Gt triangle

chilled rider

What if any value does the 'Gt triangle' have if any? Th triangle has just had a facelift and is now smaller. I know this as i just purchased a 'GT Avalanche 1.0' , the older 'GT' had a larger triangle. I have owned kona, specialized, dmr and out of those 3 the 'Dmr' was the most comfy as the frame was steel. This 'GT' is every bit as comfy as the steel framed 'Dmr'.

Is this down to the fact that th triangle now - re shaped and designed to be smaller is in fact part of the shock absorbing attributes the frame possesses? By the way the frame is 6061 hydro formed.

mattyboy199

from what i read in another post its because the seat stays transfer shock to the top tube rather than to the seat tube hence less shock felt by your back side.

HJ1976

I don't know what quantifiable benefits the third triangle has, but i know that my Avalance 2.0 felt perfect first time i sat on it, and it just getting better!

Mytchett Mike

After 3 years I've gone from a v-brake Avalanche 1.0 to a GT Zaskar Pro & I second that I've been very comfortable on both from the start

chilled rider

Cheers guys, i agree the GT is a very nice bike and surprised me when i sat on it. I also find it accelerates like a Ferrari :shock: well you know what i mean 'LoL'

Anonymous

They generally have very short chainstays compared to some other frames, maybe that helps with the acceleration.
As for the comfort thing, I dunno.

supersonic

As above, and is supposed to transmit rear shock into the top tube rather than straight up your aris. Does look nice though!

The Spiderman

When I was looking around and testing bikes a year or so back,it was certainly noticeable that the GT Avalanche felt a little comfier at the back than comparable hardtails.
I wasn't so keen on the riding position though.

snowboardjon

I've read several times in magazine revews that they say it's comfier because of the design, it never made sense to me though because the rear triangle on my 03 GT Zaskar Race is welded to the seat tube where it crosses. So I don't think there's much chances of the forces being transfered to the top tube. :roll:

Saying that though it's still a great bike that's given me many years service and I would definitely buy GT again :-)

supersonic

The forces are compressive along the length of the tube, so some will be transferred into the seat tube, most should go into the top tube.

Noodoo

Can I just ask....


Does any of this ACTUALLY make a difference?

The whole frame moves when it hits a bump anyway, so does it matter which route the forces take?

I mean, if the back wheel hits a bump and rises 15mm, the seat post is going to rise 15mm (assuming hardtail). Having a triangle somewhere between the wheel axle and the seat isn't going to make ANY difference to energy transfer as far as I can see...


Could someone please explain this whole magical, energy absorbing frame stuff to me, because it all seems very hyped up to me.

supersonic

Ride a thin walled titanium tubeset, then a square section alu frame! You'll see! Its not just the frame moving, but the shockwave along the tube. Also high frequency buzz is an issue. However Sheldon Browns school of thought is the same as yours, and he has a very interesting article on this. Wheels and tyres make the biggest difference I would say. However when you ride a steel or ti frame, you can feel the rear triangle 'give' sometimes.

Noodoo

do you mean this one?

http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard_frametest.html


I'm just reading this now...

supersonic

That is a good un, but deals mainly with lateral stiffness. This is the one I meant:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

alfablue

My (now dead ) GT Bravado Cro-Mo Steel hardtail was definitely "plush" at the rear end - some of which because it was steel, but possibly also the triple triangle. It was comfier than my current Ti mtb. I reckon the lower angle of the seat stays may also allow more flex than more upright ones.