Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 100
  1. #1
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626

    20mm longer fork weakens frame, voids warranty?

    I read in the August issue of MBA in the 'ask MBA' section that increasing a fork from 3.9inches to 4.7 inches would "shorten the life of the frame" and "void the frames warranty".

    I could see how going form 100mm to 150mm of travel could weaken a frame, but I do not see how increasing just 20mm could have any effect on frame strength.

    The article says the frame is designed to handle 3.9 inches of travel, but the bike does not ride with 3.9", it should ride with 2.6 to 3.6" of travel with the sag set up properly. I always thought that frames were designed to handle a range of fork travel, not an exact number, since many riders ride at different sag%. I figured they have at least about a 1" to 1.25" range for fork travel and that it probably exceedes the travel of the stock fork by a little just to be safe.

    I am curious about this because I just replaced my old 100mm fork with a 120mm fork. I really do not see how this could weaken the frame if it was designed to handle up to at least 100mm of travel. If I ride with +20% sag, then that means my fork travel when riding wil be under 96mm, so how could that weaken my frame?

    As far as the voiding of my warranty, I would only send back the frame, not the components, so how would the manufacturer know how much travel my fork had? Even if I needed to include the fork for some crazy reason, I would just put the original fork back on.

    Is MBA talking out their ass on this one or is my frame now weaker and and my warranty voided?
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  2. #2
    B A N N E D
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,536
    Specialized only recommends a 10% increase in travel.

    100mm can be increased to 110mm but not 120mm
    120mm = voided warranty

    80mm can be increased to 90mm but not 100mm
    100mm = voided warranty
    * They'll give you an extra 2mm on a bike with a 80mm fork, you can increase to 90mm instead of 88mm

    How many fork manufacturers make a 90mm or 110mm forks ?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,756
    MBA are talking out their arse on the "weakening the frame" front but the manufacturer may fail to honour the warranty if they see a longer travel fork on there.

    Going from a 100mm fork to a 120mm fork only increases the A-C height by from say 470mm to 490mm. ie. an increase in leverage at full extension of 4%. This is a negligible increase in frame stress compared to other factors like how heavy you are and how aggressively you ride.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    207
    It may be a nominal amount but it comes down to testing, if they haven't tested it then you wouldn't expect them to offer a warranty (even if the theory says it's 'probably' O.K) and if they have tested it then there may have been an issue. For that reason they're totally within their rights to say "run whatever fork you like but if you crack the frame it's your fault".

  5. #5
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18,098

    20mm longer fork weakens frame, voids warranty?

    It really depends on the frame. Some are intended to handle a range of travel but some are not. Especially if you are looking at older bikes when 80mm was considered long travel.

    It also seems like frames sold as complete bikes are oftentimes sold with one travel option in mind, and because of testing as mentioned before, mfr warranties may not cover longer travel.

  6. #6
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,159

    Re: 20mm longer fork weakens frame, voids warranty?

    I'm not necessarily agreeing with MBA, but when mfcrs give forth travel specs for the frame, they are definitely taking sag into account already, so, you can't say 'well my new fork sags down to the max travel spec'd for the frame'.

    Each mm of additional travel raises the front, slackens the head angle, and increases the leverage that the fork puts on the frame. When mfctrs spec a max travel, its not like there is some cutoff or breaking point where one more mm of travel and the frame will just break. When they set the max limit, its just a cost vs revenue equation: knowing that each mm increases the chance of failure by some small percent, increasing their warranty cost, but smaller travel limits simultaneously decrease the desirability of the bike, decreasing sales.

    Obviously the actual peak stress that you put on the frame will be a combination of your weight, riding style, whether you do jumps & drops, etc.

    So, in short, if you're close or just over the travel limit, but you're light, and/or you ride light and don't do a lot of jumps and drops, don't worry about it. If you're worried about voiding the warranty, keep the old fork and put it back on before you take it in for warranty claim.

    Sent from your phone, which i hacked into

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,295
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Is MBA talking out their ass on this one or is my frame now weaker and and my warranty voided?

    Can't speak to the specific warranty you have, but your frame is fine, and Mountain Bike Action is pretty commonly referred to as Mountain Bike Fiction.

  8. #8
    Fat Is Where It's At Moderator
    Reputation: DiRt DeViL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,278
    I don't read MBA but can speak from experience, had a frame that was designed for a 100mm fork, installed a 120mm fork and in withing months the head tube cracked at the lower end (close to the headset cup). The manufacturer never asked how much travel the fork had and got a replacement frame, maybe just lucky or they new about something that I didn't knew.

  9. #9
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by ddprocter View Post
    I'm not necessarily agreeing with MBA, but when mfcrs give forth travel specs for the frame, they are definitely taking sag into account already, so, you can't say 'well my new fork sags down to the max travel spec'd for the frame'.
    I thought about the mfcrs taking sag into account, but how much sag? I know ideally you should have 20% to 30% sag, but I also know there are more than a few who like to ride with very little sag. I would think the mfcrs would need to consider all possible sag set ups as well as lockout when determining how much travel the frame can handle. If they didn't, and the max frame travel was based off of travel with sag, then they would be taking a bigger risk with possibly having to honor more warranties for riders who set up their bikes with little to no sag.

    If this is true, then I feel like I can say my new fork sags below the max travel spec for the frame so increasing just 20mm shouldn't weaken the frame as long as I run enough sag. I like to ride with a lot of sag, +30% so my fork travel with sag is about 84mm, well below the 100mm stock fork.

    I am pretty sure this is not an issue for my bike frame since there were 6 versions of this model all with the same 5" rear travel, but with fork travels ranging between 100mm, 120mm, 125mm and 130mm depending on the version. Plus, it was built in the good old USA. But even on bikes with one specific fork travel set for the frame and built in china or wherever most bikes are built these days, I would think that as long as the sag is set up below the recommended shock travel length, the frame shouldn't be weakened. Although, I did read the post regarding the first hand experience with longer travel and cracking the frame, but that can also happen without adding travel to the fork, so.....
    Last edited by singletrackmack; 07-30-2013 at 01:16 PM.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,641
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    I thought about the mfcrs taking sag into account, but how much sag? I know ideally you should have 20% to 30% sag, but I also know there are more than a few who like to ride with very little sag. I would think the mfcrs would need to consider all possible sag set ups as well as lockout when determining how much travel the frame can handle. If they didn't, and the max frame travel was based off of travel with sag, then they would be taking a bigger risk with possibly having to honor more warranties for riders who set up their bikes with little to no sag.

    If this is true, then I feel like I can say my new fork sags below the max travel spec for the frame so increasing just 20mm shouldn't weaken the frame as long as I run enough sag. I like to ride with a lot of sag, +30% so my fork travel with sag is about 84mm, well below the 100mm stock fork.

    I am pretty sure this is not an issue for my bike frame since there were 6 versions of this model all with the same 5" rear travel, but with fork travels ranging between 100mm, 120mm, 125mm and 130mm depending on the version. Plus, it was built in the good old USA. But even on bikes with one specific fork travel set for the frame and built in china or wherever most bikes are built these days, I would think that as long as the sag is set up below the recommended shock travel length, the frame shouldn't be weakened. Although, I did read the post regarding the first hand experience with longer travel and cracking the frame, but that can also happen without adding travel to the fork, so.....
    So why ask if you already knew the answer you wanted to hear?
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  11. #11
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    So why ask if you already knew the answer you wanted to hear?
    Because I wanted to know if the answer I wanted to hear was right. MBA wrote something that didn't make any sense to me so I wanted to see what others who know about this stuff thought. I have to say the prospect of weakening my frame and at the same time voiding my warrenty worried me.

    I don't know how mfcrs determine the max fork travel for a frame and wanted to know if they took sag into account and if so, how much sag or what range of sag.

    I didnt mean to imply that I know what I am talking about, and that thats why I say 'I think' a lot.

    I also am not sure how diligent mfcrs are when checking to see what caused a frame to crack when trying to warranty and wanted to see what others thought about just putting the original fork back on if the frame were to crack due to a longer travel fork.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  12. #12
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    20mm longer fork weakens frame, voids warranty?

    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Because I wanted to know if the answer I wanted to hear was right. MBA wrote something that didn't make any sense to me so I wanted to see what others who know about this stuff thought. I have to say the prospect of weakening my frame and at the same time voiding my warrenty worried me.

    I don't know how mfcrs determine the max fork travel for a frame and wanted to know if they took sag into account and if so, how much sag or what range of sag.

    I didnt mean to imply that I know what I am talking about, and that thats why I say 'I think' a lot.

    I also am not sure how diligent mfcrs are when checking to see what caused a frame to crack when trying to warranty and wanted to see what others thought about just putting the original fork back on if the frame were to crack due to a longer travel fork.
    MBA prints a lot of things that do not make sense or are flat out wrong.

    A longer than intended fork does not "weaken" the frame. The frame strength is the same no matter what you use.
    It does increase the amount of stress on the frame and can lead to failure.

    The European CEN testing, that is required for a bike frame to be sold, is done with a specific fork length (no sag IIRC).

    Removing the longer fork before seeking warranty replacement is a scumbag move.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  13. #13
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,159

    Re: 20mm longer fork weakens frame, voids warranty?

    I agree you're probably not adding a ton of risk with a 120 mm fork, but there is definitely some additional stress here, no matter what your sag is:

    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    I would think the mfcrs would need to consider all possible sag set ups as well as lockout ...

    Again its not really a binary outcome where 120mm fork weakens the frame, 119mm doesn't (or 29% sag does, 30% doesn't). Each additional mm in axle to crown distance puts more leverage on the head tube junction, which over time, tends to increase the risk frame failure, especially if you have an AL frame where fatigue strength is a factor (didn't see whether it was al or carbon).

    I like to ride with a lot of sag, +30% so my fork travel with sag is about 84mm, well below the 100mm stock fork.
    Using that logic, a 100mm fork with typical 25% sag will sit at roughly 75mm extension, right? So, you've still added probably 10mm of axle to crown when the fork is in a resting position with no dynamic forces. But, the stresses on the fork & frame obviously peak when the bike is doing rough terrain, from rocks and ruts up to small drops up to full on jumps. During these periods, the fork will be taking a lot of hits in the fully extended position or at least in the first 25% of travel. So, during the highest dynamic stresses, the fork also tends to be in various stages of extension, which, in turn puts more leverage on the head tube junction, witch over time increases risk of failure.

    I would think that as long as the sag is set up below the recommended shock travel length, the frame shouldn't be weakened
    . . . as much



    Sent from your phone, which i hacked into

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    114
    Umm, not to interrupt, but coming from another manuf. discipline, the builder might want to see the bike in it's entirety, not just the frame, to 'evaluate' the damage on the fork and verify a legitimate damage claim. I know I would.
    The original fork had better look like it was part of the accidental frame damage or I'm guessing your warranty is void... Definitely Not Ok'ing the practice of stiffing the builder, just saying...

  15. #15
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    20mm longer fork weakens frame, voids warranty?

    Quote Originally Posted by StumpyH View Post
    Umm, not to interrupt, but coming from another manuf. discipline, the builder might want to see the bike in it's entirety, not just the frame, to 'evaluate' the damage on the fork and verify a legitimate damage claim. I know I would.
    The original fork had better look like it was part of the accidental frame damage or I'm guessing your warranty is void... Definitely Not Ok'ing the practice of stiffing the builder, just saying...
    Accident/crash damage is not covered by warranties.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  16. #16
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Removing the longer fork before seeking warranty replacement is a scumbag move.
    So is charging more for a bicycle than a motocross bike. No love for manufactures because they are ripping all of us off. I have absolutely no problem being a scumbag towards the manufacture who is gouging as many people as possible. As far as I am concerned it is those who ride for fun vs. corporate greed and those who profit from their greed.

    Don't agree? Then please explain why a bicycle should cost more than a motocross bike.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,295
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Don't agree? Then please explain why a bicycle should cost more than a motocross bike.
    It's known as 'Economy of scale'.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    870
    How dare those greedy bike companies make a profit off my recreational activity by selling me products that I freely choose to buy in an open market. I bet they rake in enough money to pay their employees a fair wage, contribute to the global economy, and sponsor bike-related causes like trail building and bike advocacy. Those bastards. Clearly that justifies me being dishonest in my warrantee claim to "stick it to the Man". If everybody did that, hopefully those greedy bike companies will lose profits, lay off workers, and stop donating to IMBA.
    Surly Cross Check: fat tire roadie
    Surly LHT: Kid hauler
    On One Inbred: SS 26er

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,641
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    So is charging more for a bicycle than a motocross bike. No love for manufactures because they are ripping all of us off. I have absolutely no problem being a scumbag towards the manufacture who is gouging as many people as possible. As far as I am concerned it is those who ride for fun vs. corporate greed and those who profit from their greed.

    Don't agree? Then please explain why a bicycle should cost more than a motocross bike.
    See this is a perfect example of the sheep mentality. Right now the cool buzz phrase is 'corporate greed' and is thrown around by people that don't have a clue.

    As pointed out above, 'Economy of scale' Here's a good start Economies of scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia do some reading before making yourself look ignorant again.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,091
    Anybody who has ever been involved in fatigue testing (lightweight aluminium components especially) will know that a small change in geometry and corresponding small increase in max load and its orientation at the pivot can substantially change the stress range seen in say the head tube from standard activities such as braking and drastically reduce the number of load cycles till the thing would have a reasonable failure probability - it is far from a linear relationship - (google S-N curves for 6061 Al - curve being the key word).
    I would imagine that 100mm to 120mm should be OK on most frames - but I wouldn't guarantee it without an FEA analysis and an accelerated fatigue test to prove it. I don't blame manufacturers for saying this has been designed and independently reviewed and destructively tested in accordance with EN14766 for configuration X - if you want to use it in configuration Y or Z for which it hasn't been designed and specifically tested then - no warranty and at your own risk.
    Not only is there economy of scale to consider with cycles - design, materials and construction has to account for the very limited power output of the human, this involves additional time and processes in manufacturing - you can't just forget 1Kg here and there to simplify it; far more important to a cyclist than motoX rider - super light motorbikes or cars also tend to be hugely expensive.

  21. #21
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    It's known as 'Economy of scale'.
    Yes, thanks for bringing that up. I was only comparing the cost of motocross components to mtb components to show how much we are all being ripped off. The theory of Economy of Scale also demonstrates just how much corporate greed there is.

    Economy of scale means the more you produce the cheaper the cost. If economy of scale was taking place like it should be, then mountain bikes would be getting less expensive, not more. But these greed will not let that happen.

    Back in the early to mid 2000's a top of the line mtb went for around 3k to 4k, much less than a mid to top of the line motocross bike back then. Mtb technology has not changed much since then and there are a lot more mountain bikes being produced today than back then. Also, back then there were plenty of bikes you could buy that were manufactured in the good old USA and made by professionals. Now they are just about all made in China or Indonesia or wherever by children which further reduces costs.

    So economy of scale is just something else that shows how much price gouging is going on and therefore I have absolutely no shame in sticking it to a manufacturer. They are ripping us off, so I will do the same to them.

    Like I said, it's those who ride for fun and recreation vs corporate greed and those who profit from their greed.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,091
    $3 to $4K will still buy a pretty damn good MTB that 99% of riders will be fine with and what most 1/2 serious amateurs ride. I don't go in for this ridiculously over priced carbon bling bling wheelsets that cost the GDP of a small country - but if people are willing to pay $10+ for a bike it's entirely up to them - not the fault of the manufacturers for providing stuff that people want to buy - I don't feel ripped off in the slightest

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cerebroside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    900
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Don't agree? Then please explain why a bicycle should cost more than a motocross bike.
    You can buy a Devinci Wilson Carbon SL for $7500 MSRP. Pretty close to being the same bike that just won the DH world cup. Doesn't look like you can buy a motocross race replica, but when the Ducati Desmosedici RR came out it was $72,500. Sure, a bottom of the barrel motocross bike will cost less than a top of the line DH bike, but that's an apples to oranges comparison.

  24. #24
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    I think I need to cancel my subscription to MBA. Just about every bike they review runs from 5k up to 10k and it stresses me out. I still cannot fathom how a mtb could possibly cost more than a motocross bike and I know I am not the only one who can't wrap their head around this.

    It's like a canoe that cost more than a ski boat. Sure manufactures are always trying to improve every aspect of their canoe like weight, strength and efficiency, but to end up with a final cost that is more than a ski boat would be very hard to believe. But ****, if someone thinks it's worth the price, then party on I guess.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cerebroside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    900
    Apart from the engine, a motocross bike has all the same parts a mountain bike does. Sure, they might be bigger, but it's not the volume of material that makes this stuff expensive, it's all the machining, etc.
    Plus, most high end bike frames are hand welded and components CNC milled. I'm willing to bet that moto bike stuff mostly isn't. As others have said, economies of scale.

  26. #26
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by cerebroside View Post
    You can buy a Devinci Wilson Carbon SL for $7500 MSRP. Pretty close to being the same bike that just won the DH world cup. Doesn't look like you can buy a motocross race replica, but when the Ducati Desmosedici RR came out it was $72,500. Sure, a bottom of the barrel motocross bike will cost less than a top of the line DH bike, but that's an apples to oranges comparison.
    Don't know about that Ducati, but the top of the line Yamaha or Honda motocross bike runs under 9k. How is it a mtb could even cost that much let alone more is baffling.

    Also, I'm pretty sure a motocross bike is way more advanced than any mountain bike, and that the actual costs of the components to make a moto cross bike is way more expensive than the actual cost of the components that make a mtb.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cerebroside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    900
    I don't have time to argue about this, but I suggest that you look at the materials and components used in a $9k mountain bike and compare to a $9k motocross bike.

  28. #28
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by cerebroside View Post
    As others have said, economies of scale.
    If economy of scale was taking place, them mountain bikes should cost less than they did back in the mid 2000. More mountain bikes are being made then ever and therefore costs are going down not up. That's how economy of scale works. (I read the wiki link that someone else posted on this thread)

    Bikes were made the same back then as they are now. Well, more bikes were made by professionals here in the US back then and now more are made with the cheapest possible labor from 3rd worldish countries, so I guess they weren't really made the same back then.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,295
    The level of technology in newer bikes is so far beyond anything that was around 12-15 years ago, it's ridiculous. Engineering, testing and tooling up cost a lot of money. And fwiw, I have 8 high end, handmade-in-the-USA bikes in my stable, and not all of them are 'better' than mass-produced bikes. I remember the days when there were lots of little US companies welding up hardtails and CNCing components. There were a lot of broken parts and cracked frames and spotty customer service. QC has come a long way.
    I'd also suggest doing a little research on the handful of big bike foundries that produce most of the bikes out there today before you go thinking they're some sort of dirty low-tech sweatshops.

  30. #30
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    The level of technology in newer bikes is so far beyond anything that was around 12-15 years ago, it's ridiculous. Engineering, testing and tooling up cost a lot of money. And fwiw, I have 8 high end, handmade-in-the-USA bikes in my stable, and not all of them are 'better' than mass-produced bikes. I remember the days when there were lots of little US companies welding up hardtails and CNCing components. There were a lot of broken parts and cracked frames and spotty customer service. QC has come a long way.
    I'd also suggest doing a little research on the handful of big bike foundries that produce most of the bikes out there today before you go thinking they're some sort of dirty low-tech sweatshops.
    What about bikes from say 2005, 8 years ago? Back then they cost half what they do now. Is the new tech that much more advanced? From the surface, bikes don't look that much different. Maybe the thru axles, but that can't account for a doubling in price. 12 to 15 years ago, ya bikes were no where near as advanced, they were still using URT suspension designs, but that was long gone by 2005.

    Also, shouldn't these big bike foundries greatly reduce the cost of bikes? Were these around back in the mid 2000's?
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,091
    Firstly comparing an off the shelf factory made stock KX 450 or CRF 450 @ $8000 with pro MTB's with handbuilt Enve wheels top end forks / XO XTR brakes and drivetrain etc is not apples with apples - to make these competitive and pro you need to add in the $10K for Showa A kit suspension / linkages / clamps etc, $5 to $6k+ for pro circuit high compression race pistons / cams / valves / engine building & tuning etc then brakes hoses other stuff I would say you are looking at a minimum of $25~30K to have something competitive . (my nephew races AMA and my brother in law is constantly *****ing about the cost). I am quite happy racing on my $2K 29er hardtail or $4K Epic full sus, spending $10K+ on a bike won't make me any faster. You can get a perfectly decent stock MTB that would be comparable with your stock factory made cross bike for $1.5K to $3K and any of these bikes are significantly better than 4 or 5Ktopend bikes of 10 / 15 years ago.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,641
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Yes, thanks for bringing that up. I was only comparing the cost of motocross components to mtb components to show how much we are all being ripped off. The theory of Economy of Scale also demonstrates just how much corporate greed there is.

    Economy of scale means the more you produce the cheaper the cost. If economy of scale was taking place like it should be, then mountain bikes would be getting less expensive, not more. But these greed will not let that happen.

    Back in the early to mid 2000's a top of the line mtb went for around 3k to 4k, much less than a mid to top of the line motocross bike back then. Mtb technology has not changed much since then and there are a lot more mountain bikes being produced today than back then. Also, back then there were plenty of bikes you could buy that were manufactured in the good old USA and made by professionals. Now they are just about all made in China or Indonesia or wherever by children which further reduces costs.

    So economy of scale is just something else that shows how much price gouging is going on and therefore I have absolutely no shame in sticking it to a manufacturer. They are ripping us off, so I will do the same to them.

    Like I said, it's those who ride for fun and recreation vs corporate greed and those who profit from their greed.
    LOL keep making yourself look completely ignorant. You don't take into account inflation. My Top of the Line 2000 SWorks FSR was $3600, My TBc was $4500, if you take inflation into account my carbon bike cost less than my aluminum one did.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: 20mm longer fork weakens frame, voids warranty?

    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleJon View Post
    Firstly comparing an off the shelf factory made stock KX 450 or CRF 450 @ $8000 with pro MTB's with handbuilt Enve wheels top end forks / XO XTR brakes and drivetrain etc is not apples with apples - to make these competitive and pro you need to add in the $10K for Showa A kit suspension / linkages / clamps etc, $5 to $6k+ for pro circuit high compression race pistons / cams / valves / engine building & tuning etc then brakes hoses other stuff I would say you are looking at a minimum of $25~30K to have something competitive . (my nephew races AMA and my brother in law is constantly *****ing about the cost). I am quite happy racing on my $2K 29er hardtail or $4K Epic full sus, spending $10K+ on a bike won't make me any faster. You can get a perfectly decent stock MTB that would be comparable with your stock factory made cross bike for $1.5K to $3K and any of these bikes are significantly better than 4 or 5Ktopend bikes of 10 / 15 years ago.
    Exactly!!!

    A brand new MX bike is not "top of the line" the way a $10k mountain bike is. How many pro's (or even amateurs) are riding stock MX bikes?? Even the semi serious weekend warriors that I know have several thousand dollars into their machines to make them more competitive.

    An off the showroom floor MX bike would be more comparable buying a mountain bike with a nice carbon fs frame but mid level components

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,295
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleJon View Post
    You can get a perfectly decent stock MTB....for $1.5K to $3K and any of these bikes are significantly better than 4 or 5K topend bikes of 10 / 15 years ago.
    This. For what I paid for a simple, non-US built hardtail with a fork that blew up in a couple weeks and brakes that barely slowed the bike down back in the 90s, there are so many amazing choices in bikes out there now, it's ridiculous.
    Also, as noted, the huge dollar bikes come pre-upgraded. You can't get better parts to put on them, because they already come equipped with them the absolute cutting edge components. Personally, I think they're an incredible waste of money, but hey, it ain't my money. If somebody wants a $2500 wheelset, so be it. But you can't expect a bike that comes with a $2500 wheelset to sell for $4000.

    Personally, I think paying anywhere close to retail for high end bikes is silly. One of the other handy quirks of the mtb market is your typical high-end bling machine loses about half it's value in it's first season. That's when I swoop in...

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 006_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,783
    Who cares.

    If you do indeed care that a bicycle costs more then a motocross bike then sell your fricken bicycle, purchase the cheaper motocross bike, and go troll a motocross forum.

  36. #36
    Redcoat
    Reputation: Brockwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,003
    Just put your old fork in your hydration pack as well as all your tools. that way when you crash and crack your frame you can do the ol' switch-a-roo on the sly

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,044
    I say u should always look at Axle to Crown when u change forks/travel up. I went from 100mm to 120mm by changing forks and only increased A 2 C by 10mm \o/. I suppose you could consider how much sag was used on each fork as well to get more of an idea.

  38. #38
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Please see the "bike pricing has increased 95% Inflation has increased 96% thread in the General discussion thread to see why I have absolutely no love for today manufactures.

    Here is the link and below that what I posted there regarding why I feel they are ripping us all off.

    Bike pricing has increased 96%, inflation has increased 27%


    "Help me with my thinking here. I do realize the following analogy is not perfect so please correct the flaws in my thought process.

    I started mountain biking in the early 90's. I remember around '95 a top of the line mtb went for $3500 to 5k and many bikes were made in the USA back then. The last new bike I bought was in '05. A top of the line bike in '05 went for $3500 to 5k and many bikes were made in the USA back then.

    There was a hell of a lot of advancements in mtb technology between '95 and 2005, yet pricing pretty much stayed the same.

    Now, a top of the line mtb goes for 10k and many bikes are made with cheap labor over seas now. Sure the technology has improved since '05, but no where near like between '95 and '05. And actually, I have been looking at buying a new bike and really don't see a dramatic difference in technology between '05 and now, but between '95 and '05 there was a galaxy of difference.

    I took a quick look at the historical inflation rate by year and as far as I can tell it shows the inflation rate between '95 and '05 is higher than between '05 and now. However, that was a quick look on the web and may not be right, so if I am wrong please let us know what the inflation rate was between these two periods.

    I love mountain biking with a passion, but these numbers leave a very bad taste in my mouth and makes me think that (yes, I'll say it and I know it won't make me popular, but it's what I feel in my gut, so sorry if it pisses you off) corporate greed is the reason. And that's not just a trendy thing to say now a days, if you've been around you know that ****s been talked about since the 80's. It just never had a place in mountain biking before now.

    Oh and I see someone brought up economy of scale. There are a hell of a lot more people mountain biking today than in '95 and back then there was a lot more more manufactures, so with that theory prices should be really going down, but....

    What has happened to the mountain bike industry?"

    And

    "Originally Posted by J_R_A
    singletrackmack has some great points.... An 05' RLC and a 14' CDT compared to a 95' Indy C and a 04' Reba RL is huge or URT to Horst again huge.
    ~JRA

    You bringing up rear suspension improvements reminds me that many of the rear suspension patents are up, like the Horst Link four bar. These companies no longer need to pay for the license to use these designs which should again, bring pricing down" but greed will not let that happen.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  39. #39
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    LOL keep making yourself look completely ignorant. You don't take into account inflation. My Top of the Line 2000 SWorks FSR was $3600, My TBc was $4500, if you take inflation into account my carbon bike cost less than my aluminum one did.
    Please see the above post regarding inflation and technology advancements.

    Not looking at the entire history if mountain bikes is what makes you look ignorant.

    FYI, mountain biking didn't start in 2000.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,641
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Please see the above post regarding inflation and technology advancements.

    Not looking at the entire history if mountain bikes is what makes you look ignorant.

    FYI, mountain biking didn't start in 2000.
    Where does my post imply that it did start in 2000? My point is still relevant and you still even after the post above don't get it.
    Ibis Mojo 3
    Carver 420 TI
    Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  41. #41
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    I know you know mountain biking didn't start back in 2000. I just said that because you called me ignorant, and the oldest bike you referenced was a 2000. I see you own a '98 stumpy comp, nice bike. You got your money's worth back then.

    And no, myself and a lot other people who agree with me on the thread I referenced above don't get why mtb's have gotten so outrageously expensive since '05 given there has been no real major advancements in mountain bike technology since then. If there is one that I am not thinking of, please state it.

    Actually, there is one I can think of, and that would be the advancements in marketing. Maybe that's were all the money is going, R&D in market research.

    Anyways, if you think it's inflation, then please explain why mtb prices didn't go up from '95 to '05 during the era of the biggest advancements in mtb technology to date while inflation was greater at that time then from '05 to now.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  42. #42
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,670

    20mm longer fork weakens frame, voids warranty?

    The new thread has as much nonsense as this one.

    Bikes incorporate a lot of metal. They're also mostly made in Asia and have to be transported to major markets. Metals prices and fuel prices have increased dramatically since 2005. I haven't seen anyone mention that in the other thread.
    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." - Dr. Peter Venkman

    Riding in Helena? Everything you need to know, right here.

  43. #43
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    The new thread has as much nonsense as this one.

    Bikes incorporate a lot of metal. They're also mostly made in Asia and have to be transported to major markets. Metals prices and fuel prices have increased dramatically since 2005. I haven't seen anyone mention that in the other thread.
    Finally, a reason that sorta makes sense, except for the whole Asia thing. I believe the reason they make bikes over seas is because including shipping, it's much cheaper than making bikes in the US, which they used to do before the price went thru the roof.

    Now as far as the price of materials, did they not rise as dramatically from '95 to '05 during a time when inflation was higher then from '05 to now? I am not trying to be smart ass here, I really don't know the answer.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  44. #44
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Actually, sorry price of fuel part doesn't make any sense. You all realize these reasons your stating can be verified using the internet right?

    The average price of gas in '95 was $1.05 to $1.11.
    It doubled and then some by 2005 to 2.10 to $2.47
    Fuel prices in 2013 averaged between $3.11 to $3.65 an increase of about only 33% over 2005.

    So I guess we've moved onto the price of metal as the reason now. Be nice to see some actual statistics on that, because so far everything else has been a bunch of assumptions and guesses. Thank god for the internet, otherwise we would be taking the words of those who haven't checked their facts.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  45. #45
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,670
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Actually, sorry price of fuel part doesn't make any sense. You all realize these reasons your stating can be verified using the internet right?

    The average price of gas in '95 was $1.05 to $1.11.
    It doubled and then some by 2005 to 2.10 to $2.47
    Fuel prices in 2013 averaged between $3.11 to $3.65 an increase of about only 33% over 2005.

    So I guess we've moved onto the price of metal as the reason now. Be nice to see some actual statistics on that, because so far everything else has been a bunch of assumptions and guesses. Thank god for the internet, otherwise we would be taking the words of those who haven't checked their facts.
    Well, if you come up with some freighters that run on gasoline, I suppose that's relevant. You're also talking about US prices versus the global cost of oil. Either way, I don't really have any interest in researching a position. I'm not presenting one. My issue is with your argument that the only justifiable increase is cost over that time is inflation, and everything beyond that is greed. It's far from that simple.
    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." - Dr. Peter Venkman

    Riding in Helena? Everything you need to know, right here.

  46. #46
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,223
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack
    And no, myself and a lot other people who agree with me on the thread I referenced above don't get why mtb's have gotten so outrageously expensive since '05 given there has been no real major advancements in mountain bike technology since then. If there is one that I am not thinking of, please state it.
    "Gouging" is a term usually reserved for scenarios where a necessary commodity is being sold for an unreasonable or excessive price. Fortunately for you mountain bikes are not a necessity, rather a luxury. You're basically saying: "I want a new bike but I think manufacturers are making too much money on them. Therefore it's appropriate to scam them."

    If you think manufacturers are charging too much: then don't buy their products. It's as simple as that. Don't try and exact some type of vigilante retribution.

    On a similar note, if you think that technology hasn't markedly improved since 2005 then you're glossing over some major advancements.
    Axle Standards Explained

    Founder at North Atlantic Dirt, riding & writing about trails in the northeast.

  47. #47
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Well, if you come up with some freighters that run on gasoline, I suppose that's relevant. You're also talking about US prices versus the global cost of oil. Either way, I don't really have any interest in researching a position. I'm not presenting one. My issue is with your argument that the only justifiable increase is cost over that time is inflation, and everything beyond that is greed. It's far from that simple.
    Well I have to say I am learning some good stuff here. Checked out global bunker fuel prices on the old World Wide Web and here you go:

    Global bunker fuel cost in 1995 - was about $30 a barrel
    Global bunker fuel cost in 2005 - was about $70 a barrel
    Global bunker fuel cost in 2012 - was about $115 a barrel.

    This pretty much follows the US gas pricing increase between '95 and now so that is not a valid reason for the increase in mtb retails, but without looking at the facts it sure seemed logical.

    I think your miss understanding my argument. I am NOT agreeing that large increase in the pricing of MTB's is due to inflation, that's why I am pointing out that mtb prices pretty much stayed the same between '95 and '05 and dramatically have increased from 05 to now, while inflation from '95 to '05 was greater than from '05 to now. At the same time, major technological advancements in mtb's were made from '95 to '05, while from '05 to now, while there were advancements however I can't think of any major ones that would warrant such a huge increase in price.

    After reading the arguments and then researching the facts I have now started to come to the conclusion that the increase in price has to do with 2 factors. One, as you state is greed and the other is a need to spend more and more on marketing.

    I have been looking to get a new ride, and my major concern is what am I getting for the money. It seems that with the mtb industry today we are getting a lot less for the same money, and if you want something high-end, it's going to cost double what it used to, but without the major advancement that one would expect, like from '95 to '05.

    I don't mind paying if the price is fair, but I won't stand for getting ripped off, and that's why I am still looking into this. I am trying my best to justify buying a new mid to high-end bike, but I just don't see any value with the direction the mtb industry has gone.

    There is a lot more noise, but there's a saying for that, big hat, no cattle.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  48. #48
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,670
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    I think your miss understanding my argument. I am NOT agreeing that large increase in the pricing of MTB's is due to inflation, that's why I am pointing out that mtb prices pretty much stayed the same between '95 and '05 and dramatically have increased from 05 to now, while inflation from '95 to '05 was greater than from '05 to now. At the same time, major technological advancements in mtb's were made from '95 to '05, while from '05 to now, while there were advancements however I can't think of any major ones that would warrant such a huge increase in price.
    Not at all. Re-read what I wrote.
    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." - Dr. Peter Venkman

    Riding in Helena? Everything you need to know, right here.

  49. #49
    'rager rider
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkley View Post
    On a similar note, if you think that technology hasn't markedly improved since 2005 then you're glossing over some major advancements.
    I have been trying to see what those major advancements are that warrant such an increase in price, but I don't just don't see. Maybe I have just been dealing with really crappy sales men at bike shops, but none of them have pointed anything out to me that would cost so much more than in '05. I know there have been advancement, but from what I can tell there more like tweaks, than technological breakthroughs.

    Please list the major advancements that warrant the increase in price so I can add some items to the "why I should buy a new bike" part of my list.

    Thanks.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

    "I only had like two winekills captain buzzcooler"

  50. #50
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,223
    - Carbon components, especially frames.
    - Tapered head tubes
    - Thru axles
    - Disc brakes
    - Tubeless tires
    - Wider, stiffer rims
    - Wide handlebars
    - Suspension (forks and shocks)
    - Dropper seatposts
    - Frame geometry

    I could go on, but all of these things have improved significantly. Are there luddites who fail to see the benefits? Sure, and no one is forcing them to buy anything.
    Axle Standards Explained

    Founder at North Atlantic Dirt, riding & writing about trails in the northeast.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 05-10-2013, 12:03 PM
  2. Soap weakens nipples?
    By litany in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-07-2012, 06:29 AM
  3. what fork company makes longer fork tubes??
    By 4psnu in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-09-2012, 11:41 PM
  4. Warning: Do not buy SUNLINE mtb products - warranty no longer valid
    By trojans1993 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-12-2012, 10:59 PM
  5. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 01-26-2012, 08:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •