# Integrated Headset to External Headset?



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Can a frame with a 1 1/8 diameter headtube, that is made for an Integrated Headset be converted to accept an External Headset? If so, how?

Thanx,


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

The Master Cylinder said:


> Can a frame with a 1 1/8 diameter headtube, that is made for an Integrated Headset be converted to accept an External Headset? If so, how?
> 
> Thanx,


No. TF


----------



## Akirasho (Jan 27, 2004)

... it should be noted that contemporary internal headsets are frame specific... that is, one type does not fit all...

As stated, While I suspect that someone could fabricate an adapter (on a case by case basis)... there doesn't appear to be a commercial reason to do so... and I know of no adapters to allow. Why are you trying to convert? What problem are you trying to solve?


----------



## Akirasho (Jan 27, 2004)

... it should be noted that contemporary internal headsets are frame specific... that is, one type does not fit all...

As stated, While I suspect that someone could fabricate an adapter (on a case by case basis)... there doesn't appear to be a commercial reason to do so... and I know of no adapters to allow. Why are you trying to convert? What problem are you trying to solve?


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Akirasho said:


> ... it should be noted that contemporary internal headsets are frame specific... that is, one type does not fit all...
> 
> As stated, While I suspect that someone could fabricate an adapter (on a case by case basis)... there doesn't appear to be a commercial reason to do so... and I know of no adapters to allow. Why are you trying to convert? What problem are you trying to solve?


I am trying to get my handlebars higher without using a goofy looking rising stem. I've noticed that head tubes that have integrated headsets seem to be shorter than non-integrated head tubes.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

The Master Cylinder said:


> I am trying to get my handlebars higher without using a goofy looking rising stem.


I was going to say something along the lines that upward angle stem is a perfectly functional solution and you should be function over aesthetics, but they I remembered that the only purpose of the integrated headset to exist is for aesthetics, so I guess aesthetics already matters more than function to you.



The Master Cylinder said:


> I've noticed that head tubes that have integrated headsets seem to be shorter than non-integrated head tubes.


No, its usually the other way around. Head tubes must either be bulged outward or their inside walls thinned down at the ends to accomodate the internal bearing seat. But you want the down tube and top tube to attach to the head where it is stronger. Since standard (external) headsets don't the need the flared/tapered sections of head tube above and below the top and down tubes, head tubes for standard head sets can be (and often are) shorter.

My suggestion - just get extra spacers or an appropriately angled stem and be done with it.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

"I was going to say something along the lines that upward angle stem is a perfectly functional solution and you should be function over aesthetics, but they I remembered that the only purpose of the integrated headset to exist is for aesthetics, so I guess aesthetics already matters more than function to you."

Though the aesthetics reason may be correct for _making_ the integrated headset, as a buyer, there some some times reasons where you don't have any choice. You better be pretty pure in your purchases to be throwing stones at this one. - TF


----------



## Anti-gravity (Jul 16, 2004)

Akirasho said:


> ... it should be noted that contemporary internal headsets are frame specific... that is, one type does not fit all...
> 
> As stated, While I suspect that someone could fabricate an adapter (on a case by case basis)... there doesn't appear to be a commercial reason to do so... and I know of no adapters to allow. Why are you trying to convert? What problem are you trying to solve?


In Chris King's infamous anti-integrated headset article, he briefly mentioned that he had considered making some sort of adapter to use a regular headset in an integrated frame, if the bearing seats became trashed from an improperly adjusted headset. The problem is that the headtube is very thin above the bearing seats and may not be strong enough to support a pressed in adapter. Any such adapter would probably void the frame warranty as well.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*not true...*

Conventional headsets have a 25-30mm stack height, split about equally between the upper and lower sections. Most integrated headsets can be had with a 15mm extended top section, the same height as a conventional headset.

You can't add length to the lower end of a head tube without changing the head tube angle and goofing up the steering geometry.

http://www.excelsports.com/new.asp?...Headset+IS-8&vendorCode=CANE&major=1&minor=16


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

C-40 said:


> You can't add length to the lower end of a head tube without changing the head tube angle and goofing up the steering geometry.


You don't lower the bottom of the head tube - you raise where the down tube attaches to it. On a smaller frame, this often raises where the top tube attaches as well, but this often gets lost in the wash when designing a sloping top tube frame.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

TurboTurtle said:


> Though the aesthetics reason may be correct for _making_ the integrated headset, as a buyer, there some some times reasons where you don't have any choice. You better be pretty pure in your purchases to be throwing stones at this one.


The number of different models of frames available is simply amazing. There are also many custom builders, or manufacturers who are able to customize their frames. It is hard to believe that a reasonably equivalent frame without an integrated headset couldn't be found. Personally, unless it was a really screaming super bargain deal, I would never get a frame with an integrated headset.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

Mark McM said:


> The number of different models of frames available is simply amazing. There are also many custom builders, or manufacturers who are able to customize their frames. It is hard to believe that a reasonably equivalent frame without an integrated headset couldn't be found. Personally, unless it was a really screaming super bargain deal, I would never get a frame with an integrated headset.


You would go to a custom frame rather than use an integrated head set?

Almost all common stock frames had integrated head sets over the last few years. I think "...so I guess aesthetics already matters more than function to you." was a bit much.

TF


----------



## cpuffe (Aug 1, 2004)

Anti-gravity said:


> In Chris King's infamous anti-integrated headset article, he briefly mentioned that he had considered making some sort of adapter to use a regular headset in an integrated frame, if the bearing seats became trashed from an improperly adjusted headset. The problem is that the headtube is very thin above the bearing seats and may not be strong enough to support a pressed in adapter. Any such adapter would probably void the frame warranty as well.


Still p!sses me off that King won't make an integrated headset.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

TurboTurtle said:


> You would go to a custom frame rather than use an integrated head set?


Probably. Especially when you consider that full custom frames can be had for as little as $720. Or, you can ask many frame manufacturers to customize a "stock" model with a standard headset. Litespeed has reported that one of the reasons that they will be abandoning integrated headsets for the 2006 model year is because so many customers were ordering "custom" frames whose only difference was a standard head tube.



TurboTurtle said:


> Almost all common stock frames had integrated head sets over the last few years.


I think you'll find the opposite is true - most common stock frames have standard headsets (which are cheaper to make anyway). Probably the most common bikes on the road today are Treks, and all their frames have standard headsets. High end US brands like Serotta and Seven? All standard headsets. One of the most desired european brands is Colnago, and they too produce no integrated headset frames.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

Mark McM said:


> Probably. Especially when you consider that full custom frames can be had for as little as $720. Or, you can ask many frame manufacturers to customize a "stock" model with a standard headset. Litespeed has reported that one of the reasons that they will be abandoning integrated headsets for the 2006 model year is because so many customers were ordering "custom" frames whose only difference was a standard head tube.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll find the opposite is true - most common stock frames have standard headsets (which are cheaper to make anyway). Probably the most common bikes on the road today are Treks, and all their frames have standard headsets. High end US brands like Serotta and Seven? All standard headsets. One of the most desired european brands is Colnago, and they too produce no integrated headset frames.


Then I guess that I will just have to accept your scorn for finding a used LS road frame that has disc brake mounts since the only one they made also has an integrated headset. Next time I'll just call Chattanooga and give them my credit card. Or are the disc brake mounts scorn-worthy also.

And all you Giant, Specialized, Cannondale, etc., etc. riders. What were you thinking?

TF


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*????*

Obvious miscommunication. I was speculating that if a conventional headset could somehow be adapted to an integrated frame, it would protrude below the bottom of the head tube and reduce the head tube angle.


----------



## Anti-gravity (Jul 16, 2004)

cpuffe said:


> Still p!sses me off that King won't make an integrated headset.


King makes an _internal_ headset (the Perdido) which looks the same as an integrated but has pressed in cups. King will never make an integrated because there isn't much to make that would really surpass the integrated headsets on the market today. All they are are a set of cartridge bearings with a simple race for the fork and top race under the stem. What makes Kings so good is the fact that the cartridge bearings and cups are precision machined so that the bearings actually press in, so there is no movement possible. For King to be satisfied with an integrated headset, he would probably want to be the one to machine the headtube of each frame so that his bearings would fit snug inside them. Plain and simple, integrated headsets are not precision, atleast not in Chris King's eyes. And if you ride your bike more than a couple of rides with a loose headset, you'll likely ruin your frame. I'm not a fan of integrated headsets and tend to agree with King's opinions on them.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

C-40 said:


> Obvious miscommunication. I was speculating that if a conventional headset could somehow be adapted to an integrated frame, it would protrude below the bottom of the head tube and reduce the head tube angle.


Good point. Without modifying/replacing the head tube, I don't see an easy solution to converting from from internal to external headsets.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

TurboTurtle said:


> Then I guess that I will just have to accept your scorn for finding a used LS road frame that has disc brake mounts since the only one they made also has an integrated headset.


Well, I did say I'd make an exception if it was a really good bargain. But I'd accept the consequences if the proprietary headset (there are no industry internal headset standards) because unavailable in a few years, making the frame useless once the headset wore out (and they do).



TurboTurtle said:


> And all you Giant, Specialized, Cannondale, etc., etc. riders. What were you thinking?


I doubt they were thinking at all about it at all. Just like Gary Fisher, Iron Horse and few other companies weren't thinking about it when they pushed 1 1/4" headsets for a few years, and then abandoned them, or when GT was pushing a new "700D" tire size, and then abandoned them (both sitations making the bikes that used them useless when these commonly worn out parts needed replacing).


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Wow these are always funny threads! Who cares? I ride rain, snow, all kinds of crap, as do about 300 other riders here at IU. Maybe 2% have external headsets. I have never heard of anyone toasting an internal setup here, and many riders here put on in excess on 10k a year.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

2% external - wow, that's pretty interesting. 

I would've estimated the market penetration for internal/integrated at more like 20% max. Of my 16 bikes, only 2 have internal/integrated. And looking at all the bikes I pass on the road on a daily basis, far more than 2% are using the traditional design. More like 90%


----------



## kkowalsk (Sep 5, 2005)

*Let's stop arguing about bearings and get them turning out on the road.*

Come on...really does it matter. I know some of you will say "Well yes it does, I will only use an external headset." OK fine have at it. That is why there are so many bike builder, you have the ability to choose. However, intergrated, external, Campy, Shimano bla ba bla ba bla. Lets not try to have the attitude that "My opinion is the best and if you don't agree with ME then YOUR stupid".

Furthermore; headsets these days are 100x better than they were 10-15 years ago. Why, simply put, seals. Old headsets and BB just had shields but no seals to keep contaminates out. With the addition of seals to the headset and the limited rotation of the bearings, I can't believe there are that many failures. If you know your bike, keep it tuned, clean, you are going to realize these problems before they "Destroy you frame". I can think of many more other things out on the road that can destroy my frame more than a seized up headset bearing.


----------



## daneil (Jun 25, 2002)

kkowalsk said:


> Come on...really does it matter. I know some of you will say "Well yes it does, I will only use an external headset." OK fine have at it. That is why there are so many bike builder, you have the ability to choose. However, intergrated, external, Campy, Shimano bla ba bla ba bla. Lets not try to have the attitude that "My opinion is the best and if you don't agree with ME then YOUR stupid".
> 
> Furthermore; headsets these days are 100x better than they were 10-15 years ago. Why, simply put, seals. Old headsets and BB just had shields but no seals to keep contaminates out. With the addition of seals to the headset and the limited rotation of the bearings, I can't believe there are that many failures. If you know your bike, keep it tuned, clean, you are going to realize these problems before they "Destroy you frame". I can think of many more other things out on the road that can destroy my frame more than a seized up headset bearing.



Take a look at the date...They've been done arguing the point for a little over a year now.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

daneil said:


> Take a look at the date...They've been done arguing the point for a little over a year now.


I'm ready to start again. Which side was I on, now? - TF


----------



## daneil (Jun 25, 2002)

TurboTurtle said:


> I'm ready to start again. Which side was I on, now? - TF


I think you were on the verge of lobbying for the 1 1/8" upper cup and 1 1/4" lower. Something about it being fun to mix and match.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

daneil said:


> I think you were on the verge of lobbying for the 1 1/8" upper cup and 1 1/4" lower. Something about it being fun to mix and match.


No way - you always want the 1 1/4" on the top. That way the thicker tubing on the bottom will lower the center of gravity and allow 7% geater speed through corners of 91 deg or more. See graph below.


----------



## daneil (Jun 25, 2002)

TurboTurtle said:


> No way - you always want the 1 1/4" on the top. That way the thicker tubing on the bottom will lower the center of gravity and allow 7% geater speed through corners of 91 deg or more. See graph below.


You lost me...that is until I saw the graph. Now it makes perfect sense and I formally revoke my earlier assertion that the 28mm French-threaded tandem headsets were the pinnicale of innovation.


----------

