You get less cable rub and can get hoses out of the way more easily when running a handlebar bag for bikepacking. You won't have cables rubbing against your headtube either.
My question is, when are some of the higher quality brands going to step in a release bearings that are compatible so that it's a problem you only have to deal with ever few years?
Internal routing was also a terrible idea, but that didn't stop the industry from adopting it. Unfortunately, wide spread adoption of bad ideas seems the norm now.
@Masjo (RE the rumors thread post, hope you see this) the bottom bearing is free of any routing. It's the top bearing that has stuff going through it.
Regarding tucking under the stem, a) it doesn't look as clean (I guess), and b) (more importantly), routing behind the headset could add some more stress to the hoses and housings or you'd need more slack (i.e. make it look even worse). With fully internal routing you enter the frame completely vertically basically 'on' the axis of rotation and you can have the slack inside the headtube, top/downtube, etc.
Of course that means there can be rubbing on the inside of the frame and on the steerer tube (RE BlazersDad89), which you don't even see and can cause structural issues (by wearing through the material).
Honestly the one 'saving grace' of through the headset routing is the proliferation of headsets that have integrated rotation limiters. That will likely make fork crown interference with the downtubes and handlebars and brake levers hitting the top tube a thing of the past.
The negative of said limiters is the fact the headset is positioned further up in the headtube, which takes away from the stiffness of the system and causes more loads on the bearings.
Boy am I happy to have externally routed everything
@Masjo (RE the rumors thread post, hope you see this) the bottom bearing is free of any routing. It's the top bearing that has stuff going...
@Masjo (RE the rumors thread post, hope you see this) the bottom bearing is free of any routing. It's the top bearing that has stuff going through it.
Regarding tucking under the stem, a) it doesn't look as clean (I guess), and b) (more importantly), routing behind the headset could add some more stress to the hoses and housings or you'd need more slack (i.e. make it look even worse). With fully internal routing you enter the frame completely vertically basically 'on' the axis of rotation and you can have the slack inside the headtube, top/downtube, etc.
Of course that means there can be rubbing on the inside of the frame and on the steerer tube (RE BlazersDad89), which you don't even see and can cause structural issues (by wearing through the material).
Honestly the one 'saving grace' of through the headset routing is the proliferation of headsets that have integrated rotation limiters. That will likely make fork crown interference with the downtubes and handlebars and brake levers hitting the top tube a thing of the past.
The negative of said limiters is the fact the headset is positioned further up in the headtube, which takes away from the stiffness of the system and causes more loads on the bearings.
Boy am I happy to have externally routed everything
You are correct on the lower headset bearing thing, assuming we don't see some brake integration on fork crowns. I was thinking about it on road bikes, where they often have the cable routed into the fork steerer; in that case the lower headset bearing is trapped.
The cables would need excess slack which would probably be too long/too much for some sort of under stem cover/door to take in, unless the holes are loosely fit and the slack is taken up inside the frame. That already sounds like a bad idea with water/dirt ingress but it's pretty much the same problem for your top bearing. I guess that is less expensive than a whole frame.
Nukeproof/vitus have sent out plastic rings to protect the steerer as brake cables have been rubbing against it, should be a recall given it’s a safety related potential serious failure
Nukeproof/vitus have sent out plastic rings to protect the steerer as brake cables have been rubbing against it, should be a recall given it’s a safety...
Nukeproof/vitus have sent out plastic rings to protect the steerer as brake cables have been rubbing against it, should be a recall given it’s a safety related potential serious failure
yep, this shit is ridiculous. But recalls don't seem to be a thing in the bike industry, or how did SRAM never do a recall for all of their guide levers locking up in the heat?
Nukeproof/vitus have sent out plastic rings to protect the steerer as brake cables have been rubbing against it, should be a recall given it’s a safety...
Nukeproof/vitus have sent out plastic rings to protect the steerer as brake cables have been rubbing against it, should be a recall given it’s a safety related potential serious failure
yep, this shit is ridiculous. But recalls don't seem to be a thing in the bike industry, or how did SRAM never do a recall for...
yep, this shit is ridiculous. But recalls don't seem to be a thing in the bike industry, or how did SRAM never do a recall for all of their guide levers locking up in the heat?
As far as sram guides all you had to do was walk into a consumer friendly bike shop and they’d warranty them no question.
It´s cheaper to manufacture.* You don´t need holes in the frame and along the way they also forgo the internal guiding channels in the frame, so were back to 2015 internal routing.
Cable rub on the fork, inside the frame, more proprietary parts, more dirt ingress,...
So it´s a step back for workshops and customers, but one forward for development, manufacturing and controlling. And for marketing and sales as there are enough people who buy simply by "looks".
*confirmed by Arc8 in the Pinkbike comments, but it's common sense anyway. Still their old frame was 2000€, the new one is 3200€.
@Masjo (RE the rumors thread post, hope you see this) the bottom bearing is free of any routing. It's the top bearing that has stuff going...
@Masjo (RE the rumors thread post, hope you see this) the bottom bearing is free of any routing. It's the top bearing that has stuff going through it.
Regarding tucking under the stem, a) it doesn't look as clean (I guess), and b) (more importantly), routing behind the headset could add some more stress to the hoses and housings or you'd need more slack (i.e. make it look even worse). With fully internal routing you enter the frame completely vertically basically 'on' the axis of rotation and you can have the slack inside the headtube, top/downtube, etc.
Of course that means there can be rubbing on the inside of the frame and on the steerer tube (RE BlazersDad89), which you don't even see and can cause structural issues (by wearing through the material).
Honestly the one 'saving grace' of through the headset routing is the proliferation of headsets that have integrated rotation limiters. That will likely make fork crown interference with the downtubes and handlebars and brake levers hitting the top tube a thing of the past.
The negative of said limiters is the fact the headset is positioned further up in the headtube, which takes away from the stiffness of the system and causes more loads on the bearings.
Boy am I happy to have externally routed everything
The main thing TREK owners hate is interrogated headset rotation limiters (knockblock), not sure if that is a plus.
I'm a TREK owner who has got rid of knockblock for its failures which cause damage to downtube.
It works horribly on road bikes which have been doing their damn best to make it even more complex and prone to failure. Of course it’s the best thing to happen since droppers for the MTB segment…
When it's well done (aka in like 2% of the time), it can work well and looks "cleaner" seeing as all the cable are integrated and hidden, you get no cable rub on certain parts and the entry point for cables do not cause a stress point for housing. It can also make the cockpit look less "busy" in certain cases.
It is a clusterfuck for mechanics though, integration is usually meant to simplify things but in this case, no.... There have been cases of cable sawing off steer tubes and such so I don't really see why it's necessary. Especially now that electronic, wireless transmissions are more widely available
Doesn't it also mean that, when you brake on the front and the wheel tries to tuck under the frame it will lever at the front of the headset.
With through-the-headset routing, that force (in part, not fully) goes onto a piece with a big hole in it???
I thought we were past the days of headtubes ovalizing, but if the headset can now ovalize independently then we are kinda back to that no?
@Masjo (RE the rumors thread post, hope you see this) the bottom bearing is free of any routing. It's the top bearing that has stuff going...
@Masjo (RE the rumors thread post, hope you see this) the bottom bearing is free of any routing. It's the top bearing that has stuff going through it.
Regarding tucking under the stem, a) it doesn't look as clean (I guess), and b) (more importantly), routing behind the headset could add some more stress to the hoses and housings or you'd need more slack (i.e. make it look even worse). With fully internal routing you enter the frame completely vertically basically 'on' the axis of rotation and you can have the slack inside the headtube, top/downtube, etc.
Of course that means there can be rubbing on the inside of the frame and on the steerer tube (RE BlazersDad89), which you don't even see and can cause structural issues (by wearing through the material).
Honestly the one 'saving grace' of through the headset routing is the proliferation of headsets that have integrated rotation limiters. That will likely make fork crown interference with the downtubes and handlebars and brake levers hitting the top tube a thing of the past.
The negative of said limiters is the fact the headset is positioned further up in the headtube, which takes away from the stiffness of the system and causes more loads on the bearings.
Boy am I happy to have externally routed everything
The main thing TREK owners hate is interrogated headset rotation limiters (knockblock), not sure if that is a plus.
I'm a TREK owner who has got...
The main thing TREK owners hate is interrogated headset rotation limiters (knockblock), not sure if that is a plus.
I'm a TREK owner who has got rid of knockblock for its failures which cause damage to downtube.
The one solution I dealt with (through headset routing... Luckily it was an e-bike, where removing the battery and the latches for the battery gave a lot of access to route cables) had the knockblock integrated into the headset so could theoretically be retrofitted to any or almost any bike. The crownrace on the fork had the geometry to interface with a stop in the lower headset. The way those are pressed into the frame (if the frame has cups at all) should make it fairly fool proof.
Doesn't it also mean that, when you brake on the front and the wheel tries to tuck under the frame it will lever at the front...
Doesn't it also mean that, when you brake on the front and the wheel tries to tuck under the frame it will lever at the front of the headset.
With through-the-headset routing, that force (in part, not fully) goes onto a piece with a big hole in it???
I thought we were past the days of headtubes ovalizing, but if the headset can now ovalize independently then we are kinda back to that no?
When it's well done (aka in like 2% of the time), it can work well and looks "cleaner" seeing as all the cable are integrated and...
When it's well done (aka in like 2% of the time), it can work well and looks "cleaner" seeing as all the cable are integrated and hidden, you get no cable rub on certain parts and the entry point for cables do not cause a stress point for housing. It can also make the cockpit look less "busy" in certain cases.
It is a clusterfuck for mechanics though, integration is usually meant to simplify things but in this case, no.... There have been cases of cable sawing off steer tubes and such so I don't really see why it's necessary. Especially now that electronic, wireless transmissions are more widely available
* Aero
* "Clean look"
* Sharp bends in hoses decrease flow to rear caliper, causing rear lever to feel slightly firmer for a given pad pressure, giving you automatic brake bias towards the front
* Future proof for when holes in frames are largely taboo thanks to the proliferation (whether wanted by consumers or not) of wireless shifting & droppers.
* Helps get rid of ridiculous colored housings and hoses, since if everything is inside the color doesn't matter so it'll just be black. Reduces proliferation of useless stainless braided hoses.
For everyone saying it won't effect the lower bearing you are now introducing an opening in the headset and allowing "more" water to make its way to the lower bearing and sit on top of it.
"More" because headsets are not perfectly sealed but I would bet there is only very very small amount of water making it's way through on a standard head set.
For everyone saying it won't effect the lower bearing you are now introducing an opening in the headset and allowing "more" water to make its way...
For everyone saying it won't effect the lower bearing you are now introducing an opening in the headset and allowing "more" water to make its way to the lower bearing and sit on top of it.
"More" because headsets are not perfectly sealed but I would bet there is only very very small amount of water making it's way through on a standard head set.
an opening, above the bottom bearing, just like many internal routing ports that live on the headtube?
with an ebike this is actually not the worst idea. When replacing dropper/shifter housing you basically have to take apart the bike anyways. Meaning dropping the drive unit. So since this bike is already disassembled, why not run it internally for a cleaner look? All in all, it adds an extra 20 minutes of labor.
Both my gravel bike and road bike have FSA's ACR system and there are pros and cons:
Pros
- Looks really clean
- It's easy AF to route housing and hoses through the frame (BEFORE you install the fork)
- It's easy to install sound deadening housing and hose wrap
- Aero
- Quiet
- Great for number plates
Cons
- It's annoying to install forks and get all the cables and hoses gathered – and the more cables and hoses you have, the worse it is
- More shifting friction due to tighter housing bends
- It's not sealed...like at all
- Can't really slam your stem
So, pretty sweet if you've got a full AXS setup and only need to route a rear brake hose. Less sweet the more mechanical and "cabled" your bike is. I kinda wish my XC hardtail had it for aesthetics, but I'm happy my other bikes don't.
Nukeproof/vitus have sent out plastic rings to protect the steerer as brake cables have been rubbing against it, should be a recall given it’s a safety...
Nukeproof/vitus have sent out plastic rings to protect the steerer as brake cables have been rubbing against it, should be a recall given it’s a safety related potential serious failure
yep, this shit is ridiculous. But recalls don't seem to be a thing in the bike industry, or how did SRAM never do a recall for...
yep, this shit is ridiculous. But recalls don't seem to be a thing in the bike industry, or how did SRAM never do a recall for all of their guide levers locking up in the heat?
For everyone saying it won't effect the lower bearing you are now introducing an opening in the headset and allowing "more" water to make its way...
For everyone saying it won't effect the lower bearing you are now introducing an opening in the headset and allowing "more" water to make its way to the lower bearing and sit on top of it.
"More" because headsets are not perfectly sealed but I would bet there is only very very small amount of water making it's way through on a standard head set.
an opening, above the bottom bearing, just like many internal routing ports that live on the headtube?
Yes but most ports enter behind the head tube and they are on a different plane. Water will be able to enter through the top which is much more prone to water entry than the sides. That's why most headsets have a seal there.
My question is, when are some of the higher quality brands going to step in a release bearings that are compatible so that it's a problem you only have to deal with ever few years?
says a guy that looks like an overstuffed bratwurst in lycra
Reasoning: I'm retarded.
Regarding tucking under the stem, a) it doesn't look as clean (I guess), and b) (more importantly), routing behind the headset could add some more stress to the hoses and housings or you'd need more slack (i.e. make it look even worse). With fully internal routing you enter the frame completely vertically basically 'on' the axis of rotation and you can have the slack inside the headtube, top/downtube, etc.
Of course that means there can be rubbing on the inside of the frame and on the steerer tube (RE BlazersDad89), which you don't even see and can cause structural issues (by wearing through the material).
Honestly the one 'saving grace' of through the headset routing is the proliferation of headsets that have integrated rotation limiters. That will likely make fork crown interference with the downtubes and handlebars and brake levers hitting the top tube a thing of the past.
The negative of said limiters is the fact the headset is positioned further up in the headtube, which takes away from the stiffness of the system and causes more loads on the bearings.
Boy am I happy to have externally routed everything
The cables would need excess slack which would probably be too long/too much for some sort of under stem cover/door to take in, unless the holes are loosely fit and the slack is taken up inside the frame. That already sounds like a bad idea with water/dirt ingress but it's pretty much the same problem for your top bearing. I guess that is less expensive than a whole frame.
Cable rub on the fork, inside the frame, more proprietary parts, more dirt ingress,...
So it´s a step back for workshops and customers, but one forward for development, manufacturing and controlling. And for marketing and sales as there are enough people who buy simply by "looks".
*confirmed by Arc8 in the Pinkbike comments, but it's common sense anyway. Still their old frame was 2000€, the new one is 3200€.
I'm a TREK owner who has got rid of knockblock for its failures which cause damage to downtube.
It is a clusterfuck for mechanics though, integration is usually meant to simplify things but in this case, no.... There have been cases of cable sawing off steer tubes and such so I don't really see why it's necessary. Especially now that electronic, wireless transmissions are more widely available
With through-the-headset routing, that force (in part, not fully) goes onto a piece with a big hole in it???
I thought we were past the days of headtubes ovalizing, but if the headset can now ovalize independently then we are kinda back to that no?
This is where the holes are. So no problem with the positioning of the hole.
(/s)
* "Clean look"
* Sharp bends in hoses decrease flow to rear caliper, causing rear lever to feel slightly firmer for a given pad pressure, giving you automatic brake bias towards the front
* Future proof for when holes in frames are largely taboo thanks to the proliferation (whether wanted by consumers or not) of wireless shifting & droppers.
* Helps get rid of ridiculous colored housings and hoses, since if everything is inside the color doesn't matter so it'll just be black. Reduces proliferation of useless stainless braided hoses.
"More" because headsets are not perfectly sealed but I would bet there is only very very small amount of water making it's way through on a standard head set.
Pros
- Looks really clean
- It's easy AF to route housing and hoses through the frame (BEFORE you install the fork)
- It's easy to install sound deadening housing and hose wrap
- Aero
- Quiet
- Great for number plates
Cons
- It's annoying to install forks and get all the cables and hoses gathered – and the more cables and hoses you have, the worse it is
- More shifting friction due to tighter housing bends
- It's not sealed...like at all
- Can't really slam your stem
So, pretty sweet if you've got a full AXS setup and only need to route a rear brake hose. Less sweet the more mechanical and "cabled" your bike is. I kinda wish my XC hardtail had it for aesthetics, but I'm happy my other bikes don't.
Also, if you want to support your local bike shop it just makes sense to turn 5 minute jobs into 2 hour jobs! tehe
Post a reply to: Tell me why headset cable routing is a good idea