Frames - technical advancements

simonp123 · February 2012

Having recently been pondering over upgrading my bike from form the 2005/6 Stumpjumper one I am currently using for something more up to date, it set me thinking about has changed in that time? Have there actually been many important changes that make a current frame that much more accomplished than my old one? The rear Float R is still pretty much up to date, especially as it has been tuned for me. Have there been any major advancements in the linkages etc for example? Obviously tapered steerer tubes have come along, though as I have a decent front fork (non taper) I would be using a converter headset anyway, so not gainig much advantage there.
The other thing I suppose will be in materials and manufacturing which allow lighter frames.
Anything else that would make going for a new frame worthwhile (apart from obviously being newer ans less worn out)?

Just wondering what people's views are on over older bikes over the latest thing. Do we change due to "upgraditis" or is it for actual gain (other than a broken or worn out bike)?

1mancity2 · February 2012

Newer frames have better or worse geometry depending on the way you view it.

lawman · February 2012

frames are getting stronger and lighter in most cases, and coming with thru-axles, tapered head tubes and iscg tabs on the bb. linkages have not changed, but shock technology has improved alot since then, a new kashima fox rp23 will massively out=perform your float r, even if it is custom tuned to you. geometry is getting slacker and more stable, less twitchy, so imo its getting better all the time. you cant really go wrong with most frames nowadays dependant on what you want and what budget you have.

styxd · February 2012

Not really any major technical advancements. The suspension designs are still effectively the same. Things have been tweaked slightly, made slightly lighter etc.

The bike manufacturers and magazines tell us that things have improved drastically, bascially just as a way of getting muppets to part with their cash.

If you are happy with your current bike keep it. If you fancy a new one, go for it. I doubt you'd be dissapointed.

simonp123 · February 2012

1mancity2 wrote:

Newer frames have better or worse geometry depending on the way you view it.

Seems to be a degree of fashion involved there. My previous bike a Kona Blast got criticised by some as it had a relatively slack head angle, but that now seems to be the way bikes are going, and are being praised for it.

simonp123 · February 2012

lawman wrote:

shock technology has improved alot since then, a new kashima fox rp23 will massively out=perform your float r, even if it is custom tuned to you.

Interesting, TF Tuned told me that the differences would be small especially over the Push bits that were put in mine. Kashmina coating excepted of course.

styxd · February 2012

shock technology has improved alot since then, a new kashima fox rp23 will massively out=perform your float r, even if it is custom tuned to you.

Interesting, TF Tuned told me that the differences would be small especially over the Push bits that were put in mine. Kashmina coating excepted of course.

Some people do swallow the marketing bollocks though!

lawman · February 2012

yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact I've tested back to back 2006 shock with my 2011 rp23 and the 2011 rp23 is a million miles better... like wise with my 2011 floats compared to a mates 2007 float's... nothing to do with marketing bollocks at all, does pee me off when people assume you've just read the blurb and its suddenly the holy grail, i know what works for me, and I can tell the difference, whats the issue with that?

Thewaylander · February 2012

lawman wrote:

yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact I've tested back to back 2006 shock with my 2011 rp23 and the 2011 rp23 is a million miles better... like wise with my 2011 floats compared to a mates 2007 float's... nothing to do with marketing bollocks at all, does pee me off when people assume you've just read the blurb and its suddenly the holy grail, i know what works for me, and I can tell the difference, whats the issue with that?

True but were the older models kept fully serviced and in good condition?

Even talking to the engineer he said kashmia is only so much better, and it was the seals and updated green oils that made the largest improvments, and these can be put on any model of fork, and from my blasting around i can honestly say to my experience this is true.

internally the forks are nearly exactly the same though.

lawman · February 2012

Thewaylander wrote:

lawman wrote:

yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact I've tested back to back 2006 shock with my 2011 rp23 and the 2011 rp23 is a million miles better... like wise with my 2011 floats compared to a mates 2007 float's... nothing to do with marketing bollocks at all, does pee me off when people assume you've just read the blurb and its suddenly the holy grail, i know what works for me, and I can tell the difference, whats the issue with that?

True but were the older models kept fully serviced and in good condition?

Even talking to the engineer he said kashmia is only so much better, and it was the seals and updated green oils that made the largest improvments, and these can be put on any model of fork, and from my blasting around i can honestly say to my experience this is true.

internally the forks are nearly exactly the same though.

the shock was pretty much brand new (a few rides old) compared to mine which had had a few months of abuse, so its not condition... I meant the kashima shock in general, as its easy to put that to avoid confusion, its the latest shock after all, and not all rp23's have it, just a general way to say, the new rp23 is better than older ones.

simonp123 · February 2012

lawman wrote:

yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact I've tested back to back 2006 shock with my 2011 rp23 and the 2011 rp23 is a million miles better... like wise with my 2011 floats compared to a mates 2007 float's... nothing to do with marketing bollocks at all, does pee me off when people assume you've just read the blurb and its suddenly the holy grail, i know what works for me, and I can tell the difference, whats the issue with that?

Fair enough, I was just going by what I was told. I was told that the PUSH parts were a significant improvement over the standard Fox damping parts, so that will have an impact on the opinion.

Thewaylander · February 2012

lawman wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

lawman wrote:

yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact I've tested back to back 2006 shock with my 2011 rp23 and the 2011 rp23 is a million miles better... like wise with my 2011 floats compared to a mates 2007 float's... nothing to do with marketing bollocks at all, does pee me off when people assume you've just read the blurb and its suddenly the holy grail, i know what works for me, and I can tell the difference, whats the issue with that?

True but were the older models kept fully serviced and in good condition?

Even talking to the engineer he said kashmia is only so much better, and it was the seals and updated green oils that made the largest improvments, and these can be put on any model of fork, and from my blasting around i can honestly say to my experience this is true.

internally the forks are nearly exactly the same though.

the shock was pretty much brand new (a few rides old) compared to mine which had had a few months of abuse, so its not condition... I meant the kashima shock in general, as its easy to put that to avoid confusion, its the latest shock after all, and not all rp23's have it, just a general way to say, the new rp23 is better than older ones.

That was my point though if it was upgraded/servcied with the newer seals, and fluids, it shouldn't really be much off unless it's set up really badly

mrmonkfinger · February 2012

Recently, people have started doing this thing of putting 700c road bike sized wheels on MTBs...

supersonic · February 2012

Bit by bit frames are getting lighter for the same strength, or stronger for the same weight. Just a few years ago a hardtail warrantied for a 160mm fork that weighs 3.5lbs was unheard of. But we have in the Carbon 456, and for silly money too, £300! Same for xc bikes, frames are now sub 2lbs with the Flash, Merida and Scale, and Scotts genius range is astonishing for the weight.

Aluminium has pretty much peaked now, forming won't get any better than the current techniques. Hydroforming has allowed more complex shapes that require less welding and reinforcement. As for suspension, the linkages are again getting stiffer, lighter and with better bearings.

Of course this is not to say older frames are suddenly defunct - I still ride old frames. But the manufacturers are defintely pushing carbon forward for the advantages.

Shaggy_Dog · February 2012

I'd stick with your current frame and get the shock tuned properly by TFtuned. That will make more difference than a new frame. The 06 specialzed range as a whole was totally dialled, it went downhill from then on in my opinion. Wheels however are a different story. buy yourself some Crossmax ST's for half the money of a new frame and save twice the weight where it makes three times as much difference.

bennett_346 · February 2012

lawman wrote:

geometry is getting slacker and more stable, less twitchy, so imo its getting better all the time.

even still, with slacker angles i feel i have to make more of an effort to stop the front end washing out on flat corners, which begins to annoy me after a while. horses for courses.

simonp123 · February 2012

Shaggy_Dog wrote:

I'd stick with your current frame and get the shock tuned properly by TFtuned. That will make more difference than a new frame. The 06 specialzed range as a whole was totally dialled, it went downhill from then on in my opinion. Wheels however are a different story. buy yourself some Crossmax ST's for half the money of a new frame and save twice the weight where it makes three times as much difference.

My FloatR has already been don by TF, tailored for me and with PUSH bits inside. It certainly did transform the bike. The frame is a touch cramped for my upper body, but I am 6ft but have short legs so medium frame sizes give me the standover, but can be a little cramped upper body-wise.
I bought the (well use by nicely priced on ebay) Stumpy frame as an experiment as a first time move from hardtail to see how it took some of the stress off my troublesome neck and arm. It has been a success, but I am wondering if I should step up, due to its use, age and old tech.
I have just gone for a lower rise stem and wider bars to see if that helps my ride position.
Maybe once I get over the carpal tunnel operation and can ride again, I will spend less time wondering what I can change:roll:

supersonic · February 2012

bennett_346 wrote:

lawman wrote:

geometry is getting slacker and more stable, less twitchy, so imo its getting better all the time.

even still, with slacker angles i feel i have to make more of an effort to stop the front end washing out on flat corners, which begins to annoy me after a while. horses for courses.

I agree, I keep saying that there is no such thing as 'good' geo. myabe geometry that the masses overall, on average like. I like it steep and sharp ;-).

lawman · February 2012

supersonic wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

lawman wrote:

geometry is getting slacker and more stable, less twitchy, so imo its getting better all the time.

even still, with slacker angles i feel i have to make more of an effort to stop the front end washing out on flat corners, which begins to annoy me after a while. horses for courses.

I agree, I keep saying that there is no such thing as 'good' geo. myabe geometry that the masses overall, on average like. I like it steep and sharp ;-).

I rest my case today, rode the maxlight today and bloody hated it in places

there were times when it was great, but otherwise it wasnt great, slack for me it is

simonp123 · February 2012

Well in the course of looking at this I did a bit of further investigation of my frame and shock (to see what else the shock might fit) and discovered that my frame in not the 2005/2006 that I was told when I bought it. It is in fact a 2004 Stumpjumper frame, and therefore is only 100mm raer travel not 120mm. I checked the shock to confirm and it is 6" x 1.5" which is what is on the 100mm travel ones.

Bearing mind I specifically asked the question over travel to the ebay seller, I guess he was mistaken.
I have 120mm fork on the front, which is in fact probably too much for it. It may explain why it has been very light on the front since having the rear shock set up properly.

So, bearing in mind the frame is even older than I thought does this have more bearing over whether there is more benefit in a newer one?

I guess if it has taken me nearly 18 months to find this out it can't be that bad, but then I have been having physical problems in that time so haven't been riding that much (only once a week at most). I'm thinking that 120mm travel will be better for my not so small bulk :roll:

supersonic · February 2012

There is no doubt the newer stumpies are lighter and stiffer, and with more travel. How much difference does this make? Well you may not notice any! Only by trying the newer frame out will you be able to decide. Your weight has no bearing on what travel you 'need' - the frame should reflect your usage. Though is fair to say that most longer travel frames have more reinforcement.

For reference the 2004 Stumpy FSR with Triad rear shock in L is 2540g (100mm)

The 2012 Stumpy FSR alu frame is a claimed 5.5lbs, or 2500g (140mm)

simonp123 · February 2012

supersonic wrote:

There is no doubt the newer stumpies are lighter and stiffer, and with more travel. How much difference does this make? Well you may not notice any! Only by trying the newer frame out will you be able to decide. Your weight has no bearing on what travel you 'need' - the frame should reflect your usage. Though is fair to say that most longer travel frames have more reinforcement.

For reference the 2004 Stumpy FSR with Triad rear shock in L is 2540g (100mm)

The 2012 Stumpy FSR alu frame is a claimed 5.5lbs, or 2500g (140mm)

Not so different, but I guess considering the longer travel the 2012 one is effectively much "lighter".

My biggest gripes with my Stumpy are:
1) The rear wheel has so little clearance that once you pick up some mud and a few leaves you come to a grinding halt, even with a skinny 2.1 tyre. Not ideal for the British winter (or summer far that matter). Not sure which frames are better on this.
2) The BB is low and so pedals clout very easily on rocks and in ruts. This is explained by the 100mm travel as the 120 2005 ones had a higher BB so I was surprised to be getting this issue, all makes sense now!

supersonic · February 2012

Speshes have had nototiously low BBs in the past - some like them, low COG. It seems you are wanting us to say 'upgrade' ;-). I am not going to be the one to give you the green flag lol. But if you do think that you have found the limits, then go for it. But do you want a 140mm Stumpy?

simonp123 · February 2012

[quote="supersonic"It seems you are wanting us to say 'upgrade' ;-). I am not going to be the one to give you the green flag lol. But if you do think that you have found the limits, then go for it. But do you want a 140mm Stumpy?[/quote]

Yeah, probably am! LOL Maybe I'm suffering from can't ride, so spend and tweak mode has kicked in :roll:

I suppose in some ways I want to, but am perhaps looking for reasons why it would be pointless. No, I don't want a 140mm Stumpy, too much travel for my use. I would stick with 120mm as I think that travel suits, and I would plan to use most of the bits from the Stumpy. Don't want to fork out (bad pun!) for a new fork.
The Stumpy is a quick fun bike, and most of my riding is on quick-ish bridleways, tracks etc, but at trail centres or rutted trails the low BB can be a real pain.
If the gains would be very small, then there isn't much point. Unless the tendency for the seatpost to sink into the seat tube turns out to be the start of a crack...

Frames - technical advancements

Comments

Categories