Need a name for a bar/stem combo.
- Thread starter w00dy
- Start date
Bacon.
Sweet- excited to see your set up.
That name has already been used on a set of bars:Titty Bars
http://www.yowelli.blogspot.com/2011/10/titty-bars.html#links
How about the John Doe, or the UNKNWN. ( No Need For A Name )
Bacon bar...mmmmmmm I can only imagine the possibilities. Perhaps it could be filled with bacon bits and dispense them as needed on the trail.
the GNARles BARley - GnarBar for short.
These blanks were cut with enough material to accommodate a 40mm stanchion, but are only bored out to 31mm. Future renditions will be way slimmer on the rear end. (Sorry, Brazilians)
Why not just make the crown too, and eliminate a couple of bolts, extra material, and maximise stanchion height options. Like a Chunked, or Hope stem/crown but only for fad(oooops, flat)bars.
You'll loose flex, and add higher stress points to bars. I see some potential but.
Pole Dancers.
You'll loose flex, and add higher stress points to bars. I see some potential but.
Pole Dancers.
In a word, Manufacturability.
Making small clamps with a few different bore diameters is a much smaller time and money investment than an entire crown system with different dimensions for every model from every manufacturer.
I don't want to market some $500 bar/stem system, I want to be competitive with a standard setup.
I don't have a finished product to get a real figure for you, but it should be in line with the lightest aluminum bar / integrated stem combos.
Last edited:
How much stanchion do they need?
And just to make sure I'm grasping this right, it's impossible to use if you like to push your stanchion as low into the crowns as possible? So you have to lower your crown and then you can only run a flat bar?
If it suits you, congrats, it looks good and I'm sure there's a market for it.
However it seems like a really, really low front end
And just to make sure I'm grasping this right, it's impossible to use if you like to push your stanchion as low into the crowns as possible? So you have to lower your crown and then you can only run a flat bar?
If it suits you, congrats, it looks good and I'm sure there's a market for it.
However it seems like a really, really low front end
Ok this might seem a little out there, but how about a third clamp (stem) to replace the upper crown? With all three clamped to the bar in such a short distance (6"?)it seems that the bar could structurally serve as the crown. Then you're only making three clamps and the middle one could be universal like the bar. Would also open possibilities for set ups like my old demo plus 09 boxxer with no extra stanchion.
I agree that height could be the tricky part. Definately sweet idea and your clamps look great from behind. (ha)
I agree that height could be the tricky part. Definately sweet idea and your clamps look great from behind. (ha)
Last edited:
Are you saying whatI said(like Chunked Hope), or something different? Sorry I didn't get your explanation.
The Barse?
No a little bit different- he would use the same two parts that he's created (or something similiar) then remove the stock upper crown. Then use something that might even look like a conventional stem for the third peice. Bars would tie all three together eliminating the need for a traditional upper crown.
Last edited:
This is what I wonder. I've never personally had a fork (888, Boxxer, or 40) where I had enough stanchion exposed above the upper crown that those clamps would work.
looks like the exposed stanchion height requirement is a fairly limiting factor (unless you change to a drop crown to accommodate). i suppose you could do a riser version designed for under crown mounting. how about riser bar clip-ons like the bushido (vintage 1987 content!). ok, independently moving bars would suck, but yeah...
"Super Terrific Happy Hour"
I'll PM you my address for free sthuff!
I'll PM you my address for free sthuff!
NO!
That wouldn't be very stiff, bad idea, no point to it. Weight the same, harder to torque down, etc.
Can you link the stem parts together so we can have a real triple crown fork?
but, but, but it has a bacon dispenser...
Props for creativity but that setup scares the crap out of me.
Am I the only one thinking it's more than a little sketchy to rely on the top of your stanchions to bear the entire load from your bars? Those stanchions have super thin walls and are threaded at the top, removing some of what little material there is, so they are even thinner right where your bars attach. They are designed to work with two crowns and a steer tube, with the bulk of the load handled by the steer tube, no?
You must have given this some thought. Have you done any strength testing or talked to a fork manufacturer?
King of the Jews
the armchair engineer in me thinks two stanchions has to be at least as stable as one steer tube...
Kinda catchy...I'd buy one.
Go look at the difference in thickness.
Also, the stanchions are being loaded on the threaded portion. Not good.
It's also a bending/twisting for for which is was not designed.
I'm not trying to hate but I'm not a fan I don't see any weight savings. I think you are going to end up at least 50-100g heavier than the lighter direct mount setups.
No way. That thing will be light as shlt once the tops of those stanchions pop off.
Gotta think long term here. It's a progressive weight savings.
Having the threaded top caps inside would help to stop crushing/stressing the tubes. Not really any different to a top crown really.
You are talking about two very different things. With a dual crown fork, the leverage from your wheel is supported by two separate crowns spaced apart. That is why each crown in a dual crown fork can be much smaller than the one crown on a single crown fork, and why the stanchions can be smaller and thinner. Plus, the stanchions on a single crown fork are designed to handle the loads that are applied to that small spot - and even then you use your steer tube to support the bars.
Just raising what seems to be an obvious concern. I'm not an engineer and for woody's sake I hope I'm wrong.
your eyes are calibrated scales? that's fvckin sick!
Tell me how you really feel.
Just kidding. I actually welcome the criticism. It lets me know what I need to focus on to improve.
I understand the concern about clamping onto the threaded portion of a tube, but there is also a large nut underneath to support the tube in that portion, if that's where the clamp is placed.
I do take issue with the bending/twisting concern. The widely-spaced supports will take much more axial (up/down), and shear (fore/aft) force from pressure on the bar. A standard stem on steerer tube is all twisting and bending on a single tube of roughly the same diameter. The tube wall on the stanchion may be thinner, but your forces are applied in a much less stressful manner. Also, your lever length is reduced on either side. Instead of 2 15" levers applied to a 2" wide structure you have 2 12" levers acting on a 6-7" wide structure.
The weight concern I cannot combat until I have real numbers to provide to you. I will just have to prove that with the next generation.
This is hilarious. Nice work, Picasso.
Someone give this man some rep. as I must spread thy rep b4 givith to JK. That's a hilarious reply.
I don't know- if you're going to have a straight bar in there, you might as well get rid of some parts.
Hell, lets get rid of the steerer tube while we're at it.
Last edited:
What do I win?