angleset?
- Thread starter alfonz
- Start date
no, not enough room CC told me.. Bummer, would have brought allot of old bikes back to life.
Is there one for 1.5 integrated headtubes?
not yet.
Like the lower on a Specialized frame? All configurations of the Angleset require a press-fit cup, so that rules out any Integrated (drop-in) bearing headsets.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why are so many people confused by this? Cane Creek make two upper cups, and two lower cups that may be used in any combination. The upper sizes are 44 and 49mm, which fit 1 1/8" zero stack upper headtubes and conventional 1.5" upper headtubes respectively. The lower cups are 49 and 56mm, which fit conventional 1.5 and zero stack 1.5" lower headtubes respectively. A straight 1 1/8" steerer must be used in all cases.
their headset finder is super hard to use
^^^Agreed with big-ted. I can't see where the confusion comes from. These are pretty simple numbers. I do, however, anxiously await a lower cup (external would be fine) that will work with a tapered steerer.
Sorry, I meant a 1.5 zerostack, not integrated, but specificly I'm wondering about the new 5spot
The Turner website just says 44mm HT... so will it not work then bc there is no 44mm lower cup?
Last edited:
Those headtubes on the 5 spot are not 1.5
They are the same size headtubes that are on Morewood trail bikes.
44mm zero stack.
The only reason you can get a 1.5 tapered fork on the new 5 spot is because cane creek makes an external lower cup to fit it.
ok... did some research. Looks like the answer is NO... 44mm is a standard zerostack 1 1/8 headtube... thus no angleset.
Looks like I'll be looking at something besides the Turner then. Too bad... those frames look sweet but the ht is still a little too steep for me @ 67.7 degrees.
Looks like I'll be looking at something besides the Turner then. Too bad... those frames look sweet but the ht is still a little too steep for me @ 67.7 degrees.
lol.. thanks Jeremy
you beat me to it.
you beat me to it.
simple solution, more sag.....
Yeah... Less travel. Sweet!
what are those???There is a better one:
Also - you can always drill the turner
looks like off-set DU bushings to change angles
you can do that? who sells those, i'd love to slacken out my trail bike some!
Apparently some irish guys did in 06 but Im quite sure you can find someone who can make you those in US.
http://www.irishdh.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13080
Here's a question, why are reducers round beyond the point where they interface with the shock?
Especially with those it would make more sense for them to be squared off so that you could adjust what you are doing more easily.
Even with zero adjustability, it would increase the contact between the shock and the frame and have an increase in stiffness as a result.
Patent pending bitches.
1. It would be harder to make.
2. It wouldn't increase surface contact area, because you'd have to have a small enough square to fit through the circle. It'd be smaller.
3. Even if it did make the surface area a bit bigger, it wouldn't do **** to make things stiffer. Shock mounts don't flex like that.
So?
I guess i mean in a 2 piece 'top hat' style.
There's no torsional flex at all in the back end of a bike, that being stiffer at the shock mount would help?
Oh well, good job i just said Patent Pending bitches rather than investing millions in the idea, only for Trek to come along and get a Patent on it aswell.
So it would cost more. I don't know about you, but I'm not too into paying more for stuff that's not better.
Ok, that would work, but IMO that style of reducer is to be avoided at all costs. They're not nearly as good as the 3 piece ones.
I didn't say that. All I said was that making that specific change wouldn't do much of anything for stiffness.
Not trying to be too much of a jackass, just answering your "why hasn't this been done?" question.