integrated vs conventional headsets

hwttdz said:

Which do you think is better and what's on your bike right now?

I've read that conventional headsets are more durable, weigh a little more (but you have to add in other places so all said weigh less), look worse (I disagree), and are easier to adjust. I'm definately going conventional on my next bike.

if its so definate why ask otheres opinion

i prefer threadless cept maybe track bikes or old school frames

hwttdz said:

Which do you think is better and what's on your bike right now?

I've read that conventional headsets are more durable, weigh a little more (but you have to add in other places so all said weigh less), look worse (I disagree), and are easier to adjust. I'm definately going conventional on my next bike.

Personally, I'm unconvinced by the skepticsm held towards integrated headsets... I mean, I understand the theory behind the worries, but as far as I know, there isn't any real data that illustrates there to be a problem .

That said, I don't see anything wrong with the old school rig, and if I was chosing between a pair of otherwise COMPLETELY identical bikes, would just as soon avoid the integrated one on the slim chance there's a real risk with the newer trend. But that hasn't stopped me from buying two consecutive bikes with integrated headsets.

Who doesn't love the look of a sparkely King, though?

It is definate that I am going to use a conventional headset on my next bike, what is not definate are the merits of the "skepticism held towards integrated headsets."

Threadless/threaded vs integrated/conventional are two very different things. Most people agree that threadless are superior to threaded.

Anyone experienced any negatives with integrated headsets?

hwttdz said:

Most people agree that threadless are superior to threaded.

Really? Why??

I do not believe you can use a carbon steer tube with a threaded headset. Threaded add an extra link to the chain (ask a rock climber why extra links in a chain are bad). Threaded weigh more (not a lot, probably not enough to matter, but if you're at it). Threadless are easier to adjust, just move spacers around, but you cannot adjust past the top of the steer tube (so don't cut it too short, and maybe leave a spacer on top so you can change your mind). Supposedly they are also stronger and easier to adjust (but that's a claim made by a threadless headset manufacturer). You also have a much greater choice of stems and forks if you go threadless, note that this is not really a fair advantage (does not make threadless better) but in practical matters it is an advantage.

Note I qualified my statement with most people, so feel free to disagree, however if you do so I'd like to know your logic. I admittedly don't know all the ins and outs of headsets, hence asking for opinions.

hwttdz said:

Threaded add an extra link to the chain

D'oh????? :eek: :eek: :eek: And all your other stuff is how they are different. None of which makes threadless 'better'.Functionally they operate the same. One better aspect is that they can be adjusted in an emergency with an allen wrench which one is more likely to have out on the road or trail. But I'v never had a threaded one need it,so even that point may be moot.

Ok, since you don't have a rock climber handy (apparently so anyhow), I'll try to explain. You are setting an anchor for a climb, you have a big fat tree (not going to move) 6 feet away from where you need to hang your anchors. Your choices are 1, girth hitch (knot of sorts that doesn't slide or even have the possibility of coming undone) the tree with an 8 foot loop of webbing (extra goes around the tree). 2) girth hitch the tree with a 4 foot piece of webbing, girth hitch a second 4 foot piece to the first 3) girth hitch the three with 4 foot piece, chain on second 4 foot piece with a carabiner. In theory all your pieces are faultless so no matter how many you chain together it won't matter. But when given the choice simpler is better, and there are less possible places your setup can go wrong.

I take this to mean you like threaded headsets? can you explain the advantages you see in them?

Sorry: just saw you edited your message, need to read it again. I was distracted by lunch.

Yes being stronger, lighter, and easier to adjust are just differences, however I believe these differences confer distinct benefits. Use of a carbon steer tube does not go one way or the other, but if you want to use a carbon steer tube that's a definate plus (advantage) for threadless systems.

hwttdz said:

Ok, since you don't have a rock climber handy (apparently so anyhow), I'll try to explain. You are setting an anchor for a climb, you have a big fat tree (not going to move) 6 feet away from where you need to hang your anchors. Your choices are 1, girth hitch (knot of sorts that doesn't slide or even have the possibility of coming undone) the tree with an 8 foot loop of webbing (extra goes around the tree). 2) girth hitch the tree with a 4 foot piece of webbing, girth hitch a second 4 foot piece to the first 3) girth hitch the three with 4 foot piece, chain on second 4 foot piece with a carabiner. In theory all your pieces are faultless so no matter how many you chain together it won't matter. But when given the choice simpler is better, and there are less possible places your setup can go wrong.

I take this to mean you like threaded headsets? can you explain the advantages you see in them?

And, just why is threadless simpler?? And why don't you tell me where this extra link in the chain is?? I have lots of both. The only advantage of threadless is when I'm trying to save weight and want to use an all CF fork. Besides, on many of my bikes, threaded with a traditional quill stem just looks better.

I believe, still not an expert here, that on a threadless bike the steer tube goes directly through the headset and the stem clamps on the other side. On a threaded headset the steer tube goes halfway through, is cut at a slope to match the quill stem and the two are bolted together from above. You could argue that there is still only one link between the fork and the bars, but the bolt counts, and in threadless systems the bolt is not part of the chain.

You point out looks as an advantage for threaded, ok, I can live with that, but I think there are some good looking ones on both sides and some ugly ones on both side and I don't know if I'd make a decision based on that.

Edit: Although this is interesting I originally intended this to compare conventional (external?) to integrated headsets. Maybe we can stick a little closer to that.

hwttdz said:

I believe, still not an expert here, that on a threadless bike the steer tube goes directly through the headset and the stem clamps on the other side. On a threaded headset the steer tube goes halfway through, is cut at a slope to match the quill stem and the two are bolted together from above. You could argue that there is still only one link between the fork and the bars, but the bolt counts, and in threadless systems the bolt is not part of the chain.

Well, with respect to threadless, you are forgetting the topcap,expander plug or starnut and the bolt from topcap to expander/star nut that is required for preloading the bearings. I think you need to look real hard at a picture of how one works and think it thru real good. ABTW, the steerer on a threaded goes all the way to the top nut of the HS rather than halfway thru. Obviously, you don't really have a clue, and have probably never even seen a threaded setup, let alone used or dealt with one. but yet are trying without much success to be an expert....LOL

Thank you, this is maybe a step in the right direction.
Addressing:
"topcap,expander plug or starnut and the bolt from topcap to expander/star nut that is required for preloading the bearings"

The topcap would be what you see when you look down at the top of the steer tube while riding correct? This is not part of the chain, it's similar to hose over a rope, protects the rope while not bearing stress if you take a fall.

I do not believe the expander/star nut is load bearing but I also don't know how it works, maybe you can explain.

ABTW?

HS? headset?

Top nut of the headset? I do think I am correct in saying that the steer tube and stem need to connect at some point, where exactly is this?

You are correct, I don't have much of a clue. I have seen a threaded headset, and used one if you mean riding, if you mean disassembling, no I have not used one.

I don't really want to be an expert, just semi-informed would be nice. Can you suggest a good schematic online to take a look at the inside workings of a headset?

hwttdz said:

The topcap would be what you see when you look down at the top of the steer tube while riding correct? This is not part of the chain, it's similar to hose over a rope, protects the rope while not bearing stress if you take a fall.

I do not believe the expander/star nut is load bearing but I also don't know how it works,....

OMG, the expert does not evne know anything about threadless!! The Topcap IS part of the chain. You cannot adjust bearing preload without it. Once preload is adjusted,and the stem clamped to the steerer you could throw it away. The term with respect to expander/starnut is BEARING PRELOAD(AKA, adjustment) not load bearing. Sheldon Brown at www.hariscyclery.com or the repair section at www.parktool.com probably has it all.Spend lots of time.It's free.

If you can throw it away that means it is not part of the chain.

My term load bearing would refer to an object that is bearing a load or subjected to stress. Imagine hanging a weight from two strings of unequal length, the shorter string is taught and the longer string is slack, one would say the shorter string is "load bearing." (making the assumptions that the two strings are joined to "ground" (another technical term meaning something that's not going to move, does not actually have to be the ground, could be a tree branch) and the weight at the same point.) Edit: This would make the longer string "non-load bearing."

I understand the theory of bearing preload however I believe that this is equally adjustable in both threaded and threadless; however, somewhat of a difficulty in integrated, is it actually difficult in integrated systems to adjust preload?

I really don't mind you being obnoxious, but please don't put words into my mouth. Where exactly did I say I was an expert again.

edit: http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_h.html#headset (the sheldon brown site that addresses headsets)
edit: http://chrisking.com/pdfs/Int%20Headsets%20Explained.pdf this is a good overview of integrated, internal, and external headsets.

hwttdz said:

If you can throw it away that means it is not part of the chain.

I understand the theory of bearing preload however I believe that this is equally adjustable in both threaded and threadless; however, somewhat of a difficulty in integrated, is it actually difficult in integrated systems to adjust preload?

I really don't mind you being obnoxious, but please don't put words into my mouth. Where exactly did I say I was an expert again.

Why don't you flush the chain business.It's meaningless drivel. Why would integrated be more difficult to adjust? Functionally , it's identical to threadless in how you do it. As for the expert business, my aplolgies. But however, refer to your original post(AKA barge load of hooey), then ask yourself why you even bothered considering the demonstrated shallowness of your real knowledge about any kind of HS. The less informed could have taken that as the true gospel from a real 'expert'.

hwttdz said:

It is definate that I am going to use a conventional headset on my next bike, what is not definate are the merits of the "skepticism held towards integrated headsets."

Threadless/threaded vs integrated/conventional are two very different things. Most people agree that threadless are superior to threaded.

Anyone experienced any negatives with integrated headsets?

ya this really was an integraded vs conventional threadless debate my bad about the threaded and undthreaded.

anyways, it was said already that tehy are functionally thesame, but aside from that you dont really have much choice, if you pick frames depending on which type youre really limiting your options.

Getting back to conventional vs integrated, when integrated first came out Chris King published a paper showing how they would ruin your frame. I don't know if this was true or not when integrated headsets first came out, but it certainly isn't now and may never have been. The bearing that goes in against your frame doesn't move against the frame. The bearing moves against itself and either the fork crown or the top cap assembly depending on whether it is the lower or upper bearing. Since there is no movement between the bearing assembly and the frame it just isn't possible for it to harm your frame.

davidbod said:

Getting back to conventional vs integrated, when integrated first came out Chris King published a paper showing how they would ruin your frame. I don't know if this was true or not when integrated headsets first came out, but it certainly isn't now and may never have been. The bearing that goes in against your frame doesn't move against the frame. The bearing moves against itself and either the fork crown or the top cap assembly depending on whether it is the lower or upper bearing. Since there is no movement between the bearing assembly and the frame it just isn't possible for it to harm your frame.

Yes, it does move. Every structure that is loaded deforms. Might not move perceptibly now but put a few miles of mountain descents where you grab for front brake enough to make pads smoke and it will move slightly, eventually wearing rapidly. Bearing steel is TOUGH compared even to Reynolds 853, Airmet 100 and True Temper super duper gizmo alloy. Forget aluminum and the rest.

Weisse Luft said:

Yes, it does move. Every structure that is loaded deforms. Might not move perceptibly now but put a few miles of mountain descents where you grab for front brake enough to make pads smoke and it will move slightly, eventually wearing rapidly. Bearing steel is TOUGH compared even to Reynolds 853, Airmet 100 and True Temper super duper gizmo alloy. Forget aluminum and the rest.

Yeah,but it isn't the actual bearings that are riding in the HT. In true integrated types the bearings are in cartridges in the HT,and in semi integrated or integral types the cartridges or bearing races sit in cups in the HT.

Weisse Luft said:

Yes, it does move. Every structure that is loaded deforms. Might not move perceptibly now but put a few miles of mountain descents where you grab for front brake enough to make pads smoke and it will move slightly, eventually wearing rapidly. Bearing steel is TOUGH compared even to Reynolds 853, Airmet 100 and True Temper super duper gizmo alloy. Forget aluminum and the rest.

Based upon what designs I've seen, the basic difference between the two is that with respect to integrated headsets, the bearing race (on the head tube side) is completed hidden within the head tube. I believe these bearing races are installed with a force fit. With non-integrated, the bearing races are also force fit inside the headtube, although the actual "race" portion is visible both above and below the head tube.

I understand your point on getting "some" movement, and that bearing steel is MUCH harder than currently used frame materials. With enough force, it would potentiall move "some". You can also make the stud in a automobile wheel move, but it takes ALOT of force.

Be that as it may, you can get the type of movement you're talking about with either type, unless you're implying that the bearings themselves are actually in contact with the head tube? If that's the case, then read Boudreaux's post, what he's saying is the correct.🙂