What would you change on modern BMX bikes?

No.

DanTheBikerMan wrote:

No.

DanTheBikerMan wrote:

No.

...more

X2

Tapered headtube provides a whole bunch of benefits. Besides the obvious advantage of oversize bearings having a larger diameter head tube allows for larger downtube and weld area. It has also allows the forks to be made oversize and stronger. This translates to improvements for both high end bike and low end bike construction.

The stem clamping area becomes more and more important as the height of the handlebars increases.

How bulbous and misshapen do you want bikes to get? I guess we should go back to KHE headtubes from the early 2000s and oversized everything from the late 90's as well.



Dude, we've been there, and it totally sucked compared to what's being offered these days. Anyone who's been riding consistently for 20+ years will tell you, things are awesome these days and the dumb shit you're proposing has been tried and never stuck for good reason. Sure there's room for improvement but what you're suggesting isn't exactly a problem area for the overwhelming majority of riders out there. For better or worse there's a form factor that seems to be really important in bmx. The same reason I would never run an Odyssey Elementary stem is the same reason I wouldn't touch a set of forks with oversized legs/steerer tube. They'd likely be marginally better but would ruin the overall aesthetic of my bike.

Get rid of integrated seat post clamps..

Tapered headtubes, and larger clamping diameter have both been done within the last few years. They didn't catch on. Probably due to compatibility issues. But don't overlook how things are designed. If you beef up one part of a bike, another part will take more of the force.

KingSledge wrote:

Tapered headtube provides a whole bunch of benefits. Besides the obvious advantage of oversize bearings having a larger ...more

KingSledge wrote:

Tapered headtube provides a whole bunch of benefits. Besides the obvious advantage of oversize bearings having a larger diameter head tube allows for larger downtube and weld area. It has also allows the forks to be made oversize and stronger. This translates to improvements for both high end bike and low end bike construction.

The stem clamping area becomes more and more important as the height of the handlebars increases.

...more

For the negligible change in bearing size, you lose compatibility with nearly every fork made within the past 10-15 years. Stranger has already tried tapered heat tubes and beefed up forks a few years ago and nobody bought them. The beauty of bmx bikes is that every part made within the past decade or so is compatible with parts from other brands. The same can't be said for MTB where you have new moneygrab trends coming onto the scene every year or 2. Even the best pro riders can ride the same pair of high end forks for years. A weak HT area is almost a non existent problem with modern high end frames.

Modern high end 20" bikes are pretty much bulletproof. We don't need to try to reinvent the wheel in order to solve nonexistent problems.

Black Swamp Ghost wrote:

Get rid of integrated seat post clamps..

Black Swamp Ghost wrote:

Get rid of integrated seat post clamps..

...more

I could go for that. There's a much higher chance of damaging your frame with an integrated clamp

Only thing i'd change is better/unique aesthetics on frames and bars. having things like hydorforming and/or double wishbones on the same frame so that one frame looks different to another. Same with bars, and whilst it may not be the most popular choice i'd love to have more 2pc bars with a curved crossbar and more bars like the GT Performer bars as well as more uniquely shaped 4pc bars like the Merritt Slaughter and Bonedeth bars. Apart from that i think current setups are fine performance wise.

Michael Cranston wrote:

Only thing i'd change is better/unique aesthetics on frames and bars. having things like hydorforming and/or double wishbones ...more

Michael Cranston wrote:

Only thing i'd change is better/unique aesthetics on frames and bars. having things like hydorforming and/or double wishbones on the same frame so that one frame looks different to another. Same with bars, and whilst it may not be the most popular choice i'd love to have more 2pc bars with a curved crossbar and more bars like the GT Performer bars as well as more uniquely shaped 4pc bars like the Merritt Slaughter and Bonedeth bars. Apart from that i think current setups are fine performance wise.

...more

Wishbones and pierced top tubs used to be pretty hot back in the day. Tons of frames had them but now we're at a point where the AA style rear end has really taken over. Chain stay wishbones will forever be awesome.

Michael Cranston wrote:

Only thing i'd change is better/unique aesthetics on frames and bars. having things like hydorforming and/or double wishbones ...more

Michael Cranston wrote:

Only thing i'd change is better/unique aesthetics on frames and bars. having things like hydorforming and/or double wishbones on the same frame so that one frame looks different to another. Same with bars, and whilst it may not be the most popular choice i'd love to have more 2pc bars with a curved crossbar and more bars like the GT Performer bars as well as more uniquely shaped 4pc bars like the Merritt Slaughter and Bonedeth bars. Apart from that i think current setups are fine performance wise.

...more

I agree. I'll take modern bikes ANY day over old school. Better in every regard except looks. Old school era, I 100% think bikes looked way cooler and different from one another. They had more style for sure. So I think it would be cool if some companies added a certain flair to how their bikes look. To quote Eddie Fiola. "Kids now all have the same looking bike. Black bars, black frame, with the seat slammed".

KingSledge wrote:

Tapered headtube provides a whole bunch of benefits. Besides the obvious advantage of oversize bearings having a larger ...more

KingSledge wrote:

Tapered headtube provides a whole bunch of benefits. Besides the obvious advantage of oversize bearings having a larger diameter head tube allows for larger downtube and weld area. It has also allows the forks to be made oversize and stronger. This translates to improvements for both high end bike and low end bike construction.

The stem clamping area becomes more and more important as the height of the handlebars increases.

...more

wustachemax wrote:

For the negligible change in bearing size, you lose compatibility with nearly every fork made within the past 10-15 years. ...more

wustachemax wrote:

For the negligible change in bearing size, you lose compatibility with nearly every fork made within the past 10-15 years. Stranger has already tried tapered heat tubes and beefed up forks a few years ago and nobody bought them. The beauty of bmx bikes is that every part made within the past decade or so is compatible with parts from other brands. The same can't be said for MTB where you have new moneygrab trends coming onto the scene every year or 2. Even the best pro riders can ride the same pair of high end forks for years. A weak HT area is almost a non existent problem with modern high end frames.

Modern high end 20" bikes are pretty much bulletproof. We don't need to try to reinvent the wheel in order to solve nonexistent problems.

...more

You write that 1 1/8" head tube is not a problem for high end frames, but what about all those frames (and bikes) using 1020 steel and not chromoly?

Bikes using 1020 steel (or aluminum) make up a huge part of BMX.

P.S. A fork meant for 1 1/8" HT can work in a tapered HT provided the right headset is used. So the argument that old forks become obsolete doesn't hold.

KingSledge wrote:

Tapered headtube provides a whole bunch of benefits. Besides the obvious advantage of oversize bearings having a larger ...more

KingSledge wrote:

Tapered headtube provides a whole bunch of benefits. Besides the obvious advantage of oversize bearings having a larger diameter head tube allows for larger downtube and weld area. It has also allows the forks to be made oversize and stronger. This translates to improvements for both high end bike and low end bike construction.

The stem clamping area becomes more and more important as the height of the handlebars increases.

...more

wustachemax wrote:

For the negligible change in bearing size, you lose compatibility with nearly every fork made within the past 10-15 years. ...more

wustachemax wrote:

For the negligible change in bearing size, you lose compatibility with nearly every fork made within the past 10-15 years. Stranger has already tried tapered heat tubes and beefed up forks a few years ago and nobody bought them. The beauty of bmx bikes is that every part made within the past decade or so is compatible with parts from other brands. The same can't be said for MTB where you have new moneygrab trends coming onto the scene every year or 2. Even the best pro riders can ride the same pair of high end forks for years. A weak HT area is almost a non existent problem with modern high end frames.

Modern high end 20" bikes are pretty much bulletproof. We don't need to try to reinvent the wheel in order to solve nonexistent problems.

...more

KingSledge wrote:

You write that 1 1/8" head tube is not a problem for high end frames, but what about all those frames (and bikes) using 1020 ...more

KingSledge wrote:

You write that 1 1/8" head tube is not a problem for high end frames, but what about all those frames (and bikes) using 1020 steel and not chromoly?

Bikes using 1020 steel (or aluminum) make up a huge part of BMX.

P.S. A fork meant for 1 1/8" HT can work in a tapered HT provided the right headset is used. So the argument that old forks become obsolete doesn't hold.

...more

Yeah that makes perfect sense. Let's use a non standard (in BMX) headtube on cheap completes. Do you not realise how long it would take for every brand to think it's a good idea and start to adapt it?
1020 frames/forks aren't designed to last. And will often come with no warranty if the bike is used to do tricks. Quite simply, you can't get a good 1020 frame or fork, so putting extra effort into making it stronger is a waste of time and money. Not to mention, the single wall, loose ball bearing front wheel that bike comes with will be taking all the force. Cheap bikes are kept simple, with cheap materials and components to keep them cheap. Adding a tapered headtube would most likely make them more expensive than just buying a chromoly complete.

a bottom bracket standard

wustachemax wrote:

For the negligible change in bearing size, you lose compatibility with nearly every fork made within the past 10-15 years. ...more

wustachemax wrote:

For the negligible change in bearing size, you lose compatibility with nearly every fork made within the past 10-15 years. Stranger has already tried tapered heat tubes and beefed up forks a few years ago and nobody bought them. The beauty of bmx bikes is that every part made within the past decade or so is compatible with parts from other brands. The same can't be said for MTB where you have new moneygrab trends coming onto the scene every year or 2. Even the best pro riders can ride the same pair of high end forks for years. A weak HT area is almost a non existent problem with modern high end frames.

Modern high end 20" bikes are pretty much bulletproof. We don't need to try to reinvent the wheel in order to solve nonexistent problems.

...more

KingSledge wrote:

You write that 1 1/8" head tube is not a problem for high end frames, but what about all those frames (and bikes) using 1020 ...more

KingSledge wrote:

You write that 1 1/8" head tube is not a problem for high end frames, but what about all those frames (and bikes) using 1020 steel and not chromoly?

Bikes using 1020 steel (or aluminum) make up a huge part of BMX.

P.S. A fork meant for 1 1/8" HT can work in a tapered HT provided the right headset is used. So the argument that old forks become obsolete doesn't hold.

...more

.pegless. wrote:

Yeah that makes perfect sense. Let's use a non standard (in BMX) headtube on cheap completes. Do you not realise how long it ...more

.pegless. wrote:

Yeah that makes perfect sense. Let's use a non standard (in BMX) headtube on cheap completes. Do you not realise how long it would take for every brand to think it's a good idea and start to adapt it?
1020 frames/forks aren't designed to last. And will often come with no warranty if the bike is used to do tricks. Quite simply, you can't get a good 1020 frame or fork, so putting extra effort into making it stronger is a waste of time and money. Not to mention, the single wall, loose ball bearing front wheel that bike comes with will be taking all the force. Cheap bikes are kept simple, with cheap materials and components to keep them cheap. Adding a tapered headtube would most likely make them more expensive than just buying a chromoly complete.

...more

A 1020 frame doesn't have to be weaker than a Chromoly frame. It can made just as strong as Chromoly but the price paid is heavier weight because of thicker tubes. Having a taper head tube helps because it means a 1020 downtube can now be made oversize or shaped in such a way to promote greater strength to weight ratio.

P.S. Not all cheap complete bikes have single wall rims. The Collective C1, for example, is a $305 complete bmx bike that comes with double wall rims. In fact, most $200 MTN bikes at Walmart have double wall rims despite the added cost of derailleurs and shifters etc.

The larger diameter handlebars are better.....and having the larger diameter standard doesn't hurt new (OS) stem compatibility with 22.2 bars. A shiim is all that is needed to make a 22.2 bar work with a 25.4 stem.

The same is true with basically every new standard. The old stuff still works because of adapters.

Some more examples:

1. 1 1/8" steerer forks work in tapered head tube frames provided the right headset is used.
2. 3/8" axle hubs work with 14mm or 15mm drop outs provided the right adapters are used.

Shorter cranks. With modern riding I'd like to see some 150-155mm cranks available on the market. Especially with back ends getting shorter, I don't really see any benefits to 170 or 175 (unless you ride trails) but yet there's tons of those made. No one makes 8 inch bars anymore for a reason.


More spline drive sprockets. I always liked how smooth spline drive was and there's no bolt to get loose.


Also a side note on the different diameters. One of the nicest things about building a bmx bike is the aftermarket parts are generally standardized. Scooters for example have different compressions, bars, forks, deck and wheel size compatibilities which just clutters everything serving little purpose. Notice how mid bb is now standard as spanish hasn't been used in years now even by Flybikes (the inventor of the spanish bb).

Standardized 24mm bb would be cool. 19 especially and 22 seem pretty outdated when comparing them to a 24mm.

four made good points, i feel like a lot of companies slack on graphics and colorways recently but thats minor + easily remedied with a rattle can

Kinda surprised at all the dislike towards tapered head tubes and larger clamping areas. I recall in a thread a few years ago when some companies first started messing with them, I said it was fucking stupid and just adds another variable that like 99% of people will never even need... I was met with comments saying how it's going to be the new thing, how mtb already does it and it only makes sense for bmx to follow suit, how it's stronger and only stands to better bmx, shit like that. It's still fucking stupid and would look even stupider. If you want a mountain bike, go to mountain biking, keep that shit out of bmx. We don't need 500 different variables for a stem and shims are ugly as fuck and still create yet another variable.





Agreed on getting rid of integrated seat clamps though. They might look a bit cleaner but they're inferior to a real seat clamp in terms of clamping power. Plus if you break a real seat clamp, you can just replace it. Break an integrated one, you're gonna have a bad time.


Also agreed on a BB standard. Maybe more people would actually use the internal spacer if it was a 1 size fits all thing and didn't also need an oddball amount of washers to make it not rattle around in there. Mine needs the internal spacer and 2 thicker washers to work but I'd much prefer one long tube spacer.

sundaybmxRR wrote:

Kinda surprised at all the dislike towards tapered head tubes and larger clamping areas. I recall in a thread a few years ago ...more

sundaybmxRR wrote:

Kinda surprised at all the dislike towards tapered head tubes and larger clamping areas. I recall in a thread a few years ago when some companies first started messing with them, I said it was fucking stupid and just adds another variable that like 99% of people will never even need... I was met with comments saying how it's going to be the new thing, how mtb already does it and it only makes sense for bmx to follow suit, how it's stronger and only stands to better bmx, shit like that. It's still fucking stupid and would look even stupider. If you want a mountain bike, go to mountain biking, keep that shit out of bmx. We don't need 500 different variables for a stem and shims are ugly as fuck and still create yet another variable.





Agreed on getting rid of integrated seat clamps though. They might look a bit cleaner but they're inferior to a real seat clamp in terms of clamping power. Plus if you break a real seat clamp, you can just replace it. Break an integrated one, you're gonna have a bad time.


Also agreed on a BB standard. Maybe more people would actually use the internal spacer if it was a 1 size fits all thing and didn't also need an oddball amount of washers to make it not rattle around in there. Mine needs the internal spacer and 2 thicker washers to work but I'd much prefer one long tube spacer.

...more

I'll bet all the people with bent 1020 steel 1 1/8" steerer forks will disagree with you. (referring to what you wrote in the second part of your first paragraph, not the first sentence.)

KingSledge wrote:

I'll bet all the people with bent 1020 steel 1 1/8" steerer forks will disagree with you. (referring to what you wrote in the ...more

KingSledge wrote:

I'll bet all the people with bent 1020 steel 1 1/8" steerer forks will disagree with you. (referring to what you wrote in the second part of your first paragraph, not the first sentence.)

...more

I bet all the people with bent 1020 steel 1 1/8" steerer tubes would just buy an aftermarket heat treated chromoly fork and be done with it, instead of buying a new frame, fork, headset and stem. You're trying entirely too hard to justify this.

Making cheap heavy bikes heavier and more expensive isn't going to help anyone. Especially if they differ from industry standard. Tapered headtubes aren't needed in BMX

You're clearly a mtber. Using a shim with BMX bars is the stupidest idea ever. The extra height of BMX bars gives a hell of a lot more leverage. A shim will mean the bars will slip easier. Buying an os stem but using regular bars and a shim is like standing on a box and crouching.

The vast majority of riders don't have issues with regular stem/bars, or 1 1/8th steerers. As I said before, both have been tried, and not really caught on

I'd add larger wheels, maybe some type of suspension system to cushion big drops, maybe change to disc brakes and add more gears as well.

sundaybmxRR wrote:

Kinda surprised at all the dislike towards tapered head tubes and larger clamping areas. I recall in a thread a few years ago ...more

sundaybmxRR wrote:

Kinda surprised at all the dislike towards tapered head tubes and larger clamping areas. I recall in a thread a few years ago when some companies first started messing with them, I said it was fucking stupid and just adds another variable that like 99% of people will never even need... I was met with comments saying how it's going to be the new thing, how mtb already does it and it only makes sense for bmx to follow suit, how it's stronger and only stands to better bmx, shit like that. It's still fucking stupid and would look even stupider. If you want a mountain bike, go to mountain biking, keep that shit out of bmx. We don't need 500 different variables for a stem and shims are ugly as fuck and still create yet another variable.





Agreed on getting rid of integrated seat clamps though. They might look a bit cleaner but they're inferior to a real seat clamp in terms of clamping power. Plus if you break a real seat clamp, you can just replace it. Break an integrated one, you're gonna have a bad time.


Also agreed on a BB standard. Maybe more people would actually use the internal spacer if it was a 1 size fits all thing and didn't also need an oddball amount of washers to make it not rattle around in there. Mine needs the internal spacer and 2 thicker washers to work but I'd much prefer one long tube spacer.

...more

KingSledge wrote:

I'll bet all the people with bent 1020 steel 1 1/8" steerer forks will disagree with you. (referring to what you wrote in the ...more

KingSledge wrote:

I'll bet all the people with bent 1020 steel 1 1/8" steerer forks will disagree with you. (referring to what you wrote in the second part of your first paragraph, not the first sentence.)

...more

sundaybmxRR wrote:

I bet all the people with bent 1020 steel 1 1/8" steerer tubes would just buy an aftermarket heat treated chromoly fork and be ...more

sundaybmxRR wrote:

I bet all the people with bent 1020 steel 1 1/8" steerer tubes would just buy an aftermarket heat treated chromoly fork and be done with it, instead of buying a new frame, fork, headset and stem. You're trying entirely too hard to justify this.

...more

The idea for entry level BMX bikes is that with a tapered head tube the 1020 steel fork wouldn't bend . This because a 1.5" steerer allows for greater fork diameter on a unicrown fork.

For cylinders stiffness increases to the quad of the diameter increase. So, for example, a 1.5" diameter cylinder is not 33% stiffer but rather 216% stiffer than a cylinder with 1.125" diameter.

Same benefit, of course, applies to the downtube of a tapered head tube 1020 steel frame. Larger diameter will increase strength to weight ratio.

Proof that trolls time travel..

KingSledge wrote:

The idea for entry level BMX bikes is that with a tapered head tube the 1020 steel fork wouldn't bend . This because a 1.5" ...more

KingSledge wrote:

The idea for entry level BMX bikes is that with a tapered head tube the 1020 steel fork wouldn't bend . This because a 1.5" steerer allows for greater fork diameter on a unicrown fork.

For cylinders stiffness increases to the quad of the diameter increase. So, for example, a 1.5" diameter cylinder is not 33% stiffer but rather 216% stiffer than a cylinder with 1.125" diameter.

Same benefit, of course, applies to the downtube of a tapered head tube 1020 steel frame. Larger diameter will increase strength to weight ratio.

...more

Why would companies give a shit about how much stiffer it is when they’re trying to produce a bike at the lowest price possible?

sundaybmxRR wrote:

I bet all the people with bent 1020 steel 1 1/8" steerer tubes would just buy an aftermarket heat treated chromoly fork and be ...more

sundaybmxRR wrote:

I bet all the people with bent 1020 steel 1 1/8" steerer tubes would just buy an aftermarket heat treated chromoly fork and be done with it, instead of buying a new frame, fork, headset and stem. You're trying entirely too hard to justify this.

...more

KingSledge wrote:

The idea for entry level BMX bikes is that with a tapered head tube the 1020 steel fork wouldn't bend . This because a 1.5" ...more

KingSledge wrote:

The idea for entry level BMX bikes is that with a tapered head tube the 1020 steel fork wouldn't bend . This because a 1.5" steerer allows for greater fork diameter on a unicrown fork.

For cylinders stiffness increases to the quad of the diameter increase. So, for example, a 1.5" diameter cylinder is not 33% stiffer but rather 216% stiffer than a cylinder with 1.125" diameter.

Same benefit, of course, applies to the downtube of a tapered head tube 1020 steel frame. Larger diameter will increase strength to weight ratio.

...more

Xxohioanxx wrote:

Why would companies give a shit about how much stiffer it is when they’re trying to produce a bike at the lowest price ...more

Xxohioanxx wrote:

Why would companies give a shit about how much stiffer it is when they’re trying to produce a bike at the lowest price possible?

...more

1020 steel is cheaper than 4130 steel (Chromoly).

So if improving BMX standards improves stiffness then cheaper materials can replace more expensive materials.

Furthermore, it doesn't cost any more money to make a BMX bike with tapered headtube than it does a 1 1/8" headtube. Even $200 Schwinn mtn bikes at Walmart have tapered headtubes.

The net effect is that the cheap bikes will get better and BMX has a chance to become less exclusive.

OP is peak Seymour Skinner behaviour.