Kinesis Decade - Tripster - Anyone actually own one?

ridin8ude

I'm making plans to build out a new commuter and want to use the Tripster as the frame.
Probably will wait until Chain Reaction has it for 350 squids again.


Info here in the forums and on the net in general about the bike is scarce.
Has anyone actually built one? Does anyone actually ride one to work each day in blissful nirvana with the excellent braking, geometry, looks, and weight?

Grateful for thoughts from actual owners/users and some pix too if available.

cheers

il_principe

I have a Kinesis Decade Convert2 which is a fantastic bike, currently built up as a singlespeed. Can't speak for the Tripster but I can speak for the build/frame quality and also Kinesis themselves who were very happy to answer my questions.

Jamey

I was very keen on the Tripster until I found out it had an integrated headset.

If you haven't seen the arguments against integrated headsets then you should have a read of this article on Chris King's website:
http://chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_ ... _explain_2

In a nutshell - they're bad because they wear out your frame's head tube and you'll need a new frame.

il_principe

Jamey wrote:

I was very keen on the Tripster until I found out it had an integrated headset.

If you haven't seen the arguments against integrated headsets then you should have a read of this article of Chris King's website:
http://chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_ ... _explain_2

In a nutshell - they're bad because they wear out your frame's head tube and you'll need a new frame.

Well Chris King would say that wouldn't he...

Roastie

Il Principe wrote:

Well Chris King would say that wouldn't he...

Why would he? Apart from because he has good engineering sense. The integrated standard is not proprietary so he could very easily produce a product to fit this standard. But he chooses not to. I agree 100% with his argument, and it seems that many other bike makers and in fact bearing manufacturers do too - evidenced by the popularity of the zero stack standard.

Jamey

As Roastie says - Chris King could easily launch their own integrated headset and make money from it if they wanted to.

It's not like what he's saying is a wacky, spaced-out theory that couldn't possibly be true... It's all common sense stuff.

I realise this probably isn't what you want to hear if you're halfway through building up a Decade frame (assuming yours also has the same type of headset) but it's fairly sound stuff.

il_principe

ffs! lost a post twice now! for cheap alu frames i just do not see the need for anything other than integrated. And the fact that the likes of trek pinarello and colnago are using integrated and semi integrated in their high end frames gives me confidence. These firms know a few things about building bikes - esp colnago. Cannot see the likes of Ernesto going down this route if he thought it could lead to serious issus re frame wear.

But if i could afford say an IF crown jewel, yeah i would be going chris king.

Fecking computer is going nuts on me here! :roll:

Jamey

If you've already got a bike with an integrated frame then fair enough.

But since this is a thread on a forum asking for advice pre-purchase it would be pretty slack of us not to mention the well-known arguments against integrated headsets.

As for those manufacturers that are giving you confidence - the issue with frame wear isn't so much dangerous as commercial - the head tube isn't going to catastrophically fail (so no lawsuits for them) but it will wear out after a number of years, requiring you to buy a new frame (more money for Colnago et al).

And I daresay the number of years in question will put it nicely outside the warranty/sale of goods act time frame.

il_principe

Jamey wrote:

If you've already got a bike with an integrated frame then fair enough.

But since this is a thread on a forum asking for advice pre-purchase it would be pretty slack of us not to mention the well-known arguments against integrated headsets.

As for those manufacturers that are giving you confidence - the issue with frame wear isn't so much dangerous as commercial - the head tube isn't going to catastrophically fail (so no lawsuits for them) but it will wear out after a number of years, requiring you to buy a new frame (more money for Colnago et al).

And I daresay the number of years in question will put it nicely outside the warranty/sale of goods act time frame.

That's a little cynical don't you think? I was well aware of the arguments when I bought my Kinesis - but I'm just not convinced that it's an issue (at least for me) - how many frame failures have you heard about that have been attributed to internal headsets, and on a £350 frame is it really something to worry about?

I bow to your superior engineering knowledge - I'm a complete luddite, but I find it hard to believe that the big boys would go down this route simply to ensure people buy more frames! If my Pinarello frame dies as a result of this, I'm not gonna go out and buy another frame that has the same 'wear' timebomb inside it, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone in that.

always_tyred

IlP, it would be very easy to over state the amount of actual engineering in a lot of bicycle design.

There is also a herd mentality - if Bianchi are doing it, say Pinarello, then lets give the people what they want. Just look at the number of integrated seat tubes on the market at the moment.

Very few manufacturers are large enough to be able to hold out against a trend. In the grand scheme of things, with very few exceptions (Trek, Specialized) they are all very small companies.

So, just becuase they put it on a bike, it does not mean that there is any engineering sense, merit or benefit so to do.

Do you really think that integrated headsets are anything other than cosmetic?

Jamey

Hey, look, I don't want to start a fight and I don't claim to be an engineer of any sort. I'm just passing on what I heard from elsewhere to someone who might like to know. The rest is my opinion which I'm entitled to.

Roastie

Always Tyred wrote:

Do you really think that integrated headsets are anything other than cosmetic?

An integrated design can save a bit of weight, but I'd say that aesthetics are definitely a factor.

It is also cheaper to build (especially in volume) in that the headset fitment operation is easier, quicker and tool free. Also the tolerances are greater so cheaper to produce.

Race bikes aren't made to last, they are made to go as fast as possible - so potential headset longevity issues are moot. Another example (just an example, mind) of this philosophy is the Madone bottom bracket with drop in bearings - pretty much an integrated headset horizontally. Certainly saves weight, but could potentially wreck the frame if it works loose on a long ride. BB30 (press fit, not drop fit - so analogous in a sense to a traditional headset*) is superior from a longevity point of view, if slightly heavier. Same thought process goes for carbon dropouts (and hanger) on frames like the Addict.

Once again, horses for courses. If you are Ernesto Colnago and you are creating the ultimate climbing machine possible, sure an integrated headset and drop-in crank bearing design is spot on. If however you are a normal pleb and don't like the idea of a long ride with a loose headset potentially wrecking your frame, then perhaps it isn't the best standard.

Colin Chapman once said that if one of his racing cars lasted any longer than past the finish line, it was over designed. Pro level bikes aren't that fragile (thankfully), but they are designed for maximum performance, life is secondary. What is best for racing is not neccesarily best for day to day use.

*except that it (the bearing, not the frame)gets wrecked on removal, small flaw.

il_principe

Always Tyred wrote:

Do you really think that integrated headsets are anything other than cosmetic?

Who knows - there's an argument that they handle better, but that's probably just manufacturer guff! Either way, there aren't many reports of frames getting ruined by integrated headsets, just lots of concern that it 'might' happen. Perhaps I'm being naïve.

BTW not looking to start an argument about this, just think that the Chris King thing is a little serving.

Anyway - there's a good thread about it here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14695737

Roastie

Il Principe wrote:

Either way, there aren't many reports of frames getting ruined by integrated headsets, just lots of concern that it 'might' happen. Perhaps I'm being naïve.

The integrated on my race bike has damage to the lower beairng seat due to the carbon steerer expander working slightly loose in a very wet race.

Now there is no way I can get the headset 100% (I generally just overtighten it to prevent irritating clatter).

Roastie

Il Principe wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14695737

Interesting views, but just because a lot of bike makers do something doesn't make it good. Remember how much better Betamax technology was compared to VHS?

Also, if CK wanted to make money from integrated, he'd just have to make them. His stuff is good, period. And his reputation precedes him. I really don't think he is talking down integrated standards just because he makes traditional and zero-stack headsets.

always_tyred

Colin Chapman would have won a lot more races if only his cars had lasted until the finish line before falling apart.

The driver towards lilght weight is pointless for pro bikes, isn't it? They are all easily capable of making minimum weight.

No, this is for the mass market. If a frame manufacturer, or a crank set manufacturer can quote a headline weight 10g less than their competitor, then it will sell more.

Roastie

Always Tyred wrote:

The driver towards lilght weight is pointless for pro bikes, isn't it? They are all easily capable of making minimum weight.

LOL on Colin C.

Not really - saving weight for the headset assembly (for example) allows weight to be added somewhere else where it can improve performance (e.g. additional material toimprove BB/chainstay/down tube stiffness).

always_tyred

Roastie wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

The driver towards lilght weight is pointless for pro bikes, isn't it? They are all easily capable of making minimum weight.

LOL on Colin C.

Not really - saving weight for the headset assembly (for example) allows weight to be added somewhere else where it can improve performance (e.g. additional material toimprove BB/chainstay/down tube stiffness).

:?

Possibly, but to be worthwhile it has to be large enough to be actually measurable. Note that pro riders aren't necessarily that logical - so it you tell them its better, they'll believe its better and believe it makes them faster.

Doesn't mean its better.

For example, if you build 2 cranks, one with outboard bearings and the other with a conventional bb, both of which are so strong that no human could cause any flex, both of which are stiffer than the bb assembly in which they are housed.

You then tell a pro rider that the one with the outboard bearings is stiffer. Which one will they go for?

Okay, now, which is faster? I believe its the one with the conventional bb, because that has less "striction". I'm also sure that there is sod all in it.

Next question - get a cyclingplus journalist to test them both, and he'll swear that there's less chain rub on the one with outboard bearings, even though any flex is actually coming from the frame.

Duncan74

If it's not too late, and if people don't mind me returning to the original question, then yes, I have a Tripster and ride it daily for commuting, and for the time being on a weekend for club races and Sunday club rides too. Done several thousand miles on it as I got one of the first batch that came out and am very happy with it. It replaced a Crosslight as my commuter scooter that had done some mega miles and is much much better than that was for the commute. Lots of details make it a lot easier to ride and maintain. Happy to answer any questions about the Tripster (or crosslight), but can't comment on the wear from the integrated headset as I'd not had any on the crosslight after 20,000miles+ and 6 years. So I'll leave that to others with first hand experience.

Regards

Duncan

jedster

Duncan,

I really like the look of the tripster and I'm seriously considering one. It looks quite pricy versus an on-one pompetamine though. Any thoughts how the two compare?

J

Duncan74

Sorry, can't really comment on the On-one as I've only just heard of it. But isn't it hub gear only, ie no mech hanger. Also steel fork? Add in the seat clamp, seatpin that you get with the Tripster and the prices come together a bit closer. But it depends what you want from the bike. I actually was helping a mate out in mid 2008 with speccing a commute bike and suggested he go the same way as I did with a crosslight. In the course of that discussion I emailed Kinesis with a question on the newer crosslight frame, and suggested that all they needed to do was add bottle cage bosses, disk brake mounts that didn't foul the rack mounts they would also magic onto the frame and they'd have the perfect commute bike. A couple of hours later and I got an email back with a request not to forward on the picture of the attached prototype that was exactly what I'd suggested...

Anyway, back to the bike. It rides so much better than the crosslight did on road. Turns well, but is a lot more forgiving over the bumps / potholes. The avid brakes are a revelation. Only real negative is the wide spacing of the rear chainstays to fit the disk makes fitting a speedo sensor a pain and makes clearance tight if you've big feet like I have.

In the grand scheme of things with the build I did then it worked out at about £1300 all in, so the cost between the on-one and the Kinesis would work out to be small percentage, but that may still be enough to sway you. Horses for courses. But I'm happy that i can use it for commuting monday to Friday then jsut whip off the lights and rack on a weekend and use it for racing.

Oh, and as it clearly doesn't exist without photos.... (last 3 show the Tripster, first few are of the 1st incarnation of the commuter scooter.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/duncan74_p ... 984602557/

jedster

Yeah, you're right about it being single-speed/hub gear only. To be honest, the ability to run a hub gear and disc brakes plus rack mounts and decent tyre/guard clearance is what I'm after. I currently ride a planet-x uncle john which would be very similar to your cross light I guess.

The uncle john has carbon forks - I don't know how much of a downgrade steel forks would be? I don't think weight is much of an issue for me given I always commute with a panier, use a hub dyno, guards and thinking about a hub gear!

Can you really race the tripster with disc brakes?

The scotoiler sounds an interesting idea but I'm thinking the forthcoming 11 speed alfine hub would be a neater solution to the same problem.

J

Duncan74

Yep, no problem racing the tripster with disks at all, in fact they have better modulation than rim brakes so are better in the bunch. Obviously the whole lot is heavier than a true race bike, but it's only a local club ride and so the added weight makes it better training. 36 hole Rigida Chrina rims with Armadillo tyres don't help either!

Don't sweat the weight of the forks, it's the absorption. You could just opt for much thicker gel bar tape, but the more padding on the tape the less durable it's likely to be (just my view here, happy for others to offer alternative views / suggestions regarding durable and padded tapes).

I run the tyres at 120psi to reduce the chance of punctures and as it was a long daily commute then the pressure made it a bit easier. Asked more questions of the frame / fork though in terms of making it comfortable.

I'm living over in NZ now though, and as I could only bring one bike on the flight with me, then the Tripster it was, and I'm not being too badly shamed on the club rides.


The hub gear does sound like a very good alternative, althoguh perhaps for me then the 'black box' and inability to do any roadside repairs would worry me. But I think that's jsut because I've not used one (for years) and isn't based on any really good reason.

I reckon that both bikes seem to fir the bill pretty well (just a thought, did you check the on-one has rack mounts?) and so it's a case of just working out which one suits you best. I reckon you're set on the Onone, in which case go for that otherwise you'll always be having that nagging feeling that you should have gone with your first choice.

MacBludgeon

Duncan, I had a look at you Tripster pics and the detailed description, very nice looking bike by the way. But I'm curious, as I've been looking at the same sort of thing. Your detail indicates that you're running XT hubs but a 10 speed Ultegra drivetrain. I thought that the MTB 135mm spaced hubs would only take 9 speed and therefore Tiagra was your upper limit now?

Unless you're running the 9 speed version of Ultegra.

Duncan74

No, 10 speed Ultegra. 10 speed cassette is slightly narrower than 9 speed, so you use the (supplied) shim between the inside and the cassette (to move it all outwards). 10 speed cassette also has a slightly raised milling on one spline, so it will slip over 9 speed and leave a slight gap, wheras a 9 speed won't fit on a dedicated 10 speed hub. Having said that I don't thing 10 speed dedicated hubs lasted long, was seen as a con and people just didn't buy shimano wheels that year. Could be wrong on that last part, but there's no way that I can see that a 10 speed can't fit on any 9 speed hub. Simply in terms of fitting as it's narrower and has the higher spline drilling so I can't see what could stop it fitting.

tomb353

I'm also running a Tripster. Cost came out at around £1,200 by using the kinesis cyclocross build kit and then getting my LBS to swap out the wheels to deore disk hubs and fit avid bb7 disks.

My only issue with the build I did is that the back end is slightly heavier than I was anticipating, but I could rectify this by upgrading to a lighter hub and cassette if I wanted to.

It is as fast as anything else on my commute, and have done a sportive and a couple of club runs with it and not felt at much of a disadvantage compared to road bikes. If you want to run a hub gear then its not for you, but you could look at mixing and matching and still using the carbon kinesis disk fork with avid bb7 to give you some real stopping power in the wet on the front brake.

Photos here taken back in winter when I had my studded tyres and wide mudguards on it, the bike is now set up with 28mm conti 4-seasons. I also swapped the rear mech to deore and will stick an 11-32 MTB cassette on the back for touring this summer.

tomb353 wrote:

My own version of the ultimate fast commuter; kinesis tripster alu frame and carbon fork with avid bb7 disks, deore on the back, road double on the front. Currently rigged for winter with studded tyre on the front and cross tyre on the back with full guards, will strip down for summer and run skinnier tyres.[/img]

MacBludgeon

Duncan74 wrote:

No, 10 speed Ultegra. 10 speed cassette is slightly narrower than 9 speed, so you use the (supplied) shim between the inside and the cassette (to move it all outwards). 10 speed cassette also has a slightly raised milling on one spline, so it will slip over 9 speed and leave a slight gap, wheras a 9 speed won't fit on a dedicated 10 speed hub. Having said that I don't thing 10 speed dedicated hubs lasted long, was seen as a con and people just didn't buy shimano wheels that year. Could be wrong on that last part, but there's no way that I can see that a 10 speed can't fit on any 9 speed hub. Simply in terms of fitting as it's narrower and has the higher spline drilling so I can't see what could stop it fitting.

Ah, that makes sense, thanks Duncan, I think I'll stick to 9 speed then, I don't go big on chain cleaning etc so don't need something that wears out too easily.

Duncan74

Not noticed any more wear on the 10 speed over the 9. And stick a Scottoiler on and chain cleaning / wear is a thing of the past anyway. With 9 speed on the old bike I was wearing out chains in 6 weeks with bi weekly cleaning sessions. Stuck on the scottoiler and the chain wear stopped. 12 months and it was still less than 1% stretch/wear.

tomb353

Duncan, think I saw your bike on the kinesis website before I started putting mine together, small world.

Duncan74

Yep, that was the one. Although I never got the t-shirt for the pictures of the first built up customer bike....