Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

cross frames & integrated headsets?

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 28 posts · 1,306 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
16 December 2005
Last activity
21 December 2005
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
28
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,306
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 21–28 of 28
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. email hidden said:
    Quoted message said:

    Are you saying that intregrated headsets don't
    actually function? If so, what is wrong with them?

    No, I have no experience with them.

    !!!!!!

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  2. email hidden said:

    I was simply expecting cross
    equipment to emphasize proven reliability/
    durability and therefore use
    "traditional" solutions.

    Cross races are 1 hour long or less and top riders almost always
    havespare bikes, and sometimes change bikes every lap. Cross bikes
    are among the most innovative in the racing world.

    Sure, the equipment has to work and be reliable, but it's often
    cutting edge stuff.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  3. Derk said:
    M-gineering said:

    6% + VAT

    Are you sure? What about the VAT? Can one get the VAT back that has been
    added to the price that one pay's abroad or is it: price of article + 6% +
    Dutch VAT e.g. ? That's what I understand and in that case you can add more
    than 20% to the original amount.

    Greetings, Derk

    I ordered some parts from the USA recently and had to pay about 20% VAT
    (omzetbelasting) and about 5% customservice (invoerrechten), and the
    parts were still cheaper than when ordered in the EU, and delivered
    within a week. Amazing..

    Lou
    --
    Posted by news://news.nb.nu

  4. Lou Holtman said:

    I ordered some parts from the USA recently and had to pay about 20% VAT
    (omzetbelasting) and about 5% customservice (invoerrechten), and the
    parts were still cheaper than when ordered in the EU, and delivered
    within a week. Amazing..


    I think a 25% "price increase" is significant. Something that sounds like a
    bargain is suddenly less interesting from a financial point of view. On top
    of that, there's the problem of transport costs. Whenever you buy a part
    that fails and isn't guaranteed by a Dutch importer, you'll be forced to
    send it back and forth overseas at sigificant cost. When you take that into
    account, it's not that interesting any more. It'a a pity: I'm a big fan of
    Titanium frames.

    When do you plan a vacation in the US, Lou? ;-)

    Greetings, Derk

  5. Antti Salonen said:
    Ryan Cousineau said:

    Chris King has led a charge against the integrated design, asserting
    that it opens up the possibility of wrecking a frame because the bearing
    could move against the head tube: in an integrated design, the races are
    in press-fit contact with the head tube.

    I'm wondering though how real this problem is in practice. After all,
    we've been hearing these warnings for years, but integrated headsets
    have been on the market for five years already. If there is a real
    problem, no doubt the shops would've already seen the results. There
    are several people running or working at bike shops in this newsgroups,
    but I don't remember reading a single report.

    I'm not saying it's necessarily a smart design, but telling everybody to
    stay away from otherwise nice and competetively priced frames because of
    integrated headsets might be excessive.

    -as

    Have a look at:

    http://photobucket.com/albums/a158/kwalters1532

    for a Trek/Lemond ti road frame with integrated headset after 7000
    miles. Ken.

  6. kwalters said:
    Antti Salonen said:
    Ryan Cousineau said:

    Chris King has led a charge against the integrated design, asserting
    that it opens up the possibility of wrecking a frame because the
    bearing could move against the head tube: in an integrated design,
    the races are in press-fit contact with the head tube.

    I'm wondering though how real this problem is in practice. After all,
    we've been hearing these warnings for years, but integrated headsets
    have been on the market for five years already. If there is a real
    problem, no doubt the shops would've already seen the results. There
    are several people running or working at bike shops in this newsgroups,
    but I don't remember reading a single report.
    I'm not saying it's necessarily a smart design, but telling everybody to
    stay away from otherwise nice and competetively priced frames because of
    integrated headsets might be excessive.
    -as

    Have a look at:

    http://photobucket.com/albums/a158/kwalters1532

    for a Trek/Lemond ti road frame with integrated headset after 7000
    miles. Ken.

    That isn't proof of excess wear, but of off-centered milling. I'd bet
    my eye-teeth that that 1/2mm difference existed before the 7K miles started.

    That said, wear will occur in these headsets, fore and aft on the
    bevelled (angular contact) surfaces.

    Robin Hubert

  7. Robin Hubert said:
    kwalters said:
    Antti Salonen said:

    Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > Chris King has led a charge against the integrated design, asserting
    > that it opens up the possibility of wrecking a frame because the
    > bearing could move against the head tube: in an integrated design,
    > the races are in press-fit contact with the head tube.

    I'm wondering though how real this problem is in practice. After all,
    we've been hearing these warnings for years, but integrated headsets
    have been on the market for five years already. If there is a real
    problem, no doubt the shops would've already seen the results. There
    are several people running or working at bike shops in this newsgroups,
    but I don't remember reading a single report.
    I'm not saying it's necessarily a smart design, but telling everybody to
    stay away from otherwise nice and competetively priced frames because of
    integrated headsets might be excessive.
    -as

    Have a look at:

    http://photobucket.com/albums/a158/kwalters1532

    for a Trek/Lemond ti road frame with integrated headset after 7000
    miles. Ken.

    That isn't proof of excess wear, but of off-centered milling. I'd bet
    my eye-teeth that that 1/2mm difference existed before the 7K miles
    started.

    That said, wear will occur in these headsets, fore and aft on the
    bevelled (angular contact) surfaces.

    Robin Hubert

    I agree completely, so does Cane Creek (maker of the headset), and
    several local shops. Unfortunately, Trek doesn't.

    I have another picture of a similar frame but with concentric milling;
    it shows noticeable wear, but I don't know the mileage on the frame.

    Ken

    Ken

  8. In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    I've recently been trying to find and build my first cross bike, and I
    am surprised that so many cross frames use integrated headsets. This
    seems counter-intuitive to me: cross = function takes precedence over
    fashion, while IS = fashion over function. Is there a good technical
    reason for using integrated headsets in cross frames?

    So that you replace the entire frame when the HS goes bad???
    ---------------
    Alex

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.