Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

21 - 40 of 51 Posts

·
Derailleurless
Joined
·
9,122 Posts
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 <i>not</i> 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.
 

·
GAME ON!
Joined
·
4,965 Posts
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.
 

·
Combat Wombat
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,443 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,092 Posts
Chris King sux and integrated headsets are for roadies who want to pretend they are mountain bikers anyway so who cares
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,443 Posts
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.

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.
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.
 

·
College Boy
Joined
·
772 Posts
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.
 

·
Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
Joined
·
10,913 Posts
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.
 

·
College Boy
Joined
·
772 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
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
 

·
Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
Joined
·
10,913 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
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.
 

·
Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
Joined
·
10,913 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
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.
 

·
Self Appointed Judge&Jury
Joined
·
36,753 Posts
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?
 
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
Top