Needing to buy an integrated headset for a new frame, I googled it to see what's available and followed a link to the Chris King website where an article asked readers to contact bike manufacturers and petition against having them.
"Don't let your future bike have this foolish headset."
Are they so bad????? Clearly I'll die using one, but what's actually wrong with them?
My carbon stumpy has campy style drop-in headset bearings and I think this is for a very good reason. I can't imagine how much damage your average hammer-wielding home mechanic could do to the headtube of a carbon bike trying to muller home a conventional headset cup.
Guess it's akin to shimano hubs vs sealed bearing hubs. Look after a shimano hub and it will be fine, however if you don't and let dirt get in then you'll ruin the bearing race and the whole hub. Run sealed bearing hubs with dodgy bearings and you'll still only have to replace the bearings at the end of the day.
So with the integrated headset if you don't look after it you run the risk of wrecking the races, and hence the whole frame. With a normal headset you can just replace the headset..
well that's what I think anyway
er hope that's clear!
Chris King website where an article asked readers to contact bike manufacturers and petition against having them.
Interesting...
...
what's actually wrong with them?
The jist of it is that headset cups are made to a tolerance that is hundreds of times higher than that of a frame. Even then you get bearing movement and the cups wear out. With the bearings directly into the frame its the frame that will wear. (and quicker if the tolerances are worse).
I assume the same argument could be used for BB30 though the loading forces are different.
I've got a road bike with an integrated headset and have never suffered from any of the rubbish King are spouting.
Looks like they dabbled with integrated in the past.
Looks like a semi-int (or what CK call 'internal' headset) to me - could be wrong though.
That CK one up there is semi-integrated, it still features cups and wouldn't be susceptible to the damage CK claim.
Of course, CK's stock and trade is insanely overpriced headsets so of course they're going to complain about someone effectively removing the necessity for £120 worth of two bearings and two machined cups...
There's nothing wrong with it. They work just fine in the real world as several years of use have shown. CK don't half talk some bs. I wonder if they'll also post an article explaining why the CK headset design of using an o ring to locate the top cap of a headset instead of a comprrssion ring/wedge is such an awful idea from the same design perspective too 
Of course you're right, 
it's something I came across while looking for integrated.
So why have they, and I think they have, discontinued the semi-integrated?
Probably because people won't pay ck prices for them when there's hardly any of it to see 
Which incidentally is the reason I reckon they posted about the 'bad' headsets in the first place...
With the bearings directly into the frame its the frame that will wear. (and quicker if the tolerances are worse).Wrong, the bearings don't rotate on the frame itself, they still have cartridge bearings, so only run on themselves, the parts that sit againt the inside of the headtube don't move at all.
no point having a precision headset if the 2 ends of the head tube aren't concentric and parallel.
The frame will wear if the tolerances aren't quite right or if there's any movement. In practice it's a non issue
got this for sale, FSA impact. I think integrated is okay but i do prefer normal headsets over all the varietys
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
