Because Acros decided they like it and probably give huge discounts so bike companies use their shitty headset to save money but now acros had monopoly since you can’t just go and use another companies headset
Because Acros decided they like it and probably give huge discounts so bike companies use their shitty headset to save money but now acros had monopoly...
Because Acros decided they like it and probably give huge discounts so bike companies use their shitty headset to save money but now acros had monopoly since you can’t just go and use another companies headset
Acros should never be allowed to produce any round moving parts again. Regardless of the internal routing bs.
Specialized had to recall their flagship road bike because their through-the-headset cable routing system was causing fork steerer tubes to fail. (https://cyclingtips.com/2021/10/specialized-tarmac-sl7-recall/) That stands out to me as an example of how this additional complexity can lead to new and unexpected modes of failure--not something I'm eager to introduce on mountain bikes.
If through-the-headset routing is going to be standardized--and I am praying that it won't be, frankly, because I think it introduces numerous disadvantages for the average consumer and few real benefits--then (IMO) what we really need is a new way of connecting brake lines to levers that doesn't require a single-use compression olive. As much as I dislike the concept of headset cable routing, a lot of the annoyances that it creates could at least be mitigated if major brake manufacturers would introduce a brake line connection that could be repeatedly and reliably disconnected and reconnected in a simple way. (Yes, I know some people re-use the olive & barb on their brakes, but officially it's discouraged, and following manufacturer directions is important for CYA purposes if you're in a professional capacity.) I know there are a couple of quick-disconnect mechanisms out there but the current ones all seem too bulky to work with integrated routing.
I still prefer external routing or sensible internal routing (e.g. guided tubes or large exit ports), but *if* the bike industry is going to push this dumb nonsense then let's see some concomitant innovation in other parts of the system to make it less cumbersome.
Large exit ports interfere with structural rigidity of frames...
Don't think I've ever seen a frame fail at a cable exit, plenty have failed elsewhere due to owners hamfistedness, shit ass engineering/product testing, shit ass manufacturing/qc.
Specialized had to recall their flagship road bike because their through-the-headset cable routing system was causing fork steerer tubes to fail. ([url=https://cyclingtips.com/2021/10/specialized-tarmac-sl7-recall/]https://cyclingtips.com/2021/10/specialized-tarmac-sl7-recall/[/url]) That stands out to...
Specialized had to recall their flagship road bike because their through-the-headset cable routing system was causing fork steerer tubes to fail. (https://cyclingtips.com/2021/10/specialized-tarmac-sl7-recall/) That stands out to me as an example of how this additional complexity can lead to new and unexpected modes of failure--not something I'm eager to introduce on mountain bikes.
If through-the-headset routing is going to be standardized--and I am praying that it won't be, frankly, because I think it introduces numerous disadvantages for the average consumer and few real benefits--then (IMO) what we really need is a new way of connecting brake lines to levers that doesn't require a single-use compression olive. As much as I dislike the concept of headset cable routing, a lot of the annoyances that it creates could at least be mitigated if major brake manufacturers would introduce a brake line connection that could be repeatedly and reliably disconnected and reconnected in a simple way. (Yes, I know some people re-use the olive & barb on their brakes, but officially it's discouraged, and following manufacturer directions is important for CYA purposes if you're in a professional capacity.) I know there are a couple of quick-disconnect mechanisms out there but the current ones all seem too bulky to work with integrated routing.
I still prefer external routing or sensible internal routing (e.g. guided tubes or large exit ports), but *if* the bike industry is going to push this dumb nonsense then let's see some concomitant innovation in other parts of the system to make it less cumbersome.
Actually, "standardized" would be a good thing, because then at least you wouldn't be stuck with bike/stem/bar/fork/etc-specific replacement parts when needed.
I think what you (and I) don't want is for it to be commonplace or, worse, to be the norm on MTBs. That means it will be hard to find conventional internal routing, and that will suck.
I held out on internal routing for as long as possible, and will still only pick fully sleeved options (I've done the foam tube bullshit, so stupid), and ideally 1-entry/1-exit style like Specialized did for a bit wear they don't even exit to go from front triangle to rear triangle.
I won't buy through-headset routing unless it's literally the only option. And since I'm not looking to add batteries to my bike anytime soon (except for lights because that's the only way to ride at night which is great), so I'll always have 3 cables to route which makes through-headset even less ideal.
Both my gravel bike and road bike have FSA's ACR system and there are pros and cons:
[b]Pros[/b]
- Looks really clean
- It's easy AF...
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.
Exactly why External Rear brakes need to still be a thing, If running AXS, nothing would be going through the frame and thus no cable noise lol
GT's old force was Great, the cables ran the down the middle, ontop of downtube, kinda tucked in.
Wish brand would work on External routing more, Hide it with plastic covers or something.
im so over the whole internal routing BS im slowly converting my bikes to AXS, recently got 3 x GX AXS kits on special.
Because Acros decided they like it and probably give huge discounts so bike companies use their shitty headset to save money but now acros had monopoly...
Because Acros decided they like it and probably give huge discounts so bike companies use their shitty headset to save money but now acros had monopoly since you can’t just go and use another companies headset
I'm willing to bet that's not too far off the truth. It probably went something like:
Acros: hey Catalog Frame Company, use this stupid-ass headset to make your next frame look cool, plus then you can save money on manufacturing since you won't need to do all the tube-in-tube layups
Catalog Frame Company: ka-ching! consider it done!
Bike Company Exec: I've never actually worked on a bike, but that looks cool! I'll take a million of them!
Don't think I've ever seen a frame fail at a cable exit, plenty have failed elsewhere due to owners hamfistedness, shit ass engineering/product testing, shit ass...
Don't think I've ever seen a frame fail at a cable exit, plenty have failed elsewhere due to owners hamfistedness, shit ass engineering/product testing, shit ass manufacturing/qc.
Evil had numerous owner-reported case of delaminating carbon at the exit port by the RD. They'd feel the carbon give under finger pressure.
Don't think I've ever seen a frame fail at a cable exit, plenty have failed elsewhere due to owners hamfistedness, shit ass engineering/product testing, shit ass...
Don't think I've ever seen a frame fail at a cable exit, plenty have failed elsewhere due to owners hamfistedness, shit ass engineering/product testing, shit ass manufacturing/qc.
Ports interfering with structural integrity doesn't mean the tubes are not strengthened in the area, preventing failures. But it's really hard to bring back the rigidity of the structure to the same level as a closed off tube has.
Cutting only a slit lengthwise into a tube COMPLETELY changes the stiffness characteristics of said tube. Let alone putting a fairly large hole into it (case in point, in frame storage).
Exactly why External Rear brakes need to still be a thing, If running AXS, nothing would be going through the frame and thus no cable noise...
Exactly why External Rear brakes need to still be a thing, If running AXS, nothing would be going through the frame and thus no cable noise lol
GT's old force was Great, the cables ran the down the middle, ontop of downtube, kinda tucked in.
Wish brand would work on External routing more, Hide it with plastic covers or something.
im so over the whole internal routing BS im slowly converting my bikes to AXS, recently got 3 x GX AXS kits on special.
That's one of the most frustrating things about it. There are well-executed, smart solutions out there that don't require internal routing. (Also GG comes to mind where they have a cover for the (external) cables.) But companies rather produce some new shitty stuff.
It also fits that generally cable routing still seems a struggle for some brands, where you can clearly see they thought about it at the very end of the developing process and somehow slapped a half-baked solution on the (nearly finished) frame...
My trail bike has AXS shifting and seat post, and my Singlespeed hardtail has an AXS post. I'm over cables altogether, can't wait for wireless braking!
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...
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?
Headset cable routing is a good idea because when I see that I instantly know I don't need to look at geometry or build specs or anything to know I will never buy that bike, big time saver. It's like Amazon's one click buy in reverse.
Yeah, I've built two Scott Sparks that have almost that same setup and it is going to suck to change a cable on those. Not looking forward to pulling the fork, shock and who knows what else to be able to change it out.
I'm going to try not to read into this too much BUT
Transition's latest (e)bike does not have through-the-headset routing. I feel like it is somewhat telling to the desired market of each bike.
Bikes I see with T-T-H cable routing seem to usually be oriented towards "more money than experience" kind of riders... Though not all of them because some really do seem to think it's the right idea (I think they're wrong)
Scares away less technically savvy people from working on theirs, or anyone else's bikes. Seriously if you can't bleed brakes should you really own a wrench?
Scares away less technically savvy people from working on theirs, or anyone else's bikes. Seriously if you can't bleed brakes should you really own a wrench...
Scares away less technically savvy people from working on theirs, or anyone else's bikes. Seriously if you can't bleed brakes should you really own a wrench?
Totally worth it.
So that would mean 95% of "the other site" Shouldnt own a wrench, none of them can bleed Sram properly.
…and then I’ll go home and replace my headset bearings, again. Probably the bb at some point as well, water flows down hill after all…
I may be bad, but I'm not wrong.
If through-the-headset routing is going to be standardized--and I am praying that it won't be, frankly, because I think it introduces numerous disadvantages for the average consumer and few real benefits--then (IMO) what we really need is a new way of connecting brake lines to levers that doesn't require a single-use compression olive. As much as I dislike the concept of headset cable routing, a lot of the annoyances that it creates could at least be mitigated if major brake manufacturers would introduce a brake line connection that could be repeatedly and reliably disconnected and reconnected in a simple way. (Yes, I know some people re-use the olive & barb on their brakes, but officially it's discouraged, and following manufacturer directions is important for CYA purposes if you're in a professional capacity.) I know there are a couple of quick-disconnect mechanisms out there but the current ones all seem too bulky to work with integrated routing.
I still prefer external routing or sensible internal routing (e.g. guided tubes or large exit ports), but *if* the bike industry is going to push this dumb nonsense then let's see some concomitant innovation in other parts of the system to make it less cumbersome.
I think what you (and I) don't want is for it to be commonplace or, worse, to be the norm on MTBs. That means it will be hard to find conventional internal routing, and that will suck.
I held out on internal routing for as long as possible, and will still only pick fully sleeved options (I've done the foam tube bullshit, so stupid), and ideally 1-entry/1-exit style like Specialized did for a bit wear they don't even exit to go from front triangle to rear triangle.
I won't buy through-headset routing unless it's literally the only option. And since I'm not looking to add batteries to my bike anytime soon (except for lights because that's the only way to ride at night which is great), so I'll always have 3 cables to route which makes through-headset even less ideal.
GT's old force was Great, the cables ran the down the middle, ontop of downtube, kinda tucked in.
Wish brand would work on External routing more, Hide it with plastic covers or something.
im so over the whole internal routing BS im slowly converting my bikes to AXS, recently got 3 x GX AXS kits on special.
Acros: hey Catalog Frame Company, use this stupid-ass headset to make your next frame look cool, plus then you can save money on manufacturing since you won't need to do all the tube-in-tube layups
Catalog Frame Company: ka-ching! consider it done!
Bike Company Exec: I've never actually worked on a bike, but that looks cool! I'll take a million of them!
Cutting only a slit lengthwise into a tube COMPLETELY changes the stiffness characteristics of said tube. Let alone putting a fairly large hole into it (case in point, in frame storage).
It also fits that generally cable routing still seems a struggle for some brands, where you can clearly see they thought about it at the very end of the developing process and somehow slapped a half-baked solution on the (nearly finished) frame...
>MTB
pick one.
Or maybe it'll be a non-issue for them because they are used to tearing down and rebuilding their bikes at least once a weekend...
I stopped working in a shop before I ever touched this for roadbikes, so I'm deferring to other mechanics' opinions and they seem a tad negative
Transition's latest (e)bike does not have through-the-headset routing. I feel like it is somewhat telling to the desired market of each bike.
Bikes I see with T-T-H cable routing seem to usually be oriented towards "more money than experience" kind of riders... Though not all of them because some really do seem to think it's the right idea (I think they're wrong)
Totally worth it.
Post a reply to: Tell me why headset cable routing is a good idea