From: goell@nomad.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeremy Goell)
Subject: Let's NOT start flame throwing...
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:23:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.204816.25798@novell.com>, chandler@wc.novell.com (Mark Chandler) writes:

|> In article <1992Sep23.190506.5751@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> goell@nomad.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeremy Goell) writes:


|> >I'll simply say that 1 1/8" headsets
|> >are what you see on the UPPER end of most bike lines, including
|> >Trek and Giant, and 1" are on the LOWER.  You can draw your own
|> >conclusions.  Essentially, you get what you pay for, so figure out
|> >how hard you're gonna ride the bike.  If it's never going to see
|> >dirt, and the largest bump's gonna be a pothole, then you don't
|> >NEED oversized headset/fork.  But since you're talking about the
|> >same $$$ for the Bianchi as the others, I see no reason NOT to
|> >go w/ the fat stuff....  Some ATB lines even use 1 1/4 headsets...

|> 
|> Hmmm.  I guess the Bridgestone mountain bikes, which have been highly
|> praised in the cycling press and on the net, are inferior due to their
|> use of "girly-man" 1"-headsets.  And let's not forget about Ritchey's
|> P-2x bikes which have been ridden to numerous off-road titles; these
|> too use 1" headsets.  My new frame features a 1" headset and cost more
|> than most complete Treks or Giants, do you suppose I was ripped-off?
|> 
|> I've ridden mountain bikes for ten years; all on 1"-headsets, and I've
|> never damaged a fork/headset/stem/etc.  Manufacturers spec things because
|> it's a bullet on chart somewhere.  I'll admit that "oversized" headsets
|> make sense on really big frames and/or tandems, but they're really overkill
|> for the majority of the riders out there.

Don't put flames in my mouth--read what I wrote.

    I stated the FACTS.  1 1/8" Headsets are used on the upper end
    bikes of the aforementioned companies' lines.  I then said some-
    thing to the effect of what you later stated--that he should decide
    how hard the bike will be ridden, since casual street riding-types
    won't notice any difference.  And since 1 1/8" headsets are now
    the standard, or close to it, there's no reason NOT to take one
    over a 1" if the price is the same.  In fact, there are basic
    mechanical reasons why o.s. headsets should be better than 1".
    Larger ball bearings are an advantage, unless you're a tremendous
    weight freak.  The only question is whether that advantage is
    actually measurable, or is insignificant.  But I didn't tell
    him that one was better than the other;  I told him to draw his
    own conclusions.
 
<question from original post regarding the difference btw. top vs.
 bottom-routed cables>

|> >Again, you know what kind of riding you'll be doing.  If it involves
|> >splashing, mudding, slamming and other ATB-type things, top-routed
|> >cables are a plus.  If you ride on the street, matters less, though
|> >I suppose if it rains often, it's better to have top-routed with the
|> >clear teflon housing to keep as much water off as possible (I live in
|> >S. Cal--I can't remember what rain looks like...).
|>
 
|> And if your derailleur uses a pulley, then the *pulley* gets clogged
|> with the gunk your cables are supposedly free of.
|> 

What's the point of this statement?  Fine.  So your derailleur is
clogged--you're cables aren't.  One less thing to clean out.

Don't be so quick to jump on people.  If there's a factual misstatement,
point it out.  If someone voices an opinion you disagree with, voice
your opinion, but don't get down on someone else.  We all have better things
to do than conduct or watch flame wars, and I certainly spend too much
time reading News as it is.

Michael Batchelder
mpb@nomad.jpl.nasa.gov