Integrated fork aesthetics

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Wayne Pein
Anybody know how a fork designed for 1 1/8 integrated headsets looks with a conventional headset?

Wayne

Usually you can't do this because conventional headset cups get pressed onto the headtube but on bikes designed for integrated headsets the headtube is shaped to allow only integrated bearings.

Wayne Pein said:

Anybody know how a fork designed for 1 1/8 integrated headsets looks with a conventional headset?

No difference, since forks' steerers are the same. Differences start in head tube of the frame. If
the steerer is cut too short, it will be impossible to switch from integrated to conventional
threadless HS.

--
Best regards, Rado bladteth Rzeznicki widzew.netrower.htmlOpen ↗
"][email hidden] MCM #252

Wayne Pein <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Anybody know how a fork designed for 1 1/8 integrated headsets looks with a conventional headset?

Wayne

At worst, it might look just a little funny. If you look close, you will probably see the extra
large flat section at the fork crown. Unless you are getting a very good deal on the fork, you'd be
better off getting a standard fork.

Bill K. said:

Wayne Pein <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Anybody know how a fork designed for 1 1/8 integrated headsets looks with a conventional
headset?

Wayne

At worst, it might look just a little funny. If you look close, you will probably see the extra
large flat section at the fork crown. Unless you are getting a very good deal on the fork, you'd
be better off getting a standard fork.

Yes, the fork crown area is what I'm concerned about. The issue is how the diameter of the flat fork
crown compares to the lower headset cup. Is it for sure larger? I've asked the fork manufacturer,
Easton, for information, but they've not responded. If the fork crown is the same or smaller
diameter, it might look pretty good.

Wayne

DiabloScott said:

Wayne Pein said:

Anybody know how a fork designed for 1 1/8 integrated headsets looks with a conventional
headset? Wayne

Usually you can't do this because conventional headset cups get pressed onto the headtube but on
bikes designed for integrated headsets the headtube is shaped to allow only integrated bearings.

I'm not clear on how this impacts whether an integrated fork will work or not. Can you elaborate?

Wayne

I just received a response from Easton. I had asked how the 2003 Easton EC90 SL fork would look with
a conventional 1 1/8 headset and what is the crown/shoulder diameter. Here is the response:

Dear Wayne,

Thank you for your interest in our fork.

The diameter of the fork shoulder is 44mm. It is designed to look good with both integrated and
conventional head tubes.

Please contact me if you have any other questions.

Regards,

Herb Tai Lead Engineer Bike Division

Regards, Wayne

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Wayne Pein

BDiabloScott said:

Wayne Pein said:

Anybody know how a fork designed for 1 1/8 integrated headsets looks with a conventional
headset? Wayne

Usually you can't do this because conventional headset cups get pressed onto the headtube but on
bikes designed for integrated headsets the headtube is shaped to allow only integrated bearings.

I'm not clear on how this impacts whether an integrated fork will work or not. Can you elaborate?

Wayne [/B]

Sorry Wayne, I was thinking of installing an integrated headset on a frame that wasn't designed for one - a question you didn't ask.

The larger crown platform is probably the only thing that distinguishes a fork that was designed for an integrated headset from another one so I'm pretty sure you'd have a little extra flat area around the outside of the race - might collect a little extra dirt, might look a little odd but probably it'd be just fine... especially since you got confirmation from Easton.

Cane Creek sent me the lower head cup outside diameter for the following 1
1/8 headsets:

Solos 46 mm S2 or S6 44.25 mm S Pro 48.4 mm

The 2003 Easton EC90 SL fork crown is 44 mm.

I'm hoping to hear from Ritchey headsets soon.

Wayne

Wayne Pein <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Cane Creek sent me the lower head cup outside diameter for the following 1
1/8 headsets:

Solos 46 mm S2 or S6 44.25 mm S Pro 48.4 mm

The 2003 Easton EC90 SL fork crown is 44 mm.

I'm hoping to hear from Ritchey headsets soon.

Wayne

If that is true, it might look better than a standard fork.

Wayne Pein <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Cane Creek sent me the lower head cup outside diameter for the following 1
1/8 headsets:

Solos 46 mm S2 or S6 44.25 mm S Pro 48.4 mm

The 2003 Easton EC90 SL fork crown is 44 mm.

I'm hoping to hear from Ritchey headsets soon.

Wayne

One more thing. I've got an Easton EA70 1" threadless fork. It wouldn't work with a Ritchey WCS
headset. There was interference between the lower cup and the stearer tube. Don't ask me why...... A
King HS worked fine.

DiabloScott said:

Sorry Wayne, I was thinking of installing an integrated headset on a frame that wasn't designed
for one - a question you didn't ask.

The larger crown platform is probably the only thing that distinguishes a fork that was designed
for an integrated headset from another one so I'm pretty sure you'd have a little extra flat area
around the outside of the race - might collect a little extra dirt, might look a little odd but
probably it'd be just fine... especially since you got confirmation from Easton.

No problem with the confusion.

As you can see from my other post, Cane Creek headsets are actually slightly wider than the crown of
the Easton fork I'm interested in. The S-2 is almost the exact diameter.

I suppose different integrated forks have slightly different flat crown diameters, so it would make
sense to try and find out the sizes of the specific forks and headsets if mating integrated fork
with standard headset.

Wayne

Bill K. said:

Wayne Pein <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Cane Creek sent me the lower head cup outside diameter for the following 1
1/8 headsets:

Solos 46 mm S2 or S6 44.25 mm S Pro 48.4 mm

The 2003 Easton EC90 SL fork crown is 44 mm.

I'm hoping to hear from Ritchey headsets soon.

Wayne

If that is true, it might look better than a standard fork.

Yes, that is my thought. It seems as if any of those Cane Creek headsets, especially the S-2/6,
would give an integrated look. And Easton did claim they designed their integrated fork to look good
with either integrated or standard.

Wayne

Bill K. said:

Wayne Pein <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Cane Creek sent me the lower head cup outside diameter for the following 1
1/8 headsets:

Solos 46 mm S2 or S6 44.25 mm S Pro 48.4 mm

The 2003 Easton EC90 SL fork crown is 44 mm.

I'm hoping to hear from Ritchey headsets soon.

Wayne

One more thing. I've got an Easton EA70 1" threadless fork. It wouldn't work with a Ritchey WCS
headset. There was interference between the lower cup and the stearer tube. Don't ask me why......
A King HS worked fine.

That's something to think about. Thanks.

Wayne