1" versus 1 1/8" Headset???

[Ryan Bates]

hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and a
1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area? thanks

[Mark Hickey]

Post by Ryan Bates
hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and a
1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area? thanks

You're right - they DO weigh more (as does the frame's head tube and
the stem). There are those who insist that the 1-1/8" steer tube
yields a "stiffer fork", though I have yet to have any problems with
steer tubes flexing regardless of the diameter, and the majority of
flex is going to be in the fork's legs, which will be identical in
both 1" and 1-1/8" formats. Others will claim a greater amount of
strength, but that assumes that fork manufacturers would have two
different specs for what they'll ship (something I find very
unlikely).

In the end, you have to console yourself with the fact that somewhere
manufacturers are saving some money.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Bruni]

It depends on your weight. Bike designers decided that the weight you
mention could not be removed safely without using the O.S. steerer. This is
the case with Profile design's AC fork. Reynolds' Ouzo pro adds extra
steerer material and does weigh more in 1 1/8. Some sub 140# riders notice
more ride compliance on 1". Over 190# IMO use 1 1/8.
Eventually obsolesence will make things clearer; some of my favorite OEM
forks are 1 1/8 only.
Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420

Post by Ryan Bates
hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and a
1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area? thanks

[charles ramsey]

Post by Bruni
It depends on your weight. Bike designers decided that the weight you
mention could not be removed safely without using the O.S. steerer. This is
the case with Profile design's AC fork. Reynolds' Ouzo pro adds extra
steerer material and does weigh more in 1 1/8. Some sub 140# riders notice
more ride compliance on 1". Over 190# IMO use 1 1/8.
Eventually obsolesence will make things clearer; some of my favorite OEM
forks are 1 1/8 only.
Tom
--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420

Post by Ryan Bates
hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and a
1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area? thanks

A 1 1/8" can be made lighter than a 1" by using a thinner stearing
tube and a thinner stem the stearer tube is 2.3mm thick more than
twice as thick as any other tube without a loss of strenght.

[Mark Hickey]

Post by charles ramsey
A 1 1/8" can be made lighter than a 1" by using a thinner stearing
tube and a thinner stem the stearer tube is 2.3mm thick more than
twice as thick as any other tube without a loss of strenght.

Check the specs and you'll see that virtually every 1-1/8" fork is
heavier than the 1" fork of the same model (with the same steer tube
material). Either all the fork manufacturers are getting it wrong, or
there's a reason why they can't make the steer tube walls thinner.

I'm guessing it's the latter... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Werehatrack]

Post by Ryan Bates
hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and a
1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area? thanks

1 1/8" is significantly stronger and stiffer. The weight and frontal
area difference is trivial.

That said, for the average rider who does not engage in mtb/atb trail
riding of an aggressive nature, 1" is more than strong enough. Among
bikes commonly sold, 1" steerer tubes are generally used threaded, and
1 1/8" steerers are generally threadless, though both can be had
either way. Which one is preferred is a matter of opinion; both have
their adherents. I personally like threaded steerers, but plenty of
people like the threadless setups.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[John Carrier]

Post by Werehatrack
1 1/8" is significantly stronger and stiffer. The weight and frontal
area difference is trivial.

"Somewhat" might be a better choice than "significantly." The biggest
advantage is the bearings have larger diameter races, more balls (or
rollers) and thus better ability to take the shocks of the off-road world.
Headset lower races tend to take a lot of abuse ... every little bit helps.

R / John

[Zog The Undeniable]

Post by Ryan Bates
hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and a
1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area? thanks

You can fit more bearings in and it gives a decent surface area to
weld/braze oversize tubes to. A Cannondale MTB with a 1" headset would
be tricky to weld as the downtube would be about twice as wide as the
head tube!

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

ggg-<< and it gives a decent surface area to
weld/braze oversize tubes to. >><BR><BR>


Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner. Big fat oversized top and downtubes are
easier(and 'cheaper') to weld with big fat head tubes, why 1 1/8inch and also
integrated, particularly in aluminum. Simplier miters, easier welds.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
[phone]
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[BaCardi]

Or you could just use a 1 1/8" fork in a 1" headtube.



--

[Sheldon Brown]

Post by BaCardi
Or you could just use a 1 1/8" fork in a 1" headtube.

Since he or she didn't quote the post being replied to, I don't know the
context, but this is wrong in any case.

You can't put a bigger fork into a smaller head tube.

You can put a _smaller_ fork into a larger head tube, with suitable
adaptors.

Sheldon "Won't Fit" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------+
| Many workmen |
| Built a huge ball of masonry |
| Upon a mountaintop. |
| Then they went to the valley below, |
| And turned to behold their work. |
| "It is grand," they said; |
| They loved the thing. |
| |
| Of a sudden, it moved: |
| It came upon them swiftly; |
| It crushed them all to blood. |
| But some had opportunity to squeal. |
| --Stephen Crane |
+-----------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone [phone] FAX [phone]
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

[Zog The Undeniable]

Post by Sheldon Brown

Post by BaCardi
Or you could just use a 1 1/8" fork in a 1" headtube.

Since he or she didn't quote the post being replied to, I don't know the
context, but this is wrong in any case.
You can't put a bigger fork into a smaller head tube.
You can put a _smaller_ fork into a larger head tube, with suitable
adaptors.

I just assumed it was a weak attempt at a troll.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

bacardi-<< Or you could just use a 1 1/8" fork in a 1" headtube. >><BR><BR>

Unless you want to use a headset....then it will not fit.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
[phone]
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[BaCardi]

Originally posted by Sheldon Brown Someone who wisely concealed his or

Post by BaCardi
Or you could just use a 1 1/8" fork in a 1" headtube.

Since he or she didn't quote the post being replied to, I don't know the
context, but this is wrong in any case.

You can't put a bigger fork into a smaller head tube.

You can put a _smaller_ fork into a larger head tube, with
suitable adaptors.

Sheldon "Won't Fit" Brown +----------------------



Sheldon "Won't Fit" Brown is wrong!!!!! WRONG! You can put a 1 1/8" fork
into a 1" head tube. A 1" head tube is actually 1 1/4" (aka 31.8mm) in
diameter. It is called a 1" head tube because head tubes of that size
were made to fit the 1" steerer tubes of forks. This was before mountain
bikes started using 1/18" steerer tubes. So, a 1" head tube has, in
reality a diamter of 1 1/4"!

The 1 1/8" steerer of a fork will easily fit into a 1" fork!



--

[Pete Biggs]

Post by BaCardi
Sheldon "Won't Fit" Brown is wrong!!!!! WRONG!

Calm down :-) You're not right either.

Post by BaCardi
You can put a 1 1/8"
fork into a 1" head tube. A 1" head tube is actually 1 1/4" (aka
31.8mm) in diameter.

The internal diameter of a road bike head tube I've measured is 29.6mm.
Over 1 1/8" but not a lot of room to spare. I suspect IDs vary according
to material and design.

Post by BaCardi
It is called a 1" head tube because head tubes
of that size were made to fit the 1" steerer tubes of forks. This was
before mountain bikes started using 1/18" steerer tubes. So, a 1"
head tube has, in reality a diamter of 1 1/4"!
The 1 1/8" steerer of a fork will easily fit into a 1" fork!

There's got to be a good reason 1 1/8" forks aren't rutinely used in "1
inch" frames (otherwise I'll have one if ever I upgrade to a full carbon
job). It'll be interesting to read the other replies to your post. I'm
wondering about the headset and its bearings. Would you need a 1 1/8"
headset with adaptor? Could that work with 1 1/8" forks?

~PB

[Werehatrack]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:49:24 -0000, "Pete Biggs"

Post by Pete Biggs

Post by BaCardi
Sheldon "Won't Fit" Brown is wrong!!!!! WRONG!

Calm down :-) You're not right either.

Post by BaCardi
You can put a 1 1/8"
fork into a 1" head tube. A 1" head tube is actually 1 1/4" (aka
31.8mm) in diameter.

The internal diameter of a road bike head tube I've measured is 29.6mm.
Over 1 1/8" but not a lot of room to spare. I suspect IDs vary according
to material and design.

Post by BaCardi
It is called a 1" head tube because head tubes
of that size were made to fit the 1" steerer tubes of forks. This was
before mountain bikes started using 1/18" steerer tubes. So, a 1"
head tube has, in reality a diamter of 1 1/4"!
The 1 1/8" steerer of a fork will easily fit into a 1" fork!

There's got to be a good reason 1 1/8" forks aren't rutinely used in "1
inch" frames (otherwise I'll have one if ever I upgrade to a full carbon
job). It'll be interesting to read the other replies to your post. I'm
wondering about the headset and its bearings. Would you need a 1 1/8"
headset with adaptor? Could that work with 1 1/8" forks?

Look at the bearing dimensions. The shoulder of a 1 1/8" headset
can't fit into the ID of the 1" head tube. Some 1" head tubes might
have enough space inside for the 1 1/8" steerer tube to be passed
through without the bearing cups installed, but that's irrelevant.
The bearings are necessary, and the 1" headset bearing assemblies most
certainly will not fit on a 1 1/8" steerer.

The 1 1/8" steerer, at the lower end, is 29mm in OD. (Yes, at the
upper end, it's 28.6, but that's only one of the two places where the
dimension must be considered, and the lower end is the one where the
problem arises.) The 1" bearing cup's shoulder is 30.2mm in OD. This
leaves 1.2mm of difference in diameter. About 0.5mm of clearance is
needed to allow for deflection under load; that leaves just 0.7mm of
diameter for the shoulder, or a shoulder thickness of .35mm, which is
about 0.014"; fourteen thousandths of an inch is probably not enough
material to keep that shoulder from shearing off under the compression
load of the interference fit, let alone the stresses of riding.

No, there is a reason why no one sells an adapter bearing set to fit a
1 1/8" steerer into a 1" head tube. It's because it really won't work
for very long. Yes, with a lathe, the inclination, and the time, I
could make a bearing set that would allow this miscegenation to be
accomplished. I wouldn't make it, though. It would break.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Marcus Coles]

Post by Werehatrack
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:49:24 -0000, "Pete Biggs"

Post by Pete Biggs

Post by BaCardi
Sheldon "Won't Fit" Brown is wrong!!!!! WRONG!

Calm down :-) You're not right either.

Post by BaCardi
You can put a 1 1/8"
fork into a 1" head tube. A 1" head tube is actually 1 1/4" (aka
31.8mm) in diameter.

The internal diameter of a road bike head tube I've measured is 29.6mm.
Over 1 1/8" but not a lot of room to spare. I suspect IDs vary according
to material and design.

Post by BaCardi
It is called a 1" head tube because head tubes
of that size were made to fit the 1" steerer tubes of forks. This was
before mountain bikes started using 1/18" steerer tubes. So, a 1"
head tube has, in reality a diamter of 1 1/4"!
The 1 1/8" steerer of a fork will easily fit into a 1" fork!

There's got to be a good reason 1 1/8" forks aren't rutinely used in "1
inch" frames (otherwise I'll have one if ever I upgrade to a full carbon
job). It'll be interesting to read the other replies to your post. I'm
wondering about the headset and its bearings. Would you need a 1 1/8"
headset with adaptor? Could that work with 1 1/8" forks?

Look at the bearing dimensions. The shoulder of a 1 1/8" headset
can't fit into the ID of the 1" head tube. Some 1" head tubes might
have enough space inside for the 1 1/8" steerer tube to be passed
through without the bearing cups installed, but that's irrelevant.
The bearings are necessary, and the 1" headset bearing assemblies most
certainly will not fit on a 1 1/8" steerer.
The 1 1/8" steerer, at the lower end, is 29mm in OD. (Yes, at the
upper end, it's 28.6, but that's only one of the two places where the
dimension must be considered, and the lower end is the one where the
problem arises.) The 1" bearing cup's shoulder is 30.2mm in OD. This
leaves 1.2mm of difference in diameter. About 0.5mm of clearance is
needed to allow for deflection under load; that leaves just 0.7mm of
diameter for the shoulder, or a shoulder thickness of .35mm, which is
about 0.014"; fourteen thousandths of an inch is probably not enough
material to keep that shoulder from shearing off under the compression
load of the interference fit, let alone the stresses of riding.
No, there is a reason why no one sells an adapter bearing set to fit a
1 1/8" steerer into a 1" head tube. It's because it really won't work
for very long. Yes, with a lathe, the inclination, and the time, I
could make a bearing set that would allow this miscegenation to be
accomplished. I wouldn't make it, though. It would break.

I thing this rather stupid project could be accomplished by making the
bearing race fit to the exterior of the head tube with a lip to catch
the tube edge to prevent migration down or up the head tube.

Since this would be pretty much a custom one off situation for each
application I cannot seem much production potential to bring the price down.

I don't know what machinists time is worth these days, but one inch
steerer forks are pretty cheap and as plentiful as bad ideas.

It does open the door for the next marketing craze even more heavily
flattened tubes and skinny headtubes.

Better rush on down to the Patent Office. ;-)

Marcus

[Werehatrack]

Post by Marcus Coles
I thing this rather stupid project could be accomplished by making the
bearing race fit to the exterior of the head tube with a lip to catch
the tube edge to prevent migration down or up the head tube.

Ugly in several respects, but possible. Possible, however, should not
be confused with useful, desireable, or worth doing.

Post by Marcus Coles
Since this would be pretty much a custom one off situation for each
application I cannot seem much production potential to bring the price down.

No, but I can potentially envision a whole new Next Thing from it,
where some enterprising type packages an external radius cutting tool
to use in facing the tube ends for the proprietary cups. I don't
*want* to see it, though; I think this is nearly as looney as the
original suggestion, even though it could work.

Post by Marcus Coles
I don't know what machinists time is worth these days, but one inch
steerer forks are pretty cheap and as plentiful as bad ideas.

A few designs of suspension fork aren't made for 1" head tubes, but
there are more than enough good ones in that size to keep the vast
majority of riders happy. Of course, there's always the "grass is
greener" crowd who will want to be able to have a way to install the
thing they can't have now. Hey, if they've got the money for the mod,
though, I say, make 'em pay for it!

Post by Marcus Coles
It does open the door for the next marketing craze even more heavily
flattened tubes and skinny headtubes.

Egad, from there, it would be just a small step to an aero oval center
on the head tube. Let us bury this lunatic concept quickly, before
Serotta or Colnago puts it into production and claims a Huge
Performance Improvement or a Significant Reduction/Increase In
Something You Can't Measure.

Post by Marcus Coles
Better rush on down to the Patent Office. ;-)

Oy. Just oy.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Sheldon Brown]

Post by Sheldon Brown
You can't put a bigger fork into a smaller head tube.
You can put a _smaller_ fork into a larger head tube, with
suitable adaptors.
Sheldon "Won't Fit" Brown +----------------------
Sheldon "Won't Fit" Brown is wrong!!!!! WRONG! You can put a 1 1/8" fork
into a 1" head tube. A 1" head tube is actually 1 1/4" (aka 31.8mm) in
diameter. It is called a 1" head tube because head tubes of that size
were made to fit the 1" steerer tubes of forks. This was before mountain
bikes started using 1/18" steerer tubes. So, a 1" head tube has, in
reality a diamter of 1 1/4"!
The 1 1/8" steerer of a fork will easily fit into a 1" fork!

Yes, but what are you going to do for a headset?

If you'll check the handy chart I've posted at

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_h.html#headset

you'll see that the outside diameter of a 1 1/8" _headset_, where it
fits into the head tube, is 34 mm, while the inside diameter of a
standard 1" size head tube is 30.2 mm. No go!

Putting the steerer through the head tube without a headset is not
particularly useful. I guess you could theoretically make a headset
where the wall thickness of the cup mounting cylinders was less than 0.8
mm, (a skosh over 3/100 inch) but such a headset would be rather fragile.

Sheldon "Theory vs. Practice" Brown
+----------------------------------------------------+
| A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of |
| explanation. --H.H.Munro ("Saki")(1870-1916) |
+----------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone [phone] FAX [phone]
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Capt-<< you'll see that the outside diameter of a 1 1/8" _headset_, where it
fits into the head tube, is 34 mm, while the inside diameter of a
standard 1" size head tube is 30.2 mm. No go! >><BR><BR>

Don't confuse Mr bacardi with facts. On his bike he just doesn't use a headset,
just slides a bare 1 1/8 fork into the bare 1 inch headtube..

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
[phone]
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Java Man (Espressopithecus)]

In article <***@mb-m11.aol.com>, vecchio51
@aol.com says...

Post by Qui si parla Campagnolo
Capt-<< you'll see that the outside diameter of a 1 1/8" _headset_, where it
fits into the head tube, is 34 mm, while the inside diameter of a
standard 1" size head tube is 30.2 mm. No go! >><BR><BR>
Don't confuse Mr bacardi with facts. On his bike he just doesn't use a headset,
just slides a bare 1 1/8 fork into the bare 1 inch headtube..

And his car can reach lift-off velocity . . . at least it would be lift
off if it had wings. ;-)

Rick

[Ryan Cousineau]

Post by Java Man (Espressopithecus)
@aol.com says...

Post by Qui si parla Campagnolo
Capt-<< you'll see that the outside diameter of a 1 1/8" _headset_, where it
fits into the head tube, is 34 mm, while the inside diameter of a
standard 1" size head tube is 30.2 mm. No go! >><BR><BR>
Don't confuse Mr bacardi with facts. On his bike he just doesn't use a headset,
just slides a bare 1 1/8 fork into the bare 1 inch headtube..

And his car can reach lift-off velocity . . . at least it would be lift
off if it had wings. ;-)
Rick

Funny you should mention that. I used to ride a very fast motorcycle to
a flying lesson in a very slow airplane, and routinely went faster on
the bike trip there than I ever did in the flight.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

ryan-<< Funny you should mention that. I used to ride a very fast motorcycle to

a flying lesson in a very slow airplane, and routinely went faster on
the bike trip there than I ever did in the flight. >><BR><BR>

When i was learing how to fly, geeezzz, like over 30 years ago, I was coming
west, back to the airpatch, into a strong headwind and watched all the cars on
the highway going way faster than I...

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
[phone]
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Chalo]

Post by Sheldon Brown
Putting the steerer through the head tube without a headset is not
particularly useful. I guess you could theoretically make a headset
where the wall thickness of the cup mounting cylinders was less than 0.8
mm, (a skosh over 3/100 inch) but such a headset would be rather fragile.

Heck, one could make a "headset" out of a pair of Oilite flanged
bushings with a 30.2mm OD and a 28.6mm ID. Talk about low stack
height!

Hmmm, maybe I could shop this idea around to QBP's "Problem Solvers".
Or perhaps ShelBroCo.

Seriously though, there is another reason that headtubes require some
amount of clearance around the steer tube. The steer tube flexes
under weight and braking loads, more than a little.

I have a tallbike with a 34" head tube that has a 35mm bore. (This is
1mm bigger than the head tube bore for a 1.125" headset). I have made
adapter cups to be able to install a 1" headset and fork. The fork
steerer is incredibly burly for stiffness and strength, with a wall
thickness of almost 5mm. Even so, when I ride the bike, the steer
tube bows enough to rub the inside of the head tube, and I have had to
insert a greased plastic sleeve in between the two, so the steering
will not bind. Over bumps, the head tube clunks the inside of the
head tube, and folks unfamiliar with my tallbike often suggest that I
should tighten the headset.

I am certain that the same problem would arise in a normal sized bike,
if the clearance between steerer and head tube were too small.

Chalo Colina

[A Muzi]

Someone who wisely concealed his or

Post by Sheldon Brown

Post by BaCardi
Or you could just use a 1 1/8" fork in a 1" headtube.

(S Brown)> Since he or she didn't quote the post being
replied to, I don't know the

Post by Sheldon Brown
context, but this is wrong in any case.
You can't put a bigger fork into a smaller head tube.
You can put a _smaller_ fork into a larger head tube, with
suitable adaptors.

-snip-

Post by Sheldon Brown
The 1 1/8" steerer of a fork will easily fit into a 1" fork!

Semantically speaking you may slip an O/S fork through a
standard 1-1/4" head tube but so what? There's not enough
clearance for a bearing assembly so it becomes an art
object but not a rideable bicycle.

Sheldon's right for all practical purposes of bicycle assembly.

Did you have some point?

[Jonesy]

Post by BaCardi
Originally posted by Sheldon Brown Someone who wisely concealed his or

Post by BaCardi
Or you could just use a 1 1/8" fork in a 1" headtube.

Since he or she didn't quote the post being replied to, I don't know the
context, but this is wrong in any case.
You can't put a bigger fork into a smaller head tube.
You can put a _smaller_ fork into a larger head tube, with
suitable adaptors.
Sheldon "Won't Fit" Brown +----------------------
Sheldon "Won't Fit" Brown is wrong!!!!!

LOL. Troll much?
--
Jonesy "Not taking the bait..."

[BaCardi]

Oops. I meant to say that... The 1 1/8" steerer of a fork will easily
fit into a 1" head tube (not fork)! It's just basic math.



--

[A Muzi]

Post by Ryan Bates
hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and a
1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area? thanks

"performance differences'?????
Geez, the marketing guys have won, it seems. . .

[BaCardi]

Calm down :-) You're not right either.
The internal diameter of a road bike head tube I've measured is 29.6mm.
Over 1 1/8" but not a lot of room to spare. I suspect IDs vary according
to material and design.
There's got to be a good reason 1 1/8" forks aren't rutinely used in "1
inch" frames (otherwise I'll have one if ever I upgrade to a full carbon
job). It'll be interesting to read the other replies to your post. I'm
wondering about the headset and its bearings. Would you need a 1 1/8"
headset with adaptor? Could that work with 1 1/8" forks?
~PB

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yes I am right! Looks like you are wrong! Not me buddy!

AGAIN... A 1" Head Tube actually has an outside diameter of 1 1/4" (aka
31.8mm). It has traditionally been called a 1" head tube because it fits
a 1" (25.4mm) steerer tube. A 1/8" (28.6mm) steerer tube will fit into a
1" head tube. Remember, since a 1" Head Tube is actually 1 1/4" (31.8mm)
outside diameter and the inside diameter of the head tube is
approximately between 30.6 - 31.0mm, that means a 1 1/8" steerer tube
will fit inside the 1" head tube.

Summary:
* 1" head tube is actually 1 1/4" diameter. Only called 1" because
traditionally it fit the 1" steerer tubes of forks.
* This 1" head tube is actually 31.8mm outside diameter
* 1" = 25.4mm
* 1 1/8" = 28.6mm
* 1 1/4" = 31.8mm
* A 1 1/8" steerer is 28.6mm outside diameter. A 1" head tube (see
above) has a inside diameter of between 30.6 - 31.0mm. Do the math.
28.6mm steerer will fit inside a space of 30.6mm -31.0mm.

A 1/8" fork steerer will fit inside a so-called 1" head tube



--

[Robert Strickland]

Post by BaCardi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yes I am right! Looks like you are wrong! Not me buddy!
AGAIN... A 1" Head Tube actually has an outside diameter of 1 1/4" (aka
31.8mm). It has traditionally been called a 1" head tube because it fits
a 1" (25.4mm) steerer tube. A 1/8" (28.6mm) steerer tube will fit
into a 1" head tube. Remember, since a 1" Head Tube is actually 1
1/4" (31.8mm) outside diameter and the inside diameter of the head
tube is
approximately between 30.6 - 31.0mm, that means a 1 1/8" steerer tube
will fit inside the 1" head tube.
* 1" head tube is actually 1 1/4" diameter. Only called 1" because
traditionally it fit the 1" steerer tubes of forks.
* This 1" head tube is actually 31.8mm outside diameter
* 1" = 25.4mm
* 1 1/8" = 28.6mm
* 1 1/4" = 31.8mm
* A 1 1/8" steerer is 28.6mm outside diameter. A 1" head tube (see
above) has a inside diameter of between 30.6 - 31.0mm. Do the math.
28.6mm steerer will fit inside a space of 30.6mm -31.0mm.
A 1/8" fork steerer will fit inside a so-called 1" head tube

We all agree that you are right about a perfectly useless fact, unless
you're interested in measurments for the sake of measurements. The point
still remains, you can't ride a bike with a 1" head tube and a 1 1/8" fork.

Rob Strickland

[Q.]

"BaCardi" <usenet-***@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
<snip>

Post by BaCardi
Oh yes I am right! Looks like you are wrong! Not me buddy!

<snip>

OKay, sure ... go for it. No, really (c:

My friend SK Grimes (Sheldon knew him well) used to say that to me at his
machine shop when the same type of situation arose ... of course, it didn't
take long to figure out he was right once I broke out the calipers and
started to try to make things actually work.

Go back up and read the posts about those things called headsets.

C.Q.C.

[Rod Raisanen]

Post by BaCardi

Calm down :-) You're not right either.
The internal diameter of a road bike head tube I've measured is 29.6mm.
Over 1 1/8" but not a lot of room to spare. I suspect IDs vary according
to material and design.
There's got to be a good reason 1 1/8" forks aren't rutinely used in "1
inch" frames (otherwise I'll have one if ever I upgrade to a full carbon
job). It'll be interesting to read the other replies to your post. I'm
wondering about the headset and its bearings. Would you need a 1 1/8"
headset with adaptor? Could that work with 1 1/8" forks?
~PB

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yes I am right! Looks like you are wrong! Not me buddy!
AGAIN... A 1" Head Tube actually has an outside diameter of 1 1/4" (aka
31.8mm). It has traditionally been called a 1" head tube because it fits
a 1" (25.4mm) steerer tube. A 1/8" (28.6mm) steerer tube will fit into a
1" head tube. Remember, since a 1" Head Tube is actually 1 1/4" (31.8mm)
outside diameter and the inside diameter of the head tube is
approximately between 30.6 - 31.0mm, that means a 1 1/8" steerer tube
will fit inside the 1" head tube.
* 1" head tube is actually 1 1/4" diameter. Only called 1" because
traditionally it fit the 1" steerer tubes of forks.
* This 1" head tube is actually 31.8mm outside diameter
* 1" = 25.4mm
* 1 1/8" = 28.6mm
* 1 1/4" = 31.8mm
* A 1 1/8" steerer is 28.6mm outside diameter. A 1" head tube (see
above) has a inside diameter of between 30.6 - 31.0mm. Do the math.
28.6mm steerer will fit inside a space of 30.6mm -31.0mm.
A 1/8" fork steerer will fit inside a so-called 1" head tube
--

Fitting and working are two different things...Yes you can sometimes put a
square peg in a round whole.

Rod Raisanen
Chillicothe Oh

To reply remove garbage

[A Muzi]

-snip cockamamie fork hypothesis-

Post by BaCardi

Calm down :-) You're not right either.
The internal diameter of a road bike head tube I've measured is 29.6mm.
Over 1 1/8" but not a lot of room to spare. I suspect IDs vary according
to material and design.
There's got to be a good reason 1 1/8" forks aren't rutinely used in "1
inch" frames (otherwise I'll have one if ever I upgrade to a full carbon
job). It'll be interesting to read the other replies to your post. I'm
wondering about the headset and its bearings. Would you need a 1 1/8"
headset with adaptor? Could that work with 1 1/8" forks?

Oh yes I am right! Looks like you are wrong! Not me buddy!

-snip extrapolation from not enough data-

OK, if it is so obviously true, send a picture after you
build it.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

ryan-<< hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and a
1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area? >><BR><BR>

Marketing and a desire to save money in frameset and fork manufacturing is the
motivation behind 1 1/8inch and threadless on road frames. Once established and
painted as 'performance' enhancing, it became somewhat of a norm and are found
on lots of road bikes.But like compact, but it answers no question, solves no
problem.

There is no performance advantage in 1 1/8in on a road bike.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
[phone]
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Bruni]

At the risk of getting a dubious achievement flame, I have actually
converted two (working on a third) 1" bikes to 1 1/8"

The first is a tandem I built in '96 that the customer wanted to fit the
alpha Q full carbon tandem fork to. Three years ago custom external, bonded
w/JB weld headset cups were fitted with cartridge brgs. to acomplish the
conversion.

The second is my Metax stainless single which was converted to allow SAFE
extension of steerer height for my gezzerhood. This one is unpainted,so O.S.
rings were added to the HT to engage normal 1 1/8" cups. These are IMHO some
of the legit, non-marketing app's of the larger size.
Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420

Post by Qui si parla Campagnolo
ryan-<< hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and a
1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area? >><BR><BR>
Marketing and a desire to save money in frameset and fork manufacturing is the
motivation behind 1 1/8inch and threadless on road frames. Once established and
painted as 'performance' enhancing, it became somewhat of a norm and are found
on lots of road bikes.But like compact, but it answers no question, solves no
problem.
There is no performance advantage in 1 1/8in on a road bike.
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
[phone]
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[jim beam]

yes, it weighs more, but theoretically, for two tubes of the same wall
thickness, the larger will be stronger. which is what you want most of
the time, particularly if using aluminum.

here on the reynolds fork website:
http://reynoldscomposites.com/StaticStrength.html
they chart strengths of a bunch of 1" forks vs their own 1" & 1.125"
ouzo pro. the data is somewhat incomplete as they don't give specifics
on the head tube materials [or other manufacturers 1.125" forks!], but
for the two lines where there is direct comparison, their own 1" &
1.125" models, there's no argument that bigger is stronger.

Post by Ryan Bates
hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and a
1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area? thanks

[Mark Hickey]

Post by jim beam
yes, it weighs more, but theoretically, for two tubes of the same wall
thickness, the larger will be stronger. which is what you want most of
the time, particularly if using aluminum.
http://reynoldscomposites.com/StaticStrength.html
they chart strengths of a bunch of 1" forks vs their own 1" & 1.125"
ouzo pro. the data is somewhat incomplete as they don't give specifics
on the head tube materials [or other manufacturers 1.125" forks!], but
for the two lines where there is direct comparison, their own 1" &
1.125" models, there's no argument that bigger is stronger.

As long as you use a definition of "stronger" that ignores how the
fork lives in the real world.

I've seen suggestions that since the real critical stress for a fork
is at the steer tube / crown interface, the stiffer steer tubes simply
reduces the amount of flex that the steer tube can "absorb", focusing
more of it instead at the ST/crown interface.

In the same way, it's not untrue to say that a unbutted 14g spoke is
"stronger" than a butted 14/15g spoke... but in the real world the
butted spoke produces a "stronger wheel" (measured in terms of the
wheel's longevity and ability to withstand abuse).

At any rate, there's no indication that steer tube "strength" is much
of a limiting factor anyway - the only time I'm aware of it becoming
an issue is in a direct frontal impact with something solid - in which
case the only benefit to a "stronger" head tube will be that the fork
legs bend more before something breaks.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[jim beam]

Mark Hickey wrote:
<snip>

Post by Mark Hickey
In the same way, it's not untrue to say that a unbutted 14g spoke is
"stronger" than a butted 14/15g spoke... but in the real world the
butted spoke produces a "stronger wheel" (measured in terms of the
wheel's longevity and ability to withstand abuse).

forgive me, but how does that reconcile with this?
http://www.habcycles.com/techstuf.html#db tubing

my point is that larger diameter is stronger for a tube of given wall
thickness. if i wanted to make a bike with an aluminum steerer tube,
i'd want the larger diameter. mitigating fatigue is a separate
design/fabrication/materials issue.

[Mark Hickey]

Post by Q.
<snip>

Post by Mark Hickey
In the same way, it's not untrue to say that a unbutted 14g spoke is
"stronger" than a butted 14/15g spoke... but in the real world the
butted spoke produces a "stronger wheel" (measured in terms of the
wheel's longevity and ability to withstand abuse).

forgive me, but how does that reconcile with this?
http://www.habcycles.com/techstuf.html#db tubing

The thing you're missing is that ultimate strength is normally not the
limitation in a bike application. In the case of straight gauge or
butted tubes in a bike frame, you have to decide if a little more
potential stress at the welds with straight gauge tubing is a more
likely problem than a side impact denting middle of a butted tube.

That's not the same trade off as with a steer tube (if you dent your
steer tube, you have bigger problems than the material's ultimate
strength!!!).

Post by Q.
my point is that larger diameter is stronger for a tube of given wall
thickness. if i wanted to make a bike with an aluminum steerer tube,
i'd want the larger diameter. mitigating fatigue is a separate
design/fabrication/materials issue.

And if your point is that a "larger diameter is stronger for a tube of
given wall thickness", you're missing the point of the thread I was
addressing (that you can't save weight with a 1-1/8" steer tube
because you can't, ala Cannondale frame tube, make it fatter with
thinner walls).

Thing is, this might be an issue if we saw any indication that
ultimate strength of a steer tube was a limiting factor in anything
other than how badly the fork legs bend before something else breaks.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Chalo]

Post by Mark Hickey
Thing is, this might be an issue if we saw any indication that
ultimate strength of a steer tube was a limiting factor in anything
other than how badly the fork legs bend before something else breaks.

Most of my bent 1" forks failed at the steer tube, above the crown
race. A few of them bent in the heat-affected zone at the rollercam
or cantilever bosses.

Almost all of them bent under braking loads. The only 1.125" fork
I've bent under braking loads was suspension-corrected (and therefore
a longer lever), and used a straight-gauge steer tube. Yet all the 1"
forks I bent in the same way were thickly butted on the bottom end of
the steer tube.

I think this illustrates the difference between 1" and 1.125"
steerers-- the fatter ones can be made more crudely and still maintain
the requisite strength. I would like to think that there are examples
of oversized steel steerers that use the same pronounced butting as
one inch steerers in the interest of even greater strength and
stiffness, but so far I've seen none. The closest I've seen are the
nicely made aluminum steerers fitted to some expensive MTB suspension
forks or carbon road forks, with long gentle tapers and thick end
butts-- but being aluminum, they are weaker and less stiff than 1"
steerers anyway!

Chalo Colina

[Mark Hickey]

Post by Chalo

Post by Mark Hickey
Thing is, this might be an issue if we saw any indication that
ultimate strength of a steer tube was a limiting factor in anything
other than how badly the fork legs bend before something else breaks.

Most of my bent 1" forks failed at the steer tube, above the crown
race. A few of them bent in the heat-affected zone at the rollercam
or cantilever bosses.

I should have added "other than Chalo of course"... ;-)

The other 99.99% of us scrawny types still won't worry too much about
bending our steer tubes...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[jim beam]

Post by Mark Hickey

Post by Q.
<snip>

Post by Mark Hickey
In the same way, it's not untrue to say that a unbutted 14g spoke is
"stronger" than a butted 14/15g spoke... but in the real world the
butted spoke produces a "stronger wheel" (measured in terms of the
wheel's longevity and ability to withstand abuse).

forgive me, but how does that reconcile with this?
http://www.habcycles.com/techstuf.html#db tubing

The thing you're missing is that ultimate strength is normally not the
limitation in a bike application.

we definitely don't agree on that one. if you want to throw in fatigue
and stiffness as well as yield strength, i'm with you, but if you're on
some steep sketchy descent, you whack an unseen pothole or some such and
you don't want to put your dentist's kids through school, you want that
frame to be good and strong!

Post by Mark Hickey
In the case of straight gauge or
butted tubes in a bike frame, you have to decide if a little more
potential stress at the welds with straight gauge tubing is a more
likely problem than a side impact denting middle of a butted tube.

i'll take weld strength over dent strength thanks. butted tubes are a
perfectly sensible method of ensuring the welds/joins of a frame are
strong where it's needed. i guess viewpoint on this depends on whether
you view butted tube as thinner in the middle or thicker on the ends. i
prefer the latter.

Post by Mark Hickey
That's not the same trade off as with a steer tube (if you dent your
steer tube, you have bigger problems than the material's ultimate
strength!!!).

Post by Q.
my point is that larger diameter is stronger for a tube of given wall
thickness. if i wanted to make a bike with an aluminum steerer tube,
i'd want the larger diameter. mitigating fatigue is a separate
design/fabrication/materials issue.

And if your point is that a "larger diameter is stronger for a tube of
given wall thickness", you're missing the point of the thread I was
addressing (that you can't save weight with a 1-1/8" steer tube
because you can't, ala Cannondale frame tube, make it fatter with
thinner walls).
Thing is, this might be an issue if we saw any indication that
ultimate strength of a steer tube was a limiting factor in anything
other than how badly the fork legs bend before something else breaks.

i've seen both bent fork legs and bent steer tubes. i want to see them
/both/ good and strong, for yield /and/ fatigue.

Post by Mark Hickey
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Post by jim beam

Post by Mark Hickey
The thing you're missing is that ultimate strength is normally not the
limitation in a bike application.

we definitely don't agree on that one. if you want to throw in fatigue
and stiffness as well as yield strength, i'm with you, but if you're on
some steep sketchy descent, you whack an unseen pothole or some such and
you don't want to put your dentist's kids through school, you want that
frame to be good and strong!

What makes you think that you could stay on a bike during any impact
to the fork serious enough to bend the steer tube? Again, it's a
non-issue - the only time "strength" matters is when you're going to
be hitting something hard enough to destroy the fork with or without
bending or breaking the steer tube. At any rate, this won't ever
happen in a situation where you'll have the option of not crashing.

Post by jim beam

Post by Mark Hickey
In the case of straight gauge or
butted tubes in a bike frame, you have to decide if a little more
potential stress at the welds with straight gauge tubing is a more
likely problem than a side impact denting middle of a butted tube.

i'll take weld strength over dent strength thanks. butted tubes are a
perfectly sensible method of ensuring the welds/joins of a frame are
strong where it's needed. i guess viewpoint on this depends on whether
you view butted tube as thinner in the middle or thicker on the ends. i
prefer the latter.

I'm just too pragmatic I guess. I've seen LOTS of bikes with ugly
dents in the middle of the tubes, but not many with broken welds. And
consider that many of those with broken welds would have broken with
or without butted tubes. In the case of my frames, welds cracking is
vanishingly rare, though stories of horrendous abuse NOT resulting in
bent frames have been common. And let's not forget that thicker walls
result in a stiffer frame for a given tubing diamter, reducing (evil)
flex. Sure, you can get the same stiffness in a butted tube by making
the tube's diameter larger, which just makes the tube that much easier
to dent. Kind of a vicious cycle (no pun intended).

Post by jim beam

Post by Mark Hickey
Thing is, this might be an issue if we saw any indication that
ultimate strength of a steer tube was a limiting factor in anything
other than how badly the fork legs bend before something else breaks.

i've seen both bent fork legs and bent steer tubes. i want to see them
/both/ good and strong, for yield /and/ fatigue.

Again, "strength" is a very limited concept and I think I've repeated
my take on that enough now. Yield and fatigue are somewhat different,
and as I mentioned in a previous post, there is some evidence that the
larger steer tubes might make the real-world likelihood of a failure
at the steer tube / crown junction more likely (Chalo excepted).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[jim beam]

Post by Mark Hickey

Post by jim beam

Post by Mark Hickey
The thing you're missing is that ultimate strength is normally not the
limitation in a bike application.

we definitely don't agree on that one. if you want to throw in fatigue
and stiffness as well as yield strength, i'm with you, but if you're on
some steep sketchy descent, you whack an unseen pothole or some such and
you don't want to put your dentist's kids through school, you want that
frame to be good and strong!

What makes you think that you could stay on a bike during any impact
to the fork serious enough to bend the steer tube?

blind luck? don't know, but i've done it.

Post by Mark Hickey
Again, it's a
non-issue - the only time "strength" matters is when you're going to
be hitting something hard enough to destroy the fork with or without
bending or breaking the steer tube. At any rate, this won't ever
happen in a situation where you'll have the option of not crashing.

agreed that this is not likely, but you /don't/ want the fork to fail in
a brittle manner as implied by fracture without prior bending.

Post by Mark Hickey

Post by jim beam

Post by Mark Hickey
In the case of straight gauge or
butted tubes in a bike frame, you have to decide if a little more
potential stress at the welds with straight gauge tubing is a more
likely problem than a side impact denting middle of a butted tube.

i'll take weld strength over dent strength thanks. butted tubes are a
perfectly sensible method of ensuring the welds/joins of a frame are
strong where it's needed. i guess viewpoint on this depends on whether
you view butted tube as thinner in the middle or thicker on the ends. i
prefer the latter.

I'm just too pragmatic I guess. I've seen LOTS of bikes with ugly
dents in the middle of the tubes, but not many with broken welds. And
consider that many of those with broken welds would have broken with
or without butted tubes. In the case of my frames, welds cracking is
vanishingly rare, though stories of horrendous abuse NOT resulting in
bent frames have been common. And let's not forget that thicker walls
result in a stiffer frame for a given tubing diamter, reducing (evil)
flex. Sure, you can get the same stiffness in a butted tube by making
the tube's diameter larger, which just makes the tube that much easier
to dent. Kind of a vicious cycle (no pun intended).

Post by jim beam

Post by Mark Hickey
Thing is, this might be an issue if we saw any indication that
ultimate strength of a steer tube was a limiting factor in anything
other than how badly the fork legs bend before something else breaks.

i've seen both bent fork legs and bent steer tubes. i want to see them
/both/ good and strong, for yield /and/ fatigue.

Again, "strength" is a very limited concept and I think I've repeated
my take on that enough now. Yield and fatigue are somewhat different,
and as I mentioned in a previous post, there is some evidence that the
larger steer tubes might make the real-world likelihood of a failure
at the steer tube / crown junction more likely (Chalo excepted).

yield & fatigue are very much related. the closer a component operates
to yield, the lower the fatigue life - stress risers [notches] and
discontinuities [welds] excepted. all things being equal, if a "strong"
component has the same load cycle as a "weaker" one, it should last longer.

jb

Post by Mark Hickey
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[j***@stanfordalumni.org]

Hi, wondering what the performance differences are between a 1" and
a 1 1/8" headtube? seems to me like the larger diameter would weigh
more and create a greater frontal area?

This fits into the other subject of head bearing dimpling failures.
These are not so much a bearing problem that needs solving, but rather
a fork problem. If the steer tube didn't flex when the fork vibrates
fore and aft under load, its bearings would last substantially longer.

The larger steer tube prevents flexing, the fore and aft rocking of
the head bearing that is not designed to move in that direction
especially at such small excursions. That is the advantage of the
larger diameter. The reason for the one inch steerer is that it is
strong enough to do the job reliably for a long time. What was
overlooked is that it also leads to head bearing failure. Bearing
designers have devised ways to prevent such damage even with a one
inch steerer. Road bicycles will probably stay with the smaller size.
At least I hope so.

Jobst Brandt
***@stanfordalumni.org

[BaCardi]

The question we are all debating isn't whether or not you can fit a 1
1/8" fork AND headset into a 1" head tube. The question is whether you
can fit a 1 1/8" fork into a 1" head tube. Thus, you guys totally missed
the point of the question.

YOU CAN FIT A 1 1/8" FORK STEERER INTO A 1" HEAD TUBE! Now, who's
wrong?!



--

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

<< The question we are all debating isn't whether or not you can fit a 1
1/8" fork AND headset into a 1" head tube. The question is whether you
can fit a 1 1/8" fork into a 1" head tube. >><BR><BR>

Ohhh, that's what we were talking about....geeeee

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
[phone]
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Q.]

Post by BaCardi
The question we are all debating isn't whether or not you can fit a 1
1/8" fork AND headset into a 1" head tube. The question is whether you
can fit a 1 1/8" fork into a 1" head tube. Thus, you guys totally missed
the point of the question.
YOU CAN FIT A 1 1/8" FORK STEERER INTO A 1" HEAD TUBE! Now, who's
wrong?!

You are wrong, because you miss the entire point ... which is obvious to
everyone else buy you ... that bicycles are meant to be actually ridden.
You may not be wrong in a very literal, narrow minded sense, but you're
wrong as in "ability to function as a human being" kind of sense.

This is bicycles.tech, not bicycles.static.art. People come here to find
answers to assembling or repairing bicycles ... working bicycles.

OKay, according to your infinite wisdom, you could also fit the 1 1/8" fork
steerer tube AN HEADSET into a 1" head tube. Yes, you can!!!

As long as you grind them up into powder first (c:

Assuming (naively) that you're not a troll, I'll let you in on a little
secret ... we are here for *drum roll please* to make bikes that ACTUALLY
WORK. What a concept huh?

C.Q.C.

[Pete Biggs]

Post by BaCardi
The question we are all debating isn't whether or not you can fit a 1
1/8" fork AND headset into a 1" head tube. The question is whether you
can fit a 1 1/8" fork into a 1" head tube. Thus, you guys totally
missed the point of the question.

Go on, be honest, did you forget about the headset? :-D

~PB

[BaCardi]

Go on, be honest, did you forget about the headset? :-D ~PB

You can fit a 1 1/8" fork steerer tube into a 1" head tube. I already
proved it mathematically.

You can ALSO fit a 1 1/8" fork steerer tube AND headset into a 1" head
tube. You fools that want to deny it are doing so because you haven't
done it and have never seen it done. Therefore, it must not work.
WRONG AGAIN!



--

[Ted Bennett]

Post by BaCardi

Go on, be honest, did you forget about the headset? :-D ~PB

You can fit a 1 1/8" fork steerer tube into a 1" head tube. I already
proved it mathematically.
You can ALSO fit a 1 1/8" fork steerer tube AND headset into a 1" head
tube. You fools that want to deny it are doing so because you haven't
done it and have never seen it done. Therefore, it must not work.
WRONG AGAIN!

This guy has shown several ways in which he is an idiot. Entertaining,
but also kind of sad.

[BaCardi]

This guy has shown several ways in which he is an idiot. Entertaining,
but also kind of sad.
--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

I realize that you don't actually read the entire post, but still.

For those that have said its impossible, you may want to reconsider what
you are saying. There is already one other person on this thread that
has successfully used a 1 1/8" fork in a 1" head tube. AND its rideable.
So, just start backpedaling when you get a chance and cry about that.
Now, you can change what you are saying to, "well, it maybe possible,
but too much effort to adapt.

Whatever fools, I proved that it is possible what you claimed was
impossible.



--

[Pete Biggs]

Post by BaCardi
For those that have said its impossible, you may want to reconsider
what you are saying. There is already one other person on this thread
that
has successfully used a 1 1/8" fork in a 1" head tube. AND its
rideable. So, just start backpedaling when you get a chance and cry
about that. Now, you can change what you are saying to, "well, it
maybe possible,
but too much effort to adapt.
Whatever fools, I proved that it is possible what you claimed was
impossible

All *you* pedantically "proved" was that a 1 1/8" steerer could physically
fit inside a 1" head tube. Other contributers did the hard work in
explaining how a headset could be adapted to provide a tortuous and
unsatisfactory solution.

~PB

[BaCardi]

Post by Pete Biggs
All *you* pedantically "proved" was that a 1 1/8" steerer could
physically fit inside a 1" head tube. Other contributers did the hard
work in explaining how a headset could be adapted to provide a tortuous
and unsatisfactory solution.
~PB

What a moron! Seriously. All you did was emphatically deny that it could
be done. Now, you want to say, "oh well I guess duh it could be done,
but its 'unsatisfactory'". Dude, give it up. You said it was IMPOSSIBLE.
Now, you want to backtrack.



--

[Pete Biggs]

Post by Pete Biggs
All *you* pedantically "proved" was that a 1 1/8" steerer could
physically fit inside a 1" head tube. Other contributors did the

hard > work in explaining how a headset could be adapted to provide
a tortuous > and unsatisfactory solution.

Post by Pete Biggs
~PB

What a moron! Seriously. All you did was emphatically deny that it
could be done.

Previous posters said it "wouldn't fit". I think it's perfectly fair
enough for "fit" to mean properly useable in normal practice in this
context. What I then did was raise some questions - which helped bring
out some interesting information from others.

Now, you want to say, "oh well I guess duh it could be
done,
but its 'unsatisfactory'". Dude, give it up. You said it was
IMPOSSIBLE.

If you re-read my messages you'll see that *I* did not say that.

Now, you want to backtrack.

I don't need to backtrack at all. You didn't even think of the headset
when you first made the claim, otherwise why not mention it? You've had a
stroke of luck in that your dumb idea could just about be made to work
afterall. Don't try and take credit for other people's ingenuity. Your
replies have been useless, obnoxious and sad.

Don't bother replying again to me. I'm doing an "Ignore Conversation" now
on the thread so I won't get to read it.

~PB

[BaCardi]

Post by Pete Biggs
All *you* pedantically "proved" was that a 1 1/8" steerer could
physically fit inside a 1" head tube. Other contributors did the work in
explaining how a headset could be adapted to provide a tortuous and
unsatisfactory solution.
~PB

Nope. All I did was MATHEMATICALLY PROVE that it would fit. I do not
take credit for making the conversion. Keep on backtracking. :D



--