Just something that has been on my mind for a while. Most frames are constructed to within a certain tolerance dimension wise. Does the same apply to the angles? I guess the cost of manufacture increases the smaller the tolerances you want. Does this mean cheaper frames' angles may not be as quoted? Or is it a case of spend the money getting the angles spot on and save money on dim tolerance to end up with an affordable product?
Brant, are you around?
plenty very expensive frames' dimensions are nowhere near the manufacturers' quoted angles/lengths.
GW thats my point, if the angles differ like dims do then most frames with quoted angles within a couple of degrees will probably ride equally as well as the other.
unless you know exactly what angles you prefer for a certain style/size of frame? and in each riding situation? why would you care?
I would want to know if my frame had been built properly or just thrown together.
Earlier this year I had a frame (reasonably expensive) that I thought was out of alignment. After speaking to the company they told me how and where to measure the frame and what dims to expect. All ended up ok in the end but it left me wondering when manufacturers quote dims and angles and people talk about the difference between angles making for a better "feel" is it because it was what they wanted they felt it rode great? Also is it possible that headsets to adjust the angle were developed to compensate for the frame angle inaccuracy.
Angle tolerance on production frames is usually at +\- 0.5deg.
sturmey - Member
Earlier this year I had a frame (reasonably expensive) that I thought was out of alignment. After speaking to the company they told me how and where to measure the frame and what dims to expect. All ended up ok in the end but it left me wondering when manufacturers quote dims and angles and people talk about the difference between angles making for a better "feel" is it because it was what they wanted they felt it rode great?
POSTED 1 MINUTE AGO # REPORT-POST
I quote sagged not static mostly as our static head angle is slacker than Peatys v10.
I still think that's dumb Brant.
I'd quote with corresponding axle to crown measurement.
Thanks Brant, angle tolerance is tighter than I thought it might be and probably tighter than dimensions.
GW. You are right.
I design 'sagged' and that's how I quote it. But that's not right.
I was thinking of quoting it 'fully bottomed out'.
head angle is slacker than Peatys v10
given the current trend for slack angles, i would just say that.
Tolerances: - All Dimensions +/- .125"
Unless Otherwise Noted
- All Angles +/- .5 Degrees
Unless Otherwise Noted
couldnt tell you where i got this,, but it is off a current production drawing ,,
+/- .125" this makes me chuckle, mixing decimals with imperial or am I missing something
it means 1/8th
I know just amuses me sorry