REVIEWS DEALS BIKESHOPS TRAILS

Thoughts on 1.5" standard?

1450 Views 37 Replies 18 Participants Last post by Jayem, Dec 22, 2005

Jerk_Chicken

Discussion Starter · Dec 19, 2005

What do you guys, as well as DT thinking about the 1.5" head tube standard? Is it hype or reality?

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

Jayem

· #2 · Dec 19, 2005

1.5 is good for frames. Allows greater resistance to ovalization that is just not possible with the 1.125 standard.

Unfortunatly, this point of view has been polluted by the "long travel" single crown forks. Too many people now believe the reason to have 1.5 is to run a fork with a 1.5 steerer, and that's just not what the standard is about.

Problems that I've had with the 1.5 have to do with stack height. This has been addressed somewhat, but was a problem with the first 1.5 stuff.

kidwoo

· #3 · Dec 19, 2005

Jerk_Chicken said:
What do you guys, as well as DT thinking about the 1.5" head tube standard? Is it hype or reality?

It rules. The larger headtube on the frame makes for more welding surface, greater force distribution on bearings, headtube and frame interface alike. For the manitou (unfortunately ONLY the manitou) forks, you get a larger clamping surface for the stem making a more solid interface, plus a greater load distribution on the fork crown itself. On anything but bikes you really want to keep light, it's teh shizzle. Plus the size of the headtube looks like my master cylinder of natural light ice.

If you disagree, you're wrong. Take that.

Speaking of "standards", you ever seen a baby chinchilla? I think it's the new standard in cuteness.

See less See more

cave dweller

· #4 · Dec 19, 2005

One of the reasons i bought a DHR was because it had a 1.5 head tube. Stronger, better bearings, can get a super low stack height using integrated headsets.

If turner goes to a 1 1/8 on the highline or DHR it would be a step backwards IMO.

006_007

· #5 · Dec 19, 2005

Jerk_Chicken said:
What do you guys, as well as DT thinking about the 1.5" head tube standard? Is it hype or reality?

Check out these threads - in particular what Knollybikes.com has to say about the 1.5

"1.5 headtubes are not really about forks - they are about saving frames from ovalization."

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=65594&highlight=1.5

"It's a really nice way to stop headtube ovalization and reduce warranty claims."

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=15546&highlight=1.5

cactuscorn

· #6 · Dec 19, 2005

that things noggin is to rodents what 1.5" is to head tubes! and yeah its cute as hell. so far i agree with the thoughts here. its all about ovalization.

Jerk_Chicken

Discussion Starter · #7 · Dec 19, 2005

For the buying public, Manitou seems to have made it about their forks, in terms of them really only touting that one can now use a long travel single crown because the 1.5 gives the fork the stiffness it needs at those lengths.

I was thinking that it would have been cool to have the new RFX made with a 1.5, even if I would have to install reducers because my current fork choices only come in 1 1/8. At the least, some benefits would still exist with the larger headtube and possibly allow for more choices later on.

I'm surprised the 1.5 hasn't become more widespread, especially since DT and just a couple of other companies have been trying out this standard since what, 2000? And with Cannondale already using it?

kidwoo

· #8 · Dec 19, 2005 (Edited)

Can't remember if it was Klein or Cannondale who started the bigger headtubes first...........neither were 1.5 but close. I think Klein even had some 2" headtubes.

I agree, there's absolutely no reason the highline and even the RF6 shouldn't have one.

Right now, here are the ones I know about that are doing bigger headtubes

Evil (imperial only)
Iron Horse (sunday/7point/porter dj)
Turner (DHR)
Knolly
Rotec
Cannondale
Intense (uzzi vpx)

See less See more

El Chingon

· #9 · Dec 19, 2005

I spoke to Greg at Turner bikes a couple of weeks ago, and it looks like they are going to abandon the 1.5 headtube. They ditched it on the highlines, and stated that eventually even the DHR's will go without. I personally think the 1.5 is all hype. If you want to see bombproof 1.125 head tubes, have a look at Banshee bikes, and also some of the Yeti line, specifically their 4X bike.

J_B

· #10 · Dec 19, 2005

kidwoo said:
Can't remember if it was Klein or Cannondale who started the bigger headtubes first...........neither were 1.5 but close. I think Klein even had some 2" headtubes.

I agree, there's absolutely no reason the highline and even the RF6 shouldn't have one.

Right now, here are the ones I know about that are doing bigger headtubes

Evil (sovereign only)
Iron Horse (sunday/7point/porter dj)
Turner (DHR)
Knolly
Rotec
Cannondale
Intense (uzzi vpx)

No Evil Imperial? I had a new '04 and it had a 1.5 HT.

kidwoo

· #11 · Dec 19, 2005

J_B said:
No Evil Imperial? I had a new '04 and it had a 1.5 HT.

Oops. I meant imperial, not sovereign. So many regal names, I get confused.

kidwoo

· #12 · Dec 19, 2005

El Chingon said:
I spoke to Greg at Turner bikes a couple of weeks ago, and it looks like they are going to abandon the 1.5 headtube. They ditched it on the highlines, and stated that eventually even the DHR's will go without. I personally think the 1.5 is all hype. If you want to see bombproof 1.125 head tubes, have a look at Banshee bikes, and also some of the Yeti line, specifically their 4X bike.

Bummer.

It's not hype though. I heard an audio clip of DT explaining why the 1.5 on the 03 DHRs and he mentioned ovalization of 02 and earlier frames. I agree you can make a banshee-esque thickness 1 1/8" but you lose the option of flush or non flush headsets which make for some ride height adjustability, you can't use a manitou long travel single crown, and you still don't get the force distrubution from bigger headtube/frame interface which no doubt helps keep the thing attached. People said the same thing when mtbs left the 1" standard. Iss da troof.

You've seen dhrs in person right? Look at that HUGE contact surface. I may be scared of certain things while riding mine but having the headtube snap off isn't one of them.

El Chingon

· #13 · Dec 19, 2005

YOu mention headtube frame interface, but that isn't the main argument stated above. The main argument was to help avoid headtube ovalization. Most manufacturers aren't having issues with their headtubes shearing off at the interface.

J_B

· #14 · Dec 19, 2005

kidwoo said:
Oops. I meant imperial, not sovereign. So many regal names, I get confused.

You make me sick! I thought you knew everything and now I am very dissapointed.

kidwoo

· #15 · Dec 19, 2005

J_B said:
You make me sick! I thought you knew everything and now I am very dissapointed.

Follow that misnomer and you'll be lucky if all that happens to you is disappointment.

kidwoo

· #16 · Dec 19, 2005

El Chingon said:
YOu mention headtube frame interface, but that isn't the main argument stated above. The main argument was to help avoid headtube ovalization. Most manufacturers aren't having issues with their headtubes shearing off at the interface.

But that IS one of the benefits that I stated.......regardless of "main" argument or not. You might not see the amount of DH traffic that I do living right by a popular ski hill but ripping headtubes off and/or cracking them there is a huge problem with a lot of frames. I literally lost count of the number of M1s I've seen either totally snap off or at least crack......plus dares, foes monos, karpiels, old iron horses.

I was just responding to the fact that you said it's all hype and that's just not the case. There are a significant list of benefits to putting those things on frames that get beat on pretty heavily.
I've got 1.5 headtubes on two big bikes and that was something I viewed as an asset when I bought them. It's actually one of the things that's keeping me from getting an m3 right now.

I have no doubt DT will execute whatever he's got in mind fairly well. But the problems inherent in DH/freeride bike design that are easily solved by using a 1.5 headtube are worth doing it for. Maybe Mr T will chime in and offer some insight but to me it's a step backwards.

See less See more

knollybikes.com

· #17 · Dec 19, 2005

Kidwoo and Jayem have it bang on when talking about the 1.5" standard. It really is about saving frames from head tube ovalization. Long travel single crown forks are a nice side benefit, but not the main reason to do it. We'd still do it even if every fork on the market had a 1.125" steerer. If you consider "hype" not having to warranty frames, not having your head tube rip off, being 2-4 stronger than ANY 1.125" head on the market (in terms of plastic deformation - no matter how thick you make the wall, it will still deform because there is less surface area).

That being said, Manitou is not going to be the only fork manufacturer buildling 1.5" long travel single crown forks for 2007. There are going to be no fewer than FOUR main fork manufacturers doing this for 2007...

Noel

Renegade

· #18 · Dec 19, 2005

knollybikes.com said:
That being said, Manitou is not going to be the only fork manufacturer buildling 1.5" long travel single crown forks for 2007. There are going to be no fewer than FOUR main fork manufacturers doing this for 2007...

Noel

Noel, you tease you! You can't just say "they'll be no fewer than four main fork manufacturers blah blah blah" you have to be more specific! [please]. Who?

turnerbikes

· #19 · Dec 19, 2005

Highline

The Highline has it, and the DHR still has it. I like the bigger headset. I think it is a bummer it did not take off. I think that if someone else would have done it besides Manitou it might have been more accepted. They did it because they wanted to do big travel single crowns without 12 pound steerer tubes. Simple. They also saw the benefit to frame makers for ovalization and weld surface. But no other fork maker has yet to touch it, the Not Invented Here ego problem. The only reason to pull it from DHR's in the future is for weight savings. All racers want lower weights period That is a big head tube and we have been making 1 1/8th team DHR's for years without a problem. So a skinny headtube can be made strong, look at the RFX or Six Pack, no problems. One of the reasons I really got behind it is for longer headset life. With rare exception a 5 year old Moto bike will have a smooth headset, but a 5 year old DH bike with 1 1/8th will be shot in half the time. The current headset standard? was designed around a 2" travel fork with **** tires and canilever brakes. 1 1/8th was hype then and 1" was totally adequate. Remember Gary Fisher wanted a Ti steerer to cut weight so a bigger steerer was needed to reduce flex, so the 1 1/4 was born. I think if King would have put those bearings on steel skirts for the steel set we would be a lot closer to smooth running headsets for many years. At least on the bottom race, they already have them made! Today demands more, period. if we are to keep using balls in the lower race, then we need way more. I think the baby chinchilla is a fine start to a new standard of cuteness, but I would like to see the statistics comparing a baby hippo before anything is declared though. I don't want to see another standard like the 1.5 started without a concensus.

DT

See less See more

tigerdog

· #20 · Dec 20, 2005

turnerbikes said:
I think the baby chinchilla is a fine start to a new standard of cuteness, but I would like to see the statistics comparing a baby hippo before anything is declared though. I don't want to see another standard like the 1.5 started without a concensus.

DT

Very good point there Dave. I saw the momma hippo teaching the baby hippo to swim at San Deigo Zoo last year. Among the OOOHs and AAAHs in the crowd, there was a concensus that if a new standard in cuteness were to be established in the near future, then this would be the benchmark by which all attempts at cuteness could be measured.

Of course, if it were a combination of cuteness and fuzziness, then the chinchilla is hard to beat.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.