DaveSSS 

I've read it. I'm also a mechanical engineer, so Brandt's got no better credentials than I do. I still don't agree that a lack of lubrication is the only possible cause for this problem. I've had a mild case of the problem with a Campy headset, years ago. I don't think it was ever overtightened and it was always well lubed. My routes always involved a reasonable number of turns and I know the fork got flopped from side to side before the start of every ride.

A headset that's too tight won't allow the fork to turn freely or self-center after a turn. Leave a headset too loose and the road vibration will beat it to death - just my opinion, not something I've ridden many miles testing.

The problem with old style headsets is getting all of the play out without overtighening. There is little margin for error. I guess the way to disprove the loose headset idea is to leave your headset loose and see if it causes any problems. If not, then I'm wrong.

What's lacking in the Brandt's response is how to tell exactly when the bearings are "too tight", if it's the only possible cause of this problem. I definitely don't want my fork rattling, nor do I want it binding. There is also no proof that riding a loose headset will not cause any damage. If Brandt had done a real-world test to prove his statement, I'd accept that evidence.

At least Brandt does note that the new angular contact cartridge bearings are less likely to suffer this problem. They are also much easier to adjust. All of my bikes have these new bearings. I'd be unlikely to buy a headset without them. I give my headsets all the preload tension they can take without causing drag that would not allow the wheel to self-center. I've never had bearing problem. The greater possibility with integrated headset is the outer bearing race beating up the bearing seat in the head tube, if ridden loose. This was a common problem in the early days of integrated headsets.

The information at this website certainly acknowledges brinelling of a bearing race being a distinct possibility.

http://www.nationalprecision.com/bearing_basics.html


FWIW, I've read Brandt's very old article on chain wear and proven some it to be wrong. He claims that only a chain with excessive elongation will damage cogs to the point that they won't mate with a new chain. I've proven that to be wrong with two different Campy chains and two different cassettes. A chain with only .2% elongation (in 6,000 miles) wore out my 19T steel cog on one cassette. Another chain with even less elongation (in 4,000 miles) wore out both the 19 and 21 tooth Ti cogs on another cassette. What that proved is that leaving any chain in use for too long can wear out the most-used cogs, so it won't mate with a new chain, even if the elongation is very small. The explanation probably probably lies in the fact that the cogs get worn-in to fit smaller diameter rollers. The roller OD on my chians was about .005 inch smaller after 6,000 miles.