# Poll: Headtubes for 44mm inset/tapered steerer forks



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I want to poll the members here (both pros, amateurs, and non-builder enthusiasts) to see what solution y'all would prefer to the headtube dilemma posed in this thread:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=585890

Yes, it's a lot of reading, but you'll get the gist pretty quickly. In short, I am attempting to have a (steel) head tube to fit the 44mm inset standard made to take advantage of Cane Creek's new "XX 44mm Traditional" (quite a mouthful, that) headset and allow the use of tapering steerer suspension forks.

The question is this: would builders prefer a larger OD head tube that had to be externally butted on a lathe, or a smaller OD head tube that required brazed-on rings to make a smooth transition to the headset?

I'll leave the poll open for 24 hours. Please leave comments as well if you have them, and feel free to contact me with questions. If you know a builder who doesn't frequently read the board, please let them know.

For reference, here is the Cane Creek Press release:


----------



## dbohemian (Mar 25, 2007)

By brazed on rings.....I like those inserts by Paragon that do 1.125 from 1.5 HT stock.

I would dig if we could come up with a solution like that. Then just have TT or Columbus or some such company pull us stock in long lengths that would work straight out of the box.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*2" x .095" 4130*

...that would work if the HT stock was 43.9 ID and 45.9 OD. But that would mean it would be pretty beginner-unfriendly with ~1mm walls (I think that's plenty, given the size of the head tube, but it's going to distort a lot if you nail it with a ton of heat whilst fillet brazing or whatever).

2" x .083" also exists, though I've only found stainless online. So that would work with 46.5 OD pretty well. Beyond that the head tube is getting way too thick.

So that's one option - use existing stock tubing of some kind as the rings.

-Walt



dbohemian said:


> By brazed on rings.....I like those inserts by Paragon that do 1.125 from 1.5 HT stock.
> 
> I would dig if we could come up with a solution like that. Then just have TT or Columbus or some such company pull us stock in long lengths that would work straight out of the box.


----------



## john 9 (Nov 27, 2006)

I'm not sure if I have all the dimensions correct, I guess it depends on the OD/wall thickness of the HT material that will be supplied (in steel). I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time on the machining, a little is ok. Brazed on rings seem alright, but it's more labor/cost in either case. How about the headset be made with a OD that matches the HT? 
Another option - since most of the use would be on 29ers, a machine shop could offer 4 sizes of head tubes that are turned down through the center with a "fat lip" on the ends. Maybe an additional one that has one long fat lip so you could cut it down further to shorten it, or turn the center down some more to reduce the size of the fat section for a longer head tube - this would save some time for the framebuilder.
Thanks,
John Caletti
Caletti Cycles
www.caletticycles.com


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

john 9 said:


> I'm not sure if I have all the dimensions correct, I guess it depends on the OD/wall thickness of the HT material that will be supplied (in steel). I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time on the machining, a little is ok. Brazed on rings seem alright, but it's more labor/cost in either case. How about the headset be made with a OD that matches the HT?
> Another option - since most of the use would be on 29ers, a machine shop could offer 4 sizes of head tubes that are turned down through the center with a "fat lip" on the ends. Maybe an additional one that has one long fat lip so you could cut it down further to shorten it, or turn the center down some more to reduce the size of the fat section for a longer head tube - this would save some time for the framebuilder.
> Thanks,
> John Caletti
> ...


Hey John,

The headsets are going to mate best with a 50mm diameter flange on the ends of the head tube.. The ZeroStack and InSet headsets already work that way and they're not going to change.

Another solution that I don't think has been mentioned is just to use whatever HT O.D. you guys are going to come up with and then machine down the lip of the upper cup to match the head tube. There are several way to make cost effective lathe fixtures to get this done quickly.


----------



## brant (Jan 6, 2004)

smudge said:


> The headsets are going to mate best with a 50mm diameter flange on the ends of the head tube.. The ZeroStack and InSet headsets already work that way and they're not going to change.


Do Cane Creek have a patent/exclusive on this, or do you think we might see other headset manufacturers making headsets to this "external 44" standard?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*That's what I was actually planning to do.*

I think it would look ok with a silver top cup, or even not so bad with a black one. But I'm guessing some people would find the look unacceptable.

-Walt



smudge said:


> Hey John,
> 
> The headsets are going to mate best with a 50mm diameter flange on the ends of the head tube.. The ZeroStack and InSet headsets already work that way and they're not going to change.
> 
> Another solution that I don't think has been mentioned is just to use whatever HT O.D. you guys are going to come up with and then machine down the lip of the upper cup to match the head tube. There are several way to make cost effective lathe fixtures to get this done quickly.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

I think for steel the Vertigo/CC solution is not really the way to go. It's a clumsy solution that really has no need if you look at the Fustrum options.

I've been doing 1.125" IS for a while using my system. It's lighter than any other way of doing the head/bearing area for a steel bike that I've seen and it's strong as hell. IS is great.

The issue is that I belive that 1.125/1.500 is really where all performance road and trail forks are going to end up. It's about the fork crown pure and simple and has nothing to do with the frame. Because of this, for steel and TI I would prefer a solution that would be based on top and bottom IS rather than top and bottom ZS. The ZS does nothing but add a ton of weight. IS is just better in every way when it comes to customs.

For AL bikes, I belive that 1.125 ZS or IS top and 1.500 traditional bottom is the way to go. This gives the rider 0.50 degrees of head angle adjustment if they are using dual crown forks or 1.125" forks. For road and freeride with tapered steerers, the 1.125 ZS/IS top and 1.500 ZS bottom are just fine.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2005)

I'd agree with PVD. 44mm will look OK on ti frames with 1.75" down tubes, but it's going to look a bit weird on a 35mm down tubed trail bike steel frame, and a tube that small will have less weld area and will also rely on the head tube wall to stop it punching through as it won't wraparound like the junction does on a traditional head tube. Taper is coming though - big time. If steel doesn't do something, it'll get left behind.


----------



## Evil4bc (Apr 13, 2004)

My thoughts on this new headtube standard are these -

I like the long tapered headtubes like YETI and TREK are currently using with a 100% inset design for MTN .

If I were to make a new inset headtube - thinking of having a few of these CNC's for a new bike design it would be either of these 2 options

*OPTION 1*- Fully tapered 4130 steel for inset top and bottom -
44mm upper for king inset cut 
49.60 at the bottom for inset 1.50 
total headtube tapered between both , I have access to a CNC lathe and these could be made very easily .

*OPTION 2* - Warning KING hates this idea ( it's OK by me as I honestly believe 45x45 to be better and CK to be biased in the guise of saving his product line ) but I prefer it to the above mentioned idea .
Upper bearing race - 45x45 campagnolo integrated angular contact bearing .
LOWER - 49.60 for kin press fit inset bearing .

For option 2 this would allow the builder to trim the headtube down on the bottom end a bit for different sized bikes allowing for only 2-3 total sizes of headtube to be CNC'd by the vendor . The 45x45 angular contact bearing keeps the upper end centered without the worry of press fit turning or warping , and allows for a proven tightening interface to be used .
The bottom end as I mentioned can be trimmed to fit different size bikes as well as having a press fit 45x45 angular contact cup made to allow for 1 1/8 forks to be used also .

45x45 angular contact bearing are a proven system without fault they dont make noise never loosen up and I havent blown a bearing in almost 5 years. I have a ton of person bikes with all sorta of headset and BB systems on them . All my CK bikes even my Bontrager's creek at the headset interface , CK tightening interface sucks and requires a cut and slice mod to make them work correctly .
BMX goes huge on 45x45 headset without trouble , I have tested this interface on long travel bikes without failure so I believe these to be the end all perfect solution for bikes and this is why almost all the frames we make these days have these headtubes on them .
Which ones work the best without maintinance or costly parts ? My bikes with 45x45 intigrated headtubes and press fit BB's ?
Go figure right ?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Thoughts*

Thanks to everyone for the input. Honestly, though, very few steel builders (one-off guys and even smaller stock size builders) are set up to deal with a head tube that actually tapers. It makes mitering quite a bit more difficult, it makes getting your hands on the head tube stock VERY expensive or difficult (most of us don't have CNC lathes and making such a headtube from stock would consume hours and hours of work), and it's just not going to happen, at least not anytime soon.

Obviously for mass producers and those doing bigger runs of stuff, having a tapered head tube (or anything else) made is an option.

The tube will be round, and it'll be the same diameter at the top as it is at the bottom. This is just steel I'm talking about, I have no idea what people will decide to do for other materials. And it's going to use the inset standard, because the headset(s) and all the needed tooling are already available. Yes, you could save an ounce or two with an integrated setup of some kind, but the serious weight geeks aren't going to be buying steel bikes anyway, IMO.

I mean, honestly, I'd love to see lots of these solutions happen, but *nobody* except Sean, me, and a few other people seem to care enough to actually get anything done, so it's a little hard to take some of these suggestions seriously.

If you want to make a better system happen, go out and do the legwork to make sure we can all easily get head tube stock, headset parts, reamers, and mitering equipment that will work with your setup. I'll be happy to drop what I've done if you've got something better - and it looks like you're willing to put in the time to make it happen. But this process has been going on for several months now and I don't see any evidence that anyone but Sean cares enough to actually put in the work needed to make it a reality.

-Walt



Evil4bc said:


> My thoughts on this new headtube standard are these -
> 
> I like the long tapered headtubes like YETI and TREK are currently using with a 100% inset design for MTN .
> 
> ...


----------



## Evil4bc (Apr 13, 2004)

Walt said:


> Thanks to everyone for the input. Honestly, though, very few steel builders (one-off guys and even smaller stock size builders) are set up to deal with a head tube that actually tapers. It makes mitering quite a bit more difficult, it makes getting your hands on the head tube stock VERY expensive or difficult (most of us don't have CNC lathes and making such a headtube from stock would consume hours and hours of work), and it's just not going to happen, at least not anytime soon.
> 
> -Walt


Walt -

Got a set of files and some sanding drums ?
Not that hard to fit a DT to a long taper HT , get out in the shop and think outside the box :thumbsup:

I posted up in the frame supplies page that Aaron from SOILD had CNC services so this is a possibility for smaller builder but if your set on welding a Redbull can onto the front of your frames more power to ya .

This is the main reason I haven't replied to these threads as my ideas arnt consider to be serious, even thought my mtn frames have featured custom standards since their inception .

Oh and long taper headtubes are much much sexier than a big ole tube , at least this is my thought on this whole let's find the simplest / ugliest solution to run tapered HT's


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Sure...*

Seriously, we would have listened to you if you'd posted this 2 months ago. Or at least I would have. Especially if you went and had some made and then said "hey guys, I've got a better idea, and I can make it happen, who wants some?"

As it is, it's getting late in the game. I have customers who want this to happen, and I need a system I can have in my hands in a matter of months.

I mean, do it. I'll buy some head tube stock from you if you can get the price to <$50/ unit and it makes sense to me. I think there will eventually be a lot of demand for this, and it would probably be worth your time.

-Walt



Evil4bc said:


> Walt -
> 
> Got a set of files and some sanding drums ?
> Not that hard to fit a DT to a long taper HT , get out in the shop and think outside the box :thumbsup:
> ...


----------



## Evil4bc (Apr 13, 2004)

Walt said:


> Seriously, we would have listened to you if you'd posted this 2 months ago. Or at least I would have. Especially if you went and had some made and then said "hey guys, I've got a better idea, and I can make it happen, who wants some?"
> 
> As it is, it's getting late in the game. I have customers who want this to happen, and I need a system I can have in my hands in a matter of months.
> 
> ...


Walt I'm all for helping the forum but REALLY ?
$50 a UNIT ? Seriously I'll be making money of I sell these at $50 a pop , you guys really need to check out cheeper vendors if this is what your paying per HT for CNC pieces .

The reason I didn't offer up my ideas earlier ? Honestly they arent considered and so I'll just keep these to myself and let it fall under market advantage. My HT's are already in the works right now and next up are tapered one piece CNC machine steel steerers for rigid forks , sure it's over kill but let's explore a new standard instead of just playing around with the simplest way to mount these parts to our bike .


----------



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

Good Lord (again)

I like the idea of going with the thicker-wall tube. If the tube is too thin, you run increased risk of cracks between the TT and HT. Having a tube that's strong enough for DH, but can be turned to XC-thickness would be best, for now.

Later on, a lighter option could be introduced for those without a lathe. Gotta start somewhere.


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

I disagree with PVD as all the road bikes we see in the shop with IS headsets are knackered, they can't handle any wet/gritty conditions, i've even seen frames scrapped because of it (hhalf a bearing stuck in, and yes i realise that some simple maintenance would have solved it but people don't do simple maintenance)

I'm going to trry doing a frame with a 50mm tube turned in the centre to save some weight at some point, but what i'm worried about is reamers? park don't even make one and the only two i can find are king and icetools, i'm going to look further into it as i don't have prices for those/compatability with our tools, but this could limit the ease of building as i think if your welding/brazing is anything less than perfect your going to need SOME post weld machining.

I like the idea of a CNC'd head tube but it's just not sensible for the volumes we would require, particularly in the uk where there'd be about 5 builders who might actually use them!

Cy is right that steel needs to be future proof and this isn't the only standard that we need to be on the ball with, bottom brackets and axle standards/spacings also need to be considered. I think we should be looking at dropouts for maxle as well. i think the paragon breezers for a maxle would be sweet. we also need to keep up with height adjustable posts, why aren't there buldge butted seat tubes that'll take a 30.9 post?

we need to get together a nag every tubing/part manufacturer to make the things we want or as walt says get up off our arses and do something about it, otherwise custom steel frames will go the way of the dodo as people don't have the options that custom is supposed to bring!

just my 2p

matt


----------



## dbohemian (Mar 25, 2007)

Matt, I agree with everything you said but.....

Framebuilders, hobby or pro are notorious for being cheap fracking sh-ts when it comes to buying anything. 

Almost every time somebody makes something even remotely cool and 100 people said they would buy it 10 pony up. I could see paying for a run of special ST's and then hearing everyone scream that they cost $3 more than commonly available variants. Add the variation that MTB bicycles have compared to road bikes (i.e. this conversation) which oddly reminds me of many of the recumbent hippies conversations I have heard and it is dang hard to justify doing anything.

Whatever you guys do I will buy it just because I want to support the cause and I think even the newbs and hobbiest have to also.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Just FYI*

Paragon already makes the Maxle setup for the sliders. They're available now.

Agreed that a seat tube for 30.9 would be very nice to have. I would love to tackle that project too - but see what happens when I try to get some simple opinions on something?

-Walt



18bikes said:


> Cy is right that steel needs to be future proof and this isn't the only standard that we need to be on the ball with, bottom brackets and axle standards/spacings also need to be considered. I think we should be looking at dropouts for maxle as well. i think the paragon breezers for a maxle would be sweet. we also need to keep up with height adjustable posts, why aren't there buldge butted seat tubes that'll take a 30.9 post?
> 
> matt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*It sounds like someone needs to step up...*

...and make some head tubes for us. 

Seriously. People would buy them. Including me.

-Walt



Evil4bc said:


> Walt I'm all for helping the forum but REALLY ?
> $50 a UNIT ? Seriously I'll be making money of I sell these at $50 a pop , you guys really need to check out cheeper vendors if this is what your paying per HT for CNC pieces .
> 
> The reason I didn't offer up my ideas earlier ? Honestly they arent considered and so I'll just keep these to myself and let it fall under market advantage. My HT's are already in the works right now and next up are tapered one piece CNC machine steel steerers for rigid forks , sure it's over kill but let's explore a new standard instead of just playing around with the simplest way to mount these parts to our bike .


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Fukc this makes my head hurt.

You'd *almost* think that these headset companies would subsidize the facing tool costs to actually create a demand for their product, but wtf do I know.

For hitting the taper on a manual lathe, there's a way to make a template for any contour you want that allows for really fast and repeatable turning of contours. Make the template out of thin plate to the desired geo, clamp it to the ways just in front of headstock, template running parallel to back way and in front of carriage. A 'reader' or follower pin that runs against the contour is clamped to the carriage. Use the carriage handwheel and crossslide... back and forth, then the pin will actualy bottom on the template, and the countour is realized.

I can post pics if it's deemed relevant.

-Schmitty-


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

Thats exactly my point, we need to not be tight and spend some money otherwise we will get left behind!

I was meaning standard maxle dropouts, not for sliders

I don't have enough experience with the lathe to feel i could tackle a tapered headtube, also the time involved makes me want to cry a little. I understand the concept of a copying lathe but i've never tried it, never needed to!

I thiink ultimately it's going to end up with everyone doing their own thing, but if we could work out a way to work together and decide on a few things that genuinely would get used then maybe we could progress a bit quicker. Its difficult with s being on the other side of the pond as the tubing guys I would pester would be Reynolds but for you it would be true temper (yeah?) it means that even if one of us succeeds it may not help the other anyway

just another 2p

matt


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

So Perdido = Inset = Zero Stack = semi integrated? Looking at the Cane Creek specs and they are calling it 'Perdido'. I assume 'Inset' is the name King settled on, and that's the only difference? 

The need to braze on xtra bits for a smooth transition seems to negate any real/percieved weight savings.

Let's get the hs and bb to take the same bearings!


-Schmitty-


----------



## vulture (Jan 13, 2004)

D.F.L. said:


> Good Lord (again)
> 
> I like the idea of going with the thicker-wall tube. If the tube is too thin, you run increased risk of cracks between the TT and HT. Having a tube that's strong enough for DH, but can be turned to XC-thickness would be best, for now.
> 
> Later on, a lighter option could be introduced for those without a lathe. Gotta start somewhere.


I agree with DFL.
also , Walt, where are you getting the .083x2.


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

The problem with any CNC part isn't the cost of the 1,000th part off the machine, it's paying for all the upfront costs, design, programming, fixturing, etc. for the first 10 that kills you. Not everyone wants to donate their time, materials, and tooling for the passion of the bike and would like to make some profit for their efforts. $50 for a low volume part like is this completely reasonable.

IMHO, the real long term solution here is not a CNC part, but a forged or formed part. Tubing suppliers should be getting on this, but as I said, that's long term. A tapered head tube is going to look a lot better on a steel bike than a straight large diameter tube with brazed on adapters. Mitering for tapered tubes is not hard, it's just two intersecting cuts with the appropriately sized holesaws. You'll have to kiss it with a file to work the transition, but it goes very fast.

My last comment is this: most of the folks on here are steel builders. Sometimes you have to chase the market & sometimes the market has to chase you. It's been said over & over that steel bikes, lugged bikes, euro BB sheels, 1" steerers, and now 1.125" steerers and all that are on death's door. Not going to happen. Less than 10-years ago, the IS headset was to make conventional headset obsolete and many changed their bike designs only to change back. For the most part, 1.5" headtubes are driven by the aluminum & CF bike market. Again, IMO, this kind of evolution is cool, but I don't think it's a threat or a do or die for steel builders. You can keep on keepin' on with normal head tubes if this kind of stuff doesn't blow your hair back.


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

Schmitty said:


> Let's get the hs and bb to take the same bearings!
> 
> -Schmitty-


Now you're talking!


----------



## e.gellie (May 3, 2008)

I'd prefer 1.35mm walls and an external ring. The tube could still be lathed, maybe even eccentrically to remove more material from the front or just be left as is and will be the same weight as the 1.6mm wall TrueTemper headtube.

1.35mm walls would sit nicely between the Columbus 1.1mm wall headtube I use for road-frames/light-MTB's, and the 1.6mm wall TrueTemper headtube I use for 29ers and heavy-use bikes.

Cheers,
Ewen


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Am I following this right? The external rings would only be cosmetic?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*As of now, yes*

The head tube is intended to be useable off the shelf and strong enough for basically whatever. The rings would be aesthetic (or for further reinforcement if a 1.2mm wall/46.4mm OD tube isn't beefy enough for your tastes).

I agree with Don that a forged/formed tube would be ideal, but TT is dragging their feet on even doing a straight tube for this project - if someone out there has some magical pull with a supplier who can do this sort of stuff, please do chime in. I mean, I wave money in people's faces and they still won't build it, basically. So I don't know what to say - I'll be happy if I can get some parts for the current project, and if there's a nice tapered tube available down the road, great, but I'm not holding my breath.

-Walt



dr.welby said:


> Am I following this right? The external rings would only be cosmetic?


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Evil4bc said:


> My HT's are already in the works right now and next up are tapered one piece CNC machine steel steerers for rigid forks , sure it's over kill but let's explore a new standard instead of just playing around with the simplest way to mount these parts to our bike .


When you have the tapered steel steerers ready, let me know and I'll buy them. I want them.


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

I think it really depends on the build. A more classic retro build should have a traditional headset and brazed on rings. Personally, for my real bikes I like function with a little bit of form. Larger headtubes ease the junction for downtube gussets and using larger downtubes. Tapered steerer head tubes are kinda ugly to me, especially when converted to non-tapered steerers. I like it the idea of being able to do both and do it prettily.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Schmitty said:


> You'd *almost* think that these headset companies would subsidize the facing tool costs to actually create a demand for their product, but wtf do I know.


I hear you. I've been trying to get a cutter for 1.500" IS for the past year and nobody is interested. I would figure that CC or Park could do a run of 100 cutters with just a little profit just to satisfy the small amount of people that will be supporting their product, but they just don't want to. Argg.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

What are builders using now? 

This is an example of the 'transition rings' that Walt is talking about(I believe).

That's a big a** chunk of steel. Walt, are you thinking just burly applications on this idea? 

All this big head tube/steerer stuff seems like a better fit for Al and Ti imo.

-Schmitty-


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Yes.*

Long forks (ie, 100+mm travel 29er, 140+mm travel 26"), big riders, aggro people, all of the above. I can't imagine this would be something I'd use for lighter folks or plain-jane XC bikes. But I do a lot of bikes for aggro people and huge people. So yeah, 38+mm downtube type stuff.

Cielo does all of their mountain frames with the inset setup, I think. Jay has been turning out 1 7/8" 4130 sticks, he said.

As an aside, I really wonder if a tapered tube would look any better. Looks fine on Al and CF bikes I've seen, but they use much bigger tubes in general. No way to know without doing it, I suppose.

-Walt



Schmitty said:


> What are builders using now?
> 
> This is an example of the 'transition rings' that Walt is talking about(I believe).
> 
> ...


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Walt said:


> Jay has been turning out 1 7/8" 4130 sticks, he said.
> -Walt


Solid? Yikes.

-Schmitty-


----------



## Arrak Thumrs (Oct 24, 2009)

DWF said:


> The problem with any CNC part isn't the cost of the 1,000th part off the machine, it's paying for all the upfront costs, design, programming, fixturing, etc. for the first 10 that kills you... IMHO, the real long term solution here is not a CNC part, but a forged or formed part.


CNC fails here. Not enough volume to offset programming and machine costs. What you need is a job shop with a manual turret lathe sitting around. CNC's of their own day, outmoded now, they still are the most cost-effective solution for small production runs such as this.


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

Arrak Thumrs said:


> CNC fails here. Not enough volume to offset programming and machine costs. What you need is a job shop with a manual turret lathe sitting around. CNC's of their own day, outmoded now, they still are the most cost-effective solution for small production runs such as this.


I have manual turret lathe and I'd CNC this still the cows came home and the pigs flew off. No contest. If you had to make each one manually, assuming long radius blends and smooth transitions and hold a decent tolerance, it'd be $100-150 each. If you want a chop & block part, sure, you could do it fairly fast on a turret.


----------



## Arrak Thumrs (Oct 24, 2009)

DWF said:


> I have manual turret lathe and I'd CNC this still the cows came home and the pigs flew off. No contest. If you had to make each one manually, assuming long radius blends and smooth transitions and hold a decent tolerance, it'd be $100-150 each. If you want a chop & block part, sure, you could do it fairly fast on a turret.


I was assuming we were talking about "brazed-on rings to make a smooth transition to the headset" not entire headtubes. I haven't been following this thread too closely...


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

pvd said:


> I hear you. I've been trying to get a cutter for 1.500" IS for the past year and nobody is interested. I would figure that CC or Park could do a run of 100 cutters with just a little profit just to satisfy the small amount of people that will be supporting their product, but they just don't want to. Argg.


Pete,

If you really want to get it done, call Andy Newlands of Strawberry and ask him to cut out a blank. Then get in touch with Gary at McKenzie tool and send him a drawing of what you want. If you can work it out with Andy that you can get the tool through one of his heat treat batches, it might actually be a reasonable price.


----------



## Evil4bc (Apr 13, 2004)

smudge said:


> When you have the tapered steel steerers ready, let me know and I'll buy them. I want them.


Walt / smudge - YES both are on the way , I had to stop by the machine shop today and both are not far off , will keep everyone posted :thumbsup:


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Heh!*

No, tubing of some kind. Solid would be hilarious.

-W



Schmitty said:


> Solid? Yikes.
> 
> -Schmitty-


----------



## Hardtails Are Better (May 4, 2005)

Walt said:


> No, tubing of some kind. Solid would be hilarious.
> 
> -W


Yeah, solid would be nuts. That's a lot of steel to have to remove.

I'm not sure that I'm sold on the aesthetics of the bigger headtubes on steel bikes, but do see the appeal in an internal headset for the purpose of lowering the bars a little. I think the best looking way to do that is a flared headtube for 45/45 drop in bearings, but that's obviously harder/ more expensive to make, especially if you're not doing that many.


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

smudge said:


> Pete,
> 
> If you really want to get it done, call Andy Newlands of Strawberry and ask him to cut out a blank. Then get in touch with Gary at McKenzie tool and send him a drawing of what you want. If you can work it out with Andy that you can get the tool through one of his heat treat batches, it might actually be a reasonable price.


Off the shelf 2-1/16" (2.0625") shell reamer and any tool grinding service to final dim on the OD and chamfer fluting. Almost every large city has a tool grinding service. You could make your own collar for it to set your ream depth or you could have it ground down to shorten it up. Handles are easy as shell reamers already have drive slots. Facing tools are even easier but if it's faced to begin with (out of the box, off the lathe, or mill) and you watch your heat, you should be able to just stone the bottom of the head tube and not need a facer.

An example:
https://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/NNSRIT?PMPXNO=1701395&PMT4NO=81389618










Edit: Of course King has already done it. They list facers and reamers for both 1.5 conventional and 1.5 IS.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Just thinking out loud here, but the transition rings could also be a light press fit, and even aluminum or plastic? Like hmmm, black ABS pipe?

Note I say "could", not "should", do you press it after paint, etc...


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

DWF said:


> Off the shelf 2-1/16" (2.0625") shell reamer and any tool grinding service to final dim on the OD and chamfer fluting. Almost every large city has a tool grinding service. You could make your own collar for it to set your ream depth or you could have it ground down to shorten it up. Handles are easy as shell reamers already have drive slots. Facing tools are even easier but if it's faced to begin with (out of the box, off the lathe, or mill) and you watch your heat, you should be able to just stone the bottom of the head tube and not need a facer.


don, I think Pete was referring to some kind of 1.5" 45/45 custom jobbie, not something conventional.


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

smudge said:


> don, I think Pete was referring to some kind of 1.5" 45/45 custom jobbie, not something conventional.


I was too. A tool grinder can grind in the the chamfer flutes on the end or on the flank. Having a cutter made from an existing tool is usually only a fraction of the cost of having one made from a blank.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

DWF said:


> I was too. A tool grinder can grind in the the chamfer flutes on the end or on the flank. Having a cutter made from an existing tool is usually only a fraction of the cost of having one made from a blank.


aahh. gotcha.


----------



## john 9 (Nov 27, 2006)

I think King or Cane Creek should make us a headset that is not wider than the HT. I know it's a long shot, but the cleanest, fastest, and least amount of material.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

I gotta say, part of me still think this looks kinda neat.


----------



## TimT (Jan 1, 2004)

I say rings because I would not be limited in HT design length. 

Tim


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Preliminary design from TT*

I have a preliminary design from Ben, and it will be 43.9mm ID, 1.2mm wall, 46.3mm OD. Material is Verus HT (so heat treated 4130).

This will mean you'll need rings for a smooth transition and/or reinforcement if you want (which can be *relatively* easily made with .095"x2" 4130 and some minor lathe work, or with 2"x.083 if you can find it). If there is lots of demand, I will look at having rings or ring stock made (probably by Paragon) as well.

No info on exact pricing as yet, but it won't be particularly expensive - I'm guessing around $10-15 for a 250mm piece of tubing. I don't know if TT will make more than what I and the other folks pushing this are ordering, so it may or may not be available through Henry James. I will be happy to provide head tube stock for sale if HJ does not end up carrying it.

Both Icetoolz and King make reamers for this size, before anyone asks. I will have a reamer here and will be happy to prep head tubes for a nominal fee (you have to get the frame here, of course) for those who don't want to spend the money on the cutters.

Headsets (standard inset) are available from Cane Creek and King, and the new 1 1/8 top/1.5 bottom headset will be out from Cane Creek late in the spring (see the other taper thread for more info from Sean).

-Walt


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Are those specs right?

-Schmitty-


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Do you have a contact at TT that us interested parties can contact so that they actually make enough for everyone interested?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Here is the print from TT*

For those folks who need to plan for this, here's the current (we're in sample/proto phase right now) spec sheet for the HT. I made an error in the previous post - wall thickness is 1.25, OD is 46.4mm.

As of now, the part number will be MHT44.

-Walt



Schmitty said:


> Are those specs right?
> 
> -Schmitty-


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Yes, but...*

Hey Warwick -

You're welcome to contact Ben Hough at TT directly to express your interest. I don't think there will be any shortage, though, as of now I'm on the hook for at least 200 pieces (gulp!)

-Walt



Thylacine said:


> Do you have a contact at TT that us interested parties can contact so that they actually make enough for everyone interested?


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2005)

Walt, if you're moving forward with the TT head tube, I'll take a couple off yours hands for samples and mucking about with.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*No problem.*

As I think I mentioned before, I don't know yet if TT will make more of these than I am ordering for Henry James to stock. I am not a tubing distributor, so if HJ decides to carry them, I'll ask people who need small quantities to get them there.

My guess, however, is that they will only make the ones I order (this is how things have worked in the past, anyway) so if that's the case, I'll offer them for sale to anyone who is interested. Keep in mind that as of now, the design is calling for 5' lengths (enough for 10+ bikes, probably) and I'm not super inclined to spend my time chopping off hunks. I'm *guessing* that a 5' piece will run about $40-50.

If this works out well, I will probably work on doing a seat tube to accept a 30.9 post later this year as well.

-Walt



[email protected] said:


> Walt, if you're moving forward with the TT head tube, I'll take a couple off yours hands for samples and mucking about with.


----------



## rustola (Jan 15, 2008)

*Sign me up*



Walt said:


> I'll offer them for sale to anyone who is interested.


On, the OD issue, I find it amusing that it's split down the middle 50/50, since I kept going back and forth as I thought about this.

My first thought was that since I have a lathe, that I'd rather get the thicker walled tube so as to avoid the potential problem of getting stuck without rings. But as I thought about it more, I started to think about the idea of being totally stuck - no lathe, no rings. I'd rather deal with an aesthetic issue that would be possible to deal with afterwards and by other means (braze on rings later, maybe a plastic ring, heck even bondo a smooth transition), than have the extra weight of a 3mm wall head tube.

But either way, like I said sign me up. Thanks, Walt, for taking initiative here.


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Walt, if you're moving forward with the TT head tube, I'll take a couple off yours hands for samples and mucking about with.


we'd go halves on a length if that makes things work?


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Walt said:


> I'm *guessing* that a 5' piece will run about $40-50.


SOLD!



Walt said:


> If this works out well, I will probably work on doing a seat tube to accept a 30.9 post later this year as well.


I use one that takes a 30.0 post and it's a cracker. We could just collectively [can't afford it on my own] import a run of those as it would be a heck of a lot cheaper and easier, and the leadtime is only 8 weeks vs TT's what......4-5 months? I think I posted the specs early last year -

ø32.4 > ø31.8 bulge butted / 1.2-0.7-0.9 / 90-25-255-20-155 / L495


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

Thylacine said:


> SOLD!
> 
> I use one that takes a 30.0 post and it's a cracker. We could just collectively [can't afford it on my own] import a run of those as it would be a heck of a lot cheaper and easier, and the leadtime is only 8 weeks vs TT's what......4-5 months?


I believe the 30.9 would be for height adjustable posts as i mentioned either in thhis thread or the other 44mm thread. It's a real shame crank bros gave up on the 27.2 joplin

matt


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

That would be handy for the AM crowd.

The reason I use the 30.0 post-able seat tube though is because I like the standover and look of having a boatload of seatpost hangin' out a compact frame.

You can thank the WTB phoenix for that. :thumbsup:


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Yes.*

Yes, the goal with the seat tube project would be to allow use of one of the common (30.9 or 31.6) adjustable height posts. At least that's the direction I was going with it. You can make a tube from 34.9xwhatever 4130 now, but it's heavy and a bit of a pain.

Might be a situation where there are too many different preferences, of course.

-Walt



18bikes said:


> I believe the 30.9 would be for height adjustable posts as i mentioned either in thhis thread or the other 44mm thread. It's a real shame crank bros gave up on the 27.2 joplin
> 
> matt


----------



## jncarpenter (Dec 20, 2003)

Any word on this? Are these tubes going to materialize?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Nothing yet.*

I am still waiting on samples/pricing from True Temper. Things are, as always, moving at a glacial pace.

If I don't hear something *relatively* soon, I'll try Fairing, but in my experience, they're just as slow.

-Walt



jncarpenter said:


> Any word on this? Are these tubes going to materialize?


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

If you want to consider 'Alternative C', Walt, drop me an e-mail.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*They're on the way...*

...next week, they tell me.

If you want to preorder some, you can do so at my blog:
http://waltworks.blogspot.com/2010/04/pre-order-44mm-headtube-stock.html

And yes, I'll be buying an official ad in a second to make this a legit post.

-Walt


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

way to go Walt!


----------



## jncarpenter (Dec 20, 2003)

Very nice!


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Your timing sucks Walt!

I'll order 5ft up next month.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Quick note*

If you're on the fence about ordering tubing, keep in mind that as far as I know, Jay (Cielo) and I are ordering the ENTIRE RUN (obviously most of it is going to Jay). I am not planning to order tons to keep around - just enough for myself and whatever is preordered by other builders, so if you decide in 6 months that you want some, it's quite possible that nobody will be willing to sell you any. If you want to have this headtube in your quiver in the near term, you should order it now.

In other words, in a week or so, the PP link is going away and you're on your own. Maybe HJ will order some to stock, maybe not.

And yes, I am making a few bucks on each order. Enough to maybe pay myself minimum wage for the time investment. 

-Walt


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

I've done my version, it looks quite nice, like a tapered tube but in steel proportions, with a 37mm downtube it doesn't look totally daft. I'll post pics when the frame is complete

So far I've made a lower cup and the headtube:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18bikes/

Matt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Holy crap!*

How long did that take?!? Looks like you bored out a solid rod, or close to it... that's insane!

Looks nice, though.

-W



18bikes said:


> I've done my version, it looks quite nice, like a tapered tube but in steel proportions, with a 37mm downtube it doesn't look totally daft. I'll post pics when the frame is complete
> 
> So far I've made a lower cup and the headtube:
> 
> ...


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

thats about 7 hours of lathe work, it is indeed bored from solid, 8mm drill, 22mm drill boring bar for the rest. Took nearly 2kg of 4130 and turned it into a roughly 230g headtube.

If it ends up looking good I will happily pay for someone else to do us a batch, if anyone is interested in having a few let me know, I'll be looking into it after EHBE

matt


----------



## rustola (Jan 15, 2008)

Walt said:


> How long did that take?!?


+1!!!

Looks awesome, but how will you do the miters for the DT and TT?


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

rustola said:


> +1!!!
> 
> Looks awesome, but how will you do the miters for the DT and TT?


Rough it in with a holesaw, then slowly finish by hand

matt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*For comparison:*

100mm worth of the 46.5mm OD tube that True Temper is making weighs about 139g.

-Walt



18bikes said:


> thats about 7 hours of lathe work, it is indeed bored from solid, 8mm drill, 22mm drill boring bar for the rest. Took nearly 2kg of 4130 and turned it into a roughly 230g headtube.
> 
> If it ends up looking good I will happily pay for someone else to do us a batch, if anyone is interested in having a few let me know, I'll be looking into it after EHBE
> 
> matt


----------



## 18bikes (Jan 15, 2007)

I know it's a bit lardy but it's a first attempt and I know where I can save weight. There are a few other options lurking around but I really like the idea of a tapered tube, it makes it obvious what it's for and helps it fit in with alu and carbon a bit better

I think I can get it down to 160/170g with no need for extra rings but we'll have to wait and see

matt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*I'm sure nobody will be surprised...*

...that these have taken longer than expected. I do have good news, however - I have an invoice for 108# of tubing in my hand from Yellow Freight, and TT has charged my credit card.

Hence I believe the tubes to be very close to arriving here (this week). I'll try to get tubing in the mail ASAP for those who have preordered. EDIT: They just arrived!

I have ordered some extra stock, so the PP link remains, for now. Supplies are limited, however, and if you think you will need to use this head tube, it would be wise to order it now rather than wait, as I will not be selling my personal stash. AFAIK, Henry James is not carrying this yet, though I don't know what they plan to do in the future.

-Walt



Walt said:


> ...next week, they tell me.
> 
> If you want to preorder some, you can do so at my blog:
> http://waltworks.blogspot.com/2010/04/pre-order-44mm-headtube-stock.html
> ...


----------

