Because 135 is too small and 150 is too large
- Thread starter demo 9
- Start date
-
- Tags
- comedy gold luddites
After a 2.5 hour race, on a real track (think MSA), in 30c heat and 90% humidity...all those little 40g changes add up and could very well cost someone in a sprint finish, something that happens quite often at WCs.
i thought the tapered steerer tube was for stiffness, not for longer lasting bearings. i havent heard too many complaints from people with 1 1/8" headsets that their bearings are going prematurely.
only 5-6 years as a "mass market sport." really??
i seriously doubt the person in 2nd place lost because his gear was 40grams heavier than the 1st place guy. that just sounds like a excuse someone in 2nd would say
BB30 is actually extensively used in road cycling. its stronger, stiffer, has better power distribution to the frame, and depending on the crankset can be much lighter. The sleeve would be bigger than any other standard out there. Why not make a BB shell which can be used for ANY crank with the appropriate press in assembly. IMO the future of "standards" should be just this... a "standard" in which you can fit any crank system of your choice. The BB30 BB on the demo is actually pretty genius.
1.5 is for stiffness, tapered is to get the main 1.5 benefits without the extra weight, as far as it has been explained to me.
As for the XC bit, I didn't say that. If you treat a few different things that way, all of a sudden you're looking at 1/2 a pound +. Every little bit saps energy that could have been used. The body doesn't have an infinite supply of it and after 2.5 hours and a few thousand feet of climbing and sprinting...you need every bit of it.
There's a reason olympic sprinter's shoe manufacturers try and drop every single gram they can. Same principal. Lighter is faster when it's human powered.
Off topic
DT lacks in engagement but the service is the best in the industry. I dropped a 5 year old 440 hub and cracked it while in the process of building up a wheel. I call DT and they told me to send it in and sent a new hub to me. I regard DT hubs as high end.
Nope. Not buying that one. You're talking about excuses, not causes. Sorry, dude. Excuses are not causes.
Lighter bikes are faster bikes, but 40g is not make-or-break. Your human musculature does not respond at that micro-level when you are tired. Study some exercise physiology. What you suggest may seem "logical" but it's not necessarily true.
The whole game of over-lightening everything is a psychological game. Hey, you know One-Ball Lance? Dude used a 350gms saddle (Concor) when there were sub-100gms saddles available for road riding. Why do you think he did that?
Last edited:
I didn't think the Remedy was an XC race bike, which is the only MTB segment I can think of that requires uber-fast rear puncture fixes.
thats exactly what i just said about the steerer tube. i never heard anyone explain a tapered steerer tube adds longevity to it's bearings over a 1 1/8" or 1.5".
obviously if you add all the possible 40 gram pieces up, you can get to a 1/2lb. but there is NO way you would notice a single 40gram piece being too heavy and causing you to lose a race.
Have you ever raced a world cup level XC race in those conditions? Or any high level sporting event? If you don't believe that weight can make a difference at the end of that, you are delusional.
Larger bearings = longer life. It may be a side effect, but it's a good one.
Not saying a SINGLE piece will. But many single pieces can. So if the axle is a stupid idea, how many other ideas are stupid? Ignore them all and there you go. They add up pretty quickly and can make a big difference.
so everyone who has won a race in a WC XC race has the lightest bike on the starting grid?
a single 40 gram lighter part will NOT make you win a race. if you believe that, then the marketing people have done their job.
his comment was for a single piece of hardware that is 40grams lighter
You guys seem to lack reading comprehension skills, don't you?
I've made some things bold for you, you know, to better understand.
I've made some things bold for you, you know, to better understand.
Because he's got a minimum weight set for his bike by the UCI, and it's not that light. He might as well, because he's going to have a bike that weighs exactly the same anyway.
Because there is a UCI minimum weight that is strictly enforced and the saddle is one of the easiest/best places to adjust it.
edit: beaten.
nope, i think you do though
we've both said, that multiple heavy pieces do add up to more weight, but his original comment was for a single piece....not a whole lot of heavy parts
(i made it bold for you)
Cervelo's R5ca is so light that their tester in the Tour of California had to drop 2 full length chains, plus some additional weights down the seat tube to make it legal.
So you ARE an idiot then?
clearly some of the people in this thread rarely, if ever, pedal a bike for more than 10 minutes without stopping, yet alone done a full blown xc ride
its always funny when people put others down when they are wrong.
i did that in 3rd grade
![[TA]](/data/avatars/m/32/32142.jpg?1299268217){kind=avatar}
This thread is amazing...
I just want to thank everyone for the entertainment this morning, carry on.
I just want to thank everyone for the entertainment this morning, carry on.
Silly monkeys, has everyone forgotten the fact that a 142 spacing rear wheel can also benefit from less dish?
142X12 benefits from an XCish standpoint:
-Stiffer rear end. Quite noticable when you have a 23# fs race bike like new Epic. 2011 Epic is lighter than 2010 version and way stiffer in the rear.
-Stiffer, stronger wheel builds (less dish, wider spaced flanges can be used).
-More space for better chainline w/ 10 speed, especially 2X10.
I think only the super light race/trail bikes will benefit from this.
PS: PFBB30 (pressfit BB30, open 46mm bore in BB) is a great idea and has been embraced by large and small companies alike due to the ease of mfg and the compatibility w/ any crank/BB system. There were bikes w/ PFBB30 at the Handmade Bike Show last year. You can use any BB30 cranks, Shimano, Race Face, Truvativ, even a freakin' BMX crank if you wanted to.
142X12 benefits from an XCish standpoint:
-Stiffer rear end. Quite noticable when you have a 23# fs race bike like new Epic. 2011 Epic is lighter than 2010 version and way stiffer in the rear.
-Stiffer, stronger wheel builds (less dish, wider spaced flanges can be used).
-More space for better chainline w/ 10 speed, especially 2X10.
I think only the super light race/trail bikes will benefit from this.
PS: PFBB30 (pressfit BB30, open 46mm bore in BB) is a great idea and has been embraced by large and small companies alike due to the ease of mfg and the compatibility w/ any crank/BB system. There were bikes w/ PFBB30 at the Handmade Bike Show last year. You can use any BB30 cranks, Shimano, Race Face, Truvativ, even a freakin' BMX crank if you wanted to.
So can what they ate. So can 1 rock that they hit. So can the wind changing. So can rider size.
At the end of the day, 15mm is a huge step over QR no doubt, but its a classic unnecessary bike industry "standard" that didn't need to exist despite marketing telling you that you need it more then air.
Last edited:
Your argument here is utterly pointless, since as far as I know the XC wieners are running QRs anyways, and will continue to do so because light weight trumps performance for them. The Original SID (before the latest revision) was a garbage fork that couldn't turn, absorbed nothing and was usually pumped up so high it didn't move anyways, yet Off-roadies ran it like the holy grail.
Fact is 15mm is aimed at trail riders, and 40g means F-ALL. It was a marketing move meant to differentiate certain forks from others, while creating an impression of massive gains. It definitely made huge gains over QR, but gains almost nothing over 20mm, especially 20mm done light.
Yup. I used to race Cat 1 XC and was good enough at it to podium on a semi regular basis, so I've got some feel for it. Whatever, don't need to change anyone's mind.
QFthemuthafvcknT.
On the one hand, there's people like me who have been using 10 mm thru axle s on XC/AM bikes forever, and were early adopters on 1.5 HT's, and use a bolt-on 20 mm thru axle on my XC 29er hardtail fork...because we are always looking for something stiffer, especially if the weight penalty is low or in some cases zero. ok, fine.
but the mass market has more emphasis on convenience and light weight.
so the trends and growing pains in the market today are trying to reconcile the advantages of beefier interfaces with convenience and/or light weight 'needs' (some argue those needs are just 'wants'; others argue they are essential. but the point is moot, since we're talking mass market acceptance.)
When the dust settles, the gen'l mtb market will arrive in a place where front axles on a suspension fork are nearly always a thru axle (15 or 20) and the crappy QR/open dropout will become more and more rare. When the dust settles, crappy QR/open dropouts on the rear will become more and more rare especially on suspension frames.
most of us here are quite happy using 12X135 or 10X135 rear thru axles, and don't 'need' the convenience of the 142 version that guides the axle/hub assembly into place. ok, fine. but let's all admit that even though the market has had decent thru axle 135 options for years, the mass market was too stupid to adopt it. out on the trail, you still see plenty of riders on a 6 inch AM bike with QR rear.
so it's not just marketing, or introducing new standards for the hell of it.
it's bike company engineers trying to get the mass market to adopt things like thru axles, 1.5 crown forks etc, by addressing the convenience (or weight) misconceptions held by the mass market customer.
the various flavors of 142 currently, and tapered 'standard', are part of the growing pains that usually accompany these types of industry transitions. not ideal, but there it is. so focus on the good news...at least the industry is taking seriously the idea that interfaces on mtbs need to be designed for good stiffness/weight/durability.
youre wrong poopy head (see what i did here)
yeah the all-stars of my ignore list seem to be getting buck wild.[TA];3488614 said:This thread is amazing...
I just want to thank everyone for the entertainment this morning, carry on.
The 28mm Sids did suck, but what's your point, exactly? That fact means fvck all, 20mm is still a better standard than 15. Period. You said yourself, 40g doesn't mean much, if that's true why bother with 15mm to maybe save a couple grams.
If I was going to build an XC race bike today it'd have a 20mm Reba on it.
Most, if not all, fox riders are on 15QR now,and have been for 2 seasons. And yes, the SID did suck. The current crop of XC forks actually move however, and added stiffness and less weight are important. 9mm Qrs are no where near as stiff or secure as a 15Qr or 20mm, obviously.
It isn't a marketing move. It's the move towards a "real" standard that is fitting for a MTB, not simply a cast off from another side of cycling that was adopted 20 years ago by a fledgling new sport. Whether it settles on 15QR or some other through axle standard, who knows, but at the end of the day, the parts that go on your MTB are finally going to suit the sport they are being used for.
Last edited:
exactly.
arguing whether 20 is better than 15 mm thru axle is missing the point (btw from an engineering point of view, I think 20 mm is better overall). the point here is that 15 mm thru axle, by addressing the PERCEIVED weight and convenience 'issues' that mass market XC riders associate w/ 20 mm thru axles, is dragging those riders into the modern age of thru axles and away from skewer QRs and open dropouts.
Try again, please.
You know, I always have to remind you that being an Internet Journalist does not confer expertise on anything. So while you have an established "rep" on the InterWebToobz as a scribe and photographer for MTB stuff, that doesn't mean you know anything. It only means people read you and look at your photos.
That's not quite the same as being an expert on exercise physiology, is it?
Um, that's an irrelevant point.
But that's a nice try. You might try explaining WHY he chooses the heavier saddle, rather than offering a distracting point of irrelevant pseudo-fact.
Last edited:
No, that's EXACTLY the point. In road racing, there is a UCI mandated MINIMUM weight for bicycles. Road bikes have gotten so light that teams/riders have to add weight to bikes in order to meet the UCI minimum.
In regards to why he chose to add the weight via a heavier saddle (another point here - probably not the only place/component chosen to add weight to the bike), Fancy Pants One Ball Lance may very well find it more comfortable, or maybe because he doesn't want a bunch of pennies rattling around in his seat tube.
Strange, I can't find pics of XC racers on anything OTHER then QR, even Fox riders.
I can't take what Fox's pro riders are on seriously anyways, as Fox is paying them. I have a hard time beleiving anything a pro says really, knowing they might be under contract to ride something they might not actually dig.
At the end of the day, it still comes down to yet another standard that, while clearly laden with benefits, also has negatives beyond being questionably redundant. 20mm works, has been around forever, is stiffer, and isn't much heavier at all. Not saying 15mm is garbage, not at all. I have a 15mm Fox and its leaps and bounds better than a QR fork. But it is an example of why the bike industry is so utterly stupid, what with all its ridiculous "standards" that each company is constantly trying to trump with a new "standard."
I'm greatly saddened to see that you haven't bothered reading my amazingly insightful posts on this topic, above.
Read them again. Read the parts where I spell out that there are many, many riders out there who perceive 20 mm thru axle to be 'overkill', 'too heavy', 'inconvenient'. Read the parts where I spell out that people like us on this forum are more likely to not have those misperceptions. Read the part where I point out that this ends up being irrelevant to where the mass market goes.
In a perfect world, companies like Marzocchi would not be so stupid (Marz spread a lot of propaganda a few years ago that tried to convince people that 20 mm thru axle was only appropriate for big, heavy, freeride forks). In a perfect world, Fox would not have been butt-hurt by RockShox's successful corporate strategy of offering 20 mm thru axle even in relatively light, medium travel forks like the Pike....it was this butt-hurtness of Fox that made them so amenable to workign with Shimano to develop this new 15 axle standard.
OK, so we don't live in a perfect world. And the history of these bike companies is not perfect. But, if you look at the big picture here (front axle standards, BB standards, and rear axle standards) the industry is lurching toward interface designs that are a better combination of stiffness and weight.
Man, I am way behind the times on my full QR trail bike. I hope it doesn't spontaneously explode because it's inferior.
Most of this crap is forced obsolescence or just chest thumping to suggest people need X or Y. I'm not an engineer, but I feel as though there is no need for greater stiffness than what my Saint cranks offer. In fact, more than one person has told me those are the stiffest cranks they have ever felt...so is it really necessary to reinvent the design versus shaving grams, coming up with better alloys, or trying to design a better model? Certain companies will have you believe so, possibly because they can't better what's already out there. Anyways...if something appears better because you're told it is, then you'll want to buy it, even if it's not an improvement over what you have now.
As far as SP vs. ABP, it appears as though DW was indeed awarded a patent, yet trek is showing 2011 bikes with ABP. I wonder if there was a non-compete clause or something that allows trek to continue to produce bikes but non license the technology or something....the story was that they were co-developed at the same time. Then again, there don't appear to be any bikes that are actually being sold that are equipped with split-pivot...just designs.
Most of this crap is forced obsolescence or just chest thumping to suggest people need X or Y. I'm not an engineer, but I feel as though there is no need for greater stiffness than what my Saint cranks offer. In fact, more than one person has told me those are the stiffest cranks they have ever felt...so is it really necessary to reinvent the design versus shaving grams, coming up with better alloys, or trying to design a better model? Certain companies will have you believe so, possibly because they can't better what's already out there. Anyways...if something appears better because you're told it is, then you'll want to buy it, even if it's not an improvement over what you have now.
As far as SP vs. ABP, it appears as though DW was indeed awarded a patent, yet trek is showing 2011 bikes with ABP. I wonder if there was a non-compete clause or something that allows trek to continue to produce bikes but non license the technology or something....the story was that they were co-developed at the same time. Then again, there don't appear to be any bikes that are actually being sold that are equipped with split-pivot...just designs.
Where's my 33 speed campy mountain kit is all I want to know.
BTW you are all just a bunch of haters.
BTW you are all just a bunch of haters.