cross frames & integrated headsets?

[[email protected]]

I've recently been trying to find and build my first cross bike, and I
am surprised that so many cross frames use integrated headsets. This
seems counter-intuitive to me: cross = function takes precedence over
fashion, while IS = fashion over function. Is there a good technical
reason for using integrated headsets in cross frames?

Alan

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 16 Dec 2005 15:11:39 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've recently been trying to find and build my first cross bike, and I
>am surprised that so many cross frames use integrated headsets. This
>seems counter-intuitive to me: cross = function takes precedence over
>fashion, while IS = fashion over function. Is there a good technical
>reason for using integrated headsets in cross frames?

Is there a reason not to? Assuming all else is equal, why not?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 16 Dec 2005 15:11:39 -0800, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I've recently been trying to find and build my first cross bike, and I
> >am surprised that so many cross frames use integrated headsets. This
> >seems counter-intuitive to me: cross = function takes precedence over
> >fashion, while IS = fashion over function. Is there a good technical
> >reason for using integrated headsets in cross frames?
>
> Is there a reason not to? Assuming all else is equal, why not?

Chris King has led a charge against the integrated design, asserting
that it opens up the possibility of wrecking a frame because the bearing
could move against the head tube: in an integrated design, the races are
in press-fit contact with the head tube.

http://chrisking.com/pdfs/Int Headsets Explained.pdf

(warning: PDF).

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[[email protected]]

>Assuming all else is equal, why not?

If "all else is equal", which might be a big assumption, then there is
no reason for the integrated headset other than fashion. As I said
originally, cross equipment seems to be a strange place to be concerned
with fashion, and yet there appear to be a large proportion of cross
frames with integrated headsets.

Alan

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 16 Dec 2005 21:11:13 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Assuming all else is equal, why not?
>
>If "all else is equal", which might be a big assumption, then there is
>no reason for the integrated headset other than fashion. As I said
>originally, cross equipment seems to be a strange place to be concerned
>with fashion, and yet there appear to be a large proportion of cross
>frames with integrated headsets.

Sorry I wasn't clear. Are you saying that intregrated headsets don't
actually function? If so, what is wrong with them?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Derk]

[email protected] wrote:

> I've recently been trying to find and build my first cross bike, and I
> am surprised that so many cross frames use integrated headsets.
I don't think it's a good idea either, but that goes also for road frames.

>This seems counter-intuitive to me: cross = function takes precedence over
> fashion, while IS = fashion over function. Is there a good technical
> reason for using integrated headsets in cross frames?
No.

In Europe, I know of Stevens and Kocmo who produce crossframes with
non-integrated headsets. At Kocmo it's a special order, I think

Greets, Derk

 

[Antti Salonen]

Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> Chris King has led a charge against the integrated design, asserting
> that it opens up the possibility of wrecking a frame because the bearing
> could move against the head tube: in an integrated design, the races are
> in press-fit contact with the head tube.

I'm wondering though how real this problem is in practice. After all,
we've been hearing these warnings for years, but integrated headsets
have been on the market for five years already. If there is a real
problem, no doubt the shops would've already seen the results. There
are several people running or working at bike shops in this newsgroups,
but I don't remember reading a single report.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a smart design, but telling everybody to
stay away from otherwise nice and competetively priced frames because of
integrated headsets might be excessive.

-as

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

[email protected] wrote:
> I've recently been trying to find and build my first cross bike, and I
> am surprised that so many cross frames use integrated headsets. This
> seems counter-intuitive to me: cross = function takes precedence over
> fashion, while IS = fashion over function. Is there a good technical
> reason for using integrated headsets in cross frames?
>
> Alan

No, none. As for JFT-it is a bad idea considering the front end
pounding and the possibility of screwing up the aluminum(normally)
headtube. Too bad to replace a frame because a HS went south.

Bicycles are all abot fashion...too bad but they are, even cross
frames. Another reason builders like them is that they often use big
oversized downtubes and it's easier(cheaper) to weld these big tubes to
a large headtube...the largest being an 1 1/8inch integrated HS
headtube.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Antti Salonen wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Chris King has led a charge against the integrated design, asserting
> > that it opens up the possibility of wrecking a frame because the bearing
> > could move against the head tube: in an integrated design, the races are
> > in press-fit contact with the head tube.
>
> I'm wondering though how real this problem is in practice. After all,
> we've been hearing these warnings for years, but integrated headsets
> have been on the market for five years already. If there is a real
> problem, no doubt the shops would've already seen the results. There
> are several people running or working at bike shops in this newsgroups,
> but I don't remember reading a single report.

How about three. I have reported on three frames where the headtube HS
bearing 'shelves' were deformed so no such thing as an adjusted HS for
these.
>
> I'm not saying it's necessarily a smart design, but telling everybody to
> stay away from otherwise nice and competetively priced frames because of
> integrated headsets might be excessive.
>
> -as

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> I've recently been trying to find and build my first cross bike, and I
> am surprised that so many cross frames use integrated headsets. This
> seems counter-intuitive to me: cross = function takes precedence over
> fashion, while IS = fashion over function. Is there a good technical
> reason for using integrated headsets in cross frames?
>
> Alan

Would the lack of a press fit allow thinner head tube walls? If so that
could save weight in addition to the weight saved from integrating the
head cups.

Would the (potentially) larger diameter head tube mate up nicer with a
large diameter down tube? Some might consider that a potential
advantage.

Would an integrated headset allow the down and top tubes to be welded
to the head tube a couple of centimeters farther apart vertically? That
might make the frame stronger, or lighter, so it seems that might be a
technical advantage.

 

[Mark Hickey]

Derk <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:

>>This seems counter-intuitive to me: cross = function takes precedence over
>> fashion, while IS = fashion over function. Is there a good technical
>> reason for using integrated headsets in cross frames?
>No.
>
>In Europe, I know of Stevens and Kocmo who produce crossframes with
>non-integrated headsets. At Kocmo it's a special order, I think

FWIW, my 'cross (and all other...) frames are designed for
non-integrated (dare I say "traditional") headsets. The only real
advantage I can imagine is that they would help drop the height of the
bars lower than you could do with a traditional headset. However
since very few bikes are sold without stems with a bit of rise these
days, I would think that would fall into the "disadvantage" column for
90% of the cyclists in the world.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Derk]

Mark Hickey wrote:


> FWIW, my 'cross (and all other...) frames are designed for
> non-integrated (dare I say "traditional") headsets.
I didn't know that! I find it an interesting cross frame, but the BIG
problem for us European's is that so much money goes to import taxes when
goods are ordered from overseas....

KOCMO offers titanium forks. Ti forks would look nice in your framesets too!

Greetings, Derk

 

[M-gineering]

Derk wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
>
>>FWIW, my 'cross (and all other...) frames are designed for
>>non-integrated (dare I say "traditional") headsets.
>
> I didn't know that! I find it an interesting cross frame, but the BIG
> problem for us European's is that so much money goes to import taxes when
> goods are ordered from overseas....


6% + VAT
--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

 

[Derk]

M-gineering wrote:

> 6% + VAT
Are you sure? What about the VAT? Can one get the VAT back that has been
added to the price that one pay's abroad or is it: price of article + 6% +
Dutch VAT e.g. ? That's what I understand and in that case you can add more
than 20% to the original amount.

Greetings, Derk

 

[Derk]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Then they stayed and rode the bikes on some classic US roads or trails,
> returning home with their "used", duty/tax-free bikes. They claim that
> the savings nearly paid for the trip.
I know. That's what I hear also about other objects.

> I just had a local customer build up a 'cross frame with a Sibex ti
> fork - I'll be interested to see how it looks / performs. I've always
> been dubious of ti for a fork material, but hey - if it LOOKS good...
> ;-)
I heard from a German ex-pro CX rider (former german national champion) who
sells his own line of CX frames, that he saw brand new carbon forks that
broke on the first ride. he now uses the titanium Kocmo fork himself in his
personal CX bike and is very happy with it.

I've never thought that carbon forks were a good idea in CX bikes......

Greetings, Derk

 

[Mark Hickey]

Derk <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> FWIW, my 'cross (and all other...) frames are designed for
>> non-integrated (dare I say "traditional") headsets.

>I didn't know that! I find it an interesting cross frame, but the BIG
>problem for us European's is that so much money goes to import taxes when
>goods are ordered from overseas....

Isn't that the truth?! I have had customers from Europe actually fly
over and pick up their bikes in person. Then they stayed and rode the
bikes on some classic US roads or trails, returning home with their
"used", duty/tax-free bikes. They claim that the savings nearly paid
for the trip.

>KOCMO offers titanium forks. Ti forks would look nice in your framesets too!

I just had a local customer build up a 'cross frame with a Sibex ti
fork - I'll be interested to see how it looks / performs. I've always
been dubious of ti for a fork material, but hey - if it LOOKS good...
;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[[email protected]]

>Would the lack of a press fit allow thinner head tube walls? If so that
>could save weight in addition to the weight saved from integrating the
>head cups.

I'm only looking at the bottom half of the market. I've never seen an
inexpensive cross build where weight was much of a consideration.

>Would the (potentially) larger diameter head tube mate up nicer with a
>large diameter down tube? Some might consider that a potential
>advantage.

Yes, that would seem to be an advantage for the manufacturer.

>Would an integrated headset allow the down and top tubes to be welded
>to the head tube a couple of centimeters farther apart vertically? That
>might make the frame stronger, or lighter, so it seems that might be a
>technical advantage.

Is this what actually happens? Most of these frames seem to have
relatively short headtubes.

 

[[email protected]]

>Are you saying that intregrated headsets don't
>actually function? If so, what is wrong with them?

No, I have no experience with them. I was simply expecting cross
equipment to emphasize proven reliability/durability and therefore use
"traditional" solutions. But as speculated elsewhere in this thread,
the advantages which headset integration offers to frame manufacturers
probably outweighs other considerations.

Alan

 

[SMS]

[email protected] wrote:
> I've recently been trying to find and build my first cross bike, and I
> am surprised that so many cross frames use integrated headsets. This
> seems counter-intuitive to me: cross = function takes precedence over
> fashion, while IS = fashion over function. Is there a good technical
> reason for using integrated headsets in cross frames?

It's a financial reason, not a technical reason.

 

[Antti Salonen]

Derk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Are you sure? What about the VAT? Can one get the VAT back that has been
> added to the price that one pay's abroad or is it: price of article + 6% +
> Dutch VAT e.g. ? That's what I understand and in that case you can add more
> than 20% to the original amount.

The problem is, I think, that there's no VAT as such in the US. So you
pay whatever the price is in the US, then customs duty and VAT when you
receive it in the EU. Customs duty in Finland is 5.5 % for most bike
parts and it should be about the same for you. Both customs duty and
VAT are also added to shipping costs, which makes ordering stuff like
bike frames very expensive. Generally you don't want to order anything
expensive from the US if you're in the EU.

Ordering from Europe to USA is a different story because depending on
the EU member 16 to 25 % of the already quite competetive prices is
VAT, and I don't think the tariffs are as high in the US. Of course
with the weak dollar it isn't as appealing as it used to be.

-as