Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Semi-integrated ?

Started by Sandy · · Last activity · 2 posts · 538 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
9 November 2005
Last activity
10 November 2005
Original author
Sandy
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
538
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I just got a nice gift of a free frame and headset to build a winter bike,
    but no fork. They are matched just fine, but I don't understand whether
    there are specific forks for integrated and semi-integrated assemblies. Not
    the least that I don't know ...

    Other than the possible mismatch of diameters (esthetic flaw, perhaps, maybe
    functional), are forks specifically different for each style of headset ?
    It's a typical threadless 1 1/8" form.

    Thanks for enlightenment.

    --
    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine
    *******

    La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
    il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
    -- Einstein, A.

  2. Quoted message said:

    Other than the possible mismatch of diameters (esthetic flaw, perhaps, maybe
    functional), are forks specifically different for each style of headset ?
    It's a typical threadless 1 1/8" form

    Nope. Cambria (using Easton's own marketingspeak) advertises EC70
    forks with "1 1/8' carbon threadless suitable for either Integrated or
    Non-Integrated head tubes" Note that these forks are bulkier than,
    say, a reynolds non-integrated fork at the steerer tube junction, but
    not as bulky as a reynolds integrated model.

    SYJ

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.