Giant's OverDrive 2 Steerer tube sizing - Is It The Future?
What is OverDrive 2 all about?It all comes down to a .125" increase in the upper section of the tapered steerer tube, taking it from the current 1 1/8th standard to an outer diameter of 1 1/4 inches. The lower section of the steerer tube, where the steerer and crown meet, remains the same. The goal is improved stiffness at the handlebar, especially given the rise of wider handlebars on trail and all-mountain bikes. Giant is claiming a massive 30% increase in stiffness at the end of the handlebar with OverDrive 2. Here are the facts:
• The fork's steerer tapers from 1 1/2" at the bottom to 1 1/4" at the top where the stem clamps. This means that it does require a new stem, upper headset assembly and headset spacers.
• The bike's head tube inner diameter actually remains the same, at least on Giant's bikes. This means that not only can all of Giant's bikes that come equipped with the OverDrive 2 system be easily converted to fit a standard tapered fork and stem, but older models from previous years can also be converted to accept a new OverDrive 2 steerer equipped fork.
• Other companies are free to use 1 1/2" - 1 1/4" tapered forks as well. Giant is not patenting OverDrive 2, so expect it to pop up elsewhere as well. It will be a while before we can truly call it a standard, at least two to three years, but with Giant behind it it's not likely to disappear.
There was confusion and resistance when tapered steerers first made their appearance, despite the fact that they are stiffer than a standard straight steerer tube and have a very minimal weight penalty. Will the OverDrive 2 steerer (right) face the same?
Is 1 1/4" steerer tube sizing new to the bike world?Certainly not, and Giant isn't claiming to be inventing anything with OverDrive 2. In fact, 1 1/4" first made its appearance in the 90's on Gary Fisher bikes, although it was in the form of a straight, non-tapered steerer tube. It was dubbed "Evolution" and it didn't gain any traction, disappearing from the scene rather quickly. If you go back far enough you'll discover that there have been about ten different head tube sizes throughout the years (I'm sure that I'm forgetting about some) that, whether they were called for or not, were at one point thought of as the standard. Most are not widely used anymore, but you may be surprised what an old, obsolete sized stem will fetch on eBay if you happen to find a desperate buyer. It's worth noting that steerer tube sizing has generally enlarged as bicycles have evolved, until weight began to play a more important role in design, which is when tapered designs began to show up.
30% is a big difference, but where and how is it measured?The figure is measured by placing a 200lb weight at the end of a nearly-flex-free solid steel handlebar and measuring the amount of flex at its end. While exact numbers in millimeters were not handy at the time of writing this, Giant says that they have found a whopping 30% increase in stiffness at the end of the bar when comparing the new 1 1/4" steerer to the current standard. While it may certainly feel as if your bar and stem are flex free, that is actually far from the truth. Do this simple test: have a friend put your front wheel between their knees while you stand over the bike and try to pull one end of the bar up while pushing down on the other - you may be surprised to see just how much give it has. It was claimed (although I haven't verified it) that it isn't uncommon to find up to 20mm of movement at the end of the bar, even with the present day 31.8mm bar clamp diameter. That means that Giant's OverDrive 2 setup should flex about 6mm less, assuming that the assertion of a 30% increase in stiffness is true. How does that 6mm translate to the real world, where bikes are equipped with high volume tires, 6 inches of suspension travel and plenty of other places for flex to make itself known? We'll have to get on a bike that uses the new OverDrive 2 setup and get back to you...
Which fork manufacturers have put their weight behind it?The big three - RockShox, Fox and Marzocchi - all have fork models that will come as standard equipment on select Giant models. There is no doubt that Giant's size and buying power (they are one of the worlds largest bike manufacturers) played a role in those three companies adding the new sizing to their lineup, but I'd like to believe that they would have investigated the merits of the new sizing and made an informed decision on their own. Those who have warranty and aftermarket concerns should be happy to hear that RockShox will be supporting the new size fully, and we assume that both Fox and Marzocchi will be doing the same.
What does this mean for riders who currently use standard or tapered forks?Right now, not much. Don't expect to wake up one morning and find it impossible to track down a standard 1 1/8th stem or headset parts. There are simply too many bikes out there right now, as well as many more to be manufactured and sold, to have the current straight and tapered steering sizing disappear. Also, because Giant is actually using the very same head tubes on their OverDrive 2 equipped bikes on previous years, those with standard tapered steerer tubes can easily bump up to the new, larger size without having to purchase a new frame (although the upgrade does require at least a new crown/steerer unit, stem and upper headset assembly)
Is there anything different about the frame?Surprisingly, absolutely nothing. The head tube's inner diameter remains the same, only the upper cup and top headset bearing are different from Giant's current setup. This means that current non-OverDrive 2 frames and the new models will both be forward and reverse compatible.
OverDrive 2 equipped bikes will actually use the same head tubes as previously employed, it is only the upper headset assembly, stem and spacers that need to be changed.
So, why not just go to a full 1-1/2" head tube?The answer is weight. Even if you personally don't mind the extra grams that would be added by a full-length 1 1/2" steerer, along with a larger and heavier upper headset assembly, bearing and stem, the goal of designers and engineers is to always build stronger, stiffer and more efficient bikes without adding weight. Would a full length 1 1/2" steerer system be stiffer? The answer is surely yes. Is OverDrive 2 stiffer than the current tapered standard? Again, the answer, according to Giant, is yes. Taking into consideration the total package - steerer, headset assembly, stem and spacers - which of the two is lighter, while still offering more stiffness than a full length 1 1/8" steerer or standard tapered setup? We'd have to wager that the nod goes to OverDrive 2.
Where does OverDrive 2 not make sense?With only a few exceptions, OverDrive 2 will only be employed across the range of Giant's performance oriented grail and all-mountain bikes. You won't find it used on their top-tier cross-country races bikes yet, but Giant says that you'll see it there in the near future. Where you won't likely ever spot it is on the front of their downhill bikes or any model that uses a dual-crown fork, simply because the stiffness provided by the extra crowns would make the OverDrive 2 steerer redundant.
Is there a weight penalty for the larger diameter steerer, headset parts and stem with a larger bore?Giant is claiming that it's a wash, that the system weighs the same overall as an equivalent tapered setup. Do we believe them? It is likely to be very close in weight, although we wouldn't be surprised to find that OverDrive 2 does add a small amount of weight. Also, the materials and manufacturing processes of the Overdrive system must be optimized to deliver lower weight and more rigidity in a larger diameter steerer, so is is safe to say, that lower-priced models that employ Overdrive will weigh more than one with a standard tapered head tube (this, we have witnessed with the 1.5 standard). We'll have to compare the two side by side before we can say for sure.
Will OverDrive 2 add to the price of the bike?Nope, Giant claims that OverDrive 2 will not add additional costs. We believe them on this one, simply due to the fact that new tooling isn't needed because they are using the same head tubes as in previous years. Yes, there will be brand new headset and stems, not to mention fork crown and steerer units, but Giant's massive manufacturing numbers and buying power should negate these costs.
The top of a standard tapered steerer on the left next to an OverDrive 2 steerer on the right.
What happens when you need a new or different stem or headset?As of right now only FSA is manufacturing headset parts for OverDrive 2, but both Giant and FSA are distributed widely enough that we don't expect tacking down parts to be an issue, especially further down the road when the new size becomes more common. You can assume that it also won't take long for other headset makers to tool up production as well.
When it comes to stems, Giant is so confident that OverDrive 2 is here to stay that all of their mountain stems will be made to the new size (they'll include a shim to downsize them to fit smaller steerers as well ). Pro and Ritchey are also said to adding OverDrive 2 sized stems to their lineup, but given Giant's size you can expect many more to join the club.
Why should we give this new sizing a chance?There will no doubt be a knee jerk reaction from a lot of riders about yet another new "standard" that is being forced down their throats, and most of the coverage of OverDrive 2 isn't exactly doing a great job of educating anyone on the matter. There are two simple questions that need to be asked: 1. Is there a performance advantage that can be gained from going to a 1 1/4" - 1 1/2" steerer tube, and 2. Is the advantage large enough to warrant making the switch, which would include not only a new fork, but also an upper headset assembly, headset spacers and a stem.
You'd be kidding yourself if you think that outright performance isn't what has made your own bike what it is. Even if your current ride is a decade or more old, the technology and standards used on it were likely developed on the previous year's race bikes by professional riders. The goal is almost always to be faster (even if that isn't your personal goal), and the ingredients are stiffness, low weight and more efficiency. Is this the case with OverDrive 2?
Is the current and most popular steerer tube sizing ideal for a mountain bike with a single crown fork? If a stiffer system can be employed, one that doesn't add any weight, as Giant claims, does it not make sense? Lets hear what you think of OverDrive 2 - put those thoughts down below!
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
42064 views
42064 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
"This means that it does require a new stem, upper headset assembly and headset spacers.". MORE SKUS? For gods sakes ...... arrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh
Excuse me while I continue to mull why the bike industry is such a joke in terms of its utter complete inability to figure out substance vs form. I'll leave with some good ranting from Joe Graney of Santa Cruz who expresses his frustration in a much more mature and non-violent manner - its a worthwhile read www.santacruzbicycles.com/company/index.php?joe=1#joe0609.php
Overdrive doesn't make an obvious change to the profile of the bike like the 1.5 standard and tapered head tubes did. The unspoken question about the Overdrive concept is:If nobody can see the oversize steerer tube or upper headset race, then what benefit could Giant hope to gain from implementing the concept EXCEPT a little more rigidity in the front end? I am curious to see if Overdrive is door or a destination.
BTW, Graney is one of my heroes..
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2me8x7PLd1k&feature=related.
sincerely yours,
a fan.
Not only do I want to knee Giant in the balls, but Marzocchi, FSA, Fox and Rockshock for agreeing to this instead of saying "A new standard? Are you out of your m****rf***ing mind! Someone knee this dick in the balls and then throw him out of here!"
I like buying bikes off-the-rack, but there are three things that I will change every time because they are usually wrong for any half-decent rider and they must be perfect: tires, bars, and STEM!!!!
Skatejunkie and Auxx have awesome points below IMO.
carbon downhill frames:NEW technology that is considerably better than existing designs.
1.25 headtube diameter: Pointless standard that sits in between two existing standards.
I also disagree with you saying that we have a choice to ignore these new standards. If big companies take them up and stop producing older standards then we lose that choice. Also, if I found a good deal on one of these new giants as a complete bike, I would buy it regardless of the headtube size, but that isn't to say that I'd be happy with it having 1.25 diameter headtube.
and dont say that carbon is a "new" tecnology because it simply isnt! and also isnt better! its just lighter thats all! me, as an engineer, know that very well...carbon dh frames are only beeing made for this new "light weight" generation, no other reason AT ALL! it isnt better then alu or steel in ANY other way! just the weight!
Carbon is to aluminium what aluminium was to steel.
Your comment doens't make any sense, first you bash new products and spending $ for products the buyer doens't need and then you say you support this new technology?
This tecnhology is useless and only creates incompatibilities which make prices higher because the less 1.5 or 1 1/8 headbutes are being used the higher the price of their headsets because something that isn't standard is always more expesive.
Carbon fiber is 3 to 4 times more expensive than aluminium however you're not paying 5000 USD nor 7500 USD or 10000 USD for a carbon frame, its just a little more than an aluminium one. You can bet that a brand has a higher profit margin on aluminium frames than on the carbon ones.
So you bash carbon fiber that creates no incompatibilities and you support this and other types of headtubes that creates incompabilities.
This is plain stupidity, no offence.
You want stiffer? Use a 1.5 set up. You want lighter, stop pretending like 30% increase in stiffness makes any kind of noticeable difference to anything but a machine, and use the normal tapered or 1 1/8th set up. In all the time I've spent reading forums, talking to riders and racers, NEVER have I heard anyone say, I bet a bigger steertube would make me faster.
NO, BAD GIANT. Sit in the corner. You may come out when we say so.
That being said, perhaps if they devise another test that states it has a 400% increase in stiffness and will take 5 seconds of your race run, then maybe, just maybe, I'll be less hesitant to embrace blatant marketing scams. Er, I mean, technological advancements.
this invention reminds me of specialized 's old slogan "innovate or die" , companies cant leave bikes the way they are, or they would loose the effect better, but these minor improvements seem a little desperate. bikes arent made too last anymore.
i really enjoyed the article shared by leelau
For me, as I was reading this article, I immediately thought: the clincher is that Giant is stating the increased weight is "a wash." In my opinion, the problem with the 1.5 standard was that it was squarely aimed at the freeriding market: 1.5 came about so that people, who were using dual-crowns, could now use a single-crown without the steering limitations of a dual-crown, and possibly there was some weight loss compared to using a dual-crown setup. What this means is that the 1.5 standard was always going to be beefy in execution. 1.5 headsets and stems are boat-anchors. 1.5 forks are monsters.
If Giant really wanted to do us all a favor, they would have done better by reviving the 1.5 standard for the all-mountain category, with weight-appropriate headsets and stems that aren't such boat-anchors. Then we would have seen tangible results in stiffness with a slight weight gain. After using a 20mm front axle, I'll never go back to a 9mm qr. After using 31.8mm handlebars and stem, I'll never go back to 25.4mm. Do the bigger axle and handlebar and stem weigh more? Certainly, and I can also tangibly feel the benefit. This new 1.25 from Giant? Something tells me that they don't want to release the actual measurements, because if they did that 30% might actually end up being less than the hypothetical 6mm....
Is it tangible? Is it real-world?
Sorry it will not catch.. I'd almost laugh if the other 2 bigger boys go to the fork companies and "say what the hell.. cut it out"
Why does nobodygive anything a chance on here? I mean yeah it's annoying at the thought of it but it could be a great idea in the long run.
The one thing I find stupid is headsets. That's just getting out of hand aswell as rear wheel sizes.
All 3 are big companies, just because giant isn't as much as a hyped up brand doesn't mean it's any better or worse on the whole.
I bet when Trek was devoloping their E2 head tube they were thinking of how they could make the best tapered headtube, who are you to tell everyone they ignored the idea? Who's to say they even considered the idea what so ever?
In terms of evolution, if the stiffness is increases as Giant says, without (!) weight penalty, then it totally makes sense. If the real reason is that the manufacturing cost for OverDrive2 steerers is less (has anyone noticed that tapered steerer forks cost substantially more?!) hence the forks are cheaper then there is a hidden truth ;-). A tapered steerer is deffinately more expensive from a manufacturing point of view...
You want to save some weight - you go 1" 1/8 way. Pretty simple, yeah?
On the other hand you might want to improve stiffness, so you go 1.5" way. Still pretty simple.
Not decided yet? Well, then you go tapered 1.5" to 1" 1/8 way, you get some stiffness over 1" 1/8, yet save some weight from 1.5". Well, it works for some people. Fine!
What we got now? With 1.5" to 1.25" taper we get some additional 30% of stiffness. Cool! At the cost of just a slight weight penalty. So slight and tiny that it is probably is 30%. But hey, you have your old-skool tapered fork. Good news - it will fit. Just add some adapter! And now you have the weight of 1.5" system, steerer stiffness of old-skool taper + 30% and stiffness of fork (which is just by miracle also important, but no one cares of) of old-skool taper.
Conclusion? Well, now you have a setup with cons of 1.5", cons of old taper, some wasted money and no pros at all. Beautiful!
"If it aint' broke, don't fix it" comes to mind....
Unless the public is going to also adopt this solid, non flexing and likely 5lb handlebar, they will never feel this 30% increase in stiffness because the average handlebar will flex way before the steerer flex ever becomes noticeable.
Is this what Giant's engineers have been working on for the past couple of years instead of getting the Glory's head angle right?
My friend Phil has just bought a Reign 3 and has to look for someone to buy his forks and stem (he is upgrading) and find a new upper headset. Great lol.
The addition of a stiffer steerer tube cannot deliver more torsional rigidity unless every other component between the steerer tube and the ground is made equally rigid to counter the torque.
Bottom line, there will be an increase in overall rigidity, which is a benefit for anyone. If you are looking to buy a frame/fork setup like this I doubt you are mounting up a flimsy front wheel.
If this overdrive 2 actually translates to a noticable performance gain on the trail is not something any of us can say from our desk chairs, but I would love to ride two bikes with identical setup, with the 2 different headtubes, one after the other and see if the hype measures up.
PS the neg prop button is the red down arrow to the right of this comment :-P
There needs to be some standards, bike shops can't be expected to stock 51 different styles of headsets.
Look what we have now 1 1/8" Non integrated, semi integrated, fully integrated 1.5 Non integrated, semi, and fully, 1.5-1 1/8" non, semi, full. Plus all the different ID's of the different head tubes.
On top the millions of other standards.
WHY?!
Because some people buy that shit, if it wouldn't sell that much, they wouldn't invent dozens of new standards every year...
This comic says everything I want to say. Thanks again Russell
It sounds like there are a lot of us out there and a smart fork company might recognize that there is a niche market worth serving. All they need to do is declare themselves as invested and I'll go ahead and order that 1.125 frame and will switch my stuff over. Then I'll buy a nice 1.125 AM fork. Rockshox Fox, Marzocchi, Manitou, etc, are you listening?
This is the most pointless waste of space I've ever seen. Giant obviously have shares in some stem and headset manufacturers.
The amount of increased stiffness is gonna be minute compared to the hassle of buying a new front end.
You know whats lighter? A standard 1 1/8 to 1.5 inch tapered steerer.
You know whats stiffer? A standard 1.5 inch steerer.
You know what makes giant more money? Overdrive 2.
Epic. Fail.
Just throwing that out there to allow you to think.
@nicket8t; I do work in a bike shop yes. But I was under the impression that Giant stems are mainly OEM (not usually on sale separately). This means that Giant will make the same amount of money by supplying 1 1/4" own brand stems on their bikes as they would if they were 1 1/8" or 1.5"
30% is minute because other parts flex too and a 30% stiffness increase in something as stiff as a steerer is unlikely to make much difference. If steerer stiffness is so important, why dont Giant use 1.5"?
No one said I had to buy it. However, if I want a 2012 Giant, I do have to buy/use/sell the ridiculous "Overdrive 2" parts.
Cross compatible? Yes, if you buy things you don't need.
The idea of a business? Well if you think it is to force people buying your products to buy other things, then yes, it's good business. If you think that good business is to make customers happy by giving them choice, and supplying them with products that can be replaced quickly and cheaply, at many places across the globe, then no, it's not good business.
On that santa cruz comment yeah, lots of not so standard standards..but how does this affect in any way your frame design if every bits about this steerer setup fits previous frames. Nada much ?
No one's gonna run off to buy new stems' and headsets and forks, those components are mainly made so you guys can replace those who break (or pimp up) on you're new Giant, soon to be Trek, Specialized, Cannondale and so on...
This is getting out of control for no reason.
It won't cost more on new bikes, and you don't need to buy anything on your actual rig...w*f's the matter ?
Never heard someone said they're they felt they're Giant was overpriced.
On a larger scale
80's "dah we don't need front suspensions"
85's "we don't need need clipless pedals"
90's "meh we don't need full suspensions"
95's "we don't need w*f else"
00's "argh we don't need hydro brakes"
05's "yierk we don't need carbon frames"
10's "we don't need 10 speed, as no1 needed 9 nor 8"
29ers any1 ?
Just because you don't like the idea or can't justify the purpose at the moment doesn't mean it's all BS.
"we don,t need this"
YOU NEED OXYGEN,WATER,BREAD AND A SHELTER, that's what you need. Enough already, you don't need half's in your car nor your actual bicycle that doesn't mean you can't benefit from it.
Giant's gonna sell a s*it load of bikes next year anyway and there'll be a need for those components next year, that's it.
You go on and ride that fully rigid steel single speed frame with a coaster brake and brooks saddle all you want, you have the right to.
Just make sure you get out of the way when I blast past you on the trails with my OVERDRIVE 2 equipped bike. ahahah, yeah kidding.
" Where you won't likely ever spot it is on the front of their downhill bikes or any model that uses a dual-crown fork, simply because the stiffness provided by the extra crowns would make the OverDrive 2 steerer redundant."
Thankfully all of us using dual crown forks are safe...for now!
Things of precision work better in Metric. 27.2 31.8 67/72/83mm. But I don't want to say a 50mm tire or a
I think we need 39.9676965'' diameter bars! its 84.7659759%stiffer and only weighs 74% more.....its better so you should throw away your old stuff -its no good anymore, buy theses stems we dont make your old bar anymore!
Marketing Industry =f*ck you consumer!
A: No.
There, that was easy.
xkcd.com/927
Unfortunately, when someone comes up with a new standard it rarely takes over, and more often just gets added to the already massive collection of parts already available and widely used. Big ups to Giant for trying to improve our riding experiences, but I'll wait for at least 3 or 4 years before I believe it can truly work.
We think it's insane (just like I do right now), but you have a MAJOR player like Giant behind it, so it WILL go somewhere, I guarantee it...
So maybe we should just wait and see?
Annoying, I know...
Putting cynicism -- and knee-jerk reaction -- aside, I suppose there is no harm in what Giant is doing. At least they're not killing puppies.
2010 Driver-8 with a beer-can head-tube. It works just fine.
Honestly it does make some sense to improve the design over time, and if they have to do it they are doing it the right way. No patent or price increase. I know my hub and rim probably flex more than my stem, but they should make it as stiff as they can for the money and weight.
One thing we can't forget is that when it comes down to it the bike industry is a business. If these companies don't make money they can't continue to make bikes so naturally there is going to be a mixture of truly innovative designs and not so innovative designs intended to sell next year's models. I hate having to fight the parts compatibility/availability war on a daily basis but overall I am more than pleased with the bikes that are now available to us and I'm sure that high performance bikes will only continue to get better. As with most things, time will prove the true value of any new invention.
So, if you used a normal handlebar in this test, you'd see that nearly all of the deflection occurs within the handlebar and stem. Therefore, in the overvall scheme of things a change in steerer stiffness makes negligible difference.
There's an expression that we use in the engineering world, "Two tenths of f**k all". That's the amount of differnece this will make in the real world.
We're not stupid Mr Giant!
Tapered head tubes look better, I'm happy to agree with that. Why don't they just be honest and sell it to us on that basis!
for the last 10 years I have never had an issue with the standard 1 1/8.
This is just jargon and means consumers and companies have to dish more for nothing with very little benefit.
30% increase in stiffness compared to what?
Im still on a 1 1/8 on both of my currents bikes and have no to change.
simple practical ideas are awesome.
RideOn!
Figured I'd drop in and offer a bit of rationale for our decision to move to introduce OverDrive 2 into our 2012 product line.
Our logic is as follows:
1. Handlebar widths continue to grow in width (commonly 700mm+)
2. Handlebar diameters are almost universally 31.8mm (1 1/4")
3. Stem diameters/stiffness have improved in the past five years
4. Stanchion diameters continue to grow/increase in stiffness
5. The introduction (and popularization) of the QR15 standard
So, with all these improvements in front-end (steering) stiffness, we felt it important to tackle the weakest link in the 'chain,' the 1 1/8" steerer tube/stem interface. By growing it to 1 1/4" we were able to significantly improve steering stiffness without adding weight—a win-win situation or the rider buying one of our 2012 mountain (and most of our road line as well).
• Yes, it will be a headache for shops who need to fit customers with new stems (although Giant, Shimano PRO, Ritchey, TruVativ and more will all have XC, trail and all mountain 1 1/4" options ready for 2012)
• Yes, it will be a pain-in-the-butt for home mechanics who are constantly swapping-out parts
• Moving to the 1.5” standard would improve steering stiffness, but would also mean a complete redesign of every headtube in our line and could potentially add upwards of 80 grams over our OverDrive 2 solution
• Riders with 'older' 1 1/8"-1 1/5" forks can upgrade to OverDrive 2 (new fork, new upper bearing, spacers and stem)
• Riders who are opposed to riding OverDrive 2 can 'downgrade' to the older standard (again, through swapping out the fork, upper bearing, spacers and stem)
Bottom line is Giant was able to notably improve steering stiffness without adding cost or weight.
We confidentially believe in this new direction, but only time will tell if we’re right…
+1000000000000000000 !!!
i was working on my budget project yesterday (yet again! i think i have got something for shitty bikes :3) and even it needed quite standard parts i still had to convert rear hub from QR10 to a bolt axle, because there was no spares to be found (bearings, seals etc.) and headset from cartridge to open bearing... if the frame i found would use one of those genius innovations of today's biking industry i would be simply going nowhere.
why instead of developing new headtube standard won't they just give all those money that went into developing process itself to fork manufacturers and make them to titanium headtubes. that would do the thing won't it? same size, much stronger.
stupid people... :[
"Let's face it, we've all been burned before with glittering promises of radness, stiffness, and the newest bestest thing ever. But when you open the box, does it really deliver as advertised? When do we wake up and not believe the same old song and dance? Show me something that lasts ten years and I'll change to it tomorrow. Boring, huh? I just want my bike to work well and last a long time without spending more money on it. "
Weight difference is in the realm of 15 grams - and is effectively non-rotating due to its position relative to the axle.
It is a Fox marketing scam because they did not want to accept a RockShox standard even if it was an "open" standard.
"15mm is a solution to a problem that did not exist" as a wiser man than me once said.
michael
There is a 1 1/8 to 1.5 taper which already addresses this issue. I can't see why we need another.
"The figure is measured by placing a 200lb weight at the end of a nearly-flex-free solid steel handlebar and measuring the amount of flex at its end."
To try something in a lab means nothing, the whole system fork, wheels, tires is flexing in all directions i can't believe to increase the diameter by a tiny little bit makes a difference at all. Anyone for a blind test ?
P.S.: its about time the damn bike industry gets their butts up and set a real "standard". how hard can it be to make the stiffest and lightest headtube design possible atm?
Same for BB's the best is euro, just leave it all alone
I brought this same point up to discussion in the Ridemonkey thread devoted to this new "standard", and got a reply stating the stem should rotate in a crash in order to avoid damage to the handlebar, etc. However, direct mount stems in triple crown forks were created to improve the stiffness in that area and facilitate the stem/fork alignment.
Like I said before, stop varying the diameters and lengths. I think a splined or polygon-shaped steerer is the next step.
It would be really nice to see this adopted but first lets sort out all the GOD DAMN HUBS AND BOTTOM BRACKETS YOU DIPWODS.
Seriously. It's like they think we can't see the diameter of handlebars in comparison. Suuuure, those don't flex at all. Why don't they just say it is 150% stiffer? Might as well make up an even bigger number while they're busy making up numbers.
However the question is rather if that marginal increase will tranlate into anything a regular biker will benefit from compared to the cost of being limited to a new set of dimensions. I dont think that will benefit much.
I dont feel that my 1.125 steerertube is lacking any stiffness that I otherwise need to do some proper biking. Getting stiffer handlebars or a stiffer stem wil do more towards that than a new propriotory steerer tube.
But what do we get? A complex shaped steerer tube that requires new set of headsets and stems that are gonna require additional R&D by manufactorers, additional production lines etc etc that will only result in higher per unit costs.
I'm all for development and innovation, but make it something that actually has a real benefit to a rider, nit just a marginal, theoretical, advantage.
No thanx Giant, I guess I will stay with my non propriotory, backwards compatibly equiped bike.
third paragraph....
"The head tube's inner diameter remains the same, only the upper cup and top headset bearing are different from Giant's current setup. This means that current non-OverDrive 2 frames and the new models will both be forward and reverse compatible. "
Acctually, this would make 4. Fingers crossed someone will come up with a new on next year too so we have even more to choose from...
An initial review of our 2012 Trance X1 (with OverDrive 2).
I realize this isn't going to sway any of the die-hard haters, but this the type of feedback we expect to see from reputable editors who have a chance to ride 2011/2012 (OverDrive vs. OverDrive 2) product back-to-back.
www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-giant-trance-x1-12-45427
Thanks,
Andrew--
Where do I begin?
A few months ago I bought my eighth Giant (I've owned a CFM3, an ATX 980, an STP, 2 Reigns and 3 Trances). It is a 2012 Trance X Advanced 1. The first ride on my new bike and I wanted to throw it away because the bars were way too narrow and the stem was way too long and it felt terrible and there was NOTHING I could do about it because I could not change the stem - none were available (putting wide bars on a long stem would make things worse, not better). Luckily I hadn't sold my 2011 Trance X1 so the new bike sat in the garage for a month until I got a shorter stem (firstly by shimming a 1.5" 55mm stem and finally with a 70mm Giant Contact stem which I traded with a Pinkbiker in the USA who had a friend who was a Giant distributor). I wasn't happy, as you can expect. I may sound upset, but lucky you didn't post a few months ago.
As you note three posts above, things have changed, but Giant hasn't changed their specs with the times and you still insist on putting a 100mm stem on a trail bike - should be 60-80mm. And it comes with an XC-width bar (I changed it to a Giant Contact DH bar cut to 720mm). The Reign has an 80mm stem, which is too long for the type of riding it is designed for - it should be 50-70mm.
I don't care whether the 1.25" steerer is stiffer or lighter, what I do care about is walking out of a shop with a new bike and being able to have fun on it that day: Giant should not have brought out a new spec without the full range of after-market stems being available on the data of purchase - my LBS copped heaps of flack from roadies who could not change the stem length of their new bikes.
I don't hate the standard, I hate the fact my new bike sat in the shed for a month. And it cost me hundreds of dollars to make it the way I like it, instead of $50 for a new stem the day I bought it.
If you sit down and think about it, how many different small companys manufacture headsets, stems and spacers? If this "new standard" that Giant is trying to market becomes the norm, then all of those companies that manufacture headsets, stems and spacers will now have to re-tool to hold onto their share of the market. This makes it seem like Giant is vying to take over the bike industry throne... coups rarely end well for the general populace.
There is no standards or common sizes between types of bikes or companies(xc, dj, dh). If there were common sizes (hubs, bottom brackets, seattubes, head tubes) All companies would benifit. Bike manufactures are just looking for the profit( gimic). You wonder how skate comanies own islands off Hawaii? Maybe its because biking is still in it's infantry stages?
Like FullBug said they are trying to force it down you.
when the 1,5 standard came the manufacturers said it's stiffer. but then riders said that it's too heavy. now it's sorta standard for downhillers.
for now all mountain and trail riders found the tapered headtube in the middle which fits perfectly.
Giant says we need to have more stiffness and spend more money on lighter and stiffer parts.
everything has a kickback but I can see no advantages this time. well, on first place I loose the saved weight on the stem (and obviously a lot of money because they ain't sellin' the new stuff for free). in my opinion it's stiff as the less stiffer part up front. if someone can ride along the RedBull Rampagne with full 1 1,8 I don't think that any of the mountain bikers from trail to enduro would ever need more stiffness then the tapered has.
If I buy one of these Giant bikes with this new standard will it be easy to sell my old fork and will it be as cheap to buy the upgrade?
The answers to both these questions is no.
The figure is measured by placing a 200lb weight at the end of a nearly-flex-free solid steel handlebar and measuring the amount of flex at its end. "
HAHAHAHAHA ! OK, this is the wrong way to do it, first to be able to measure this you need a flex free, not a "nearly flex free", handlebar. Now, do that with a 690mm wide lightweight handlebar just to see. The handlebar is gonna be flexing, NOT the ffriggin rest of the assembly, come on, this argument doesn't work at all. 1.5" all the way, been saying it for 7 years now...
Giant's overall design (Maestro, OD2, etc.) KILLS the competition. Yes, you would notice the difference if you test rode one on a trail. Is the OD2? That's part of what makes the ride great, yes. But more than that it's how it all works together.
Of course Giant has to innovate to market to sell bikes. Okay. Fine. Everyone/Company does that. Name one that doesn't... (DRCV....Brain...anyone?
I can't comment on how well this engineering works on other bikes, but I will say we have to look at the bike as a SYSTEM, not just a collection of parts. In this case, the Anthem SYSTEM with OD2 rocks!
If you think Giant didn't think there would be blow-back on this, you're wrong. They knew this was a risk to introduce a new technology, and that some would hate. But in the end, time and riding will tell how well this system works.
Keep the Neo-Luddite ethic out of it, Keep an Open Mind, RIDE ONE, and then let's talk!
I personally keep an open mind when it comes to stuff like this, but I know my opinion will be the "evil" of two options. It could be good and certainly has the potential, but we'll see.
hence oversize tubing
some bmx steerer tubes in the early 90's had 1inch steerer tubes that were almost solid (King bikes fork, Indy fork) apart from a hole small enough to get a brake cable down
then they went 1, 1/8th over size an were stronger an a HELL of a lot lighter
But need more stiffness?
Come on bicycles, not motorcycles.
FFS, take this and the new 143 or whatever rear axle, put it in SHIMANO's factory, and blow the whole lot sky high HAHAHAHAHA!
This is the only part of the article that I cared about... Thank you giant for not Fvcking up like all the other standard's imposed before and allowing people to still be able to make choices. This shows you properly engineered something that offeres something better, while still allowing previous generation equipement to be used.
Will I use it? Probably not, what's wrong with 1.125 stuff we use now except for a few grams of savings?
Looks like it's for joe public wannabes...
Don't like the changes made in 2011 to the press bb, for 2012 the new head tube "standard" is a total deal breaker. Will be voicing my displeasure at Giant by perhaps buying a SC, perhaps it will be the Banshee. My almost bought a Spitfire as my last bike, but ended up going back to Giant due to past Giant bikes I owned. Not likely to head that route next time. Whether I buy another Giant bike is not likely going to concern Giant, however if hundreds of current Giant owners, don't buy Giant as their next bike, it might pressure Giant to stop making changes for the sake of changes and kick their Marketing fools out the door.
PS: Nice article in LeeLau's link as well as many others on SC site. So refreshing to have a mftr call BS on the industry as well as some if its' past claims. (Here is the link for those too lazy to page up to the first post: www.santacruzbicycles.com/company/index.php?joe=1)
I'm pretty sure they could build LIGHT and STIFF steerers if they just used internally butted tubes.
INTERNAL BUTTED tubes > tapered in my opinion. Steerers should be thickwalled at the bottom, thinwalled in the middle, and thickwalled at the top to allow people to tighten the hell out of their stems.
...Maybe they're afraid of too many used bikes being sold. Quick change the standard so new frames and parts have to be bought! lol
I can see what Giant is doing, but honestly the only time you really notice steer tube flex is on a carbon steer tube with a long stem on it, and wide bars.......which means the entire system has a TON of flex in it.
To be honest, I have noticed that I can move the ends of my handlebar quite a bit when torquing on it in the parking lot, but really, when riding, I NEVER have noticed it, and I ride a 100mm Thomson stem with a 27`enve bar on a single speed trail bike.
Now, Im pretty sure if I am twisting my bars in a clockwise motion that I will notice flex (whether or not my steer tube is 30% or 100% stiffer), but last time I checked, I ride my bike with both hands pushing in generally the same direction.......down........which means that MOST of the flex I feel come from the handlebar. Im sure some flex comes from the stem and some comes from the steer tube, but mostly the handlebar.
Why dont they make Overdrive 40......and make a 40mm handlebar clamp for MAXIMUM stiffness.....I bet you would notice that a lot more than the steer tube. They even say in the article that you probably wont see it on DH bikes, because they have dual crowns and therefore no extra stiffness is needed from the steer tube......and DH bikes have the widest bars anyways, so they definitely need the stiffest bars, for maximum control.
Hey....maybe I should go hit up the marketing department at Race Face and see if they will take me up on this new cockpit idea, I bet it takes off in 3-4 years....
This standard will require only a change of stem and headset if you're upgrading your fork; so it's a rather mild new standard, which could remain rather cheap thanks to Giant not claiming rights. This and the fact that all three major Suspension companies are in for it, makes the 30% increase in stiffness less likely to be just another marketing gag and thus 1.25 a sensible development.
Considering the size of the companies backing the new size it's likely to make the cut and become an industry standard.
We'll probably come to like it.
Figured I'd drop in and offer a bit of rationale for our decision to move to introduce OverDrive 2 into our 2012 product line.
Our logic is as follows:
1. Handlebar widths continue to grow in width (commonly 700mm+)
2. Handlebar diameters are almost universally 31.8mm (1 1/4")
3. Stem diameters/stiffness have improved in the past five years
4. Stanchion diameters continue to grow/increase in stiffness
5. The introduction (and popularization) of the QR15 standard
So, with all these improvements in front-end (steering) stiffness, we felt it important to tackle the weakest link in the 'chain,' the 1 1/8" steerer tube/stem interface. By growing it to 1 1/4" we were able to significantly improve steering stiffness without adding weight—a win-win situation or the rider buying one of our 2012 mountain (and most of our road line as well).
• Yes, it will be a headache for shops who need to fit customers with new stems (although Giant, Shimano PRO, Ritchey, TruVativ and more will all have XC, trail and all mountain 1 1/4" options ready for 2012)
• Yes, it will be a pain-in-the-butt for home mechanics who are constantly swapping-out parts
• Moving to the 1.5” standard would improve steering stiffness, but would also mean a complete redesign of every headtube in our line and could potentially add upwards of 80 grams over our OverDrive 2 solution
• Riders with 'older' 1 1/8"-1 1/5" forks can upgrade to OverDrive 2 (new fork, new upper bearing, spacers and stem)
• Riders who are opposed to riding OverDrive 2 can 'downgrade' to the older standard (again, through swapping out the fork, upper bearing, spacers and stem)
Bottom line is Giant was able to notably improve steering stiffness without adding cost or weight.
We confidentially believe in this new direction, but only time will tell if we’re right…
but to be honest, i don't give a duck about 30% increased stiffness, my taper is just fine the way it is.
lets all just buy a bike
go ride smash the sh*t out of it
throw it in the junk pile
then jus go buy another pile o cr*p that they sellin us as the new amazing piece of hype
Why waste metal and money...
Have you experienced a rash of broken steer tubes in your product lines?
www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-giant-trance-x1-12-45427
The point is, if we don't try to push the boundaries of the machines we ride, we will do nothing more than stagnate and die off. And personally don't want to see that happen to our sport.
A) Just bought a giant with the retarded steerer size
B) Works for Giant
C) All of the above.
Hardly, just wondering why Giant puts all this attention and media on a tiny steerer tube size change. When there are way moer important things they could be doing.
A) Just bought a giant with the retarded steerer size
B) Works for Giant
C) All of the above."
But you go ahead and keep on being worked up over a steerer tube princess.
Harden up.
Whatever they do will be standard whether you like it or not
what do you expect from a Giant?
xkcd.com/927
Or perhaps you mean that Overdrive 2 systems are "happy". That would make more sense.