Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
ok, i'm looking to get a new carbon fork. some forks state they will work on both integrated and non-integrated frames. ritchey and columbus both say their forks will work on both type frames. different web sites contradict this. what's going on?? what about deda? and reynolds? etc etc. what would the difference be? and why couldn't you put a non-integrated headset on any fork and expect it to be fine? the steerer tubes are all the same size....my brain hurts. must stop using it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
It's better to look fast, than to be fast

iatola-rocnrola said:
ok, i'm looking to get a new carbon fork. some forks state they will work on both integrated and non-integrated frames. ritchey and columbus both say their forks will work on both type frames. different web sites contradict this. what's going on?? what about deda? and reynolds? etc etc. what would the difference be? and why couldn't you put a non-integrated headset on any fork and expect it to be fine? the steerer tubes are all the same size....my brain hurts. must stop using it...
Mixing integrated and non-integrated frames and forks is about aesthetics, not function. As you say, the steerer dimensions (including crown races) are the same between both types of forks. The only difference between them is that an "integrated" fork generally is fatter at the top, to visually blend in better with a the typically fatter integrated head tubes.

I you put an "integrated" for onto a bike with a skinny head tube, the discontinuity in widths between frame and fork might look a little funny, but it will function just the same in terms of geometry, steering, etc., and vise-versa if you put a "non-integrated" fork onto a bike with a fat head tube.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top