Differing Units for Steerer Tubes
07-09-07, 03:25 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 549
Bikes: Moots Vamoots RCS, Serotta Ti, Felt F55, Surly Ogre
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 36 Times
in
12 Posts
Differing Units for Steerer Tubes
As I was trying to fall asleep last night I had an odd thought...Why is everything on a bike measured in metric units except for the steerer tubes? Instead of having 1 inch or 1.125 inches why not have 25.4 mm or 28.575 mm? 1 inch is a nicer number than 25.4 mm, but there are all sorts of differing sizes for seat posts and handlebars.
07-09-07, 03:55 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 242
Bikes: Litespeed Tuscany, 1991 Merlin Extralight, 08' Santana Tandem Sovereign, Co-Motion Espresso
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Perhaps the bearing manufacturer that designed the most popular components were American?? I’m sure Sheldon Brown (in his infinite knowledge of all things bike) would know….
I’d also like to know why there are even two diameters in the first place? What was so bad about 1 inch that made everyone go to 1 1/8? I see a few frames are going back to the 1 inch design (like the new specialized tri/TT bike, they claim the reduced width is significantly more aero)
I’d also like to know why there are even two diameters in the first place? What was so bad about 1 inch that made everyone go to 1 1/8? I see a few frames are going back to the 1 inch design (like the new specialized tri/TT bike, they claim the reduced width is significantly more aero)
07-09-07, 04:59 PM
#3
NYC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,718
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1168 Post(s)
Liked 103 Times
in
59 Posts
Originally Posted by Ti-tillIdie
Perhaps the bearing manufacturer that designed the most popular components were American?? I’m sure Sheldon Brown (in his infinite knowledge of all things bike) would know….
I’d also like to know why there are even two diameters in the first place? What was so bad about 1 inch that made everyone go to 1 1/8? I see a few frames are going back to the 1 inch design (like the new specialized tri/TT bike, they claim the reduced width is significantly more aero)
I’d also like to know why there are even two diameters in the first place? What was so bad about 1 inch that made everyone go to 1 1/8? I see a few frames are going back to the 1 inch design (like the new specialized tri/TT bike, they claim the reduced width is significantly more aero)
07-09-07, 05:02 PM
#4
Burning Matches.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 9,714
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4046 Post(s)
Liked 975 Times
in
657 Posts
Originally Posted by Ti-tillIdie
Perhaps the bearing manufacturer that designed the most popular components were American?? I’m sure Sheldon Brown (in his infinite knowledge of all things bike) would know….
I’d also like to know why there are even two diameters in the first place? What was so bad about 1 inch that made everyone go to 1 1/8? I see a few frames are going back to the 1 inch design (like the new specialized tri/TT bike, they claim the reduced width is significantly more aero)
I’d also like to know why there are even two diameters in the first place? What was so bad about 1 inch that made everyone go to 1 1/8? I see a few frames are going back to the 1 inch design (like the new specialized tri/TT bike, they claim the reduced width is significantly more aero)
Or conversely, you can use a lot less material and get a lighter bike.
__________________
ElJamoquio didn't hate the world, per se; he was just constantly disappointed by humanity.
