Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 56
  1. #1
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,065

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    deal breaker?
    I'm looking at a frame, but this headset standard has me worried. What say you?

  2. #2
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by ElwoodT View Post
    deal breaker?
    I'm looking at a frame, but this headset standard has me worried. What say you?
    Not a deal breaker. It works fine.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  3. #3
    Live 2 Ride
    Reputation: Kona0197's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,946
    Good to see you Shiggy. Where you been hiding?
    My Bike: '15 Trek FX 7.2
    My Blog: http://http://kona0197.wordpress.com/

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24,390
    Works just fine

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawg View Post
    Works just fine
    I have three bikes with it for a few years with zero issues, but I was also scar at first.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: crossracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    459

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Ten years on my Mtn bike, no issues at all. Just repack every year and it's fine


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973

    maybe it is just me, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Not a deal breaker. It works fine.
    this integrated and integral headset poop is still not 100% clear to me...someone school me up please which one uses the HT as the bearing race. If the bearing gets trashed, it takes the frame with it
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails intergrated headset on an alloy frame?-dsc01911.jpg  

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?-dsc01884.jpg  

    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    37
    None of them use the frame material as a bearing race. That would be completely idiotic. What you have with a traditional style headset that has been designed to use cartridge bearings is essentially an adaptor pressed into the head tube, with the cartridge bearing slipping into that. Some designs do away with the traditional looking cup, and seat the cartridge bearing into the head tube, which has been machined with the appropriate shape. Saves weight, was the pitch. Made things a bit cheaper to manufacture too. Also allowed for more material to weld to on the head tube, all other factors being equal. That can be an advantage, especially on the smallest size frames. I don't know of any failures of that system, but then no system is perfect.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973

    um, not so sure...

    I agree with (as in I do not agree) with your "none of them use..." Do a little homework and get back to us...and maybe do a search on the Chris King website. There will be a test in the morning and yeah it certainly is idiotic
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    37
    There is a lot of confusion about bearings in the bicycle business. Much of it comes from some poorly defined terms. "Bearing race" is one of the culprits. The thing that is usually called a "crown race" is, for example, not a bearing race unless the headset is of the old loose ball type. Then it's an actual bearing race. Likewise, most people insist on referring to cartridge bearings as "sealed bearings." This is like the "square is a rectangle" thing. Not all sealed bearings are cartridge bearings, and not all cartridge bearings are sealed. Even some of them that look like they are. If you use a "shielded" cartridge bearing where you need a sealed one, then you won't get much life out of it. But I don't have time to argue with all the geniuses at MTBR. Been there, done that. Got the T shirt, wore it out, then used it as a grease rag.

  11. #11
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    I agree with (as in I do not agree) with your "none of them use..." Do a little homework and get back to us...and maybe do a search on the Chris King website. There will be a test in the morning and yeah it certainly is idiotic
    No. All current integrated headsets are a cartridge bearing that drops into a bearing seat--not bearing race-- in the head tube. Nothing to wear out that is not replaceable. In practice, this has been just as reliable as pressed in headsets. It is just as possible to ovalize the frame headtube with either.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    ...what type of headset does CK refuse to support? It is the ding-bat design that "integrates" the alloy headtube with the headset bearings...no bearing cup pressed into the headset...bearing runs the on headtube
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  13. #13
    Desert of the real
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by ElwoodT View Post
    deal breaker?
    I'm looking at a frame, but this headset standard has me worried. What say you?
    Internal, sure. Integrated, no thanks.

    If there is a cup that is pressed in for a cartridge bearing to fret against, like in an internal headset, the cup will develop play and you can replace it. I personally don't see a headset with no cup that is just a drop in bearing competing with that in the long run. Will it work? Obviously it does well enough, they keep selling them...

  14. #14
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,065
    thanks for your responses, this is reassuring. My initial research had me thinking this was going to be a deal breaker.
    A "good to go" from Shiggy means a lot to me.
    This is the frame I'm looking at btw: On-One Parkwood Frame | On - One

  15. #15
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    ...what type of headset does CK refuse to support? It is the ding-bat design that "integrates" the alloy headtube with the headset bearings...no bearing cup pressed into the headset...bearing runs the on headtube
    If you do not like it, do not get a frame that uses it.
    Integrated headsets have been proven as reliable as press fit headsets.

    Should be noted that CK sells frames with headset cups permanently brazed into the head tube.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  16. #16
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Internal, sure. Integrated, no thanks.

    If there is a cup that is pressed in for a cartridge bearing to fret against, like in an internal headset, the cup will develop play and you can replace it. I personally don't see a headset with no cup that is just a drop in bearing competing with that in the long run. Will it work? Obviously it does well enough, they keep selling them...
    I have yet to see a cartridge bearing wallow out a cup. I have seen, and had, a press in cup ovalize a head tube, trashing the frame.

    When the bearing itself develops play with either type, you just replace the bearing.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  17. #17
    Desert of the real
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Of course, that's the problem with new tech--we know all the ways a conventional external headset will fail, but there are no thirty or fifty or hundred year old examples of the new styles to see what happens with them.

  18. #18
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Of course, that's the problem with new tech--we know all the ways a conventional external headset will fail, but there are no thirty or fifty or hundred year old examples of the new styles to see what happens with them.
    The current frames will be long dead or out dated from other reasons long before 30 years have passed. We are using many, many component/frame designs that lack 30+ years of field use.

    CK's anti-integrated piece is 12 years old.
    The integrated HS is still being used with few, if any, of the problems proposed.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  19. #19
    Desert of the real
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Interesting response.

  20. #20
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Interesting response.
    Bottom line:

    No, an integrated headset is not a deal breaker for choosing a frame.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    37
    I can't help noticing that there is not a single reference to an actual failure of a frame because of an integrated headset. Lots of imaginary ones, though! This place never changes.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    If you do not like it, do not get a frame that uses it.
    Integrated headsets have been proven as reliable as press fit headsets.

    Should be noted that CK sells frames with headset cups permanently brazed into the head tube.
    thank you for the assistance, but... you still do not have a legit response to my original query...

    and, CK does not support the one you are describing...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails intergrated headset on an alloy frame?-dsc01891.jpg  

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?-dsc01914.jpg  

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?-dsc01912.jpg  

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?-dsc01853.jpg  

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?-dsc01852.jpg  

    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  23. #23
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    thank you for the assistance, but... you still do not have a legit response to my original query...

    and, CK does not support the one you are describing...
    Your original question was answered, and you failed your own "test." No company currently produces an integrated headset/frame that uses a non-replaceable bearing RACE. They all use cartridge bearings, where the races are contained within the cartridge. The cartridge sits in a bearing SEAT formed into the head tube. They do NOT "run on the head tube." Trashing a cartridge bearing in any type of headset does not trash the cup or frame. You just replace the bearing.
    The depiction of an integrated HS in CK's 2002 rant is inaccurate in how the bearing is supported in the head tube. If this is the extent of your knowledge, it is very, very limited and incomplete.

    That CK does not support the common integrated HS standards does not matter. It is their choice. There are plenty of other companies that make them, and dang good ones.

    And why did you post drivetrain pics?
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Your original question was answered, and you failed your own "test." No company currently produces an integrated headset/frame that uses a non-replaceable bearing RACE. They all use cartridge bearings, where the races are contained within the cartridge. The cartridge sits in a bearing SEAT formed into the head tube. They do NOT "run on the head tube." Trashing a cartridge bearing in any type of headset does not trash the cup or frame. You just replace the bearing.
    The depiction of an integrated HS in CK's 2002 rant is inaccurate in how the bearing is supported in the head tube. If this is the extent of your knowledge, it is very, very limited and incomplete.

    That CK does not support the common integrated HS standards does not matter. It is their choice. There are plenty of other companies that make them, and dang good ones.

    And why did you post drivetrain pics?
    thanks for clearing that up...
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  25. #25
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    thanks for clearing that up...
    This was all covered in other replies if you had bothered to read them.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    This was all covered in other replies if you had bothered to read them.
    I actually did "bother..." to read and digest it all, but still feel there is a grey area regarding HS's that do not use a "cup". The cup dimension is cloned and the dimension is machined into the headset tube. And yes, the cone type cartridge bearing runs on the machined alloy surface in the headtube.

    My original query stands...can someone accurately define the differences between an integrated and integral headset and acknowledge they do exist. We certainly may not want them, but they are out there...what is what?

    I also would not consider CK's PDF document in their 2002 memo a "rant.."

    comments were also made that state "all current available..." that might be a legitimate response, so prove it to be a fact. If you really feel I am mistaken, and document your position, I will suck it up.

    I really do not have a horse in this race!...and

    my bike is fine...
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    37
    Octopus ink.

  28. #28
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    I actually did "bother..." to read and digest it all, but still feel there is a grey area regarding HS's that do not use a "cup". The cup dimension is cloned and the dimension is machined into the headset tube. And yes, the cone type cartridge bearing runs on the machined alloy surface in the headtube.

    My original query stands...can someone accurately define the differences between an integrated and integral headset and acknowledge they do exist. We certainly may not want them, but they are out there...what is what?

    I also would not consider CK's PDF document in their 2002 memo a "rant.."

    comments were also made that state "none currently available.." that might be a legitimate response, so prove it to be a fact. If you really feel I am mistaken, and document your position, I will suck it up.

    I really do not have a horse in this race!
    You need to get your SHIS straight.

    As far as current HS standards go, there is no "integral" headset.
    Proving something does not exist is pretty much impossible, but unless you have a '90s Klein, time trial bike, or some other odd or custom bike it is going to use an off the shelf production SHIS headset.
    It is up to you to show us a frame that uses something else.

    http://www.canecreek.com/tech-center/headsets/shis
    http://www.canecreek.com/tech-center.../shis/overview
    http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-...dset-standards

    Hope calls their internal/Zero Stack HS "Integral." That just confuses things when SHIS is widely used.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    You need to get your SHIS straight.

    As far as current HS standards go, there is no "integral" headset.
    Proving something does not exist is pretty much impossible, but unless you have a '90s Klein, time trial bike, or some other odd or custom bike it is going to use an off the shelf production SHIS headset.
    It is up to you to show us a frame that uses something else.

    Tech Center | Headsets | SHIS
    SHIS Overview
    Park Tool Co. » ParkTool Blog » Headset Standards

    Hope calls their internal/Zero Stack HS "Integral." That just confuses things when SHIS is widely used.
    could be this thread has beat itself up...all good though

    thank you shiggy...
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  30. #30
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    could be this thread has beat itself up...all good though

    thank you shiggy...
    Pretty much all but one poster understood what was being discussed.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Pretty much all but one poster understood what was being discussed.
    I get it...just not sure I was effective describing my position...oh well
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  32. #32
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    I get it...just not sure I was effective describing my position...oh well
    You have been totally ineffective in making your point or asking your question.

    Just show us this "integral" headset so we know what you are talking about.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    You have been totally ineffective in making your point or asking your question.

    Just show us this "integral" headset so we know what you are talking about.
    my question is self expainatory...are there two HS "standards"...integrated and integral this has been my question from the beginning...not sure why the answer is so difficult to respond to...

    as per shiggy's request, I have enclosed pictures of my FSA Orbit 1.5B ZS HT for the second time...see #7...not sure why he wanted it though, as FSA's website is clear as to what makes their zero-stack tick. And I also never said mine was "integral". All I ever wanted was a description of each.

    Somehow though, my desire to get an accurate definition/description has waned considerably...geeez
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails intergrated headset on an alloy frame?-dsc01886.jpg  

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?-dsc01884.jpg  

    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  34. #34
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    my question is self expainatory...are there two HS "standards"...integrated and integral this has been my question from the beginning...not sure why the answer is so difficult to respond to...

    as per shiggy's request, I have enclosed picture of my FSA Orbit 1.5B ZS HT for the second time...see #7...not sure why he wanted it though, as FSA's website is clear as to what makes their zero-stack tick. And I also never said mine was "integral". All I wanted was a description of each as I am not sure which catagory mine falls into.

    Somehow my desire to get an accurate definition/description has waned considerably...
    It is difficult because "integral" is NOT a term used for headset "standards" though it seems to be used by a few manufacturers.

    You are still confused as I never asked to see YOUR headset, or claimed you said your HS was integral.

    I asked for you to post pics or info about the HS type you are calling integral.

    I posted several links describing and illustrating the various HS types and accepted industry terminology. Can not be much more accurate than that.

    As for your headset, you said it yourself: it is a Zero Stack (ZS). That is internal. ALL of the relevant info has been supplied in this thread. Several times.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    okay...I did find a copy of the CK PDF I was eluding to...it describes in detail that the integrated is the red haired step child...the headset bearings do ride directly on the HT, and yes, it was dated 2002..and no, CK does not support it. I feel so much better now...well, not really.
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    685
    I've read through this thread with complete bafflement.

    What is your specific concern? That you have a bike with an IS headset?
    Quote Originally Posted by ridelikeafatkid
    "MOMMY, I WANT TO RIDE LIKE THAT FAT KID!" true story.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by trboxman View Post
    I've read through this thread with complete bafflement.

    What is your specific concern? That you have a bike with an IS headset?
    what is so complicated about wanting to understand which HS has the bearing that runs directly on the HT?
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    what is so complicated about wanting to understand which HS has the bearing that runs directly on the HT?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    what is so complicated about wanting to understand which HS has the bearing that runs directly on the HT?
    What's so complicated about the S.H.I.S documentation that it doesn't provide an answer for your question?

    Or about any of Shiggy's responses?
    Quote Originally Posted by ridelikeafatkid
    "MOMMY, I WANT TO RIDE LIKE THAT FAT KID!" true story.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by trboxman View Post
    What's so complicated about the S.H.I.S documentation that it doesn't provide an answer for your question?

    Or about any of Shiggy's responses?
    I was not familiar with the SHIS document till now...Park's website had the perfect explanation. Shiggy had mentioned it, but unitil you mentioned it again, I had not googled it.
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  41. #41
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    I was not familiar with the SHIS document till now...Park's website had the perfect explanation. Shiggy had mentioned it, but unitil you mentioned it again, I had not googled it.
    This is proof you did not bother to read the replies.
    I. Provided. LINKS. To. ALL. Of. The. info!
    You did not need to do a Google search.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    I was not familiar with the SHIS document till now...Park's website had the perfect explanation. Shiggy had mentioned it, but unitil you mentioned it again, I had not googled it.
    So, in other words, you didn't read any of the links provided and continued to ask the same question answered by the links... Or am I misinterpreting your statement regarding the SHIS documentation?
    Quote Originally Posted by ridelikeafatkid
    "MOMMY, I WANT TO RIDE LIKE THAT FAT KID!" true story.

  43. #43
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    intergrated headset on an alloy frame?

    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    what is so complicated about wanting to understand which HS has the bearing that runs directly on the HT?
    What is so complicated about understanding the numerous replies that answered that question?
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  44. #44
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,763
    I'm still confused as to why we were shown drivetrain pics?
    I'm a mountain bike guide in South West Utah

  45. #45
    no motor
    Reputation: tiretracks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,361
    Diversion.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    What is so complicated about understanding the numerous replies that answered that question?
    yeah, it certainly appears I did not pay attention to your links...I guess I just enjoy your company...and so let's just all pile on guys...I certainly will attempt to be more diligent in the future...
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by Silentfoe View Post
    I'm still confused as to why we were shown drivetrain pics?
    good question...should not have happened
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    yeah, it certainly appears I did not pay attention to your links...I guess I just enjoy your company...and so let's just all pile on guys...I certainly will attempt to be more diligent in the future...
    No hard feelings, your apparent lack of engagement with the content given to answer your question made you look like a troll.

    Personally I try to never attribute to malice that which can be explained as ignorance...
    Quote Originally Posted by ridelikeafatkid
    "MOMMY, I WANT TO RIDE LIKE THAT FAT KID!" true story.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: time229er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by trboxman View Post
    No hard feelings, your apparent lack of engagement with the content given to answer your question made you look like a troll.

    Personally I try to never attribute to malice that which can be explained as ignorance...
    thanks...I appreciate that. I guess it's okay to admit being ignorant.
    2014 Nail Trail 29...

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    37
    Well, to be fair, he did have some good advice.


    Quote Originally Posted by time229er View Post
    I agree with (as in I do not agree) with your "none of them use..." Do a little homework and get back to us...and maybe do a search on the Chris King website. There will be a test in the morning and yeah it certainly is idiotic

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Frame vs Frame - Alpha Gold Aluminum vs QUICK CX , OPTIMIZED 6061 ALLOY SAVE
    By Paramount X in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-23-2013, 08:37 PM
  2. 2013 F29 1 Alloy Frame
    By Mr Pink57 in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-29-2012, 07:07 PM
  3. Purchase Intergrated Head tube?
    By ggodwin in forum Frame Building
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-06-2011, 06:01 AM
  4. 05 manitou dorado direct/intergrated crown stem
    By david8613 in forum Intense
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 06:29 AM
  5. Intergrated style head sets.
    By C.M.S in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-12-2011, 10:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •