MTB Wheel Question

[Guest Big H]

 

...... snip' date=' snip......

 

1) A fork's stanchions are attached to the crown. They're thus the upper legs. The lowers are called sliders.

2) A bike has only one fork and that's the front one.

 

 

 

[/quote']

 

 As a regular dyslexic it is difficult to remeber stanchion versus slider, mortar vs pestle, tap vs die, hammer vs sickle et cetera et cetara ad naseum.

 

Quite obvious I was standing on my head with this part of the anatomy...... a bike would look quite strange with a 20mm through axle through the stanchions would it not!!!!!!!, but my intention was honest, ...... as would a bike with a rear fork..... someting that resides in a circus mayhaps. Also have never I seen any 20mm rear axle hubs....... maybe in the same circus.

 

Some disk brake manufacturers warn against going larger than 160mm rotors without a through axle, a product of the litigation mad Yankee public perhaps.

Big H2009-01-14 13:15:36

[bustthesickness]

I went from a QR front fork to a 20mm thru-axle and noticed the steering changes immediately. For me it made my steering more precise and the lateral stiffness increase stops the wheel from flexing out over roots and tricky rocky sections. It's definitely something worth looking into if you ride all mountain type trails with hard fast DH's and drop offs etc. The front wheel goes right where you put it whereas on my old QR setup I could actually see the wheel flexing trying to stay where it was.  

[bustthesickness]

 

 Some disk brake manufacturers warn against going larger than 160mm rotors without a through axle' date=' a product of the litigation mad Yankee public perhaps.[/quote']

I wouldn't think so. The diffs in stopping power between 160 and 180mm rotors is huge. The forces on the axle and hub will be greatly increased as well. Jumping up to a 195mm rotor even more so.

[Johan Bornman]

Before anyone else poeps in their lycra and PMs me 'cause of my use of the word "Troll", please allow me to explain.

 

A troll is not an ugly monster with a wart on his chin and who lives under a bridge only to appear when virgins walk over his home.

 

No, it is an 'net term for someone who posts provocatively in order to solicit a reaction.

 

If I go onto Chit Chat and start a topic, Jesus was Australian, I'll be trolling.

 

Trolling is not a crime and can be fun, done in jest or simply done when there's nothing other to fight about. Trolls usually come in, strike and sit back, waiting for the action.

 

Known trolls are: Mampara (his signature provokes people with carbon bikes), MudDee (who loves to troll for JBs with nipples on the hook), Hendrik, who trolls with religion and Holy who trolls with any type of bait he can fit onto the hook.

 

Trolls hate being identified. If someome comes right out and calls me a troll in the very first reply post of my Jesus was Australian, post, my fun is spoilt and I'll decamp to my bridge.

 

If anyone else still resents the term, please put your name on a list and forward it to me, I'll try and not call you a troll in future.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Big H]

Before anyone else poeps in their lycra and PMs me 'cause of my use of the word "Troll"' date=' please allow me to explain.

 

A troll is not an ugly monster with a wart on his chin and who lives under a bridge only to appear when virgins walk over his home.

 

No, it is an 'net term for someone who posts provocatively in order to solicit a reaction.

 

If I go onto Chit Chat and start a topic, Jesus was Australian, I'll be trolling.

 

Trolling is not a crime and can be fun, done in jest or simply done when there's nothing other to fight about. Trolls usually come in, strike and sit back, waiting for the action.

 

Known trolls are: Mampara (his signature provokes people with carbon bikes), MudDee (who loves to troll for JBs with nipples on the hook), Hendrik, who trolls with religion and Holy who trolls with any type of bait he can fit onto the hook.

 

Trolls hate being identified. If someome comes right out and calls me a troll in the very first reply post of my Jesus was Australian, post, my fun is spoilt and I'll decamp to my bridge.

 

If anyone else still resents the term, please put your name on a list and forward it to me, I'll try and not call you a troll in future.

 

 

 

 

[/quote']

 

Aag ou Shrek is so oulike ou dierasie. Kon ek gewees het as hy 'n baard aangehad het. Ek sal egter baie baie baie omgekrap wees as iemand my 'n "drol" noem!!!!!!!!

[Johan Bornman]

Somebody said: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

 

I went from a QR front fork to a 20mm thru-axle and noticed the steering changes immediately. For me it made my steering more precise and the lateral stiffness increase stops the wheel from flexing out over roots and tricky rocky sections. It's definitely something worth looking into if you ride all mountain type trails with hard fast DH's and drop offs etc. The front wheel goes right where you put it whereas on my old QR setup I could actually see the wheel flexing trying to stay where it was.  

 

 

And he/she also, in response to a claim that warnings are due to litigious Americans, also said:

 

 

I wouldn't think so. The diffs in stopping power between 160 and 180mm rotors is huge. The forces on the axle and hub will be greatly increased as well. Jumping up to a 195mm rotor even more so.

 

 

Wheels don?t flex as much as he thinks. A 5mm sideways movement of the rim will completely slacken the spokes on that side and the wheel will become laterally unstable without even pausing to think of it. Also, the nipples will unscrew, which we know they don?t.  Further, flex at the rim (lateral stiffness as he calls it) cannot be eliminated by a beefier axle. Should the wheel hit a root, the rim gives way in the reverse shape of the root, again not likely to be eliminated by a through-axle.

 

He also claims to see wheel flex. Since we know it is in the order of <2mm, this is quite unlikely, especially as the bike is moving.

 

That same person also talks about the huge difference in ?stopping power? between large and small discs. The braking force is in fact pretty similar. A bike can only decelerate as fast as its overturning momentum allows it. By increasing disc size you are only increasing the instantaneous heat capacity of the disc, as well as improving the disc?s cooling properties. In order to increase brake force you have to increase the size of the brake pads. Nevertheless, you can only brake as fast as your overturning bike will allow. On gravel, the limiting factor is often traction rather than overturning ? another reason why greater stopping force is not desirable.