RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


How common is 1 1/8" head tube in road bikes? Thanks NM(16 posts)

How common is 1 1/8" head tube in road bikes? Thanks NMtronracer
Jun 12, 2002 11:34 AM
Isn't it pretty much universal now?Silverback
Jun 12, 2002 11:38 AM
Rivendell still uses 1-inch, and there are probably a few others. But I just walked through the LBS at lunch, and everything I noticed was 1 1/8 threadless.
Oh, that's good because....tronracer
Jun 12, 2002 12:00 PM
I picked up an ec70 carbon threadless fork at the first union race for a good price. I thought I could get rid of it to one of my friends or at least ebay as a last resort. It has an uncut aluminum steerer. Do you think it would get a good price?
EC70 has been sale priced all year at several vendors..ntsprockets2
Jun 12, 2002 1:32 PM
nt
re: How common is 1 1/8" head tube in road bikes? Thanks NMNo_sprint
Jun 12, 2002 12:04 PM
It's pretty much universal for brand new bikes now. Is the overwhelming number of bikes on the road 1 1/8? Nope, not even close right now.
Not Colnagomwood
Jun 12, 2002 12:12 PM
which uses 1". Why? Because Ernesto wants it that way.
Ernesto is the kind of guy whoelviento
Jun 12, 2002 6:35 PM
doesn't want to follow, but only wants to lead. You can see it in his eyes.
Insofar as the CF fork has become very common...sprockets2
Jun 12, 2002 1:47 PM
specifically the all carbon CF fork, 1.125 is probably thought to be the way to go to ensure adequate strength of the steerer. Many, including myself, do not want the weight of, or the presence of an actual joint between the metal steerer and/or crown and the rest of the fork, so I would prefer the all carbon fork.

I am thinking that the only reason to preserve 1 inch is either that someone figures out how to make a super strong 1 inch CF steerer, or they start making steel forks that are as good as the best of the new steel frame tubes. I looked around when I bought my steel bike, and it seems even the best of the steel forks-which are functionally pretty good, but hefty-are made of what could politely be termed "tried and true" alloys. One maker wanted to sell me a very nice modern steel bike with a 531 fork. I know it is not exactly the same thing, but I have a very old Raleigh with a 531 fork, so I could not bring myself to buy their their bike. There was just something TOO archaic about accepting that fork.
I haven't heard of any Colnago Star forks breakingColnagoFE
Jun 12, 2002 1:52 PM
and those are 1" CF...pretty stiff too from what I hear.
Insofar as the CF fork has become very common...Jekyll
Jun 12, 2002 9:44 PM
I think you may have it backwards. The 1 1/8 standard rolled around before CF steerers and though my metallurgy, composite manufacturing and stress analyses knowledge would not fill half a coffee cup I would guess that like the case of AL frames, increasing the diameter of an AL steerer makes it easier to make it both stronger and lighter (like oversized frame tubes on AL bikes). CF tubing does not seem to require the same kind of over sizing to get the same type of results. As pointed out above, Colnogo seems to not have any problems with their 1" CF steerer forks and who are we to argue with Ernesto anyway?
alsoJekyll
Jun 12, 2002 9:49 PM
Increasing headtube diameter provides greater surface area for the top and bottom tube welds.
No, I didn't say it was cause and effect, just that...sprockets2
Jun 13, 2002 6:43 AM
THE TREND in the industry it to 1.125 steerers for CF. The 1.125 headtube permits the larger CF steerer, which is stronger than the 1.0, and although Colnago may make one, MOST manufacturers do not make all-CF 1.0 forks. Several early and most current 1.0 CF forks had a rep for being somewhat noodly under serious performance conditions. Like I said, if someone figures out how to make them (economically) really strong at 1.0 there may be more use of the 1.0, BUT as the Al headtubes are stronger and not much heavier at 1.125, the standard may be here to stay.
Many new bikes.JBurton
Jun 12, 2002 2:56 PM
But I am of the opinion that a 1 1/8 in. steerer on a road bike is overkill. On a mountain bike, sure, but a road bike, I just don't believe it is necessary for normal riding conditions.
Not necessary for normal riding conditions, butKerry
Jun 12, 2002 5:49 PM
necessary to really shave weight and get the full advantage of threadless forks/stems. This is particularly true for larger frames. A 60 cm frame with a 1" CF threadless steerer scares some people (like me). Make it 1.125", throw in a light threadless stem, and you've saved a couple hundred grams. You can't really do that in 1" without living closer to the edge.
It's got a lot to do with materialelviento
Jun 12, 2002 6:38 PM
Aluminum or carbon, 1 1/8 is a good idea. Steel, 1" is better.
The Standard and is a good idea for modern frame materialssievers11
Jun 12, 2002 8:28 PM
the 1 inch is common on steel frames still because there are dissadvantages to having larger tubes on steel bike, mainly weight. Because steel is so strong not a big deal and you can still have a stable bike.

AL, Ti and Carbon are a different sorry and most of them are 1.125 inch because it give more area on the head tube to weld the top and down tubes. Because these materials and best used in large thin-walled applications a larger thin walled the larger head tube is a perfect match. This is also why many frame builders are using integrated headsets in order to give even more area to weld the top and down tubes to.

The greater use of carbon in steer tubes has also pushed use in this direction, the larger diameter creates a stiffer and more stable stearing platform.

I know they exist but I hope I never see a 1.125 stear tube on a steel gem. It would be like putting carbon seat stays on a Ti bike. (unfortunatly this also exists)