[Bikerider]

Ok, I don't post much but I'm going to make up for it...

First off, the conversion will be a big hassle. Throw your existing frames, headsets and stems in the garbage. Oh, and forks too if the crown is not a bolt-on. I suppose a lot of people change bikes every year so it won't affect them, but a lot more people don't and this is going to create huge problems. I strongly suspect that this is a merciless cash-grab in an industry that has perhaps run out of ideas for the next new thing. Ok, before you think I am completely opposed to the objective of a stronger head tube junction let me just say that I'm not.

I think most people agree that a stronger steerer tube/headtube junction is a good, even nessessary, thing. So why not simply make the tubing thicker? There is no limitation on the potential thickness of the head tube or the steerer tube - unless you were using threaded headsets with quill-type stems of course, but that doesn't apply to real MTBs. All that would have to be changed is the diameter of the star-fangled nut.

And before anyone points this out, yes, I know that increasing the diameter of the tubing is generally a more productive way to gain strength and stiffness than increasing the thickness (ie less mass for a given strength or more strength for a given mass). However, considering how large the changeover to a different headset diameter is, would it not be a worthwhile tradeoff? (especially for DH/DJ frames) How much extra weight are talking about anyway considering this would only require extra material on a fairly small % of the overall tubing of the frame and fork? Besides, this would allow the manufacturers to only beef up frames/forks designed for heavy-duty purposes, XC frames could remain as they are.

I have no problem with the idea of increasing the depth of headset cups but there is no reason this can't be done with the 1-1/8" standard.

EDIT: Also, I notice that the only frame maker who is listed on http://www.onepointfivestandard.com/ is Cannondale, not really what I would expect considering the idea is meant to target the DH/Freeride community.

 

[edoz]

I have not heard about this. Where did you hear it? I dislike the idea already.

 

[Bikerider]

Originally posted by edoz
I have not heard about this. Where did you hear it? I dislike the idea already.

Whoops, sorry about that.

http://www.onepointfivestandard.com/

 

[edoz]

Man, I have to wonder why the 1 1/4" headset didn't catch on. No body liked it for some reason, now we're gonna do it all over again. Maybe they'll just spec'em on bikes with 29" wheels!

 

[Ranger]

Servus!

I'm surprised that no one has figured it out yet....

The whole concept behind the 1.5 "standard" is not to create a more stable head tube/steerer tube, but to sell bikes. If the 1.5 catches on (and it will, due to industry pressures) then you will eventually have to buy a new:

Fork
Headset
Frame


This ends up being a big chunk of $$$ out of your pocket. Simple really. The bike industry needs to sell bikes - the easiest way to get them to make you spend money is to change something that affects more than one system. They don't particularly care that this will render old stuff obsolete - if you want Brand X forks, you have to comply to 1.5. Shimano did it with splined BB axles - look at the success that was. It will also make them money in the R&D department because most of the current technology has been researched out. New standard means new parts which meant more testing and development.

This is old hat in the automotive industry - there are automobiles that need special tools from the auto manufacturer so that service can be performed on them, making sure that you go to an "authorized" service facility and not to your brother-in-law who is a mechanic. It assures that they make more money.

Fight this one tooth and nail - it's YOUR money they want to take.

Thus endeth the sermon.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

...of conspiracy theories?

J

 

[Bikerider]

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters
...of conspiracy theories?

J

Your well-reasoned rebuttal is duly noted.

I suppose I deserve your response and a poor rating for the thread for straying onto a bike-related topic rather than a soap opera.

My mistake.

 

[Ranger]

Servus!

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters
(Doesn't anyone ever get tired)...of conspiracy theories? J

Actually, no. If I said that the government (under the direction of the Roswell aliens, of course) is forcing the manufacurers to create components to a oddball standard so that the Asian parts makers have to retool or no longer sell in the U.S. market - that would be conspiracy theory. Creating a "new standard" only benefits the manufacturer, not the customer.

I have been riding for years with 1 1/8 steerer tubes, dishing out the punishment just like anyone else. Never had any of my head tubes or steerers ovalize. The only pictures or data that I see in regards to these complaints come from the DH/DS crowd. Fine, then why not make it an option for DH/DS specific frames and equipment? No, this is going to be industry-wide and that means that all of your stuff will be obsolete as soon as the 1.5 standard takes hold. Ask any of the bike industry related members of this board if I have said anything that isn't true.

 

[KonaDude]

Originally posted by Bikerider
Ok, I don't post much but I'm going to make up for it...

First off, the conversion will be a big hassle. Throw your existing frames, headsets and stems in the garbage. Oh, and forks too if the crown is not a bolt-on. I suppose a lot of people change bikes every year so it won't affect them, but a lot more people don't and this is going to create huge problems. I strongly suspect that this is a merciless cash-grab in an industry that has perhaps run out of ideas for the next new thing. Ok, before you think I am completely opposed to the objective of a stronger head tube junction let me just say that I'm not.

I think most people agree that a stronger steerer tube/headtube junction is a good, even nessessary, thing. So why not simply make the tubing thicker? There is no limitation on the potential thickness of the head tube or the steerer tube - unless you were using threaded headsets with quill-type stems of course, but that doesn't apply to real MTBs. All that would have to be changed is the diameter of the star-fangled nut.

And before anyone points this out, yes, I know that increasing the diameter of the tubing is generally a more productive way to gain strength and stiffness than increasing the thickness (ie less mass for a given strength or more strength for a given mass). However, considering how large the changeover to a different headset diameter is, would it not be a worthwhile tradeoff? (especially for DH/DJ frames) How much extra weight are talking about anyway considering this would only require extra material on a fairly small % of the overall tubing of the frame and fork? Besides, this would allow the manufacturers to only beef up frames/forks designed for heavy-duty purposes, XC frames could remain as they are.

I have no problem with the idea of increasing the depth of headset cups but there is no reason this can't be done with the 1-1/8" standard.

EDIT: Also, I notice that the only frame maker who is listed on http://www.onepointfivestandard.com/ is Cannondale, not really what I would expect considering the idea is meant to target the DH/Freeride community.

Well, 1 1/8" setups aren't really standardized very well. If they were to come out with deep cups for 1 1/8" setups with cups that go super deep (like the King), the standard needs to require deeper reaming of the head tubes (which doesn't happen right now). The point of 1.5 standard is to create a STRICT standard for which many things have to be in place. Currently there aren't controls on how deep the head tube is reamed, and there are wide tolerances on steerer tubes and head tubes, which has resulted in problems, even on high end stuff.

1.5 doesn't just increase steerer stiffness/strength, but larger bearings may be used in the headset, a larger gap between the inside of the head tube and the outside of the steerer to allow for thicker cups and more clearance between the steerer and the headset, deeper cup overlap, more contact inside the head tube for the cup (larger diameter press fit), etc. There are lots of benefits.

I highly doubt this will be a huge problem for anybody. It's relatively simple. You buy a 1.5 compatible frame, buy a 1.5 compatible fork. You already have a frame or fork, buy a compatible frame or fork. There will definitely be overlap between the two standards for awhile to allow for lots of versatility.

Sometimes change is good. The freeride/downhill crowd is looking for a change. Larger bearings, stronger forks, stronger frames, stronger wheels. Everything's evolving for the DH/FR crowd. This is just one of those evolutions. I have a feeling it'll start out like 160mm spaced rear ends for DH bikes. Either that or it'll be forced into large scale commonness. Either way, do not fear. It won't cause any problems.

 

[D_D]

Originally posted by KonaDude

I highly doubt this will be a huge problem for anybody. It's relatively simple. You buy a 1.5 compatible frame, buy a 1.5 compatible fork. You already have a frame or fork, buy a compatible frame or fork. There will definitely be overlap between the two standards for awhile to allow for lots of versatility.

Sometimes change is good. The freeride/downhill crowd is looking for a change. Larger bearings, stronger forks, stronger frames, stronger wheels. Everything's evolving for the DH/FR crowd. This is just one of those evolutions. I have a feeling it'll start out like 160mm spaced rear ends for DH bikes. Either that or it'll be forced into large scale commonness. Either way, do not fear. It won't cause any problems.

I can't see it cause that much of a problem either. I imagine the fork/ componant manufactures will contiue to make 1 1/8 stuff just like they did for 1 inch.

 

[oldfart]

My understanding is that the 1.5 standard is intended for the DH, FR crowd and 1 1/8 will continue to be the XC standard. rotecguy is right in my opinion. 1 1/8 is not optimal for very hard riding.

 

[freeride_86]

I am not in favor of the 1.5 idea but i guess there is a solution. Have you ever seen a bmx bottom bracket on a mountain bike, sure you have, but they make those things to put in so u can run a mtb bb. Also cannondales head tubes are bigger than everyone else, there is an adapter available to put in so you can run a normal fork. If they do change to 1.5 i can almost guarantee that they will make an adapter to go in the 1.5 so u can run 1 1/8. I know they may not work as well but that will save you the hassle of switching fork, stem and headset, or they will just make a really thick headset that has a narrower hole to accomidate the 1 1/8. I know it will suck for a while but we got through the 1 to 1 1/8 change so we will be alright. I still DO NOT support the change but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Gallain]

Hey I dont see the problem. I'm going to buy a new frame this year or 2. Aleast 1 new fork. last yesr I bought 2 complete bikes.

So if they change the standard, so what?
If you buy a new frame you can use your old fork!

I like the idea of having a bike that can take the abuse I throw at it. If You dont then buy a XC bike.
Cause the only bikes that will change is FR/DH bikes.

 

[Locosrus]

A group of industry thinkers led by Manitou believe that they have invented the uniform standard which will define freeriding for the remainder of the millennium. Its trademarked name is “OnePointFive” and it is an oversized steerer tube. What? How can an oversized pipe sticking out of a fork be the definer of freeriding? Huh?

Well, OnePointFive isn’t just a steerer tube, it’s a standard for an oversized steerer tube, a correspondingly huge head tube, and one heck of a headset. If adopted, the bigger-than-life dimensions of the OnePointFive standard will be a face lift for freeride bicycles. The frame's top and downtubes will swell to meet a head tube that rivals a Fosters Lager beer can. Jutting from the top of the 1.5-inch steerer tube is a clamp-on stem, the likes of which, no mountain biker has ever seen. Show casing a handlebar of most manly proportions. But wait, the best is yet to come! Bristling below all of this bulging new bigness, is the seminal seed that impulsed the OnePointFive standard into existence: A monstrous, six-inch-stroke single-crown Manitou fork.

There is no doubt that the OnePointFive standard will be embraced by freeriders. The fresh new look of a larger-than-life single-crown fork with a “for freeriders only” logo is, as its makers claim: “exactly what the mountain bike industry needs right now.” Free ride is the sport’s most visible and active segment of the sport, but it lacks a defined look. It is interesting, that OnePointFive was initiated by a fork company, and pitched to various headset and frame makers as a stronger, safer, and lighter alternative to dual-crown forks. A clever spin, but not really the truth.


Dual-crown forks and the freeriding frames that they are designed to be installed on have no durability issues. Conventional single-crown forks, however, do have a spotty reputation among hard core huckers, especially on the fabled North Shore. The real story is that Manitou wants to make a revolutionary single-crown fork with downhill travel-and the only way that can happen is if their customers accept a stronger, larger-diameter steerer tube format. Enter the OnePointFive standard: born form a single-crown fork that needed a stronger steerer, which in turn, requires a larger head set, and thus dictates a huge head tube-which will eventually spawn a crop of giant-sized frames, handlebars and stems. Does that remind you of a popular nursery rhyme?

So, the question that OnePointFive asks us has nothing to do with building the ultimate big-jump, drop-in fork, because that position has already been filled by dual-crown forks. OnePointFive is all about whether or not we want a longer and stronger SINGLE CROWN forks. There are no scientific reasons to replace a long-travel dual-crown fork with a single-crown version. The dual-crown design better distributes the bending loads along the fork legs. There is very little stress on the crowns and it virtually eliminates the need for a steerer tube at all. This is why the tiny one-inch aluminum steerer of a Honda CR 250 can handle repeated 90-foot jumps. Take off the upper crown of a long-stroke fork and the equation shifts from green to red.

Most of the bending moment of a single crown fork is concentrated near the lower headset race. Here, the steerer and the fork crown must handle all of the bending loads. The longer the fork, the greater the bending moments will be. Fork makers have been receiving a steady trickle of bent 1 1/8-inch steerers from their single-crown freeriding customers. If in fact, there are a significant number of hard core freeriding types who, for whatever reason, insist upon riding single-crown forks, then the OnePointFive standard makes engineering sense. A stronger head tube interface could stem the trickle before it becomes a flood.

So who needs a big frame with a huge head tube and a bulbous single crown fork sticking out from it? Craig Pollack, the guy who runs Race Face and one of my most trustworthy advisors, was the only proponent of the standard who could provide me with an unbiased answer. He first lauded the effort because, like the Isis splined bottom bracket format, the OnePointFive is available free to anyone who signs an agreement to adhere to the standard. Craig lives and rides in the Pacific Northwest where freeriding first became an established mountain bike lifestyle. He remarked that he, like many weekend warriors, felt intimidated by dual-crown forks.

“When I show up on the North Shore with my dual-crown bike, I feel like I have to do all of the stunts--like more is expected from me. When I bring my single-crown bike, I don’t sense that pressure.” To tell the truth, I don’t like dual crown forks for that reason, and I believe that there are many others out there that feel the same way that I do. The new standard will address this market, which could turn out to be very lucrative for the industry in general.”

Although the creators of the OnePointFive standard claim that the single-crown, big tube format will eventuate in a lighter overall system when compared to an equivalent travel dual-crown bike, you or I will never experience that possibility when the concept hits our dealer’s showrooms. Barring Gary Klein’s progeny, no innovation that was touted to be bigger, and stronger has ever proved to be lighter than its predecessor. Not splined bottom brackets, not the 1 1/8 steerer format, not seatposts, that is just a short list of the recent bigger-is-lighter movement. Prototypes may make the weight cutoff, but once production begins, the stringent weight saving steps that blessed the protos will be abandoned in favor of heavier, more reliable manufactured parts.

What Do I think? Different is never better in my mind, especially if it costs a lot of money for everyone involved to tool up for production. By far, it’s the image of OnePointFive that is most attractive. I believe the OnePointFive standard will be successful, primarily because bicycles using the technology will look strikingly different than downhill racers or cross country machines. The folks behind the concept are banking on the possibility that there is a busload of aggressive riding mountain bikers out there who would never be seen on a wimpy trailbike, and who would never ride a dual-crown downhill sled because they don’t like bicycles with too many muscles. If this is true, the OnePointFive standard will be just right.

To find out more about OnePointFive, who’s supporting it and to get a look at some prototype items, log on to:Onepointfivestandard and see for yourself. There, you can download the specifications or post questions to participating vendors.

By Richard J. Cunningham www.mbaction.com

 

[Locosrus]

You know... I like new technology as much as the next MTB freak but sometimes, we get duped into buying, more and more s#!t that we don't really need.
I don't agree with Rotecguy 100% cause while is true that 2G's worth of DH frames get ruined now and then, It really depends on why, I mean you can ovalize a headtube on a road bike if you ride it long enough with the headset loose. so on a mountain bike you could ruin it just by having it a little loose and taking a two foot drop.

Besides how often do you hear about people with ovalized headtubes? Daily? weekly? and we are all supposed to go and buy into this? I'd rather they would perfect what they got goin' now, I mean couldn't manitou go and perfect their stupid lockout levers for heavier riders, and how about their damn seals?

What other benefits are there to having a 9spd. set up besides lower gearing? None! In my oppinion I think we couldda had lower gearing on an 8spd set up just as well

OK one last thing cause I'm gettin all annoyed with this crap :angryfire , I think at the rate that the bike industry is going it's gonna put itself outta business. at one point people are gonna go:
"Screw with this crap" "I don't need 6 piston disc brakes" and the whole industry is gonna have to downsize......
....Oh wait tha's already happenin'
Which remind me, does anybody have a set of bushings for a 97-98 GT LTS-1

 

[oldfart]

I have had a number of problems with headsets. I ovalized the headtube on my old Stumpjumper Team back in the late 80's. Full rigid steel 1 inch bike. I used to go through headsets, particularly crown races and bottom cups unless the bike had a tall headtube. I need the smallest bikes usually which often means short headtubes. There is a much larger moment or force at the crown race for a given bump force on a bike with a short versus long headtube. I have also had a number of crown races come loose and start to creak on several Marzocchi forks I've had. Loose enough that I could remove the race with my fingers.

I only ride XC albeit on North Vancouver trails. But I only weigh around 140#s. Good headsets like Syncros King or Race Face work very well for me.

Now many DH FR bikes are smaller with short headtubes and double crown forks. The riding these bikes get is way beyond what used to happen when 1 1/8 was "invented". There are lots of guys around North Van who have pooched out their headtubes. This larger standard is a good idea. If a person fides hard enough to need this new standard, they're going through equipment pretty fast anyway. If a frame has an ovalized headtube its pretty much toast.

 

[oldfart]

I take it back. I asked the guys at the shop. They were unaware of the new idea but they said they used to get a lot of flayed headtubes but not so much anymore. Lots of double crowns I guess. But I also checked out a couple motorcycles parked on the street. They had quite long, very beefy looking, huge integrated cup and not one inch headtube/set .

 

[B-boy]

Is ovalization the main concern? I mean there is always the approach balfa takes.. my bb7's head tube is crazy thick.. moose proof they call it.

Does this mean there will be less dual crown forks produced? or will they just put big ass steerer's on those too? hmmm.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Locosrus
Which remind me, does anybody have a set of bushings for a 97-98 GT LTS-1

I do. I think I do......

The blue ones that are supposed to squeak less......