Question on headset

sparknote_s said:

On the road bike I'm putting together, let's just take the worst case scenario and say I ride with the headset too tight or too loose. Is the worst thing that can happen, I will ruin the headset? Will the fork and head tube be alright?

(It's a threadless integrated headset)

Too loose can damage other stuff. If the steerer is CF, a too tight stem clamp to steerer can bugger the steerer.

What else can too loose damage?

do yourself a favour and get a headset with proper ball races- integrated headsets are a waste of time and don't work

martin_g said:

do yourself a favour and get a headset with proper ball races- integrated headsets are a waste of time and don't work

Really? That soulds like a load of hooey to me.

martin_g said:

do yourself a favour and get a headset with proper ball races- integrated headsets are a waste of time and don't work

martin_g: I have two bikes using an integrated headset design. I'd like to know your thoughts about why they don't work. Thanks.

need11@46 said:

martin_g: I have two bikes using an integrated headset design. I'd like to know your thoughts about why they don't work. Thanks.

Don't hold your breath.

see this link...

http://www.chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_explained/int_hds_explain_2.html

colnago still refuses to use these and maintain external headsets

martin_g said:

see this link...

http://www.chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_explained/int_hds_explain_2.html

colnago still refuses to use these and maintain external headsets

That is alot of self serving BS. Is that really the best you can come up with?

martin_g said:

see this link...

http://www.chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_explained/int_hds_explain_2.html

colnago still refuses to use these and maintain external headsets

martin_g: Thanks for the link. I've seen and read CK's explanation about the various designs, but I have to tell you that I don't take much stock in his position. While King's headset design is considered, by some, to be the gold standard, they haven't come up with a better solution for an integrated design. In the same regard, I don't accept King's explanation about why they cannot make a Campagnolo compatible rear hub. A number of other companies provide a design with an interchangeable free hub body, so to say that they're waiting to Campagnolo to adopt the Shimano design is a bit lame and self-serving. Lastly, they cannot seem to get a bottom bracket designed and out the door. Still, the parts they have put to manufacturing do maintain a good reputation and I realize this. I just don't see their posture as "gospel."

All designs improve with age and experience, but they have to start somewhere. Think of the first iterations of anything (e.g. first TI frame; first carbon cranks; first Ahead Set headset; etc.) and I'm sure you'll agree these designs have seen many, many improvements. I'd venture the same with be true with the integrated headset design.

Until my experience proves otherwise, or I hear of numerous reports of failures, I'm inclined to think this design is no less dependable than the traditional cup design. Thanks again for your comments and information. If you have anything else to add, I'd be interested to review it. Regards,

-Wm.

need11@46 said:

martin_g: If you have anything else to add, I'd be interested to review it. Regards,

-Wm.

Don't hold your breath.

martin_g said:

see this link...

http://www.chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_explained/int_hds_explain_2.html

colnago still refuses to use these and maintain external headsets

You peaked my interest, so I did a bit of reading to further my understanding of the IS design. I was of the belief that my Merlin Extralight used an IS (e.g. Integrated System) headset but I was informed otherwise by Merlin. Apparently, they install a bearing race in the head tube and then install the Cane Creek headset. So even though I am using an "IS" headset, it's really an "Internal Headset" solution. Perhaps this is why Merlin (ABG, I believe) warranties the frame for a lifetime, and makes no mention of any limitations due the headset design.

I am looking into the details of my other bike which uses an FSA Orbit headset. Regardless, I'm not convinced that the "IS" type installations are problematic, so I'd be interested in any supporting information you could offer. Thanks in advance.

-Wm.

need11@46 said:

You peaked my interest, so I did a bit of reading to further my understanding of the IS design. I was of the belief that my Merlin Extralight used an IS (e.g. Integrated System) headset but I was informed otherwise by Merlin. Apparently, they install a bearing race in the head tube and then install the Cane Creek headset. So even though I am using an "IS" headset, it's really an "Internal Headset" solution. Perhaps this is why Merlin (ABG, I believe) warranties the frame for a lifetime, and makes no mention of any limitations due the headset design.

I am looking into the details of my other bike which uses an FSA Orbit headset. Regardless, I'm not convinced that the "IS" type installations are problematic, so I'd be interested in any supporting information you could offer. Thanks in advance.

-Wm.

I'm just going on my experience-
I had a cinelli frame with an internal headset and it was awful- at least the headset was.
Frame was great but the headset was either too loose or too tight. Even when I thought it was adjusted correctly, it would tighten up when climbing out of the saddle.
In short, it made the whole bike handle like a dog.
What happened to the days when you fitted your headset and left it alone for 5 years?
This was however a few years ago- at the time i took it to mean these new designs were flawed.
I'd be interested on your recommendations for the best internal h/sets now available but I'm now happily sorted with my "external" colnago...

martin_g said:

I'm just going on my experience-
I had a cinelli frame with an internal headset and it was awful- at least the headset was.
Frame was great but the headset was either too loose or too tight. Even when I thought it was adjusted correctly, it would tighten up when climbing out of the saddle.

This was however a few years ago- at the time i took it to mean these new designs were flawed.
..

Maybe it wasn't adjusted corectly? Maybe the problem was with the way the frame ws machined for the HS? Maybe you just had a defective HS or a problem with some other out of spec part? A stastically bankrupt example of one from 5 years ago is hardly a reason to badmouth the type as a whole.

boudreaux said:

Maybe it wasn't adjusted corectly? Maybe the problem was with the way the frame ws machined for the HS? Maybe you just had a defective HS or a problem with some other out of spec part? A stastically bankrupt example of one from 5 years ago is hardly a reason to badmouth the type as a whole.

Believe me, I was adjusting the damn thing about every 15 minutes.
Experiences like that after years of trouble free riding with threaded h/sets really tend to make you look for alternatives...
Machining could well have had something to do with it- so many frames these days are made offshore SE Asia (not exactly family businesses) including Cinelli I am told.

martin_g said:

Believe me, I was adjusting the damn thing about every 15 minutes.
Experiences like that after years of trouble free riding with threaded h/sets really tend to make you look for alternatives...
Machining could well have had something to do with it- so many frames these days are made offshore SE Asia (not exactly family businesses) including Cinelli I am told.

No doubt your experience would taint your opinion, but other than CK's assessment, I've not seen much rebuttal of the design. Certainly, some manufacturers are making "hybrids" as King suggests in their article (e.g. Merlin and others...), but I don't see a wholesale abandonment of the design, nor do I believe it's fatally flawed.

Boudreaux's points are well stated. I have to admit I was more than a bit repulsed by your original comment, but there is much to consider in this discussion about head set designs, and now we're getting somewhere. I have to admit I've learned a thing or two in the process. It would be interesting to take a quick survey of the players to see who is using the hybrid vs. the integrated. I took a peek at Orbea, Cannondale and Look, but couldn't get to the details. Boudreaux, you seem to have more insight than most - any thoughts about whether the integrated design is evolving into the hybrid model?

-Wm.

martin_g said:

Machining could well have had something to do with it- so many frames these days are made offshore SE Asia (not exactly family businesses) including Cinelli I am told.

I heard Colnago also has an Asian connection.

Back to the original question - does it damage my headset if it's too tight or too loose? Obviously the more out-of-adjustment it is the worse.

But why would you want to? 1. it's very easy to adjust correctly (most routine bicycle maintenance is very easy if you spend a few minutes learning the procudures). 2. why ride a bike with too tight steering or a wobbly stem? 3. who wants to pay for replacement headsets or take the time/trip to LBS for the replacement?

martin_g said:

Believe me, I was adjusting the damn thing about every 15 minutes.
Experiences like that after years of trouble free riding with threaded h/sets really tend to make you look for alternatives...
Machining could well have had something to do with it- so many frames these days are made offshore SE Asia (not exactly family businesses) including Cinelli I am told.

Interestingly, the other of my two bikes with the IS design IS in fact a true integrated headset design. I confirmed this a bit earlier. The frame is carbon with aluminum lugs. I don't know the type or grade of aluminum used for the lugs, but I would assume this determination was made accounting for the loads imposed by the bearings resting on the frame material. The outside diameter of the head tube appears to be 5 cm - perhaps consistent with other aluminum based bikes using the IS headset.

I took a look at a few more manufacturers to see if one could determine the type of headset used. Giant states they're using the Cane Creek IS headset, but I cannot tell if it's a hybrid installation or true IS design. Pegoretti uses both designs on their aluminum and steel frames (I think...). The Calfee Dragonfly uses an external type (seems to make sense on an all carbon frame...), but then again the Fondriest Top Carbon appears to use some type of integrated design.

Still hard to say whether the true IS design is a liability. Perhaps time and experience have addressed your earlier problems and manufacturers are comfortable with the reliability and longevity of a true IS headset.

-Wm.

need11@46 said:

I took a peek at Orbea, Cannondale and Look, but couldn't get to the details. Boudreaux, you seem to have more insight than most - any thoughts about whether the integrated design is evolving into the hybrid model?

-Wm.

Both have been around for awhile.. I really havent paid enough attention to know if there has been a swing toward the hybrid. Cdale has used the campy hiddenset(hybrid) or another makers variation of it since the caad5 introduction.Other makers misuse the terms integrated and internal so it can be hard to know what they are using and some have their own proprietary designs. I seem to recall more problems with some early specific headsets as the other poster mentioned,rather than a condemnation of the design.I really haven't heard of frames being trashed by either,but the hybrid would seem to have the potential for fewer issues,especially in aluminum frames or CF frames that used aluminum headtube inserts.