I really don't think through the headset looks cleaner than through the frame. I guess their reasoning is one less failure point near the down tube/head tube junction and a cheaper, less complicated mold. I live and work in the Southeast and though I replace BB's and hub bearings more or less annually I almost never have to replace headset bearings unless the preload has been totally neglected or a TT guy sweats all over it, stores it outside at his beach house, and never cleans it.
I'm one of the minority of mechanics that prefers internal routing to external. Most internal routing is well done these days with tube in tube or at the very least well-executed ports. Usually the process is hose in one hole, out the other hole in 3 seconds vs. zip tie, zip, tie, zip tie, zip tie, snip, snip, snip, snip which takes longer. Making the bend at the BB for dropper cables is the most challenging and even these usually take me 2 minutes or less to route.
1\. It looks better, I care about how mechanical objects look and am prepared to sacrifice a little convenience for a clean aesthetic.
2\. External cables/hoses attract mud and the mud trapped between the frame and the cable rubs through the paint.
3\. External cables promote the use of single use zip ties which equal more plastic waste. I've also had these zip ties break on trail more than once.
4\. When you install a brake you have to shorten the hose anyway, just stick a threaded plug in the line when routing and you can usually get away with a lever bleed or no bleed at all.
5\. Internal hoses and lines are protected from trail debris, bike racks and shuttle pads.
I think all these bad feelings toward internal routing comes from Cervelo TT bikes of the early 2000's, nowadays, to me it's superior to external in most cases at least with the brands I work with. (Trek, Cannondale, Ibis, Santa Cruz, Evil, Propain, etc).
What brands of modern mountain bike outside of the stupid headset routing mentioned in the article have crappy difficult routing? Genuinely curious.
Oct. 4, 2022, 10:47 a.m. - rusty904
I really don't think through the headset looks cleaner than through the frame. I guess their reasoning is one less failure point near the down tube/head tube junction and a cheaper, less complicated mold. I live and work in the Southeast and though I replace BB's and hub bearings more or less annually I almost never have to replace headset bearings unless the preload has been totally neglected or a TT guy sweats all over it, stores it outside at his beach house, and never cleans it. I'm one of the minority of mechanics that prefers internal routing to external. Most internal routing is well done these days with tube in tube or at the very least well-executed ports. Usually the process is hose in one hole, out the other hole in 3 seconds vs. zip tie, zip, tie, zip tie, zip tie, snip, snip, snip, snip which takes longer. Making the bend at the BB for dropper cables is the most challenging and even these usually take me 2 minutes or less to route. 1\. It looks better, I care about how mechanical objects look and am prepared to sacrifice a little convenience for a clean aesthetic. 2\. External cables/hoses attract mud and the mud trapped between the frame and the cable rubs through the paint. 3\. External cables promote the use of single use zip ties which equal more plastic waste. I've also had these zip ties break on trail more than once. 4\. When you install a brake you have to shorten the hose anyway, just stick a threaded plug in the line when routing and you can usually get away with a lever bleed or no bleed at all. 5\. Internal hoses and lines are protected from trail debris, bike racks and shuttle pads. I think all these bad feelings toward internal routing comes from Cervelo TT bikes of the early 2000's, nowadays, to me it's superior to external in most cases at least with the brands I work with. (Trek, Cannondale, Ibis, Santa Cruz, Evil, Propain, etc). What brands of modern mountain bike outside of the stupid headset routing mentioned in the article have crappy difficult routing? Genuinely curious.