How are Integrated Headsets so different?

Quoted message said:

In reading through past postings I have discovered that many people do not like the Integrated
Headsets used by Litespeed and other manufactures. I have read Chris Kings views and while the
reasoning behind his views makes sense, I believe that some manufactures have already addressed
the biggest problem. At first I was skeptical, but through a couple phone calls I was able to find
out that Litespeed uses 6/4ti cups pressed into the frame.

The

Quoted message said:

Integrated Headset cartridge bearings sit in these cups. Litespeed

customer

Quoted message said:

service said these cups are replaceable by any of their dealers.

How does this so different from a normal headset? The design idea is still the same. (Bearings sit
in replaceable cups) The only difference is the bearings now sit lower inside the frame, not on
the outside.

I believe that some frames have the cups as part of their frame and this means that they are NOT
replaceable. I believe these are the IS headsets from Cane Creek, for example. The ZS or Zero Stack
headsets have replaceable cups and you are correct that this is just as good as a traditional
headset. I believe the only down side to integrated headsets is the heaver head tube that must be
used. I think the ZS headsets look very nice but I don't think that one is better than the other. It
just comes down to preference.

Dave

W A S A T C H said:

In reading through past postings I have discovered that many people do not like the Integrated
Headsets used by Litespeed and other manufactures. I have read Chris Kings views and while the
reasoning behind his views makes sense, I believe that some manufactures have already addressed
the biggest problem. At first I was skeptical, but through a couple phone calls I was able to find
out that Litespeed uses 6/4ti cups pressed into the frame. The Integrated Headset cartridge
bearings sit in these cups. Litespeed customer service said these cups are replaceable by any of
their dealers.

Quoted message said:

How does this so different from a normal headset? The design idea is still the same. (Bearings sit
in replaceable cups) The only difference is the bearings now sit lower inside the frame, not on
the outside.

See:

chrisking.comint hds explain 1.htmlOpen ↗

Art Harris

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:47:06 -0600, "onefred" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I think the ZS headsets look very nice but I don't think that one is better than the other.

The point of the ZS headsets, IIRC, is to get the stem mounted lower. If that's an advantage to you,
than ZS is better; otherwise, it makes little difference.
--
Rick Onanian

The so called Integrated headsets are not so much different. A shaft (steering column) is supported
at two points, and rotates on bearings. There are now very few industry "standards" in the headset
world, and no standardization appears close at hand. The ZS or zero-stack style is sometimes called
an "internal headset", as the headset is covered up by the headtube.

See also for a review of the types at parktool.comhowfix headtypes.shtmlOpen ↗

Saw a guy with his Giant bike have what looked like a broken fork (lots of play, pivoting around the
bottom cup, and top didn't look to be moving). Turns out the integrated headset had come loose in
the frame in some way. With a normal headset, I've never seen this sort of thing. And he has to go
to a Giant dealer and order a one-off replacement and if stock is low (dealers never stock these
things) he has no bike for a week or more.

It's a problem that didn't need to be solved, and the solution was a part that's less reliable than
the original.

BTW my favorite "poster child" for [censored] in an integrated headset design is the new Merlin bikes. You
have a 59 cm frame where the top and downtube are basically welded together and intersect the head
tube, leaving 1.5" on the top and bottom for the integrated cups. Basically this weakens the design
of the frame, because there's much less triangulation. A total piece of [censored] marketing-driven
design... pretty sad to see this happen to the brand, but what ya gonna do.

W A S A T C H said:

Hello all,

In reading through past postings I have discovered that many people do

not

Quoted message said:

like the Integrated Headsets used by Litespeed and other manufactures. I have read Chris Kings
views and while the reasoning behind his views

makes

Quoted message said:

sense, I believe that some manufactures have already addressed the

biggest

Quoted message said:

problem. At first I was skeptical, but through a couple phone calls I was able to find out that
Litespeed uses 6/4ti cups pressed into the frame.

The

Quoted message said:

Integrated Headset cartridge bearings sit in these cups. Litespeed

customer

Quoted message said:

service said these cups are replaceable by any of their dealers.

How does this so different from a normal headset? The design idea is

still

Quoted message said:

the same. (Bearings sit in replaceable cups) The only difference is the bearings now sit lower
inside the frame, not on the outside.

Anything I'm missing?

Nate

Quoted message said:

W A S A T C H said:

*SNIP* ........ I have read Chris Kings views and while the reasoning behind his

views makes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sense.......

Harris Wrote

Quoted message said:

See:

chrisking.comint hds explain 1.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Art Harris

I believe I said I have already read that. Thanks though.

Whether the cups are just the machined ends of the headtube or a separate pressed in fitting is not
dependent on whether the frame takes the IS or ZS headset. I have one of the afforementioned
Litespeeds with a Cane Creek IS headset, and the cups in which the headset bearings sit are a
separate machining that is press fit into the headtube with about a 2mm lip at each end. I've seen
other brands of frame using the same headset where it's just the headtube itself which has been
machined to accept the bearings...

Nick

"onefred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I believe that some frames have the cups as part of their frame and this means that they are NOT
replaceable. I believe these are the IS headsets from Cane Creek, for example. The ZS or Zero
Stack headsets have replaceable cups and you are correct that this is just as good as a
traditional headset.

W A S A T C H wrote: <snip>

Quoted message said:

How does this so different from a normal headset? The design idea is still the same. (Bearings sit
in replaceable cups) The only difference is the bearings now sit lower inside the frame, not on
the outside.

Anything I'm missing?

no. same concept, just looks different. may be marginal argument for wind resistance, but that's it.

jb

"Nick Payne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Whether the cups are just the machined ends of the headtube or a separate pressed in fitting is
not dependent on whether the frame takes the IS or

ZS

Quoted message said:

headset. I have one of the afforementioned Litespeeds with a Cane Creek IS headset, and the
cups in which the headset bearings sit are a separate machining that is press fit into the
headtube with about a 2mm lip at each end. I've seen other brands of frame using the same
headset where it's

just

Quoted message said:

the headtube itself which has been machined to accept the bearings...

Nick

Thank you Nick!

Yes, the Litespeed setup mentioned above is what I am referring to. I do not see how this setup can
be inferior to a "normal" headset. The idea is the same. I can see the downfalls of a frame that
does not use pressed in cups.

Nate

"Bill Lloyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Saw a guy with his Giant bike have what looked like a broken fork (lots of play, pivoting around
the bottom cup, and top didn't look to be moving). Turns out the integrated headset had come loose
in the frame in some way. With a normal headset, I've never seen this sort of thing. And he has to
go to a Giant dealer and order a one-off replacement and if stock is low (dealers never stock
these things) he has no bike for a week or more.

It's a problem that didn't need to be solved, and the solution was a part that's less reliable
than the original.

BTW my favorite "poster child" for [censored] in an integrated headset design is the new Merlin bikes.
You have a 59 cm frame where the top and downtube are basically welded together and intersect the
head tube, leaving 1.5" on the top and bottom for the integrated cups. Basically this weakens the
design of the frame, because there's much less triangulation. A total piece of [censored] marketing-
driven design... pretty sad to see this happen to the brand, but what ya gonna do.

Wow, this guy has an attitude. I promise G W(pronounced: dub-ya), we are not hiding WMD in internal
headsets. Anyways, there will always be new ideas. Some good, others not so good. I'm sure you said
the same thing when going from threaded to threadless, 1" to 1-1/8, single to double, double to
triple, 9spd to 10spd.......

As for the Merlin (merlinbike.comcielo.aspxOpen ↗) the frame works for the forces
applied during normal road riding. I agree with you 100%, these bikes are not meant for free-riding,
urban assault or mountain downhill racing. If not participating in these activities it should work
very well. If you find anymore "[censored]" like this Merlin with a headset that is not up to your
standards, please send it my way -- I'll even pay the shipping.

Nate

Bill Lloyd said:

And he has to go to a Giant dealer and order a one-off replacement and if stock is low (dealers
never stock these things) he has no bike for a week or more.

Is this true? That is, are there several different variations on the integrated headset theme?

I would think that the availability of parts would be much greater if one could get replacement
parts from nearly any LBS. If there are many different types of integrated headset, I can't imagine
my LBS stocking parts for each type. And I'd be a little nervous about getting parts as the bike
gets a old.

That said, I don't find headset replacements common. Even if I need a new headset, I can typically
ride with a worn-out headset while parts are ordered.

Dave dvt at psu dot edu

dvt said:

Is this true? That is, are there several different variations on the integrated headset theme?

Yes, and to further extend the confusion, there are "internal" headsets, which have been discussed
here as "integrated". One example is the Cane Creek Zero Stack Aheadset, which came on my road bike.
I was concerned that it would be a problem when I bought the bike, but found out that it wouldn't --
IIRC, it can be replaced by a standard headset.

Quoted message said:

I would think that the availability of parts would be much greater if one could get replacement
parts from nearly any LBS. If there are many different types of integrated headset, I can't imagine
my LBS stocking parts for each type. And I'd be a little nervous about getting parts as the bike
gets a old.

It just becomes Yet Another [semi-]Proprietary Frame Part, like derailer hangers.

Quoted message said:

That said, I don't find headset replacements common. Even if I need a new headset, I can typically
ride with a worn-out headset while parts are ordered.

...and I doubt that any of the headsets will become completely unreplaceable. Just as you can order
any sort of odd bottom bracket, you'll be able to find odd headsets. Those headsets can probably be
rebuilt easily enough, so a worn out one could be rehabilitated, too.

Of course, I wouldn't go looking for a bike with a weird headset, but I wouldn't be overly concerned
with it either, unless I very commonly wore out headsets.
--
Rick Onanian

W A S A T C H said:

In reading through past postings I have discovered that many people do not like the Integrated
Headsets used by Litespeed and other manufactures. I have read Chris Kings views...

Quoted message said:

How does this so different from a normal headset? The design idea is still the same. (Bearings sit
in replaceable cups) The only difference is the bearings now sit lower inside the frame, not on
the outside.

I have said before that King Cycle Group is not being straight with us about its true objections to
integrated headset designs. I believe their beef is that such systems diminish the physical
visibility, and therefore the status value and advertisement space, of headsets. For a company that
has made millions on $120 headsets emblazoned with "CHRIS KING" in big, bold letters, for high-end
bikes to hide the headset is not a good thing.

There is a real and valid reason that many in the bike business don't integrated headsets: They
impose new and incompatible component standards and offer little to nothing in return for this
expensive inconvenience. Like Peter Chisholm so often says, they are "an answer to a not-asked
question."

From the consumer standpoint, a new component standard is no big deal at the time of sale (though it
can be a huge disappointment at replacement time). But to a retailer and service provider, each new
part standard is another type of component to stock, another set of tools to keep, and sometimes
another whole family of necessary related parts to manage. It's an increase in the expense of doing
business that's not easily explained to, or appreciated by, the customer.

Even when the benefits of a new system are tangible (for example with threadless headsets-- a
stronger, stiffer, simpler, more easily serviced system), adoption by established business operators
can be grudging and slow, for the reasons noted earlier.

But when the "new, improved" and heavily marketed system being imposed is actually no improvement at
all, as in the case of integrated headsets, then it just makes sense that folks in the business will
hate it. Whether the end user comes to regret that his bike has one depends mainly on whether
replacement parts remain readily available and competitively priced into the future.

Chalo Colina

"W A S A T C H"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

........ I have read Chris Kings views

Harris Wrote

Quoted message said:

See:

chrisking.comint hds explain 1.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

I believe I said I have already read that. Thanks though.

Then which part of the Chris King write-up didn't you understand? It couldn't have been more
thorough in showing how and why the integrated headset is a [censored] design. Maybe you should re-read it
if you still have questions...

"Robert Canon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"W A S A T C H"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>........ I have read Chris Kings views

Harris Wrote

Quoted message said:

See:

chrisking.comint hds explain 1.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

I believe I said I have already read that. Thanks though.

Then which part of the Chris King write-up didn't you understand? It couldn't have been more
thorough in showing how and why the integrated headset is a [censored] design. Maybe you should re-read
it if you still have questions...

Dear Robert,

Maybe you should read Chalo Colina's interesting post in this thread. He mentions something not
included in the write-up that you claim couldn't have been more thorough.

Then you could have said something new to the original poster.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

In reading through past postings I have discovered that many people do not like the Integrated
Headsets used by Litespeed and other manufactures.

They are a nuisance. My wife´s Klein Adoit has one. Last year it got really gritty while we were
biking in the US. It was so complicated to fix that we bought a new frame, salvaging as much as
possible of the parts, and getting a Chris King headset for the new frame. It is for good reason the
new Kleins don´t come with integrated headsets.

If you want a durable bike by a frame you can spec parts for as you like and get a King headset.
They last for ever and can go for years without the slightest adjustment.

Per lowdin.nulowdin.nuOpen ↗

"Rick Onanian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

onefred said:

I think the ZS headsets look very nice but I don't think that one is better than the other.

The point of the ZS headsets, IIRC, is to get the stem mounted lower. If that's an advantage to
you, than ZS is better; otherwise, it makes little difference.
--
Rick Onanian

That's a good point. The headtube can be made longer without raising the front anymore than it would
be with a traditional headset. Or..., a longer fork could be adapted. Or..., the frame could be made
to better fit a smaller rider. Or...

None of this would really benefit me because I'm tall and ride a short travel fork that's constantly
locked out. I just think the ZS headsets look attractive. My last MTN frame used one but my new one
is back to the regular style. Can't say I really care either way...

Dave

"Nick Payne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Whether the cups are just the machined ends of the headtube or a separate pressed in fitting is
not dependent on whether the frame takes the IS or

ZS

Quoted message said:

headset. I have one of the afforementioned Litespeeds with a Cane Creek IS headset, and the
cups in which the headset bearings sit are a separate machining that is press fit into the
headtube with about a 2mm lip at each end. I've seen other brands of frame using the same
headset where it's

just

Quoted message said:

the headtube itself which has been machined to accept the bearings...

Yes, but I think it's mostly Lightspeeds that are unique in this regard. It's engineering like this
that makes Litespeeds more expensive than many of its competitors.

Dave

Chalo:

Quoted message said:

I have said before that King Cycle Group is not being straight with us about its true objections
to integrated headset designs. I believe their beef is that such systems diminish the physical
visibility, and therefore the status value and advertisement space, of headsets. For a company
that has made millions on $120 headsets emblazoned with "CHRIS KING" in big, bold letters, for high-
end bikes to hide the headset is not a good thing.

Yet further down your post you outlined reasonable objections to integrated headsets, chief among
them the unnecessary complications intrinsic in their design. Why does Chris King get singled out
for what seems to be a slightly paranoid accusation? After all, a manufacturer does not need
alphanumerics to make people recognise its products; shape and colour suffice. Furthermore, "hidden"
headsets have exposed parts, the top cap being a prime candidate for advertisement space.