[Closed] Yay! Another new standard - Giant Overdrive 2

lol

....everybody please discard all your old frames, forks, and wheels immediately, they have been declared obsolete. Oh and if you are still on a 9sp drivetrain, you need to get rid of that old crap too. For now, you may keep your stems, handlebars, brakes, and grips - but not to worry, R&D have found an additional 30% of stiffness in all of those components as well, so keep some money in the piggy bank for more "upgrading" in the near future. Stay tuned!

Yours sincerely - Corporate Profit.

So - Fox, Rockshox and Marzocchi have all bought into this too. How many [i]more[/i] models of forks does that mean a bike shop would have to stock?

FFS...Was there ever a problem with standard 1.1/8"?!

Biggest improvement that can be made is make the soggy bit steering the bike (the rider) go to the gym.

No to yet more silly sizes!

So Giant Overdrive 2 is a 1 1/4" - 1 1/2" tapered steerer. 1 1/4" was the Evolution headset diameter, wasn't it? Is Gary Fisher feeling half vindicated now?

If this is on the 2012 Anthem X frames that'll be a bit of an arse as I want one but I've got a fork with a 1 1/8" steerer. If the 2011 frames had been available in XL I'd have had to find a reducer for the bottom of its head tube but what's the chances of finding 1 1/4" - 1 1/8" reducers for top races anytime soon?

What a great reason to buy anything other than a giant!

[url= http://xkcd.com/927/ ]Standards[/url]

So we've had 1.5 to 1 1/8th steerers for a couple of years now. And we're about to get 1.5 to 1 1/4 steerers.

By that rate of progress, around 2014 we should all be back on 1.5" steerers, and old Cannondales and Manitou Sherman forks will suddenly be all the rage again! 😕

OR NOT...

I like technology, I like the fact that things evolve and get pushed forwards, but this really does seem like another ridiculous standard purely for the marketing boys to exploit!

someone will make an anti-stupidity conversion system.
They always do.
Betd are usually pretty quick at doing it

We could probably do with new a rear wheel axle size & maybe a couple more BB standards too.

*looks at Pitch*

yup, still 1.1/8, still 135mm, still a normal BB, think I'll be keeping it a while 🙂

In fairness actualy there isn't a headset standard anymore is there, and at least this one will presumably define everything from headtube diameters and insert depths to how long the taper should be on the fork to stop problems like on the 456 carbons?

And arent 142 and 157 axles just 135mm and 150mm with the ends of the end caps defined as being 3.5mm each side?

It's not the new standards that anoy me, it's that no one uses the existing ones, if everyone uses this then it'll be great, but I suspect we'll still see the same mix of diameters, tapers and cup styles we've had for years.

30% stiffer, just by increasing the diameter of the steerer tube at the top by 1/8" - about 3mm?

I smell sh!te

Awesome, good job Giant! What a relief that we've got a new standard!

[img] [/img]

has anyone noticed the increased stiffness of a 1.5 steerer over a 'standard' (in my eyes) 1 1/8?

and what is the point in stiffening the front end of a full sus frame when the flx occurs in the rear of the bike?

i've a 1 1/8 steerer, 20mm front axle and 10mm rear. plenty stiff enough for me.

FFS...Was there ever a problem with standard 1.1/8"?!

I'll think you'll find it was far too standard, everybody used it and there was nothing new.

How can you possibly say anything about something so standard and universally accepted.

Personally I'm waiting for the next version as it will be much better, stiffer whilst being lighter and inspiring much more confidence due to it's newness.

alpin

has anyone noticed the increased stiffness of a 1.5 steerer over a 'standard' (in my eyes) 1 1/8?

Yes.

and what is the point in stiffening the front end of a full sus frame when the flx occurs in the rear of the bike?

To make it stiffer. See above.

I think it's about time we had another rear axle width standard don't you?

It's ridiculous. All bikes should have 1.5" head tubes, end of. You could then fit whatever fork you like to it with one of three different headsets - 1.1/8" - 1.1/8", 1.1/8" - 1.5" or 1.5" to 1.5".

It means fewer steerer assemblies for fork manufacturers to work around, stiffer front ends and everyone is happy.

Until someone decides that our gears could all do with being made to work back to front instead.

and what is the point in stiffening the front end of a full sus frame when the flx occurs in the rear of the bike?

Can we have a brainstorming session here to come up with ideas for some new standards? It might save the manufacturers the trouble of hiring a Marketing Cretin to do it.

I think we should reverse the pedal thread on cranks personally, because it will make bikes 21.75% more awesome (based on my own scientific calculations).

I think that the days of zip ties are numbered too. Let's come up with another way of attaching cables and hoses to frames that requires not just a new frame and hoses, but a specialist, espensive tool that can only be sourced from bike shops around the time of every third new moon. Provided that it falls on a Thursday.

TBH, it means you can run whatever forks you want. Just get the correct step down fittings. 9 times out of 10, you're going to keep the forks that come on the bike, otherwise you'll be getting the custom build route which will come frame only with the step down adapters.

In their defence.
It's commonly known that Giant make frames for many other big names.
And although Giant have a bit of an image problem i.e the least niche brand you can buy, they do one thing. They properly chuck money at what matters R&D
What you have here is an improvement, and improving things means changing things.

And this from the website that want's to see disc brakes on road bikes.

well, i can't say i noticed any difference using a 1.5 RS Reba w/ Maxle and a 1 1/8 Revelation w/ Maxle. ok, the Reba was 120mm and the Revelation 140mm, but i honestly couldn't tell the difference. the flex in the rear of the bike was noticeable with both bikes (cannondal one20 and one40, respectively).

Can someone please explain to me why 1.25" to 1.5" is better than just having 1.5" to 1.5"?

Can someone please explain to me why 1.25" to 1.5" is better than just having 1.5" to 1.5"?

because Mr Giant said so; "Ours is not to question why but to go and buy"

because it's lighter and no weaker apparently.

Surely a thicker tube can be made with thinner walls, thus saving weight? And we're only talking about a few tens of grammes.

What I've learned is about their road bikes. They appear to have concentrated on ride quality by reducing the weights, stiffening the frame in the important areas and tweeked bits for comfort, look at the road seat pillars. And they seem to have some new super resin in their carbon frames.
Almost the opposite of cervelo who work on weight and aerodynamics to gain advantages, Giant seem to work on getting the advantage out of rider input.

Until someone decides that our gears could all do with being made to work back to front instead.

Say hello to Low Normal!

GOOD NEWS: The important thing that people are overlooking is that you will now be able to run 30% wider stupidwide handlebars while maintaining the torsional stiffness of current steerer tube standards.

or something.

Haven't Canyon been doing this on there road bikes already?

PJM1974 - Member

Can someone please explain to me why 1.25" to 1.5" is better than just having 1.5" to 1.5"?

It looks less horrible. Also can be a little lighter apparently but tapered beat 1.5 purely because of the looks of the head tubes IMO.

grum - Member

Oh and if you are still on a 9sp drivetrain, you need to get rid of that old crap too.

What does this mean for my 7- and 8-speed bikes?

its not an improvement is it its an other marketing hype iteration

next year there will be a tube thats 1-4/8" all the way along its length

All bikes should have 1.5" head tubes, end of.

I doubt that'd be popular with lovers of skinny-malinky steel hardtails. 🙂

I can't believe the steerer (fixed laterally at near-enough both ends, only 6-8 inches apart) has much bearing 😉 on how stiff the fork is overall - surely the twangy bits lower down do that

1.5 was initially to prevent snapping when MASSIVE 150mm travel s/c forks came out wasn't it ?

the tube still bends maybe i beam steerers next

the tube still bends

My guess is very little - even in, say, a fox36

i just wish that all mtb dimensions were done in metric

what steerer would that be in that vid then - 1.5, "normal" taper or standard ?

whatever it is, the top end (where "you can really feel the difference") doesn't seem to move much compared to the inch or two the lower bit (and the major give in the steerer seems to be at the lower end/crown insertion which is no different to current tapered ones)

I'm missing something aren't I ? 😳

It looks like I'm in a small club here, as I've no problem with a company trying something new - none of you have to buy it.

I like innovation, but I'm not a first adopter, so rarely waste my cash.

Yay, more cheap second hand frames that still fit all my kit with outdated standards.

Same as someone said earlier you fit taper fox floats 150 to your bike there still slight flex in the forward/ back of the stanction and in the legs on heavy cambers not the headtube.