[rockofullr]

One-Ball Lance

Fancy Pants One Ball Lance

He's only running one ball!

I wonder how many grams he shaved there? Do you think their is a noticeable loss of stiffness compared to running two balls? Do the fancy pants make up for it? Could this be a new industry standard?



Sorry for the derail continue arguing in circles.

 

[mandown]

Ah.

Sorry for the repeat.

quick, somebody custom title that kid

can we talk about how much gimmick is in that frame?
12X142 rear axle - check
15mm front axle
tapered head tube - check
2X10 drivetrain - check
EVO link
DRCV shock - check
Full Floater linkage - check
ABP/Split-pivot - check
straight pull spoke/hub combo
Carbon frame - check... though missing the ISCG tabs
remote control seat post - check
The only thing they missed the G2 geometry from the Fisher bikes.

Lots of technology there, and so much of it is brand new. It will be interesting to see where this thing sits in the dust settles.

btw - I do own a Fisher Roscoe, so I have a few of the above features, and I can't say they are bad, but I also can't exactly rave about how ground breaking they are. I do like the ABP and I do like the DRCV shock.

 

[primo661]

Wow, and to think I started all of this with my rant? I agree with my original point of most of the new standards being stupid and I must emphasize that it makes no difference to how much I enjoy my ride whether I'm on my new SS dirt jump bike full of technology thats been around since 2000(QR axles, RV damping, hubs without cartridge bearings, tubes, no derailler and a 1 1/8th head set) or I'm riding a 2010 downhill bike with all the new standards. I love riding, not being a new standards/marketing whore. Yes, half a pound may make a difference to a world cup pro but last time I checked, a downhiller riding a 14kg, 1x9, Ndiza 4x bike placed 8th in elite men in our provincial xc championships(the same province Burry stander came from, so its pretty competitive). That same rider raced nationals BMX in cruiser class and smoked most of the field, finally placing second on that same 14kg, full suspension 4x bike.

 

[mandown]

And Norco is on the trolley.

http://www.nsmb.com/3812-teaser-norco-2011-full-suspension-bikes

The Range

most significant new bike in the 2011 line-up
160mm all-mountain bike
uses a modified Horst Link suspension design called A.R.T. (Advanced Ride Technology), which incorporates the Syntace 142mm rear axle design
five sizes from XS to XL to choose from
all models except the Range 3 use the A.R.T. (the 3 uses a standard axle)
available in October 2010
Range SE – 26.6 lbs | US$6,950 / CAD$7,799
Range 1 – 29.1 lbs | US$4,580 / CAD$5,000
Range 2 – 30.1 lbs | US$3,365 / CAD$3,650
Range 3 – 34.4 lbs | US$2,415 / CAD$2,625

 

[Bikael Molton]

Trek should add A.R.T. and some DOPE to their designs. needs more acronymz.

 

[Salami]

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?

He used a heavier saddle because it is more comfortable for guys with one half of the nut sack.

If you have to have a heavy part on your bike to meet a minimum weight it might as be where your taint, nuts and ass are going to be sitting for the whole damn day.

 

[DirtyMike]

This thread is amazing.


Seriously..... Noone gets why???

Check it, first off when used on the ABP system, you have to pull the QR apart to get the wheel off anyways, so why not go with a Tru axle,

Second, there are already 142's on some of these.

Third... Doesnt anyone here realize this is the same damn arguement when 150 first came out?????

fourth, why 12mm??? because 135 by ten TA is harder to get, and 135 to 142 conversion is easier to do on a TA in twelve over ten.

Check this other spin for your head...... a tru 142 rear hub is to xc/am as to what a 150 is to DH.... Its stiffer.

Why go with something new over moving xc and AM into 150??? Somoene actually mentioned this..... Qfactor. 150 bikes need an 83MM shell and crank system......... For those that like to pedal, this is an issue.

Heal to chainstay clearance, better q factor for pedalling, stiffer rear end..... these are teh reasons why.

 

[Jm_]

That bike is melting.

And Norco is on the trolley.

http://www.nsmb.com/3812-teaser-norco-2011-full-suspension-bikes

 

[deweydude]

According to Jason from Spesh, a 9mm with an rws and a hub with decent end caps is stiffer than 15mm forks in the tests that they did. They only went for it because people who spend lots of money on high end bikes are fanboys.

Wait a second! Is this the downhill forum? A std 9mm axle may be stiff enough in most cases. BUT you know as well as I do that a 9mm axle is never going to stand up to what people are putting bikes through these day!!
Even if the axle don't break, the fork leg dropouts are another weak point and I have broken several on both wheeled and skibikes. The skibikes are extremely hard on them because you don't have the flex of the wheel the absorb shock. The dropout is literally solid to the ground when the ski slaps
solid hardpack snow. And I have about 4 sets of broken lowers, I went to 20mm dowel adaptors to the 10 mm hardaxle ski mount and now I build all my bikes around a 20mm fork, and I haven't carried a bike off the mountain with a broken fork since!!

Duane

 

[primo661]

This thread is amazing.


Seriously..... Noone gets why???

Check it, first off when used on the ABP system, you have to pull the QR apart to get the wheel off anyways, so why not go with a Tru axle,

Second, there are already 142's on some of these.

Third... Doesnt anyone here realize this is the same damn arguement when 150 first came out?????

fourth, why 12mm??? because 135 by ten TA is harder to get, and 135 to 142 conversion is easier to do on a TA in twelve over ten.

Check this other spin for your head...... a tru 142 rear hub is to xc/am as to what a 150 is to DH.... Its stiffer.

Why go with something new over moving xc and AM into 150??? Somoene actually mentioned this..... Qfactor. 150 bikes need an 83MM shell and crank system......... For those that like to pedal, this is an issue.

Heal to chainstay clearance, better q factor for pedalling, stiffer rear end..... these are teh reasons why.

Firstly, we have no problem with using a through axle on the bike or any bike for that matter. Its all about new standards we don't need. Read up.

Secondly, 142 is just one more standard that shouldn't exist in the first place, if common sense prevailed. Just because it exists doesn't mean it should be used. Threadset headsets to give an extreme example.

Thirdly, 150mm atleast had an arguement regarding stiffness in a sport(downhill) where it actually counts(though how much is debatable). its an 11% increase in width, more width is known in engineering circles to provide stiffness. But most people can barely feel the difference anyways which makes it even harder to accept the 142 standard if the same arguement as 150 is used especially as you most likely wont be able to feel the difference and its on an all mountain bike which weight and performance do not have the "perceived" grave effects they do in xc or dh. I find myself asking why it even exists in the first place.

Fourth, how is 12mm easier to get in through axle form than 10mm? It may be slightly more uncommon but it EXISTS ALREADY. That being true doesn't give cause to use/invent a whole new standard which doesn't even exist, bearing in mind 135x12 already exists and has for years. Come on!

Most of the points I just made are already in the thread. Think about it logically, consider the points, not just how they're worded, form a logical and intelligent opinion while leaving out the marketing BS and such and then come back and argue valid, educated, logical and objectively reasoned points.

 

[dump]

It's been a while, but every OCLV mtb that came to my town in the 90s broke within 12 months... some within 3, and often multiple times. Wouldn't buy one, ever.

 

[gav_dub100]

I have a 142mm rear end on the back of my trail bike and I have to say it works very well! Stiffer than quick release and as quick and easy to whip off and change a tube.

I'm not a fan of the never ending changing of standards but this one is not one I really have a problem with given that it does what it sets out to do and is an improvement over QR. It also doesn't require a proprietary hubs bar 3.5mm longer end caps on an existing standard 13x135mm standard.

Here's what the Syntace website says about it (the guys who came up with the system):

The new Syntace X-12 System

Description:
The challenge faced with through-axles is that the axle must be clamped axially as well as radially in the dropouts in order to achieve a high rigidity. But clamping axially and radially so far, also meant having to tighten several screws. We solve this problem by using a taper which allows play-free clamping in both axial and radial directions even though the axle is only tightened axially.
A further big problem with conventional through-axles is the missing stop and a guide for the rear axle which would enable a much simpler positioning of the rear wheel with respect to the dropouts. To guarantee a really simple mounting of the rear wheel dropouts with axle guides are required or else the rear axle has no defined positioning.

The difference ...
… compared to conventional through-axle dropouts / through-axles:

* less weight
* clearly user friendlier, quicker fitting and removal of rear wheel
* for the first time a toe and camber adjustment of the rear wheel is possible. For this, the thread insert in the right dropout is replaced by an excentrical thread insert which can then be adjusted to the desired position
* Maximum lateral stability and stiffness thanks to the cone which achieves a play-free connection in axial as well as radial direction

… to conventional dropouts and quick releases:

* higher rigidity
* less weight
* simpler, or at least comparably simple fitting and removal of rear wheel
* user friendlier design and less prone to misalignment
* even after multiple fitting and removing of rear wheel the same brake rotor positioning is maintained


Thanks to the new Syntace X-12 standard, for the first time it makes sense to use a through-axle on XC and marathon bikes. It is especially these bikes which typically suffer from a lack of stiffness, and here even Viagra is no cure ;-). After all, it is the direct connection between the dropouts which provides the most effective gain in stiffness!

Available in a key version (Allen key) and a QR version (quick release).

The process of inserting the hub (gray) into the rear dropouts
is significantly simplified by the axle guides (red).


The required hubs:
Standard 135 mm hubs are used and have the standard end caps replaced with wider ones (3.5 mm per side), actual resulting width is 142 mm.

Here's a the link: http://www.syntace.com/index.cfm?pid=1&pk=1314

 

[jonKranked]

It's been a while, but every OCLV mtb that came to my town in the 90s broke within 12 months... some within 3, and often multiple times. Wouldn't buy one, ever.

so, because computers were crappy and running windows 98 back in the 90's I guess you gave up on them too?

 

[DirtyMike]

Firstly, we have no problem with using a through axle on the bike or any bike for that matter. Its all about new standards we don't need. Read up.

Secondly, 142 is just one more standard that shouldn't exist in the first place, if common sense prevailed. Just because it exists doesn't mean it should be used. Threadset headsets to give an extreme example.

Thirdly, 150mm atleast had an arguement regarding stiffness in a sport(downhill) where it actually counts(though how much is debatable). its an 11% increase in width, more width is known in engineering circles to provide stiffness. But most people can barely feel the difference anyways which makes it even harder to accept the 142 standard if the same arguement as 150 is used especially as you most likely wont be able to feel the difference and its on an all mountain bike which weight and performance do not have the "perceived" grave effects they do in xc or dh. I find myself asking why it even exists in the first place.

Fourth, how is 12mm easier to get in through axle form than 10mm? It may be slightly more uncommon but it EXISTS ALREADY. That being true doesn't give cause to use/invent a whole new standard which doesn't even exist, bearing in mind 135x12 already exists and has for years. Come on!

Most of the points I just made are already in the thread. Think about it logically, consider the points, not just how they're worded, form a logical and intelligent opinion while leaving out the marketing BS and such and then come back and argue valid, educated, logical and objectively reasoned points.

I read the whole thread before I posted on this one. Dont get me wrong, I see alot of the new "standards" and I cringe, but at the same time My job is in the automotive feild; so stuff like this in the bike world is nothing compared to how many new standards there are in auto.

All the new headset standards can go to hell, 15mm front axles are a joke......... and with all the other crap that should or should not exist.... The arguement with this one is exactly the same as when 150 hubs came out for DH.

142 hubs ar enot anything new though, they have been out now for some time so its really not a new standard so to speak, just because people didnt know they existed and were already in use doesnt mean its a new standard.

Your arguement about stiffness..... remember this is an AM/xc setup. look at the offerings in that world for a bit, it is noticable on these bikes your either going to have to go ride one, or trust me with that one

 

[IH8Rice]

Fourth, how is 12mm easier to get in through axle form than 10mm? It may be slightly more uncommon but it EXISTS ALREADY.

id like to know this to. how would a adapter be easier with a 10mm, than a 12mm??

 

[stiksandstones]

I like how our new bikes you can use 142x12 or keep it old school with your 135x9. Our new tracer29 works with 142, just put our 142 dropout in, staying with 135, then put our 135 dropout in. Same goes for our other 2011 bikes.

 

[Inclag]

I like how our new bikes you can use 142x12 or keep it old school with your 135x9. Our new tracer29 works with 142, just put our 142 dropout in, staying with 135, then put our 135 dropout in. Same goes for our other 2011 bikes.

Quit it with your marketing! This is strictly for bickering....

 

[IH8Rice]

I like how our new bikes you can use 142x12 or keep it old school with your 135x9. Our new tracer29 works with 142, just put our 142 dropout in, staying with 135, then put our 135 dropout in. Same goes for our other 2011 bikes.

stop making sense

 

[zdubyadubya]

I like how our new bikes you can use 142x12 or keep it old school with your 135x9. Our new tracer29 works with 142, just put our 142 dropout in, staying with 135, then put our 135 dropout in. Same goes for our other 2011 bikes.

This is a very good example of what I said earlier. The "standards" that should be used in the bike industry should be accommodating to the other "systems" that exist for the various manufacturers.

Examples:

BB30: accommodates any bb system of your choice
142 rear-end: dropouts accommodate any rear hub spacing/axle system of your choice
1.5 headtube: accommodates any headset system of your choice

three critical areas where there are a million different "standards" which could be eliminated by just making a bike more "accommodating"

 

[IH8Rice]

142 rear-end: dropouts accommodate any rear hub spacing/axle system of your choice
three critical areas where there are a million different "standards" which could be eliminated by just making a bike more "accommodating"

not too many companies use a replaceable hanger system like Intense though.

 

[zdubyadubya]

not too many companies use a replaceable hanger system like Intense though.

the question then becomes... should they?

 

[jonKranked]

not enough many companies use a replaceable hanger system like Intense though.

fixed

 

[jonKranked]

the question then becomes... should they?

absolutely. i'm surprised replaceable dropouts haven't caught on more widespread. that way if you toast a dropout its easier (and cheaper) to replace than the entire swingarm. not only that, I'd buy an extra set up front to avoid any potential down time

 

[IH8Rice]

fixed

ingrish is tuff

and yes, replaceable dropouts/hangers are a great idea. especially if you bend the hanger area. its a lot cheaper to fix/replace

 

[stiksandstones]

the question then becomes... should they?

Considering our Tracer29 (which is selling like wildfire) was marketed as a 142x12 bike and most if not all that have gone out have been ordered with 135mm, i'd say there are a lot of people not ready for 142?

I will say in running both setups and coming from 20+ years of riding with traditional skewered 9mm wheels, the 142 setup is nicer to assemble and perhaps its a placebo effect, but I do feel it is more rigid.

 

[primo661]

Your arguement about stiffness..... remember this is an AM/xc setup. look at the offerings in that world for a bit, it is noticable on these bikes your either going to have to go ride one, or trust me with that one

I've got a Fuji Team Issue carbon xc bike in the garage right now, and I'd be more worried about my frame flexing like it does along with my mates spesh than my hubs. I still don't see why you need the added stiffness of 142x12 over the tried and tested 135x12 or 135x10 when every other part on your bike is akin to spaghetti regarding its stiffness as a result of a quest for less weight. And as for all mountain, less weight is nice and so is more stiffness but does 142 justify the hardcore marketing of another standard that just complicates our lives?

Intense has the best compromise I can think of and I think stik made my point when he stated that 135 is far more popular than 142 even though its marketed in the direction of 142. We, as the general riding public, don't want it. Besides, its been around long enough to make its mark and its failed miserably, it simply isn't popular.

 

[Dogboy]

We, as the general riding public, don't want it.

Speak for yourself. You are the acting like a raving Luddite.

 

[mandown]

I think in the sterile vaccum of "which of these three is better?", the 142 has strength. It does allow the use of more crank options than 150. It sounds like it allows for better dish on the wheel than 135. While a point of minor convenience, it does allow for easier wheel placement in the dropouts. It is stiffer than 10mm.

However, in the current environment, the addtional marginal utility of the 142 over the existing "standards" isn't noteworthy, and probably not worth the cost of converting. Is it better? In theory, yes. So much so that it is worth deviating from the current standard? Meh.

 

[Nick]

It sounds like it allows for better dish on the wheel than 135.

Well, not if you're simply swapping end caps on your 135mm hub. Right?

 

[mandown]

Well, not if you're simply swapping end caps on your 135mm hub. Right?

right, adding spacers to the end of the hub body doesn't widen the points/base for spoke connection. though you could have a situation where you add spacers to the left side only, in order to better center the hub, but you'd be fvcking up the chainline. not having seen one in person, i'd imagine the hub flanges for the spoke connection are spaced a bit wider on a pure 142 hub.

 

[Bikael Molton]

The DT240 doesn't look to have wider flanges.

 

[primo661]

Speak for yourself. You are the acting like a raving Luddite.

I'm just saving all you poor souls who believe the marketing If I'm speaking for myself and not the majority, can you explain the difference in sales Stik speaks of?

 

[-BB-]

i do notice a difference when i ride my King hub and hop on my spare wheelset with a Pivit (yuck) hub on it.. i dont notice it so much when i go from my King hub to one of my Hadley rears.

the freehub(s) didnt last too long with my experience with them.

Hmm... You should feel a difference. The Hadley is MUCH better.

 

[Transcend]

f I'm speaking for myself and not the majority, can you explain the difference in sales Stik speaks of?

Yes, people have plenty of 135mm rear wheels lying around that haven't bit the dust yet.

 

[daisycutter]

Yes, people have plenty of 135mm rear wheels lying around that haven't bit the dust yet.

way to many in my case

 

[primo661]

Yes, people have plenty of 135mm rear wheels lying around that haven't bit the dust yet.

And why do they have all these wheels lying around? I quote myself:

Besides, its(142x12) been around long enough to make its mark and its failed miserably, it simply isn't popular.

 

[demo 9]

Can anybody explain to me (seriously) how the hub is easier to put on and off?

It sounds like a normal bolt on/thru axle with another 2 cones to line up making it

bolt-frame-spacer-hub-spacer-frame-bolt

How does adding two spacers make this any easier, i have a hell of a time with the ringle' hubs that have 1 cone on 1 side

Have i lost it?

 

[Polandspring88]

Can anybody explain to me (seriously) how the hub is easier to put on and off?

It sounds like a normal bolt on/thru axle with another 2 cones to line up making it

bolt-frame-spacer-hub-spacer-frame-bolt

How does adding two spacers make this any easier, i have a hell of a time with the ringle' hubs that have 1 cone on 1 side

Have i lost it?

The cones of the hub slide into a slot on the inside of the dropout. The spacer simply accounts for the width of the slot (3.5mm). Take a look at the illustration below

The wheel now drops into place as opposed to having to be lined up when inserting the through axle.

 

[buildyourown]

The cones of the hub slide into a slot on the inside of the dropout. The spacer simply accounts for the width of the slot (3.5mm). Take a look at the illustration below

The wheel now drops into place as opposed to having to be lined up when inserting the through axle.

My Turner had similar stops. They worked great as long as your hub happened to be the right size. Unfortunately, mine weren't so they got ground off.

This is why 142 hasn't caught on. Nobody is making hubs yet.

 

[DirtyMike]

Yes, people have plenty of 135mm rear wheels lying around that haven't bit the dust yet.

Yep, just like when 150 came out for DH use, Intense did a wonderful job then just like now.... They sold bikes that came with the option so that those who were able to only pop for a frame and not everything else... could still get setup.

Two I can think of in the past... M3 and Socom..... I know I have seen alot of those with 135 setups, specially when they first came out, them over time you just see them with 150 drop outs now

And why do they have all these wheels lying around? I quote myself:

Quote yourself its all good..... read the above statement.









I will add, the idea of replaceable dropouts like intense has should be a standard that all companies should adopt. I have broken dropouts before, and it sucks having to replace the whole rear end, not to mention being able to run multiple setups..... Props for that wonderfull job there..... Now if only the dropouts didnt cost quite so much