|1" or 1.125" headtube?||nova|
Nov 27, 2001 2:56 PM
|If you were to choose between a new frameset with 1" head and steerer tubes, and a new frameset with 1.125" tubes and costs $100 more, which would you pick? (assume that all other criteria are identical, including the make and model, with the exception of the model year.)
Does anyone who owns bikes with both diameters care to comment on handling and rigidity? I know that the 1.125" size is supposed to be more durable, but what are your practical observations?
|re: 1" or 1.125" headtube?||gtx|
Nov 27, 2001 3:32 PM
|I'd go 1 1/8th if you plan to have the bike for quite a while and like carbon forks--for better selection of forks in the future (and possibly headsets and stems). Look what happened to mountain bikes--it's pretty hard to find forks or threadless stems for 1" mtbs these days. If you're a steel is real kind of guy I'd go for a 1" steel fork with a steel quil stem (but that's me). I'd say there's little functional difference between the two, though there might be an argument for 1 1/8 for huge guys on huge bikes.|
|re: 1" or 1.125" headtube?||Eric|
Nov 28, 2001 10:20 AM
|I would choose 1.125" because of the increased diameter providing slightly more stiffness in an all-carbon fork. Plus, in the case of a Reynolds Ouzo Pro fork, one has the option of using more spacers (if needed) on the 1.125" fork compared to the 1" fork according to Reynolds. Finally, I do feel as though 1.125" is slowly becoming the standard on road frames. However 1" stems/headsets/forks will remain because of the volume of bikes out there with 1" head tubes, and that road frame turnover is at a slower rate than MTB.
But, stay away from integrated HS designs (IMO). I would choose a 1" non-integrated design over that of a 1.125" integrated design.