9lb frame no way
i remember when the current style DHR came out the word on the web was that it was a lot lighter than the double top tube version, i think what was said back then was that it was three quarter pound lighter.
so yesterday i got to put one of the current ones on the scale and it came out to 5600g with a dhx, thats a heavy frame. so even if it is indeed 2lbs lighter, it will still weigh 10,5lbs, which would be very good, but not quite near 9lbs.
hmmm...Diamond Back came out with their own version!!
yes with a steel spring.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.
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.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.
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!!!hmmm...
Because a dhx didn't exist in 04Funny 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?
Hate on Dave and I'll box your ears ole' chap.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?
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.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?
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.
You ARE joking right?Also, round tubes are lighter and stronger than square tubes
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.....?
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.
Actually i think back when it happened the company line was,that depends, stronger as in:
stronger, more industrial looking
stronger given an equal section (diameter)
stronger given the same amount of material (weight)
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.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.
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.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....
"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 MTBRthats 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.
so when i said that it isnt all wrong...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.
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.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.
Silver or black ano.You all have untill 10:00 PST friday the 15th to decide what color the DHR will be for 2007.
Trans Red, Trans Blue, SilverYou all have untill 10:00 PST friday the 15th to decide what color the DHR will be for 2007.