I have a brand new Winwood muddy cx fork. I planned on installing it with a conventional headset.

Now i am looking at the cheapie Chinese carbon cx frames that take an integrated headset.

Does the fork care what kind of frame/headset? As long as it's 1 1/8", of course.

No, forks are pretty independent of spirit and don't really care about the frames they're shoved into.

Seriously, from the fork's standpoint the only difference between a standard threadless headset, and an integrated one might be the stack height. Otherwise it's all good.

BTW- while you're riding that new bike, don't think of as a cheapie, think more like bargain, and enjoy it to the max.

The fork does care about being integrated or not. You should see that listed in the fork specs for whatever fork you plan to purchase.

@FBinNY, while techinically true that the fork doesn't care, if you try to put a Reynold's Ouzo Pro fork (non-integrated) on a frame with integrated headset, it will look stupid.

Forks with integrated crowns are rare. Most forks accept a press-on crown race. It doesn't give a flying **** what headset you're using on it. Almost all 1 1/8" threadless forks have the standard 26.4 crown race seat diameter. This will take all standard 'integrated' headsets, since they still feature seperate crown races.

You have no idea what you're talking about so you should just stop there.

Yeah, I've been reading on roadbikesreview--I'm pretty much sold on a road frame (to start). You seem like a knowledgeable guy--What should I expect in the way of longevity from a good carbon frame? I've sort of picked up the notion that they are kind of disposable--that in a couple of years they are kinda worn out or something. Is that BS? Leading a sheltered life where the worst abuse might be an occasional 4" pothole, how long should it last?

@Operator
Have you ever put one of those on an integrated frame? It does look quite silly because the fork crown outer diameter is smaller than that of an integrated fork. I'm not talking about the crown race diameter, because you are correct in saying that it's pretty much standard on all forks.

Sorry, i didn't realize that others had contributed--I'd like to hear all opinions on longevity of carbon frames, as I asked FBI.

The specific fork/frame I'm talking about are these:

Normally I would want to get the frame, fork, and headset from the same source, to ensure compatibility. However i already have this fork . . .

I'm probably the wrong guy to ask. I'm something of a retro grouch when it comes to carbon. I don't dispute any of the benefits, but since I work in metal, and don't race I prefer metal stuff to carbon which I call "plastic"

With decent care, on good roads, and barring bad luck I'd venture that most carbon frames will outlast their owners attention span so that shouldn't be a worry. I have bikes ranging in age up to 44 years, but stuff changes so fast these days, that most people don't expect to keep a bike much more than a few years anyway.

My problem with carbon is that it's impolite, and things will appear perfectly OK one day, and the next day, with zero warning, they are beyond repair. What a mechanic friend calls "digital failure". It's kinda like the difference between carburetor cars of old and modern electronic fuel injection. The new stuff is undoubtably better, but when a carburetor acts up you can tinker a bit and limp home, and with electronic ignition, the only thing to do is call a tow.

I have been hemming and hawing about a titanium frame, brushed finish. Least expensive is about $1000 Habanero. A generic carbon frame from China is less than $300. There's no way that carbon is a sub for Ti, but $270 is hard/impossible to resist. Carbon breaking/shattering where metal would bend is my biggest concern, as you pointed out.

I'm with you here. Even I would probably put aside my skepticism and go with the carbon frame. At that cost difference you could replace it every few years and still be ahead 10 years from now.

BTW- it isn't that carbon frames are weaker. No material is inherently weaker or stronger. That depends on how much material and how it's used, and many carbon frames are actually stronger than their metal counterparts. My concern is with the nature of failure, though I'm more comfortable with frames than I'm am critical things like fork steerers.

One question. It appears to have Canti bosses, as does your fork, are you planning on riding Cyclocross aggressively, or is this a road/touring bike? If the former, be sure to inspect it from time to time. If the latter, the fact that it might be built for cyclocross might indicate a more conservative, stronger frame, which is a plus.

There are a few different integrated headset specs, in so far as bore in the headtube goes , you need to get the right brand of headset. I read you thought about trying to use an external type headset instead, wonder why , just get the right parts..

I have a bike with an integrated headset, got a locking spacer to go on top of the headset, to keep the fork in the frame and headset's various parts together, so it's no problem now. A Cross bike with a clamp on front brake hanger for the cantilever brakes, 1st thing above the top race, will have the same function ..

That frame pic looks almost identical to the Pedal Force CX1 frame save for the modified head tube. I've been commuting on that frame for ~9 months and 4500 miles. I carry a pannier on a rear rack (attached at drop outs and canti bosses) weighing 5-10 lbs. daily and ride in all weather (aside from snow when I switch to my snow bike). Complete bike with full fenders, front and rear lights including a big li-ion headlight battery, rack, front disc brake, 28mm tires, etc. weighs under 24 lbs. I love it.

I'm past the age of aggression. The only reason I'm looking at cx bikes is for the rear rack mounts and maybe wider tires