Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
755 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So, I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on a dw 5 spot and plan to run a 160mm fork on it. But I'd like the head angle right around 68* and want to keep the BB as low as possible. So I'm considering getting a 36 Float or Lyrik solo air and adding spacers to reduce travel down to about 150mm.

But I was also thinking that running a zero stack headset could accomplish the same thing and allow me to run the 160mm fork at full travel -- per their websites, a standard CK headset has a lower stack height of ~14mm while the CK InSet and Cane Creek 110 ZS (zero stack) have lower stack heights of ~4mm. So I figure the zero stack headset would lower the overall height of the front end by about the same amount as lowering the fork.

But I really don't know much about zero stack headsets. It looks like the CK InSet has different specs than the standard no-threadset, so I don't know if it is compatible with the new 5 spot. From what I can tell, the Cane Creek zero stack should fit. But is it an inferior design or an otherwise bad idea? Is anyone else doing this?
 

·
Bite Me.
Joined
·
4,531 Posts
These headsets are not compatible with the typical headtube, including Turner's - you need a 44mm ID bore to fit them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
755 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
AW - I was referring to the design of these particular zero stack headsets, and in general, compared to "standard" external cup headsets (I'm not sure of the precise terminology). I know CK for example claims that certain internal/integrated headsets are based on a bad design, but obviously they are behind their new zero stack HS. I guess my question was really whether the Cane Creek 110 ZS (which I assumed fit a standard head tube) was more like the internal/integrated design that CK disses.

cutthroat, I didn't see the ID required for the Cane Creek zero stack HS on the website but you are right, the user manual confirms it needs a 44mm ID as well. So much for that idea...
 

·
Bite Me.
Joined
·
4,531 Posts
There is nothing inherently wrong with the zero stack or inset designs - the problem seems to be the designs that rely on the machined headtube to act as the bearing cup. Once the "cup" gets pitted or damaged -the entire frame is toast. The inset design just presses the cup into the headtube rather than outside it. It's still replaceable once it gets damaged. I ran a CC zerostack on a bike I had a few years ago - it worked fine. I think CC makes fine stuff, but as you discovered, this is not an option unless the frame is designed for it. There are some low profile headsets out there though. I think FSA makes an Orbit model that is pretty sleek. The Crank Brothers Cobalt also looks pretty low slung.
 

·
trail fairy
Joined
·
9,546 Posts
I think ya need to understand that these are different types of headsets one!

Well this is my take and I'm no expert but having had integrated headsets on my Cannondales in the past, vs the external headsets !

Zero stack headset is a different std for a different reason to integrated!

Do not get confused!

Inset like Chris King is all about getting a low stack, there is only so much room in a 1/18th head tube, so I understand what CK are saying re quality, but this is a cost and often an OEM thing so its perception of whats better!

For me I prefer the external set for 1/18th, due to the size of bearing and tolerances in manufacturing process of the frame, with a Turner or similar this is probably not an issue!

Zero stack is 1.5 std orthogonally and now will probably be manipulated to suit the new Tapered frame designs [doh]

Zero stack allowed Dh frames mainly [bikes with slack angels] to fit current 1/18th triple crown forks and produce the lowest hand bar position to maintain front wheel pressure and control, also the big factor was the ability for these headsets to use larger bearing which supposedly give a better life and wear reliability and performance, but like I said above depending on the quality or price sometimes not hand in had or manufacturer the quality can be let down by poor execution and components used to make the headset!

There is a distinct difference, another reason why I'm a big 1.5 proponent and not tapered, you'll see why in a few years down the track, I will say it now it will ocme back to haunt some!

1.5 allows options like Zero stack, devolution of even angles reducers where by you can change the head angle by a degree or 2 these headsets have already hit the market and are very cool idea Im amazed it hasn't been done sooner!

Just take into account what you're benefiting from, in an integrated/inset headset!

inset headset, king always has good info on speccs compare to std, Im not sure of Turners 1/18th dia like hardboiled said!

What bikes are compatible with InSet™?
Inset is compatible with any bike with dimensions that match the existing standards to which we've produced InSet™. For example, for 1 1-8" you will need the inner diameter (ID) of the bicycle headtube to be 44mm (+0, -.05). There are a number of bicycles in the market now with compatible headtubes such as Giant and Pivot mountain bikes. InSet™ is not a proprietary system to King or any specific frame manufacturer.If the numbers match up, you've got compatibility.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top