View Full Version : IronHorse 6Point8 questions?
speedster
10-07-2006, 06:14 PM
Hey guys, does anyone know when the IronHorse 6Point bikes are going to be avaliable? More specifically, when the 6Point8 will be out and how much is the retail price? There are not any IronHorse dealers near by so I can't ask them. I also saw that there will be a 15", 17" and 19". This summer I rode my friends 19" MkIII with a 50mm stem around and it felt great for the type of riding I was doing. Will the 19" 6Point be similar or will a 17" be better? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Eurotrash
10-08-2006, 03:02 PM
I've got some questions.
I'm going to replace my Foes 04 FXR, Ti Curnut, Z1 freeride 150mm Travel. I mostly use it in the longer travel setting.
I ride mainly fireroads up and tech trails down
I'm also planning on doing the equivalent of Super D races over here in France.
Which bike will suit me best the MKIII or the 6point series?
I'm leaning heavily towards the 6point but any input would be nice.
Another question, what do you think about the choice of 150mm hub/83mm BB on the 6point? Personaly the lack of light-weight out-board bearing crank options, and running ISIS is annoying to say the least.
O yeah, I saw the 6pont8 at the roc d'azur this weekend and it is a really nice bike in the flesh!
Cheers
Eurotrash
10-09-2006, 01:22 PM
anyone?
Bicyclist
10-09-2006, 01:29 PM
Considering it's a brand new model I don't think you can expect much in the way of reviews. However if I were in your shoes I'd go for the 6point.
Yeah, I was surprised when I saw the spacing. Lame IMO. Maybe trying to make up for flex?
Eurotrash
10-09-2006, 01:31 PM
pretty much what I thought
I do not know pricing or delivery. Sorry I can't help there.
I can tell you a little about the bikes. First, you can buy either in kit or FRAME ONLY form.
The 6POINT frame weighs 7.3 lbs with shock for a medium size.
The bike easily fits a 2.5 tire, and with a LOT of clearance. You could fit a 2.8 in there. The chainstays are not super long either.
Here is why. As the name suggests, the bike is based on the 7POINT platform. The frame has its own custom triple butted tubeset, derived from the Type 6 prototype.
The bike uses an 83-150 BB/ chainstay setup.
Some people think this means some huge weight increase. Its not the case.
Here are the #s.
The rear 150 hub adds a total of 19 grams to the bike weight over a 135 QR. (Based on WTB hubs)
The extra BB width BB and extra tubing for the rear end (about 16mm total length worth) weighs in at a WHOPPING 12 grams.
I am not sure what the extra crank weight is, but a 10mm section of hollow 20mm diameter steel axle and a 10mm piece of thin plastic tube does not weigh much. I'd bet less than 25 grams but I don't know.
SO on the frame side this brings an extra 31 grams, or 0.068 lbs.
Total extra weight for the 83-150 setup: Roughly 35-60 grams. :cheers:
A 17 inch 6POINT frame with air shock (DHX air) weighs in the the low 7 lb range.
Geometry: OK, it gets a litte tricky. The bike is designed to run an offset seat post.
17 inch size
HA: 68
SA: Actual 73.5, with offset post 71
eff TT: 23.0 (with supplied offset post)
WB 43.6
CS:17.3
BB: 13.75
Travel: 161mm
QR rear wheel
The MKIII got a lot lighter this year. It weighs 6.25 lbs with shock for a 17 inch frame. It sports a 69 degree head angle with a 140 fork. Its a sick singletrack woods ripper.
If I were racing Super D a lot, I might be tempted to go for a 6POINT. The dw-link suspension really doesn't give any penalty for longer travel, both bikes accelerate equally well, the 6POINT just has mure cusion. I don't feel that the slacker angles really hurt climbing so much on the 6POINT, and they do help confidence descending. (edit) If you put the 150 fork up front, you'll be around 68 degrees and thats not too bad at all.
Hope this helps.
Dave
renegade999
10-09-2006, 01:55 PM
good numbers dee dubs. i always wanted to know just how much a 150mm rear end would cost me on the scale.
Considering it's a brand new model I don't think you can expect much in the way of reviews. However if I were in your shoes I'd go for the 6point.
Yeah, I was surprised when I saw the spacing. Lame IMO. Maybe trying to make up for flex?
See above. The spacing doesn't give any noticable weight penalty (35-60 grams) so why not? Because its not the norm?
The bike shares the rear triangle and lower pivot forging with the 7POINT, both of which were lightened considerably for 07.
Dave
Eurotrash
10-09-2006, 01:57 PM
wow cool!
I don't have any problems with the 83/150 design, it's the lack of BB's to fit it... Most 83mm bb frames are DH frames and the bb on that gets the snot kided out of it so it's big and heavy.
I HATE ISIS and the 6point forces you to run it.
Only complaint about the bike. As I said, I saw one this weekend and I think I need one.
fiddy_ryder
10-09-2006, 01:58 PM
any pics?
Eurotrash
10-09-2006, 01:59 PM
so why not? Because its not the norm?
Dave
not the norm = no parts widely available to fit
syadasti
10-09-2006, 01:59 PM
DW: What geometry difference will you get if you don't use an offset (ie people who want to use something like a gravity dropper post) - what are the approx. changes for SA and eff TT?
good numbers dee dubs. i always wanted to know just how much a 150mm rear end would cost me on the scale.
If you are smart about your wheel build, the weight difference should be negligable. Spoke length isn't incredibly longer, hubs, we covered that, there are plenty of light options, rims and spoke nipples cancel out. No way your 150 wheel should weigh any more than 30 grams more than your 135 wheel. If you think about it, on the 150 hub, the only thing that grows is the center section of the hub and there is not much meterial in there at all. Its 2 hollow sections basically..
Dave
Eurotrash
10-09-2006, 02:00 PM
the bike comes standard with a straight post anyway, atleast the one I saw had a straight post
not the norm = no parts widely available to fit
What do you mean? You can't find 150 hubs or 83mm cranks to buy? Call your LBS, they exist and in many flavors.
Dave
DW: What geometry difference will you get if you don't use an offset (ie people who want to use something like a gravity dropper post) - what are the approx. changes for SA and eff TT?
Approx 10mm less on the virtual TT. You can slide your seat back to compensate no problem. I run a straight post on mine with the seat back.
Dave
wow cool!
I don't have any problems with the 83/150 design, it's the lack of BB's to fit it... Most 83mm bb frames are DH frames and the bb on that gets the snot kided out of it so it's big and heavy.
I HATE ISIS and the 6point forces you to run it.
Only complaint about the bike. As I said, I saw one this weekend and I think I need one.
I gotcha. There are a bunch of options available now for cranks, Several makers have lightweight integrated setups if thats your thing.
Personally I am still partial to the FSA ISIS Afterburner DH setup. Its light, works well. I've messed up a LOT of external bearing and ISIS cranks. In the end I'm not sure that ISIS or some integrated setup really have a lot of advantages over one another. Thats just my take.
Dave
syadasti
10-09-2006, 02:20 PM
With sizing and geometry I am guessing depending on stem/seat choice:
15-5'6" or shorter
17-5'6-5'10"
19-5'10" or larger
I'm around 5'10-11" and I like my current all mtn bike which is a medium/17", geometry feels perfect with straight post, 70mm 0 stem, 23.4" eff TT, medium riser bars, and 44.45" WB.
I guess that would make a L/19" with straight post 50mm about the same in a 6point8 :banana:
Bicyclist
10-09-2006, 02:32 PM
so why not? Because its not the norm?
Dave
Because you can't use many modern outboard systems and because it's a pain to not have a QR rear end IMO. So it seems the real reason to use it is parts sharing, from a consumer standpoint there's not an advantage.
Dogboy
10-09-2006, 02:38 PM
Because you can't use many modern outboard systems and because it's a pain to not have a QR rear end IMO. So it seems the real reason to use it is parts sharing, from a consumer standpoint there's not an advantage.
It is an advantage when all your bikes are 150mm.
Bicyclist
10-09-2006, 02:41 PM
But why not make them all 135mm QR so you can always borrow a R wheel, and build cheap wheels? The one thing I love about Specialized.
great, now i want a 6point series
Eurotrash
10-09-2006, 03:27 PM
welcome to the club!
Because you can't use many modern outboard systems and because it's a pain to not have a QR rear end IMO. So it seems the real reason to use it is parts sharing, from a consumer standpoint there's not an advantage.
I am missing your point on the "outboard systems" and the bike comes with a 12mm vertical dropout.
Dave
Bicyclist
10-09-2006, 11:10 PM
I meant outboard BBs. I thought it was a thru-axle? So it's basically a bolt on system?
I meant outboard BBs. I thought it was a thru-axle? So it's basically a bolt on system?
well FSA, Shimano, Raceface all can be bought with the outboard bb in 83mm.
yea i'd rather have my rear wheel bolted on.
do you take off your rear wheel a lot?
I meant outboard BBs. I thought it was a thru-axle? So it's basically a bolt on system?
Yup, vertical 12mm dropouts, same as on the 7POINT since '05, same as Intense used on the M1 for years. You can use an aluminum bolt-on axle or a QR. The bikes ship with an aluminum bolt-on axle beacuase it was lighter than the QR.
Outboard BBs are readily available, and almost every major manufacturer is offereng an all mountain/ lightweight version for 07.
Dave
davep
10-10-2006, 12:28 AM
well FSA, Shimano, Raceface all can be bought with the outboard bb in 83mm.
yea i'd rather have my rear wheel bolted on.
do you take off your rear wheel a lot?
Only heavier DH style cranks though, certainly not needed on a 6point. Heck people are complaining that they can't run XTs on DH bikes for the same reason (frame has an 83mm bb). Several pros (Graves, for one) run special 'trail' cranks made to run on the 83mm bb. Look at all the older pro DH bikes that ran older XTR .
Yup, vertical 12mm dropouts, same as on the 7POINT since '05, same as Intense used on the M1 for years. Dave
Both of these are heavy duty use frames. A full on DH bike and an abuse minded FR bike. In both cases, strength is much more important than weight or convenience. This is not so for an 'all mt' bike like the 6 point.
You cannot get XTs, or LXs, or Hone, or atlas (the MOST popular cranks), or afterburners, or v-drives (gaps possible but listed as 50mm chainline). No truvativ 'external' (what they call gxp), only the Howitzer team bb is available in 83mm and that bb weighs 365grams, a true DH bb.
So the point is that the 83mm bb religates you to a heavy duty DH crank set up, that is rediculous on that bike!!
Bolt on hubs are great..but a 150mm hub is a solution, needed only for the 83mm bb that, as stated above is a bad choice.
73/135 would have made MUCH more sense for this type of bike.
Eurotrash
10-10-2006, 12:31 AM
^ what he said ^
unless someone SKF or someone else comes out with a reliable and light 83mm BB, or if shimano decide to bring out XT or XTR cranks that are compatible
Dave P, I hear what you are saying, but the fact is that I have a 6POINT sitting right here, 31 lbs and not trying to save weight. (Lyrik, FSA, DHX Air, 721's, DRS, flat pedals)
Like I said earlier:
1) expect lightweight 83mm crank offerings from major drivetrain builders for 07.
2) The bike uses the rear end and forgings from a 7POINT, which coincidentally is an 83mm bike.
The Type 6 prototypes were all 73/135, and future all-mountain bike designs may be, but for this model, that was not an option, and honesly as someone who has actually ridden both bikes extensively, it hasn't held the 6POINT back in the least on the trail. Its 15mm, 5/8 of an inch roughly, 35-60 grams max. How much it affects you personally may differ, but for me it's working great.
Dave
^ what he said ^
unless someone SKF or someone else comes out with a reliable and light 83mm BB, or if shimano decide to bring out XT or XTR cranks that are compatible
Do you really go through BB's that fast? How much do you weigh? I have run FSA ISIS BBs for a while and really I have had no major problems other than general wear and tear. I've had just as many issues with external BB cranks myself. Thats me though. When my stuff starts to get worn or whatever, I buy new parts. Who knows.
Dave
Daver
10-10-2006, 03:48 AM
Just curious DW, but is it possible to setup the 6point (and 7...) for a Maxle style QR rear axle? Wouldn't that make everyone happy?
Eurotrash
10-10-2006, 04:12 AM
Do you really go through BB's that fast? How much do you weigh? I have run FSA ISIS BBs for a while and really I have had no major problems other than general wear and tear. I've had just as many issues with external BB cranks myself. Thats me though. When my stuff starts to get worn or whatever, I buy new parts. Who knows.
Dave
Well I've never had a isis bb last more than a year, I'm light and fairly smooth but ride a lot.
I just like the external BB's never had a prob with one, and if I do, I can just change the bearings for cheap
dante
10-10-2006, 07:31 AM
No truvativ 'external' (what they call gxp), only the Howitzer team bb is available in 83mm and that bb weighs 365grams, a true DH bb.
lighter howitzer (http://www.sram.com/en/truvativ/bottombrackets/howitzer/xrm15.php)
lighter howitzer (http://www.sram.com/en/truvativ/bottombrackets/howitzer/xrm15.php)
The only 83mm option I see on that list, for howitzers, is the Howitzer Team.
We need to stop bitching about companies switching to 83/150 design and start bitching about why Shimano doesn't make an XT crankset with an 83mm bb.
Just curious DW, but is it possible to setup the 6point (and 7...) for a Maxle style QR rear axle? Wouldn't that make everyone happy?
nope, sorry. 12mm vertical only. There are 12mm QR's out there.
Dave
neversummersnow
10-10-2006, 08:57 AM
I wish so badly I wasn't a student working for no money at an internship. I want to go work at an IH dealer so I can order one! It's the perfect all around bike.
coma13
10-10-2006, 09:25 AM
I don't have a problem with ISIS cranks but I know a lot of people do. 83x150 is fine on a bigger bike but it seems kind of silly to run that on the 6Point series.
dante
10-10-2006, 09:52 AM
I wish so badly I wasn't a student working for no money at an internship. I want to go work at an IH dealer so I can order one! It's the perfect all around bike.
enjoy being a student. revel in the cheap beer and plentiful coeds. :cheers:
frorider
10-10-2006, 10:08 AM
i'm considering a 6 point for next year, and i'm on the fence regarding the 83 mm BB issue.
i'm not too worried about running an Isis BB / lightish cranks, because even if it only lasts a year, by then there'll probably be some 83 mm external bearing cranks (XT hopefully) available, at which point i'd make the switch.
but for a bike that will get pedalled a lot (3 or 4,000 v ft climbs) to get to the goods, i'd prefer a normal Q factor and 170 mm crank length. and since i want a relatively low BB (which i think the 6 point has, right?) for good cornering, with those 170 mm cranks i'd expect pedal strikes. mebbe i can compensate by getting narrower pedals.
neversummersnow
10-10-2006, 10:12 AM
I'm not complaining...
neversummersnow
10-10-2006, 10:15 AM
Q Factor is BULL (IMO). I've learned enough from some of the best bike fit guys around here in Boulder and I don't buy it. Especially when you're ony talking 15mm
Edited my previous post, the bike has a 68 head angle with a 150 fork, 68.5 with a 140 fork. Rear travel is 161mm or 6.33 in.
Dave
davep
10-10-2006, 11:26 AM
lighter howitzer (http://www.sram.com/en/truvativ/bottombrackets/howitzer/xrm15.php)
You have made my point, Thanks.
The Howitzer XR bb is NOT available in 83mm.
frorider
10-10-2006, 11:49 AM
Q Factor is BULL (IMO). I've learned enough from some of the best bike fit guys around here in Boulder and I don't buy it. Especially when you're ony talking 15mm
speak for yourself. when i ride bikes with widely spaced pedals, it feels more balanced on the descent, but creates a (mild) pain on the inside edge of my knees if i'm pedalling hard on a long uphill.
i don't ride road bikes much anymore, but on long road rides i can even notice the difference between two shoes if one has a relatively outboard cleat positioning (i.e. higher q factor).
i'm not saying this is a make-or-break factor in terms of the 6 point, btw.
davep
10-10-2006, 11:54 AM
The only 83mm option I see on that list, for howitzers, is the Howitzer Team.
We need to stop bitching about companies switching to 83/150 design and start bitching about why Shimano doesn't make an XT crankset with an 83mm bb.
Agree 100%, but until that happens, why build a frame for non existant parts??
Non of the competing 6" bikes have a 83/150 set up. (6-pack, Nomad, 6.6, enduro, Reign, Coiler, Slayer, FXR, Moment, 575 or Asx, Terremoto).
I am not at all opposed to the 83/150 standard, but the reasons for this set-up (v.lg tire/chain clearance, stronger r.wheel(although many hubs do not offer this), space for large pivot/seat tube, etc ) do not exist on a 6" 'AM' bike.
offtheedge
10-10-2006, 12:02 PM
Agree 100%, but until that happens, why build a frame for non existant parts??
Non of the competing 6" bikes have a 83/150 set up. (6-pack, Nomad, 6.6, enduro, Reign, Coiler, Slayer, FXR, Moment, 575 or Asx, Terremoto).
I am not at all opposed to the 83/150 standard, but the reasons for this set-up (v.lg tire/chain clearance, stronger r.wheel(although many hubs do not offer this), space for large pivot/seat tube, etc ) do not exist on a 6" 'AM' bike.
I'm bummed that this setup will keep me from buying this frame, just isn't needed on a trail bike.
Agree 100%, but until that happens, why build a frame for non existant parts??
I agree with you on this but I'm sure parts manufacturers are saying the same thing; i.e. why make parts for a frame that doesn't exist?
I'm sure Shimano doesn't want people running XT cranks for DH as they're more likely to snap/bend/etc. then the Saint line. Imagine how many more calls the Shimano warranty department would get if every 220# 'Joe' who wanted to shave some weight slapped on a set of XT cranks when they should obviously be running Saint.
BTW: I'm not trying to hijack, just adding my thoughts about the 83/150 setup. The new 6P8 looks good!
I'm bummed that this setup will keep me from buying this frame, just isn't needed on a trail bike.
yea me too..
i like to be able to swap wheels with bikes. sometimes matters where i'm going to ride. but you get the idea..
offtheedge
10-10-2006, 12:49 PM
yea me too..
i like to be able to swap wheels with bikes. sometimes matters where i'm going to ride. but you get the idea..
my problem also. I have a few sets of good 135's that don't need replacing. I could deal with the cranks/bb, but just can't see investing in a new wheel for one bike.
Frame is sweet looking though.
klunky
10-10-2006, 01:10 PM
Shimano will be releasing an 83mm XT chainset as will middleburn around spring time for both. This information was given to me at eurobike at the stands (shimano) and phone (middleburn).
Shimano will be releasing an 83mm XT chainset as will middleburn around spring time for both. This information was given to me at eurobike at the stands (shimano) and phone (middleburn).
Shutch'yo mouth! Excellent... :banana:
Cant Climb
10-10-2006, 01:25 PM
I'm bummed that this setup will keep me from buying this frame, just isn't needed on a trail bike.
:imstupid:
83/150 not neccesary at all.....
davep
10-10-2006, 01:38 PM
...Shimano will be releasing an 83mm XT chainset....
That is great!!
Biscuit
10-10-2006, 01:39 PM
I personally like the idea of the 83/150 on a trail bike. This way, my dh and trail bike will have a lot of common parts. It sucks blowing a part and not being able to borrow one off your other bike.
In addition, the wider stance makes for better chainline / tire clearance IMO.
Agree 100%, but until that happens, why build a frame for non existant parts??
Partly because we are in constant communication with parts vendors and we know what will be available years before you do. Many companies are working on the later stages of 2009 products right now.
Partly because, as mentioned before, the bike shares some components with the 7POINT, and it would have just driven the cost up to go 73/135 when it made such an insignificant (60 gram) overall difference.
Dave
Dogboy
10-10-2006, 01:59 PM
I personally like the idea of the 83/150 on a trail bike. This way, my dh and trail bike will have a lot of common parts. It sucks blowing a part and not being able to borrow one off your other bike.
In addition, the wider stance makes for better chainline / tire clearance IMO.
I agree. I hear where everyone is coming from regarding compatability. I plan on running 3 bikes with the 83/150 setup this year so it works well for me. I know this won't be true for most people.
Good news on the 83mm XT too!:banana:
Cant Climb
10-10-2006, 02:00 PM
I personally like the idea of the 83/150 on a trail bike. This way, my dh and trail bike will have a lot of common parts. It sucks blowing a part and not being able to borrow one off your other bike.
Yeah.....you can look at from the otherside.
The DH oriented rider MAY have parts to put on it but more common is one of the legions of xc riders looking to step up to a more all-arounder 6 inch type bike. The number of riders out there with extra 135 QR hubs lying around is pales the 150 crowd........hubs/wheelsets are what people recycle the most from build to build. Nice hubs are costly.
sbabuser
10-10-2006, 02:07 PM
Same thing happens to people making that jump from v brakes to discs, or from front qr to 20mm TA. Gotta suck it up as part of the jump to a better designed product. Unless you're only 140 lbs and can get away with xc parts, in which case you can probably ride a 575 or some other lightweight long travel sled...
Biscuit
10-10-2006, 02:12 PM
Yeah.....you can look at from the otherside.
The DH oriented rider MAY have parts to put on it but more common is one of the legions of xc riders looking to step up to a more all-arounder 6 inch type bike. The number of riders out there with extra 135 QR hubs lying around is pales the 150 crowd........hubs/wheelsets are what people recycle the most from build to build. Nice hubs are costly.
I know exactly what your saying, and for the most part agree. I even have complete extra 135 wheels that I could use. I still like the 150mil and I'll try to explain why.
Right now I've got a Sunday (83/150), an Enduro (73/135), an xc bike (73/135) and a singlespeed (73/135).
Problem is, I had to buy an extra hub/rim/cassette/rotor and build a wheel as a backup for my dh bike since none of my others were compatible. I am much more likely to blow up a wheel on that bike than any other, so I actually NEED an extra. It's a lot of money for somthing I almost never use.
My Enduro is compatible with the 135 wheels on my xc bikes, but I would be hard pressed to ever even attempt to run one of those ultra light wheels on my 6" endurolax. It'd be like lighting a $50 bill and smoking it.
The "gravity" inspired parts should be able to swap back and forth. In addition, I run the same brakes & rotors on my endurox / sunday so the wheels could be a super easy swap.
I could even just conder it a light wheel / heavy wheel combo, rather than assigning it to a specific bike.
jon-boy
10-10-2006, 02:29 PM
Sitting at around 200lbs and liking to 'aggressively' ride my trails, I welcome a sensible approach to an agressive 6" trail bike. The stiffness of the rear triangle will be welcome when I am descending the trail and the chainline advantages and tire clearance with wide tires will also be welcome. If you want a lightweight trail bike, go buy the MkIII, if you want a bike that'll climb and take a beating at the bikepark occassionally go buy the 6Point.
BTW please note that the Nomad will come with a 1.5" headtube next year so there's evidence that the all-mountain 'niche' will have more in common with the FR/DH type frames in the future.
(Edit) The need for the components will be driven by the bike manufacturers. Ironhorse were just the first to do it, don't bag on them for that.
offtheedge
10-10-2006, 02:38 PM
Sitting at around 200lbs and liking to 'aggressively' ride my trails, I welcome a sensible approach to an agressive 6" trail bike. The stiffness of the rear triangle will be welcome when I am descending the trail and the chainline advantages and tire clearance with wide tires will also be welcome. If you want a lightweight trail bike, go buy the MkIII, if you want a bike that'll climb and take a beating at the bikepark occassionally go buy the 6Point.
BTW please note that the Nomad will come with a 1.5" headtube next year so there's evidence that the all-mountain 'niche' will have more in common with the FR/DH type frames in the future.
(Edit) The need for the components will be driven by the bike manufacturers. Ironhorse were just the first to do it, don't bag on them for that.
the man said it already, it's a money decision and a good one, but don't start assuming that anything with a 73/135 setup is insufficient for abuse. theres only a hundred or so frames that have gotten it to work.
big-ted
10-10-2006, 02:42 PM
Shimano will be releasing an 83mm XT chainset as will middleburn around spring time for both. This information was given to me at eurobike at the stands (shimano) and phone (middleburn).
I'll beleive this when I see it. I LOVE Middleburn cranks, but they have a nasty habit of sidelining the production of bike components in favour of their industrial work. They've been promising the external BB stuff for over a year now!
And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the mounts for an inner chainring get in the way when trying to set-up certain chain devices on XT cranks?
Dogboy
10-10-2006, 03:08 PM
-And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the mounts for an inner chainring get in the way when trying to set-up certain chain devices on XT cranks?
I haven't run into any issues with an e13 SRS or LG-1.
Biscuit
10-10-2006, 03:15 PM
And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the mounts for an inner chainring get in the way when trying to set-up certain chain devices on XT cranks?
Has nothing to do with XT's specificlly.
Granny mounts can get in the way on any crank (I've seen it on multiple truvativ's). A few mm of spindl lenght or chainguide spacing can be the difference between clearance and a dremel tool.
davep
10-10-2006, 03:53 PM
I know exactly what your saying, and for the most part agree. I even have complete extra 135 wheels that I could use. I still like the 150mil and I'll try to explain why.
Right now I've got a Sunday (83/150), an Enduro (73/135), an xc bike (73/135) and a singlespeed (73/135).
Problem is, I had to buy an extra hub/rim/cassette/rotor and build a wheel as a backup for my dh bike since none of my others were compatible. I am much more likely to blow up a wheel on that bike than any other, so I actually NEED an extra. It's a lot of money for somthing I almost never use.
My Enduro is compatible with the 135 wheels on my xc bikes, but I would be hard pressed to ever even attempt to run one of those ultra light wheels on my 6" endurolax. It'd be like lighting a $50 bill and smoking it.
The "gravity" inspired parts should be able to swap back and forth. In addition, I run the same brakes & rotors on my endurox / sunday so the wheels could be a super easy swap.
I could even just conder it a light wheel / heavy wheel combo, rather than assigning it to a specific bike.
So the real problem in this equation is the Sunday. If it had been built with 73/135, then all you parts would be compatable.
The cross/swap compatability it a BIG plus in my book..it is one of the big reasons that my DH rig is 135/73. When built correctly, there are no issues with this standard.
In most cases, 150mm rears do not offer any advantages in strength or stiffness.
Biscuit
10-10-2006, 04:04 PM
In most cases, 150mm rears do not offer any advantages in strength or stiffness.
I don't think it makes the rear wheel much stronger, but with more complex linkage designs (V10, sunday.. etc) there is a lot going on between the bb and rear hub.
I feel wider bb and hubs help solve a lot of chainline and tire clearance issues (lack of tire clearance because the drivetrain constrained the rear end).
I imagine wider spaced pivots would help with rear end stiffness some, but to me that's just frosting.
Dogboy
10-10-2006, 04:05 PM
So the real problem in this equation is the Sunday. If it had been built with 73/135, then all you parts would be compatable.
The cross/swap compatability it a BIG plus in my book..it is one of the big reasons that my DH rig is 135/73. When built correctly, there are no issues with this standard.
In most cases, 150mm rears do not offer any advantages in strength or stiffness.
I agree with you on most stuff Dave, but I beg to differ on this one. I've had 135 and 150 dh bikes and feel like 150 is superior for reasons that have been discussed to death. IMO an evenly dished/tensioned wheel will always be stronger even if the flanges aren't super wide. And it's just so much easier to get ample tire clearance with a 150 rear end. Any of the 135 spaced dh bikes have weaknesses due to the limitations of the width. I'm sure arguments could be made against 83/150 spacing, but they don't hold much water with me since they are usually just "all my other bikes are 135mm or you can't get FSA K-Force Carbon cranks for an 83mm BB".
Biscuit
10-10-2006, 04:07 PM
...you can't get FSA K-Force Carbon cranks for an 83mm BB".
But you can get 'em in isis... :brows:
stupid light dh bike here I come!
dante
10-10-2006, 04:28 PM
Guys, most of these will be sold as complete bikes as opposed to frames... the vast majority of customers out there will appreciate a stronger/stiffer rear end (sorry DaveP, you're incorrect with regards to the frame, and some hubs can be built into a stronger wheel) and that outweighs the few people on here who want to dust off their 5 year old CK hub laced to Mavic 117s. the advantage of selling a complete bike is that you are able to take advantage of the latest technological innovations, and put out a complete bike that is compatible with itself. there's definitely a small market for 135 DH bikes, just as there was a market for 170mm dual crown QR forks (shudder, thank god that that phase is over). Personally I'd rather not be riding a DH bike with technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_release) that was originally invented in 1927 for road bikes...
offtheedge
10-10-2006, 05:55 PM
Guys, most of these will be sold as complete bikes as opposed to frames... the vast majority of customers out there will appreciate a stronger/stiffer rear end (sorry DaveP, you're incorrect with regards to the frame, and some hubs can be built into a stronger wheel) and that outweighs the few people on here who want to dust off their 5 year old CK hub laced to Mavic 117s. the advantage of selling a complete bike is that you are able to take advantage of the latest technological innovations, and put out a complete bike that is compatible with itself. there's definitely a small market for 135 DH bikes, just as there was a market for 170mm dual crown QR forks (shudder, thank god that that phase is over). Personally I'd rather not be riding a DH bike with technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_release) that was originally invented in 1927 for road bikes...
more will be sold as completes to newer riders, but I would bet the larger majority in this forum want to build there own. And the "taking advantage of new technology" is marketing sling. anyone on this forum who knows anything about the MTB industry knows what they want and doesn't need to be sold on the "newest" thing.
besides the dishless wheel all the 150 hub does is make room for more complex linkages and bigger tires. i'm sure in most cases the added wheel strength is a bi product of clearance issues with frame designs.
dante
10-10-2006, 06:03 PM
so the 150 makes room for better designed linkages, bigger tires, stiffer frame and a stronger wheel and you want bike manufacturers to give all of that up for.... nostalgia?
offtheedge
10-10-2006, 06:18 PM
no but to imply everything designed around a 135 is old and inferior is wrong.
the questions not whether it makes for a better bike, it's is it needed on a trail bike that shares a group set with other "nostalgic" bikes?
Biscuit
10-10-2006, 06:25 PM
"nostalgic" isn't quite the word for it.
I completely agree that most of the crap companies try to sell you is just marketing. I always get annoyed by people oogling over the latest and greatest when all they did was change the color.
150mm wide hubs evolved for a reason though. Kinda like ISCG mounts.
offtheedge
10-10-2006, 06:56 PM
"nostalgic" isn't quite the word for it.
I completely agree that most of the crap companies try to sell you is just marketing. I always get annoyed by people oogling over the latest and greatest when all they did was change the color.
150mm wide hubs evolved for a reason though. Kinda like ISCG mounts.
dishless is indeed an huge improvment.
I'm just bitter, I was planning on a 6point christmas present to myself, now i'm starting over.
I'm sure Shimano doesn't want people running XT cranks for DH as they're more likely to snap/bend/etc. then the Saint line. Imagine how many more calls the Shimano warranty department would get if every 220# 'Joe' who wanted to shave some weight slapped on a set of XT cranks when they should obviously be running Saint.
Exactly...this is why very few companies stock weight weenie parts (cranks, specifically) on their DH "race" rigs. Look at the Sunday WC...the cranks it comes with are boat anchors (Gravitys, I have a pair, they're the size of my arms), but to be honest, for DH I'd probably break a lightweight pair in half given my current skill level. I've already killed a set of Afterburners and V-Drives. I'm willing to bet that for 75% of the DHers out there, XTs are going to be a bad choice.
Partly because we are in constant communication with parts vendors and we know what will be available years before you do. Many companies are working on the later stages of 2009 products right now.
If "We know what people are making for 09", why did Iron Horse make a 100mm bb/165mm rear end DH bike? Not to sound like an ass, but it just didn't make much sense if that holds true.
davep
10-10-2006, 08:04 PM
1. This is NOT a downhill bike, so none of that justification matters
2. If, as a frame maker, you need 150mm to stiffen your frame correctly, wel....
3. Very few 150mm hubs offer a dishless build. Infact some are just a 135 hub with an extra wide disc mount.
4. 150 does not offer a 'better' chainline. It offers a 56mm chainline.
5. A propperly set up 73/135 will allow AT LEAST a full 2.5 inch DH tire w/mud, no problem.
6. This is NOT a downhill bike, so none of that justification matters
I am all for the 83/150 on the appropriate bikes, but if the consumer were to believe the hype that is being spewed here, I would expect the Azure to have a 83/150 as well. After all the 135 rear is outdated. No one is saying they want to run quick release King hubs, but all the justifications being used, pertain to uses that this bike is not made for!
If the kind of parts that are correct for this bike are being worked on for '09, shouldn't this bike come out then? For the first year (or two or..) there will be essentially no compatible replacement/upgradable parts (7 pound frame with a 3 pound crankset) for the intended purpose of this "all-mountain" bike.
As you said Dante..'the bike will be compatible with itself'
Dogboy
10-10-2006, 09:21 PM
3. Very few 150mm hubs offer a dishless build. Infact some are just a 135 hub with an extra wide disc mount.
4. 150 does not offer a 'better' chainline. It offers a 56mm chainline.
5. A propperly set up 73/135 will allow AT LEAST a full 2.5 inch DH tire w/mud, no problem.
6. This is NOT a downhill bike, so none of that justification matters
3. Every 150mm wheel I have had has been dishless - Hadley, DT Swiss, Sun Ringle.
4. !50mm with 2 chainrings does indeed offer a better chainline. Case in point: a true 2.5 tire plus an inner chainring = chain rubbing on the side knobs of the rear tire in the lowest 2 or 3 cogs on the cassette on a 135mm rear wheel. Fact.
5. That is true, but you still run into issues running 2 rings - especially if you go over 2.5 (although that is a bit silly).
I do hear where you are coming from and understand your arguments. It's just nice to see somone (IH) blurring the line between categories. I'm looking forward to the 6point being a bike that I can use for pretty much everything except full on DH. I thought my 6.6 was up to the task, but I wasn't happy with the geometry in the end.
Cant Climb
10-11-2006, 07:20 AM
so the 150 makes room for better designed linkages, bigger tires, stiffer frame and a stronger wheel and you want bike manufacturers to give all of that up for.... nostalgia?
Better designed linkages....?
Bigger Tires....?.....who needs to run a 2.7 on a 6 inch air bike.
Stiffer frame....?......this gets trotted out way too much. 99% of the miles a 6 inch air bikes are just guys plodding around on the same trails the have ridden for eons.....and thoose bikes held up just fine.
Is not nostalgia......i really think you guys over thunk this one.:clue:
I don't think it makes the rear wheel much stronger, but with more complex linkage designs (V10, sunday.. etc) there is a lot going on between the bb and rear hub.
I feel wider bb and hubs help solve a lot of chainline and tire clearance issues (lack of tire clearance because the drivetrain constrained the rear end).
I imagine wider spaced pivots would help with rear end stiffness some, but to me that's just frosting.
ding ding ding
we have a winner!!
In most cases, 150mm rears do not offer any advantages in strength or stiffness.
If you have a competent engineer designing the bike, the wider spacing certainly can have strength and stiffness advatages over narrower spacing.
If you have some guy making napkin sketches of bikes in his garage then nothing really matters I guess.
1. This is NOT a downhill bike, so none of that justification matters
2. If, as a frame maker, you need 150mm to stiffen your frame correctly, wel....
3. Very few 150mm hubs offer a dishless build. Infact some are just a 135 hub with an extra wide disc mount.
4. 150 does not offer a 'better' chainline. It offers a 56mm chainline.
5. A propperly set up 73/135 will allow AT LEAST a full 2.5 inch DH tire w/mud, no problem.
6. This is NOT a downhill bike, so none of that justification matters
I am all for the 83/150 on the appropriate bikes, but if the consumer were to believe the hype that is being spewed here, I would expect the Azure to have a 83/150 as well. After all the 135 rear is outdated. No one is saying they want to run quick release King hubs, but all the justifications being used, pertain to uses that this bike is not made for!
If the kind of parts that are correct for this bike are being worked on for '09, shouldn't this bike come out then? For the first year (or two or..) there will be essentially no compatible replacement/upgradable parts (7 pound frame with a 3 pound crankset) for the intended purpose of this "all-mountain" bike.
As you said Dante..'the bike will be compatible with itself'
You have to ask yourself, Does it really matter that much to you?
There is a difference between want and need. Who is spewing what here?
The 83-150 decision was made when the decision to use the 7POINT forgings was made. If you don't like that setup that much, the solution is simple. Don't buy the bike. There are plenty of other bikes that you might be happy with. :cheers:
Your point on the 09 thing is lost on me. We knew in 2006 that the light 83mm stuff was coming in 2007. That was the point....
The Azure will remain 73/135, but that doesn't mean you want see radical departures elsewhere.
Exactly...this is why very few companies stock weight weenie parts (cranks, specifically) on their DH "race" rigs. Look at the Sunday WC...the cranks it comes with are boat anchors (Gravitys, I have a pair, they're the size of my arms), but to be honest, for DH I'd probably break a lightweight pair in half given my current skill level. I've already killed a set of Afterburners and V-Drives. I'm willing to bet that for 75% of the DHers out there, XTs are going to be a bad choice.
If "We know what people are making for 09", why did Iron Horse make a 100mm bb/165mm rear end DH bike? Not to sound like an ass, but it just didn't make much sense if that holds true.
You are talking about the 2003/2004 SGS bike with the 100/165? We did this because we knew that 100/165 setups gave better tire clearance than the 73/135 setups at the time. This was in 2001/2002. The Tomac bike used the 100 setup and we knew from talking to the component makers that wider was where DH was going.
The first Sunday prototypes in 2003 used 100/165. Devinci and Chumba started to have some 83 and 85mm BB shells made with 135 spindles. I talked to drivetrain makers in our winter meetings in 2003, and made the decision to go 83/150 on the Sundays. The bike was released in 2005, 2 years later.
Make sense now?
Anyway I would value suspension and ride much higher than my need to switch to different spacing and loose some potential part swapping when choosing a new bike. Also my personal experience has been the swapping works out much better in theory than in real life.
My focus is DH and if compatibility was a concern I would rather have a 6Point bike to share components with my DH bike than a XC bike.
klunky
10-11-2006, 10:45 AM
For the weight freaks you might like to know that Tune are making 150 x 12 rear hubs 6 bolt that weighs 230 grams. The special products division "Tune Skyline" are producing a lighter weight version.
I wish I had the disposable income to shop at posh bikes!
http://www.poshbikes.com/
auntie bob
10-12-2006, 02:45 PM
I can't believe everyone keeps bringing up parts compatibility and weight, when the elephant in the room is definitely is the bottom bracket width. A little thing called the Q factor?
http://sheldonbrown.com/cranks.html#tread
The 135mm rear end was a compromise to begin with, to allow for a huge drivetrain and big tires. Even then, people complained about the wider BB, citing knee pain and trouble spinning. But people got used to it, since what else can you do if you want to ride off-road? For somebody with anything but very widely spaced hips, any wider than 135 is a serious blow to pedaling efficiency. And an all-mountain bike is meant to be pedaled, yes?
What about pedal clearance? This all seems totally hypocritical when pro-level downhill bikes like the DHR and Sinister R-9 have 135mm rear ends. Which, by,the way, use thru-axles. A couple people mentioned Quick Releases, making it evident we need to point out there's nothing keeping you from using a thru-axle on a 135mm bike.
I understand the economic sensibility of this decision, and definitely do not want to "tread" on Mr. Weagle, whom I respect dearly. However, I am no longer personally interested in this bike, and will steer anyone but dedicated freeriders away from them at my bike shop once the 2007 IH stuff comes in.
klunky
10-12-2006, 02:54 PM
BB shell width does not affect Q factor, My sunday had an 83mm shell but with the same axle size length as my 73mm shell frame (128mm)
syadasti
10-12-2006, 02:54 PM
I can't believe everyone keeps bringing up parts compatibility and weight, when the elephant in the room is definitely is the bottom bracket width. A little thing called the Q factor?
http://sheldonbrown.com/cranks.html#tread
Thats nice but then again you won't be able to run over a 2.3" tire without your tire rubbing the chain in couple gears. My 135mm all-mtn bike rubs with a 2.35" Kenda Nevegal. My rear wheel needs to be trued a few times a season on my 135mm bike, not the case with my more abused DH dishless rear wheels I've had with the same rim and spokes.
offtheedge
10-12-2006, 03:07 PM
my 135 rear Dh rig will take a maxxis 2.7 without rub. point is, it can and has been done and as mentioned we're not talking about DH frames.
Cant Climb
10-12-2006, 03:16 PM
my 135 rear Dh rig will take a maxxis 2.7 without rub. point is, it can and has been done and as mentioned we're not talking about DH frames.
2.5 fits on my Heckler with tons of room......2.7 might even fit.
It's all about marketing and selling bikes, thats it.
DirtMag has an excellent article this month testing 6", 5" and HT bikes on the same trail in the same conditons......the results are interesting but not surprising.
Dogboy
10-12-2006, 03:16 PM
my 135 rear Dh rig will take a maxxis 2.7 without rub. point is, it can and has been done and as mentioned we're not talking about DH frames.
And I'll refer you back to my last post (#79). This bike has 2 chainrings. Wide tires, 135mm spacing, and a single ring works ok, but not with a granny gear.
Cant Climb
10-12-2006, 03:26 PM
And I'll refer you back to my last post (#79). This bike has 2 chainrings. Wide tires, 135mm spacing, and a single ring works ok, but not with a granny gear.
is 2 rings on a Trail bike a new concept.....?......
syadasti
10-12-2006, 03:31 PM
And I'll refer you back to my last post (#79). This bike has 2 chainrings. Wide tires, 135mm spacing, and a single ring works ok, but not with a granny gear.
Exactly. We are talking a dual ring bike where you actually use all your gears to climb and descend. I run 24/38 with 11-32. It rubs the chain in a few gears, very slightly, but it definately rubs. This bike has a great chainline BTW, it almost never drops the chain on even rocky technical terrain w/o a dual ring chain guide.
Its not an XC rig, so you'll be harder on your wheels, dishless is welcomed.
offtheedge
10-12-2006, 03:33 PM
And I'll refer you back to my last post (#79). This bike has 2 chainrings. Wide tires, 135mm spacing, and a single ring works ok, but not with a granny gear.
yeah i've got one of those too........two rings, 2.5 minnions, 135/73.
dave said it was partialy about production cost, quit trying to make it some kind of innovative neccessity.
Biscuit
10-12-2006, 03:42 PM
BB shell width does not affect Q factor, My sunday had an 83mm shell but with the same axle size length as my 73mm shell frame (128mm)
Are you sure? Most 73mm bb for use with a chainguide have 118mm spindles. 113 without a chainguide.
Q-Factor is a very, very valid point. One I hadn't considered. Especially since this bike is intended to be pedalable.
Buuuuutttt... What about external bb's???
This is a problem with them as well. It spaces the arms another 10mm (or more) apart. Some manufacturers are modifying the shape of their crank arms to accomidate it.
As I see it, one could solve the two major complaints about this system by running ISIS (vs. ext bb), which would also allow for lighter cranks.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.