Exactly right
So here it is... 07 DHR!
- Thread starter 1soulrider
- Start date
I understand that you are drawing a paycheck from the e-13 camp these days, but will you at least agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with ISCGold when properly implemented? And also that there is certainly nothing that is going to make crappy welded on iscg05 tabs stronger than crappy welded on ISCGold ones?
Let's let this argument die, as I think we are only amusing ourselves.
Let's let this argument die, as I think we are only amusing ourselves.
Super! The color change is awesome. Polished or anno gray. Everyone should be covered.
About the cuervo/dhr comparison, the numbers may be close but my money is on the turner in the weight dept. whats the ventana weigh anyways
About the cuervo/dhr comparison, the numbers may be close but my money is on the turner in the weight dept. whats the ventana weigh anyways
Ya, because clearly working on contract for a company (and having absolutely no stake in it) has a huge effect on an opinion about standards.
There are numerous advantages to ISCG05 that has nothing to do with how the tabs are implemented, or rotation for that matter if the frame already has them in the right place. Clearly getting it right is nearly impossible for some manufacturers who simply follow blueprints when the blueprints have no sort of references on them besides how far each tab needs to be from the other 2. One of these advantages i mentioned in an earlier post, and there are others.
Whatever Butch.Hate on Dave and I'll box your ears ole' chap.
But seriously, the square tubes were a quick simple way to lay that bike out fast for the maxxis team to run first year. Then the public went Goo goo over the square tubing.
My point was the same as Jeff posted that Turner obviously either made up the statement the resivour shocks were not needed or the design was short sighted. Also, the reason that piggyback shock would not fit was because of the vertical metal plates that are on each side of the shock. The reason I dove so far into that subjust back in 2003 was that we already had a sponsorship deal signed for shocks with pigbacks. Dave was nice enough to offerto loan a frame to see if we could make some custom shocks for. However, our sponsor didn't want us hacking the pigbacks off and making them remote resivours. In the end, it was a lost sale on a ton of frames.
Oh for crying out loud, quit your whining. We're not talking about 90%. We're talking about turners........which never presented a problem..........but you seem to think need criticizing. (before you argue with me on that, go back and read it.....we're talking one brand here which always worked TURNER) Everything is fine.
Unfortunately chainguides will only fit as intended.......god knows none have ever been drilled into, filed, bent etc in very minor ways to get them to fit. Oh the desolation and loneliness that lie ahead for future dhr owners.
Seriously. You're wearing a cheerleader outfit. Unfortunately your ass is showing. Cut it out. It's silly.
Vitox, if you refer to mine, remember that was with headset installed (lower half, an FSA Extreme Pro; upper half, a CK flush) and axle stuck on it... or you substracted its weights?... if not, substract about 400g, what is exactly the 11.4lb claimed for '05.
(is strange... claimed weight for '06 is 12.3lb)
i subtracted
Wow. The mounts on my 223 were the best version of ISCG i've ever used- lined up perfectly using an MRP system 1 and 3 with Holzfellers on a 113bb spindle with no spacers. Same goes for all the 224's and hitman's that i've seen being built and at the races. Much less farting around than on my sunday (ISCG 05) and on my Yeti (4x, 04 model, uses the old ISCG standard). In fact, if everyone could use the orange style ISCG tabs as standard (that is, the face of the mounts is sunk back from the bb shell) then i'd be stoked.
I love it how ISCG05 is somehow an e.thirteen only thing. Thats comical. MRP has been on-board with ISCG05 since day 1, and the guys from Truvativ are the ones who suggested and pushed for a new standard in the first place.
Mickey, a welded on ISCG 05 interface will lbe superior in may ways to the ISCG, you can read about it at www.ISCG05.com if you like. Its an easy and informative read.
New DHR looks cool to me.
Dave
Mickey, a welded on ISCG 05 interface will lbe superior in may ways to the ISCG, you can read about it at www.ISCG05.com if you like. Its an easy and informative read.
New DHR looks cool to me.
Dave
there was a standard for the "B" just as there is for the 05.I am sure someone can google it and see the drawings on line. Does anyone really think because it is 'new' every frame builder will all of a sudden get it right? Or just because E13 says it is the new standard all of the chainguide makers in the world will all of a sudden jump to attention and say Yes Sir! that is the new standard we will cease production of prior bolt pattern right now! No, as soon as more than 6 people want the 05 standard I will put it on.. Cut and paste, rev 2 done, and it will be done right.
DT
DT
ISCG05 is certainly not any more difficlut to implement than the ISCG old. What made you come up with that notion?
Let me help you to clarify a couple areas in your post.
1) I am assuming that you have never designed a part for forging, or at least have not seen how a forging tool works in person. Forging in the ISCG05 into a BB shell doesn't really need much larger of a piece of stock at all. It can use the same diameter as the one for ISCG-OLD tabs, just a few millimeters longer. There is nothing to it. Most maufacturers don't do it becuase there is no real advantage. You can save cost by using a tubular BB and a welded on tab, and still have the same strength, performance, and weight. Of course that may fly in the face of some marketing, and for that I have no real answer or use.
2) Forged in tabs are in no way superior to welded on tabs. The ISCG05 is intended to be faced to the BB shell, or offset by 2.5mm, but still faced parallel to the BB shell face. This give the precision needed to meet what the members of the ISCG05 consortium decided was necessary back in 2003. The forged tabs give no better precision than welded tabs in my experience with both.
Furthermore, if the tabs are actually welded onto the BB shell with a suitable amount of weld area, they are NEVER coming off.
3) We are at the size limits of the ISCG-OLD RIGHT NOW. External BB shells have reached 46mm diameter, and drivetrain manufacturers are pushing larger. ISCG will not support any larger than a 46mm hole in the middle of the back plate. I don't think anyone is going to let a poorly defined chainguide standard govern the fututre of what is possible for drivetrains. Bearings and BBs WILL get bigger. The ISCG05 consortium foresaw this, and planned for the future.
The consortium realized that it does take time to make change, and this is the reason that the standard was introduced when it was.
Wait until you actually ride a gearbox bike Mickey. Then we'll see how in love with them you really are. I've owned two myself, done countless testing, and developed a standard now called G-Boxx. Sam Hill is not racing on one today, and he won't be tomorrow.
Dave
OK, so, 11.4lb was just a myth from go-ride... everything match
err - you mean ICMS revision B right?
I dunno what sort of special orange you had, but in the 7 years I have ridden oranges, I have ridden just about every model. MsIsle, hitman, patriot (all versions) 222, 223, 224 etc.
They only added iscg the last year I was on a 222 I believe, and since then they have been wrong. They are at least 30 degs off from standard, and WAY too far back from the face of the bb shell.
Michael at Orange is aware of this as well, so it isn't some mystery. Dave at e13 is also well aware of the problem and has spoken to Orange about it on more than a few occasions. Apparently they are attempting to correct it on the 2007 models.
i think its funny that you say that because he just bagged on orange for there messed up tabs. i dont see why he would give E13 any special consideration
Sorry that I am not one of the bike company fan-boys. I saw an issue, I asked about it and I stand by my position.
So that means that since Orange are making everything in house (as I am to understand) that they are just stupid or lazy? To know that they have an issue as annoying as that and to not fix it does not fill me with confidence.
Only the 224 is now made in house, rest is in taiwan. Why they can't follow simple design diagrams is beyond me to be honest. Maybe they will follow Turner's method and not change it until "at least 6 people ask for it?"
well I don't consider myself a "fan-boy", unless it's for the lady that keeps me around as her pool boy...don't ask what I fan her with....
And I know I can drift ot as well as anyone, but this chain guide issue seems interesting enough to warrant it's own thread, where it can be commented on by all interested parties, without derailling the original thread topic. I has some thoughts myself, but am trying to avoid contributing to the deraillment,,,,,Like for example now the thread is about orange....
Ok, so the 07 dhr will be 2lbs lighter. But with the 150mm rear spacing and 83mm bb offset the weight or will the difference be minimal? 
First thing....KEEP THE 1.5!!! It takes away 3/4 inch of front end height, and is kind of a deal breaker for me. I will have to keep riding my '05, but i would love to NOT have my crowns bash my down tube..Ok, so the 07 dhr will be 2lbs lighter. But with the 150mm rear spacing and 83mm bb offset the weight or will the difference be minimal?
I think that a full two pounds might be a little high of an estimate, that is about a 17% reduction, that is huge. If the difference is truely that much, i might be a little concerned with durability.
Not much difference in hub weights between 135 and 150mm. As far as the cranks are concerned, it depends on what cranks you are running now. If you are able to run something like XT, you will gain 1/2 to 1 pound by the switch to 83mm bb cranks. I dont see any lighter crank/bb (current or for '07) set-ups that will fit 83mm. If you are already running saint/diabolus etc, then there will be minimal change.
I'll second the call to keep the 1.5
I don't see a disadvantage to it. The e13 cups work really well for me and I don't have to worry about ovalizing the headtube. For those who need to run a CK, they still can with adapter cups.
I too think I will keep my '05.
I don't see a disadvantage to it. The e13 cups work really well for me and I don't have to worry about ovalizing the headtube. For those who need to run a CK, they still can with adapter cups.
I too think I will keep my '05.
Hey BYO, didn't you build a replacement lower e-13 ish cup with a little more stack height to prevent the lower crown - down tube collision problem?
great now its only 4 to go and your wish will be a reality!
You get a cookie!
When I felt my friends 05 dhr (frame only) there were several spots in the rear end where the bike was kept overly heavy for no reason other then to (What I guess) was to keep the cost down. On the chainstay yolk I believe, there is literally a hockey puck thickness chunk of solid aluminum that could easily be machined out with basically no strength decrease. It was pretty dumb, actually. The rear end of the 05 frames are soo heavy, mostly because they have those massive solid chunks of aluminum. Id imagine for 07 theyve just machined these parts out, which would contribute to a very large part of that 2lbs.
Turner has already thought of this.
The 1 1/8 head tubes are short. 3.7 small, 4.2 on medium and 4.7 on the large.
The medium and large 04-06 DHR's have 5 inch 1.5 headtubes.
So, a medium 07 with a chris king will have the same overall stack height, or even les, then a 04-06 with e13/FSA cups, and will be a fair bit lighter. Sounds fine to me.
I did. Being a machinist, it wasn't that hard. But it definitly wouldn't be cost effective to make more of them. It's just a e13 cup with about a 5mm stack height.
Not a turner hack, but can anyone explain to me why DH bikes have different head tube lengths for different size frames? I know why this is done on a bike where a single crown is the intented fork.
If they can build the head tube that short, great, that does not negate the fact that a 1.5 will allow for a further drop, and head angle adjustment for fine tuning or track adjustment.. You can always make the front end taller for the 'FR' folks, but you cannot make it lower. Lots of 2.5 inch bars around, and NO bars under 1 inch AND 28 inches wide. I would like the option to lower my bars from where they are, or keep them at the same place but change my head angle, but I CANNOT do it.
There are no negatives to a properly designed 1.5, but 1 1/8 takes away adjustment.
Going to a 1 1/8th is a poor decision at best, and plain stupid at worst. 1.5 comes wiht far too many benefits that outweight the measly weight gain that it comes with. Man Turner is odd. So many brilliant things, then always something where you just sit there and say "guh??"
DaveP, for 07 the RaceFace Atlas lowrise bars come in 27", which is close to what you're looking for. OVersize too, if you go that way.
DaveP, for 07 the RaceFace Atlas lowrise bars come in 27", which is close to what you're looking for. OVersize too, if you go that way.
