# 1.5" external headset cup for "InSet" style HT



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

This has been discussed here and there on this forum but I thought I'd make an official post for discourse if anyone wants to get involved. Perhaps this can serve as somewhat of a progress report.

The point is to make a lower bearing cup that houses a 1.5" bearing and has a 44mm cup skirt that will fit into a head tube built to the Inset spec. This should allow us small builders to use tapered forks with a relatively low manufacturing cost output, using available tooling, materials and utilizing a (new) standard. (I'm going to go ahead and call it a standard now that King and Cane Creek are offering HSs using the 44mm I.D.) 

For ti builders, a HT can be made using 1.5" Sched 40 seamless pipe. It requires about half an hour to an hour on the lathe to turn and bore the tube to a workable size. Steel builders should be able to source the same sized chromoly pipe. I admit that I'm a bit ignorant of steel alloys so you'll have to figure out the right stuff to use on your own.

One of the down sides with the seamless pipe is that the O.D. isn't quite big enough to fill out to the edge of the cup flange. The quickest way to deal with it is to skim off the edge of the flange on a lathe. I'm working with Mark @ Paragon to offer a weldable/brazable HT ring for those who don't want to skim the headset itself. I should be able to give him drawings next week.

Through a fortunate occurrence, I was just contacted by a huge local machine shop for a welding job, so I think I just found someone to make the parts. I'm probably going to run about 30 cups. I still don't have the price worked out but I'll certainly add an update here when I do.

I'm not really looking for input on the cups (though I won't ignore it) but if you guys want to have input on the size and shape of the HT rings, this seems like a great place to do it.

Sean


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Keep us updated*

I would love to have a reliable supply of cups that would fit a 44mm head tube and house the 1.5" bearings. Please keep us updated on pricing and such. Have you talked to King at all about having them make a dedicated cup for this frankentaper idea?

Quick question - As I understand it, sched 40 1.5" pipe has an OD of 48.3mm and an ID of 40.9mm (both approximations). So if the OD of our cup is 44mm-ish, that should mean ~2mm or so of wall thickness on both sides. I'm not sure I see a need for a reinforcing ring there. What am I missing?

As long as the cost is <$50/cup (which shouldn't be hard) you can put me down for some.

-Walt



smudge said:


> This has been discussed here and there on this forum but I thought I'd make an official post for discourse if anyone wants to get involved. Perhaps this can serve as somewhat of a progress report.
> 
> The point is to make a lower bearing cup that houses a 1.5" bearing and has a 44mm cup skirt that will fit into a head tube built to the Inset spec. This should allow us small builders to use tapered forks with a relatively low manufacturing cost output, using available tooling, materials and utilizing a (new) standard. (I'm going to go ahead and call it a standard now that King and Cane Creek are offering HSs using the 44mm I.D.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Btw*

For those who might not know, there are a couple of sources (main one being King) for the appropriate reamers:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=567228

-Walt


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Walt said:


> I would love to have a reliable supply of cups that would fit a 44mm head tube and house the 1.5" bearings. Please keep us updated on pricing and such. Have you talked to King at all about having them make a dedicated cup for this frankentaper idea?
> 
> Quick question - As I understand it, sched 40 1.5" pipe has an OD of 48.3mm and an ID of 40.9mm (both approximations). So if the OD of our cup is 44mm-ish, that should mean ~2mm or so of wall thickness on both sides. I'm not sure I see a need for a reinforcing ring there. What am I missing?
> 
> ...


You're right, the HT doesn't need rings, but the OD of the Inset (which I would be using up top) flange is 50mm so it would overhang the HT. You either turn it down or weld on a ring to bring the OD of the HT close enough not to look ridiculous. Having a band of bare silver around an anodized headset might not sit well with some.

oh, and I spoke with Jay at King about this when they introduced the Inset. He wasn't into it. I've spoken with some of the sales employees about it as well but it seems like it's falling on deaf ears. I think they want to see a demand for it before they would bother producing it.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Did a little bit of modeling yesterday to check things out. I'll do one final geometry check next week before I send the model off to the shop to have a run made.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

smudge said:


> Did a little bit of modeling yesterday to check things out. I'll do one final geometry check next week before I send the model off to the shop to have a run made.


That would be an attractive HT. Good job, Sean.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Nice!*

What's the bearing spec for the cup? Are you planning to use whatever King is using?

Looks very, very nice. I have a project in mind already.

-Walt



smudge said:


> Did a little bit of modeling yesterday to check things out. I'll do one final geometry check next week before I send the model off to the shop to have a run made.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

I've registered the domain www.standard44.com which I'll flesh out with info once Sean and I have had a chance to nut out the details.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

I'm sending some contact info for Cane Creek to you (Walt, Warwick) later today. If you guys really want this to happen, call them up or email them and tell them what you want.

Also, I convinced a supplier to order some 120mm Reba Team Maxle Lite tapered steerer forks. Walt, Joe is going to call you today. They have a long lead time (90 days) but we apparently can't get them otherwise. Let's support the fact that this distro is making an effort and help them sell out of these forks. WW, I'll send you the info later today.

If there are any lurkers reading this who are interested (I'm frankly surprised at the lack of interest so far) come out.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

no names will be mentioned, but I spoke with production managers at a couple of mid-sized production builders and they seem to be interested. Maybe gaining some momentum.


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

all this makes such a lot of sense...go smudge! ace concept!


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

I'll start fleshing out a website this weekend smudge. Can you email me essentially everything you've got?

I think it would be a good idea to also have a section with custom builders who support the concept so potential customers can see who has the tooling and support the early adopters.

If you're down with the idea and want to get on board, drop me an email with all your contact details - infoATthylacinecyclesDOTcom.



I should also mention that as custom builders we are well behind the 8-ball on this. With tapered headtubes and forks increasingly popular on production Aluminium all-mountain bikes, our lack of volume is closing off some markets that the production clowns are readily exploiting.

Things like this are vital to keep custom frames at the forefront as well as expand our appeal beyond the 'tired lugged bike with racks' cliche, so if you build 29ers or burlier trailbikes, it would be well worth getting behind this.


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

I like the idea but i'm wondering what a 46mm+ headtube is going to look like on a steel frame, has anyone built anything using a 44mm headset (for non-taper) and have they got any pictures?

I really like the idea and it's a brilliant solution, but i can't help thinking it's gonna look a bit fugly, i hope someone has some evidence to prove me wrong

matt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Naw.*

I can't really imagine I'd use the tapered setup for anything with a <38mm downtube or <32mm toptube, so I don't think it'll look all that weird. I've done some 1.5" standard frames for Leftys and such and it's a tiny bit odd looking, but really not that bad. This will be ~48mm OD (and I'll probably turn down the center section a decent amount. So perhaps a little odd looking on some frames, but really worth it, IMO.

We'll see, of course, based on who wants these things. I think for any 29er fork with 100mm or more of travel, it's a no-brainer. Then again, I've been saying that about through-axle forks for years and the Maxle/QR15 stuff is only finally catching on now.

-Walt



18bikes said:


> I like the idea but i'm wondering what a 46mm+ headtube is going to look like on a steel frame, has anyone built anything using a 44mm headset (for non-taper) and have they got any pictures?
> 
> I really like the idea and it's a brilliant solution, but i can't help thinking it's gonna look a bit fugly, i hope someone has some evidence to prove me wrong
> 
> matt


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Warwick we should chat later because I'm very interested in the reasoning behind the website. I think there are some very sensitive industry folks out there and any attempt to strongarm (real or perceived) them in the marketplace isn't going to be taken well.

I'm not going to be the guy to list who I've been talking to because it's not my place to out them. I'll happily work behind the scenes on this issue (as I have been doing for the past few weeks) with as many mid size manufacturers as will listen to me with the hope that it will drum up enough market demand for the headset people to realize that it's viable in the market place. One of the shops has two CNC mills and two CNC lathes. They can move on it so fast that I wouldn't be surprised to see it at NAHBS.

I strongly feel that the tapered steerer has merit and I don't want to see small and mid sized builders miss the boat on something that just makes sense. I truly believe that it's a better product and I want us to be able to build frames for it and sell it so I'm just doing what I can to put something into the supply chain to make it possible. I've been working toward this for over a year already, it's starting to get a little traction and I want to make sure it's pursued in the right way.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

18bikes said:


> I like the idea but i'm wondering what a 46mm+ headtube is going to look like on a steel frame, has anyone built anything using a 44mm headset (for non-taper) and have they got any pictures?
> 
> I really like the idea and it's a brilliant solution, but i can't help thinking it's gonna look a bit fugly, i hope someone has some evidence to prove me wrong
> 
> matt


Matt,

I haven't finished this frame yet but you can get the gist here. Ti frame 46.25mm HT and 44.45mm DT.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

As Walt said, 38mm and above downtubes are the go and should look just fine. Brant has some big bulge-butted tubes in the works which were made for something just like this.

I'm half way through two all-mountain 29er frames which will be using both, so I'll post some pictures once we're further along.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

What hole saw? 1.875"?


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

D.F.L. said:


> What hole saw? 1.875"?


1 13/16" I have some Morse hole saws in that size that cut the miter perfectly. They're wobbly enough that they cut just slightly larger than 46mm


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

quick but veiled update...progress is being made. Another mid-manufacturer is extremely enthusiastic and a component manufacturer is looking at it right now. Not guaranteed but a proto could be ready by next week.


----------



## BlackMoth (Apr 29, 2004)

Now if we could get Rock Shox to release some 29er Rebas with tapered steerers to the masses we'd be headed in the right direction. Any word on when these will become available to folks other than the Big S?


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

BlackMoth said:


> Now if we could get Rock Shox to release some 29er Rebas with tapered steerers to the masses we'd be headed in the right direction. Any word on when these will become available to folks other than the Big S?


They're coming but in limited quantities. I've got some coming that should land by apr/may


----------



## scrublover (Dec 30, 2003)

smudge said:


> I'm sending some contact info for Cane Creek to you (Walt, Warwick) later today. If you guys really want this to happen, call them up or email them and tell them what you want.
> 
> Also, I convinced a supplier to order some 120mm Reba Team Maxle Lite tapered steerer forks. Walt, Joe is going to call you today. They have a long lead time (90 days) but we apparently can't get them otherwise. Let's support the fact that this distro is making an effort and help them sell out of these forks. WW, I'll send you the info later today.
> 
> *If there are any lurkers reading this who are interested (I'm frankly surprised at the lack of interest so far) come out.*


As a rider, not builder, if I were going for a new custom frame, this would for sure be piquing my interest.

Hmmm. A 5" travel Ventana rear-ended Curtlo, built nice and low/slack/short/beefy would kick ass...:thumbsup:


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

scrublover said:


> As a rider, not builder, if I were going for a new custom frame, this would for sure be piquing my interest.
> 
> Hmmm. A 5" travel Ventana rear-ended Curtlo, built nice and low/slack/short/beefy would kick ass...:thumbsup:


Damn.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

I've ordered some retrofit Fox tapered steerer uppers for customers that already have a 29er fork and don't want to lash on a whole new fork when they upgrade to a frame with a 44mm ID headtube.

[Un]fortunately Fox will happily make some 100 or 120mm travel 29er forks with tapered steerers and QR15.....if you order MOQ's :skep: :eekster:  :madman:


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

I think I've done just about all I can do to push this. I'll be getting a proto sample shortly and from there it's up to the component manufacturer to decide whether or not they want this in their line up. In the next week or so I'll be back in contact with the production builders I pulled into this and they can start making their cases to the headset maker and the fork companies. Ultimately, that's what's going to create the supply stream from which we (the individual builders) will benefit.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Sean and I have created www.standard44.com to act as a portal to keep everyone informed as to which custom builders are down with the concept, and which suppliers are onboard.

If you want to be kept in the loop, you can register via email there, or I'm sure Sean will post updates and happenings as they, well, happen.


----------



## brant (Jan 6, 2004)

You spelt "obsolescence" wrong. ;-)


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

"Inherent," too.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Damn, that's the old image. Ooops. Changes as soon as my web guy wakes up. Thanks for the head's up.


----------



## gk02 (May 13, 2005)

this is a great idea if you can make it happen. 

I actually came up with a very similiar idea about 3 years ago when tapered road fork steerers started showing up when the new CE standards were introduced. I was working at a company that made road forks at the time and saw this as a good solution for small builders to use a tapered fork without having to go source new headtubes. 

The few people I talked to about it on the headset side at the time had very similar reactions, let's see the interest first from the builders. 

I didn't work there much longer after that so it probably died there. 

Good luck as I think this could work extremely well for small builders.


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

whats the latest on this?

i want progress!!!!

sorry
matt


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

18bikes said:


> whats the latest on this?
> 
> i want progress!!!!
> 
> ...


still waiting for the prototype. I've got a machine shop on standby if something goes sideways and it doesn't work out.

Sean


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Prototype is done. It's not anodized but the shape is identifiable enough that it might give away the manufacturer so no pics. Once I get it on a frame and it's less obvious, I'll share some pics.


----------



## Rody (Sep 10, 2005)

Sean,

I turned and bored down a huge chunk of Ti I picked up from United Titanium last week after we talked about a one piece head tube for the tapered inset design.

Though it offers a seamless head tube that works nicely, it was a royal pain in the tushy, and if I had to pay for the Ti to do this for each build, would increase the cost of the frame by 200 bucks just for the material. 

Given the time sink and cost a one piece design requires, I definitely feel you are on track with the cup for the 44 id. 

Sign me up :thumbsup: 

cheers,

rody
(old enough to know better, but still young enough to be foolish to try)


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Rody said:


> Sean,
> 
> I turned and bored down a huge chunk of Ti I picked up from United Titanium last week after we talked about a one piece head tube for the tapered inset design.
> 
> ...


thanks! :thumbsup:

I can't wait to get it here.

edit: P.S. rody, I need to see this thing. Pics!

P.P.S. Apparently Deda is making tapered ti HT's. I'll try to remember to email you the drawing.


----------



## BlackMoth (Apr 29, 2004)

Any updates smudge? Thanks in advance!


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Cane Creek Facebook Site

Cane Creek Cycling Components We told you we'd be releasing new stuff to our Facebook fans first... How about a headset bottom that allows you to run a tapered steerer-tube fork through virtually any bicycle frame using a typical 1-1/8" ZeroStack headset...

Fletcher, North Carolina - March 4, 2010 - Citing the need for a headset solution that would... facilitate the use of a tapered steerer fork (1.5" to 1-1/8") in a standard ZeroStack™ head-tube, Sean Chaney, owner of Vertigo Cycles, a custom frame builder from Portland, approached Cane Creek with a brilliant, simple headset idea.

"After hearing from David Turner and then speaking with Sean, I was so excited by the problem-solving nature of his headset solution and it's far reaching implications for both new and old bicycles using the ZeroStack™ standard that I produced a technical drawing the same day," says Josh Coaplen, Cane Creek Director of Research & Development. "The headset bottom is simply a 1.5" traditional with a 44mm diameter insertion sleeve that fits a frame using the ZeroStack™ standard."

All-New, Problem-Solving - The XX 44mm Traditional

Coming mid-Summer 2010.


----------



## Live Wire (Aug 27, 2007)

I just got an email about this today- nice job Sean!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*F'ing rad!*

Nice work, Sean!

For what it's worth, significant progress is being made on the (steel) head tube front as well. I would be pretty surprised if we didn't have a plug/play head tube within a month or two.

-Walt


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

I've been wanting to show this for a little while










the press release


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

100% awesome...good work sean! looks tasty...


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

smudge said:


> I've been wanting to show this for a little while
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sweet. Is this going to be a one-length-fit-all head tube or will different lengths be available?

How short can a head tube be for a tapered steer fork?


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Maybe Walt can answer the steel HT question. I've got to work out my own thing for ti.

IIRC the taper on a Fox fork is 95mm from the top of the taper to the crown race seat. Lower stack of this HS is 11.7mm, upper is 8.5 I think. So about 75mm min length.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Steel head tubes*

Shiggy -

The exact head tube configuration isn't finalized, but it will *likely* be:
-44mm ID (actually, it'll probably be a tiny bit undersized, to allow some distortion and reaming back to round), ~46.5mm OD. This will mean that you'll have to braze on rings to match the OD of the cups to make a smooth headtube/headset transition. You can of course leave them off as well if you don't care.
-Probably heat treated 4130.

It's also possible we'll do something with a ~48mm OD and it will need some external lathe work to turn down the center section (but less/no need for rings). I'm leaning away from that option right now, but I am not the only builder/company involved, so things could certainly change.

I think you can safely count on the head tube stock being available by the time the headset is out, and it will be available to anyone who wants to buy it, not just the folks involved in the current project.

-Walt



smudge said:


> Maybe Walt can answer the steel HT question. I've got to work out my own thing for ti.
> 
> IIRC the taper on a Fox fork is 95mm from the top of the taper to the crown race seat. Lower stack of this HS is 11.7mm, upper is 8.5 I think. So about 75mm min length.


----------



## rustola (Jan 15, 2008)

smudge said:


> For ti builders, a HT can be made using 1.5" Sched 40 seamless pipe. It requires about half an hour to an hour on the lathe to turn and bore the tube to a workable size.


Sean/smudge -

This is awesome. Do you have a good source for small quantity 1.5" Sch 40 Ti pipe (or would you sell me some)?


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

rustola said:


> Sean/smudge -
> 
> This is awesome. Do you have a good source for small quantity 1.5" Sch 40 Ti pipe (or would you sell me some)?


at the moment unfortunately not. My source dried up. I personally have 5ft of 1.5" sch 40 pipe and another 5 ft of another material that will work. I need to look carefully at my build schedule for the next six months...I might be able to sell you some. PM me with your email address.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Walt said:


> Shiggy -
> 
> The exact head tube configuration isn't finalized, but it will *likely* be:
> -44mm ID (actually, it'll probably be a tiny bit undersized, to allow some distortion and reaming back to round), ~46.5mm OD. This will mean that you'll have to braze on rings to match the OD of the cups to make a smooth headtube/headset transition. You can of course leave them off as well if you don't care.
> ...


My vote would be for the option in bold. I know it limits to those with lathes but you know "A lathe is a beautiful thing" and it means you can make XC-able frames and AM-able frames depending on how aggressive you are with your turning.

50mm OD would suit best, simply because that's what most of the current InSet/Fustrum top assemblies are, and "I'm guessing" what the Standard44 headsets will be.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

I know I'm not a steel guy but I'm going to throw in my $0.02

You guys would be best off just getting the tube pulled at whatever O.D. the center portion is going to be (I imagine somewhere in the 46-46.5mm range) and designing some rings for Paragon to manufacture to silver braze on. Why do all the work to machine a tube down from 50mm to 46mm if you don't have to? Plus, that's a lot of swarf to manage in a small shop. 

BTW - I've dropped the responsibility of drawing out the rings for Mark as I have material and the setups to make my own for the pipe I currently have. Not only that, I wouldn't want him to make a bunch of steel rings before knowing what material you guys are going to have.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

See Sean, this is the problem with us not all getting behind a unified front via something like standard44.com

Everyone is running off doing their own thing, nobody knows who's doing what, and suppliers aren't going to have a good idea of the potential market because - for example - Walt could be talking to TT for example about some head tubes, and only order enough for himself because he has no idea who needs what, or who's interested in how much.

I'm putting my hand up to be a facilitator and offer up a repository for all the information needed via standard44.com if people think having a unified front is a good thing.

My reasoning is simple -

• We can create a larger impact if we're all working together for the good of independent framebuilding.
• Suppliers can get a better feel for the size of the market.
• Sean is a good guy and deserves our unified support.
• This is the first of the 'new' standards that is actually 'pro' custom framebuilding.

All the other BB and HT standards being pushed are being done by the majors, and it looks like we're no longer the 'innovators'. I personally don't want customer framebuilding to be relegated in peoples' minds as the "overblown fixies and 10 grand retro lugged touring bike' industry" - it's important now more than ever be get behind something that's 'pro us'.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> See Sean, this is the problem with us not all getting behind a unified front via something like standard44.com
> 
> Everyone is running off doing their own thing, nobody knows who's doing what, and suppliers aren't going to have a good idea of the potential market because - for example - Walt could be talking to TT for example about some head tubes, and only order enough for himself because he has no idea who needs what, or who's interested in how much.
> 
> ...


Respectfully, I think this thread in this forum is the perfect place to exchange ideas and report progress. To my knowledge, there were two people openly discussing their actions and others were simply cheerleading (not that there's anything wrong with that).

The headset is a done deal.

Forks are trickling out now. I spoke with Joe at SBS about the fork supply issue again the other day and he told me that NO ONE called him about the forks but me. Despite that, I've still convinced them that it was a good idea and as a result, they've added about half a dozen new SKU's involving tapered forks. NOT calling suppliers to create a demand isn't the way to get the stuff to the market.

Ti material is going to be scarce and that seems to be the way it's going these days for ti anyway. Anyone who is interested in Ti, I suggest you get in touch with TiSport in Kennewick, WA and speak to Melody. That's where I got my stick of 3/2.5 sched 40 seamless pipe. Tico Titanium in MI regularly makes CP pipe, but I wouldn't recommend it. If you decide you want to use CP, I suggest you do a lot of research ahead of time to make sure you're comfortable with the material properties and wall thickness you decide to use.

Walt is working on steel. If it's going to be discussed, why not discuss it on a popular open forum unless of course the potential manufacturer wants it quiet.

Granted, this is a personal point, but it's not my preference that "new headtube standard". This size headtube has been around for over a decade, it's just been popularized for small builders in the past year or so and having a new headset cup to fit it makes it especially useful now for us little folk.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

smudge said:


> Respectfully, I think this thread in this forum is the perfect place to exchange ideas and report progress.....I spoke with Joe at SBS about the fork supply issue again the other day and he told me that NO ONE called him about the forks but me.


Well, there ya go, point in question.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> Well, there ya go, point in question.


The point about the forks is moot right now anyway. SBS has responded and the I expect that other major fork manufacturer will announce their 2011 line up at Sea Otter, which will include aftermarket tapered steerer forks. Coincidentally, they should be available about the same time as the headset.

So if we look at the supply stream.

headset - done
forks - done
head tube material - already possible for those with a lathe and some time.

Specific issues for ti - the material isn't terribly easy to find but there are sources that pop up from time to time. You have to be resourceful and that's part of the job. I share a lot of information, practically everything actually. This is the one exception beyond what I've already written.

Specific issues for steel - it seems like Walt's already working on it (go Walt!). It also seems like it would be in the best interest of builders who intend to use these tubes to chime in and state your case for the O.D. of the final drawn tube and some ring geometry.

Warwick, I'm not bagging on your website idea, I just still don't understand exactly how it's going to help everyone out. To accomplish anything some open discourse is needed as well as someone with relationships with relevant business to light the fire. Vendors aren't going to take notice of a website unless they already know it's there. If you call your inside rep or buyer twice a week asking for stuff, they'll take notice.

I know this is the internet and everyone assumes the worst, but my question is honest. What's left do do?


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Well then, if everyone's job here is done, close the thread and we'll all go out for a beer.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Yes, please chime in*

I have a feeling not many will, but for those steel builders (including folks who aren't "pros") who are - what would you rather see - a ~48-50mm OD tube with the ID prepared, but requiring lathe work (or a lot of excess weight), or a ~46-47mm OD tube that would require rings for a smooth transition to the headset?

My personal feelings are mixed, but we're probably only going to get one or the other (and that's only because I'm fronting the $ for the first run of them) for now, so if you don't have a lathe and want thinner stock, or vice versa, please let me know. Email is fine if you don't want to post publicly.

-Walt



smudge said:


> Specific issues for steel - it seems like Walt's already working on it (go Walt!). It also seems like it would be in the best interest of builders who intend to use these tubes to chime in and state your case for the O.D. of the final drawn tube and some ring geometry.


----------



## yipsan (Jan 30, 2008)

with rings, no lathe here. thanks.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Which market is everyone seeing as the 'early' adopter with this?

My main market at the moment is the XC/Enduro market, and frankly I don't see this market embracing it. The adopters I see is the All-Mountain market which is a newish thing this year for us, so that means thicker headtubes.

What were you thinking, Walt, in terms of specs of the headtube and design of the rings?


----------



## Hardtails Are Better (May 4, 2005)

Thylacine said:


> Which market is everyone seeing as the 'early' adopter with this?
> 
> My main market at the moment is the XC/Enduro market, and frankly I don't see this market embracing it. The adopters I see is the All-Mountain market which is a newish thing this year for us, so that means thicker headtubes.
> 
> What were you thinking, Walt, in terms of specs of the headtube and design of the rings?


That's exactly what I'm wondering about. I don't really have any interest in this sort of setup on an XC bike. Unless you're making 29ers for really short people, it's not hard to make a normal 1.125 external headset head tube short enough for people to get the bars where they want, since the forks you're using for that sort of application aren't that long. By the time you're into AM bikes using 160mm forks, getting the total stack height (headset and headtube) short enough to run low bars starts to be a bigger consideration, but by then, as you've observed, a thicker headtube is needed, so you probably are better off just going with the large OD, turned down option. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not entirely sure where the market for it is.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Hardtails Are Better said:


> That's exactly what I'm wondering about. I don't really have any interest in this sort of setup on an XC bike. Unless you're making 29ers for really short people, it's not hard to make a normal 1.125 external headset head tube short enough for people to get the bars where they want, since the forks you're using for that sort of application aren't that long. By the time you're into AM bikes using 160mm forks, getting the total stack height (headset and headtube) short enough to run low bars starts to be a bigger consideration, but by then, as you've observed, a thicker headtube is needed, so you probably are better off just going with the large OD, turned down option. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not entirely sure where the market for it is.


I agree with this. This is (somewhat) tongue in cheek, but if you're so short you need to stuff bearings down a head tube, ride a smaller wheel size.

-Schmitty-


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

The only interest I've had so far (from an advice-giving standpoint since I'm not in production) was from someone who wanted an AM 29er and thought that this steerer size would end up becoming a standard for burlier bikes.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

The market? This is the way I see it.

I'm a bike nerd and always have been. 29ers work for me. I'm also a fella without discriminating tastes when it comes to beer & food (200lb). Maybe I'm a sucker for what's being marketed but I think the tapered steerer makes sense for 29er squishy forks (and other types of forks). I'd even ride a tapered steerer rigid fork. I'm the market for this and I know there are others like me. 

Another big reason that I pursued this so hard is that I don't want to feel like I'm limited in what I can build. Let's be realistic, there are plenty of people out there, with money in their pockets who are easily convinced as to what is the latest and greatest stuff on the market. I figure that if they come to me, I can either try to make a compelling argument against their notion, I can turn down their business altogether, or I can adapt to the marketplace and have a chance at making the short list for these potential customers. This headset cup was the most cost effective solution I could come up with that would allow me to adapt.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

huzzah!


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

In case anyone was wondering if there was any type of [giant] impetus for this general 'style' of front end.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> In case anyone was wondering if there was any type of [giant] impetus for this general 'style' of front end.


That's hideous.


----------



## PissedOffCil (Oct 18, 2007)

http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/news/a...ered-steerers-in-some-1-18in-head-tubes-25275


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

They could have written that article much better. Nothing like making it sound like premature obsolescence.

"When launched in June, this should help breathe new life into countless older frames out there and allow their owners to take advantage of the latest technology without having to upgrade their entire setup."


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

DWF said:


> They could have written that article much better. Nothing like making it sound like premature obsolescence.
> 
> "When launched in June, this should help breathe new life into countless older frames out there and allow their owners to take advantage of the latest technology without having to upgrade their entire setup."


I completely agree. I normally enjoy James' coverage of techy stuff but I don't care for how this was written.


----------



## kingennio (Mar 17, 2010)

*standard44 for read?*

Hi there,
I know this is probably a bit OT, but I'm also considering standard44 for a *steel road frame*. Do you think it makes any sense? I wanted to use a tapered fork 1-1/4" at the bottom, and I was thinking of having custom cups (brazed on the HT) that host an integrated HS. This is more or less what I'm talking about







only the HT would be 40mm OD instead of the one in the picture which is 36mm OD, and the lower cup would be 50mm OD (for the 1-1/4") rather than 45mm (for the straight 1-1/8").
Going with the standard44 route would let me buy a HS from CaneCreek and host a 1.5 fork? But would that make any sense for a road frame? Or it makes it bulky and unappealing to the eye? BTW the downtube of the frame would be 38mm, vertical and horizontal would be 31.7mm.
Do you envision any better solution for the tapered fork 1-1/8 -> 1-1/14? Can you rule out 1.5" for aesthetic reason at all given my tube-set sizes or is the standard44 reasonable here too? Thanks


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

kingennio said:


> Hi there,
> I know this is probably a bit OT, but I'm also considering standard44 for a *steel road frame*. Do you think it makes any sense? I wanted to use a tapered fork 1-1/4" at the bottom, and I was thinking of having custom cups (brazed on the HT) that host an integrated HS. This is more or less what I'm talking about only the HT would be 40mm OD instead of the one in the picture which is 36mm OD, and the lower cup would be 50mm OD (for the 1-1/4") rather than 45mm (for the straight 1-1/8").
> Going with the standard44 route would let me buy a HS from CaneCreek and host a 1.5 fork? But would that make any sense for a road frame? Or it makes it bulky and unappealing to the eye? BTW the downtube of the frame would be 38mm, vertical and horizontal would be 31.7mm.
> Do you envision any better solution for the tapered fork 1-1/8 -> 1-1/14? Can you rule out 1.5" for aesthetic reason at all given my tube-set sizes or is the standard44 reasonable here too? Thanks


The questions of aesthetics and potential tube sizes aren't likely to be the sticking points of the build. If you want to use a goofy sized (by current standards) lower headset bearing, the post-weld bore/face of the HT is likely to be the problem to be solved. Do you have a builder picked out yet? He or she should be able to answer your questions.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

kingennio said:


> Hi there,
> I know this is probably a bit OT, but I'm also considering standard44 for a *steel road frame*. Do you think it makes any sense? I wanted to use a tapered fork 1-1/4" at the bottom, and I was thinking of having custom cups (brazed on the HT) that host an integrated HS. This is more or less what I'm talking about
> 
> 
> ...


Standard44 is certainly going to be the easiest way to use a tapered road fork on a steel frame. You could always 'semi-integrate' the lower cup my making it from steel and brazing it in.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

deleted post and started a new thread


----------



## Bobby12many (Apr 28, 2004)

awesome


----------

