has anyone damaged their frames with integrated headsets?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by drewski
chris king is adamantly opposed to integrated headsets since the bearings are pressed into the frame and not into cups. they say any wear will attack the frame and not easily replaceable headset parts. http://www.chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_explained/int_hds_explain_1.html

makes sense in theory. how about in practice? anyone have headtube issues with frame that have integrated headsets?

CKs aticle is self servng.I have yet to hear of damage caused by an integrated HS. There are integrated types that DO use a cup pressed into the frame for the bearing to run in.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
CKs aticle is self servng.I have yet to hear of damage caused by an integrated HS. There are integrated types that DO use a cup pressed into the frame for the bearing to run in.

well that's why i'm seeking other opinions!! 🙂

noone i know has had issues and i stumbled on the CK article cause i'm looking at a used K2 Mod 5.0 bike which has an Integrated Headset. i was thinking of swapping the Cane Creek HS for a CK one (blind brand devotion).

after seeing the article i was wondering if i could be setting myself up for a world of hurt down the road. no evidence to that effect yet!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by drewski
well that's why i'm seeking other opinions!! 🙂

noone i know has had issues and i stumbled on the CK article cause i'm looking at a used K2 Mod 5.0 bike which has an Integrated Headset. i was thinking of swapping the Cane Creek HS for a CK one (blind brand devotion).

after seeing the article i was wondering if i could be setting myself up for a world of hurt down the road. no evidence to that effect yet!

Can you even put a Ck in that frame? I think there are better things to worry about.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Can you even put a Ck in that frame? I think there are better things to worry about.

no you can't. that's what i found out when looking at the CK page as well as stumbling accross the integrated headset article.

Chris King. Good headsets, but they've rested on their laurels and FSA and Cane Creek are now making headsets of equal if not better durability and better seals. Chris King is now all about marketing.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by BaCardi
Chris King. Good headsets, but they've rested on their laurels and FSA and Cane Creek are now making headsets of equal if not better durability and better seals. Chris King is now all about marketing.

Oh, pleeze.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by drewski
chris king is adamantly opposed to integrated headsets since the bearings are pressed into the frame and not into cups. they say any wear will attack the frame and not easily replaceable headset parts. http://www.chrisking.com/tech/int_headsets_explained/int_hds_explain_1.html

makes sense in theory. how about in practice? anyone have headtube issues with frame that have integrated headsets?

The CK article is very outdated and complete bunk. I have a Cane Creek IS-6 integrated headset which I installed myself. While it's true there are no separate cups, the bearings press fit to the permanent frame insert and never rotate against the frame part at all. In essence the bearings act as a cup on the side that contacts the frame and then a true roller bearing on the side that contacts the fork crown and top cap assembly.

Because of this they act and behave exactly like a regular headset with cups, but are made with fewer parts and hence are lighter.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Oh, pleeze.

I actually have two King headsets on two different bikes. They are very good quality, but its not like the old days. I've overhauled bikes and have had the opportunity to work on other headsets and the competition has caught up and IMO passed King as far as better seals. In particular, I think that Cane Creek and FSA make damn good headsets as well. In fact, the Cane Creek internal system is a better system for integrated headsets than King. I read the King literature on integrated systems and I'm not buying it. Its a nice headset, but to claim that they are tons better than the new internal headsets like Cane Creek is just absolutely absurd.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by drewski
no you can't.

Yes, you can... provided you've got a lathe and some raw material available and don't mind some extra grams. It took me about about half an hour to turn two old pipe fitttings into bushings that allowed me to install an FSA headset into a frame meant for integrated headsets.🙂

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by davidbod
The CK article is very outdated and complete bunk. I have a Cane Creek IS-6 integrated headset which I installed myself. While it's true there are no separate cups, the bearings press fit to the permanent frame insert and never rotate against the frame part at all. In essence the bearings act as a cup on the side that contacts the frame and then a true roller bearing on the side that contacts the fork crown and top cap assembly.

Because of this they act and behave exactly like a regular headset with cups, but are made with fewer parts and hence are lighter.

Since they are IN the headtube,they cannot act and behave EXACTLY like a regular HS.

well i got the bike. comes with a Cane Creek IS-2. one thing i've noticed is that it seems harder to properly adjust the headset.

even after tightening so there there is no play, i got this metallic clunking sound when going over some bumps or rought roads. further tightening by what seemed to be too much room for error got rid of this.

this never was an issue with the threaded or "regular" threadless headsets i've adjusted in the past. i talked with a couple of LBSes and they all mentioned this as an issue with the Integrated (with no cups) design as well.

I agree, King still takes the cake.