9mm QR on 5"+ travel why?

Dirtydog11

Why do manufacturers insist on supplying 5" + travel bikes with rear 9mm quick release?

Both the Orange 5 and the Intense Tracer 2 come with rear 9mm quick release as standard with the option of a Maxle rear triangle on the Orange at a cost of £300.00.

In the case of the Intense Tracer 2 replacement dropouts at a cost of £125.00 each. :shock:
They will not supply a new frame with 12mm dropouts!

Now the cycling press/manufactures go to great lengths to tell us about the benefits of stiffer tapered steerers, the latest hydroformed tubes, 15mm, 20mm front axles etc so why fit 9mm quick release to the rear?

I would personally like to see these type of bikes fitted with 12mm axles as standard with the option of 9mm QR.

So come on manufacturers sell us what we want to buy, not what you want to sell us.

jayson

Buy urself a Trek with the ABP pivot, its stiffer than a regular 9mm QR dropout/axle combo without the extra weight of thicker axles and dropouts.

ichabod crane

Dirtydog11 wrote:

In the case of Intense Tracer 2 replacement dropouts at a cost of £125.00 each. :shock:
They will not supply a new frame with 12mm dropouts!

If you don't mind who confirmed this for you?

Dirtydog11

ichabod crane wrote:

Dirtydog11 wrote:

In the case of Intense Tracer 2 replacement dropouts at a cost of £125.00 each. :shock:
They will not supply a new frame with 12mm dropouts!

If you don't mind who confirmed this for you?

I've just had an E mail back of CRCs tech support department.

Quote:

I have had a response from our purchasing team and the frame will be supplied with the QR dropouts, we are unable to change these to the 12mm before the frame gets dispatched so you would need to buy the 12mm dropouts separately.

ichabod crane

Dirtydog11 wrote:

ichabod crane wrote:

Dirtydog11 wrote:

In the case of Intense Tracer 2 replacement dropouts at a cost of £125.00 each. :shock:
They will not supply a new frame with 12mm dropouts!

If you don't mind who confirmed this for you?

I've just had an E mail back of CRCs purchase department.

Quote:

I have had a response from our purchasing team and the frame will be supplied with the QR dropouts, we are unable to change these to the 12mm before the frame gets dispatched so you would need to buy the 12mm dropouts separately.

:? Seems there are mixed messages going about then, I spoke with the distributor and they advised that the frames will be shipping with 142's and if you want a 135mm to ask your dealer to change it when you place the order.

My advice is don't get it from CRC and go to a proper bike shop like Bike Active

Dirtydog11

From Intense spec sheet

NEW Rear dropout mount system accepts 142x12, SyntaceX12, or standard 135QR dropouts. (All available separately from Intense; the Tracer2 will ship standard with 135QR)

Ships with QR.

ichabod crane

We will have to wait and see, but I expect that the UK distributor would know what is coming :P

Edit: To get your thread back on track I recon over the coming year or two the 142x12mm will be come a new standard for rear wheels.

Dirtydog11

I might drop Intense or the importers an E-mail.

I really hope it comes with 12mm droputs QR IMO makes no sense on this type of bike.

Edit: Yeah the Syntace *12 self aligning system looks promising.

My money is on that

ichabod crane

Dirtydog11 wrote:

I might drop Intense or the importers an E-mail.

I really hope it comes with 12mm droputs QR IMO makes no sense on this type of bike.

A response over at http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=674701 from Mr Intense which is quite informative. I have to agree though, you would think any 5"+ frame would have a 10 or 12mm rear just for the additional stiffness.

Dirtydog11

ichabod crane wrote:

Dirtydog11 wrote:

I might drop Intense or the importers an E-mail.

I really hope it comes with 12mm droputs QR IMO makes no sense on this type of bike.

A response over at http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=674701 from Mr Intense which is quite informative. I have to agree though, you would think any 5"+ frame would have a 10 or 12mm rear just for the additional stiffness.

Cheers mate just had a quick read. From what is being said there it does sound like it will come with a 142 *12.

GHill

Dirtydog11 wrote:

Now the cycling press/manufactures go to great lengths to tell us about the benefits of stiffer tapered steerers, the latest hydroformed tubes, 15mm, 20mm front axles etc so why fit 9mm quick release to the rear?

The rear is usually 10 mm (at the dropouts), but that's not your point. I'm not sure that having a thicker axle at the back makes as much difference as it does at the front. Having a stiffer front axle will prevent the fork being deflected and let you pick (and ride) lines over rougher terrain. To some extent the back wheel will just follow (you don't have a left right pivot point like you do at the front).

I can see a case for really big terrain, but then you're making the bike more expensive and placing restrictions on what wheels your customer can run (they may already have expensive wheels that are 10 mm only). Simpler and cheaper conversions (perhaps ABP convert fits this bill) seems like a good way forward to me.

LukeB

Because most riders under 13 stone won't notice it. I ride a 6.5" bike with a rear QR and stiffness is not an issue- it's just hype.

Northwind

Rear QRs work. A really flexy bike will feel more benefits from a bolt-in or through but a bike with a strong rear end shouldn't need it. I've just put a 10mm bolt-in into one wheelset and bolt-through into the other for the Hemlock and I can barely tell a difference.

QR should be the standard because that's still the standard for wheels, though you're spot on, it would be good to be able to spec it yourself at point of sale where possible.

UncleMonty

LukeB wrote:

Because most riders under 13 stone won't notice it. I ride a 6.5" bike with a rear QR and stiffness is not an issue- it's just hype.

^ this !

Dirtydog11

LukeB wrote:

Because most riders under 13 stone won't notice it. I ride a 6.5" bike with a rear QR and stiffness is not an issue- it's just hype.

There can be no doubt there's a lot of hype . The problem is working out what's hype and what isn't.

I'm not in a position to make a direct comparison between one system and another, like so many others I rely heavily upon Media Reviews.

The general concencus is that 12mm axles help create a stiff rear end and that is a good thing especially for heavier riders.

I don't know how much difference it would make but as I'm buying a new bike it makes sense for me as a heavier rider to go with the 12mm option. If it doesn't make any difference than I haven't lost anything anyway.

Northwind

The other consideration is whether stiffness is as important as you'd assume. On the front, stiffness is important since the front wheel's doing the steering, if you let it get twisted off path then the bike doesn't go where you want. On the rear it's not the same situation though...

As a wee example, when I built my Mmmbop I took all the kit off my Soul and fitted it up, then went for a ride. On a local rocky route, the stiffer Mmmbop was all over the place whereas the flexier Soul stayed on track better and hugged the ground better. The rear wheel had the capacity to track round obstacles better on the Soul, I think- the extra stiffness cost control rather than adding to it. I need to run a bigger tyre on the Mmmbop to tame the rear end because of the stiffness. So it's not getting a 10mm rear bolt-in!

I think probably a designer could make a swingarm so that it's lighter by using the axle as a structural member. But that won't be happening on bikes with this sort of dropout, because it needs to be suitable for all the variants.

Dirtydog11

Northwind wrote:

QR should be the standard because that's still the standard for wheels, though you're spot on, it would be good to be able to spec it yourself at point of sale where possible.

That's the issue.

In the case of Intense what difference does it make to them whether they supply it with QR or 142 x12 fitted, there's still some confusion as to which will be standard but there will be no options at point of sale.

If the option was available buyers would be able to spec according to their hub type.

Northwind

Either that or just make the dropouts a sane price. Logistics are tricky with this sort of thing, a shop with a couple of the frames in stock won't want to carry a load of dropouts, in fact neither will the distributor probably, that'd be a good way to be left with a box of a thousand maxle dropouts...

They could make it very simple, ship the frames with the QR dropouts bagged but not fitted, buyer can return them for free exchange. Bit slow but cheap and easy.

oodboo

I'll start by saying I'm no expert but for what it's worth, here's what I think.

If you increase stiffness too much then what frame flex there would have been is now limited to the wheel. Too stiff and you'll kill wheels faster. And give a less comliant ride.

Keep bolt through and super stiff axles for DH bikes.

5"+ is still in the realms of AM bikes.

(I'm 16st and ride a 6.3" travel 2010 spesh enduro)

Dirtydog11

Northwind wrote:

The other consideration is whether stiffness is as important as you'd assume. On the front, stiffness is important since the front wheel's doing the steering, if you let it get twisted off path then the bike doesn't go where you want. On the rear it's not the same situation though...

As a wee example, when I built my Mmmbop I took all the kit off my Soul and fitted it up, then went for a ride. On a local rocky route, the stiffer Mmmbop was all over the place whereas the flexier Soul stayed on track better and hugged the ground better. The rear wheel had the capacity to track round obstacles better on the Soul, I think- the extra stiffness cost control rather than adding to it. I need to run a bigger tyre on the Mmmbop to tame the rear end because of the stiffness. So it's not getting a 10mm rear bolt-in!

I think probably a designer could make a swingarm so that it's lighter by using the axle as a structural member. But that won't be happening on bikes with this sort of dropout, because it needs to be suitable for all the variants.

I'm not sure a super stiff rear end is the way to go but the general opinion amongst the Media is that it is, I actually think a small amount of passive rear wheel steer could be a good thing... but until someone comes up with that system I'll have to make do.

bike-a-swan

Didn't santa cruz say something along the lines of with the carbon nomad that they didn't bother with a rear bolt through because it was stiff enough it didn't need it?

Northwind- would you say the question is a bit different for fs compared to ht here?

benpinnick

Its seems a bit OTT to have bolt through on a 5 inch bike, especially on a model like the VPP design. The entire rear end is welded together and braced, the amount of flex you will get with a 9mm will be minimal. On the otherhand, on a fork, the QR is pretty much a structural part of the fork, and the whole thing would be useless without it. Think of it this way : Imagine you superglue the wheels in, which prevents them falling out or moving in the dropouts, but offers no structural benefit. How much difference will it make at the back? Probably none. How much difference at the front? Your forks are now unridable due to the deflection.

Big difference.

Anonymous

Dirtydog11 wrote:

Why do manufacturers insist on supplying 5" + travel bikes with rear 9mm quick release?

It's not that they insist on it, it's just that it's not as essential as with a fork.
A fork is a complicated, lightweight piece of equipment, and that lightweight criteria makes it hard to make them stiff.
A swingarm is basically just a hunk of aluminium, flex is not as much of a problem.

Northwind

Not sure, I'd say it'll come down to the individual bikes rather than whether they have suspension or not. Horizontal/lateral flex can still be a desirable thing. Motorbikes are (almost) all full suss and they spend a lot of effort engineering flex into the swingarm assemblies.

The bike industry's coming up on a point that motorbikes did a while back I think, motorbikes used to be very flexy, to the point of terror, so all the manufacturers focused on stiffness. Eventually it hit a pinnacle, with the Honda RC-51/SP-1, which was the first bike to be too stiff- in bumpy corners the stiff swingarm cost it traction, to the extent that racers were leaving out engine bolts or cutting into the swingarms to soften it up. Honda released a less stiff race swingarm, then revised the production bike for the SP-2, and since then bikes have started being a bit smarter about stiffness- vertical stiffness good, horizontal stiffness bad.

Anonymous

Sounds like the tyre technology needed to catch up with frame design :?

Northwind

Nah... Specifically in this case, the issue is that once you lean the bike over you have an awful lot less suspension, but also the force from a bump isn't travelling in the same direction as the travel which reduces its ability to absorb it, and increases the amount that kicks into the bike. So you have less effective travel and less sensitivity- the tyre can't do the job when the bike's kicking off bumps or losing its loading.. So the spring effect from the swingarm (or frame) becomes important. But since nobody'd ever made a bike so stiff before it wasn't so apparent, especially not on japanese test tracks.

The SP1 was only 10 years ago, tyres were pretty good by that point but if you took a stock one out on supersport tyres today you'd still find it lacked grip on bumpy corners compared to the SP2 or a newer bike with the lessons from that bike learned.

Anonymous

Ah yes, Of course. I see what you mean now.

cee

bike-a-swan wrote:

Didn't santa cruz say something along the lines of with the carbon nomad that they didn't bother with a rear bolt through because it was stiff enough it didn't need it?

Orange initially did the same with the 5. They did a few with a bolt through rear end, but it didn't go into production because it was overkill.

course...they now offer a maxle rear end anyway...but i suspect that was to a: match what competitors were doing and b: because a 5 built up with coil shock and fork makes a great UK DH weapon with our tight steep tracks. so the stifness makes sense there and the Patriot went out of production.

Northwind

I've never thought the Five needs it but some people do... Orange are just wisely selling people what they want. Course, they sell it complete with a Pro 2 and a tapered maxle lite, which is a bit like planting a little timebomb in the hub but hey.

Anonymous

Timebomb in the hub? Now THAT'S how you make road cycling exciting!

cee

Northwind wrote:

I've never thought the Five needs it but some people do... Orange are just wisely selling people what they want. Course, they sell it complete with a Pro 2 and a tapered maxle lite, which is a bit like planting a little timebomb in the hub but hey.

with you on maxle light....not a fan of hopes new hubs either....

I have some Bulbs on my 222 and they are bullet proof...but these pro 2 and 3.....hmmm not so sure.