1 1/8" CK on a 1" headtube

[Scott Gordo]

It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.

Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.

http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899

If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 13, 2:36 pm, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
> tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
> market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
>
> Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
>
> http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
>
> If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.

Man, I could have used this info last summer! I spent about a year
looking for a decent fork for my old Ventana hardtail, and all I could
find for options were the Marz SL Corsa World Cup & the $100 RST
cheapo's. I ended up springing for the Marz...

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 13, 2:36 pm, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
> tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
> market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
>
> Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
>
> http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
>
> If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.

It seems like a good idea, but unfortunately it would be very
difficult to do to an existing frame. The outside of the head tube
would need to be turned round and to a precise diameter to ensure cup
alignment, much the way the inside is reamed normally. Since you
can't chuck a finished frame into a lathe, this is going to require a
very expensive specialty tool. It still wouldn't work for many frames
because the down tube is joined too low.

On the King frame, the down tube is joined pretty high up, and the
ends of the head tube also look to have been turned to diameter before
assembly.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2...hmbs082/Chris_King_Cielo_frame_head_tube_lugs

 

[Chalo]

Scott Gordo wrote:
>
> It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
> tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
> market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
>
> Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
>
> http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
>
> If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.

I bet it's cheaper to jack that sucker open to 34.0mm with an exhaust
pipe expander.

In all seriousness, though, there is a potential problem with having
that tight a clearance between steerer and head tube. forks flex, and
the two tubes can rub together and impede steering. It's a problem I
faced when I built a tallbike with a three foot steer tube. That one
even used a 1.5" tube as a head tube, so it had an inside diameter of
about 35mm and a steerer of only 1". When I mounted the bike, the
steerer flexed enough to drag the inside of the head tube and impede
normal steering. When I rolled over a bump, it clanked.

I "fixed" the problem by switching to a steel steer tube of about 4mm
wall thickness for improved stiffness, and fitting it with a greased
plastic sleeve to provide a low-friction bearing between the two
tubes. Noisy evidence of the problem presents itself when riding over
bumps, but otherwise it's tolerable.

A 28.6mm steerer inside a 30.2mm head tube bore (which may be even
smaller considering that it is reamed to 30.2mm, and which along with
the fork steerer may not be perfectly straight) has, at best, only
about 0.7mm of radial clearance between tubes. I bet it has some of
the same problems that my tallbike did.

Chalo

 

[Scott Gordo]

On Feb 13, 3:29 pm, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott Gordo wrote:
>
> > It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
> > tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
> > market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
>
> > Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
>
> >http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
>
> > If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.
>
> I bet it's cheaper to jack that sucker open to 34.0mm with an exhaust
> pipe expander.
>
> In all seriousness, though, there is a potential problem with having
> that tight a clearance between steerer and head tube.  forks flex, and
> the two tubes can rub together and impede steering.  It's a problem I
> faced when I built a tallbike with a three foot steer tube.  That one
> even used a 1.5" tube as a head tube, so it had an inside diameter of
> about 35mm and a steerer of only 1".  When I mounted the bike, the
> steerer flexed enough to drag the inside of the head tube and impede
> normal steering.  When I rolled over a bump, it clanked.
>
> I "fixed" the problem by switching to a steel steer tube of about 4mm
> wall thickness for improved stiffness, and fitting it with a greased
> plastic sleeve to provide a low-friction bearing between the two
> tubes.  Noisy evidence of the problem presents itself when riding over
> bumps, but otherwise it's tolerable.
>
> A 28.6mm steerer inside a 30.2mm head tube bore (which may be even
> smaller considering that it is reamed to 30.2mm, and which along with
> the fork steerer may not be perfectly straight) has, at best, only
> about 0.7mm of radial clearance between tubes.  I bet it has some of
> the same problems that my tallbike did.
>
> Chalo

Hmm...

BUT,

hmm.....

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"Scott Gordo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
> tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
> market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
>
> Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
>
> http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
>
> If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.

There's a certain irony that this "solution" requires a degree of precision,
when welding the headset to the frame, that's nearly impossible to
accomplish... and they're using a Chris King headset, which is perhaps the
least-tolerant of any sort of misalignment of the various headsets.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

 

[Tom Sherman]

Chalo Colina wrote:
> Scott Gordo wrote:
>> It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
>> tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
>> market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
>>
>> Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
>>
>> http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
>>
>> If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.
>
> I bet it's cheaper to jack that sucker open to 34.0mm with an exhaust
> pipe expander.
>
> In all seriousness, though, there is a potential problem with having
> that tight a clearance between steerer and head tube. forks flex, and
> the two tubes can rub together and impede steering. It's a problem I
> faced when I built a tallbike with a three foot steer tube. That one
> even used a 1.5" tube as a head tube, so it had an inside diameter of
> about 35mm and a steerer of only 1". When I mounted the bike, the
> steerer flexed enough to drag the inside of the head tube and impede
> normal steering. When I rolled over a bump, it clanked.
>
> I "fixed" the problem by switching to a steel steer tube of about 4mm
> wall thickness for improved stiffness, and fitting it with a greased
> plastic sleeve to provide a low-friction bearing between the two
> tubes. Noisy evidence of the problem presents itself when riding over
> bumps, but otherwise it's tolerable.
>
> A 28.6mm steerer inside a 30.2mm head tube bore (which may be even
> smaller considering that it is reamed to 30.2mm, and which along with
> the fork steerer may not be perfectly straight) has, at best, only
> about 0.7mm of radial clearance between tubes. I bet it has some of
> the same problems that my tallbike did.
>
Would a making a bronze bushing instead of using a headset be an option
(for the competent machinist)? That is what Greenspeed uses for the
kingpins on their trikes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<234355fa-e4f5-4de5-813e-d0b30781fbd5@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Scott Gordo wrote:
> >
> > It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
> > tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
> > market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
> >
> > Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
> >
> > http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
> >
> > If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.
>
> I bet it's cheaper to jack that sucker open to 34.0mm with an exhaust
> pipe expander.
>
> In all seriousness, though, there is a potential problem with having
> that tight a clearance between steerer and head tube. forks flex, and
> the two tubes can rub together and impede steering. It's a problem I
> faced when I built a tallbike with a three foot steer tube. That one
> even used a 1.5" tube as a head tube, so it had an inside diameter of
> about 35mm and a steerer of only 1". When I mounted the bike, the
> steerer flexed enough to drag the inside of the head tube and impede
> normal steering. When I rolled over a bump, it clanked.
>
> I "fixed" the problem by switching to a steel steer tube of about 4mm
> wall thickness for improved stiffness, and fitting it with a greased
> plastic sleeve to provide a low-friction bearing between the two
> tubes. Noisy evidence of the problem presents itself when riding over
> bumps, but otherwise it's tolerable.
>
> A 28.6mm steerer inside a 30.2mm head tube bore (which may be even
> smaller considering that it is reamed to 30.2mm, and which along with
> the fork steerer may not be perfectly straight) has, at best, only
> about 0.7mm of radial clearance between tubes. I bet it has some of
> the same problems that my tallbike did.

I have no mechanical engineering background, or even the same level of
practical experience as you, but this seems surprising. You think that a
typical steer tube, supported at both ends of a 6-ish" head tube by
bearings, is likely to have a millimetre or so of displacement in the
middle of the head tube?

I respect your guesses and your experience, but that seems like a lot of
deflection under typical circumstances.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

 

[Gary Young]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:15:03 -0800, unforgiven99 wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2:36 pm, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
>> tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
>> market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
>>
>> Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
>>
>> http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
>>
>> If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.
>
> It seems like a good idea, but unfortunately it would be very difficult
> to do to an existing frame. The outside of the head tube would need to
> be turned round and to a precise diameter to ensure cup alignment, much
> the way the inside is reamed normally. Since you can't chuck a finished
> frame into a lathe, this is going to require a very expensive specialty
> tool. It still wouldn't work for many frames because the down tube is
> joined too low.
>

I'm not following you. It looks like he brazes the cups (with sleeves
removed) directly to the ends of the headtube. You could align the cups
by first facing the headtube and then using a dummy steerer to line up
the cups (I think). I wonder how he controls for distortion of the cups
during brazing. Or does he machine them afterwards?


> On the King frame, the down tube is joined pretty high up, and the ends
> of the head tube also look to have been turned to diameter before
> assembly.
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/tech/shows/nahmbs08/index.php?
id=/photos/2008/tech/shows/nahmbs08/nahmbs082/
Chris_King_Cielo_frame_head_tube_lugs

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 10:43 am, Gary Young <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:15:03 -0800, unforgiven99 wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 2:36 pm, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
> >> tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
> >> market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
>
> >> Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
>
> >>http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
>
> >> If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.
>
> > It seems like a good idea, but unfortunately it would be very difficult
> > to do to an existing frame. The outside of the head tube would need to
> > be turned round and to a precise diameter to ensure cup alignment, much
> > the way the inside is reamed normally. Since you can't chuck a finished
> > frame into a lathe, this is going to require a very expensive specialty
> > tool. It still wouldn't work for many frames because the down tube is
> > joined too low.
>
> I'm not following you. It looks like he brazes the cups (with sleeves
> removed) directly to the ends of the headtube. You could align the cups
> by first facing the headtube and then using a dummy steerer to line up
> the cups (I think). I wonder how he controls for distortion of the cups
> during brazing. Or does he machine them afterwards?
>
> > On the King frame, the down tube is joined pretty high up, and the ends
> > of the head tube also look to have been turned to diameter before
> > assembly.
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/tech/shows/nahmbs08/index.php?
>
> id=/photos/2008/tech/shows/nahmbs08/nahmbs082/
> Chris_King_Cielo_frame_head_tube_lugs

Now that I think about it, you're probably right. The outside of a 1"
head tube is too big for the cups of a 1 1/18" to fit over. They must
have been cut off. They must have been held square and centered with
a jig and brazed straight on, probably after the rest of the lugs. If
they were clamped tightly enough and the heat was even, distortion
wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Marcus Coles]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> "Scott Gordo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
>> tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
>> market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
>>
>> Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
>>
>> http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
>>
>> If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.
>
> There's a certain irony that this "solution" requires a degree of precision,
> when welding the headset to the frame, that's nearly impossible to
> accomplish... and they're using a Chris King headset, which is perhaps the
> least-tolerant of any sort of misalignment of the various headsets.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
Now that's what I call an integrated headset.

If someone is running around on a mountain bike which uses a 1" fork a
new bike frame would seem to be a better and probably cheaper solution.


Marcus

 

[Chalo]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Scott Gordo wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
> > > tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
> > > market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
> > >
> > > Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
> > >
> > >http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
> > >
> > > If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.
> >
> > I bet it's cheaper to jack that sucker open to 34.0mm with an exhaust
> > pipe expander.
> >
> > In all seriousness, though, there is a potential problem with having
> > that tight a clearance between steerer and head tube. forks flex, and
> > the two tubes can rub together and impede steering. It's a problem I
> > faced when I built a tallbike with a three foot steer tube. That one
> > even used a 1.5" tube as a head tube, so it had an inside diameter of
> > about 35mm and a steerer of only 1". When I mounted the bike, the
> > steerer flexed enough to drag the inside of the head tube and impede
> > normal steering. When I rolled over a bump, it clanked.
> >
> > I "fixed" the problem by switching to a steel steer tube of about 4mm
> > wall thickness for improved stiffness, and fitting it with a greased
> > plastic sleeve to provide a low-friction bearing between the two
> > tubes. Noisy evidence of the problem presents itself when riding over
> > bumps, but otherwise it's tolerable.
> >
> > A 28.6mm steerer inside a 30.2mm head tube bore (which may be even
> > smaller considering that it is reamed to 30.2mm, and which along with
> > the fork steerer may not be perfectly straight) has, at best, only
> > about 0.7mm of radial clearance between tubes. I bet it has some of
> > the same problems that my tallbike did.
>
> I have no mechanical engineering background, or even the same level of
> practical experience as you, but this seems surprising. You think that a
> typical steer tube, supported at both ends of a 6-ish" head tube by
> bearings, is likely to have a millimetre or so of displacement in the
> middle of the head tube?
>
> I respect your guesses and your experience, but that seems like a lot of
> deflection under typical circumstances.

I don't think it's out of the question.

It's common and easy to observe displacements on the order of 10mm at
the fork tips. Fork legs are only about twice as long as steer tubes,
often with similar in-plane stiffness-- and there are two of them.

Headset races function to one degree or another as spherical pivots.
Forces applied to the fork and forces applied to the handlebars both
result in bending loads upon the fork steerer. I don't think that a
1" steel steerer of customary gauge and more than a few inches' length
would have to be loaded anywhere near its yield stress for it to
deflect close to a millimeter halfway between the bearings.

Oh, and many bikes have steer tubes closer to 12" than to 6". Just
ask Peter Cole.

Chalo

 

[Tom Sherman]

Chalo Colina wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> Scott Gordo wrote:
>>>> It's not a new question to ask whether an older frames with a 1" head
>>>> tube can use one of the forks with 1 1/8" steerers that dominates the
>>>> market. This is definitely true for owners of older MTBs.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like Chris King came up with a slick solution.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.velonews.com/photo/71899
>>>>
>>>> If someone has done something similar in the past I haven't seen it.
>>> I bet it's cheaper to jack that sucker open to 34.0mm with an exhaust
>>> pipe expander.
>>>
>>> In all seriousness, though, there is a potential problem with having
>>> that tight a clearance between steerer and head tube. forks flex, and
>>> the two tubes can rub together and impede steering. It's a problem I
>>> faced when I built a tallbike with a three foot steer tube. That one
>>> even used a 1.5" tube as a head tube, so it had an inside diameter of
>>> about 35mm and a steerer of only 1". When I mounted the bike, the
>>> steerer flexed enough to drag the inside of the head tube and impede
>>> normal steering. When I rolled over a bump, it clanked.
>>>
>>> I "fixed" the problem by switching to a steel steer tube of about 4mm
>>> wall thickness for improved stiffness, and fitting it with a greased
>>> plastic sleeve to provide a low-friction bearing between the two
>>> tubes. Noisy evidence of the problem presents itself when riding over
>>> bumps, but otherwise it's tolerable.
>>>
>>> A 28.6mm steerer inside a 30.2mm head tube bore (which may be even
>>> smaller considering that it is reamed to 30.2mm, and which along with
>>> the fork steerer may not be perfectly straight) has, at best, only
>>> about 0.7mm of radial clearance between tubes. I bet it has some of
>>> the same problems that my tallbike did.
>> I have no mechanical engineering background, or even the same level of
>> practical experience as you, but this seems surprising. You think that a
>> typical steer tube, supported at both ends of a 6-ish" head tube by
>> bearings, is likely to have a millimetre or so of displacement in the
>> middle of the head tube?
>>
>> I respect your guesses and your experience, but that seems like a lot of
>> deflection under typical circumstances.
>
> I don't think it's out of the question.
>
> It's common and easy to observe displacements on the order of 10mm at
> the fork tips. Fork legs are only about twice as long as steer tubes,
> often with similar in-plane stiffness-- and there are two of them.
>
> Headset races function to one degree or another as spherical pivots.
> Forces applied to the fork and forces applied to the handlebars both
> result in bending loads upon the fork steerer. I don't think that a
> 1" steel steerer of customary gauge and more than a few inches' length
> would have to be loaded anywhere near its yield stress for it to
> deflect close to a millimeter halfway between the bearings.
>
> Oh, and many bikes have steer tubes closer to 12" than to 6". Just
> ask Peter Cole.
>
Or look at this picture:
<http://sheldonbrown.com/bike-screensaver1024x768/pages/petercoleDSCN4970.html>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[dabac]

...there is a potential problem with having
that tight a clearance between steerer and head tube.

I noticed that putting together a MTB-looking object as a zero budget project a few weeks ago. The frame I used obviously was designed for a 1" fork, but the fork I wanted to use was 1 1/8".
I toyed with the idea of cutting some adapters that'd go from the outside of the head tube over to a normally fitted 1 1/8" headset.
But even with the cups removed I didn't like the clearence between the head tube and the steerer. What clinched it though was that even if I'd gotten past that hurdle that steerer wasn't long enough.
It turned out that a 1" steerer fork fitted well (with a little reaming) through the crown of the 1 1/8" fork if I simply cut the bigger steerer off flush with the crown. A little brazing, a shim to fit the lower cone (race?) and the steerer transplant was all done.

Not really a rational course of action all things considered, but it fit my objectives. (reducing pile size, not spending money, making something useful...)

 

[Chalo]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Would a making a bronze bushing instead of using a headset be an option
> (for the competent machinist)? That is what Greenspeed uses for the
> kingpins on their trikes.

Yes and no. It would be tough to make a plain head bearing that
didn't slop like a loose headset after a minimum of wear and seating.
A shallow conical interface (like 90 to 120 degrees) would allow
decent adjustability, positive centering, and little tendency to wedge
in place like a taper fit. It would still probably be draggy enough
to prevent normal steering self-correction on a well-designed DF
bike.

There have been attempts to use plain bearings (mostly plastics) in
bike headsets in the past. I believe the intention was only to reduce
weight and not to make a more robust part.

Since tadpole trikes don't depend on self-correcting steering to stay
upright, they can use heavier centering forces that are able to defeat
bearing friction.

One of these days (when I have a good lathe at my disposal, which I
don't right now) I'll probably cook up a plain bearing conical headset
with bronze cups riding on steel cones. If nothing else, that should
let me know for sure that it's a bad idea.

I have considered for a long time now building a bike optimized for
reliability and tolerance of neglect. Toothed-belt drive, resin mag
wheels, airless tires, coaster brake, and plain bearings would all
work towards that goal, even if they all had their own detrimental
effect on the quality of the riding experience.

Chalo

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<b3058e04-d5a0-4032-95fa-1e3d133e2f8d@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> > Would a making a bronze bushing instead of using a headset be an option
> > (for the competent machinist)? That is what Greenspeed uses for the
> > kingpins on their trikes.
>
> Yes and no. It would be tough to make a plain head bearing that
> didn't slop like a loose headset after a minimum of wear and seating.
> A shallow conical interface (like 90 to 120 degrees) would allow
> decent adjustability, positive centering, and little tendency to wedge
> in place like a taper fit. It would still probably be draggy enough
> to prevent normal steering self-correction on a well-designed DF
> bike.
>
> There have been attempts to use plain bearings (mostly plastics) in
> bike headsets in the past. I believe the intention was only to reduce
> weight and not to make a more robust part.

> I have considered for a long time now building a bike optimized for
> reliability and tolerance of neglect. Toothed-belt drive, resin mag
> wheels, airless tires, coaster brake, and plain bearings would all
> work towards that goal, even if they all had their own detrimental
> effect on the quality of the riding experience.

This sounds like an admirable project! A farily horrible bike, mind, but
an admirable project!

Being a tiny bit more serious, I really like the idea, but I fear that
as described the bike would be a bit depressing to ride.

In phase II, you should merge with the Africabike project and build the
frame out of corrosion-proof bamboo,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."