza (Dec 7, 2004)

Red Bull said:


> I guess you havent seen a DHR lately...


I said don't get technical, ie. don't nit pick.  I'm not exactly a Turner expert...I don't own one and don't plan to own one, so I never researched their headtube sizes. Cry about it.

The point is, when a high end manufacturer, for example, Turner, offers a 1.5 option on their frames (Six Pack, etc.), then that will go a long way in the widespread acceptance of the 1.5 standard. The only company that I can think of off of the top of my head that currently does this in Nicolai. Personally I think all freeride and downhill frames should come with a 1.5 headtube and a stock set of reducer cups to 1.125. That way, if you want to run a Sherman or Travis, you just pull out the cups and go, but if you want a normal fork, you just press the headset in like any other bike. Somebody above said this was stronger anyway (the 1.5 HT with 1.125 reducers) This is more expensive for the companies, obviously, but if it catches on it could mean money.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

knollybikes.com said:


> It IS the way of the future for any bike designed for somewhat abusive riding and beyond. As has been said many times before, NOT because of forks but because of the whole head tube / head set ovalization issue. It is simply a stronger interface and you can use ANY fork on the market.
> 
> I also disagree strongly with the statement about Marzocchi having "perfected" the long travel single crown fork. Certainly the 888 and it's single crown cousin the 66 feel awesome - I have an 888 on my bike and love it - however, the 66 is WAY heavier than Manitou's offerings, and has a huge AC (axle to crown) length disadvantage. Yes, the AC issue is supposedly going to be fixed for 2006 (at least in the DC designs), but this still negatively affects the geometry of a lot of bikes. 1.5" head tubes actually HELP Marzocchi here by the fact that they accept zero stack headsets, which can reduce the AC length by about 8-10mm.
> 
> 1.5" is a no-brainer for any FR/DH frame manufacturer. There is no downside (apart from perhaps having to retool) and the upside is great: Stronger head tube / head set interface, greater weld area between the head tube and the main frame tubes, option to run ANY fork on the market, lower AC lengths for tall forks, bigger headset bearings... All for perhaps a 50 gram weight penalty, which in the case of SC forks is more than made up by the 500-600 gram penalty for having to use a 1.125" STEEL steerer as opposed to a 1.5" aluminum one...


Hi KnollyBikes,

Many good points were brought up. Yes, the ovalization problem associated with 1.125" steeres could be solved with the new 1.5" standard. Yes, the 66 could lose some weight, and possibly lose a little AC height, but as far as the ovalization of the head tube idea, all frame manufactures have to do is use double butted head tube stock. So, make ends of the head tube thicker walled(thicker than what is currently being used): not only would that strengthen the problem areas, but it would also be light. That would solve the ovalization problem. As for the AC height, manufactures should factor that into the design of their bikes.

Strictly speaking asthetically, a >1.5" head tube matted to a SC fork with a 1.125" steerer is just silly. Although a >1.5" steerer matted to a DC fork might look good.

JJ


----------



## Ohio_Huck (May 13, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> Hi KnollyBikes,
> 
> Many good points were brought up. Yes, the ovalization problem associated with 1.125" steeres could be solved with the new 1.5" standard. Yes, the 66 could lose some weight, and possibly lose a little AC height, but as far as the ovalization of the head tube idea, all frame manufactures have to do is use double butted head tube stock. So, make ends of the head tube thicker walled(thicker than what is currently being used): not only would that strengthen the problem areas, but it would also be light. That would solve the ovalization problem. As for the AC height, manufactures should factor that into the design of their bikes.
> 
> ...


but still. 1.5 not only offers the benifits of a stronger head tube, but it allows you to run zero stack headsets, use any fork on the market, make a stronger headtube junction, the list just goes on and on. there really is no downside to running a 1.5 headtube. seriously, any bike above XC bikes should have a 1.5 headtube. just like all bikes and forks should run a 20 mm axle. yeah, a tiny bit of extra weight, but it makes the whole front end stiffer, stronger, and more responsive, plus you get to use bigger, stronger bearings (same with a 1.5 headtube).

and who cares if a long travel fork looks "silly"? trials bikes look really "silly" but they are made that way for the benifits that design offers. and a long travel SC fork is exactly the same way.


----------



## ajw8899 (Jan 28, 2004)

Red Bull said:


> Umm, Turner DHR, Iron Horse Sunday, Iron Horse 7 point 7, Intense Uzzi VPX...


Gemini


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

ajw8899 said:


> Gemini


Evil Imperial

Sinister Ridge

RM Switch

Yeti ASX

etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc....

1.5 is a good idea - there is no downside; alot of upsides. Anyone complainign about 150mm/165mm rear hubs? Thru axles? Hydraulic brakes? Internal Gearing?

I have heard people say that these things make stuff expensive - hell when I first considered a DH/FR rig,you copuldnt build one for less than 5g's - now you can get a decent big hit bike for 2500 and some full on DH sleds for less than 3500 (But now somehow XC bikes can cost 6000, road bikes too.. that will always confuse me)


----------



## frorider (Apr 2, 2005)

like anyone with an actual engineering background, knolly got it right. 

repeat it slowly to yourself: from a frame/ST interface point of view, there are no downsides to the 1.5 standard. 'no downsides', as in no downsides. for those of you still unclear on the bottom line, let me spell it out for you: no downsides. even if you run a 1.125 ST fork...no downsides.

sure, we can limp along with the 1.125 HT by using workaround solutions. steel steerer tubes. deep penetration headsets that are a b*tch to remove. tall cross-section SC crowns that attempt to stiffen things up in terms of steerer tube / crown interface area increase, but raise the axle-to-crown distance to ridiculous heights. these are all half-azzed bandaid solutions that result from using the same size HT as all those tour de france roadies are using on their 2 lb carbon frames.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Ohio_Huck said:


> but still. 1.5 not only offers the benifits of a stronger head tube, but it allows you to run zero stack headsets, use any fork on the market, make a stronger headtube junction, the list just goes on and on. there really is no downside to running a 1.5 headtube. seriously, any bike above XC bikes should have a 1.5 headtube. just like all bikes and forks should run a 20 mm axle. yeah, a tiny bit of extra weight, but it makes the whole front end stiffer, stronger, and more responsive, plus you get to use bigger, stronger bearings (same with a 1.5 headtube).


So, a DC fork should have a 1.5" steer tube? Why do people think that a larger head tube will make a stronger front end? When manufactures decide to use paper thin head tube stock, of course people are going to have troubles with them. If they would only use thicker-walled material. The Banshee line up is a very good example.

As far as "bigger, stronger bearings", there is much that can be said for a 1.125" diameter tapper roller bearing. FSA Sky Pilot is the only head set that I know of that uses them.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> So, a DC fork should have a 1.5" steer tube? Why do people think that a larger head tube will make a stronger front end? When manufactures decide to use paper thin head tube stock, of course people are going to have troubles with them. If they would only use thicker-walled material. The Banshee line up is a very good example.


This is flat wrong. Even by using a super-thick headtube, it will never be as strong as a 1.5. It's physics and engineering. The larger structure is much stronger and resistant to ovalization, even with less wall thickness.

The banshee line is a good example of non-engineering. If it breaks, add a gusset. If it breaks again, add another gusset. Make the headtube an inch thick. By the time you are done, you end up with a 15lb frame that may be strong, but the same strength could be achieved by engineering it correctly and saving tons of weight.


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

Jm. said:


> This is flat wrong. Even by using a super-thick headtube, it will never be as strong as a 1.5. It's physics and engineering. The larger structure is much stronger and resistant to ovalization, even with less wall thickness.
> 
> The banshee line is a good example of non-engineering. If it breaks, add a gusset. If it breaks again, add another gusset. Make the headtube an inch thick. By the time you are done, you end up with a 15lb frame that may be strong, but the same strength could be achieved by engineering it correctly and saving tons of weight.


Exactly!

I WILL REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN SAID. THERE IS NOOOOOO DOWNSIDE TO 1.5!!!

I think the lower stack height for 1.5 to 1 1/8 conversions is a super sweet benefit. The 1.5 steerer standard has many other advantages too. This also includes resistance to twisting forces. A 1.5 steerer is going to have much better stiffness and strength where it is connected into the fork crown. Combine this with large stanchions and you have one hell of a stiff/bombproof fork.

Until we start seeing 66 forks snap left and right (hell even see ONE snap) all you single crown haters can eat it!


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Well, the shear stress on a tube1: 1.125" inner D., 1.255" outer D., .065 wall thickness
is .411727 ksi given a 100lb shear force.

Shear stress on tube2: 1.5" inner D., 1.598" outer D., .049 wall thickness
is .419587 ksi given a 100lb shear force.

note: inner and outer diameters are NOT accurate. They are merely examples. Take note of the wall thicknesses.



Jm. said:


> Even by using a super-thick headtube, it will never be as strong as a 1.5. It's physics and engineering.


That is an example of how a "super-thick" headtube is "stronger."

So, shear stress is less in the smaller diameter, thicker walled tubing.


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

JohnyJammer said:


> Well, the shear stress on a tube1: 1.125" inner D., 1.255" outer D., .065 wall thickness
> is .411727 ksi given a 100lb shear force.
> 
> Shear stress on tube2: 1.5" inner D., 1.598" outer D., .049 wall thickness
> ...


Wow, you really dont want to be wrong huh?

Forget numbers, whats the downsides? Plain english.

NO, triple clamps will not be stiffer/stronger with a 1.5, but the frame will be!! Please notice the thread we're in *8" SC Travis* - HELLO - Point is to eliminate the need for DC....


----------



## knollybikes.com (Jan 8, 2004)

*Sorry - but this is wrong too...*



JohnyJammer said:


> Well, the shear stress on a tube1: 1.125" inner D., 1.255" outer D., .065 wall thickness
> is .411727 ksi given a 100lb shear force.
> 
> Shear stress on tube2: 1.5" inner D., 1.598" outer D., .049 wall thickness
> ...


A 1.125" headtube can certainly be made as strong in a "shear" or "tensile" situation as a 1.5 headtube by adding extra thickness. HOWEVER, you are completely ignoring the fact that the interface area between a 1.5 head tube and a 1.5 headset is about 3-4 times greater than the interface area of a typical 1.125 head tube and a 1.125" head set. This means much higher localized stresses which lead to localized plastic deformation with a lot less torque on the head tube / headset assembly. The whole head tube need not fail to be ovalized - only the region under the highest stress.

This is why King builds a steel set headset with 20mm long cup skirts. By your analogy, the cup skirt length is irrelevant. I would disagree. By increasing the interface area, you effectively distribute the stress over a much greater area. 1.125" can NEVER match 1.5" in this regard. PERIOD. And while the King steal set may be stronger than all other regular 1.125" headsets, again, the smaller diameter of 1.125" will still mean higher stress concentrations compared to 1.5".

As several other posters have mentioned, there is NO downside to 1.5 at all. Perhaps for the lightest XC bikes, an exception can be made, but otherwise, it just makes good sense for both the consumer and the manufacturer. No warranty issues for the manufacturer, and no down time for the consumer. Forks are a red-hearing for 1.5" head tubes. It's not about the forks, but about saving frames. Sure, the breakout or new travis forks are nice: light, stiff, and strong - a combination that is not possible to achieve with a 1.125" steerer, but the real issue as I said is about saving frames from ovalization.

Sorry - I don't want to get all bent out of shape (pun intended), but please ensure that your information is accurate before posting.

Cheers,


----------



## Tarpon (Jan 16, 2004)

*Here is another example*



Jm. said:


> The banshee line is a good example of non-engineering. If it breaks, add a gusset. If it breaks again, add another gusset. Make the headtube an inch thick. By the time you are done, you end up with a 15lb frame that may be strong, but the same strength could be achieved by engineering it correctly and saving tons of weight.


The head tube of the Demo series. Rather than use 1.5 tubing they design a forging. This is very expensive and offers the customer no benifit. But then the Demo series was all about engineering masturbation anyway.


----------



## JSUN (Jun 22, 2004)

As long as you're not using STAR NUTS, I dont think anyone will have a problem with the rigidity or durability of a 8" SC as opposed to a DC.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

knollybikes.com said:


> A 1.125" headtube can certainly be made as strong in a "shear" or "tensile" situation as a 1.5 headtube by adding extra thickness. HOWEVER, you are completely ignoring the fact that the interface area between a 1.5 head tube and a 1.5 headset is about 3-4 times greater than the interface area of a typical 1.125 head tube and a 1.125" head set. This means much higher localized stresses which lead to localized plastic deformation with a lot less torque on the head tube / headset assembly. The whole head tube need not fail to be ovalized - only the region under the highest stress.
> 
> Sorry - I don't want to get all bent out of shape (pun intended), but please ensure that your information is accurate before posting.
> 
> Cheers,


Hi Knolly,

As much as you like accurate information, I do too. 
A 1.5" headset: 49.65mm x 10mm(approx.) deep has a surface area of A1=3118.02mm^2 for both T & B cups.

A 1.125" headset: 34mm x 10mm(approx.) deep has a surface area A2=2135.2mm^2 for both T & B cups.

A1/A2=1.46 Therefore, the interface between a 1.5" headset and the 1.5" standard head tube is only .46 greater than that of a 1.125" headset and 1.125" standard head tube. Where "3-4 times greater" came from, I do not know.

The shear stress calcs were there to show that the numbers are similar. I was simply pointing out that a "thicker", 1.125" standard head tube, has the equivalent shear numbers as the "thinner" 1.5" standard head tube.


----------



## dante (Jan 12, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> Hi Knolly,
> 
> As much as you like accurate information, I do too.
> A 1.5" headset: 49.65mm x 10mm(approx.) deep has a surface area of A1=3118.02mm^2 for both T & B cups.
> ...


so he was estimating. 50% more surface area is a LOT, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Tarpon (Jan 16, 2004)

JohnyJammer said:


> Hi Knolly,
> 
> As much as you like accurate information, I do too.
> A 1.5" headset: 49.65mm x 10mm(approx.) deep has a surface area of A1=3118.02mm^2 for both T & B cups.
> ...


You need to do more homework. The 1.5 standard calls out a max insertion depth of 22mm. As an example, the FSA Orbit Extreme has a 21mm insertion depth. Using the right insertion depth puts the area difference at 3X like Knolly said.


----------



## themarsvolta55 (Dec 23, 2004)

TheSherpa said:


> Can you say bullsh!t. Tell AC to keep riding bikes and leave the tech talk to the engineers.


wow, all hail the wise sherpa


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

dante said:


> so he was estimating. 50% more surface area is a LOT, wouldn't you say?


For all,

The point of this argument was to show that conventional (1.125") stuff can be made as "strong" as any new(1.5") stuff. Yes, there is a weight penalty to the frame of the "thicker" 1.125" headtube, but that is compensated for in the "thinner" 1.5" headtube plus the bigger headset, and larger diameter steerer. I am not saying that I am against new technology, in fact I excourage it, but what I am saying is that you need not always be quick to shun away from convention in favor of new things.

For the comments about Banshee bikes, my reference was only to the head tube, not the gusseting or anything else.

JJ


----------



## Robot Chicken (Jun 3, 2005)

JohnyJammer said:


> For all,
> 
> The point of this argument was to show that conventional (1.125") stuff can be made as "strong" as any new(1.5") stuff. Yes, there is a weight penalty to the frame of the "thicker" 1.125" headtube, but that is compensated for in the "thinner" 1.5" headtube plus the bigger headset, and larger diameter steerer. I am not saying that I am against new technology, in fact I excourage it, but what I am saying is that you need not always be quick to shun away from convention in favor of new things.
> 
> ...


There's other reasons other than head tube strength. One example is the fact that you can have a larger weld area from the top/down tubes to the head tube.

One drawback from 1.5 tubes us they also lessen turning radius for DC forks.


----------



## JohnyJammer (Nov 10, 2004)

Robot Chicken said:


> There's other reasons other than head tube strength. One example is the fact that you can have a larger weld area from the top/down tubes to the head tube.
> 
> One drawback from 1.5 tubes us they also lessen turning radius for DC forks.


Hi RB,

Well that make a lot of sense.

With hydroforming, steering radius for a DC should be minimally impacted, nontheless a viable concern.

Thanks,
JJ


----------



## knollybikes.com (Jan 8, 2004)

*Not to beat a dead horse...*

...but two quick points:

Firstly: 1.5 headtubes do NOT decrease the turning angle of dual crown forks.

Secondly, as Tarpon mentioned, the 1.5 standard calls for a 20mm insertion length for the headset cup skirt. Now we have three times the surface area of 1.125" headsets.

Again, you can NEVER make a 1.125" headset / head tube interface as strong as a 1.5.

Cheers,


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

Robot Chicken said:


> There's other reasons other than head tube strength. One example is the fact that you can have a larger weld area from the top/down tubes to the head tube.
> 
> One drawback from 1.5 tubes us they also lessen turning radius for DC forks.


1.5 has 0 effect on the turning radius - where the heck did that tidbit come from?


----------



## dante (Jan 12, 2004)

Huck Banzai said:


> 1.5 has 0 effect on the turning radius - where the heck did that tidbit come from?


to make use of the larger weld surface, you need larger top-tube/down-tubes, which end up limiting the turning radius on dual crown forks. if you use the same small tubes that you would use for a 1 1/8" headtube, you won't gain the benefit of the larger weld area.

I think.


----------



## Red Bull (Aug 27, 2004)

Well, my Demo has a small turning radius, even with my 40. And it has a 1.125 Head Tube...

I think its only relative to certain frames...

(Why didnt i just qoute Dante  )


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

I rode a Yeti ASX with a 2004 super-T on it; the tuning radius sucked. As Dante said, it was becuase of the monster sized TT and DT.Too bad, it would have been a perfect bike with a 66!

I understand what everybody says here, despite the war of words. Bottom line is that having both 1.5 and a dual crown fork is total overkill for most riders, at least it is for me.

1.5 headtube with an 1.125 SC marzocchi and reducer headset featuring OS bearings? Nothing to lose there!



dante said:


> to make use of the larger weld surface, you need larger top-tube/down-tubes, which end up limiting the turning radius on dual crown forks. if you use the same small tubes that you would use for a 1 1/8" headtube, you won't gain the benefit of the larger weld area.
> 
> I think.


----------



## Tarpon (Jan 16, 2004)

*Bingo...*



Red Bull said:


> Well, my Demo has a small turning radius, even with my 40. And it has a 1.125 Head Tube...
> 
> I think its only relative to certain frames...
> 
> (Why didnt i just qoute Dante  )


The frame/fork combination is important. Here is a shot of two different 1.5 setups, imagine the Imperial with a Slider.


----------



## ajw8899 (Jan 28, 2004)

Huck Banzai said:


> Evil Imperial
> 
> Sinister Ridge


An 8 inch single crown on a hardtail. Now that is disgusting.


----------



## The Kadvang (Jul 25, 2004)

Red Bull said:


> Well, my Demo has a small turning radius, even with my 40. And it has a 1.125 Head Tube...
> 
> I think its only relative to certain frames...
> 
> (Why didnt i just qoute Dante  )


You are gay.


----------



## Red Bull (Aug 27, 2004)

The Kadvang said:


> You are gay.


And i did your mom last night.


----------



## Red Bull (Aug 27, 2004)

The Kadvang said:


> You are gay.


Umm, or i was saying that because 40's are wide forks.


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

Red Bull said:


> Umm, or i was saying that because 40's are wide forks.


That would make them have a large turning radius. n00b.


----------



## Red Bull (Aug 27, 2004)

TheSherpa said:


> That would make them have a large turning radius. n00b.


Yes, but on the Demo's they dont, due to the large tt and dt... Showing that the whole 1.5 vs. 1.125 DC turning radius handicap isnt completely true...


----------



## erol/frost (Jan 3, 2004)

Prechrysler said:


> Innovation is good.
> 
> Try riding one instead of forming preconceived notions about how weak, stupid, or disgusting it is.


Word and teh wisests words i have read here for a long time.


----------



## erol/frost (Jan 3, 2004)

Ohio_Huck said:


> but still. 1.5 not only offers the benifits of a stronger head tube, but it allows you to run zero stack headsets, use any fork on the market, make a stronger headtube junction, the list just goes on and on. there really is no downside to running a 1.5 headtube. seriously, any bike above XC bikes should have a 1.5 headtube. just like all bikes and forks should run a 20 mm axle. yeah, a tiny bit of extra weight, but it makes the whole front end stiffer, stronger, and more responsive, plus you get to use bigger, stronger bearings (same with a 1.5 headtube).
> 
> and who cares if a long travel fork looks "silly"? trials bikes look really "silly" but they are made that way for the benifits that design offers. and a long travel SC fork is exactly the same way.


Bestest post ever. Applauds and cheers.


----------



## themarsvolta55 (Dec 23, 2004)

Chikity China said:


> i personally would puke if i ever saw one in person. 8in for a single crown 1.5 steerer or not is just disgusting. who cares bout the pound u save? u could do that with some carbon fiber crap and lighter components


wow........


----------



## 888bighit (Feb 23, 2005)

TheSherpa said:


> Can you say bullsh!t. Tell AC to keep riding bikes and leave the tech talk to the engineers.


dumb*ss


----------



## VolcomStone (Aug 6, 2005)

well the only thing that i would like to see is that they beef up the stanchions to a 36, im looking for a new fork for my session and i tink i may have just found it


----------

