# Why did headsets change from 1"to 1 1/8"?



## KneesUp (21 Jun 2017)

For some reason I was thinking about this on the way home.

The move from 1" to 1 1/8" headsets seemed to happen around the same time as mountain bikes became popular (so more bikes being given a harder time), but that was also when aluminium frames became popular (aluminium not being as strong as steel) And when the 'ahead' set replaced the threaded headset.

Which one of these factors was the driving force for the change? Or was it marketing?


----------



## Globalti (21 Jun 2017)

BING BONG!

@Yellow Saddle to the forum please....


----------



## Racing roadkill (21 Jun 2017)

Anti crush.


----------



## Crackle (21 Jun 2017)

Racing roadkill said:


> Anti crush.


A relative?


----------



## Hugh Manatee (21 Jun 2017)

My steel Saracen had a one and an eighth back in 1990. They mentioned it quite a lot when I was buying it.

I also have a brand new Steve Potts from a few years later that still has a one inch headset. I really must do something with that!


----------



## Yellow Saddle (21 Jun 2017)

Anyone who has used 1" steerers and headsets extensively will know about their primary mode of failure - bearing indentation or so-called false brineleling. This is where the front and rear balls in the lower headset bearing fret away and indent the races and the headset becomes notchy to the point where riding straight ahead becomes a problem. With a notched headset the bike always feels like it fishtails or also as if the rear wheel is flat and the rear kinda sways as you pedal.

This type of bearing is unique to headsets because a ball bearing is not the ideal bearing for steering a bicycle that primarily rides straight ahead. The bearing never gets an opportunity to rotate and replenish its grease. The small sideways handlebar movements cause the balls to just move slightly, but never rotate completely. This causes them to push the grease out at the ball/race interface and make them run dry - steel on steel.

In addition, the flexible 1" steerer flexes a lot at the bottom bearing where the unsupported fork exits the head tube. It vibrates forwards and backwards from road shock and loading, forcing the bearings to move fore/aft and against the grain, so to speak. In other words, this movement is against the natural circular movement the bearing makes when the steering is turned. The combination of these two fretting forces causes micro-weld and breaks. The ball welds against the race over a few molecules and the very next bump breaks the weld and so on and so on. This causes dimpling of the races. These dimples are not impact dimples, but fretting erosion dimples.

One inch steerers are just too weak in bending to prevent this type of movement, hence the thicker and stronger 1 1/8th inch steerer. Although 1/8th of an inch more doesn't seem like much, it is a lot more, since tube strength (in flexion) is proportional to the square of the diameter (Pi R Squared and all that). This extra thickness makes it stronger and headsets last much much longer.

The Aheadset is not related to the move to 1 1/8th steerers, but also contributes in its own way. This is because the beaings are loosely seated in the cups and can move when the steerer bends, thus protecting the balls inside.

I very much doubt that mountain biking is the primary contributing factor but the increased strength certainly helped mountain biking.

One inch aluminium steerers were the worst of all evils but in 1 1/8th they are fine.


----------



## KneesUp (22 Jun 2017)

Thanks @Yellow Saddle - very interesting.

The 1" steerer had a very long run though, it has to be said. Do you think there would have been a change if most bikes were still made of steel?


----------



## Blue Hills (22 Jun 2017)

I have three bikes with 1 inch headsets - don't find them a great problem.

Isn't there a view that the certain degree of lesser stiffness than 1 1/8th can make some bikes more comfortable?

With regard to tourers with 1 inch headsets do you reckon yellow saddle that they can have issues when front panniers are attached?


----------



## froze (22 Jun 2017)

I've had dozens of 1 inch headsets on bikes, one of bikes with a 1 inch headset has over 150,000 miles on it, and knew a LOT of people who have had these headsets and never did I see a failure, in fact 1 inch headsets were the most reliable part on a bike as long as they were kept properly lubed which wasn't very frequently. In fact I've never even seen a cheap Walmart 1 inch headset fail if it was properly maintained! Granted the Walmart jobs did require much more frequent adjusting and lubing to keep it that way but they never smashed their bearings, or had bearing indentations, the only way a 1" inch headset would suffer that is due to complete and utter poor adjustment without lube and allowed to run like that for an extended period of time.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

I've never heard of any disasters with 1" headsets either, and they were certainly around an awful long time.


----------



## Blue Hills (22 Jun 2017)

got to say I find them ultra reliable - my first bike had a 1 inch headset - never touched the headset/abused it, even ran it loose for a short period. When I eventually years years later learned something about bike maintenance I opened it up and regreased it. I think a lot of those old steel 1 inch headsets are incredibly tough. I bought a 20 year old frame recently - sorted the headset - while you can feel a slight something when you turn the bars, even afger my best efforts at adjusting and greasing, you can feel a slight something when you rotate the bars with the wheel off the ground, but not actually when riding. I don't think it is anything to worry about and my favourite esteemed doctor bike seems to agree. Surely you would have to abuse a headset something rotten to get the feared "notchiness" where it became a real issue?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Jun 2017)

KneesUp said:


> Thanks @Yellow Saddle - very interesting.
> 
> The 1" steerer had a very long run though, it has to be said. Do you think there would have been a change if most bikes were still made of steel?


No, steel wasn't the problem, it was the small tubing. Size matters far more than material. Look at the original Cannondale aluminium frames. They were extremely thin, yet stiffer than steel in that particular application. Going from 1" steel to 1 1/8" aluminium make the steerer much stiffer.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Jun 2017)

Blue Hills said:


> got to say I find them ultra reliable - my first bike had a 1 inch headset - never touched the headset/abused it, even ran it loose for a short period. When I eventually years years later learned something about bike maintenance I opened it up and regreased it. I think a lot of those old steel 1 inch headsets are incredibly tough. I bought a 20 year old frame recently - sorted the headset - while you can feel a slight something when you turn the bars, even afger my best efforts at adjusting and greasing, you can feel a slight something when you rotate the bars with the wheel off the ground, but not actually when riding. I don't think it is anything to worry about and my favourite esteemed doctor bike seems to agree. Surely you would have to abuse a headset something rotten to get the feared "notchiness" where it became a real issue?



Yes they are reliable but your anecdotal findings can't reverse the fact that headsets don't last on 1" steerers. Regreasing is not the problem, it is the fact that the balls don't rotate and just a little bit of riding removes all the grease between ball and race and it then welds. This in spite of plenty of grease in the headset. If you could rotate the steering every few minutes, that would solve the problem but as you can imagine, that's not possible. 

You don't have to abuse a headset to make it notchy. You just have to use it normally and perfectly as intended.


----------



## Racing roadkill (22 Jun 2017)

I never had a problem with my 1" headsets, I've got a range of different dimensioned headsets now, with both straight and tapered steerers, but none of them came with 1". 1 - 1 1/8 and 1 - 1 1/2 tapered seem to be a popular choice with frame / bike builders of late. My 520 is a 1 1/8 straight.


----------



## Blue Hills (22 Jun 2017)

I'm not sure what you really mean by "anectodal" yellow saddle. It's 20 years of real life experience, treating one pretty poorly. Or are you saying that my "anectodal" experience has been somehow blessed?


----------



## si_c (22 Jun 2017)

Blue Hills said:


> I'm not sure what you really mean by "anectodal" yellow saddle. It's 20 years of real life experience, treating one pretty poorly. Or are you saying that my "anectodal" experience has been somehow blessed?


You can't make inferences about a population from a single observation, hence anecdotal. It would be more unexpected to find nobody who has had zero problems with 1" steerers than to find someone like yourself who hasn't.

To try making that inference would be akin to claiming global warming isn't real because it snowed last winter.


----------



## froze (22 Jun 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> No, steel wasn't the problem, it was the small tubing. Size matters far more than material. Look at the original Cannondale aluminium frames. They were extremely thin, yet stiffer than steel in that particular application. Going from 1" steel to 1 1/8" aluminium make the steerer much stiffer.


 
This had nothing to do with the headset, the stiffness came from the larger diameter AL headtube whereas a smaller AL headtube would flex, but it was the smaller diameter AL tubing that was flexing not the headset.


----------



## Blue Hills (22 Jun 2017)

si_c said:


> You can't make inferences about a population from a single observation, hence anecdotal. It would be more unexpected to find nobody who has had zero problems with 1" steerers than to find someone like yourself who hasn't.
> 
> To try making that inference would be akin to claiming global warming isn't real because it snowed last winter.



i think you mean 20 winters.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Blue Hills said:


> I'm not sure what you really mean by "anectodal" yellow saddle. It's 20 years of real life experience, treating one pretty poorly. Or are you saying that my "anectodal" experience has been somehow blessed?


Exactly. There is an awful lot of 'anecdotal' evidence out there - mine included - far too much for it to be coincidence, or so many people being so blessed with good fortune.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

si_c said:


> You can't make inferences about a population from a single observation, hence anecdotal. It would be more unexpected to find nobody who has had zero problems with 1" steerers than to find someone like yourself who hasn't.
> 
> To try making that inference would be akin to claiming global warming isn't real because it snowed last winter.


Well there have been several people just on this one thread - me included - who have not had problems with 1" headsets, and by the sounds of things our total combined years of use would be well over a century and many thousands of miles.

Your argument sounds a bit like a statistician who points out that the average man has 1.99999999 legs - which is true, of course, when one averages in people with one leg or none, but this figure, however accurate, does not represent real world experience.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Jun 2017)

froze said:


> This had nothing to do with the headset, the stiffness came from the larger diameter AL headtube whereas a smaller AL headtube would flex, but it was the smaller diameter AL tubing that was flexing not the headset.



Read again what I wrote and rethink your response.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Jun 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I've never heard of any disasters with 1" headsets either, and they were certainly around an awful long time.


Who mentioned disasters?

I explained their primary mode of failure. How do you propose they fail? Ignore secondary modes, which is corrosion.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Jun 2017)

froze said:


> I've had dozens of 1 inch headsets on bikes, one of bikes with a 1 inch headset has over 150,000 miles on it, and knew a LOT of people who have had these headsets and never did I see a failure, in fact 1 inch headsets were the most reliable part on a bike as long as they were kept properly lubed which wasn't very frequently. In fact I've never even seen a cheap Walmart 1 inch headset fail if it was properly maintained! Granted the Walmart jobs did require much more frequent adjusting and lubing to keep it that way but they never smashed their bearings, or had bearing indentations, the only way a 1" inch headset would suffer that is due to complete and utter poor adjustment without lube and allowed to run like that for an extended period of time.



Well, if you have seen and inspected as many headsets as you claim, then my only explanation is that you don't know what to look for. 

I have explained by what mechanism they develop these indentations. You propose that poor adjustment causes that. Would you mind explaining how that happens?


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

All right then, _problems_.

I've not had any problems with them and by the sounds of things a number of other people on this site have not had problems either, despite long use and over many years.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Well, if you have seen and inspected as many headsets as you claim, then my only explanation is that you don't know what to look for.
> 
> I have explained by what mechanism they develop these indentations. You propose that poor adjustment causes that. Would you mind explaining how that happens?


Sounds to me a bit like theory meeting real world, and real world coming out on top.


----------



## davidphilips (22 Jun 2017)

I have had and still have a few 1 inch head set bikes and have not had to much trouble with them, but if yellowsaddle says Anyone who has used 1" steerers and headsets extensively will know about their primary mode of failure - bearing indentation, then there is a problem with 1 inch headsets and 1 1/8 are a better headset hence the reason for the change.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Jun 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Sounds to me a bit like theory meeting real world, and real world coming out on top.


You didn't answer the question. How do you propose it happens from poor adjustment?


----------



## Crackle (22 Jun 2017)

Well if you put "1" headset primary mode of failure" into Google you get this


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Jun 2017)

Crackle said:


> Well if you put "1" headset primary mode of failure" into Google you get this



Or this.

Or this: 
on a regular (for example, weekly) basis; or regularly switching between the units so that both are in regular (for example, weekly) operation.

Until recently, bicycle headsets tended to suffer from false brinelling in the "straight ahead" steering position, due to small movements caused by flexing of the fork. Good modern headsets incorporate a plain bearing to accommodate this flexing, leaving the ball race to provide pure rotational movement.

Bearings of modern wind turbines are often affected by false brinelling. Especially the pitch bearing[9], which is used under oscillation, shows often false brinelling damages.[10]

Or this

Or this

Or this


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> You didn't answer the question. How do you propose it happens from poor adjustment?


If you've read my posts you'll see that I did not propose any means of failure. I merely commented on the fact that I, along with a number of other people on this thread, have not suffered problems with 1" steerers, despite collectively speaking, decades of use and many, many thousands of miles.

This reminds me of discussions I see on some photography forums. I am a professional photographer but on these forums I see a great many posts by people who possess great technical knowledge and are obsessed by resolution charts and the minutiae of sensor technology. They lose sight of the fact that for the overwhelming number of photographers, pros included, a camera is a tool and that the practice of photography in the real world is far more than resolution charts or pixel size. Yes a given sensor or lens might outperform another in a lab or resolve a level of detail that will never be visible anyway even on a double page spread in a high quality magazine, but what of it?

To these technology obsessed types it is technology itself that is the end-all and that is fair enough - for them. But to read their dismissals of what in truth are excellent cameras or lenses you would think they were describing Box Brownies, and that no photograph taken before, say, 2010, could possibly have the clarity or colour rendition or resolution to be worth the paper to print it.

I prefer to step back - look at the forest.

People got along fine with 1" steerers for many years.


----------



## Blue Hills (22 Jun 2017)

Still a lot of 1 inch headsets blasting around the streets of London as well for that period of bike has gone through something of a reputation revival.

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those bikes still have the original headset in them.

ps, yellow saddle - would still be interested in your views on lowrider pannier mounts on a fork with such a headset.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Blue Hills said:


> Still a lot of 1 inch headsets blasting around the streets of London as well for that period of bike has gone through something of a reputation revival.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those bikes still have the original headset in them.


I'd bet that too.


----------



## FishFright (22 Jun 2017)

Some of you may need to google* the difference between primary failure mode and still working, you may be in for a pleasant learning experience.

*Once up a time i would have said research but progress and all that .


----------



## Ajax Bay (22 Jun 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I, along with a number of other people on this thread


I suggest that those reading this thread and being bothered to comment are not a representative sample of 1" steerer /headset users (perhaps they are better at keeping their headsets serviced, for example). So drawing the conclusions you do cannot be usefully relied on by using the various comments being positive about 1" steerers. And I too have been blessed by good 1" steerer/headset experience on all the bikes I've had (or have) with them.
OP asked 'why' and answers have been offered. Not much point in saying 'not in my experience', is it?


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Yes, there is a point if in your experience what is being described and given as a possible reason for change has never occurred.

Sorry if the real world experiences of people with many years in the saddle and many thousands of miles behind them does not fit with your received wisdom, but there we are.


----------



## tyred (22 Jun 2017)

[QUOTE 4852536, member: 45"]What's a plain bearing?[/QUOTE]

A plain bearing is one without balls or rollers - a typical bronze or brass bushing type bearing.


----------



## Dan B (22 Jun 2017)

I've never had my house flooded, but my many years of personal experience still don't add up to a good reason to eschew contents insurance


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Dan B said:


> I've never had my house flooded, but my many years of personal experience still don't add up to a good reason to eschew contents insurance


That is irrelevant.

It is not even logical within the context of this discussion


----------



## Vegan1 (22 Jun 2017)

It was because finally we could see the back of Quill Stems.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Jun 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> If you've read my posts you'll see that I did not propose any means of failure. I merely commented on the fact that I, along with a number of other people on this thread, have not suffered problems with 1" steerers, despite collectively speaking, decades of use and many, many thousands of miles.
> 
> This reminds me of discussions I see on some photography forums. I am a professional photographer but on these forums I see a great many posts by people who possess great technical knowledge and are obsessed by resolution charts and the minutiae of sensor technology. They lose sight of the fact that for the overwhelming number of photographers, pros included, a camera is a tool and that the practice of photography in the real world is far more than resolution charts or pixel size. Yes a given sensor or lens might outperform another in a lab or resolve a level of detail that will never be visible anyway even on a double page spread in a high quality magazine, but what of it?
> 
> ...



Thanks for explaining. I now understand, you are a photographer, not a bike mechanic.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Thanks for explaining. I now understand, you are a photographer, not a bike mechanic.


And you're a theoretician.

Oh, and by the way, in addition to being a photographer I have a City & Guilds certificate as a bicycle mechanic.


----------



## Vegan1 (22 Jun 2017)

And I've had a bike license for over 10 years, being seeing as I've never really ridden one since passing my test does not mean that I'm good at riding a motorbike.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Vegan1 said:


> It was because finally we could see the back of Quill Stems.


Yeah, I guess Eddie Merckx was never really strong enough on the bike to need a modern headset. We're all so much stronger and fitter now.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Vegan1 said:


> And I've had a bike license for over 10 years, being seeing as I've never really ridden one since passing my test does not mean that I'm good at riding a motorbike.


Speak for yourself.

I guess you have


----------



## dan_bo (22 Jun 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Anyone who has used 1" steerers and headsets extensively will know about their primary mode of failure - bearing indentation or so-called false brineleling. This is where the front and rear balls in the lower headset bearing fret away and indent the races and the headset becomes notchy to the point where riding straight ahead becomes a problem. With a notched headset the bike always feels like it fishtails or also as if the rear wheel is flat and the rear kinda sways as you pedal.
> 
> This type of bearing is unique to headsets because a ball bearing is not the ideal bearing for steering a bicycle that primarily rides straight ahead. The bearing never gets an opportunity to rotate and replenish its grease. The small sideways handlebar movements cause the balls to just move slightly, but never rotate completely. This causes them to push the grease out at the ball/race interface and make them run dry - steel on steel.
> 
> ...


It's like seeing the face of god.


----------



## Vegan1 (22 Jun 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Speak for yourself.
> 
> I guess you have



What I'm saying is in my experience having a bit of paper does not mean an awful lot.

Just saying.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Vegan1 said:


> What I'm saying is in my experience having a bit of paper does not mean an awful lot.
> 
> Just saying.


Or it can mean a great deal - it all depends, doesn't it?


----------



## Vegan1 (22 Jun 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Or it can mean a great deal - it all depends, doesn't it?



Having just looked at the syllabus - not really.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

Vegan1 said:


> Having just looked at the syllabus - not really.


That was hasty. I see you put a lot of thought into it.

Perhaps you'd be best to stay off the motorbike after all


----------



## Ajax Bay (22 Jun 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> a bit like theory meeting real world, and real world coming out on top


So what sort of headset are most bikes made with nowadays? I wonder why the industry has not reverted to 1" steerers? [I don't know the answer btw, but maybe it's because the 1 and 1/8" A-headset is a better engineering design - as proposed/explained upthread.] Contrast this with the reliance the industry has placed on engineering when developing the variety of bottom bracket designs, up with which many have to put (not me - I'm on square taper).
PS I have not got a C&G Certificate in bicycle maintenance (or a PhD - allusions to other threads).


hoopdriver said:


> And you're a theoretician.


 @Yellow Saddle - take that as a compliment, in addition to any practical expertise you might have developed over the years.


----------



## Drago (22 Jun 2017)

The only reason anything ever changes in bicycle design is because every manufacturer wants to catch the wave of a trend and coin it. If they can create that trend and get to the top of the pile then so much the better.

That a few of these innovations do genuinely bring benefits seems to be merely incidental.


----------



## hoopdriver (22 Jun 2017)

I agree

Solutions to problems that didn't exist, rarely cropped up or at least were hardly ruining the pleasure of a ride for the overwhelming number of cyclists


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Jun 2017)

tyred said:


> A plain bearing is one without balls or rollers - a typical bronze or brass bushing type bearing.


A modern Aheadset bearing is a special cartridge bearing with a special feature: it can move a bit in its seat in the head tube. Normal cartridge bearings are box-shaped in cross section. These are chamfered on the outside (inside too, but for another reason) so that the entire cartridge can move like a ball-joint inside the seat. 
The problem with the older system was, as I explained upstairs, that with the small movements produced by steerer flex from hitting small road obstacles (at the level of road roughness), the balls didn't roll but fretted over small distances. These distances are too small for the balls to replenish themselves with grease from rolling. Once the grease is pushed out of the interface, they essentially rubbed around dry - steel on steel. 
With the plain bearing now taking up that movement, the balls don't move until called upon to steer. Hence their longevity. These new bearings almost never fail fail notching and are usually replaced because of water intrusion and rust.
It was an extremely clever design and A-Headset enjoyed a patent on it for 25 years. The patent was owned in its latter years by Cane Creek but nowadays it is open and in the public domain. During the patent's run, it was poorly copied by Chris King who thought it could run around the patent by eliminating the inner chamfer by simply making the bearing slip-fit over the steerer. However, this caused movement that quickly cut a notch in the steerer, no matter what material it was made of.
Chris King always denied the problem with its stolen design but as soon as the patent ran out, all CK headset bearings magically developed inner chamfers as well.


----------



## Drago (22 Jun 2017)

Am I the only person that thinks CK headsets are priced out of all proportion to their 'quality'?


----------



## si_c (22 Jun 2017)

Drago said:


> Am I the only person that thinks CK headsets are priced out of all proportion to their 'quality'?


No.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 Jun 2017)

Drago said:


> Am I the only person that thinks CK headsets are priced out of all proportion to their 'quality'?


Same goes for all CK products, not just headsets.


----------



## Blue Hills (23 Jun 2017)

Dan B said:


> I've never had my house flooded, but my many years of personal experience still don't add up to a good reason to eschew contents insurance


Hardly a good or parallel example to be honest.


----------



## froze (23 Jun 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Well there have been several people just on this one thread - me included - who have not had problems with 1" headsets, and by the sounds of things our total combined years of use would be well over a century and many thousands of miles.
> 
> Your argument sounds a bit like a statistician who points out that the average man has 1.99999999 legs - which is true, of course, when one averages in people with one leg or none, but this figure, however accurate, does not represent real world experience.



You're not going to win, these are people who neglected their stuff and blame it on an "inferior" design. I use to race for 10 years on 1" inch headsets as did everyone I knew, and never saw a headset fail. Even a neglected 1" headset is pretty tough to fail!

YELLOW SADDLE, you said this: _No, steel wasn't the problem, it was the small tubing. Size matters far more than material. Look at the original Cannondale aluminium frames. They were extremely thin, yet stiffer than steel in that particular application. Going from 1" steel to 1 1/8" aluminium make the steerer much stiffer. _I read that last part wrong and thought you were talking about headsets which is what the subject was about, and the way you worded in mislead me when I read it too fast, sorry.


----------



## MichaelW2 (23 Jun 2017)

Why are internal headsets a good idea, but internal bottom brackets a bad idea?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (23 Jun 2017)

MichaelW2 said:


> Why are internal headsets a good idea, but internal bottom brackets a bad idea?


I am not sure either of the two had been said.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (15 Jul 2017)

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/specialized-allez-elite-2008-new-headset-needed.221133/

Here's a nice photo for all those doubting Thomases who don't want to acknowledge the way headsets wear and fail because of steerer flex. Have a look at the very last photo and notice how the bearing indentations are concentrated in the fore/aft position. This is with a 1 1/8th steerer but what makes this so interesting is that Spez chose to not use an Aheadset but a simple cup and cone headset that can't compensate by way of plain bearing, for the fore/aft movements.


----------



## Blue Hills (15 Jul 2017)

In amongst all the bile that erupted on here, I think I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

>>With regard to tourers with 1 inch headsets do you reckon yellow saddle that they can have issues when front panniers are attached?

It's the only thing I have concerns about.

For all else, I'm fine with my bikes that have 1 inch headsets. I also have 1 1/8th as well.


----------



## smutchin (15 Jul 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> So what sort of headset are most bikes made with nowadays? I wonder why the industry has not reverted to 1" steerers?



While I was waiting for my train the other day, I was looking over all the bikes locked up on the stands on the platform and was interested to note that substantially more than half had threaded steerers & quill stems. They weren't all old bikes by any means - some looked quite new - but all of the ones with quill stems were cheap bikes (supermarket brands, probably).

I doubt this tells us anything about the relative technical merits of different headsets but may reveal something about the economics of bike manufacturing.


----------



## hoopdriver (15 Jul 2017)

Threadless headsets allow manufacturers to use a single standard fork rather than having to have different forks for different frame sizes - a big savings when you are manufacturing en mass.


----------



## smutchin (15 Jul 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> big savings when you are manufacturing en mass.



Presumably manufacturers of cheap bikes are making bigger savings elsewhere if they haven't made the switch.


----------



## hoopdriver (15 Jul 2017)

smutchin said:


> Presumably manufacturers of cheap bikes are making bigger savings elsewhere if they haven't made the switch.


Limited sizes for one thing.

I don't know where you're seeing these vast numbers of modern bikes with threaded headsets. Certainly not around here


----------



## Blue Hills (15 Jul 2017)

smutchin said:


> While I was waiting for my train the other day, I was looking over all the bikes locked up on the stands on the platform and was interested to note that substantially more than half had threaded steerers & quill stems. They weren't all old bikes by any means - some looked quite new - but all of the ones with quill stems were cheap bikes (supermarket brands, probably).



That's not quite a fair apparent judgement on the tech though is it? I guess most of those bikes were new. A fair few cheaper bikes have 8 or even 7 speed cassettes for the industry has moved on, often for its own reasons. But there is nothing wrong with 7 or 8 speed at all and there would have been many quality older bikes with those cassettes.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (15 Jul 2017)

Blue Hills said:


> In amongst all the bile that erupted on here, I think I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
> 
> >>With regard to tourers with 1 inch headsets do you reckon yellow saddle that they can have issues when front panniers are attached?
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## Blue Hills (15 Jul 2017)

Thanks for the reply yellowsaddle.

In that case I think I'm fine using either.

Can relax.


----------



## smutchin (15 Jul 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I don't know where you're seeing these vast numbers of modern bikes with threaded headsets.



And I don't know where you're getting "vast numbers" from. 

Like most of the posts in this thread, it was an anecdotal observation. The more observant reader will note that I did actually mention where I saw the bikes: on the station platform. Canterbury West, London-bound, if you want to be more precise.


----------



## hoopdriver (15 Jul 2017)

Yes, I knew it was at a station and at stations one typically sees quite large numbers of bicycles. If there were only a few at your station, I am not sure I get your point. If there were many, and you felt as though, anecdotally, this large sample represented a still larger whole, I don't see your trouble with my choice of adjective.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (19 Oct 2019)

smutchin said:


> I was looking over all the bikes locked up on the stands on the platform and was interested to note that substantially more than half had threaded steerers & quill stems. They weren't all old bikes by any means - some looked quite new - but all of the ones with quill stems were cheap bikes (supermarket brands, probably).
> I doubt this tells us anything about the relative technical merits of different headsets but may reveal something about the economics of bike manufacturing.



I'm still seeing a majority of bikes with quill stems as well. Almost all budget market MTB's and Hybrids still use threaded headsets, and a lot of them look to be 1" as well. Members of cycling forums, who mostly run relatively expensive bikes that are almost universally fitted with threadless headsets, are not representative of either the "average" cyclist or the type of bike they ride. 
All of my bikes have quill stems, and all but one are 1". The sole 1 1/8" example is a 501 frame Raleigh MTB.



hoopdriver said:


> Threadless headsets allow manufacturers to use a single standard fork rather than having to have different forks for different frame sizes - a big savings when you are manufacturing en mass.



Buying one size of fork to cut down won't be cheaper if you are manufacturing at scale - you get too much waste material on the smaller size bikes where the extra length isn't required. It's cheaper to optimise the size of the fork to the size of the frame. There are not that many sizes needed anyway. A typical steel hybrid might come in 19 1/2", 21", and 23" for mens, and 18", 19 1/2", and 21" for women. If you've ever studied a typical ladies frame, you'll notice they have taller head tubes for a given frame size - giving higher handlebars.
Normal practice is to size up the ladies head tubes to the next mens size, so you could easily make a range of six bikes but only need three different lengths of fork steerers, possibly only two if you use sloping top tubes on smallest mens frames.


----------



## rogerzilla (19 Oct 2019)

The main reason was that they were easier to weld to larger frame tubes. Cannondale 1" head tubes literally used to fall off; they then went to 1 1/4", which never caught on much.

1 1/8" was originally Tioga Avenger (which was very much aimed at MTBs); 1 1/4" was originally (Gary) Fisher Evolution.

IME 1 1/8" conventional headsets, like the old DX ones, still got ruined as easily as 1" headsets. The game-changer was cartridge headsets, which take the flexing motion of the steerer much better. These coincided with threadless systems but the two innovations are unrelated, and threaded cartridge headsets are just as effective as threadless cartridge headsets.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (19 Oct 2019)

I've only ever encountered one really notchy threaded headset, and that was on an old Halfords 3-speed that was "indexed" so that you could turn the bars to the next notch and ride round in circles no-hands. That bike, however, had been left out in the open for god knows how many years and everything else on it was either seized or red rusty. The chrome was non-existent, even worse than you'd find on a 1970's Puch - which is saying something.
I have a really simple solution to the problem of keeping the grease distributed in the races - simply pick up the front wheel and turn the bars lock to lock when wheeling the bike around. The balls move far further than in normal "lean steering" where the bars turn very little most of the time.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Oct 2019)

rogerzilla said:


> The main reason was that they were easier to weld to larger frame tubes. Cannondale 1" head tubes literally used to fall off; they then went to 1 1/4", which never caught on much.



I don't think so.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## rogerzilla (19 Oct 2019)

I was talking to Mark in Argos Racing Cycles about those broken Cannondales only a fortnight ago - it was pretty widely known at the time and, of course, unrepairable. There's an excellent photo of it in John Stevenson's MTB repair book, which I'd post apart from copyright reasons (unless the mods aren't bothered).

Early 90s Kona owners know all about 1 1/8" threaded headsets. The ingenious Impact headsets (adjusted with only an allen key) get notchy despite larger 3/16" balls in the lower race and 5/32" in the top one. Luckily, a Tange 1 1/8" threaded cartridge headset is a straight swap despite the low stack height.


----------



## Ian H (19 Oct 2019)

The only reason I went for 1⅛" on the new bike was for ease of obtaining parts, not much apparently being manufactured for 1", at least in quality components.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Oct 2019)

rogerzilla said:


> I was talking to Mark in Argos Racing Cycles about those broken Cannondales only a fortnight ago - it was pretty widely known at the time and, of course, unrepairable. There's an excellent photo of it in John Stevenson's MTB repair book, which I'd post apart from copyright reasons (unless the mods aren't bothered).
> 
> Early 90s Kona owners know all about 1 1/8" threaded headsets. The ingenious Impact headsets (adjusted with only an allen key) get notchy despite larger 3/16" balls in the lower race and 5/32" in the top one. Luckily, a Tange 1 1/8" threaded cartridge headset is a straight swap despite the low stack height.


I think with proper credit to the source and for a single purpose, you're OK for fair usage of the photo.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Oct 2019)

Ian H said:


> The only reason I went for 1⅛" on the new bike was for ease of obtaining parts, not much apparently being manufactured for 1", at least in quality components.


Not true.
Pretty sure you can still get tange steel 1 inch threaded headsets.
Those things put many modern bike components to shame for sheer durability.
Also very cheap.


----------



## Gravity Aided (19 Oct 2019)

froze said:


> I've had dozens of 1 inch headsets on bikes, one of bikes with a 1 inch headset has over 150,000 miles on it, and knew a LOT of people who have had these headsets and never did I see a failure, in fact 1 inch headsets were the most reliable part on a bike as long as they were kept properly lubed which wasn't very frequently. In fact I've never even seen a cheap Walmart 1 inch headset fail if it was properly maintained! Granted the Walmart jobs did require much more frequent adjusting and lubing to keep it that way but they never smashed their bearings, or had bearing indentations, the only way a 1" inch headset would suffer that is due to complete and utter poor adjustment without lube and allowed to run like that for an extended period of time.


Or if it was made by Campagnolo in the late 70's. I've seen plenty of those fail. I work in a bike co-op, and I see it from time to time in 1" headsets, but not 1 1/8, or threadless, although threadless has its own failure points.


----------



## Smokin Joe (19 Oct 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> Not true.
> Pretty sure you can still get tange steel 1 inch threaded headsets.
> Those things put many modern bike components to shame for sheer durability.
> Also very cheap.


Not in my experience, threaded headsets were a pain in the arse. I had two high mileage bikes for seven years with the original threadless headsets in them and when I sold them they were still as smooth as when new. Neither one needed any adjustment from day one.


----------



## Ian H (19 Oct 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> Not true.
> Pretty sure you can still get tange steel 1 inch threaded headsets.
> Those things put many modern bike components to shame for sheer durability.
> Also very cheap.


Mention of one (actually irrelevant*) item doesn't contradict my comment. 

*Had I gone for inch, it wouldn't have been threaded.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Oct 2019)

Ian H said:


> Mention of one (actually irrelevant*) item doesn't contradict my comment.
> 
> *Had I gone for inch, it wouldn't have been threaded.


not irrelevant at all.

It's a quality item and available - probably always will be - there may be others.

No one is forcing you to use one.


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Oct 2019)

Smokin Joe said:


> Not in my experience, threaded headsets were a pain in the arse. I had two high mileage bikes for seven years with the original threadless headsets in them and when I sold them they were still as smooth as when new. Neither one needed any adjustment from day one.


Am not criticising threadless at all - I have three bikes with them - just saying that there is no mega problem with 1 inch threaded.
(though I do like it that many use loose bearings)

Find it odd that this thread seems to have become sort of zero sum contest between two camps - hell it's wahoo/garmin all over again.

Next thing war.

Next thing we discover that Putin had a hand in the online stirring of it.


----------



## Ian H (19 Oct 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> No one is forcing you to use one.


Which is just as well as it wouldn't have fitted anything I was considering, hence irrelevant. Perhaps not to you, but that's irrelevant to the point I was making.


----------



## Ajax Bay (19 Oct 2019)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I'm still seeing a majority of bikes with quill stems as well.


John resurrects a 2+ year old thread. Can't old threads be allowed to die, or at least rest and be there for reference?
@Shaun 'Similar threads' effect again.
Sheldon's early headset appraisal:
http://www.adventurecycling.org/default/assets/resources/headsets.pdf


----------



## Blue Hills (19 Oct 2019)

Well you've just added to it/bumped it, without adding anything.


----------



## Ajax Bay (19 Oct 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> without adding anything


With all due respect, I sourced and added the link to Sheldon Brown's article which concludes by offering a direct answer the thread title question (extract pasted below).
Since @Yellow Saddle 's June 2017 post (#6 on Page 1) provides an answer, all the rest is 'chat': beneficial chat, some of it anecdotal.


Blue Hills said:


> I'm not sure what you really mean by "anectodal"


*Why the change to threadless design? *Oversized and threadless headsets have a number of benefits, some of them to the rider, others to the manufacturer. Let’s look at the advantages of doing without threads. Oversized headsets make for stronger forks and stems. This is primarily an issue for mountain bikers, who tend to crash a lot, and need stronger parts to hold up to the stress.Threadless headsets can generally be adjusted with only a 5mm Allen wrench, while threaded headsets normally require two large, bulky open-end wrench.The 1-inch size is adequate and safe for forks with steel steerers, but oversized forks can be made with lighter materials, such as aluminum and carbon fiber, reducing weight. Even when made with the same materials, the combination of threadless fork and matching stem will generally be lighter than a threaded system, due to the elimination of the stem's quill, expander bolt and wedge. The very fine threads used on threaded steerers are tricky and expensive to make. It is substantially cheaper to make a threadless steerer. Threaded forks haveto be provided in multiple lengths to fit different frame sizes of the same model of bicycle. By contrast, threadless forks are made in only one (long) steerer length, which can easily be cut down to fit a particular frame size. This offers a reduction in the number of stock-keeping units for repair forks, and also for aftermarket forks.
*The down side:* The major disadvantage of threadless headsets is that there's less height adjustment available without replacing parts. While you may be able to make minor height adjustments by interchanging spacing washers, significant changes in handlebar height will require that you buy a different handlebar stem or adaptor. While traditionalists may bemoan the change, it appears that the move to threadless headsets is inexorable, since they offer so many advantages to the manufacturer - and even a few to the rider.


----------



## andrew_s (20 Oct 2019)

Ajax Bay said:


> Since @Yellow Saddle 's June 2017 post (#6 on Page 1) provides an answer, all the rest is 'chat': beneficial chat, some of it anecdotal.


Not really.
He says (correctly) that 1 1/8" is better than 1" for headset life and performance, but doesn't seem to actually claim that's why the 1 1/8" size was introduced.

I reckon the 1 1/8" size was introduced as part of the change from steel frames to welded aluminium frames, which were cheaper to make (more profit) and lighter (easier to sell), and the 1" size wasn't strong enough in aluminium.
The improvement to the headset was a fringe benefit


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Oct 2019)

My Riese and Muller ebike has a tapered headset.

I think it's 1 1/8" at the top and 1 1/2" at the bottom.

Whatever, it's very chunky, and typically Riese and Muller/German - built to invade Poland.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (20 Oct 2019)

1 1/8" threaded seemed to be more popular on MTB's than it ever was on Road frames. Just remembered I've actually got two, not one, Raleigh MTB frames with 1 1/8" headsets, both 1991. If you look at the old Raleigh catalogues from that period, its clear that the 1 1/8" was marketed as a better/stronger spec for the top end lugged 501 & 531 frames. The cheaper 18-23 stuff made do with 1" headsets, but IIRC, Raleigh beefed these up by fitting old-school BMX 21.1mm stems into them, not the 22.2 mm you'd expect - so even the smaller 1" headset would have a stronger steerer made of thicker tubing than a Road frame. I recently scrapped a low-end early 90's Huffy MTB, that also had a 1" headset built with a BMX size stem, so it wasn't only Raleigh doing this. 
I don't remember, BITD, seeing very many MTB's with bent forks, but bent Road forks weren't unusual; bent backwards towards the down tube if crashed into something solid, or bent forwards if subjected to a heavy landing - usually seen on stripped-down "tracker" bikes with cowhorn bars.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (20 Oct 2019)

andrew_s said:


> Not really.
> He says (correctly) that 1 1/8" is better than 1" for headset life and performance, but doesn't seem to actually claim that's why the 1 1/8" size was introduced.


Without going through all the what was and, wasn't said, I'll answer the question directly. A bigger tube can be made stiffer, yet lighter than a smaller tube. I've explained that before, perhaps in different contexts but whether we talk crank spindles or steerers, the concept is the same.

Further, the advent of large tube aluminium frames (again, using bigger-but-stronger concept) has made it difficult to manufacture the junction between fat downtube and narrow headtube. This fact thus favoured the move to larger steerers. I'm not sure what the primary driver was, but ease of manufacture is always a factor. This trend eventually lead to the tapered headtube, allowing for super fat downtubes without awkward joints at the head tube.

If you ever get the opportunity to take a close look at a Cannondale CAAD 4 frame, look at the head-tube/downtube joint. It is ridiculous. A very big downtube meets a super skinny 1 inch head tube. It even looks awkward, nevermind the factory acrobatics required to make it.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (20 Oct 2019)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I don't remember, BITD, seeing very many MTB's with bent forks, but bent Road forks weren't unusual; bent backwards towards the down tube if crashed into something solid, or bent forwards if subjected to a heavy landing - usually seen on stripped-down "tracker" bikes with cowhorn bars.



Yes, they were common as you said, but note that it was the fork blades that bent, not the steerer. I say this because these bikes were still rideable after the crash. Had the steerer bent, the steering would have seized. 1 inch steerers are beasts. They're made from thick CroMo that's much thicker at the bottom than at the top, being internally swaged.


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (20 Oct 2019)

My Pace Research (back in 1990-1995) had a 1" headset
BUT

It was a Shimano 105 item on mine
The top cup was machined out slightly (no lock-nut), & was tightened from under the fork-crown
The stem & steerer tube were one-piece, if you ordered new, they'd weld as you wanted, or the dealer recommended (also available as a spare, for old bike)

It was essentially the precurser to the 'Aheadset', & the present method, but upside down
Oh!!, & a grease nipple too (proper car type), with grease-nipple in the BB shell (cartridge bearings)

Bullseye cranks pre-dated, the present (eg; Shimano) pattern, but were atrocious for staying tight!

Not mine, just for illustration














10mm nut to slacken the steerer
5mm allen bolts to reclamp the blades, which were individually replaceable, or later swap for their own suspension forks
(I never used suspension



In the 6 years (?) I had it, I never had a headset problem
Granted, I probably changed the balls, & kept it well-greased

http://www.goatsurfer.com/pace_forks.html#1989


----------



## Yellow Saddle (20 Oct 2019)

Richard A Thackeray said:


> My Pace Research (back in 1990-1995) had a 1" headset
> BUT
> 
> It was a Shimano 105 item on mine
> ...


Interesting. I've never seen that before.


----------



## rogerzilla (20 Oct 2019)

Forks should bend easily compared to frames - they are supposed to be sacrificial. I bought a Raleigh Twenty that had been front-ended. The fork was trashed but the frame is perfect. Even the head cup reaming is still spot on.


----------



## midlife (20 Oct 2019)

Sometimes the frame gives way first......


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (21 Oct 2019)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Interesting. I've never seen that before.




That model was their first bike, released in late 1989
The *RC100*

https://pacecycles.com/pages/our-story
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/wiki/Pace
https://www.pinkbike.com/u/KeRjY/album/Pace-RC100/


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (21 Oct 2019)

@midlife, do you reckon that bulge in the downtube would coincide with the position of the butting?? Assuming it is a butted frame of course. What is it, Tange or Ishiwata or something? Obviously not Reynolds or Columbus, I'm wondering who made "022" spec forks....


----------



## overmind (21 Oct 2019)

It is only anecdotal, but I recently had a problem with a 1" headset. I found denting in the crown race but the bearings were badly corroded also. I cannot remember if the dents were at front and rear but they may have been (I still have the old crown race, I will take a picture and post).

The headset had been fairly loose and wobbling for a long time. I had not been able to adjust it correctly. It was either a little loose or too tight so I opted for a little loose.

I replaced the crown race, bearings and most of the original headset (but left the cups on the frame as they were ok). Once I had done this I was able to get the adjustment just right (turning easily with no wobble when front-brake applied and rocking forks).

I do not know if anybody has mentioned this but the forks on this particular road bike are very straight (vitesse sprint). 80s/90s racers I had in the past had curved front forks which presumably absorbed shocks better. Could having straight forks (without any suspension) have increased the load on the bearing/crown race surfaces?

(background: it took about 6-7 years of daily commuting on this bike for it to reach this stage).


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 Oct 2019)

overmind said:


> I do not know if anybody has mentioned this but the forks on this particular road bike are very straight (vitesse sprint). 80s/90s racers I had in the past had curved front forks which presumably absorbed shocks better. Could having straight forks (without any suspension) have increased the load on the bearing/crown race surfaces?


It makes no difference. Straight forks are not actually straight, just that instead of the legs being curved they are angled at the junction of the steerer and fork crown to give the same rake.


----------



## Ajax Bay (22 Oct 2019)

Smokin Joe said:


> It makes no difference. Straight forks are not actually straight, just that instead of the legs being curved they are angled at the junction of the steerer and fork crown to give the same rake.


This, but this geometry gives the same *offset*. 'Rake' is the head tube angle (from the vertical eg 73 degrees). The behaviour of a bike's steering is dependent on rake and offset.
Jobst Brandt on 'Rake': https://yarchive.net/bike/rake.html
See attached g





raph of offset v head tube / steerer angle (rake) from Tony Oliver's book 'Touring Bikes'.

View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Touring-Bikes-Practical-Tony-Oliver/dp/1852233397


----------



## Drago (23 Oct 2019)

Uh-oh, someone has used the "Ge**etry" word. Say it 3 times in quick succession and, like Beetlejiuce, Yellow Saddle will appear.


----------



## andrew_s (24 Oct 2019)

Smokin Joe said:


> It makes no difference. Straight forks are not actually straight, just that instead of the legs being curved they are angled at the junction of the steerer and fork crown to give the same rake.


As overmind suggested, straight fork blades don't absorb shocks as well as curved blades.

Any load applied will be purely radial between the initial bump contact and the hub.
With a straight-blade fork, the load direction will be more or less straight along the axis of the fork blade, so you will be compressing it rather than bending it.
With a curved blade on the other hand, the same applied load will be at a fair angle to the end of the blade (up to about 40 deg with an old fashioned sharp curve), so there is a reasonable bending moment.

The difference will depend on the shape of the fork curve- forks with an even curve from top to bottom ("banana" forks, which were widely castigated for their lack of comfort when they first started to appear widely) will be much closer to a straight blade than those with a sharp terminal bend.


----------



## Ajax Bay (24 Oct 2019)

overmind said:


> Could having straight forks (without any suspension) have increased the load on the bearing/crown race surfaces?





Smokin Joe said:


> It makes no difference.


Agree.


andrew_s said:


> As @overmind suggested, straight fork blades don't absorb shocks as well as curved blades.
> Any load applied will be purely radial between the initial bump contact and the hub.
> With a straight-blade fork, the load direction will be more or less straight along the axis of the fork blade, so you will be compressing it rather than bending it.
> With a curved blade on the other hand, the same applied load will be at a fair angle to the end of the blade (up to about 40 deg with an old fashioned sharp curve), so there is a reasonable bending moment.
> The difference will depend on the shape of the fork curve- forks with an even curve from top to bottom ("banana" forks, which were widely castigated for their lack of comfort when they first started to appear widely) will be much closer to a straight blade than those with a sharp terminal bend.


Acknowledge off topic (headsets).
@overmind _did not suggest that _"straight fork blades don't absorb shocks as well as curved blades"_ they 'wondered whether' etc._
"Any load applied will be purely radial between the initial bump contact and the hub." _Yes, and that radial direction is essentially vertical (from the contact patch) - what other direction could it be?_
"With a straight-blade fork, the load direction will be more or less straight along the axis of the fork blade, so you will be compressing it rather than bending it." _'More or less': at about + or - 17 degrees: there will be both compression (F*sin73) and 'bending' (F*cos73*fork length)._
"With a curved blade on the other hand, the same applied load will be at a fair angle to the end of the blade (up to about 40 deg with an old fashioned sharp curve), so there is a reasonable bending moment." _The bending moment is exactly the same (force resolved at right angles to the effective fork angle times the effective fork length. _
"The difference [in the shock-absorbing effect of the fork] will depend on the shape of the fork curve . . . "banana" forks . . . will be much closer to a straight blade than those with a sharp terminal bend." _Because the fork blade is a rather rigid structure (focusing on the vertical plane here, not lateral), whether it's straight or curved makes minimal difference to the 'shock' it (doesn't) absorb. @andrew_s is right: and extending his assertion, however curved the fork blade shape, the _"[shock-absorbing] difference" . . . "will be much be much closer to a straight blade"_: negligible difference._


----------



## Dogtrousers (24 Oct 2019)

Is the straight vs curvy forks thing a bit like those cranks with a 90 degree bend in them? I suspect it might be. But I could be wrong.


----------

