Integrated headsets

geoff_ss

I've been reading the long post about the cracked Litespeed Ti frame on here as I'm intending to treat myself to a last new bike before I get too old The thread suggests integrated headsets 'are a bad idea'.

I was thinking of a Van Nicholas Yukon Ti frame but the Kinesis aluminium Tk08 looks attractive and is £300 cheaper - that's a lot of equipment blings-worth.

Not sure about the Yukon, but the Kinesis has an integrated headset and I don't know what they are. I've fitted and used loads of quill-type headsets and they've never been any trouble so I'm not sure how these modern headsets offer any advantage.

What exactly IS and integrated headset and what is its supposed advantage over other modern headsets? Should I avoid the Kinesis frame on the ground of its headset? or any other grounds for that matter.

thanks

Geoff

gkerr4

personally - I think the main driver behind the fuss over Integrated headsets is being caused by a company who sell £140 non-integrated headsets!!

redddraggon

gkerr4 wrote:

personally - I think the main driver behind the fuss over Integrated headsets is being caused by a company who sell £140 non-integrated headsets!!

Chris King?

We recognize the popularity of these systems and choose not to produce one of our own. We presented an opinion on internal and integrated systems several years ago and our belief remains the same today. We simply believe these systems do not have the long-term durability and performance characteristics to carry the King name. To find out more, please download our "Integrated Headsets Explained" document. (450kb)

With working Chris King link.

geoff_ss

Haha Realising I was acting slightly stupidlu by asking the question I googled 'integrated headsets' and the Chris King document came first and I've just read it. Eerily, the second reference was my own question here! How wondrous is the Google empire :shock:

The King document makes sense, but it's perhaps slightly biassed. What experience have users of integrated headsets had? It seems odd that frame builders choose what must be a more expensive and fiddly option if they have no advantages.

Geoff

giant_man

Yes but Chris King does have a point in some respects. It's up to the consumer at the end of the day, you can have an integrated headset or a traditional 'exterior' one. I think integrated headsets are fine, it's all down to the design and manufacturing techniques on the headtube that IMO is the denominator here. Since Litespeed had the problems with craked headtubes, they seem to be producing frames with non-integrated headtubes.

Funny that eh?

I don't think you should diss the technology cos it's here and has been for a while now with no problems, just the odd manufacturer and their design flaws.

http://litespeed.com/2008/home.aspx

John.T

You are never too old for new bikes Geoff.

geoff_ss

John.T wrote:

You are never too old for new bikes Geoff.

I wish I believed that.

The problem is I spend a lot of money (and time) on toy aeroplanes and, I assure you, it's possible to spend a small fortune very quickly .. and even more quickly end up with a bin liner full of expensive rubbish.

Geoff

Gerry Attrick

I think that Chris King makes a valid technical point, but given the millions of bikes sold with integrated headsets, the design clearly works in practice. Over a period of several years and very high/hard mileages, the non-integrated type may well prove longer lived, but few riders will ever get near to ruining a frame due to headset design provided the headset is set up carefully and well maintained.

Monty Dog

Conceptually there's nothing wrong with integrated headsets - look at what Trek are doing with the Madone, with the BB bearings just sitting inside the frame demonstrates the confidence they have in the concept - the forces through the BB are significantly greater than any headset. I have experienced problems with headtube wear in an IS frame due to the carbon topcap of an FSA headset slipping - the movement of the lower bearing fretting in the frame means it has to be loctited in place to prevent it creaking. I'd say that the Litespeed issue was down to poor execution rather than design - the weld was poorly positioned with a change in section of the headtube creating a natural stress-raiser. I've also experienced a headtube splitting on an alloy frame due to stresses from a headset cup - you can't have it both ways! For carbon and aluminium alloy, the IS headset is probably an intrinsically better design becuase it eliminates radial stresses on the headtube - but it still can cause problem - creaking is definitely preferable to tubes cracking!

geoff_ss

Well, I ordered my Kinesis Tk08 frame today. All I have to do is select the components, build the wheels, assemble the bike and, of course pay for it I just hope I've done the right thing.

I'll be very disappointed if I have to pedal the bloomin' thing as well. It should simply fly up those cols, shouldn't it?

Geoff

tirnanog

What a coincidence! I am about to order a Kinesis Tk08 and was querying the headset type via Mr Google and came across the self same Chris King article.
Geoff: how have you found the frame, presuming that you now have it?

geoff_ss

I not only have the frame but it's now built up and I've had a couple of rides on it this week - a total of about 50 hilly miles (no computer as yet ) I'm a bit wary of riding anew bike on salty roads, plus it's still icy in the shade on my favourite lanes (I walked down a very steep hill on my old bike on Monday morning). I'm enjoying the luxury of 27 indexed gears and it's quite as comfortable as my 653 steel bike.

My LBS (Stanley Fearns, Matlock) got it for me and also supplied most of the equipment I've fitted.

The frame suppliers recommended a headset and I got it with the frame. A small snag was fitting the front brake calliper because it needed a longer allen nut. Shimano provide a 12.5mm one and it needs an 18mm.

IM me if you want any details.

Geoff

stevechambers34

IMHO There was nothing wrong with the old type headset, yes I can see the benefits of 1 1/8" size/stiffness wise but thats about it, Stronglight A9's ARE perhaps the best old type(threaded) headset why not just make them in 1 1/8" and have quill stems to match.
To me advantages of threaded/quill set ups appear to be easy to fit ,unlimited adjustment, aesthetically pleasing, Aheadsets on the other hand ARE more difficult to fit look rubbish IMHO are limited in height adjustment unless you leave extra on the steerer and put spacers on leaving a nice bit to smack your chest/face on in a crash.

mercsport

" IMHO There was nothing wrong with the old type headset"

Right on !!!

John.T

Ahead sets are easier to adjust, have much stiffer stems and are lighter. The only disadvantage I have found is that once the steerer is cut that is it for raising the bars. I leave a 5mm spacer on top of the stem just in case. How often did you adjust a quill stem anyway. Mine was usually siezed up or the taper nut turned. I have been riding on and off since the early 50s and have had much experience of the old system and do not miss it one bit.

Smokin Joe

There was nothing WRONG with the old style headsets, but in my opinion Aheads are much better and I would never want to go back.

Garybee

Monty Dog wrote:

Conceptually there's nothing wrong with integrated headsets - look at what Trek are doing with the Madone, with the BB bearings just sitting inside the frame demonstrates the confidence they have in the concept - the forces through the BB are significantly greater than any headset. I have experienced problems with headtube wear in an IS frame due to the carbon topcap of an FSA headset slipping - the movement of the lower bearing fretting in the frame means it has to be loctited in place to prevent it creaking. I'd say that the Litespeed issue was down to poor execution rather than design - the weld was poorly positioned with a change in section of the headtube creating a natural stress-raiser. I've also experienced a headtube splitting on an alloy frame due to stresses from a headset cup - you can't have it both ways! For carbon and aluminium alloy, the IS headset is probably an intrinsically better design becuase it eliminates radial stresses on the headtube - but it still can cause problem - creaking is definitely preferable to tubes cracking!

I don't think that that is the case. Look at the distance between the lower headset race and the point the front wheel contacts the ground. There is a large moment arm there that will exert a massive force on the headset.

stevechambers34

John T , I bow to your years of riding experience, I only have about 30 but Do believe Threaded 1 1/8" WOULD be better IF size had to change. Regarding easier to adjust I have found aheadsets a real pain fighting against the front suspension on a MTB, not such a problem on a road bike granted.
I have never found a 'decent' threaded headset anything but Very easy to adjust as regards to weight, well a Stronglight alloy A9 one of the best 1" headsets ever made weighs in around 82g, a Stronglight hidden headset in 1 1/8" weighs the same at 82g, many others come in at around 100g and Campagnolo Record comes in at 73g now I dont think we could detect 9g on a bikes total weight.
My main reason for liking threaded is the ease of vertical adjustment on the steerer, I agree you dont often alter the height ,but on a newly built machine I for one often alter it until I find the 'right' height once youv'e cut a threadless steerer thats it, and like you say you only get 5mm-15mm on a threaded steerer set up you can get (generaly) 0-60mm !
Not wishing arguments just a personal belief and choice.

nicwymer

what should I be putting between the fork and frame on my nice new Racelight t? I've ordered a 1 1/8 Cane Creek headset, should I have ordered an integrated something??? :?

a_n_t

mtb and bmx riders have used them for years and no one is harder on bikes than that lot!