New Orange Five : Revealed

Home Forum Bike Forum New Orange Five : Revealed

Viewing 27 posts - 81 through 107 (of 107 total)
  • New Orange Five : Revealed
  • ask1974
    Member

    I have a 2012 Five and looking at the 650 version I’m very interested. I’ve yet to ride a 650 but having had some fun on 29″ I have this sneaky feeling that it’ll be very good for trail riding; with the right frame of course 😉 If the new version rides just a little better with some of the benefits of bigger wheels and maintains the essence of what I love about mine then brilliant.

    Innovation is for new, not existing products unless it can be added without changing the essence of the original. Look what Coke did back in the 70s, nearly ruined themselves… Not sure what sort of innovation you guys expect a bike company to come up with when tinkering with an already successful product?

    I think riverpig summed up perfectly;

    This is what a new Five should be, in my opinion. An evolution, not a revolution. A few tweaks to produce a bike that rides that little bit better, keeps up with prevailing fashions but still stays true to the original. Whether those tweaks are to angles, pivot position or wheel size is all the same. If they are going to innovate it should be with new models, not by radically changing a bike that people like as it is.

    Oh, and please stop banging on about cost. Yes it’s expensive compared to the competition but (like any other company) I expect Orange will be using profit from successful models balance other, less popular models and make a success of their brand. I happily paid for mine and I couldn’t care a hoot if Orange are making a bit more than other brands do, I bought it for the ride not the value of its parts… 🙄

    trickride
    Member

    Any word on other new Orange Frames? Was this a one off announcement?

    PrinceJohn
    Member

    Can someone please explain to me why the more xc oriented Five, doesn’t have a swingarm similar to the more gravity orientated Alpine?

    To me it looks like the swing arm on the Five could be made much lighter than it is.

    I think it’ll be much more composed around Swinleys more demanding trails with those bigger wheels.

    Premier Icon nickdavies
    Subscriber

    It’s quite nice!

    Although i’m a bit confused by the 1.5″ headtube – what’s the point? It might tempt me but i’d much prefer a tapered headtube.

    I can’t think of any readily available 140mm forks, especially 650b that would be in a 1.5″ steerer, surely they would be far better off tapering the steerer than making the majority of riders run reducers for 1 or both ends of the headtube.

    Or am I being stoopid?

    06awjudd
    Member

    I can’t think of any readily available 140mm forks, especially 650b that would be in a 1.5″ steerer, surely they would be far better off tapering the steerer than making the majority of riders run reducers for 1 or both ends of the headtube.

    Having a tapered steerer adds lots of weight. It is much lighter to make an 1.5″ steerer and have a tapered, or 1.1/8 headset, then a tapered steerer, especially for monocoque frames.
    The “advantages” in terms of tracking a negligible too, especially when compared to the weight of the thing, and on a trail bike.
    The only reason a tapered headtube was on the old five, is because of market demand, same with the kinked toptube – that added a whole load of unnecessary weight, to give a lower standover height (which IMO isn’t even useful), basically because people think it looks better, which, to be fair, it does.

    JCL
    Member

    An aluminum bike won the first round of the EWS and DH World Cup. It isn’t the material, it’s the application. Most people complaining about a lack of innovation on this frame wouldn’t have a clue how to improve it and would most probably ruin it with their ideas. 5mm difference in main pivot location can turn a ripper into a shitter.

    munkyboy
    Member

    Had a look at the new five today at fort bill and could barely notice the difference until it was pointed out part by part.

    The 332 was missing from their stand so I assume that’s going 27.5

    The sc carbon nomad was missing as well so I assume that’s getting all fashionable too

    5mm difference in main pivot location can turn a ripper into a shitter.

    Ha, yeah. But your average UK MTBer wouldnt notice that, all they care about is the brand/material/paint job etc.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    PrinceJohn – Member

    Can someone please explain to me why the more xc oriented Five, doesn’t have a swingarm similar to the more gravity orientated Alpine?

    You realise the Alpine swingarm is heavier? It’s got a hole in it but that actually adds material (and makes it stiffer and stronger as it’s effectively triangulated beams rather than one big beam)

    MoseyMTB
    Member

    This picture shows the new back end, stated as 142, with a 135 maxle.

    I’m confused.

    mojo5pro
    Member

    The 332 was missing from their stand so I assume that’s going 27.5

    If Orange is replacing 26″ range with 27.5″. How come the new Alpine is 26″?

    patriotpro
    Member

    You live 5 miles away, and you’re oblivious to their innovations

    You can’t be oblivious to the non-existent mboy

    Point them out though, go for it!

    06awjudd
    Member

    If Orange is replacing 26″ range with 27.5″. How come the new Alpine is 26″?

    I think you’re right, I can’t see them turning the 322 27.5″, unless results show that DH bikes work better that way – they didn’t at Fort Bill.
    I also think it was a very sensible idea to leave the Alpine 26″ as it’ll no doubt be ridden through much more technical terrain. I’ve got a 26″ five, and I having ridden a 29er, I can see how a 27.5″ would be beneficial for a trails rider(29 felt too “long”, 26 felt a little less fast (albeit in straight lines afterwards) ), however, for more DH / AM trails, I would definitely prefer 26″.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    It took them forever to get the 322 to work, I don’t think they’ll be charging into replacing or seriously revising it.

    cupid stunt
    Member

    I recon by the time Eurobike comes around the Alpine will be 650b.

    ninfan
    Member

    Personally, I think you have to respect any company that shuns ‘innovation for the sake of it’ for ‘innovation only when it gives a real benefit’

    I think we HAVE actually seen this in the sport in recent years – to pick a few: 135 rear bolt through is a real benefit (142 less so) 31.8 bars were a real improvement too, taper headsets you could argue either way, but I’d fall on the innovation side.

    Orange have kept up with these as they have arrived, but its unfair to criticise them for failing to innovate when the five has been damn close to perfection for a lot of years – anything else they had done to it in that time would have been change for the sake of change (and marketing)

    650? Well, I think that like Santa Cruz, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    I know that established wheel companies are somewhat ‘meh’ over it – like I say, where’s the real benefit?

    b45her
    Member

    @MoseyMTB the overall width of 142 vs 135 axes is the same, the difference is 142 rear ends have 3.5mm notches on the dropouts to make fitting the rear wheel a bit easier. the whole its stiffer because its wider is just more marketing bull.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    142’s actually a decent standard, it’s really just a correction for 135×12, all about making the wheel easier to fit. Shame they didn’t get it right first time to be honest but it’s kind of a no-brainer to switch now and since it was mostly quality wheelsets that caught onto 12mm, they’re mostly adaptable too.

    It could be stiffer, in theory, by keying in the ends that bit more. But call me skeptical, even if there is a difference I bet you can’t feel it (but you can imagine extra stiffness, if you paid money for it 😉 )

    MoseyMTB
    Member

    ah, cheers for that lads. I have a 2012 that i absolutely love. The tapered headtube and maxle rear end but the benefit of easier fitting of the 142 does make sense. It is a pain in the ….. fitting the rear 135 maxle quickly.

    I would be interested if i could stick the new swing arm on the last front end though.

    xiphon
    Member

    Despite years of “evolution”, they are still making frames very close to the original 5″ Patriot.

    Combined with some 140mm forks, my ancient Patriot LT (2000) rides very similar to a ‘modern’ Five.

    Hats off to them for getting it pretty much spot on years ago!

    catvet
    Member

    650 five will rip, 67 degree head angle on it and slightly larger wheels, slicker fitter and quicker, providing the overall weights of these 650 bikes remain reasonable.
    All the major manufacturers will go 650 within 3-5 years.
    Always staggers me how I manage to ride a 26er at all these days, let alone keep up on the trails with the new wheel sizes!!!

    Premier Icon D0NK
    Subscriber

    Having a tapered steerer adds lots of weight. It is much lighter to make an 1.5″ steerer

    hold the phone, IIRthemarketingbullshitC tapered was much lighter to produce than a 1.5″ headtube.

    1.5 does mean you can fit any spurious fork that’s on sale at the end of year, so that’s a win in my book.

    it will be interesting to see how many
    big wheels = pointless
    orange = awesome
    convert one way or the other

    650b is hardly “big wheels” is it? more of a marketing opportunity new standard.

    Yes it is simplistic, Yes it is ugly but boy does it ride pretty

    noisy tho, filing cabinet full of spanners on the way down and a running commentary of “shit, bobby, single pivot bollocks!” from you everytime the trail points slightly upwards.

    legend
    Member

    It is a pain in the ….. fitting the rear 135 maxle quickly.

    It is? Admittedly I probably can’t change wheels at F1 pit stop speed, but I’ve never noticed a problem with the current maxle setup

    Premier Icon D0NK
    Subscriber

    142’s actually a decent standard, it’s really just a correction for 135×12, all about making the wheel easier to fit.

    thought wider wheels was for less/more* dish so stronger, or have I not been reading the marketing properly? 😉

    *can’t remember the specifics of “dish”

    It took them forever to get the 322 to work, I don’t think they’ll be charging into replacing or seriously revising it.

    Did they? they went through a few linkage based designs, before stamping a hole in the DT and making something that looked like a 224 with a hole in the DT.

    Change for 650B would just be a slight tweak to the geometry of the frame and swingarm (assuming there’s clearance under the saddle).

    thought wider wheels was for less/more* dish so stronger, or have I not been reading the marketing properly?

    *can’t remember the specifics of “dish”

    165mm was dishless (actualy they weren’t, the flanges were wider, but the wheels were still dished), 150mm was a comprimise. Neither really wored out though as the chainstays got so wide you couldnt fit a chain device or your feet caught the swingarm every time you pedaled.

    06awjudd
    Member

    hold the phone, IIRthemarketingbullshitC tapered was much lighter to produce than a 1.5″ headtube.

    Not for a carbon bike, as obviously there is less material, but apparently they are the way Orange makes ’em. They have this little bit of metal between the taper on the headtube, and the downtube, looks like that has been omitted now the heatube is straight.

Viewing 27 posts - 81 through 107 (of 107 total)

The topic ‘New Orange Five : Revealed’ is closed to new replies.