Giant's OverDrive 2 Steerer tube sizing - Is It The Future?

 Spot on!!!! read the l;ink. its so true. when you work on bikes everydat you see what works and what does'nt, it all sounds great when you rewad ther latest hype from whatever company but when you try to find spares and or fity thtme you soon see a whole new set of problems and mostly none of it is actually better than what we already have. Euro BB's are so sorted and easy to fit and remeove. press fit is just lazy and a pain. you then need more tools, if someone make them?? and before you know it its all obsolete as anothet new standard has appeared.i blame the bike firms, just for once can they agree what a standard means and stick to it. we aqll like new ideas but not when they mean everything changes every 3 weeks. a bike should last for more than a year, they cost enough and we should'nt have to throw them away as its out of date and nothing fits anymore. enough now read Joes article in the link above. sorry bit of a messy rant!!

 I can't find anything morally or physically wrong about the Overdrive concept and it requires no special frame standard, so I'll take a wait-and see approach. A hell of a lot has changed on the basic mountain bike since I started making them in the 80's.... like everything... so I've had to gulp down a lot of "new standards." So far, so good.

Overdrive doesn't make an obvious change to the profile of the bike like the 1.5 standard and tapered head tubes did. The unspoken question about the Overdrive concept is:If nobody can see the oversize steerer tube or upper headset race, then what benefit could Giant hope to gain from implementing the concept EXCEPT a little more rigidity in the front end? I am curious to see if Overdrive is door or a destination.

BTW, Graney is one of my heroes..

 Thank you for the link. Interesting read.

 Leelau,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2me8x7PLd1k&feature=related. />
sincerely yours,

a fan.

 My knee jerk reaction is to for my knee to jerk into a Giant engineer's giant balls.

Not only do I want to knee Giant in the balls, but Marzocchi, FSA, Fox and Rockshock for agreeing to this instead of saying "A new standard? Are you out of your m****rf***ing mind! Someone knee this dick in the balls and then throw him out of here!"

I like buying bikes off-the-rack, but there are three things that I will change every time because they are usually wrong for any half-decent rider and they must be perfect: tires, bars, and STEM!!!!

Skatejunkie and Auxx have awesome points below IMO.

 Stupid, unnecessary standard that is only going to achieve on thing: making it harder to find a fram/fork/headset that will actually work with your other components. If everyone was this bloody worried about ultimate stiffness, they would be much better off investing in making a lighter straight 1.5 inch steerer system, rather than attempting to feed the public this overhyped bullshit. Whoever was responsible for this at Giant needs to have their hands removed.

 Well, if adding 0.125" to the steerer tube increases stiffness by 30%, then my 1.5 steerer is already 60% stiffer than this new system.

 nah pperini I disagree.
carbon downhill frames:NEW technology that is considerably better than existing designs.
1.25 headtube diameter: Pointless standard that sits in between two existing standards.

I also disagree with you saying that we have a choice to ignore these new standards. If big companies take them up and stop producing older standards then we lose that choice. Also, if I found a good deal on one of these new giants as a complete bike, I would buy it regardless of the headtube size, but that isn't to say that I'd be happy with it having 1.25 diameter headtube.

 I think you're the one not getting the main point, you're bashing carbon fiber however the material used in the product has nothing to do with this, you can have a 1.5 or a 1 1/8 headtube on a carbon frame. The problem is like Joe Graney from SantaCruz says, when a brand has nothing new to offer, they "attach" a new technology to their product so it looks like a new product. This has nothing to do with lowering weight or increasing strenght or stifness but a form of marketing.
Carbon is to aluminium what aluminium was to steel.

Your comment doens't make any sense, first you bash new products and spending $ for products the buyer doens't need and then you say you support this new technology?
This tecnhology is useless and only creates incompatibilities which make prices higher because the less 1.5 or 1 1/8 headbutes are being used the higher the price of their headsets because something that isn't standard is always more expesive.

Carbon fiber is 3 to 4 times more expensive than aluminium however you're not paying 5000 USD nor 7500 USD or 10000 USD for a carbon frame, its just a little more than an aluminium one. You can bet that a brand has a higher profit margin on aluminium frames than on the carbon ones.

So you bash carbon fiber that creates no incompatibilities and you support this and other types of headtubes that creates incompabilities.
This is plain stupidity, no offence.

 ^^^^radarr - my thoughts EXACTLY! its going to come full circle back to 1.5" non- tapered

 I think that ppernini's original rant about supply and demand was very good actually. The only reason you guys neg propped him is because he supports this, and you don't. Be a little open minded, and we'll see how well it works.

 so what's wrong with trying something new? making advances towards a better performing part on a bicycle isn't a bad thing AT ALL.

 Way to go Giant! Now please explain the actual trade-offs for us. If it's a bigger steerer tube in the same size head tube, there has to be a trade-off somewhere. So headset bearings will be smaller, or stack height is taller?

 I'm done biking if this becomes another standard. go away Giant

 ^^ me too. f***ing marketing joke, im happy with my straight 1.1/8th

 buying a Carbon frame doesn't mean you need new sized parts, that's the difference...

 non of u acctualy understood my point..maybe i expressed myself wrongly..anyways...forget it..

 What I want to know, who the f*ck was out riding for/with giant with a standard 1 1/8th steertube or the standard tapered one and said, hmmm, My bars are flexing too much, let's add .125 to the steer tube and see if that fixes it...OR, here's a great f*cking idea, let's go USE WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

You want stiffer? Use a 1.5 set up. You want lighter, stop pretending like 30% increase in stiffness makes any kind of noticeable difference to anything but a machine, and use the normal tapered or 1 1/8th set up. In all the time I've spent reading forums, talking to riders and racers, NEVER have I heard anyone say, I bet a bigger steertube would make me faster.

NO, BAD GIANT. Sit in the corner. You may come out when we say so.

That being said, perhaps if they devise another test that states it has a 400% increase in stiffness and will take 5 seconds of your race run, then maybe, just maybe, I'll be less hesitant to embrace blatant marketing scams. Er, I mean, technological advancements.

 .......^that was a pretty good rant......

 Hey talderson, maybe he's just not as good as you or I with English because he's from Germany. Either way, no need to be a douche about it.

 its funny because if i were to get this for free, i would still have to spend money to use it -.-

 Will you big dummy the never said it would shave off time. Its just increasing durability on standard parts, would you have been this pissed if they did this five years ago? You probably wouldn't have noticed because it would be on most of our bikes and so common. People who complain about improvements to the biking industry are like diehard nascar fans bragging that nascar is the most technically advanced motorsport.

 well straight 1.5" sure lasted a long time.... we need no more standards

 @grandmastere, good point, good thinking, but it is lost on Giant. They use semi-integrated headsets so the top of their their headtubes are already fatter than normal. This means the ball size of the bearing should be the same when they go to a non-integrated headset (i.e. bearings sit outside the headtube). That's what I imagine - haven't seen the hardware yet.

 its this bullshit that is making me leer away from the biking industry, creating new standards all the time and increasing prices constantly. sometimes we have to look at bikes and ask ourselves how will this upgrade justify its cost. and will the difference make such a noticeable difference. im still running a 2005 deore and i have a 2011 fox in front, because some things are just not that important or noticeable to change the world for.

this invention reminds me of specialized 's old slogan "innovate or die" , companies cant leave bikes the way they are, or they would loose the effect better, but these minor improvements seem a little desperate. bikes arent made too last anymore.

i really enjoyed the article shared by leelau

 Just another person, who doesn't like this new standard. I think there are enough good arguments being forwarded, above, as to why Giant's decision is bothersome.

For me, as I was reading this article, I immediately thought: the clincher is that Giant is stating the increased weight is "a wash." In my opinion, the problem with the 1.5 standard was that it was squarely aimed at the freeriding market: 1.5 came about so that people, who were using dual-crowns, could now use a single-crown without the steering limitations of a dual-crown, and possibly there was some weight loss compared to using a dual-crown setup. What this means is that the 1.5 standard was always going to be beefy in execution. 1.5 headsets and stems are boat-anchors. 1.5 forks are monsters.

If Giant really wanted to do us all a favor, they would have done better by reviving the 1.5 standard for the all-mountain category, with weight-appropriate headsets and stems that aren't such boat-anchors. Then we would have seen tangible results in stiffness with a slight weight gain. After using a 20mm front axle, I'll never go back to a 9mm qr. After using 31.8mm handlebars and stem, I'll never go back to 25.4mm. Do the bigger axle and handlebar and stem weigh more? Certainly, and I can also tangibly feel the benefit. This new 1.25 from Giant? Something tells me that they don't want to release the actual measurements, because if they did that 30% might actually end up being less than the hypothetical 6mm....

Is it tangible? Is it real-world?

 Okay if its sooo good Giant, then why haven't guys like Specialized and Trek jumped on it first. Im pretty sure that when Trek developed their E2 over the period of how ever many years that that they spent make it that 1.1/4 came across their minds, Yet they ignored it. Yet they are the largest single bike company that is pushing the sport in ways that Giant cannot hope to match. Specialized as well when they started with their tapered Headtubes, why didn't they, a near Billion dollar company that breaks more frames in strength testing then norco makes all year for production, look at this as a plausible concept? Its almost like Giant went into their garbage bin and said, "HEY THIS IS A GREAT IDEA"

Sorry it will not catch.. I'd almost laugh if the other 2 bigger boys go to the fork companies and "say what the hell.. cut it out"

 I don't see why don't just try keeping the current standards and internally ovalizing them like thompson seatposts. Why couldn't that work? I don't mind a new standard being brought in because I don't have to buy it and where's the harm in trying aye?

Why does nobodygive anything a chance on here? I mean yeah it's annoying at the thought of it but it could be a great idea in the long run.

The one thing I find stupid is headsets. That's just getting out of hand aswell as rear wheel sizes.

 Oh Atrak, stop being such a brand whore c*nt. Who cares what Trek or specialized did first? I'm pretty sure the glory was one of the first dh bikes with a tapered headtube which is why people had trouble finding headsets, didn't decide to bring that up did you?
All 3 are big companies, just because giant isn't as much as a hyped up brand doesn't mean it's any better or worse on the whole.

I bet when Trek was devoloping their E2 head tube they were thinking of how they could make the best tapered headtube, who are you to tell everyone they ignored the idea? Who's to say they even considered the idea what so ever?

 Hi guys, S Y N T A C E is another manufacturer that makes aftermarket headstems in 1 1/4 and get sold with a shim for 1 1/8th steerers.

In terms of evolution, if the stiffness is increases as Giant says, without (!) weight penalty, then it totally makes sense. If the real reason is that the manufacturing cost for OverDrive2 steerers is less (has anyone noticed that tapered steerer forks cost substantially more?!) hence the forks are cheaper then there is a hidden truth ;-). A tapered steerer is deffinately more expensive from a manufacturing point of view...

 ^I really hope the giant engineers read this, and throw all plans, parts, and designs of the 1.25 out the window.

 Bingo.

 This is such a good reply. Thanks Dave :-)

 Bravo, you're the first to make this point, and it is a crucial one, in my opinion. Bravo!

 Pretty certain that the engineers at Giant would have used the solid non-flexing handlebar on the 1-1/8th setup, then on the 1-1/4 setup to make the 30% stiffness claim.

 They are saying it stiffens the vertical axis correct? Why even bother as your tire and fork are compressing 4-8" already, there is no way in hell you are going to notice mm of flex. If you want a stiffer handlebar, then buy a f*cking stiffer handlebar, the steerer tube has little to do with it.

 Seriously, the heck with the 30% number - give us the actual delta in deflection. Going from 1mm to 0.7mm deflection really doesn't mean anything while riding a bike with 160mm of travel and 2.5" tires at 22 pSI.

 There are these things attached to our torso called "arms", and halfway down our "arms" are these things called "elbows". Elbows bend and straighten which allow us to control the amount of flex. For those of us who know how to use "arms" and "elbows", I really wonder if we need a standard to compensate for bar deflection. I agree with Rucker61.

 This was my thought exactly when reading the article. Glad to see someone else was on the same page as me. There's about a million other points I could make too but I doubt the Giant engineers are listening so I wont bother.

 And anyway, it's arguable that some flex is good - many people think Boxxers (35mm legs) track better than 40's (40mm legs) due to the increased flex.

My friend Phil has just bought a Reign 3 and has to look for someone to buy his forks and stem (he is upgrading) and find a new upper headset. Great lol.

 Precisely. When companies report achievements in percentages, without giving more detailed data, I'm always going to be suspicious. They should've released a FS 29er, if they really wanted to shock us with some news.

 Yep , can't say I have noticed my head tube flexing around at all , mainly because handle bars are way more flexy then the HT of a frame , surely you will now notice your bars flapping about more with this standard if it is 30 percent stiffer/stronger?

 What good is a stiffer stem if you don't have a larger diameter/stiffer steerer tube to transfer the torque?

 Skatejunkie almost nailed the big design question:

The addition of a stiffer steerer tube cannot deliver more torsional rigidity unless every other component between the steerer tube and the ground is made equally rigid to counter the torque.

 I agree with that statement but I'm sure an R&D department like Giant's is targeting the area where the most amount of torque is lost and with today's wheel and fork designs (fox 36's, 20mm thru axles, I9 mavic dt swiss...all stiff as hell!) the torque will most likely not be lost there. I doubt Giant would bother with eliminating flex in an area so critical as a steerer tube if they were worried that it would be immediately lost to flex in the fork/wheel. Torque from the bar/stem/steerer tube area is distributed to other areas in the frame/bike as well, not just at the front wheel and fork.

Bottom line, there will be an increase in overall rigidity, which is a benefit for anyone. If you are looking to buy a frame/fork setup like this I doubt you are mounting up a flimsy front wheel.

 ^^^ RichardC, everything you said is wrong. Not that I'm sold on the necessity of this change, but taking your statement one step further, nothing should need to be stiffer than the rubber used in your tires.

 There is an overall loss of stiffness in the system from the tyres to the grips of your handlebars. If you make an increase in stiffness anywhere in the system, you increase the overall stiffness. The big question is where to increase stiffness? Most likely its wherever gets the largest ammount of tourque exerted over it. The fork is quite long and as such has a huge (relative) moment of torque acting on the bottom of the head tube. The handle bars are also quite lengthy and have a large moment of tourque acting at the top of the head tube. From a bike manufacturers point of view, if you want a stiffer front end, it makes sense to me that you would increase the stiffness of the steerer tube.

If this overdrive 2 actually translates to a noticable performance gain on the trail is not something any of us can say from our desk chairs, but I would love to ride two bikes with identical setup, with the 2 different headtubes, one after the other and see if the hype measures up.

 Amen ... '

 Except that the automotive industry is large enough to ensure longer term support for old models than cycling, and even changes the models 5-10 times less frequently than the cycling industry. For example-I bet you can find wheel bearings for a 1992 subaru impreza, but try to find a set of bearings for my 1999 AC Cooler hub. And a freewheel mechanism while you're at it.

 Mastere has that right. Automotive is sooo much bigger than we are. They can support year model changes, and even still they rarely completely change a part. Re-tooling an entire automotive factory cost so much, they often just reuse as many parts as they can from the old model.

There needs to be some standards, bike shops can't be expected to stock 51 different styles of headsets.

Look what we have now 1 1/8" Non integrated, semi integrated, fully integrated 1.5 Non integrated, semi, and fully, 1.5-1 1/8" non, semi, full. Plus all the different ID's of the different head tubes.

On top the millions of other standards.

 ..........cause we gotta have standards

 There's no such thing as 'standard' anymore.

 Why ?

Because some people buy that shit, if it wouldn't sell that much, they wouldn't invent dozens of new standards every year...

 And because Giant have no other new technology to release so are changing other's tech to compensate. Have you ever seen so much media/press releases about something so small?

 http://xkcd.com/927/

This comic says everything I want to say. Thanks again Russell

 Totally agreed.

 I wish there was a: no., comment. I would've + propped the hell outta that. Recon it would've broken a 1,000 props haha

 @willsoffe Giant manufactures their own stems now. Been in a bike shop in the past 3 years? 30%.....minute......really? Who said you had to buy it? Isn't it cross compatible with every other front end with the exception of a 1.5? What is the idea of a business?

Just throwing that out there to allow you to think.

 Whoops, I've obviously pissed off someone who a) works for Giant, b) owns a Giant or c) has recieved lots of negative props today and is angry and upset :-(

@nicket8t; I do work in a bike shop yes. But I was under the impression that Giant stems are mainly OEM (not usually on sale separately). This means that Giant will make the same amount of money by supplying 1 1/4" own brand stems on their bikes as they would if they were 1 1/8" or 1.5"

30% is minute because other parts flex too and a 30% stiffness increase in something as stiff as a steerer is unlikely to make much difference. If steerer stiffness is so important, why dont Giant use 1.5"?

No one said I had to buy it. However, if I want a 2012 Giant, I do have to buy/use/sell the ridiculous "Overdrive 2" parts.

Cross compatible? Yes, if you buy things you don't need.

The idea of a business? Well if you think it is to force people buying your products to buy other things, then yes, it's good business. If you think that good business is to make customers happy by giving them choice, and supplying them with products that can be replaced quickly and cheaply, at many places across the globe, then no, it's not good business.

 sorta dont want to buy a new stem please, just spent around 150 for mine thank you

 The only problem with such attitude related to Giant invention is that they did not add front suspension to rigid bike. They only added a new stencil and a bunch of stickers to it. That's the problem.

 I agree. Metric covers everything way easier, divisible by 10 or 100. f*ck the imperial units. It's annoying when I gotta order bike parts. I want a 2.5 inch tire, 83mm BB, 1/ 1/8th steer tube, 27.2 MM seat tube....Grrr.

 I agree and disagree with this statement

Things of precision work better in Metric. 27.2 31.8 67/72/83mm. But I don't want to say a 50mm tire or a

 Yeah, saying the tire size like that would sound weird, but car/motorcycle tires are that way...well actually, in the US anyways, they're both. 17 inch diameter by 275mm wide for a car...Pretty stupid, but the bike industry would do the same I recon. 26 inch by 65mm or something.

 Amen!

 Hilarious....

 I loved that one! So true, and I deal with it on a daily basis.

 oops, irotenberg beat me to the xkcd post. sorry for the repost!

 amen

 I think it'll be one of those things like 10speed gearing or dropper seatposts - everyone gets worked up at first (because we don't like change), then it starts to become more and more common until it's the norm. In a few years we'll all be going "remember 1 1/8" steerer tubes? What were we thinking?" or it'll just go away and we'll say "remember that Overdrive system? That was dumb". I'm not going to change my bike anytime (and i've only just bought new forks) soon so let's just wait and see...

 I'm right there with you @Steezy...
We think it's insane (just like I do right now), but you have a MAJOR player like Giant behind it, so it WILL go somewhere, I guarantee it...
So maybe we should just wait and see?
Annoying, I know...

 I'm gonna save my money until someone comes out with 1 1/6 steerer tubes. Now that's an innovation I could be into

 good point there @Steezy!

 10 speed gears and dropper posts are different, because they offer more. 1 1/4 -1 1/2 offers something in between. The extra chainring of your 10 speed could give you the easy gear you need to make it up that really steep climb, and dropper seat posts allow you to keep riding over any kind of terrain. All Overdrive 2 does is move towards the higher end of the spectrum in terms of weight and stiffness, its not going to radically change anything and its a lot of hassle to update components to be honest

 oh yea i do ride GIANT!

 giant power hi 5

 "I hope every company immediately adds it so I can get the top knotch 1 1/8th tapered forks for cheaper." hahhaa damn right ! or regular 1 1/8th

 Yeah. The price on those dropped plenty with the tapered top tubes.

 Preach on brother!

 Disagree.
Weight difference is in the realm of 15 grams - and is effectively non-rotating due to its position relative to the axle.
It is a Fox marketing scam because they did not want to accept a RockShox standard even if it was an "open" standard.
"15mm is a solution to a problem that did not exist" as a wiser man than me once said.

michael

 what do you mean they didn't want to accept it? they already made a qr and a 20mm bolt through fork, they just bridged the gap. qr forks are too flexy and 20mm bolt through forks are too heavy (even if it is only 15g, the type of fork you would want a 20mm bolt through is heavier due to its purpose). i think that's what giant are doing now. as it says in the article, "You won't find it used on their top-tier cross-country races bikes yet" because (like bolt though) it is heavier. and "you won't likely ever spot it is on the front of their downhill bikes or any model that uses a dual-crown fork, simply because the stiffness provided by the extra crowns would make the OverDrive 2 steerer redundant." like 20mm bolt though if weight isn't as important as stiffness then it wont be of advantage. My point is that it bridges a gap.

 "lighter than 1.5 stiffer than 1 1/8"

There is a 1 1/8 to 1.5 taper which already addresses this issue. I can't see why we need another.

 a shaped steerer tube would actualy be a good idea im sure but you couldnt have a shaped head tube which would be the problem lol

 Hey, a shaped head tube would teach a lot of people of accurately position their body in order to corner properly !!!

 i just thought anyway if you had a shaped steerer and headtube it wouldnt turn haha :S

 Actually, 30% is quite correct. (theoretically its actually around 40%, but theirs tests show apparently 30%). But see my other post above yours as well.
However the question is rather if that marginal increase will tranlate into anything a regular biker will benefit from compared to the cost of being limited to a new set of dimensions. I dont think that will benefit much.
I dont feel that my 1.125 steerertube is lacking any stiffness that I otherwise need to do some proper biking. Getting stiffer handlebars or a stiffer stem wil do more towards that than a new propriotory steerer tube.

 Upper portion of the headtube is larger hence the new standard

 "The bike's head tube inner diameter actually remains the same, at least on Giant's bikes. "


third paragraph....

 Must be typo on pb behalf.

 it says it multiple times....

"The head tube's inner diameter remains the same, only the upper cup and top headset bearing are different from Giant's current setup. This means that current non-OverDrive 2 frames and the new models will both be forward and reverse compatible. "

 Oh i see so it's just the headset that changes.

 yep, actually rather clever IMO

I suspect it means headsets will wear faster though

 "arent you capable of keeping track of 3 sizes instead of 2?"

Acctually, this would make 4. Fingers crossed someone will come up with a new on next year too so we have even more to choose from...

 5 if you include the old inch.

 Ah the old threaded headset. I'm betting that a manufacturer is currently working on a 1.5" one to take us back to the glory days of locknuts and quill stems.

 yeah, but that'$ what your manager$ tell you to $ay.

 Yeah, and bikes worked for how many numbers of years with a single gear, or friction shifters, or rim brakes! I don't know if you were around when disc brakes first came on the scene but you cannot imagine how many people were up in arms about switching over, now you couldn't pay somebody to ride a set of v brakes. This sport needs all the progression it can handle. You do not want this industry to become stagnant with no new innovations or major changes to keep pushing the envelope of what can be accomplished on a bicycle.

 redundant sizing of parts helps no one but company shareholder's. shake your head!

 Comparing the introduction of discbrakes over V-brakes is completely different than this.

 nicket8t thats true i wasnt around, and thats true about the disc brake, but that in comparison is fairly different, as it was relevant. can you imagine trying to get a bike down a world cup downhill track at the speeds people do with a set of v brakes. but then the difference is we can and have been for a long time going down the same tracks at the same speeds with a 1 1/8 head tube. even frames like the demo 8 etc. have 1.5 headtubes, that have reducer cups in, so they have the option to race with 1.5 and yet the 1 1/8 is sufficient. are there any dual crown forks that have 1.5 steerers? and in my time of biking i must say i have never ever heard anyone mention flex in their head tube or steerer? if they want stiffer steerer then add the material on the inside so it is a thicker metal, or would that add a whole few grams :O

 i actualy think that the other parts like: susp. forks, stem, handlebars n that cant keep up anymore with the possible stiffness of tapered and 1.5, could be wrong tho...

P.S.: its about time the damn bike industry gets their butts up and set a real "standard". how hard can it be to make the stiffest and lightest headtube design possible atm?

 Here is the good point:

"Let's face it, we've all been burned before with glittering promises of radness, stiffness, and the newest bestest thing ever. But when you open the box, does it really deliver as advertised? When do we wake up and not believe the same old song and dance? Show me something that lasts ten years and I'll change to it tomorrow. Boring, huh? I just want my bike to work well and last a long time without spending more money on it. "

 Which pros are those? Apparently it isn't for XC race bikes or DH bikes - think it's safe to assume it won't be seen near road bikes.

Looks like it's for joe public wannabes...

 I wish!

 ya cause moto x changes all the time right? read my post, this is not innovation and it will not make it a top of the line product. i'm not bashing or being rude to you or anyone else, just sayin.

 Andrew,

Where do I begin?

A few months ago I bought my eighth Giant (I've owned a CFM3, an ATX 980, an STP, 2 Reigns and 3 Trances). It is a 2012 Trance X Advanced 1. The first ride on my new bike and I wanted to throw it away because the bars were way too narrow and the stem was way too long and it felt terrible and there was NOTHING I could do about it because I could not change the stem - none were available (putting wide bars on a long stem would make things worse, not better). Luckily I hadn't sold my 2011 Trance X1 so the new bike sat in the garage for a month until I got a shorter stem (firstly by shimming a 1.5" 55mm stem and finally with a 70mm Giant Contact stem which I traded with a Pinkbiker in the USA who had a friend who was a Giant distributor). I wasn't happy, as you can expect. I may sound upset, but lucky you didn't post a few months ago.

As you note three posts above, things have changed, but Giant hasn't changed their specs with the times and you still insist on putting a 100mm stem on a trail bike - should be 60-80mm. And it comes with an XC-width bar (I changed it to a Giant Contact DH bar cut to 720mm). The Reign has an 80mm stem, which is too long for the type of riding it is designed for - it should be 50-70mm.

I don't care whether the 1.25" steerer is stiffer or lighter, what I do care about is walking out of a shop with a new bike and being able to have fun on it that day: Giant should not have brought out a new spec without the full range of after-market stems being available on the data of purchase - my LBS copped heaps of flack from roadies who could not change the stem length of their new bikes.

I don't hate the standard, I hate the fact my new bike sat in the shed for a month. And it cost me hundreds of dollars to make it the way I like it, instead of $50 for a new stem the day I bought it.

 actually, road bikes already have a new 35mm handlebar size: wait long enough and you will probably see that on mtbs, just as road bikes got to see 31.8.

 less strenght to wieght ratio that way
hence oversize tubing
some bmx steerer tubes in the early 90's had 1inch steerer tubes that were almost solid (King bikes fork, Indy fork) apart from a hole small enough to get a brake cable down
then they went 1, 1/8th over size an were stronger an a HELL of a lot lighter

 whats wrong with shimano?

 ^ man's a genius

 tbh im eyeing on a 10spd because when i go for a uphill i allways wish i had 1 lighter gear lol, i wouldnt curse all of the new things, but this headtube thing... i never ever in my life heard somebody complaining about headtube stiffness.

 10 speed means you can have an 11 36 cassette without huge jumps between gears. qr 15 bridges a gap for all mountain (qr isnt stiff enough 20mm is a bit heavy) that has proved very popular. as someone else said earlier, go take your rigid mountain bike with cantilevers down a downhill course and tell me that things haven't evolved. granted its not a huge leap in technology like disk brakes or suspension forks but every gram and % of stiffness is better. its a step in the right direction. faster lighter stiffer stronger.

 means i cannot have a faster/slower gear? =/

 lol, you're missing out then...

 Missing out on what exactly?

 they make great bikes....

 kinda true, the angle set gave the 1.5 a big boost in my oppinion, its a very good combination

 gay gay gay and yet you found the need to write about it. LOL

 Our industry has changed "standards" a ton in the last decade. I mean really look at what we've come to because of "standards" brought to us by various companies. Is this new standard perfect? Hell if I know But I do know, thanks to articles like this, there are advantages. We've come a loooooooooooooong way from coaster brakes and rigid bikes. Will this revolutionize the sport? I doubt it. But without companies taking chances like this we would still be stuck in the stone ages of mountain biking. I welcome any change that will allow us all to plow down mountains better. I'm probably the minority here though.

 hummus.
just sayin'

 Because our sport is ridiculously young. We haven't even come close to figuring out the good/bad of frame design. We have designs that work awesome, and they also have drawbacks. The only way to progress the technology we get in our bikes is through experimentation. We don't know how this will turn out, it could be a phenomenal new way forward for all we know, or it could be an absolute waste of time.

The point is, if we don't try to push the boundaries of the machines we ride, we will do nothing more than stagnate and die off. And personally don't want to see that happen to our sport.

 Changing the top bearing size 0.125 of an inch is hardy pushing the boundaries though.

 you'd prefer 2"?

 I'd rather they left steerer size alone and focused on something that we as riders will actually notice.

 I know. I was just joking about pushing boundaries. Doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world to me. I think personally it isn't any worse than 10 speed cassettes.

 You won't notice a stiffer bike tom? I would.

 cyrix, do you notice the flex from your stem/steerer? I think most of mine comes from hubs, bar length, and fork. There might be a little steerer flex, but I doubt much. If their math is true, that as much as thirty percent of flex or more can come from the steerer and they can reduce than it is awesome. I'm just not convinced yet.

 Stiffer bike? Yeah I'd notice a stiffer bike, but this isn't the bike, this is the steerer tube. If they put the effort from this into the Glory or Reign frames then It'd be worth the change, but this is ridiculous, anyone saying they notice and steerer flex has either...

A) Just bought a giant with the retarded steerer size
B) Works for Giant
C) All of the above.

 Why are you so upset about this? Seems a bit silly to me to get so angry and worked up over a silly thing like this. Maybe that's just me though...

 Upset? Angry? Worked up?

Hardly, just wondering why Giant puts all this attention and media on a tiny steerer tube size change. When there are way moer important things they could be doing.

 Clearly you are since you're vaguely attempting to insult me while assuming things about me when all I did was ask an innocent question. Calm down, or keep up the tirade. Whatever works.

 Lolwut? How am I 'vaguely insulting' you? I don't give a rats ass about you Only thing I'm criticizing here is Giant's new steerer.

 " anyone saying they notice and steerer flex has either...

A) Just bought a giant with the retarded steerer size
B) Works for Giant
C) All of the above."

But you go ahead and keep on being worked up over a steerer tube princess.

 If you get offended from that then I'm not the princess here

Harden up.

 Uh.....I didn't say I was offended. Where did I say that? If you're getting so worked up over a steerer tube perhaps you should heed your own advice and "harden up". Meh, I'm done with this discussion.

 its new

 true. been there already. besides shouldn't it be made out of carbon by now with an integrated stem with it? ...like mondraker just did? maybe i can start swapping fork parts with my CR soon! it's an engineering start to phase out 26s and force you on 29ers. it's true

 wait.. why?

 sillyness

 No the inner size of the tube remains the same. why would ya need a different removal tool.

 Oh lots of people don't like the 15mm "standard" - don't kid yourself.

 yes, but that defeats the purpose of saving weight, stupid I know. The amount of weight saved, or stiffness increase is going to be minimal to say the least to the majority of riders. save that tech junk for the racers who are sponsored.

 Dude... Giant's got 24" seat tube hardtail bike...
what do you expect from a Giant?

 whats geometry got to do with this, giants geo is spot on. but of course you know more than the biggest bike manufacturer in the world

 The size of the company doesn't mean nothing. Do you think Ford could tell McLaren how to build an F1 car? Giant geometry is the most dated in the industry and that is because Giant R&D doesn't have a clue. Even the team riders run different geometry from stock.

 I don't think it is? I'm pretty sure gay means a man loving another man, or a woman loving another woman.

Or perhaps you mean that Overdrive 2 systems are "happy". That would make more sense.

 dual crowns add more rigidity. It was mentioned in the article...

 Dude, it is said in the article that there is no need for Overdrive2 on DC forks because it wouldn't make any difference.... read the whole article.

 Obviously dual crowns are different, however I don't have any problems with my 1 1/8th steerer on my single crown fork on my hardtail, and I try to ride it just as hard as my DH bike.

 I agree, I have ridden 5, 6, and even 7 inch bikes with 1-1/8 steerer tubes, and never had a real problem.

 I'm agreeing with no problem situation I have run, and still do, an 09 Rock Shox Totem ( bought in 2010(1 1/8")), and i must say i ride it pretty hard, and i haven't found any problems with the steerer.

 Actually 30% of patents aren't new. Thermal toast refreshing was patented in 2000. Of course we call it toast.

 ^^^Ha, taletotell, another NPR TAL listener. As an engineer, I loved that episode.