Road Cycling - Headsets- Integrated vs Non-integrated

What are the pros and cons of integrated vs non-integrated (standard?) head sets? I seem to recall reading that there are some concerns about integrated head sets potentially damaging the head tube. Can anyone separate fact from fiction on this or provide a link that can educate me? Thanks.

Chris King (http://www.chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_explained/int_hds_explain_1.html) is not particularly fond of integrated headsets.

Many others second his opinion. Arguments range from 'potential frame damage' to 'too modern, hence ugly'.

So far, I personally have not had any major difficulties with my setup (Litespeed Arenberg frame with a Cane Creek Integrated headset).

Bruco.... Thanks for the prompt reply and the link, certainly valuable data to consider.

Personally I agree with CK on the integrated headset thing. From an engineering standpoint, I do think the potential for frame damage is higher. And I don't think they look any prettier either... cleaner maybe but I think it also makes the headtube look dull.

However, that said, you have to remember that Chris King makes products that will last so long you can pass them on to your great grand children. Cockroaches will rule the Earth long before a CK component will wear out. And probably the only thing that will destroy them is when our Sun goes supernova. So to CK, anything that doesn't measure up to that kind of durability and longevity is of lesser value. From a practical standpoint, it is unlikely that many integrated headsets will cause problems over the "useful life" of the frame as defined by the time you personally will keep the bike. Note that I did not say the actual lifetime of the frame. Many people replace their bikes every few years. For me, traditional headset installations have always worked and have proven themselves. Integrated headsets have yet to do the same and seems an answer to a non-problem while at the same time opening up some potential new problems.

Originally posted by khuon
However, that said, you have to remember that Chris King makes products that will last so long you can pass them on to your great grand children.... Integrated headsets have yet to do the same and seems an answer to a non-problem while at the same time opening up some potential new problems.

Yeah, but I bet it won't be compatible with their bikes, just like threaded stem is not compatible with most of today's bikes. Did anybody asked for threadless stem? Changing from threaded to threadless was a non-problem issue, but I bet it's cheaper to produce... not to mention that it does make the bike look fresh and modern.

Anyhow, choosing a headset is as exciting as choosing a radiator for my car. The fact is, headset is not a deciding factor in choosing a bike for 95% of potential buyers. They won't even know it's there.

Originally posted by firebolt
Yeah, but I bet it won't be compatible with their bikes, just like threaded stem is not compatible with most of today's bikes. Did anybody asked for threadless stem? Changing from threaded to threadless was a non-problem issue, but I bet it's cheaper to produce... not to mention that it does make the bike look fresh and modern.


threadless stems do make it easier (and cheaper?) to fit your bike to your body, without having to pull off the headset if you want a longer or shorter reach to the bars. so there is some functional advantage.

Originally posted by rippo
threadless stems do make it easier (and cheaper?) to fit your bike to your body, without having to pull off the headset if you want a longer or shorter reach to the bars. so there is some functional advantage.

Huh? I'm confused. I think threadless stems make it harder to change bike fit. Quill stems with threaded headsets allow you to simply loosen the expander bolt and raise the stem. I've never had to remove a threaded headset in order to change handlebar height. With a threadless headset and stem combination, in order to increase the height, you need a new steerer... or fork if the steerer isn't removable. If you want to lower then you need to play with spacer positioning or cut the steerer once you're done.

sorry khuon, i wasn't specific. i meant stem length, as opposed to height.

If you're a do it yourselfer, it's easier to set up an integrated headset. I'd call that practical.

I think that, for most road bikes, headset strain is not as much of an issue. Granted, there are rough roads and gravel roads to contend with, but it's not like you're bombing downhill runs on them. As a result, I think that an integrated headset offers a negligable disadvantage to a regular headset in terms of durability. For me, it wasn't a deciding factor with my new steed. It just came with an integrated headset and I said, "Oh, look, something different". I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker, personally.

And, remember that, like Cannondale and its bemoaning of using carbon stays on aluminum bikes to smooth the ride, King is slightly biased towards its own production methods and products. They are trying to sell you this stuff, after all. (Not that they don't know what they're talking about, just remember the biased point of view they come from when you read what they say.)

Nobody mentioned that for short riders, the integrated cups in the headtube in an integrated headset will lower stem height a bit for say short riders looking at small racing bikes or time trial bikes in the sub 51cm range.

Jay

I don't have a bike with the new threadless design, but I have set up a few for friends, my question is how do they wear? I have wore out a headset or two in the past. I was unable to get parts so I had to replace the headset. Are there parts for the integrated headsets it the bearing surface wears out? I remember when Klein first put an integrated headset in their bike and that was also the concern there. Does anyone have any experience with those?

From an engineering point of view I see no issues with Integrated headsets.
The headset is there to join the fork to the frame in such a manner that it allows free rotation while preventing vertical movement. Integrated headsets do this.
They provide the same amount of support, especially the Cane Creek headsets which seem to be seeting the std for Integrated headsets.
The big issue with integrated headsets in supposedly bearing life and CK says they won't last as long.
But that's false information IMO. Bearing life is determined by contact area, not bearing size although in some cases the to are related.
Once again it's a mtter of design.

I think they look neater and have opened up an area for a bit of innovation in what has otherwise become a staid product. If my Cane Creek's bearing fail I'll get new ones.
They don't touch my frame asthey have their own races and use sealed angular contact cartridge bearing so they are adjustable.
The integrated headset on my F3000SL mTB is two years old and is still going strong.

I see no reason why there needs to be contention over this component. Like all headsets, if adjusted correctly, integrated headsets will last a long time.

Originally posted by ImprezaDrvr
If you're a do it yourselfer, it's easier to set up an integrated headset. I'd call that practical.

Yes, that is certainly a bonus of integrated headsets. One doesn't need to own a press and reamer.


Originally posted by ImprezaDrvr
I think that, for most road bikes, headset strain is not as much of an issue.

This is true and why I don't think it's much of a factour for most people. I also think that on Ti or steel frames it's even less of a factour than with Al.



Originally posted by ImprezaDrvr
And, remember that, like Cannondale and its bemoaning of using carbon stays on aluminum bikes to smooth the ride, King is slightly biased towards its own production methods and products. They are trying to sell you this stuff, after all. (Not that they don't know what they're talking about, just remember the biased point of view they come from when you read what they say.)

Yeah, I was trying to hint at the same thing. CK is biased based upon their own high standards. Impressive standards that they are... For many people, that may not be a big deal.

Originally posted by rippo
sorry khuon, i wasn't specific. i meant stem length, as opposed to height.

I'm still confused. Why would you have to remove the headset in order to incrase stem length?

Originally posted by khuon
I'm still confused. Why would you have to remove the headset in order to incrase stem length?

i think i'll bow out of this conversation. :) i think i'm a) slightly confused and b) talking about something else.

I wonder how well integrated headsets are aligned on cheaper bikes. Do they ream and carve out the shape after welding, or do they put the headtube on a lathe before construction and heat distortion.
There is an issue of headset life on smaller bikes with very short head tubes, but this has been solved by the wider diameter headsets which are now standard.

i don't really know anything about headsets, but i thought that some integrated headsets uses replaceable beaings track...

Originally posted by Code Monkey
i don't really know anything about headsets, but i thought that some integrated headsets uses replaceable beaings track...

I think you're thinking of internal headsets or hidden headsets.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will) because this id from memory , but isn't CK's biggest problem with integrated headsets the issue of the frame being the cup for the bearings and race? Without a replaceable cup your frame takes the abuse the cup normally would and what happens if you wear the inner surface of your frame unevenly (no cups)? Your frame is damaged. For someone who keeps and rides frames for years this might be a major issue. I have a 17 year old frame I still ride somewhat regularly. I think I'm on my third (maybe second) headset. I vcan't imagine being able to do that with an integrated headset.

Just think, if you had a King headset you would probably still be on your first. I have nothing but King on any of my bikes.

Originally posted by georgesnatcher
Just think, if you had a King headset you would probably still be on your first. I have nothing but King on any of my bikes.

I have a Chris King on the bike now. Normally I can't afford king but I really like this frame so I splurged.

so what do i do when i wear out the race on the frame of my Tuscany...? throw it away...?

Your Tuscany, like mine, has replaceable bearing seats not races. The Tuscany is designed to use the Cane Creek IS-2 or IS-6 integrated headset.

It does not use the frame as a bearing surface merely as support. The bearings are contained within the headset which when worn out is simply replaced with another.

Any frame manufacturer that uses the frame as the bearing race is asking for trouble.
The Tuscany uses what is in effect, a Hidden headset.

Bikedud I'm with you on why I thought CK didn't like the integrated headsets.

my understanding is that the integrated headsets use the frame as a race.

internal headsets are "hidden"... with internal cups, i don' t really think CK had a problem with these other than "whats the point of this? you're not saving any weight and not gaining anything from these... so why change?"

the phrase Integrated headset has come to mean Hidden headset over the last couple of years.
When most manufacturers mention 'Integrated Headset' in their marketing they are in fact refering to a Hidden Headset, i.e. aheadset with it's own bearings races fitted into the headtube of the frame.

The first 'Integrated headsets has the larger race machined into the headtube of the frame. It was thought that the added stiffness this provided woul prevent wear problems.
However these were shortly replaced by headsets which featured a removable outer race (fitted inside the frame.

Cane Creek I believe was first out withtheir IS Integrated headsets which are completely selfcontained. These rest in specailly machined cups which locate the headset and provide the necessary support.

technical advantage?

Non IMO, perhaps a bit of additonal aerodynamic efficiency but I'm sure larger gaincan be made by improving flexibility and lowering your handlebars.

They do make hte bike look neater though.

I like the Cane Creek Design and willbe sticking to it. Seems very robust as it has taken a bit of abuse

As someone who has worn out two Cane Creek headsets, one within six months, I don't have a lot of confidence in their products. King's headsets on the other hand are near indestructible and will probably out last my frames.

Just to throw something else in, How can you tell which one you have :confused:

I really believe that the integrated headset is based on pure hype. Every so often, the major bicycle companies need to come out with some new feature. One year, it happened to be integrated headsets. Frame damage? Also keep in mind that these race-style frames are not built to last. I'm sure the headtube will last the length of the bike frame.

Originally posted by danr
I really believe that the integrated headset is based on pure hype. Every so often, the major bicycle companies need to come out with some new feature.

Bianchi marketed an integrated headset back in the 1950's,
the design may even be older than that.


Marty

Originally posted by lotek
Bianchi marketed an integrated headset back in the 1950's,
the design may even be older than that.

Marty

Well, it was hype back then, and now it is just recycled hype. If anyone can explain why the integrated headset is that much better than the non, I will agree.

Innovation for the sake of innovation. The same could be said for a variety of changes that have come about in road bikes of late. What's the real advantage of compact frames? You save very little, if any, weight overall due to the crazy long seatposts and stems you need to make a small bike fit a tall rider, for example, yet everyone and their dog seems to be jumping on that bandwagon. The way I see it, this is a pretty harmless trend in road cycling. I'll put it this way: If an integrated headset is all most folks have to worry about, then most folks have it pretty good.

danr, what frames are you talking about that aren't built to last? We're starting to see integrated or hidden headsets on more and more entry level framesets, which tend to last forever if they're taken care of at all. It's not just 16 pound bikes you're seeing these on, so I don't see how any claim of bikes not being built to last applies to this. What's a race-style frame in your mind?

I singled out race-style frames in particular since they take much more abuse (provided they are ridden like they should be). Of course, if you are a finess rider (not that there's anything wrong with that), the bike will last forever. But racing bikes are built for racers, and they are not built to last if you actually ride them hard. Riders that ride entry-level bikes will not put a bike through that abuse, therefore the integrated headset will last on a bike like that. Besides, why put an integrated headset on an entry-level bike? So the salesman can sit back and say, "Look, it has more features. It has an integrated headset." Of course, we know better. But the newbie doesn't.

And why aren't integrated headsets on higher end bikes? Probably because they do no good on a bike like that. ie carbon fiber frames. Is there a carbon fiber frame out there with an integrated headset? I'm sure someone is bold enough to build one, but cf frames like trek and calfee don't have an integrated headset on their headtubes. A cf headtube probably can't take it.

But I do agree ImprezaDriver, innovation for the sake of innovation. I have bought into hype before, and I probably will in the future. Honestly, do I really need a $750 bike and a $1200 bike? No, I do not need them. But I want them. On top of that, I have spent extra money on things just because I liked the way they look. I'm sure most of us have.

Take a look at the Look frames, they use integrated headsets in their CF models...

But then they also use 25.0 mm seat tubes too :)

Jay

;)

Well ya tried...

To recap on what I see are:

1) If the headset is not tightend properly then the bearings will bang the heck out of the integrated cups and may ovalize the head-tube. I've had to replace a non-integrated set on a friend's bike and he is glad it wasn't integrated or he would be looking for a new frame.

2) threaded-vs-threadless... Is this better? Well ummm.... Dunno... While the concept allows a stiffer connection of the stem to the fork it removes quite a bit of adustablity... First off you cannot raise or lower the stem unless you A) leave a lot of extra fork-tube sticking up, B) buy a riser stem, C) buy a new fork. Second the distance (length) of the stem is a non-issue as either quill or threadless you would need a new stem... Unless you use something like the LOOK ERGO stem which will allow you to do both (on either threaded or threadless).

In conclusion... I think that we coulda stayed with threadless on roadbikes... The modern look came from the mountain bike world where they needed stiffer stem-to-fork connections. We did not need that but the industry did not want to maintain two versions... This is also the reason we switched from 1inch to 1-1/8 inch steerers.

Wonder if roadies will be forced to 1-1/4 steerers now that this size is entering the mountain bike world???

I think I'd like to stay with non-integrated so I won't have as disposable a frame.

And why aren't integrated headsets on higher end bikes? Probably because they do no good on a bike like that. ie carbon fiber frames. Is there a carbon fiber frame out there with an integrated headset? I'm sure someone is bold enough to build one, but cf frames like trek and calfee don't have an integrated headset on their headtubes. A cf headtube probably can't take it.

Bianchi's high-end carbon bikes use integrated headset.

http://www.bianchiusa.com/site/bikes/images/zoom/39_Carbon_Chorus.jpg

http://www.bianchiusa.com/site/bikes/39_Carbon_Chorus_zoom.html

Yeah, but I'm sure that there are aluminum inserts in the headtube in order to protect the plastic from what it can't handle.

I'm sure someone is bold enough to build one, but cf frames like trek and calfee don't have an integrated headset on their headtubes. A cf headtube probably can't take it.

I'm no proponent of integrated headsets but I would have to say that most if not all CF frames have a metal insert (typically aluminum) for the headtube just like they have metal inserts for the seattube.

Yeah, but I'm sure that there are aluminum inserts in the headtube in order to protect the plastic from what it can't handle.

Ack... you beat me to it! :D

that's kinda standard design for carbon though. Even the BB shell has an insert (Al or Ti) so the BB can be threaded in...

Here is a 1933 Bianchi Integrated headset, still functional after all these
years.

look at those lugs mmm

I singled out race-style frames in particular since they take much more abuse (provided they are ridden like they should be). Of course, if you are a finess rider (not that there's anything wrong with that), the bike will last forever. But racing bikes are built for racers, and they are not built to last if you actually ride them hard. Riders that ride entry-level bikes will not put a bike through that abuse, therefore the integrated headset will last on a bike like that. Besides, why put an integrated headset on an entry-level bike? So the salesman can sit back and say, "Look, it has more features. It has an integrated headset." Of course, we know better. But the newbie doesn't.

And why aren't integrated headsets on higher end bikes? Probably because they do no good on a bike like that. ie carbon fiber frames. Is there a carbon fiber frame out there with an integrated headset? I'm sure someone is bold enough to build one, but cf frames like trek and calfee don't have an integrated headset on their headtubes. A cf headtube probably can't take it.

But I do agree ImprezaDriver, innovation for the sake of innovation. I have bought into hype before, and I probably will in the future. Honestly, do I really need a $750 bike and a $1200 bike? No, I do not need them. But I want them. On top of that, I have spent extra money on things just because I liked the way they look. I'm sure most of us have.
Hey dude,,, I ride a Litespeed and mine is integrated as well as the rest of their ti frames.. Or isnt Litespeed high end?

I don't think Trek will not be going to integrated anytime soon, the USPS team just signed a deal with Chris King to have their headsets on the race bikes...King does not make an integrated headset as far as I know. I think that Litespeed needed to add new features to their new year's line of the bikes so integrated is now the in thing...btw why are all (but 3)of Litespeed's frames weighing in at 3.2 to 3.5 pounds?

I saw this women on a steel DeRosa with Record and threaded headset with quill stem...classic look and beautiful. :lol:

Hey dude,,, I ride a Litespeed and mine is integrated as well as the rest of their ti frames.. Or isnt Litespeed high end?

Sorry to bring back an old discussion but an update ...

Their lightest road bike, the Ghisallo, has the classic headset style, while just about every other model has the integrated/internal headset style, with the Classic as the exception.

CK now has a hiddenset available. It's called the Perdido headset and it uses a hidden cup inside the headtube. They also released their own "standard" in an attempt to surpass the Cane Creek standard for integrated headsets.

For a general overview of headset types see
http://www.parktool.com/repair_help/howfix_headtypes.shtml

Suspect it is one of being able to, needing to, and what the customer wants.

Colnago is also well known for avoiding the integrated head sets (until recently?).

Perhaps Litespeed still can make a lighter non-integrated set for the time being and that is why the G-bike has the old style.

I am not a fan of integrated but I think it is only a matter of time that(nearly) all bikes will be built this way.