damn looks very nice
i like the changes
i like the changes
So here it is... 07 DHR!
- Thread starter 1soulrider
- Start date
Ok that makes more sense!! Thanks for the heads up. I was thinking last years was around 11.5. not 12.3.. And that's with a reg. spring not a Ti right?
I really want to know what tubing they are using to save 2lbs. Prob. why they went back to tubes, changed meteral and the square tube was not strong enough for the new metal.
oh man i want that..
hmmm...
Attachments
Ah what, no more 1.5? Dammit.
This gives me the wood:
...the design looks reminiscent of the team-issue bronze colored frames that Kircaldie was racing in 05'. Those had round tubing as I recall.
Lol - Jeremy and Butch: Feelin' wistful?:biggrin:
EDIT: Say... no need anymore for Remote Piggy-Back Resi's for the shock???
...the design looks reminiscent of the team-issue bronze colored frames that Kircaldie was racing in 05'. Those had round tubing as I recall.
Lol - Jeremy and Butch: Feelin' wistful?:biggrin:
EDIT: Say... no need anymore for Remote Piggy-Back Resi's for the shock???
yes with a steel spring.
what i forgot to add is that while i never weighed one of the 03 double top tube, 9,5" shock frames, i did weigh the first gen frames and those came out to 5100-5200g with the stock vanilla RC, so from all i can gather at least, those square tubes were never any lighter.
I feel obligated to say this... it's a damn jpeg. The color the jpeg is rendered in like has little or nothing to do with the color the frame will actually be availible in. Also, round tubes are lighter and stronger than square tubes and to everyone who's not a moron they also look better.
No, you don't understand. A CAD jpeg colors the frame yellow, obviously meaning the finished product will be yellow. Yellow is gross, therefore this frame is not very good.
Furthermore, square tubes look cooler and more unique, and this new one looks so much like a Diamondback/Karpiel/Azonic, it obviously handles exactly like it. Handling is based on how the tubes look, and what bike the frame resembles.
n00b
Seriously though, it looks pretty sick. The current DHR is awesome and this is only more refined.
OK, so where to start....
Vitox is right the weight will be more in the 10-10.5# range then the 9# range. It will still be tough and Turner will still stand behind it, but it is more of a race bike than a huck bike for sure.
About the 1 1/8 head tube, good call I say. Sure no more zero stack headsets, but did you notice that the headtube is shorter in the new version? I am looking forward to useing a CK headset again and not having to replace bearings all the time. The new DHR is also designed around an 8" fork so it will not need a zero stack to keep the front end low, again designed as a race bike.
Vitox is right the weight will be more in the 10-10.5# range then the 9# range. It will still be tough and Turner will still stand behind it, but it is more of a race bike than a huck bike for sure.
About the 1 1/8 head tube, good call I say. Sure no more zero stack headsets, but did you notice that the headtube is shorter in the new version? I am looking forward to useing a CK headset again and not having to replace bearings all the time. The new DHR is also designed around an 8" fork so it will not need a zero stack to keep the front end low, again designed as a race bike.
Funny that Dave finaly decided that he should design the frame for use with a piggy back resivour shock. At Interbike 2003, I asked him why he would design a frame that would not accept one. He said it didn't need one and the frame was designed for a Romic and other shocks were useless. Therefore, no need for a frame to fit a Fox or Fifth. Uhhh, so Dave, why the change now?
Damn...wow...that's the first DH bike Brandon did back in the DAY at Diamond Back. Herndon won BigBear back in the days of Devo on it....talk about old school. I know it's 2 inches more travel and 8-10 years later...but the frame looks identical!!!
Because a dhx didn't exist in 04
Hate on Dave and I'll box your ears ole' chap.
But seriously, the square tubes were a quick simple way to lay that bike out fast for the maxxis team to run first year. Then the public went Goo goo over the square tubing. So Turner, not being morons, gave the public what they wanted and did it in square tube and thus sold a buttload of them.
The original intent of that was to get away from the twin top tube, which was two seperate pieces that were f'ing expensive as hell and the square tubes were so much cheaper.
The 1.5 headtube from what I recall of BS sessions with Greg was put on b/c the public was begging for 1.5 headtubes so they gave the public what they asked for.
Makes sense to me. Looks like Dave is just going back to what he already knows works in a simpler form.
As for them not making it with a remote reservoir in mind...yeah...why would you if the shock you were specing was selling faster than you could bolt it to the frames. Romic was the biggest thing since sliced bread at the time.
Now that the Fox has caught up and surpassed...why not accomadate it.
Oh..and that made me realize what will now fit on a DHR.
Oh..and that made me realize what will now fit on a DHR.
Dave rocks, and his bikes rock hard, but his marketing prowess is questionable. The Piggyback comment was almost as questionable and silly as the Horst link rant he popped out.
- I am pretty sure i wrote this already, but I don't see it posted...strange.
Thats at the time. And at the time, the problems that Romic had weren't exactly a huge secret either. Its simply a mistake, one based on a short sighted call. It happens. No big deal. The fact that they didn't fix it is whats a real punch in the nuts.
You ARE joking right?
depends... is that really funny? because it isnt all wrong.
oh the irony... and no one in here is using [sarcasm/] tags. i'm so confused by it all. all i know is that kids like them some jello puddin.
oh the irony... and no one in here is using [sarcasm/] tags. i'm so confused by it all. all i know is that kids like them some jello puddin.
Its a Turner, we know it will hold its own as all of DT's designs work exceptionally well. It looks like the Titus supermoto, without the brace wrapping the shock.
Yellow? hmmmm
Yellow? hmmmm
Looks like a first class race bike.
___
....i thought when they switched to Box tubing it was because it was stronger, now round is stronger.....?
___
....i thought when they switched to Box tubing it was because it was stronger, now round is stronger.....?
Yee yee, really dont like the yellow though, alternative colours please!
that depends, stronger as in:
stronger, more industrial looking
stronger given an equal section (diameter)
stronger given the same amount of material (weight)
thats a good point, i guess if you are pressed for time, cutting square tubes must be a hell of a timesaver versus round ones, but the headtube call im not so sure about, i mean, damn right the bearings used in zerostack headsets are barbie items compared to CK bearings, but, specially in the light of turner once having had problems with headtube flaring, at least the move from 1,5 to 1,125 AND a shorter headtube sounds risky. that is, if they didnt spec a balfa like huge wall headtube, that also works.Hate on Dave and I'll box your ears ole' chap.
But seriously, the square tubes were a quick simple way to lay that bike out fast for the maxxis team to run first year. Then the public went Goo goo over the square tubing. So Turner, not being morons, gave the public what they wanted and did it in square tube and thus sold a buttload of them.
The original intent of that was to get away from the twin top tube, which was two seperate pieces that were f'ing expensive as hell and the square tubes were so much cheaper.
The 1.5 headtube from what I recall of BS sessions with Greg was put on b/c the public was begging for 1.5 headtubes so they gave the public what they asked for.
Makes sense to me. Looks like Dave is just going back to what he already knows works in a simpler form.
As for them not making it with a remote reservoir in mind...yeah...why would you if the shock you were specing was selling faster than you could bolt it to the frames. Romic was the biggest thing since sliced bread at the time.
as for the piggyback issue, sounds from what you are saying about the bike being designed in a rush, that he never intended it to be used with anything else than the teams romicses, and had to come up with an explanation for that afterwards. the romics made for the turners did work remarkably well though, when full of oil that is.
Actually i think back when it happened the company line was,
"We are changing to box tubing because it is stiffer."....i argued that stiffer doesn't neccesarily mean stronger....
Well yes, it is actually. For taking a bending load, for a given weight (ie same cross-sectional area of the actual material), and assuming equal wall thickness, straight gauge tubing, you are able to get a stronger tube out of a square (or rectangular) section, because more of the material is further from the neutral axis. The only situation where a round cross section is generally stronger is in torsion, which is somewhere between sh*t all and f**k all for a downtube/top tube, on a relative scale. In my ESTIMATION (read: this is not something I have proven mathematically, YET, but it is an educated guess), I would say that the straightline welds on the headtube are likely to give the overall weld profile a better effective moment of inertia, ie stronger connection. Perhaps a wrap-around use of round tubing that is larger than the headtube would be able to improve even further on this though, but that would involve flattening the sides of the tube so it was more like a square anyway... and you could do it with square/rectangular profile tubing too.
So in conclusion, a blanket statement like "round tubes are lighter and stronger than square tubes" is not a reasonable claim to make. In certain situations they can be (anything where torsion is the primary load etc) but in many situations they aren't.
It depends on the loading - for axial strength (vs lateral/bending stiffness) you are correct, however for any kind of bending strength, the same factors that affect stiffness also affect strength. I think this is why Weagle was so proud of himself with the supposedly super-strong yet also supposedly not-rediculously-stiff Imperial rear end (I say supposedly because I've never ridden one) - it's extremely hard to manipulate structures to be stronger without making them stiffer, and vice versa. For what it's worth, for a structure undergoing a pure bending moment (no concentrated force giving a net axial load), both the strength and stiffness are linearly, inversely proportional to the moment of inertia of the structure.
"All dual crowns are 1 1/8th so that is what I put on it, and for those heading to the park it will probably still have a dual crown so therefore a burly 1 1/8th." - DT from a post on MTBR
so when i said that it isnt all wrong...
About the color... here is what DT has to say (from MTBR)
What color ano would you all like for this bike? We are partial to yellow paint buuuut if ya'll hate it we have time to change.
I love ano myself, so what colors? Thanks for the gram comparo mtb, yes weight is critical on this new project so why add cosmetic weight. You all have untill 10:00 PST friday the 15th to decide what color the DHR will be for 2007.
What color ano would you all like for this bike? We are partial to yellow paint buuuut if ya'll hate it we have time to change.
I love ano myself, so what colors? Thanks for the gram comparo mtb, yes weight is critical on this new project so why add cosmetic weight. You all have untill 10:00 PST friday the 15th to decide what color the DHR will be for 2007.
Agreed. He's a smart man and builds nice bikes, but the way he talks sometimes...making absolute statments when marketing your bikes will dig you into a hole.
Silver or black ano.
Trans Red, Trans Blue, Silver