[kidwoo]

I know the egg came before the chicken but there are two bikes out with 1.5 headtubes........neither of which are the DH specific model. Are there any plans to stick one of those master cylinders on the M3 frames?

I post this here under the assumtion that there are some other folks curious about this and a phone call would be selfish.

I for one think it would be a great asset and would make me more inclined to buy one. From a durability standpoint.

Thanks

 

[coma13]

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=149936

the black one posted w/ the travis single and the pink one both look like 1.5 head tubes to me.

 

[kidwoo]

That black one is obviously a 1.5....otherwise that fork wouldn't be on there.

So find where I can buy that one-off then?


I know intense made a few of the uzzi slx frames with 1.5s which came before the M3s. Production versions are what I'm interested in though..........cuz that's what I can actually buy.

 

[n10'sGuy]

No plans at the moment for production 1.5's on M3's.

The bikes you have seen with 1.5 were team bikes from last year. The DH arena is still double triple clamp grounds, mostly. We are making a special batch of 140 medium M3's right now (added, due to demand) they will not have 1.5

 

[kidwoo]

No plans at the moment for production 1.5's on M3's.

The bikes you have seen with 1.5 were team bikes from last year. The DH arena is still double triple clamp grounds, mostly. We are making a special batch of 140 medium M3's right now (added, due to demand) they will not have 1.5

Bummer.

I have no desire to stick a single crown fork on my dh bike, I'm just curious from a durability standpoint. The larger welding surface and load distribution is justifcation for me. I haven't seen the M3 monocoque version have any cracking problems at the headtube yet but the history of such with the M1s is making me a little concerned.

If I were to buy an M3 it would be the most expensive frame purchase I've ever made and I want things to last. I know a few people riding them so I'm sure I'll get a sense of how they're standing up and whether or not my gripes even have any merit.

Thanks for the response. Much appreciated.

 

[peachy-B]

i agree. seems like it would be nice to have a 1.5 headtube. more options at the very least.

 

[n10'sGuy]

kidwoo: yet but the history of such with the M1s is making me a little concerned.

There is a significant difference M1 to M3. To my recollection most M1's were made with .050" thick 6061aluminum sheet. All production M3's are made with .063" material, a 26% increase in material thickness.

Additionally the M1 and M3 were/are designed for closed course racing. This frame is designed to go fast, it is not desgned to huck, jump, drop, extreme jumping, etc. hopefully you get the message. The design is for downhill speed, not for repeatedly bottoming out the suspension over and over again sucking up big landings as its sole use.

To date we have had zero M3 headtube frame crack or separation failures.

 

[kidwoo]

kidwoo: yet but the history of such with the M1s is making me a little concerned.

There is a significant difference M1 to M3. To my recollection most M1's were made with .050" thick 6061aluminum sheet. All production M3's are made with .063" material, a 26% increase in material thickness..

Very good to know. Ovalization and such would still be aided by the bigger tube but it's good to hear you guys beefed up the new stuff.

Additionally the M1 and M3 were/are designed for closed course racing. This frame is designed to go fast, it is not desgned to huck, jump, drop, extreme jumping, etc. hopefully you get the message. The design is for downhill speed, not for repeatedly bottoming out the suspension over and over again sucking up big landings as its sole use.

To date we have had zero M3 headtube frame crack or separation failures.

I completely understand the desired purpose. In my opinion pinning down something like the Idaho course over and over puts more accumulated stress on a frame than jumping or dropping it. Plus it's not like small to medium sized drops into crappy landings are unheard of on a trail just because it's a designated race course. I'm 30 years old and have no desire to use suspension to compensate for stupid landings or anything. But I also am well aware that tagging a front wheel at full speed on a race run is something that just sometimes happens.

I think you guys have one of the best, if not THE best DH bike designs going right now. And that's based on riding one, not looking at a pretty picture. You guys nailed some important numbers.

When looking to drop almost 3 grand on a frame, I just like to feel good about as much of it as possible. My uzzi is the only frame I've ever purchased without having ridden one first. That was based on your published geometry numbers and how impressed I was riding a buddies M3. Now as happy as I am with that bike, I'm thinking the M3 thoughts. I've had a turner for 3 years and that thing has held up beautifully. Just hope to have the same expectations met with my next purchase.

Just figured I'd throw the question out there. Again, I appreciate the info.

 

[iRider]

There is a significant difference M1 to M3. To my recollection most M1's were made with .050" thick 6061aluminum sheet. All production M3's are made with .063" material, a 26% increase in material thickness.

Additionally the M1 and M3 were/are designed for closed course racing. This frame is designed to go fast, it is not desgned to huck, jump, drop, extreme jumping, etc. hopefully you get the message. The design is for downhill speed, not for repeatedly bottoming out the suspension over and over again sucking up big landings as its sole use.

Uuups, saw this thread after posting in the "pink bike" one.
Too sad there is no 1.5 headtube version, because weight can't be your main concern when building the M3, as all the M3s that I have seen or heard of are pretty heavy compared to the old M1s. Rumors were that none of the M3 teambikes weighted less than 42 pounds

 

[n10'sGuy]

kidwoo: In my opinion pinning down something like the Idaho course over and over puts more accumulated stress on a frame than jumping or dropping it.

Agree with you on accumulated stress, but bear in mind that it is specifically designed for that type of stress. Our/my issue is with peeps using them as a hucker/jumpers they (M1 & M3) are not designed to take that stress over and over and over, especially hard metal to metal bottom outs, might as well just beat on it with a hammer, hmmm, how many times can I hit this until it breaks?

Jumps with speed, no problem, casing a jump, no problem, you have speed and momentum to help with absorbtion of energy of a hard landing. But constant jumps to flat landing, and full bottom out landings as its main source of energy input, not good for a "race" bike, truth be told thats how allot of the older bikes are being broken.

 

[esku]

Hi
What about the oposit thing
why the uzzi have to be 1.5, I want to put tripel on it
you all know that tripel + 1.5 headtube is not optimal for tied swichback
there is many UZZI owners that use tripel

 

[kidwoo]

Hi
What about the oposit thing
why the uzzi have to be 1.5, I want to put tripel on it
you all know that tripel + 1.5 headtube is not optimal for tied swichback
there is many UZZI owners that use tripel

Don't worry. It works very well. I never had a problem turning with this setup.

 

[peachy-B]

That would depend on the width of the top and bottom tube. looks to me that the M3 TT and DT are about the same width as the VPX. so the turning radius shouldn't be affected.