Integrated Headset - good or bad?

giant_man

Thinking about a custom build on a ti bike, and wondering about the headset predicament ie. integrated or not? I have always thought that having an integrated headset is a good thing, reliable and trouble free, so why do some frame manufacturers offer their frames with provision for 'normal' bearings in their headtubes.

I have to say there's something alluring and indeed traditional about having a Chris King headset in your frame rather than an integrated solution, now I don't know the advantages and disadvantages of both systems and would like some opinions

Thanks.

pb21

Chris King say that external bearing headsets are better, there is something on their website I think, about the merits of the system over integrated ones.

I think the reason against integrated HS is that eventually the frame will wear down where the bearing sit. This may not be as much of an issue on a Ti frame.

If I were getting a custom frame I think I would go for a traditional style and have the head tube a few mms shorter to compensate.

Bronzie

Didn't think there were any performance benefits (other than the bearings being a bit better shielded from road muck in an integrated headset) - isn't it just a matter of achieving a cleaner look?

jpembroke

As long as the frame's headtube is well machined then an integrated headset is fine on a road bike. I have a £20 FSA job in my Planet X and it has given me 3 years of trouble-free riding. However, when it comes to MTBs and Cross bikes, I prefer a conventional headset. I believe them to be tougher and place less stress on the headtube than their integrated counterparts. This is certainly the impression given by the aforementioned Chris King article:

http://www.chrisking.com/tech/int_heads ... ain_1.html

Monty Dog

I've experienced the downside of an integrated headset in a carbon frame- due to the top cap/expander of an FSA carbon headset failing to hold tension (the metal insert kept moving) the lack of tension meant that the bottom bearing started 'fretting' in the frame such that it now creaks whenever I get out the saddle - I've tried Loctitiing the bearings in position and even considering using Devcon to rebuild and having the bearing seat remachined to eliminate the problem. For that reason alone, I'd never get another. I'm not sure about the aesthetics or practical benefits on a ti frame anyway - a flared headtube is going to be heavier unless it is heavily machined both externally and internally - adding cost but for what practical benefit? Interestingly Colnago never adopted IS headsets and Litespeed have switched back to conventional designs having touted IS for a number of years. The only useful application I can see is for aluminium frames because of push-fitting a bearing cup into a headtube is not a good idea - I have an alloy frame with a cracked headtube as a consequence.

graemetherunner

Monty I'd agree with most things you mention appart from a traditional headset not being suitable for an alloy frame. (If a frame is prepared correctly & headset pressed in correctly...)

dennisn

As far as I'm concerned they both work equally well. Get the one you think looks the best.
There will always be someone out there with some sort of horror story about how this
or that piece of equipment is total junk and they would never use it again.

Dennis Noward

jkm

http://www.chrisking.com/pdfs/Int%20Hea ... lained.pdf

here is why chris king thinks integrated headsets are crap. i like the asthetics of them but can see his point. i am also hopefully getting a ti bike from xacd very soon and intend to put a standard headset on it.

i am very dubious of the new ideas specialised are coming up with, tapered steerers and dedicated integrated headsets. where will that leave us 5 years down the line hwhen the headset is knackerd and there are no spares?

Steve928

I always liked the Internal headsets as they seemed to have the advantages of both traditional and integrated headsets: zero (well almost) stack height, hidden, yet with replacable cups. But if anything they seem to be getting less common.

My Bianchi 928L had an Internal one, but it's warranty replacement 928 T-Cube has turned-up with an Integrated. I guess it is a lighter system as the Integrated cups are bonded directly into a carbon headtube, but it doesn't have the serviceability of the Internal system..

GF22

Going off at a slight tangent, I have a Cannondale with their splice forks and an integrated headset. The bar height is too low for me and, as the stem is at the highest level on the forks, I am going to need new forks. Am I right in thinking I can get a new set of any forks with the right steerer height and put in a non-integrated headset or do I have to keep the integrated set?

Monty Dog

If you've got an integrated headset you can't change it for anything else. Why not use a riser stem than shelling out on new forks?

richardjallen

It seems smarter to have sacrificial bearing cups that can be cheaply replaced than a worn headtube. Looking around though it also seems almost all manufacturers make frames for integrated headsets.

SBothwell

richardjallen wrote:

It seems smarter to have sacrificial bearing cups that can be cheaply replaced than a worn headtube. Looking around though it also seems almost all manufacturers make frames for integrated headsets.

Smarter for the consumer - but where's the benefit to the manufacturer of selling you bearing cups for £5 when he could sell you a new frame for £500?