Llatikcuf said:Nate Knutson said:Quoted message said:> > I am having a custom frame made and I have a choice of an integrated
> > or non-integrated headset......snip
>
> http://chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_explained/int_hds_explain_1.html
I think Chris King makes things sound a little worse than they are.
Why? The most important point that article makes is that integrated
headsets create an additional dynamic surface between the bearings and
the frame, and that this can cause frame damage. Do you have an
argument against that? Because if it's true, integrated is pretty
ridiculously bad, given that it offers all of zero advantages.
I never said integrated was a good thing, in fact I stated that if I
were him I would not get integrated. It just depends on how you are
going to use the frame. If you're buying a high quality frame and
expect to keep it a long time you should get a standard headset.
Chris King makes it sound like every frame will be trashed in 6 months.
If high quality durable materials are used and this takes 10+ years,
they have probably satisfied 95% of the market. The Freds in my area
replace their $5000 super light weight race bikes every 3-5 years.
Don't think they care about headset cup longevity, and they are the
ones financing the market.
The extent to which morons that will happily buy anything the marketers
tell them are the principle ones "financing the market," and what this
justifies or invalidates, is unclear to me. What about this status quo
should anyone be happy about? What part of it shouldn't be challenged?
What exactly is the basis for letting people who make, market, and sell
this stuff be seen as having any credibility at all?
Quoted message said:Some integrated headsets probably outlast the frame. Have you seen the
insert Cannondale supplied with the CAAD7 frames?
Haven't seen it. I don't doubt that some integrated headsets will
outlast the frame, or more like the place where the bearing sits will
outlast the rest of the frame, and don't doubt that there are kludges
that can be layered on to help out.
Quoted message said:http://llatikcuf.home.comcast.net/CrackAndFail.jpg
What's the difference between buying a $400 set of DuraAce shifters
that break in 5 years, a $1000 set of wheels that won't have
replacement parts in 7 years, a $250 feather weight saddle with rails
made of pretzels, a $500 crankset with some crazy semi-integrated BB
that will be abandoned for the next new thing, a 16 pound exotic wonder
bike when your 10 pounds overweight and a $1000 frame with an
integrated headset?
It's all short lived, fad driven expensive [censored]. The bike market is 75%
expensive [censored].
Clearly you're right about this, and yes for someone buying a new $3000
- $5000 bike every few years or the like, integrated is just more
stupidity. I would say that ubiquitous features on frames that cause
frame damage and serve no purpose at all are a new level of stupidity,
but whatever. However, my position is that if all the ridiculousness is
ever going to be stopped, people with brains in the industry need to
single out individual problems and individual things that are stupid,
and at least make it known that it has real problems. That hasn't
really happened with integrated. Integrated is already way more common
than the level of Fred-ness you describe, and it's getting worse. It's
made its way onto mid-range bikes that reasonable people who happen to
not know about this stuff buy thinking that it's gonna be a nice bike
that will last and be sound as nice bikes should be, and those people
are essentially getting screwed. Those people, and everyone else who
have a more down-to-earth relationship with bikes, such as people who
use them for transportation, all end up getting negatively affected by
this stuff as it becomes harder and harder to avoid. And those groups
are the ones I care about, and the ones that are worth caring about
unless you happen to make money selling the stupid stuff and don't have
a conscience. So it's all pretty terrible and that's why I used the
word.
