# How does an integrated headset compare to a non-integrated headset?



## SFG (Jun 16, 2004)

First of all, what is the job of a headset and how does a headset do it's job.

Second, Is there any real world difference between integrated vs. non-integrated?

What makes a good headset stand out from a lousy one?

Thanks,

Sean


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*try reading this...*

http://www.parktool.com/repair_help/howfix_headtypes.shtml

In a nutshell, the headet contains the bearings that the fork pivots on. A number of years ago, "threadless" headsets were introduced, that eliminated the threadeded steering tube. A few years later integrated headsets were introduced. There are many types of integrated headset designs. The worst is the type that places an angled seat cartrdige bearing directly into the headtube, with no replaceable bearing seat in the head tube. This type can ruin a frame if it's used for too long with the bearings loose.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

SFG said:


> First of all, what is the job of a headset and how does a headset do it's job.
> 
> Second, Is there any real world difference between integrated vs. non-integrated?
> 
> ...


Integrated and non integrated headsets. Notice you cannot see the headset on the integrated picture. The bearing and cups are hidden inside the headtube


----------



## fblum (Oct 2, 2004)

*Integrated have a bad rep*

I have been looking for a custom frame and hence reading many frame builder web sites. There are many people who think the integrated head sets are crap- difficult if not impossible to correctly adjust and capable of actually ruining a frame. For what its worth Chris King headsets get glowing reviews.


----------



## SFG (Jun 16, 2004)

*thanks*

Thanks for the info guys. 

So it appears as though there are definitely two different schools of thought here but it doesn't appear that one out preforms the other. 

Is that true?


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

SFG said:


> Thanks for the info guys.
> 
> So it appears as though there are definitely two different schools of thought here but it doesn't appear that one out preforms the other.
> 
> Is that true?


Properly installed and adjusted, they both work just fine.

A lot of the negative feelings stem from looking logically at the integrated designs. It pretty much makes sense that having the bearings riding in the headtube is not a grand idea. However, neither has there been a spate of people with ovalized headtubes and ruined frames. You can in fact ruin a frame with an improperly installed or maintained conventional headset.

The simple answer is that the jury is still out. We'll see in a couple of years if frame longevity has been negatively affected. Personally, I have two frame with integrated/internal headsets and they work just fine. Would I elect to go and build a custom frame with that style headtube? Probably not, but obviously it hasn't prevented me from owning rack bikes with them. My only concerns are completely superstitious - the arguments against them make sense to me, but I haven't seen any data suggesting there are genuine problems.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

I justed talked to Cane Creek yesterday about this. The guy said that when the details of the new integrated HS standard were being hammered out a few years ago by them, Campy, Shimano, etc., Chris King was invited to the party but the King contingent never showed up - probably from a case of sour grapes. Then Campy went their own way with their HS and CK still has theirs, but now has the Perdido system, an open-source answer to the Integrated, but requires the HT ends to be shaved thinner yet than the current standard.

He said also that during the first year or so, they had the push the frame/tubing mfg's to properly face and finish HT's better than they were then doing, to avoid installation problems and HT wear. After that got better, he said he hasn't heard of an integrated HT having wear problems. 

Of course, he's going to have his biases, and I'm sure King has their side of it to tell. But that's basically the deal in a nutshell.


----------



## sweetnsourbkr (Jan 10, 2005)

How about this from King?

http://www.chrisking.com/pdfs/Int Headsets Explained.pdf


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

sweetnsourbkr said:


> How about this from King?
> 
> http://www.chrisking.com/pdfs/Int Headsets Explained.pdf


I guess I wouldn't expect anything different from a company that has a product to protect. Everyone thinks the CK conventional is the best thing going, and I imagine CK wants to keep it that way.

I mean I really wouldn't expect them to publish something that says "yepper, that new design is just as good as ours."


----------



## cdmc (Feb 3, 2004)

AJS said:


> I justed talked to Cane Creek yesterday about this.
> 
> He said also that during the first year or so, they had the push the frame/tubing mfg's to properly face and finish HT's better than they were then doing, to avoid installation problems and HT wear. After that got better, he said he hasn't heard of an integrated HT having wear problems.
> 
> Of course, he's going to have his biases, and I'm sure King has their side of it to tell. But that's basically the deal in a nutshell.


Contrary to many companies, Cane Creek seems to be very honest about the good and bad of products. If you look on their faq, they say that integrates are very dependent on proper frame quality. Chris King on the other hand, while building great products, blows a lot of smoke.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

Obviously, CK had or still has an axe to grind. Why else would they go to the trouble of coming up with Perdido, and making it open-source to boot?


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

*No one has mentioned the "Weight Factor."*

Integrated head sets are far lighter, saving up to 200gms (depending on what you are willing to spend on a traditional headset - they can be quite heavy.) I have both setups, and functionally they are identical. Besides, at speed you are really turning a bike with your body weight, so how much quality do you really need?
On my last months of my old Mercian steel, the old threaded headset was binding noticably, but did not effect actual riding proformance, other than manuvering around the garage.


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

AlexCad5 said:


> Integrated head sets are far lighter, saving up to 200gms (depending on what you are willing to spend on a traditional headset - they can be quite heavy.) I have both setups, and functionally they are identical. Besides, at speed you are really turning a bike with your body weight, so how much quality do you really need?
> On my last months of my old Mercian steel, the old threaded headset was binding noticably, but did not effect actual riding proformance, other than manuvering around the garage.


Save 200 grams? I think not. A typical external headset weighs about 120 grams total so at most an integrated could save 20 grams. And don't forget, the head tube of the frame must be longer which eats up any savings that the actual headset may afford.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

Nessism said:


> Save 200 grams? I think not. A typical external headset weighs about 120 grams total so at most an integrated could save 20 grams. And don't forget, the head tube of the frame must be longer which eats up any savings that the actual headset may afford.


 Okay, looking at the supergo catalog, we'll have to split the difference. We're both overstating our points -but I must say that you were closer. For the headsets they have listed (which hardly displays the gamet) the Race Face Diabouls is 174gms and at the light end Cane Creeks S-6 is 110gms. The Cane Creek Solos is 141gm
They only show two integrated headsets, both Cane Creek and both are 88gms.
Although I know when I went to my LBS to buy a headset for my LOOK, there were a number of headsets that were around 1/2lb (roughty 230gms). I asked the wrench, how much did the cheap one ($50) weigh and hefting it in his hand he exaggeratedly said, "pretty close to a pound." 
I'm too lazy to check out more info, just to be right (or wrong.) So there you have it.
It's 7:15am raining and about as light as it's going to get, so got to go ride.


----------



## Spoke Wrench (Aug 20, 2001)

C-40 The worst is the type that places an angled seat cartrdige bearing directly into the headtube said:


> I don't share your fear about angled seat cartridge bearings ruining frames anymore than riding with any improperly adjusted headset. The actual balls or rollers don't directly contact the seat that's machined in the frame, they are enclosed in a cartridge. so if there is damage you can simply replace the relatively inexpensive bearing cartridge rather than the whole headset. Time will tell.
> 
> I also suspect that in the future we will be seeing a lot more of these used in the complete bike segment of the market. The question is if the required head tube machining is cheaper for the manufacturers to do than pressing in a separate cup. I think that lots of innovations that have been touted as engineering advantages, like 1 1/8" steerer tubes, were really originated because they made bikes easier and cheaper to build.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

That Race Face HS is designed to be a tank. It's a headset made out of steel for downhill racing. 

Let's compare the roadbiking standards - Chris King weighs 116 grams. Cane Creek IS6 weighs 106 grams. IS8 weighs 92 grams. Campy Hiddenset, 73

The best you're going to see is 30, the average about 15. In reality, peanuts.

The only different between standard and integrated/internal is the cups. And their weight pales in comparison to the bearings, which are virtually identical.


----------



## Anti-gravity (Jul 16, 2004)

AlexCad5 said:


> Integrated head sets are far lighter, saving up to 200gms (depending on what you are willing to spend on a traditional headset - they can be quite heavy.) I have both setups, and functionally they are identical. Besides, at speed you are really turning a bike with your body weight, so how much quality do you really need?
> On my last months of my old Mercian steel, the old threaded headset was binding noticably, but did not effect actual riding proformance, other than manuvering around the garage.


<p>The purpose of an expensive headset is hardly for performance gain. Atleast in the case of Chris King headsets, the main goal is to achieve unmatched durability compared to the competition. Sure, they are fairly light weight, but saving weight at a critical place like the headset is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. "Let's risk making you're high-end racing frame disposable in a few years to save 20 grams by eliminating the headset cups." I guess some people have other priorities than I have.<p>Just try and imagine for a moment all the stresses that those little headset bearings undergo and you'd get a better idea of why King has a such a strong opinion against the integrated HS. The fact that King is protecting investments in a design is crap IMO, his company could have easily gotten a huge share of the integrated headset market, but chose principles over increasing their bottom line.<p> The good thing about your Mercian is that it has a wonderfully simple <b>standard</b> headset. Punch out the cups, press new ones in, and you are back in business. If it were integrated, your frame would be on it's way to the local dumpster.
-Ryan


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

Anti-gravity said:


> <p>If it were integrated, your frame would be on it's way to the local dumpster.
> -Ryan


Ryan, it's OK to make claims but it's better to have some kind of evidence to support it. Do you know of anyone's integrated HT that has worn out beyond use due to bearing wear? Worst case if that were to happen, I suppose a frame-builder could always weld on another HT.


----------



## Anti-gravity (Jul 16, 2004)

AJS said:


> Ryan, it's OK to make claims but it's better to have some kind of evidence to support it. Do you know of anyone's integrated HT that has worn out beyond use due to bearing wear? Worst case if that were to happen, I suppose a frame-builder could always weld on another HT.


<p>I can think of a couple cases where a head tube was ruined from an integrated HS. One was here on RBR and another was a customer of a shop I worked at (bike was <b>not</b> built by us).<p> I'll agree with you that it's a worst-case scenario that the headset will ruin the frame. But the whole system leaves little room for error. If your headset is a little loose, and you don't know any better to get it adjusted properly (which is a large portion of the consumer market), then your frame could be toast in week, a month, maybe a year if you're lucky. Introducing something that has potential for problems is still a dangerous proposition. I have friends that don't know crap about bike maintenance, so a fool-proof system of anything is best for them. <p> Welding on a new headtube is not an option for aluminum or carbon frames and that brings us back to our original argument: why not just make the cups replaceable? Oh yeah, we already have headsets that have that feature.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

Or it could be a devious plot to sell more "throw-away" $600.-$3000. frames.


----------



## Anti-gravity (Jul 16, 2004)

AJS said:


> Or it could be a devious plot to sell more "throw-away" $600.-$3000. frames.


<p>Well, since you're going to avoid the argument all together and patronize me for my apparent paranoid conspiracy theory, I will go ahead and say that I don't think that the sky is falling because of this particular design. Rather, I find it a completely useless concept that has been perpetuated by marketing hype with one caveat (which sets it apart from many other useless designs I've seen over the years): it has the potential to cause irreversible damage that can end up costing you a whole lotta money.<p>I've yet to see any sensible article or write-up beyond marketing one-liners that debunks or disproofs CK's in-depth article. From CK's business practices, I cannot find evidence that he is out to protect investments (e.g. the Perdido headset, which is not patented, not to mention the plans and diagrams are on the website for all to see and copy!).<p>So what is my theory behind this nonsensical design? I think it is purely for the bike companies to save money through production costs and by making a design that is aethesically pleasing, which seems to bring in a large market demand in a lot of cases. I think this is a classic example of a lack of foresight, but I guess time will be the real test as to whether this design is mechanically sound enough that the general consumer market won't give a rip one way or the other. As always, all IMO. 
-Ryan


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

The standard headset can have it's flaws too. I've seen 2 head tubes cracked because of improperly installed cups. I've also seen head tubes that had the cups changed so much that the cups no longer "press" in. The cups slide in and the headset has play no matter how tight it is. 

Personally, I prefer headsets with cups but both sides have have their strengths and weaknesses..


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

Anti-gravity said:


> <p>Well, since you're going to avoid the argument all together and patronize me for my apparent paranoid conspiracy theory,...


Actually, I half-seriously meant it towards the frame & HS mfg's. In a way, it can be looked at as no different than coming out with an extra gear on a cassette every few years - gotta reinvigorate the market once sales start to fall flat from a previously "inferior" iteration, right?. I can think of lots of examples: myriad wheel designs, CF cranksets, compact cranksets, EXO BB's, blah blah.

Or could be as you say, mainly to lower end costs for the mfg, and some nod towards aesthetics. Personally, I never had a problem with the looks of the NoThreadSet on my old Tuscany, nor the performance. (BTW - notice in earlier posts I mentioned CK's open-source for the Perdido. Certainly they're hoping it will catch on, which is why they made it so. And I have read their objections to the Int. HS.)

So I am not necessarily in disagreement except on the notion of HT wear. Yes, I think a system could and should have been invented that obviated that potential, but it seems that it isn't that bad of a design that CK should have refused to be part of it.


----------



## Indyfan (Mar 30, 2004)

*Wow! Look at all the worms!*

Sean definately knows how to open those cans.

I have seen a few ruined headtubes in the shop on realtively new bikes (6mos to 2 years) with integrated and internal headsets. It wasn't from normal bearing wear, but hard impacts. Either chuck-hole or head-on impacts. If most of those had been traditional headsets, we probably would have replaced the cups and all would be like new. This is due to the fact that there is less material in the walls surrounding (at least those) integrated headsets. Of course in the case of MTB's rough surface is the norm, and there are a few MFR's using integrated headsets on MTB's. I think integrated and internal headsets are too new to see trends in wear damage. Integrated headsets function relatively well (as long as the frame is high enough quality), but I question their long-term durability. I personally only want a traditional headset for my bikes. Partly because I much prefer the King product (for both quality and manufacturing practices), and because I tend to keep my bikes for long periods of time. 

Another situation: Litespeed adds a pair of cups to their "integrated headset" frames which turns the Cane Creek integrated headsets they spec into internal headsets. They do this because they don't like the poorer specs caused by trying to turn a headtube into a headset cup. I would imagine they have more than enough capability to mill headtubes (they're all a bunch of real trained machinists - not bike geeks learning to be machinists). They know how to work metal.

I'll add a distinction that I haven't seen used yet in this particular discussion. An integrated headset uses the cups milled into the headtube itself for the headset. An internal headset uses a set of replaceable cups which are pressed into the headtube and often are not visible without disassembly. A Campy Hiddenset is an internal. A Cane Creek IS6 is an integrated. Some might say that is a small distinction, but try replacing one with the other. You might be able to put the bearings of some internal headsets into an integrated frame, but it won't work the other way around. Besides, that is how the industry describes them, whether we like it or not.

Bob


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

"An integrated headset uses the cups milled into the headtube itself for the headset. An internal headset uses a set of replaceable cups which are pressed into the headtube and often are not visible without disassembly. A Campy Hiddenset is an internal. A Cane Creek IS6 is an integrated. Some might say that is a small distinction, but try replacing one with the other. You might be able to put the bearings of some internal headsets into an integrated frame, but it won't work the other way around. Besides, that is how the industry describes them, whether we like it or not."


That's correct Bob, thanks for pointing it out. And don't forget the "Columbus-type" HS, which is I suppose an internal. 

Too many if you ask me.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

There was a good thread on this topic several months ago with some historical and industry perspective. Russ had a lot to say on that day as well...

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=17091


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

Fogdweller said:


> There was a good thread on this topic several months ago with some historical and industry perspective. Russ had a lot to say on that day as well...
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=17091



Good thread foggy, I hadn't noticed it before. This HS malarky can get confusing, but it's really not if you can keep the various names straight. 

Anyway, my Columbus/FSA HS is getting creaky now, probably from a few wet rides. Since CC and CK don't make an equivalent, I'll probably be stuck with another FSA. Not that they're bad per se, but they seem a bit touchy to weather intrusion. ;(


----------



## Indyfan (Mar 30, 2004)

*I had a felling I was forgetting one...*

Thanks for reminding me. Our shop sells Litespeed (QR too...) and LeMond, and we're adding Scott, Fuji, and possibly Orbea this season (as far as road bikes is concerned). So I haven't seen the Columbus type since Barnett's. By the way they (Barnett's) didn't see a problem with them as long as the frame is high quality, citing that most people will buy a new bike before they got any wear-related problems with integrated/internal/Columbus headsets. I'll have to ask my boss (the shop just sent him a few weeks ago) if they said anything about them.

I have to agree with AJS that there are too many types out there. But who's going to say; "I'll stop making my design because I recognize that this is causing issues"? I doubt any will. CK never will stop making traditionals, CC will never stop making integrated. Too many customers like the look, if nothing else (even if they don't know anything about any hype or design behind them). I know that the TT/Tri-guys we sell to like the (small) aero benefits of non-traditional headsets, even if those benefits are probably negligable.

Bob


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

Just disassembled it, it has the same 36 deg. angular contact bearings as the FSA Intelliset Pro (red seals). In fact, it _is_ an I.P. except branded "Columbus" on the top cap instead of "FSA".

Cleaned everything, re-installed, still noisy. The top bearing felt a little rough when I had it out, but I was hoping that getting the grit out of everything would do the trick. Time for new ones.

Anyone know a place that's got good prices on these bearings?


----------



## Indyfan (Mar 30, 2004)

*2 thoughts on your bearings.*

First, for the interim, have you tried to (carefully) remove the seals from the cartridges to clean/regrease them? Many cartridge bearings can be overhauled this way to give you a little more time to find a really good set of replacements. If you haven't done this before, you would use a "seal pick" or the blade of a razor blade utility knife to gently remove the seal. Give yourself plenty of time, so you don't damage the seals trying to rush the job. If the seals can be removed, it won't take much more time than overhauling a cup/ball/cone bearing.

For replacements, look in the yellow pages for a bearing supply house in your area. Most towns of any size will have one. Be sure they know you want the best quality you can get in the appropriate dimensions. If you can't find what you want that way, you might try Bike Tools Etc. Their website is (surprise) biketoolsetc.com if you want to try them. They carry FSA, and probably have a replacement bearing, maybe even an aftermarket version. If you email or call them, ask for Larry and tell him the whole story about how you aren't pleased with the stock bearings. He's a manager there. He's done a special order or two for me before. I'm Bob from Albuquerque if he asks (he might or might not remember me, I haven't had to order anything from them in a while). 

Bob


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

Indyfan said:


> If you can't find what you want that way, you might try Bike Tools Etc.
> 
> Bob


Those guys sound good, Bob. Thanks for the info. I thought about screwing with removing the seals, but I might as well get the entire bearing assy's, because there is some pitting already on the outsides. However, the compression ring and micro-thin washer for the top bearing looks OK.


----------



## Indyfan (Mar 30, 2004)

*Another thing about them...*

They are the "e-tailer" of United Bicycle Supply in Ashland OR. They have a VERY complete tool selection and used to be the main supplier for The Third Hand. They have tools that your LBS might not know about (ask your LBS about the newer Hozan crown race setter - it's a press type design - if they know about it, or better yet use it, they're ahead of a lot of shops). It's much better than the best of the old slide hammer designs. Hozan also has a crown race puller that uses a bearing splitter and again a press type design. Park has a nice version of that one that's a lot less expensive and works just as well. So what I'm getting at is they can help you find some hard to find tools, if you need any.

Anyway, I hope they can help you with the bearings.

Bob


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

That's very cool, because Third Hand is pretty top. I was looking around on their site earlier, and they do have some hard to find stuff. It's always great to find a place like that. I need to give 'em a call.


----------

