Giant introduce an awesome innovative new standard.

And Chris Jongewaard or Steve Peat would whip your ass on a Huffy.
Does that make his bike better than your amazing-value-fluffer?
those names mean nothing to me, i ride my bike, i have fun and im not the worlds fastest. my amazing value fluffer gives me the same feelings we all get from doing the sport we enjoy so whats it got to do with anything? id get my ass whipped by a shit load of ppl i never said i was fast. good day to you sir

The "larger" bottom bearing actually ISN'T larger than the current tapered standard - it's the same size! The point isn't that this standard is "shit" (which it isn't, it'll work alright), it's that it's pointless because it isn't going to actually offer anything new in terms of performance. The problem is that because Giant have introduced it, it WILL stick around simply because they have the purchasing power to make that happen - they are the only company in the entire industry with the clout to pull off this kind of stuff.


im happy to admit i stand corrected/defeated. didnt realise the "larger" bottom bearing was infact the same size. maybe they figured out its cheaper to maufacture this way without a loss of strength. who knows. i can see the argument of because they are big it will stick around but everything was new once?
 
Glorydays the point is not whether this standard will work or not because any diameter within reason will work. The problem is we have three current standards already:
Standard - 1.125 top and bottom
Heavy duty 1.5 top and bottom (though from memory that originated from C'dale's head shok bikes)

Then we got the tweener standard of taper - 1.125 top and 1.5 bottom - which is rapidly becoming the standard of choice for serious MTB.

There was an article in Dirt magazine recently which explained that with all the different variations of standard, integrated, zero set etc headsets we already have something like 28 (I am moving this weekend mags are packed away) different headset configurations! For all the reasons stated above and previous posts we do not need another f'ing standard!

The criticism of the standard is because it is stupid and not needed; not because Giant thought it up, the scarry thing is Giant have enough muscle to give a stupid idea legs.
 
Glorydays the point is not whether this standard will work or not because any diameter within reason will work. The problem is we have three current standards already:
Standard - 1.125 top and bottom
Heavy duty 1.5 top and bottom (though from memory that originated from C'dale's head shok bikes)

Then we got the tweener standard of taper - 1.125 top and 1.5 bottom - which is rapidly becoming the standard of choice for serious MTB.

There was an article in Dirt magazine recently which explained that with all the different variations of standard, integrated, zero set etc headsets we already have something like 28 (I am moving this weekend mags are packed away) different headset configurations! For all the reasons stated above and previous posts we do not need another f'ing standard!

The criticism of the standard is because it is stupid and not needed; not because Giant thought it up, the scarry thing is Giant have enough muscle to give a stupid idea legs.

yea i saw the point of the argument at hand and left it at that. but after seeing more pics of the new "standard" i would say its due to cost to build without loss of strength. only having to flare the very bottom of the tube is going to cost less then a tapered tube. if this is the case then it could be a good thing in the long run with cheaper bikes for everyone. if not well dont buy a giant and problems are solved.. i personally couldnt care less how many set standards are around, truth is that there is a huge aftermarket company base that you will be covered when you need to upgrade/want to upgrade to be more baller.
 
Maybe Giant have caught onto people who buy there excellent value bikes, who just simply buy the bike for those parts and sell the frame, thus making it so its harder to put those said parts onto other bike frames because of the new standards will result in some weird compatibility issues.
 
Yeah sorry that's just bullshit. Entirely bullshit. 30% stiffer than what?! If you want to talk about the steering stiffness of a fork, separate it into two parts:
1. The steerer tube itself
2. The crowns, stanchions, lowers and axle.

You've ignored frames stiffness though, which will have an effect on steering.

Personally I don't have any issues with the reintroduction of 1.25" on mountain bikes. Retrofits for 1.125" are already available so I seriously doubt many people will be that inconvenienced...
 
You've ignored frames stiffness though, which will have an effect on steering.

If frame stiffness was the goal you'd go with the 1.5 standard or are you saying that a 1.5-1 1/8 taper is too flexxy where as 1.5-1.5 is too stiff so we really did need something in the middle?
 
If frame stiffness was the goal you'd go with the 1.5 standard or are you saying that a 1.5-1 1/8 taper is too flexxy where as 1.5-1.5 is too stiff so we really did need something in the middle?

I was actually just highlighting that frame stiffness had been ignored in the steering argument.

I'd say that the engineers at various bike companies (more than one have adopted 1.25") have determined that the 1.23-1.5 is the optimum combination with respect to frame stiffness, weight (and placement of weight in case of road bike) and bearing loads in the current array of sizes readily available.

I'd also say that the true engineering reason for the change has been lost once the marketing people took over...
 
Wow, great, another standard, and as usual, everyone get's in a huff about it. Here's an idea, if you don't like it, or think it'll be too hard to customise your bike, then don't bloody buy one. If it turns out to be a stupid idea by Giant, then it will probably die off. Also, if you ARE building a bike from the frame up, then chances are, you won't be going from a Giant frame, you'll pick some other brand. It is GIANTs loss if you don't buy their products, not yours, so get over it. There's PLENTY of other brands out there that have just as good a frame/suspension design. So stop bloody complaining... Besides, most people buy Giant bikes complete anyway, so who cares?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's pretty fucking pointless also, but I doubt a company as large as Giant would make the claim that it's stiffer, without actually researching it. That'd be one hell of a fuck-up for them to keep quiet.
 
Maybe Giant have caught onto people who buy there excellent value bikes, who just simply buy the bike for those parts and sell the frame, thus making it so its harder to put those said parts onto other bike frames because of the new standards will result in some weird compatibility issues.

Yep, as it is tapered forks are nearly impossible to sell and worth much less on the used market. They want you to buy a giant and keep riding it. Silly giant.
 
Maybe Giant have caught onto people who buy there excellent value bikes, who just simply buy the bike for those parts and sell the frame, thus making it so its harder to put those said parts onto other bike frames because of the new standards will result in some weird compatibility issues.

Why would Giant care?
A sale is a sale and all they really want at the end of the day is to move units.


The only thing this standard will have a notable effect on is product positioning.
 
Don't get me wrong, I think it's pretty fucking pointless also, but I doubt a company as large as Giant would make the claim that it's stiffer, without actually researching it. That'd be one hell of a fuck-up for them to keep quiet.

Like the Toyota Prius being environmentally friendly?
 
They can say whatever they want and most people will lap it up......

Wow, great, another standard, and as usual, everyone get's in a huff about it. Here's an idea, if you don't like it, or think it'll be too hard to customise your bike, then don't bloody buy one. If it turns out to be a stupid idea by Giant, then it will probably die off. Also, if you ARE building a bike from the frame up, then chances are, you won't be going from a Giant frame, you'll pick some other brand. It is GIANTs loss if you don't buy their products, not yours, so get over it. There's PLENTY of other brands out there that have just as good a frame/suspension design. So stop bloody complaining... Besides, most people buy Giant bikes complete anyway, so who cares?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's pretty fucking pointless also, but I doubt a company as large as Giant would make the claim that it's stiffer, without actually researching it. That'd be one hell of a fuck-up for them to keep quiet.

Just like this - http://www.santacruzbicycles.com/company/index.php?joe=1#joe1209.php
The Prius is another brilliant example
 
Wouldn't it be hilarious if this appeared on Giant's website.

276439_188093427911017_8096517_n.jpg


On a serious note, I was just about ready to look at buying a 2012 bike, with 15QR, tapered steerer and 12 X 142, as I though that was were it was going to stabilise but it looks like I might have to wait a little longer :(

Also, Pro are making stems in 1 1/4 inch and Canyon have started making there bikes with this new "standard" as well.

But what would i know? I'm still rocking 9mm QR, straight 1 1/8 steerer and 135 QR rear axle :eek:

I'm a Giant fan
 
Last edited:
Back
Top