Originally Posted by Slavic
That's not exactly correct. . . Chris King's claim that the bearings on integrated headsets wear out faster is, in my experience, incorrect; my integrated headset has lasted over two years with no maintenance, . . . one should bear in mind that aesthetics aren't just something to sneez at. . . However, to write off a new system based on an article by a rival headset system manufacturer is simply narrow-minded in my book.
Gee -- thanks for the sermon, oh wise one. Hope you didn't get hurt patting yourself on the back thinking you are the only one capable of critical thinking. I'm quite aware of what CK and his company do to earn their money, and the self-interest motivation they might have because of it. But if you read the article and try to understand it for what it says (instead of just dismissing it because it is written by a company that has made its name producing very fine -- if somewhat overpriced and overhyped -- traditional headsets), you will see that the reasoning is sound. Do you suppose that, if the CK company saw some merit in the technology, it might just introduce a line of integrated headsets rather than trying to point out the folly of the design? My "writing off" of the integrated headset isn't based on a "narrow-minded" acceptance of the article, it is based on the engineering involved -- the article was just a reference to explain the problem to the poster, and possibly save him some money if he was still in a position to return the frame. This is a flawed design, and just because you haven't yet seen the problems in your bike after just two years, doesn't mean it isn't. In fact, to overlook the problem just because you haven't yet experienced it yourself after just two years, "is simply narrow-minded in my book." As these frames age, history will bear out. And yes, aesthetics is something to "sneez" at, where people are investing in expensive bikes that emphasize form over function.