Home

Hi all,

I have a standard "old school" 1.125 inch headtube (EC34) and I'm pondering about tapered fork upgrade.

Now, I know 1.5 inch tapered tube is impossible to fit without some bodging (please correct me if I'm wrong). Something else has come to mind...namely, I saw Chris King is doing EC37/28.6 top and EC37/30 bottom headset. I read somewhere that this should work for 1.25 tapered fork.

Am I wrong?

8 comments

Avatar
CXR94Di2 [1789 posts] 8 months ago
0 likes

Looking up FSA 53-1 do a headset for 1"1/8 to 1"1/4 forks. You would need to measure the internal diameter top and bottom of your bike frame. It takes a little research sometimes and maybe an email enquiry.

Avatar
Ogi [118 posts] 8 months ago
0 likes

I think the headset you mentioned is integrated type (IS) one. I would need an EC version of it, but with 28.6/30mm slots in the headtube.

https://www.bike24.com/1.php?content=8;product=37744;menu=1000,4,40;back...

 

Avatar
FMOAB [289 posts] 8 months ago
1 like

Ok, I'll put in my pennyworth and await being corrected by those with more techie knowledge.

I think you would need a 44mm zero stack headtube to have a choice in this, but I await correction.

My question to you is that, particularly on a road bike, is this really an upgrade?  I don't think I have ever thought that the weakest spot on my bike was the dimensions of the steerer tube.

My understanding is that the main reason for the increase in the popularity of tapered steerers/headtubes is that it makes it much easier to get the bladder out when carbon fibre frames are being manufactured.  The marketing types then turn a manufacturing convenience into a selling point, but that's what they are paid to do.

I fully accept that intuitively "wider at the base" seems to make sense, but I'll bet if plain gauge were the easiest manufacturing option, we would all be getting sold how consistency in the diameter of the steerer tube was the latest innovation in improving bike handling. 

Avatar
Ogi [118 posts] 8 months ago
0 likes

@FMOAB

Your "step back" approach is good :). I like it. Absolutely agreed with your comments.

My take was - I really don't like my current fork and want to upgrade and there is literally very little options (1 1/8 inch) full carbon forks out there. Some audax/heavy forks are there - similar to my current one. Second aspect is the mechanical fidding/brain teasing issue that bothers me.

Avatar
FMOAB [289 posts] 8 months ago
0 likes

Have you checked fatbirds.co.uk, more carbon forks than Ive seen elsewhere.

Avatar
Nick T [1092 posts] 8 months ago
0 likes

Enve make 1 1/8" carbon forks. What's wrong with your current fork though, there's a lot more important factors in fork design than the size of the bearing race, like rake and trail. My best handling bike has a 1" steel fork with external headset.

Avatar
Ogi [118 posts] 8 months ago
0 likes

Just to clarify - I do not imply tapered are better. I'm saying there is very limited road disc forks with flat 1.125 inch diameter. I'm looking for more "nervous" fork - (shorter rake - 43mm and not 47mm, shorter axle-to-crown - 370-380mm and not 400mm which translates to 2cm relaxed, weight can also be a factor). For example, Enve ticks all the boxes (except the price) - but then they don't do 1.125 disc fork (although they do it for non-disc). Only 1.25 or 1.5. Columbus has a new 1.5 tapered disc fork, Kinesis couple of models, Enigma too etc. etc. ..but all tapered.

Ritchey does one interesting 1.125 cross fork but is also quite tall. They have a new road disc fork - 1.25. You can see how the industry seems to have forgotten about 1.125 disc forks...

There's a lot of models from Lynskey, Enigma, Kinesis - that do not appear overly exciting.

Coming back...did you guys hear about this EC37/30 headset?

Avatar
Nick T [1092 posts] 8 months ago
0 likes

The industry has forgotten about 1 1/8" disc forks for good reason - so that you have to buy a new bike