[bizutch]

and with the FSA & Cane Creek reducer headsets, Zoke has one more reason to not concern themselves with making a 1.5 diamater steerer tube. These headsets eliminate the wallowing that has occured on some standard headtubes.

Honestly, what is the strength to cost ratio of a 1.5 diameter steerer and standard steerer that weigh the exact same?

I mean...fi you have to engineer a 1.5 steerer that's "uber light" and rigid out of some superior material to get it to come in at the same weight as a standard steerer, but can achieve the same weight and strength from a standard steerer at less cost....why do it?

 

[binary visions]

I mean...fi you have to engineer a 1.5 steerer that's "uber light" and rigid out of some superior material to get it to come in at the same weight as a standard steerer, but can achieve the same weight and strength from a standard steerer at less cost....why do it?

Uhm, larger diameter parts can be made out of thinner tubing to come in at the exact same, or lighter, weight. Prime example would be something like Banshee's "kegger" headtube. It's rediculously thick, but still doesn't approach the strength of a 1.5 headtube that's half as thick, and lighter.

There's no special engineering or superior materials... The point is that bigger diameters can come in at lighter weight for the same strength, or stronger for the same weight.

 

[vitox]

So how would adding coil springs and steel steerer NOT add any weight?

ah sorry hadnt quite paid attention to the fact you were referring to the coil fork...

 

[vitox]

You know, when manitou came around and said that 1.5 was critical for their new 6" fork, it really made a lot of sense.

When manitou came out with the 6" 1.125 fork...(and marz was already sucessfull with their 1.125 6"er)....well let's just say the uncertaincy starts to get excessive. Manitou says it's critical for the 6" fork, then they go back on their word.

this is another memorable instance of me agreeing with jm_ actually i was just about to type something like it.

my problem with this whole debate is that i find it hard to believe manitou, even though i also think bryson made a fool out of himself, its manitou that went out with a truckload of marketing $ and declared they had found out that a 6" SC fork was not possible without onepointfive.

i wont argue with the logic that a bigger headtube and steerer are useful and probably better in theory, im convinced its true, specially for the frames and headsets.

but are the potential winnings worth the standard change? marzocchi thinks they arent and since they are the ones that have proven their "adversary" wrong i cant but give their stance some credit

however i still think marzo should just produce onepointfive forks, offer them as an alternative, let the people choose and see what standard offers most advantages in the end and stick to that one.

bottom line is i think manitou tried to trick people into believing something that really wasnt true and capitalize on everybodys techno-lust, but the idea behind onepointfive is good so why not embrace it regardless of how both manitou and marzocchi have handled the debate thus far.

 

[binary visions]

bottom line is i think manitou tried to trick people into believing something that really wasnt true and capitalize on everybodys techno-lust, but the idea behind onepointfive is good so why not embrace it regardless of how both manitou and marzocchi have handled the debate thus far.

Exactly. I get frustrated when people try and argue that 1.5 isn't a good thing simply because they thought it was a marketing ploy by Manitou. I'm not convinced it was, but regardless, the fact is that it's a very structurally sound idea. Who cares whether or not Manitou claimed that a 6" SC wasn't possible without the bigger steerer?

Fact is, 1.5 headtubes are a great thing for high-abuse bikes, and 1.5 steerers do have advantages - whether or not Marz thinks the market share makes it worth it to produce is another issue, and is really beside the point.

 

[Incubus]

...however i still think marzo should just produce onepointfive forks, offer them as an alternative, let the people choose and see what standard offers most advantages in the end and stick to that one...

One would guess that the reason they won't is it'll have some effect on their bottom line. Right now, they're forks will fit both size head tubes with the help of some 3 party parts (evil, Cane Creek, etc.). So why bother? Instead of going through the effort of development and costs associated with additional machining, casting, etc. They'll stick to their guns that there isn't a significant benefit (which is subjective) to warrant giving their customers a choice.

 

[frorider]

Uhm, larger diameter parts can be made out of thinner tubing to come in at the exact same, or lighter, weight. Prime example would be something like Banshee's "kegger" headtube. It's rediculously thick, but still doesn't approach the strength of a 1.5 headtube that's half as thick, and lighter.

There's no special engineering or superior materials... The point is that bigger diameters can come in at lighter weight for the same strength, or stronger for the same weight.

seems that most riders intuitively understand why Foes and Maverick use custom front hub/axle diameters that are larger than 20mm--it improves the stiffness/strength/weight performance for the hub / fork interface on inverted fork designs, where stiffness is especially crucial. the logic and physics behind 1.5 inch steerer tubes/crowns is quite similar, and yet for some reason there are still those who don't quite get it.

based on the marzocchi statements i've read over the past 2 years (unless i've missed something), marzocchi is not attempting to deny the fact that 1.5 inch steerer provides a better stiffness/strength/weight combination of factors. instead, marzocchi is saying that the overall improvement is not worth what they perceive as the inconvenience to the industry and to the customer of establishing two parallel standards (no one, including manitou, expects 1.5 to take over completely; instead, it will exist in parallel, much as 20 mm front hubs do). Marzocchi is entitled to that opinion, but i'd rather that companies try new ideas and in the end the market will decide based on choice and evolution (there are so many die-hard marzocchi fans, that if marzocchi decides not to offer a choice, that will not enable what marketers call an unforced outcome). 2 years ago i asked a leading manufacturer of stems whether they had plans to introduce a stem w/ oversize bar clamp and oversize (1.5 inch) steerer clamp diameters. they said No, they didn't see a market for either, let alone both. they didn't want to stick their necks out. indirectly, their decision meant that FSA stems (a competitor) started showing up more often on hi end bikes.

i doubt that i am the only rider who, because of years of preferring marzocchi forks and considering manitou to be crap, would have much preferred 2 yrs ago to buy a long travel SC marzocchi. but marzocchi didn't give me that choice, so i got a manitou breakout. much later they came out w/ the Z150, but that was too late. and needlessly heavy--this wasn't for my DH bike. to my surprise the manitou worked out to be durable and reliable, and for my next DC fork i'm seriously considering a dorado whereas before i would have been less likely to.

 

[dan-o]

however i still think marzo should just produce onepointfive forks, offer them as an alternative, let the people choose and see what standard offers most advantages in the end and stick to that one.

Marz is offering an alternative. That alternative is to run a manitou if you want a 1.5 steerer.

 

[vitox]

One would guess that the reason they won't is it'll have some effect on their bottom line. Right now, they're forks will fit both size head tubes with the help of some 3 party parts (evil, Cane Creek, etc.). So why bother? Instead of going through the effort of development and costs associated with additional machining, casting, etc. They'll stick to their guns that there isn't a significant benefit (which is subjective) to warrant giving their customers a choice.

yea thats most likely true,



as a sidenote i think brian made a very very good point earlier on, you see, one of the arguments in favor of onepointfive is how it allows for lighter forks by not needing a steel headtube, but then again you need a bigger headset so the weight issue is sort of negated.

 

[binary visions]

as a sidenote i think brian made a very very good point earlier on, you see, one of the arguments in favor of onepointfive is how it allows for lighter forks by not needing a steel headtube, but then again you need a bigger headset so the weight issue is sort of negated.

But if the weight issue is a wash (which it probably is), then for the same weight as a (usually very thick) 1 1/8" headtube, headset and fork, you get a headtube that is significantly stronger and resistant to ovalization, more weldable surface area around the headtube, much larger bearings which equate to longer bearing life, and a stiffer front end due to the larger steerer (not to mention more contact area with the fork crown).

Then, if you're running a 1.5" headtube with a 1 1/8" fork, the weight issue is not a wash, because you still need to run the heavy headset or equally heavy (if not heavier) spacers. The E.13 setup is significantly better, weight-wise, but that's just one product.

 

[frorider]

Marz is offering an alternative. That alternative is to run a manitou if you want a 1.5 steerer.

nope. that's what's known in marketing books as 'compromised choice'. it doesn't lead to the true market decision associated with uncompromised choice.

lemme give a counterexample. remember how Isis BB standard was co-introduced by several small/medium companies? this enabled a true, viable choice vs. Shimano octalink, and as a result ISIS caught on damn fast.

it's likely that if only one company--say, a small one like FSA was back then--had intro'd ISIS, it might not have gone anywhere. might have died completely. or might have stayed at a 3% market level for years, rather than becoming a viable additional standard. and people would have danced around saying, see, ISIS BB interface had no real technical advantage. after all, the 'market decided' etc. etc.

 

[Kornphlake]

as a sidenote i think brian made a very very good point earlier on, you see, one of the arguments in favor of onepointfive is how it allows for lighter forks by not needing a steel headtube, but then again you need a bigger headset so the weight issue is sort of negated.

You're kidding right. I already own a bike with a 1.5 head tube so I'll use the same headset with or without reducing bearing races for a 1.5 fork or a 1.125, what you're saying is that a heavier 1.125 fork will be lighter in the end than a 1.5 fork because the 1.5 requires a heavier headset??? I think it's the other way around my friend.

 

[vitox]

nope. that's what's known in marketing books as 'compromised choice'. it doesn't lead to the true market decision associated with uncompromised choice.

lemme give a counterexample. remember how Isis BB standard was co-introduced by several small/medium companies? this enabled a true, viable choice vs. Shimano octalink, and as a result ISIS caught on damn fast.

it's likely that if only one company--say, a small one like FSA was back then--had intro'd ISIS, it might not have gone anywhere. might have died completely. or might have stayed at a 3% market level for years, rather than becoming a viable additional standard. and people would have danced around saying, see, ISIS BB interface had no real technical advantage. after all, the 'market decided' etc. etc.

youre not jm_`s teacher are you?

i think ill stick around this thread maybe we will get to the core competences lesson soon

 

[vitox]

You're kidding right. I already own a bike with a 1.5 head tube so I'll use the same headset with or without reducing bearing races for a 1.5 fork or a 1.125, what you're saying is that a heavier 1.125 fork will be lighter in the end than a 1.5 fork because the 1.5 requires a heavier headset??? I think it's the other way around my friend.

not kidding but not really thinking about your case because if you have a onepointfive compatible, your best call is of course a onepointfive fork and no adapters, as always.

but the strength argument is a bit weak, like i said before i also believe that in theory you should be able to make a stronger/lighter fork with a bigger headtube, question is how much.

you could for example just use marzos logic here, they most certainly know that 1,5 makes for stonger/lighter, they also most certainly know exactly how much in gramss and newtons (or whatever you want to measure in), and theyre deciding to forego onepointfive because or the expected returns of the move to a different standard, thing is those expected returns come via their expected customer response (buy/not buy fork), this is where we come full circle because that customer response will in large part be dictated by those grams and newtons. see?

 

[frorider]

But if the weight issue is a wash (which it probably is), then for the same weight as a (usually very thick) 1 1/8" headtube, headset and fork, you get a headtube that is significantly stronger and resistant to ovalization, more weldable surface area around the headtube, much larger bearings which equate to longer bearing life, and a stiffer front end due to the larger steerer (not to mention more contact area with the fork crown).

Then, if you're running a 1.5" headtube with a 1 1/8" fork, the weight issue is not a wash, because you still need to run the heavy headset or equally heavy (if not heavier) spacers. The E.13 setup is significantly better, weight-wise, but that's just one product.

and moreover....i'm not even sure the weight comparison is a wash to begin with. anyone actually have relevant data? seems like increasingly we're using steel 1.125 headsets with deeper cup penetration. and 1.125 steerer tubes w/ thicker walls. everything's getting heavier in an attempt to get around the constraints of a 1.125 standard that was developed in the days of 2 inch travel forks.

 

[OGRipper]

This sure has generated a lot of good debate and well-reasoned opinions, and it's great example of RM's potential. Also shows how long-travel forks (especially SC) are obviously pretty-hot right now.

I see two separate questions:

(1) Is 1.5 better from a technical point of view?

(2) Does it make sense to produce 1.5 products in the current market?

As an addicted bike freak consumer who wants the best technology, personally I'm more interested in the first question, because however marginal or negligible the improvement may be, an improvement is an improvement. I'm pretty psyched about all the marginal improvements I've been able to make to my bikes. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I love bikes and want them to be as great as they can be, and I don't really care how many they can sell.

As to the second question, 'Zoke has made their call and decided against 1.5. Fine. Count me as one consumer that would like to see 1.5 forks from them.

"Only a fool would suggest a business holds profitability to a low priority."

Nah, only a fool can't understand it's possible to discuss the merits of technology without factoring in profitability.

Happy Friday, OG

 

[vitox]

and moreover....i'm not even sure the weight comparison is a wash to begin with. anyone actually have relevant data? seems like increasingly we're using steel 1.125 headsets with deeper cup penetration. and 1.125 steerer tubes w/ thicker walls. everything's getting heavier in an attempt to get around the constraints of a 1.125 standard that was developed in the days of 2 inch travel forks.

i dont have any hard facts here but i did weigh the biggest of all 1,125 headsets ive seen, the fsa steel pig dh pro deep (7/8" insert) headset and it wasnt as heavy as i had expected it to, if im not wrong it was sub 250g with top cap and bolt.

ive never weighed a 1,5 headset but the one time i had one of them in my hand it struck me a pretty heavy (it was the reducer think that comes stock on the sgs dh)

 

[Incubus]

i dont have any hard facts here but i did weigh the biggest of all 1,125 headsets ive seen, the fsa steel pig dh pro deep (7/8" insert) headset and it wasnt as heavy as i had expected it to, if im not wrong it was sub 250g with top cap and bolt.

ive never weighed a 1,5 headset but the one time i had one of them in my hand it struck me a pretty heavy (it was the reducer think that comes stock on the sgs dh)

CaneCreek claim that their XX headset (1.5") weighs 222g. The XXc (reduced to 1.125") weighs 247g.

 

[dan-o]

Well I certainly don't want to dispute Marketing Book theory but why does every manufacturer in an industry need to offer every conceivable option for there to be uncompromised choice?

If you want 1.5 (frames, forks, stems etc) you can get it from X number of companies. If not, you have plenty of choices as well. I don't see Shimano offering campy compatible cassette bodies or 1:1 ratio shifters, both designs I find superior, but others do providing me choice.

FSA is a brand within one of the worlds largest bicycle component manufacturers. The brand may have been small, but the company behind the brand is massive. They probably could have carried off ISIS alone since square taper BBs were at the end of their lifecycle given the sports progression. Raceface added Aftermarket credibility and TruVativ provided extensive OEM spec as they were the only substantial alternative to Shimano cranks at the time, but the era of splined BBs had already arrived as a result of exceeding the functional limits of square taper.

ISIS succeeded because it had a reason to exist.

 

[buildyourown]

As an addicted bike freak consumer who wants the best technology, personally I'm more interested in the first question, because however marginal or negligible the improvement may be, an improvement is an improvement. I'm pretty psyched about all the marginal improvements I've been able to make to my bikes. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I love bikes and want them to be as great as they can be, and I don't really care how many they can sell.

There is no argument that 1.5 is at least marginally better that 1.125. If marz made a 1.5 fork, I would buy one. However, currently, if you want a 1.5 fork, you have to buy a manitou. Which means you would be stuck with a piece of crap for a fork. I think I'll stick with forks that work and last.

 

[zedro]

to summarize...

1.5 steerer lovers are weight weeners :mumble:

can we argue over the merits of straight pull spokes now?

 

[Brian Peterson]

ISIS also has an advantage of not requiring the market to redesign frames to use it.... Plus there were other issues regarding pricing and availability that made ISIS very attractive to the market.

Brian

 

[Incubus]

...ISIS succeeded because it had a reason to exist.

One could argue that ISIS is more successful than 1.5, not because 1.5 doesn't have a reason to exist, rather ISIS still worked with the existing bb to frame interface.

A better comparison would be 1.5 vs. 'overdrive'. Which of those new standards was more successful?

Edit: Brian beat me to it.

 

[frorider]

Well I certainly don't want to dispute Marketing Book theory but why does every manufacturer in an industry need to offer every conceivable option for there to be uncompromised choice?

If you want 1.5 (frames, forks, stems etc) you can get it from X number of companies. If not, you have plenty of choices as well. I don't see Shimano offering campy compatible cassette bodies or 1:1 ratio shifters, both designs I find superior, but others do providing me choice.

FSA is a brand within one of the worlds largest bicycle component manufacturers. The brand may have been small, but the company behind the brand is massive. They probably could have carried off ISIS alone since square taper BBs were at the end of their lifecycle given the sports progression. Raceface added Aftermarket credibility and TruVativ provided extensive OEM spec as they were the only substantial alternative to Shimano cranks at the time, but the era of splined BBs had already arrived as a result of exceeding the functional limits of square taper.

ISIS succeeded because it had a reason to exist.

first off i want to echo what another poster said...this thread is a good discussion.

i agree w/ your comment about how square taper was headed for the cemetery one way or another. neither one of us 'knows' for sure whether FSA (a company I just happened to pick as an example, mostly because i knew that truvativ had more OEM spec volume) could have pulled off ISIS on their own. two comments on that:

* i strongly suspect--and you'll probably agree--that if FSA alone had tried to force ISIS on the market, the rate of penetration vs. shimano octalink would have been far slower. in fact, it might have dead-ended. remember how Blackspire was focussed on shimano octalink? and don't forget that octalink was replacing square taper, so really we're having a discussion about whether the market had room for two standards: octalink and ISIS. anyway, for a variety of factors, ISIS did well and did well quicker than many in the industry had envisioned vs. Shimano. let's not get into the whole open vs. closed standard discussion tho... :wink:

* as another interesting example, wasn't it FSA (I'm not sure who, but I think it was them) who've been at trade shows showing an oversize bottom bracket standard? this new standard would enable big spindle diameters PLUS inboard, well-sealed bearings--but requires a larger BB shell in the frame. as you know, this one-company standard appears to be going nowhere. instead, the new emerging 'standard' approach uses standard BB shells on the frame, and puts the bearings outboard (shimano, and the raceface X type, etc.) but things are in a state of flux there. in terms of bearing longevity in harsh environments, there are many who feel that this outboard bearing approach is a less than ideal solution. personally i don't have a strong opinion on this topic yet---i'd have to have direct experience w/ all the options to develop that opinion. but it is an interesting example of how difficult it is for one company to force the industry & market to seriously consider a new standard.

history is filled w/ engineering ideas that, while technically better, took decades to truly penetrate the market--or never did.

speculation is always a fun sport. while we're speculating, i'll speculate that if marzocchi, manitou, and stratos had all introduced 1.5 within 6 mos. of each other, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[frorider]

i'm the first to admit that finding an exact analogy to the 1.5 debate is essentially impossible. ISIS is an imperfect analogy, but helps make some of the relevant points.

remember, while ISIS left the BB shell standard in place, it was completely incompatible with nonISIS cranks (past and present). meanwhile 1.5 head tubes are quite compatible w/ 1.125 steerer tubes. in fact, one poster above sugg'd that 1.125 steerer plus 1.5 head tube is the 'right' way to do 1.125 since it increases outer bearing contact area.

hrug:

 

[OGRipper]

Damn Frorider, class is in session!

Let's bridge the gap, join hands, and build on the lessons of ISIS:

I think we need splined, 1.125 steer tubes.

Oh yeah!

 

[vitox]

CaneCreek claim that their XX headset (1.5") weighs 222g. The XXc (reduced to 1.125") weighs 247g.

yea weight weenies (the site) has that same info, on the other hand.


a fsa steel dh headset like the pig weighs around 170 so the hard facts point towards a 0,1lbs difference between a regular onepointfive headset and a really heavy 1,125 headset.

so its safe to say the weight issue is non existant.

 

[binary visions]

in fact, one poster above sugg'd that 1.125 steerer plus 1.5 head tube is the 'right' way to do 1.125 since it increases outer bearing contact area.

I've been waiting for someone to come up with a "reducing" headset that, instead of using a compression ring in the normal 1.5" bearings, uses some much larger bearings inside the headset. Going with the traditional cups would be overkill on bearing size, and unreasonably heavy, but you could make a "zero stack" headset that fits inside the 1.5" headtube, that uses very large bearings, giving you a nearly indestructable headset.

Not for the weight weenies, of course, but it'd be cool to see - not really all that practical, though, considering current high-quality headset bearing life is damn good.

 

[Brian Peterson]

1.5 for a frame maker is not as big of an issue as it is for a fork maker.... Afterall, like we have all agreed on, a 1.5 frame can still use a 1.125 fork. If every 1.125 frame ceased to exist overnight, Marzocchi would be in trouble. But, since there continues to be a large 1.125 market (And will be into the foreseeable future..) we will continue to make forks that fit as many frames as possible.

Brian

 

[Jeremy R]

so its safe to say the weight issue is non existant.

Too bad this argument is still existing.
Jeez, over steerer tubes.

I can hear it now,
"Yeah, I would not have crashed in that turn except that my tiny steerer tube was all flexy and stuff, so I wadded it up.

It's 2 years later, we got a whole new line of forks to look at, and yet the focus is still on steerer tube size.
That is like discussing a stripper's choice of footwear.

Must go ride now.

 

[Brian Peterson]

That is like discussing a stripper's choice of footwear.

If she isn't wearing clear heels on those shoes, she isn't a true stripper...



Brian

 

[zedro]

I've been waiting for someone to come up with a "reducing" headset that, instead of using a compression ring in the normal 1.5" bearings, uses some much larger bearings inside the headset. Going with the traditional cups would be overkill on bearing size, and unreasonably heavy, but you could make a "zero stack" headset that fits inside the 1.5" headtube, that uses very large bearings, giving you a nearly indestructable headset.

i bet we'll see that come Interbike...not really a stretch either since it would essentially just bump the E13 cups which already require current IH bearings.

as for splined steerers/stems....you know that wouldnt be such a terrible idea on paper, and it could be a way of making 1.125 steerers stronger with less of a weight penalty, but who knows if permanent steerer twist damage would be a problem hmmmm...

 

[leprechaun]

Wow.10poages-i wasn;t going to post but this is indeed valid.
I ride an ASX w/1.5 and had a 5" Z1 and wanted more travel and not more weight.I got a 6"Sherman(TPC one).My bike is 35lbs which for me is THE MAX i can pedal uphill.The bike w/ 6"front/7" rear is truely amazing.The DH bike just sits and collects dust A can ride nearly everything on this bike and it is FUN!I didn't want a Manitou,as the performance is not a Zoke but it fits my needs.It lowers to 4"for climbing,a must for me.
The question is -150mmZ1,or Fox 36?
I wish i could stay 1.5 as both of these forks would be lighter,stronger,or both if the steerer was larger.I guess i will be puting the reducers back in my frame.
So we now have 2 32-36 mm legs tugging on a 26mm steerer tube!!!!!!! Who's gonna win in that tugging match?These new forks (170 sc's) are going to allow riders to go huge on them!People are going to be doing full DH/stunt riding w/o even thinking twice about it,since most don't think at all anyway.
Give it a couple more years and 1.5 will take over.

 

[dan-o]

not really all that practical, though, considering current high-quality headset bearing life is damn good.

This view is similar to Marz's view that the benefit of going to 1.5 may not, based on the testing they claim to have done, warrant the extra cost to manufacture them. If they are comfortable with the safety of their product and have the added benefit of already being compatible via adaptors to 1.5 frames what's their motivation to invest in the tooling?

Instead of beating up in the fork guys (who already have access to 1.5 customers), proponents of 1.5 should be chasing after the frame manufacturers who apparently benefit most from the standard yet ultimately control the scale of the market.

 

[OGRipper]

Yep, and how long before someone makes an 8" single crown? Think someone will show one at Interbike? Think it will 1.125?

 

[binary visions]

Too bad this argument is still existing.
Jeez, over steerer tubes.
<snip>
Must go ride now.

I've always been a bit amused by the comments like "this isn't important, I should be riding".

Without discussion, even discussion of something you might consider unimportant, a lot of mental stimulation would be lost. In all honesty, I don't give a flying fvck or a rolling donut whether or Marz jumps into the 1.5 thing, but it's interesting (to me) to talk about and discuss the merits or disadvantages of one system over another. If you don't like that kind of discussion, well that's fine and dandy, but you're in the wrong place...

 

[Incubus]

...stuff... or a rolling donut ...more stuff...

Mmmmm... donuts.

That's a fairly universally embraced standard that I'd like to see oversized. ink:

 

[Jeremy R]

I've always been a bit amused by the comments like "this isn't important, I should be riding".

Without discussion, even discussion of something you might consider unimportant, a lot of mental stimulation would be lost. In all honesty, I don't give a flying fvck or a rolling donut whether or Marz jumps into the 1.5 thing, but it's interesting (to me) to talk about and discuss the merits or disadvantages of one system over another. If you don't like that kind of discussion, well that's fine and dandy, but you're in the wrong place...

I realize all that. But it has just been said over and over in a thousand different threads.
I have and love a 1.5 frame.
I have and love a FSA 1.5 headset.
It came with simple races for a 1.125 fork.
If I want to run a 1.5 steerer tube then I pick up some 1.5 races.
If you buy a 1.5 frame, it gives you a ton of choices.
As far as focusing on steerer tubes, I'll use this example.
Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that people should focus on the internals, and here is what i meant.
The two Breakout + forks that I have rode around on this year (both had seen DH use as well), had bushings that were totally shot, and were both getting that SPV clunk when you push down on them.
Now, any stiffness you might have picked up with a 1.5 steerer can't come close to making up for loose bushings etc.....
These are the things that are going to matter to you once the fork is installed, and you forget about the steerer size.
Now, if these steerer tubes start snapping left and right with all the long travel and big hits, then that is a different story. But most of them are not even out yet.

 

[frorider]

(edit) Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that people should focus on the internals, and here is what i meant.
The two Breakout + forks that I have rode around on this year (both had seen DH use as well), had bushings that were totally shot, and were both getting that SPV clunk when you push down on them.
Now, any stiffness you might have picked up with a 1.5 steerer can't come close to making up for loose bushings etc.....
These are the things that are going to matter to you once the fork is installed, and you forget about the steerer size.
Now, if these steerer tubes start snapping left and right with all the long travel and big hits, then that is a different story. But most of them are not even out yet.

totally agree with you that stiffness advantages are negated if your bushings get sloppy. this is yet another reason why i'm positive i wasn't the only one with the reaction on first seeing the manitou breakout 1.5 inch: a) damn, that's what i need for my SC freeride bike b) damn, i wish marzocchi would make a 6 or 7 inch 1.5 SC.

wonder why my manipoo bushings are holding up to mammoth and northstar poundings? oil change frequency? i know it's not rider skill

 

[frorider]

Yep, and how long before someone makes an 8" single crown? Think someone will show one at Interbike? Think it will 1.125?

i have insider information on that: keith bontrager has codesigned an 8 inch single crown fork based on a 1 inch steerer tube.

the steerer will be a solid milled chunk of steel.

shhh. don't tell anyone.