[adrock]

Hello, and good day!

My first post!!!

I would like some advise on an integrated headset.
I have a Jamis Dakar Comp. 2006. that I will be riding soon, I hope.

But first I need a headset for this thing.
I have read Chris Kings dislike for this system, and can agree. The standard cup design sounds better to me,..... but.... This is my second dakar, and the first one lasted 8 years, countless miles, and lots of good memories.

Which of the few choices have the best bearings, hold up to abuse best,
Which ones do you guys see as problems? etc.
I have found Cane Creek, FSA, and Race Face.

thanks for having me!

Adam

 

[presslab]

Well hello and welcome to MTBR! :thumbsup:

I don't know a lot about integrated headsets, sorry I can't help you there. However I've been running regular Cane Creek S3 headsets on two of my bikes for a while now and they work great. Their tapered bearing design is pretty cool: maintenance free and really easy to replace worn bearings although I have never needed to.

 

[mtnbiker72]

Its actually a Zero Stack headset on the Jamis Dakar...which means it has cups that press into the headtube like a standard headset...they just go into the headtube itself making it look like an integrated system (which uses the headtube itself as the cups). I've had two frames (Iron Horse Hollowpoint and my current Jamis XLT) with this system and both Zero Stack headsets have worked great. On my Iron Horse, it was a FSA Orbit Z and on my Jamis its a WTB Race. Both are sealed cartridge bearings...as would be the Cane Creek ZS-2 and ZS-6.

Its a bummer that Chris King won't make a Zero Stack, I can understand why they won't make a integrated headset (which is mostly just bearings) but they could make a Zero Stack to the same tolerances as a standard headset. I love my King on my cyclocross bike...but they need to get over themselves on the Zero Stack...its common enough these days for them to start producing one.

 

[wormvine]

Its actually a Zero Stack headset on the Jamis Dakar...which means it has cups that press into the headtube like a standard headset...they just go into the headtube itself making it look like an integrated system (which uses the headtube itself as the cups). I've had two frames (Iron Horse Hollowpoint and my current Jamis XLT) with this system and both Zero Stack headsets have worked great. On my Iron Horse, it was a FSA Orbit Z and on my Jamis its a WTB Race. Both are sealed cartridge bearings...as would be the Cane Creek ZS-2 and ZS-6.

Its a bummer that Chris King won't make a Zero Stack, I can understand why they won't make a integrated headset (which is mostly just bearings) but they could make a Zero Stack to the same tolerances as a standard headset. I love my King on my cyclocross bike...but they need to get over themselves on the Zero Stack...its common enough these days for them to start producing one.

I say exactly what he said!

 

[SuperNewb]

Kings overrated unless you are lazy at showing your headset a lil love from time to time. The integrated headset that came on my Reign was sealed and it hasnt given me any problems so far.

 

[Speedub.Nate]

I have read Chris Kings dislike for this system, and can agree. The standard cup design sounds better to me,..... but....

adrock, read the Chris King rant again. They clearly differentiate between <i><b>Integrated</b></i> and <i><b>Internal</b> (aka Zero Stack)</i> headsets.

<i><font color="blue"><b>"The "Internal" Headset, yet another twist: </b>

An "Internal" headset (also known as "semi-integrated", for maximum confusion) is yet another headset type that places the bearings within the head tube (rather than outside the head tube, like a <b>conventional headset does)</b>. The key difference between an integrated and internal is THE BEARINGS DO NOT TOUCH THE FRAME with an internal headset. They are contained either by a cup or an aluminum or plastic shim assembly which is pressed into the headtube.

One example is the <b>Zero-Stack™ headset</b>. It is an "internal" headset that uses the exact same bearings as an integrated headset. The important difference is that in a Zero-Stack™ headset, a cup is first pressed into the frame, then the bearing is placed in the cup. The bearing still floats around in the cup, and it will eventually trash the cup. <b><font color="black">This is absolutely superior to an integrated headset<font color="blue"></b> because you can replace the cup. The frame will never be damaged by the bearing. Another example is the Columbus-type internal headset. It actually presses a bearing directly into the bike frame.<font color="black"></i>"

I suggest FSA over Cane Creek Zero Stack headsets, simply because of the deeper cup insertion depth.

<img src="https://www.booboodog.net/images/orbitz-zs2-cup-compare.jpg">

 

[adrock]

YOU GUYS ROCK!

Thanks for the Knowledge. I love it when I'm wrong and its a good thing.

Internal seems ok to me. A zero stack FSA looks like a winner!
Thanks for the pic.
I'm a machinist, and without looking at my new frame, was thinking of a re-engineer.

But I now understand (without ever seeing my frame) what this system entails!

Thank you very much!

Ride fast, Take chances!
Adam