# What good are integrated headsets?



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

The topic of integrated headsets came up in another thread and threatened to kill it, so I'm attempting to start it afresh here.

For us custom folks, who work primarily in steel, I don't see any functional advantage to integrated. If you want to argue that it's new(er) and different and people crave that stuff, I can't argue with that. Some will gravitate to new, whether it's an advantage or not. We all like pretty stuff.

I'm not talking BMX. It makes sense for BMX in ways that are rarely a concern with MTB and road.

Anybody here want to stick up for integrated?





...c'mon, with it, come on. You don't fight fair...


----------



## Live Wire (Aug 27, 2007)

D.F.L. said:


> The topic of integrated headsets came up in another thread and threatened to kill it, so I'm attempting to start it afresh here.
> 
> For us custom folks, who work primarily in steel, I don't see any functional advantage to integrated. If you want to argue that it's new(er) and different and people crave that stuff, I can't argue with that. Some will gravitate to new, whether it's an advantage or not. We all like pretty stuff.
> 
> ...


I'm willing to try a new headset configuration out, but where I stand right now, you are right. 
Like so many "innovations" in cycling, it's new and different, but it doesn't seem to improve on what was already there.
It does seem like it would make assembly easier (therefore faster and cheaper) in a large factory setting, plus, trashing your integrated headset has a better potential to take out your headtube at the same time- $$$!:thumbsup:


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Yup. Gives the probers something to probe out on, and the mass manufacturers a (temporary) leg up on the boutique scene as far as offering something new.

We have the retro grump one inch threaded quill crew on one side, and the integrated bb30 crew on the other.


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Sep 19, 2007)

i would love a intergrated headset on my mtn bikes. there is no reason not to have one(on a steel frame). Ive used them for many years on my bmx,and DJ mtb. giving abuse mtn bikes dont ever take, and ive never had problems. bearing are cheap, and with integrated races i can pack/build/whatever the front end in under a few minitues, with no special tools. makes everything so simple,no headaches.

The only thing is fork/Downtube clearance, frames would need a gusset like seven does now for clearance.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Having actually built bikes using them, I'm a fan. They totally rule. No problems.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

D.F.L. said:


> The topic of integrated headsets came up in another thread and threatened to kill it, so I'm attempting to start it afresh here.
> 
> For us custom folks, who work primarily in steel, I don't see any functional advantage to integrated. If you want to argue that it's new(er) and different and people crave that stuff, I can't argue with that. Some will gravitate to new, whether it's an advantage or not. We all like pretty stuff.
> 
> ...


Especially for custom builders, integrated headsets are a solution in search of a problem.

I can see some benefit when the frame has huge diameter top/down tubes and a short head tube and a low bar height is needed.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Man, you guys are going to love the new Chris King Perdido. Um I mean InSet.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

Here's where I think integrated rules (just so you don't think I'm biased... oh yes. i'm biased... just not against integrated)

1. With giant main tubes that are larger than a normal head tube. No 'Huffy Squish' needed to join the two. This is more important on aluminum and common with carbon frames.

2. when you have limited HT height and would like a little more room to keep TT/DT overlap to a minimum. BMX is a great example.
The problem is that, unless you use a large, constant O.D. tube, you're going to run into trouble with your main tube miters. Only the big factories, with laser-cutting capability are going to be able to easily make the complex miters required with 'contoured' HTs.
Without having some main tube/bearing area overlap, you end up with the PVD head tube, which is fine, but doesn't seem to hold much advantage over separate cups. I ain't baggin' on it, it's a different approach, but it seems to create its own drawbacks.

3, user serviceability. I overlooked this, probably because I own a press...

Pete, In the other thread you mentioned a noticeable difference in stiffness and something about Data. That'd be interesting if you could share.


----------



## scooter916 (Jan 2, 2006)

Those PVD bikes look good but it honestly looks like you painted over the headset


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

D.F.L. said:


> Pete, In the other thread you mentioned a noticeable difference in stiffness and something about Data. That'd be interesting if you could share.


http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=5316276&postcount=102


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

D.F.L. said:


> 3, user serviceability. I overlooked this, probably because I own a press...


Conventional Cane Creek headsets are as easy to service. The bearings just drop into the cups. Once the cups are pressed in there is no reason to remove them.

The S-3 has become my default headset for all my new builds.


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

I haven't had an integrated headset since my old Giant AC, so maybe they've changed.
Besides being a bit harder to find the bearings never seemed "seated" to me. Never really had problem, just didn't feel as solid a connection as a pressed in headset.

Stated logic behind the integrated headsets was that it would allow a longer/larger diameter headtube. Theory was that it would allow for a larger weld area and make for a stronger tt/ht/dt join.

So PVD's flared cups in a standard diameter HT design eliminates the design's primary benefits of increased strength and weld area, still means there's no need for a headset press though.

banshee's headtubes are the biggest I remember seeing and they used pressed in headsets... bigger diameter head "tube" than integrated headset designs had...


----------



## popoff (Dec 4, 2007)

Peter,

how do you think a conventional headset (or your machined cups) pressed in with the addition of some loctite radial bearing compound compares to braze integrated cups? i agree that aluminum head tubes open up with use/time and let conventional cups shift around.

the loctite i'm thinking about is 638: 
http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/112309.pdf

its beastly stuff. i've used it to solve problem bearings rocking in their bores and it has worked for those situations incredibly well. these were some 2.5" od double row angular contact roller bearings in an aluminum bore on an off road vehicle suspension system, it weighed 3K lbs and the pressures involved were easily higher than bike parts.

Mike



pvd said:


> http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=5316276&postcount=102


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

Did your steel cups have the same skirt length as a traditional headset?

I'd think that there would be both noise and visible wear on all aluminum cups, but I've yet to hear/see this.

Have you bondo-ed and painted a pressed-in aluminum cup to see if you get the same cracking?

Is your current system a cut-and braze set-up or are the HTs one piece? Braze on both ends or just one?



pvd said:


> http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=5316276&postcount=102


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

D.F.L. said:


> Is your current system a cut-and braze set-up or are the HTs one piece? Braze on both ends or just one?


I've used the braze-on units (art 4789) many times back when everything integrated was on fire 5 or so years ago. I still have a set of the Cane Creek reamers in good shape if anybody is interested in buying them.

I also have a 1959 Bianchi road bike with an integrated headset. It's all been done. What works well sticks. What doesn't is left behind. I understand where PVD is coming from on this, but call me a luddite; I've grown fond of how headsets look. Most are just very poorly designed.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

I've been sorta busy for the past few days and missed this one. I don't think integrated HS offer anything in the way of an advantage other than not having to squish a huge DT to the HT. I do like the way they look when the rest of the tubes in the frame are beefed up. It's totally personal preference but I love the look of everything integrated (only where it isn't a major compromise). It's also a nice option for builders to have when our customers are into it. The new King Inset is slick. I'm into it but with a 46mm O.D. head tube, the bike I build with the one I have is going to have some beefy looking tubes to maintain aesthetic.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

That's gunna look okay on Ti frames with the 44mm downtube, but on steel frames it doesn't look right.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> That's gunna look okay on Ti frames with the 44mm downtube, but on steel frames it doesn't look right.


It's a smooth looking set up with visually appropriately sized tubes. This might be one time when I don't feel so bad being somewhat of a large fella. All my personal bikes this year are getting some version of this.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Are you 'allowed' to share some tech info on the very not well kept secret that is the InPerdido?

I don't know why I'm asking really as I'll never use the thing, but no doubt all of us underclass second tier non-King affiliated guys will get asked for it eventually.

*edit* Pete, what exactly is the difference between your 45/45 integrated and the Columbus one?


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

Whats the dia of the HT shown? Looks like some spindly main tubes used.

This is another example of an internal headset that doesn't free up much weld area, which I think is the main functional reason for bothering with the system.

Maybe some vertical stripes would have a slimming effect...



Thylacine said:


> That's gunna look okay on Ti frames with the 44mm downtube, but on steel frames it doesn't look right.


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

D.F.L. said:



> Whats the dia of the HT shown? Looks like some spindly main tubes used.
> 
> This is another example of an internal headset that doesn't free up much weld area, which I think is the main functional reason for bothering with the system.
> 
> Maybe some vertical stripes would have a slimming effect...


46.2mm


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

AN OPEN LETTER TO DREW GULDALIAN

Dear Mr. Guldalian,
In reference to your e-mail dated 11 Feb 2009, please accept my sincere public apologies for referring to the Chris King InSet posted on your Flickr site as "not looking right". It was not my intention to show your work in negative light, in fact my comment has absolutely nothing to do with your work, because frankly my opinion of 'it not looking right' would apply to anyone.

As there is little or no information about this new 'Standard', the only way at this stage it can be discussed is by, well, looking at it. The link to your photo was intended so that people can 'look at it', not 'Evaluate Drew's work'.

Unfortunately, opinions are like aßßholes, and I am one and I do think it looks bulky, but it would look bulky in my humble opinion on anyone's frame so please don't feel 'special' in that way.

Thank you for taking the time to send me an email rescinding your defense of me when I 'consistently get slammed', and although I am now 'lame' I guess that's all part-and-parcel of having a free mind, speech and opinion.

Again, apologies for any offense as it was not mine - or I think it's safe to say anyone elses' - aim. Unfortunately everyone has their own opinion on aesthetics and mine is 'The new Chris King InSet to my eyes looks too bulky on steel frames."

I hope that clears things up, because I think I repeated myself at least three times already.

Maybe you're right about the 'lame' thing.

Regards,
Warwick Gresswell


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

the sycip king tubed bike looks smooth (image from their flickr)


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Is this what the King design looks like? The 'Perdido'?



















I don't see why it's taken them 10 years to produce something so simple? Cane Creek and TH have been doing this forever with excellent results. It's a lousy design for steel frames though. The system weight (headset AND headtube) is far heavier than IS (my way) with no real gain. In this case bigger is not better, it's heavier.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Thylacine said:


> Pete, what exactly is the difference between your 45/45 integrated and the Columbus one?


It's a major difference. Their design is brazed in place to a large diameter thick walled headtube. It's ugly and it's heavy.

Mine is pressed into a 1 3/8" 0.035" DOM tube. This keeps the scale looking right for steel frames. More importantly, smaller diameter tubes are lighter than larger ones. The rings provide internal support to the tube. It's lighter than the traditional head tube design. As an added bennefit, It looks awsome.

Take a look at those Perdido headtubes. I think they look like crap. They also look very heavy for no good reason. I'm sorry who's feelings that hurts. Take a look at mine. What do you honestly think is better?


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

double post - sorry!


----------



## dRjOn (Feb 18, 2004)

it would be interesting to know how it centers the steerer. if its o ring, oh well, ...

also i thought the new system wasnt the same as the perdido? or am i mistaken? i was under the impression the internal chamfer of the headtube was machined to take the bearing directly? i may well be wrong..

10 years----market forces?
manufacturing capacity?
i have to say so far the cane creek hasnt been great to me in scottish mud (110) the lower bearing was contaminated and feels like some bearings are cracked after 3 months. ive put the king race back in the bottom and have stuck with the cc on top, as the centering mechanism is better. i have been running kings for 5+ years and have never had to service bearings - and yes its all put together right! 
the headsets on which i am using a fsa comression ring and a lathe treated king top cap have been excellent, despite loaded touring, for some time now....more time is needed, but im beginning to think king bearings with the cane creek style compression ring is the ideal ticket for me.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

I'm not fond of either of those Perdido bikes. What's different about this Perdido? Are the brazed rings also acting as races, like with King's brazed-in steel cups from last year?

That said, it's an aesthetic we could probably get used to. Nobody liked my vertical stripes idea?

I use way too many 38mm DTs to run a HT any smaller than 36-37mm.


----------



## MMcG (Jul 7, 2003)

dRjOn said:


> the sycip king tubed bike looks smooth (image from their flickr)


The size of the head tube required to go that route makes the bike look awkward IMO. And just think how cool it would look if paired up with a CK or Cane Creek or some other brand's Ano headset to match the Mango Kinger hubs. It'd look money! :thumbsup:


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

D.F.L. said:


> I'm not fond of either of those Perdido bikes. What's different about this Perdido? Are the brazed rings also acting as races, like with King's brazed-in steel cups from last year?


No, the King is a press in unit like a conventional headset. Works just like any of the other flush mounts.


----------



## b1umb0y (Feb 28, 2005)

dRjOn said:


> ...but im beginning to think king bearings with the cane creek style compression ring is the ideal ticket for me.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## aosty (Jan 7, 2004)

dRjOn said:


> i have to say so far the cane creek hasnt been great to me in scottish mud (110) the lower bearing was contaminated and feels like some bearings are cracked after 3 months. ive put the king race back in the bottom and have stuck with the cc on top, as the centering mechanism is better. i have been running kings for 5+ years and have never had to service bearings - and yes its all put together right!


Sucks to hear that about the 110 bottom.... CK bottom with CC top sounds like a great combo!



> the headsets on which i am using a fsa comression ring and a lathe treated king top cap have been excellent, despite loaded touring, for some time now....more time is needed, but im beginning to think king bearings with the cane creek style compression ring is the ideal ticket for me.


Sounds like a great underground... er, third-party... product.

CK really needs to suck it up and pay for the damn patent.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

lolz.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

PVD, any slight weight loss in your system is totally negated by the ghastly looks of it. You think it looks great, I would guess most others don't. Just telling it like I see it. Lets not lose sight that bikes must be sold to customers. To a point looks take a back seat to performance, but for me your head tubes go way beyond that point.

If there was some wildly beneficial reason for it, then fine, but a slight weight loss? I'll keep my pressed in hs and hit the toilet before riding to keep things light.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Schmitty said:


> Lets not lose sight that bikes must be sold to customers.


I have no customers, don't want any customers, and want bikes better than I can have made for me as a customer. Many people on this board are framebuilders that are not interested in taking on work for others.


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

I think the PVDset looks great. That NewPerdido bullsh!t looks horrendous.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

pvd said:


> I have no customers, don't want any customers, and want bikes better than I can have made for me as a customer. Many people on this board are framebuilders that are not interested in taking on work for others.


That's fine, and I'm in your corner on that, but the other companies mentioned in this thread *do* have customers. Don't get me wrong the new King deal looks beyond silly.. as stated earlier integrated is a solution in search of a problem, and obviously 'looks' are a slippery slope... certainly no reason to throw out a working standard, which leaves us with 'integrated is (sometimes slightly) lighter'? Time tested? No.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

For custom dudes selling steel and Ti frames it may be sub optimal to some, but you're forgetting about the other 99% of the market - mass produced Aluminium and Carbon frames - where they need oversize headtubes and BB's to get the stiffness.

There's also a move to split headtubes - 1.5 at the bottom, 1.125 at the top - that's gaining traction in the road world, and I think even Specialized now has some MTB forks with that spec.


----------



## aosty (Jan 7, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> There's also a move to split headtubes - 1.5 at the bottom, 1.125 at the top - that's gaining traction in the road world, and I think even Specialized now has some MTB forks with that spec.


List is growing - add to it... a number of downhill-ish bikes... and Niner's new RIP9 and WFO9.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Thylacine said:


> There's also a move to split headtubes - 1.5 at the bottom, 1.125 at the top...


I will be developing a system for this configuration that Trek has branded 'E2' once MTB and carbon road forks become available in the non-OEM market. I think that it's the future for both worlds.


----------



## buildyourown (Dec 1, 2004)

E2 is the future of long travel single crown forks. Yeti, Giant and Trek all make frames with E2 headtubes. The E2 fox forks should be available aftermarket soon.

As for the integrated setup, I don't see the point unless you are taking advantage of the large headtube size. ie, use a huge 1.875-2" thin wall tube and machine and braze in some inserts. The simpler version of that would be to use a 1.5. with e13 reducer cups. While I understand that they are overkill for steel bikes, they work great and offer lots of cheap choices for headsets. 
PVD, I don't see any advantage to how you've done it.
On a steel bike, I also see them as being harder to manufacture. The reamers are also more expensive and likely harder to sharpen.


----------

