Matt Vandart Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Well if I designed a fork for trials I would hope that I had enough confidence to offer some kind of warranty for trials use or I wouldn't probably sell it, but then again I don't manufacture bike stuff so its not my field to make judgement really. @ Greetings; they are very impresive looking though ah, and the weight is incredible. Edited January 16, 2012 by Matt Vandart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 I can sort of see where you're coming from, but you seem to underestimate the sheer piss-take level that people take "This should be covered under warranty" to. I'm sure Planet-X have fond memories of that... Their bars and rims are also - from Try-All - not covered under any form of warranty, but I wouldn't really have any issues running those parts, and indeed I have run them in the past without thinking "Hot piss, they have no faith in these products." I'm pretty sure that almost all companies out there wouldn't warranty products if they didn't have to because it basically ends up causing pure hassle every single time, so I wouldn't let that really guide you as to how much faith they do or don't have in their own products. EDIT: To put that another way: Inspired frames and forks are sold with a 6 month manufacturing/materials defect warranty. So is the Sky 2. They both have the same warranty, but would you consider them to have the same strength, and the same longevity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Vandart Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave33 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Because he keeps implying that I'm saying something I'm not, despite me trying to clear it up repeatedly. He appears to be implying that I think they're not good forks. I haven't said that. He appears to be implying that I don't think they're stronger than aluminium forks. I haven't said that. He appears to be implying that because I've said that I don't think they're suitable for everyone that that relates in some way to Jack using them, and how they've held up for him. I haven't said that. The list goes on, but I really can't be f**ked with this any more as there's pretty much no point to No mark I havnt implied any of that, your totally intitled to your opinion as am I To be fair to Ali, his replies have been factual and some good points. But mark on the other had is comming across so arrogant, just as if he's better than the rest of us, going on about the same old points, which ye maybe valid but over and over??? His underlined bits and sarcastic replies just take the piss! Sorry I'm not the best at English etc, you get the drift! Matts covered alot of the points in his reply, also robs Isn't this a forum ? I don't see why I just back down when I have opinions Edit jack snapped the forks where the steerer tube is welded to the cown, like most snapped rockman forks! Edited January 16, 2012 by dave33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 But mark on the other had is comming across so arrogant, just as if he's better than the rest of us, going on about the same old points, which ye maybe valid but over and over??? His underlined bits and sarcastic replies just take the piss! Probably because you seemed to not actually be taking any notice of what I've been writing? You kept going over the same shit which I'd said time and time again, which tends to get pretty old. That in turn means I can't really be bothered trying to be "polite" or whatever towards you because I find it/you f**king tedious. The bold/underlining was done intentionally to take the piss because it seemed pretty ridiculous that you were seemingly overlooking all of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onzatrip Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 What the actual f**k is going on!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave33 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Well they certainly look good leaning against the wall Going to call Tarty tomorrow and inquire about this stack height now that I know what I'm dealing with. This thread has gone to lead a life of its own... Not trying to argu with you but I can't see there being any point, at the end of the day the insert goes down only so far, the 135mm rule is just trying to insure that it is below the bearing on the headset so that there isn't a shear point where the insert ends. The weakest part of the forks. I'd estimate that the headset being 135mm from the crown is leaving an estimated overlap of 10mm, personally I would rather it to be twice that if it was me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Borneo Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 So tempted to jump in here and make my case for everyone to ride cromo forks. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted January 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Not trying to argu with you but I can't see there being any point, at the end of the day the insert goes down only so far, the 135mm rule is just trying to insure that it is below the bearing on the headset so that there isn't a shear point where the insert ends. The weakest part of the forks. I'd estimate that the headset being 135mm from the crown is leaving an estimated overlap of 10mm, personally I would rather it to be twice that if it was me. Wasn't going to go into any detail and just sort it out over the phone tomorrow but ok, here's my problem. I don't understand why the stack height is important rather than where the bearings are. It seems illogical. The bearings are always going to be a few mm above and below the head tube. So even if I get a headset which has a thick base plate and a tall top bearing crown thingy, how on earth is that going to change anything? How is it going to solve the problem of there possibly being a durability issue when stem stackers don't add up to the minimum required height? In short, how is this headset in conjunction with the TA fork practically different to an Echo headset with a ~10mm spacer?(ignoring the fact that it's an integrated headset) Secondly, ending at 135mm from the crown of the fork is a somewhat important looking sticker with hand written information. I'm going to guess it's exactly in that place for a good reason, one being that it tears off fairly easily and could therefore be a form of a warranty seal. It also makes it impossible to slide anything onto the fork lower than 135mm from the crown. That would mean that the it marks the minimum height the top bearing has to be from the crown. Is this correct? If so, using a tall headset doesn't help at all. f**k me, all I'm trying to do is keep the current frame which I really like and avoid ruining forks which are 10x my annual fork budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostrider88 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 So tempted to jump in here and make my case for everyone to ride cromo forks. Thanks god there is so many of them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Borneo Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Thanks god there is so many of them... Ha ha, yeah, I don't get it but I'm not really going to start that debate here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave33 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Wasn't going to go into any detail and just sort it out over the phone tomorrow but ok, here's my problem. I don't understand why the stack height is important rather than where the bearings are. It seems illogical. The bearings are always going to be a few mm above and below the head tube. So even if I get a headset which has a thick base plate and a tall top bearing crown thingy, how on earth is that going to change anything? How is it going to solve the problem of there possibly being a durability issue when stem stackers don't add up to the minimum required height? In short, how is this headset in conjunction with the TA fork practically different to an Echo headset with a ~10mm spacer?(ignoring the fact that it's an integrated headset) Secondly, ending at 135mm from the crown of the fork is a somewhat important looking sticker with hand written information. I'm going to guess it's exactly in that place for a good reason, one being that it tears off fairly easily and could therefore be a form of a warranty seal. It also makes it impossible to slide anything onto the fork lower than 135mm from the crown. That would mean that the it marks the minimum height the top bearing has to be from the crown. Is this correct? If so, using a tall headset doesn't help at all. f**k me, all I'm trying to do is keep the current frame which I really like and avoid ruining forks which are 10x my annual fork budget. Yes totally the point iv already made, I totally agree that it's not logical. The invert needs to be below the bearing by atleast 20mm to spread the shearing force out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave33 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Probably because you seemed to not actually be taking any notice of what I've been writing? You kept going over the same shit which I'd said time and time again, which tends to get pretty old. That in turn means I can't really be bothered trying to be "polite" or whatever towards you because I find it/you f**king tedious. The bold/underlining was done intentionally to take the piss because it seemed pretty ridiculous that you were seemingly overlooking all of that. Mark this is the last time I'm goin to stoop to your level, whether or not you agree or not with me there is no need to be rude or offensive, after all your ment to be a moderator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Mrs.G.Coustellier Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 TAKE NOTE: "Forum Terms & Rules. Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the "Register" button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the 'back' button on your browser. Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. YOU AGREE, through your use of this service, that YOU WILL NOT USE THIS BULLETIN BOARD TO POST ANY MATERIAL WHICH IS knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, ABUSIVE, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, THREATENING, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board." Use of swear words in comments, whether blanked out or not...this is not abusive or threatening in any way? You've all had your say...(several times)... Agree to disagree.... Whatever... Good night! Amen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Er, he's not. Mark this is the last time I'm goin to stoop to your level, whether or not you agree or not with me there is no need to be rude or offensive, after all your ment to be a moderator In fairness, there's been a fair bit from both of you throughout the topic. You've missed/ignored some pretty well made points then asked the already-answered questions again which has clearly been annoying for more than one person, one of whom being Wastelake who's snapped like a mother-lovin' twig. Also: What the hell is that all about ^^?! Someone actually made a new account to have a moan?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted January 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Yes totally the point iv already made, I totally agree that it's not logical. The invert needs to be below the bearing by atleast 20mm to spread the shearing force out! So can we agree that a taller headset is not a remedy to this problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave33 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Er, he's not. In fairness, there's been a fair bit from both of you throughout the topic. You've missed/ignored some pretty well made points then asked the already-answered questions again which has clearly been annoying for more than one person, one of whom being Wastelake who's snapped like a mother-lovin' twig. Also: What the hell is that all about ^^?! Someone actually made a new account to have a moan?! Would you be so kind as to point these out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Since they've been pointed out throughout the duration of the thread on numerous occasions I'm not going to go back through and point out every example, but the constant comments/questions on things like adding stackers, lack of warranty, Jack Carthy being fine with them and therefore them being strong enough for everybody etc would probably be a pretty good start point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali C Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 TAKE NOTE: "Forum Terms & Rules. Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the "Register" button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the 'back' button on your browser. Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. YOU AGREE, through your use of this service, that YOU WILL NOT USE THIS BULLETIN BOARD TO POST ANY MATERIAL WHICH IS knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, ABUSIVE, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, THREATENING, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board." Use of swear words in comments, whether blanked out or not...this is not abusive or threatening in any way? You've all had your say...(several times)... Agree to disagree.... Whatever... Good night! Amen! Ozzy? Don't see why anyone would feel the need to make an account to say that, if you have something to say then say it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 You've all had your say...(several times)... Agree to disagree.... Whatever... Good night! Amen! People have been banned in the past for having multiple accounts as it's against the rules. You've missed/ignored some pretty well made points then asked the already-answered questions again which has clearly been annoying for more than one person, one of whom being Wastelake who's snapped like a mother-lovin' twig. Would you be so kind as to point these out? You seem to have found them already Dave? To be fair to Ali, his replies have been factual and some good points. But mark on the other had is comming across so arrogant, just as if he's better than the rest of us, going on about the same old points, which ye maybe valid but over and over??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azarathal Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I understand Daves being a bit thick and argumentative here but why do you guys always have to keep going on and on? Just drop it and I'm sure Dave wouldn't pursue it further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 We'll soon find out won't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave33 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 So can we agree that a taller headset is not a remedy to this problem? No but you will get a warranty from tarty unless they have changed it! Personally I wouldn't line to try it, if the steerer tube snaps there will be no tell tail signs. It may hurt.. If you want I have a couple of ideas that would make it possible to use your frame and be what I consider safe, just pop me a pm and ll explain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Vandart Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Wall ride that bitch! Wasn't going to go into any detail and just sort it out over the phone tomorrow but ok, here's my problem. I don't understand why the stack height is important rather than where the bearings are. It seems illogical. The bearings are always going to be a few mm above and below the head tube. So even if I get a headset which has a thick base plate and a tall top bearing crown thingy, how on earth is that going to change anything? How is it going to solve the problem of there possibly being a durability issue when stem stackers don't add up to the minimum required height? In short, how is this headset in conjunction with the TA fork practically different to an Echo headset with a ~10mm spacer?(ignoring the fact that it's an integrated headset) Secondly, ending at 135mm from the crown of the fork is a somewhat important looking sticker with hand written information. I'm going to guess it's exactly in that place for a good reason, one being that it tears off fairly easily and could therefore be a form of a warranty seal. It also makes it impossible to slide anything onto the fork lower than 135mm from the crown. That would mean that the it marks the minimum height the top bearing has to be from the crown. Is this correct? If so, using a tall headset doesn't help at all. f**k me, all I'm trying to do is keep the current frame which I really like and avoid ruining forks which are 10x my annual fork budget. This is exactly what I was saying in my post, confusion due to the wording. 135mm is the distance between the bottom face of the bottom bearing race and the top face of the top bearing race. So can we agree that a taller headset is not a remedy to this problem? Indeed that kind of taller headset would not solve this problem. However, if you made a top headset cup which was taller than the standard, say, echo top cup which moved the top face of the top bearing up by the needed amount then I believe that would solve the probrem. Eg: Echo headset, ZHI frame. bottom cup stack height= 12mm headset length= 100mm top cup stack height= 11mm total: 123mm 135-123=12mm So you need to make a top cup that places the bearing 12mm above its standard position so the top cup stack height needs to be 23mm Note: it must be the top cup if you want the geo of your bike to remain the same. Sorry to spell it out so simply but I thought it best to, I am not being patronising. Here is a picture of a horse: Edited January 17, 2012 by Matt Vandart 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.