On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:33:03 +0200, "Erik Lindeberg"
may have said:How much does a conventional headset (e.g. Chris King)
increase the effective length of the head tube compared to
an integrated headset? I will buy a custom size frame with
conventional head set and I am using my present frame as
basis for specifying my new "ideal" frame geometry and my
present bike has integrated headset.
An other way to put the question: How much shorter must the
head tube be on the new frame with conventional head set if
I want to use my present fork with given steerer tube
length without reducing the spacer height?
The "stack height" specified for the headset tells you how
much steer tube length is "used up" by the headset. Add that
to the head tube length and the stem clamp length, subtract
5mm, and you've got the minimum steer tube length that you
can shop for.
By the way, integrated headsets have a potentially serious
drawback. Go with an *internal* headset instead, to achieve
the same result without the inherent problem More about the
issue can be found here:
chrisking.comint hdOpen ↗
s_explain_appendix1.html
For the line-wrap-challenged, tinyurl.com2jvzvOpen ↗
One more caveat: it is likely that the greatest degree of
servicability and long-term economy will continue to be
achieved via the use of a conventional headset, at least for
the near future.
There is some disagreement about the significance of the
alleged advantages of an internal headset over a
conventional one.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
