# Standard vs Integrated Headsets?



## Twister (Feb 28, 2006)

Nothing pi$$e$ me off more that when a company comes up with a cheap and crappy way to make more money by selling an "innovation" as a great leap forward, when they are really just abusing their customers by selling them junk.

I just read Chris King's argument against the so-called integrated headset. 

Clearly, the integrated headset is great for the frame makers, but the customers are getting sold a bill of goods.

Have many companies switched to this inferior and crappy technology?

Now that I'm educated about it I will never, ever fall for this hype. No integrated headsets for me, ever. 

I urge everone to reject this, and all other attempts to market inferior technologies as great leaps forward.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Chris King's rant is more to do with the fact they didn't come up with the concept themselves, and intergrated (or semi-intergrated) headsets ability to readily use cartridge bearings (which can last forever practically) takes away sales for ChrisKing headsets, which is what the company built its reputation on.

And lots of manufacturers have adopted them, Giant especially uses the ZeroStack (semi-intergrated) headsets on all their models and have for about five years. That's another thing... CK's rant on them is a good five plus years old. I first read it around 2002 and it was old even then. Its not inferior and its not crappy but its obvious CK's still suckering people in to believing that.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Incidently CK has been promising to launch a BB for a decade now and still hasn't. They were big pushers of the ISIS spline standard and that has been a total flop. Really, I wouldn't put much stock in what CK has to say on anything anymore.


----------



## keeb (Sep 20, 2006)

I'll admit I'm not an industry insider, or pretend to keep up with the cutting edge, but was ISIS really a flop? I'd take ISIS over square tapers any day.

Besides that though, I'd not want my frame as part of the bearing race. As long as the bearings are sealed cartridge style I think it's just fine...but when your frame is a wearing part contacting bearings, you've got troubles....and I don't sell headsets.


----------



## wormvine (Oct 27, 2005)

keeb said:


> I'll admit I'm not an industry insider, or pretend to keep up with the cutting edge, but was ISIS really a flop? I'd take ISIS over square tapers any day.
> 
> Besides that though, I'd not want my frame as part of the bearing race. As long as the bearings are sealed cartridge style I think it's just fine...but when your frame is a wearing part contacting bearings, you've got troubles....and I don't sell headsets.


Do not confuse integrated headsets with internal headsets. Many bike companies use the internal headsets such as the FSA Orbit Z. Internal headsets are just as capable as external ones. They use bearing cups that fit inside the headtube.


----------



## Timeless (Mar 23, 2007)

Have you ever wonder if the entire rant is self serving. OMG Chris King thinks it is a bad idea. It must be....

I remember reading (on these forums) Cane Creek came up with it and patent it. Then turn around and licnces it to everyone BUT Chris King. Chris King is not allowed to use the technology so they go to the only thing they can bash it.
Now assuming this is true I do not blame Cane Creek at all for doing it. Chris King is one of the biggest competitors and would not surpise me is Chris King tick them off so either they are getting some sweet revenage for it or they where smart enough to keep it away from the main compilation and give it out to enough to make a lot of frame makers to want to use it.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Twister said:


> ... I will never, ever fall for this hype...


I hope you never buy a King headset. 100% hype. Close to 0 (zero) real world performance difference vs. $10 OEM headsets.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

You always have people who bash CK headsets and you have people who swear by them. I'm the latter. My CK headsets are the only ones which have _never_ given me any issues, and I've tried plenty of other headsets. Yeah, they're expensive, but I can install one and never worry about it again. This is particularly important since it's fairly easy to ovalize a headtube if your headset it out of adjustment. It's important enough to me that I won't buy a frame if I can't put a CK headset in it.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

Either type of headset is less f'ed up than the stuff Specialized is doing now. Talk about "hype." I find it hard to beleive that their new set-up is any better than what the industry standard has been in recent years.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jan 1, 1970)

*Splined ...*



keeb said:


> I'll admit I'm not an industry insider, or pretend to keep up with the cutting edge, but was ISIS really a flop? I'd take ISIS over square tapers any day.
> 
> Besides that though, I'd not want my frame as part of the bearing race. As long as the bearings are sealed cartridge style I think it's just fine...but when your frame is a wearing part contacting bearings, you've got troubles....and I don't sell headsets.


I would not call either ISIS or Octalink flops. However, both introduced new problems due to smaller bearings. Namely the bottom brackets failed a lot sooner then square taper (ISIS moreso then Octalink). Then benefit of both systems was that you did not round off any crank arms.

The topic of integrated and bottom brackets is actually quite relevant now. Since the new external bearing cranks work a LOT like the head-tube, some frame makers have taken to integrating the bottom bracket into the frame body. So basically you would just press in bearing and pass the crank axel through it.

Someone just brought this up on twentynineinches.com. When you think about it, this system eliminates ALL the problems with bottom brackets. The BB shell can be as large as the manufacturer wants so long as there is a bearing of that size that can be pressed. The crank arm interface on the oversize axel will not strip and the "zero-stack" allows for traditional narrow Q-factors. Plus everything is stiffer.

Methinks this system will catch on.


----------



## saturnine (Mar 28, 2007)

i don't imagine that the mass majority have any issues with their headset - be it a $150 set or $50.


----------



## Twister (Feb 28, 2006)

Shayne said:


> I hope you never buy a King headset. 100% hype. Close to 0 (zero) real world performance difference vs. $10 OEM headsets.


I won't unless I win the lotto or something like that. King's stuff is way to expensive for me. It's good stuff though. If I could afford it, I'd buy it just for the bling factor.

My rant is against the notion of frame makers forcing consumers to accept throwaway frames that last a year or two and then have zero retained value.

Integrated headsets are a dead certain way to make sure a frame dies an early death.

I think a quality bike frame should last pretty much forever if well cared for. You should have to buy a new frame because you WANT to (or because you crash, etc.), not because of planned built-in failure after a purposely limited life.

I love my oldest steel frames like old friends. My old CCM is 36 years old, has God knows how many miles on it, and still rides smooth as silk.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> I would not call either ISIS or Octalink flops. However, both introduced new problems due to smaller bearings. Namely the bottom brackets failed a lot sooner then square taper (ISIS moreso then Octalink). Then benefit of both systems was that you did not round off any crank arms.


Shimano's Octalink is superior because they didn't rush it to market and actually put some original thought into the bearing setup (mixing ball bearings and needle bearings handles all the loads beautifully and last a long time). ISIS was developed by CK and Raceface and FSA mainly because while shimano allowed crank makers to use the Octalink spline patterns, they wouldn't license the patent for aftermarket BB production (CK in particular were denied it) though OEM only production licenses were granted (FSA got one to supply BBs for tandem makers like Santana for example).



> The topic of integrated and bottom brackets is actually quite relevant now. Since the new external bearing cranks work a LOT like the head-tube, some frame makers have taken to integrating the bottom bracket into the frame body. So basically you would just press in bearing and pass the crank axel through it.


Old idea... Klein, Fisher, Merlin and others all had them in the late 80s. My Titan titanium frame has a press-in BB setup.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Twister said:


> My rant is against the notion of frame makers forcing consumers to accept throwaway frames that last a year or two and then have zero retained value.
> 
> Integrated headsets are a dead certain way to make sure a frame dies an early death.


That's a myth started by CK. In reality the frames last as long as the ones that take convention headsets. Only way to ruin the headtube is riding with the headset improperly setup and a conventional headset can ruin a headtube (ever seen an ovalized headtube?) just as readily.


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

I have seen only one mountainbike that used an integrated headset. Like someone else pointed out, the internal headset, which Giant and many other mtb companies use, and integrated headsets are two completely different animals. If you really want to read something about integrated headsets, go over to roadbikereview.com and do a search. This debate has been beaten to death over there. The integrated headset is very common on roadbikes, in fact the next time your in a LBS, just try to find a production roadbike that does not utilize this system. While they do have their issues, like DeeEight posted, if you keep them correctly adjusted, the frames will last just as long as they would if they had a conventional headset.

Brian


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

They're also quite common on many BMX frames now, and you'd think BMX riders were be more concerned about shortening the lives of their frames to be using such a terrible headset right?


----------



## wormvine (Oct 27, 2005)

BrianU said:


> I have seen only one mountainbike that used an integrated headset. Like someone else pointed out, the internal headset, which Giant and many other mtb companies use, and integrated headsets are two completely different animals. If you really want to read something about integrated headsets, go over to roadbikereview.com and do a search. This debate has been beaten to death over there. The integrated headset is very common on roadbikes, in fact the next time your in a LBS, just try to find a production roadbike that does not utilize this system. While they do have their issues, like DeeEight posted, if you keep them correctly adjusted, the frames will last just as long as they would if they had a conventional headset.
> 
> Brian


IBIS Mojo uses a integrated headset. I was a bit suprised by this. I had a long dialogue with one of the owners and we debated the reasons to use or not use the integrated headset. He basically said that the Headtube can be remachined many times if any damage occurs due to bearing failure. But really, how many times has anyone had catastophic angular contact failure in their headset. He also said that he would replace any frame irrepairably damaged by a bad headset. I personally wouldn't buy a bike that used an integrated headset. Regardless of durability, I like the fact that other headsets are user replaceable and could be repaired in under an hour.

Brian's point about road bikes using integrated headsets is interesting. It was pointed out to me by Ibis that the roadbike headset gets hit with harder forces due to the rigid fork than MTB's. I don't know if that is true but its an interesting point. It will be interesting to see how the Mojo's headset holds up in time.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Intergrated headsets are user serviceable without special tools (other than to put the race onto the fork crown, and that only needs a piece of steel pipe) and can be assembled / disassembled in 2 minutes.


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

I know of Schwinn's old ICBM standard, Maverick ML bikes, and Ibis, as being the only popular mountain bike manufacturers using a truly "integrated" headset (bearing in frame). I'm sure there are a few others, but who are they?

As for INTERNAL / "semi-integrated" / Zero stack (different terms to describe a internal headset with a pressed in cup, a couple points:

Twister, if you read through King's "rant," you'll note the author goes out of his way to differentiate the INTERNAL design from integrated, and acknowledges it is clearly superior. This applies to many frames you've been seeing from Giant / Iron Horse / Jamis / GT and others, since about 2001.

In speaking to Giant's old product manager of a few years back, James Winchester, his observation was that with their switch to Zero Stack, warranty claims for ovalized head tubes "virtually disappeared," and at the same time they gained a substantial increase in strength at the critical head tube junction, due to the large weldable area the oversized diameter head tube provides.

Since my 2001 NRS, my wife and I have owned 4 Zero-Stack frames, and the only headset problem has been a slightly overbored ID on one of them. Other than that, they've been as reliable as any conventional OR threaded headset I've ever owned.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Eclipse here in canada uses them. I dunno if they count as popular although they do about ten times the sales of Ibis (and probably more than Maverick combined with Ibis).


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

I believe Felt is also using cup-less integrated headsets on their mountain frames.


----------



## jpelaston (Feb 27, 2007)

my jamis XC PRo is an integrated ive got no problems with it...


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

jpelaston said:


> my jamis XC PRo is an integrated ive got no problems with it...


Here's the problem with this whole thing: confusing terminology.

Despite this thread and all the explanations offered between "Integrated" and "Internal," you made the same mistake.

I'm pretty certain your XC Pro uses an Internal (Zero Stack), and _not_ an Integrated (cupless) headset.

Giant did the same thing on their website for many years.

I guess, semantically, it can be argued that a Zero Stack is a form of Integrated headset (after all, it is called "semi-integrated"). I wish the frame and component makers would rally around the trademarked "Zero Stack" name and drop "Internal" once and for all.

I think it would end a lot of confusion, especially in light of the powerful effects of the Chris King piece.


----------



## saturnine (Mar 28, 2007)

i have a zero stack on my ironhorse and i personally like the low profile and fatter/stronger headtube and welds. as far as i know the bearings can be replaced, but i haven't figured out how to do it.


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

*No difference.*



saturnine said:


> i have a zero stack on my ironhorse and i personally like the low profile and fatter/stronger headtube and welds. as far as i know the bearings can be replaced, but i haven't figured out how to do it.


You would service or change out the bearings just like on a headset with the cups external to the headtube.

Along with the issue of terminology getting confused between internal and integrated, to really make things interesting, there are even two different commonly used standards for integrated headsets....Cane Creek and Campagnolo. Better yet, try to find someone in a LBS that actually knows this. And regardless of what someone online or your LBS might think, they are not interchangeable. Although Cane Creek does make a rarely seen Campy standard version.

Brian


----------



## saturnine (Mar 28, 2007)

yeah, i'm a bit of a n00b


----------



## AW_ (Jan 3, 2006)

Integrated headset and bb's are fine if you do it right. 

King products have plenty of issues too - they aren't perfect.

Check out the "spanish" bottom bracket mostly found on BMX frames - it's been around for a while. My DJ bike has an integrated headset (bearings drop in the head tube and sit directly against the frame). 

Innovation can be good, you know?


----------



## Twister (Feb 28, 2006)

I going to say this once more: I don't give a rip about Chris King, though he makes good stuff and manufactures in the US which is admirable. 

This thread is about frame makers adopting technologies that, though cheap and easy to use, yeild frames that develop problems which cause them to be unusable after a relatively short life. Throwaway frames.

A prime example of this is the use of the so-called integrated headset, which is really not a headset at all, but just uses the frame - the bottom of the head tube - as a bearing race. 

Thus, the frame becomes a throw away part. The bike seller saves the money he would have spent on a proper headset, and gets to sell another frame when the inevitable race wear causes the steering of the frame to become a problem. 

The consumer gets to buy a new frame instead of a new headset, and the city dump or local metal recycler get the relatively new, but worthless, old frame.


----------



## Faux Part Deux (Jan 19, 2004)

Chris King sux and integrated headsets are for roadies who want to pretend they are mountain bikers anyway so who cares


----------



## AW_ (Jan 3, 2006)

Twister said:


> I going to say this once more: I don't give a rip about Chris King, though he makes good stuff and manufactures in the US which is admirable.
> 
> This thread is about frame makers adopting technologies that, though cheap and easy to use, yeild frames that develop problems which cause them to be unusable after a relatively short life. Throwaway frames.
> 
> ...


Well... sure... but, let's think most disposable example first. If you can make an aluminum headset that has a 10 year warrantee (FSA), then why can't an aluminum frame with an integrated headset be as strong if not stronger?

How long do you plan to keep an aluminum MTB frame in service anyways?

Steel, ti frames... should be even more durable.

Maybe I am mistaken... are there any headsets that actually use the frame as a bearing race? I thought they just dropped the cartridge bearings into the headtube on integrated frames. The bearings are not actually wearing against the frame, they just sit against it. Assuming proper installation, no movement, no problem.

Think of it this way... on a sealed cartridge bearing headset, how often have you worn out the headset CUPS?

If the system works for BMX headsets and BBs... seems like it should be just fine for the load placed on road / mtb bikes too.


----------



## Twister (Feb 28, 2006)

Always there will be movement. Inevitably rough steering will result.


----------



## Timeless (Mar 23, 2007)

Twister said:


> Always there will be movement. Inevitably rough steering will result.


Yeah but if and when that happens it would 10+ years later, Like AW said how many frame are still in use after 10 years of abuse on the trails. Not many.

Also the tolerances on the head tube of an integrated headset are a heck of a lot tighter than on a normal one. I personally would rather not have an integrated headset over a standard because it can get damage and it cost me a lot more to fix it than with a standard one.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Twister said:


> IThis thread is about frame makers adopting technologies that, though cheap and easy to use, yeild frames that develop problems which cause them to be unusable after a relatively short life. Throwaway frames.


Fine, I'll say this one more time for the learning/comprehension impaired folks. You're flat out WRONG. The frames are not unusable after a short life and they're no more disposable than they were before. There hasn't been this rash of problems with intergrated headsets on frames that you seem to think there's been. The problems don't exist. Other than there's five different bearing sizes being used by different brands so there isn't really a "standard" for intergrated headsets (and thus it becomes important to know WHICH bearings to order for your particular frame) there are no downsides to the technology as it stands at the moment.



> A prime example of this is the use of the so-called integrated headset, which is really not a headset at all, but just uses the frame - the bottom of the head tube - as a bearing race.


Except again you're wrong because the headtube isn't actually being used as a bearing race. Intergrated headsets ALL use sealed cartridge bearings, and cartridge bearings all incorporate the bearing races INTO themselves. The headtube is simply being used as a bearing cup, instead of having a seperate cup pressed into the frame, the headtube is machined to accept the bearings directly. This is a no-brainer and why you can't understand it is beyond me.


----------



## Timeless (Mar 23, 2007)

DeeEight said:


> Fine, I'll say this one more time for the learning/comprehension impaired folks. You're flat out WRONG. The frames are not unusable after a short life and they're no more disposable than they were before. There hasn't been this rash of problems with intergrated headsets on frames that you seem to think there's been. The problems don't exist. Other than there's five different bearing sizes being used by different brands so there isn't really a "standard" for intergrated headsets (and thus it becomes important to know WHICH bearings to order for your particular frame) there are no downsides to the technology as it stands at the moment.
> 
> Except again you're wrong because the headtube isn't actually being used as a bearing race. Intergrated headsets ALL use sealed cartridge bearings, and cartridge bearings all incorporate the bearing races INTO themselves. The headtube is simply being used as a bearing cup, instead of having a seperate cup pressed into the frame, the headtube is machined to accept the bearings directly. This is a no-brainer and why you can't understand it is beyond me.


ah now I understand it. the integrated headset on the frame is not a friction surface. Since it has a cartage bearing in it no damage will ever be done to the frame.

All that is removed is that cup. I do not see the problem with it. Hell I see it costing more on the frame makers because of the lower tolerance on them. Mean more frames will not pass final inspection.

From what I see it makes it impossible to get thinks the CK bling factor.


----------



## bbbr (Nov 6, 2005)

I've chewed up lot of cheap headsets and a few not so cheap Cane Creek units over the years, thanks in large part to riding in less than pristine conditions during the year. Cheap headsets usually equal cheap seals. You get what you pay for, plain and simple.

Short of staying inside when it's anything other than a drought outside, your headset will see FOD (foreign object debris like mud, water and grime) . The FOD will act as an abrasive and destroy that nice machined head tube surface your integrated headset relies on.Your bearings will survive since they're steel but the aluminum will start wearing away. Won't happen all at once but short of keeping it pristine it'll constantly happen no matter how good the seals are. I can replace my bearings and bearing cups if they wear but how do you resurface the head tube surface with spending a small fortune at a machine shop because it's pitted and manked up?

Since I went to King headsets, my failure rate and problems went to zero. No need to adjust them ever, no more broken bearing retainers, no more mud and grime in the "sealed" cartridge bearings. No failures or issues. They also don't suffer from the creak other describe when using a 6" single crown fork. That could just be my custom reducer cups though (they meet Kings required head tube tolerances). 

I stick to my King headsets and square taper BB's. Good parts that never fail or cause a problem


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

How often has FOD gotten under the cartridge bearings on other headsets to damage the aluminium cups?!? I've never seen it and I've been using cartridge bearing headsets a good decade plus now. Again you're grasping at excuses to justify why this thing is bad and using cheap headsets with cheap seals (and generally not cartridge bearing setups) as anecdotal evidence for something that it doesn't apply to. 

Resurfing the headtube is a simple task for anyone with the proper headtube reamer. Park makes the heads for their headtube facing tools to do intergrated headtubes just like they do to face regular headtubes.


----------



## Super-Slow (Mar 9, 2004)

Timeless said:


> Have you ever wonder if the entire rant is self serving. OMG Chris King thinks it is a bad idea. It must be....
> 
> I remember reading (on these forums) Cane Creek came up with it and patent it. Then turn around and licnces it to everyone BUT Chris King. Chris King is not allowed to use the technology so they go to the only thing they can bash it.
> Now assuming this is true I do not blame Cane Creek at all for doing it. Chris King is one of the biggest competitors and would not surpise me is Chris King tick them off so either they are getting some sweet revenage for it or they where smart enough to keep it away from the main compilation and give it out to enough to make a lot of frame makers to want to use it.


This is actually NOT true. King was one of the very first licensees of the Cane Creek Aheadset technology and continues to license it to this day. However, they do not choose to use the compression ring which does provide a more secure connection between the steerer and headset. This is what prevents the common creaking on longer travel mountain bikes.

"Just the facts"...King does make a nice looking headset.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

CaneCreek holds multiple patents... including the one for ZeroStack aheadsets, which is one they didn't allow CK to licence. That's what he was referring to, not the aheadset patent itself.


----------



## psycoler (Nov 19, 2011)

Chris king was talking about how the bearing race moves within the head-tube.not about bearings against the head-tube.the bearings are on a bearing race.he was saying that dynamic forces cause the race to move within the head-tube and over time cause damage to an area that cannot be repaired,that's all.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

psycoler said:


> Chris king was talking about how the bearing race moves within the head-tube.not about bearings against the head-tube.the bearings are on a bearing race.he was saying that dynamic forces cause the race to move within the head-tube and over time cause damage to an area that cannot be repaired,that's all.


Ummmm what year are we in?


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

dirtjunkie said:


> ummmm what year are we in?


Zombie thread must FEEEEEEEEED!


----------



## ghettocop (Jul 26, 2011)

LOL at the hysteria caused by zero stack and integrated back there in 2007. Great system. Use it, and like it. No greasy mess.


----------



## pursuiter (May 28, 2008)

I prefer Babbitt bearings.


----------



## psycoler (Nov 19, 2011)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Ummmm what year are we in?


bought lessons are rememberd best:madman:


----------



## Fuglio (Jul 15, 2011)

Thinking about getting an NS-Bikes frame with intagrated headset. I think im done thibking about it and about to do it


----------



## Adi Marsono (Feb 21, 2021)

wormvine said:


> Do not confuse integrated headsets with internal headsets. Many bike companies use the internal headsets such as the FSA Orbit Z. Internal headsets are just as capable as external ones. They use bearing cups that fit inside the headtube.


Can i use semi integrated headset to integrated headtube without cup?


----------



## rebel1916 (Sep 16, 2006)

Why are the 14 year old rantings of a lunatic on the front page?


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

because someone asked a question by searching the internet and came to this thread, rather than actually investigating what was actually going on.



Adi Marsono said:


> Can i use semi integrated headset to integrated headtube without cup?


No.


----------



## Adi Marsono (Feb 21, 2021)

mik_git said:


> because someone asked a question by searching the internet and came to this thread, rather than actually investigating what was actually going on.
> 
> No.





mik_git said:


> because someone asked a question by searching the internet and came to this thread, rather than actually investigating what was actually going on.
> 
> No.











Because they have the same outer diameter: 41-52. But with cup, semi itegrated have 44-45/44-56 diameter.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Yeah, not sure what you are trying to do, but semi integrated or Zero stack or Internal, is smooth ad even on the inside fo the head tube,a dn the headset is pressed into it.
integrated, or drop in, the frame is the surface for teh bearing, and the inside of the head tube is angled for the n bearing to sit on, so just below the top (or above th ebottom) the internal size is reduced. So either it wont fit as it will bcome too small, or it will fit but there will be a huge gap at the top/bottom. Either way, its bad.



http://canecreek.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/canecreek-shis-poster.pdf





https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/standardized-headset-identification-system


----------



## Adi Marsono (Feb 21, 2021)

mik_git said:


> Yeah, not sure what you are trying to do, but semi integrated or Zero stack or Internal, is smooth ad even on the inside fo the head tube,a dn the headset is pressed into it.
> integrated, or drop in, the frame is the surface for teh bearing, and the inside of the head tube is angled for the n bearing to sit on, so just below the top (or above th ebottom) the internal size is reduced. So either it wont fit as it will bcome too small, or it will fit but there will be a huge gap at the top/bottom. Either way, its bad.
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, thankyou verymuch for this information. I very appreciated this.


----------

