Road: question about head tube sizes

In article <[email hidden]>, Slingshot

Quoted message said:

I want to upgrade my frame (happy with my current components). I've had this frame for so long it's
been a while since I've been in the market, and now I'm seeing "1 inch standard head tube" and "1
1/8 inch threadless".

What's the difference? Is it the application- the type of riding (racing vs. TT vs. casual)? Is
there a reason to choose one over the other?

1-1/8" is industry standard now for road bikes. There is nothing particularly wrong with 1" or
threaded headsets, but most mass produced road bikes don't use them any more. Many road bikes also
come with "integrated" headsets (bearings pressed into the head tube). There are no significant
benefits to integrated headsets, many are proprietary designs which will create repair challenges if
the bike lasts long enough to need a new headset, and many just don't adjust up nice even when new.
I think threadless is OK (although it does restrict fitting options sometimes) but won't spend my
money on "integrated".

--Paul

Slingshot said:

I want to upgrade my frame (happy with my current components). I've had this frame for so long
it's been a while since I've been in the market, and now I'm seeing "1 inch standard head tube"
and "1 1/8 inch threadless".

What's the difference? Is it the application- the type of riding (racing vs. TT vs. casual)? Is
there a reason to choose one over the other?

Two things, fashion and cost to the manufacturer. They are related, since manufacturers like to
promote things that in reality only save them money.

The 1" threaded fork steerer tube was standard (everywhere but France, of course) for many, many
years. Threadless headsets offer the manufacturer a need for fewer different fork sizes, and cheaper
materials, which saves money. The buyer gets bars that are hard or impossible to adjust without
replacing expensive pieces. But some call this progress. I avoid them when possible.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a _`\(,_ | conclusion. --
George Bernard Shaw (_)/ (_) |

Quoted message said:

1-1/8" is industry standard now for road bikes. There is nothing particularly wrong with 1" or
threaded headsets, but most mass produced road bikes don't use them any more.

For the most part, the move to 1-1/8" on road bikes is driven by fork manufacturers, who can produce
a lighter fork when allowed to use the larger diameter steerer.

Chris Neary [email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the
elements I loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Thanks, David and Paul- that's *exactly* the kind of information I was looking for!

Threadless makes fitting the bike easier, you can do things like flip the stem for a different
riding position, or swap stems very quickly. You are also less likely to have an issue with a stuck
stem. I feel like my threadless setups have less flex, but that could be due to many factors other
than being threadless. Since the future of stems is threadless, it will be a lot easier to replace
parts if you go that route. "Slingshot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I want to upgrade my frame (happy with my current components). I've had this frame for so long
it's been a while since I've been in the market, and now I'm seeing "1 inch standard head tube"
and "1 1/8 inch threadless".

What's the difference? Is it the application- the type of riding (racing vs. TT vs. casual)? Is
there a reason to choose one over the other?

Thanks

Quoted message said:

Threadless headsets offer the manufacturer a need for fewer different fork sizes, and cheaper
materials, which saves money.

Also, some steerer materials (such as carbon fiber and aluminum) lend themselves better to
threadless designs.

Chris Neary [email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the
elements I loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

"Paul Southworth" wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Many road bikes also come with "integrated" headsets (bearings pressed

into the head tube). There are no significant benefits > to integrated headsets, many are
proprietary designs which will create repair challenges if the bike lasts long enough to need a >
new headset, and many just don't adjust up nice even when new.

I believe that not all integrated designs press in the actual bearings (if any) as opposed to a
design where the cups that formerly were pressed in, are now part of the actual headtube, with the
bearings simply sitting inside the "integrated" cups. It seems much is reliant on the frame
manufacturer to get the tolerances exactly correct in order to use a particular headset, which could
conceivably limit replacement choices.

Correct me if I'm wrong

Still, I see absolutely no advantage to integrated, except a "cleaner" look, for whatever
that's worth.

From someone who's about to go to a frame that uses integrated. I'll post some day with any problems
and or useful experiences.

Steve Bailey

In article said:

"Paul Southworth" wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Many road bikes also come with "integrated" headsets (bearings pressed

into the head tube). There are no significant benefits > to integrated headsets, many are
proprietary designs which will create repair challenges if the bike lasts long enough to need a >
new headset, and many just don't adjust up nice even when new.

I believe that not all integrated designs press in the actual bearings (if any) as opposed to a
design where the cups that formerly were pressed in, are now part of the actual headtube, with the
bearings simply sitting inside the "integrated" cups.

Correct, some are like that and I still those are sucky for most of the reasons I described.

"Paul Southworth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

those are sucky

Is that a technical term ? 🙂

Chris Neary said:

Quoted message said:

1-1/8" is industry standard now for road bikes. There is nothing particularly wrong with 1" or
threaded headsets, but most mass produced road bikes don't use them any more.

For the most part, the move to 1-1/8" on road bikes is driven by fork manufacturers, who can
produce a lighter fork when allowed to use the larger diameter steerer.

That's actually nothing more than an urban myth. In fact, the 1" forks with the same steer tube
material are invariably lighter than their 1-1/8" brethren. Add in the heavier stem, headset and
head tube and it's a lot more than "just a few grams" of difference.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

Quoted message said:

Two things, fashion and cost to the manufacturer. They are related, since manufacturers like to
promote things that in reality only save them money.

The 1" threaded fork steerer tube was standard (everywhere but France, of course) for many, many
years. Threadless headsets offer the manufacturer a need for fewer different fork sizes, and
cheaper materials, which saves money. The buyer gets bars that are hard or impossible to adjust
without replacing expensive pieces. But some call this progress. I avoid them when possible.

And now for a dissenting opinion...

#1: If something is changed that allows a manufacturer to produce something
of similar quality for less money (by standardizing, or being able to use less-expensive materials,
or simply easy of manufacturing or assembly), *and* the world's a competitive place, then the
customer gets more bang for their buck.

#2: Why do so many people believe that a threadless headset reduces their
ability to adjust their handlebars? Most standard quill stems had a very small amount of adjustable
range; this seems to be ignored in these discussions. Yes, there were/are some very tall (and thus
more adjustable) stems out there, but they weren't all that easy to find in the quill-stem's heyday,
and it was a very rare thing indeed to hear discussions about how evil the bike companies were
because they were spec'ing stems quill stems that allowed for very little leeway in height (and were
generally low to start with).

The common practice today of having 4cm of spacers underneath a stem with either an up-angle (from
parallel) of +7 or +17 degrees gives far more adjustability than the common production bike of
yesteryear. The stem can be reversed to get lower, and you can also move spacers on top of the stem,
allowing for additional control over height.

In addition, there are stems available with up-angles of +25 degrees, sometimes even +40, which can
get the stem quite high into the air. And if you want to go even higher, you can bolt on a
lightweight aluminum extension tube and add even more height. My motto? The hard part is defining
where you want to be. Getting there is easy.

#3: The threadless system in general has resulted in a dramatic drop in the
sales of replacement headsets, because they are so much easier to adjust, and hold their adjustments
better than conventional threaded headsets. The fact that a cyclist who's decided to learn a bit
about his/her bicycle can manage to keep a conventional headset properly adjusted ignores the great
many who appear to have no desire to master such skills.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Slingshot said:

I want to upgrade my frame (happy with my current components). I've had this frame for so long
it's been a while since I've been in the market, and now I'm seeing "1 inch standard head tube"
and "1 1/8 inch threadless".

What's the difference? Is it the application- the type of riding (racing vs. TT vs. casual)? Is
there a reason to choose one over the other?

Two things, fashion and cost to the manufacturer. They are related, since manufacturers like to
promote things that in reality only save them money.

The 1" threaded fork steerer tube was standard (everywhere but France, of course) for many, many
years. Threadless headsets offer the manufacturer a need for fewer different fork sizes, and
cheaper materials, which saves money. The buyer gets bars that are hard or impossible to adjust
without replacing expensive pieces. But some call this progress. I avoid them when possible.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a _`\(,_ | conclusion. --
George Bernard Shaw (_)/ (_) |

Quoted message said:

The fact that a cyclist who's decided to learn a bit about his/her bicycle can manage to keep a
conventional headset properly adjusted ignores the great many who appear to have no desire to
master such skills.

So what's your take on the .pdf on the Chris King site, Mike? I'm not slamming you, I'd really like
to know your opinion. This is the document where they characterize threadless as an invention of
Satan, and so forth.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email hidden]__________

Quoted message said:

In fact, the 1" forks with the same steer tube material are invariably lighter than their 1-1/8"
brethren.

Based on Alpha-Q's data (truetemper.compro.htmlOpen ↗), that appears to be
true. In light of that, what is your assessment of the potential advantages of 1-1/8" steerers on
road bikes?

Chris Neary [email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the
elements I loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Quoted message said:

So what's your take on the .pdf on the Chris King site, Mike? I'm not slamming you, I'd really
like to know your opinion. This is the document where they characterize threadless as an invention
of Satan, and so forth.

I covered that one in an earlier missive. Basically, I did a bit of research into how many problems
existed with integrated headsets in the real world (I have pretty direct access to the TREK warranty
people) and, so far, it's been a complete non-issue. They're easy to work on (had to check with my
mechanics on that one, since I hadn't torn one apart yet) and require no special tools. For a road
bike with an aluminum or ti head tube, I don't think durability is going to be an issue.

For a bike made with a steel headtube, the machining required would either mean a pretty hefty
amount of weight added, or a dangerously-thin headtube that would be prone to damage (ovalization)
in a crash. I don't think they'd be a good idea for a mountain bike though, where extreme use might
cause difficult-to-repair headtube damage.

I think they're also a bad idea for a moderately-priced road bike, since they require care in
machining that's not required for conventional units. Also, I can only speak for the Cane Creek
versions, having no experience (or access to people who have) with the others.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

They're easy to work on (had to check with my mechanics on that one, since I hadn't torn one apart
yet) and require no special tools. For a road bike with an aluminum or ti head tube, I don't think
durability is going to be an issue.

Thanks, I get it.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email hidden]__________

On Sat, 03 May 2003 07:19:46 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

I won't respond to Mike's criticism of my comments about threadless headsets; we've been down that
road before and are unlikely to see anything new. However:

Quoted message said:

I covered that one in an earlier missive. Basically, I did a bit of research into how many
problems existed with integrated headsets in the real world (I have pretty direct access to the
TREK warranty people) and, so far, it's been a complete non-issue.

"So far" being a year or two. I just replaced the headset on my 30-year-old track bike. Let's go
forward 30 years, when someone brings in one of these integrated headsets for replacement. The
chances are zero that the particular size needed will still be made, since there were only 10000
ever installed and that was in a 2-year period from 2001-2003. The company went under, anyway, back
in '15, so the only choice is to replace the frame. That is the problem with integrated headsets.
They may very well be designed and engineered as well as any standard headset, but they are not
standardized, and availability depends on the health of one company. With computers, or even cars,
the chances of needing an unobtainable part 30 years later are essentially zero, but 30-year old
bikes are very common, and are still perfectly usable.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you _`\(,_ | killed all of us?
From every corner of Europe, hundreds, (_)/ (_) | thousands would rise up to take our places.
Even Nazis can't kill that fast. -- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).

Chris Neary said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, the 1" forks with the same steer tube material are invariably lighter than their 1-1/8"
brethren.

Based on Alpha-Q's data (truetemper.compro.htmlOpen ↗), that appears to be
true. In light of that, what is your assessment of the potential advantages of 1-1/8" steerers on
road bikes?

There are none. That's why all my road bikes still come with 1" head tubes (some customs excepted).
I'm sure someone will chime in claiming less steer tube flex for the 1-1/8" bikes - but I'm having
trouble remembering that ever being an issue (or even noticed) on any ride I've ever done.

The advantage is that it reduces the number of different parts a manufacturer has to stock (not
something that should make most cyclists feel warm and fuzzy about the change).

Funny thing is, normally when you market something that's lighter, more aero and that looks better
it's supposed to be new, not retro! ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The common practice today of having 4cm of spacers underneath a stem with either an up-angle (from
parallel) of +7 or +17 degrees gives far more adjustability than the common production bike of
yesteryear. The stem can be reversed to get lower, and you can also move spacers on top of the
stem, allowing for additional control over height.

I agree, and would add, as Jobst is always pointing out, that threadless solves the stuck stem
problem. When a stem is corroded solid (like one of my bikes), how much adjustability do you
have then?

Quoted message said:

"So far" being a year or two. I just replaced the headset on my 30-year-old track bike. Let's go
forward 30 years, when someone brings in one of these integrated headsets for replacement.

A track bike is a rather extreme example; for the most part, they're not subject to the same type of
wear & tear of a normal road bike and thus have a much longer lifespan. Legacy issues abound in the
real world, on both road & mountain bikes. Headsets are just one area, and, I dare say, it's
entirely possible that the threaded headset you like so much will be *much* more difficult to get,
even ten years down the road, than a threadless version.

For the integrated headsets yes, you're hanging out there a bit on the bleeding edge. You're going
to be a lot safer going with the numbers, and the numbers would favor the Cane Creek system over the
others. You're also going to be safer with a company that's known to provide support for product
many years down the road; companies vary greatly in this regard.

Quoted message said:

With computers, or even cars, the chances of needing an unobtainable part 30 years later are
essentially zero, but 30-year old bikes are very common, and are still perfectly usable.

I don't know about cars, but to even suggest that a current computer might be readily repairable 30
years down the road is kind of bizarre. Intel & Microsoft deliberately phase out support for older
product (buss structures, video cards, etc) and no longer produce drivers for a great deal of
product out there. Laptops are considered disposable after just a few years. However, I'm not sure
it's the best example because the useful life cycle of a computer is a lot shorter than a bicycle...
not because you can't get parts or support, but because it isn't worthwhile trying to fix because
you can probably buy something for 1/4 the price that's 4 times as fast after maybe five years.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 03 May 2003 07:19:46 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

I won't respond to Mike's criticism of my comments about threadless headsets; we've been down that
road before and are unlikely to see anything new. However:

Quoted message said:

I covered that one in an earlier missive. Basically, I did a bit of research into how many
problems existed with integrated headsets in the

real

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

world (I have pretty direct access to the TREK warranty people) and, so

far,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it's been a complete non-issue.

"So far" being a year or two. I just replaced the headset on my 30-year-old track bike. Let's go
forward 30 years, when someone brings in one of these integrated headsets for replacement. The
chances are zero that the particular size needed will still be made, since there were only 10000
ever installed and that was in a 2-year period from 2001-2003. The company went under, anyway,
back in '15, so the only choice is to replace the frame. That is the problem with integrated
headsets. They may very well be designed and engineered as well as any standard headset, but they
are not standardized, and availability depends on the health of one company. With computers, or
even cars, the chances of needing an unobtainable part 30 years later are essentially zero, but
30-year old bikes are very common, and are still perfectly usable.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you _`\(,_ | killed all of
us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds, (_)/ (_) | thousands would rise up to take our
places. Even Nazis can't kill that fast. -- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).