paul, actually the opposite is true. chris king could nearly own the integrated headset market if it wanted to, according to many sources such as mr lynskey of litespeed, and ms yaeger at bianchi. integrated headsets rely VERY heavily on the precision of the headset (and frame machining) and bearings and CK's are the best, as you say. this position is not hype, it is what they think, plain and simple.

There are a lot of laundry reasons why I don't like Integrated Headsets. First of all, it can weaken the heatube junction if not done correctly. Second, you have to put a lot of trust into the manufacturer to make sure it's done correctly. Third, when the "cup" (which is the headtube) is gone, you must dispose of the whole frame, unless you are talking the internal headsets, which have their own cup that is not part of the frame. Fourth, the standards are still not universal. Fifth, if the system is proprietary and the company has abandoned their design, you could potentially be screwed. There are just too many variables that could go into play, which is why I stand by my battle cry of "Just say NO to Integrated Headsets!!!!!"

Besides, if Colnago has not jumped into the fray, doesn't it make you wonder why?

well i don't know about colnago. . . .but bunnyman raises a few of the points which most agree on. really the question should be, "what is good about them?" or "what is the advantage?" they are a classic case of a solution for which there was no problem to begin with. if you corner the product managers who have gone to them they will admit they did so not because the designhas any particular merit, but rather because thy were afraid of letting their competitiors have something to talk about in their ads and in photos which they did not. and even the ones who are most "into" them will claim mostly an aesthetic benefit - a dubious one at that.

If you're worried about Chris King having ulterior motives, simply take the argument at face value. Is it well-reasoned and factual? Seems to me it definitely is. Until I see a better-reasoned and factual counterargument, I'm convinced. That is to say, the what of the argument is more important than the who.

I will say that even though Gerard and I vehemently disagree on the subject of Integrated Headsets, Gerard does make a valid argument that I can even somewhat agree with: lower stack height, which would be particularly important for the lowering of positions on smaller sized frames. But, I still can't live with the risk unless it is a replaceable internal cup.

"lower stack height" is smoke and mirrors. there is no effective lower stack height if the head tube itself is longer, as most all are. even if the headtube is not longer stack height is a fit issue easily addressed just as well with a traditioanl headset.

But, in the end, I like choices, and if I want to run anything between a Cane Creek to a Rudelli, I want that choice, which is why I use my signature to say what I truly believe in about the non-feature of Integrated Headsets. And there is a degree of being able to run a reasonable stack height on a traditional headtube.

Sorry Gerard, I still cannot be sold on Integrated Headsets.

Done correctly I'm a big fan of integrated headsets. The drawbacks only become apparent when they are viewed through the "belief window" or paradigm of a traditional headset/aheadset. Can you change them? No. Do you need to? No. Do you have as high a degree of flexibilty and parts selection as with non-integrated? No. Do you need it? No. What was the best thing about a Chris King Aheadset? You installed it, adjusted it once and never worried about it again. Ahh, isn't that what happens with an integrated headset? And it's cheaper and lighter with (usually) lower stack height. I like integrated, I view it as an improvement.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tom,

I agree with everything you have written. But your comment ...."What was the best thing about a Chris King Aheadset? You installed it, adjusted it once and never worried about it again. Ahh, isn't that what happens with an integrated headset? ......according to C/K seems wrong.

I personally have never had a problem with any of the bikes we've sold or serviced since they came out (how long ago?) on the Giant's (i think were the first i saw).

I am just getting feedback on Bunnyman's thought's, and what C/K has written. as for pyker's comment "Until I see a better-reasoned and factual counterargument, I'm convinced. " this is sort of how i feel, but i am 100%intergrated for now.

actually i always thought the best thing about a CK was that is was smoother and better than anything else. take the wheel off any integrated job and a CK and spin the fork back and forth - even new and adjusted all integrated headsets feel like crap. just because the wheel's mass hides this fact doesn't make them any less inferior. tom is a wise bike guru, but his post fails to note anything that makes integrated units better. all he says is that they are not worse, but my test would prove that not to be the case. and, there is considerable cost in the issues bunnyman brings up if you do not own a bike shop, keep your bikes longer than a few years, and wear things out, instead of replace them whole.

.....oh, yeah. on the above - just one man's opinion. :)

The only logical argument for is from Gerard (the lower stack height). I still can't buy this as a reason for a frame to become totally destroyed after a roached headset cup, being the headtube of the frame.

But you're not a lone gun in this fight against the integrated headset, I am with you on this.

The bike manufacturers on the whole (not all of them, mind) want a reason for you to replace your bike every few years, plain and simple. The bike shop owners would not mind this habit coming into vogue, as well. I will not begrudge people a buck or two, as none of us work for free. But I think manufacturers should earn business by building bike frames that last through many seasons of racing, including being able to replace things like dropouts, rear mech hangers, front mech tabs, and headset cups. A frame should have a few gruppos hung onto it over the years, not the other way around.

It would be okay if new bikes were not over $500, but these bikes with the non-feature of the integrated headset are well over that. I don't mind paying over $1500 for a frame only (I own one), but damnit, it better be one that under normal use will last me a very long time.

Again, what is the REAL advantage of the Integrated Headset?

Everyone talks about lower stack height but most of the frames i see have a longer head tube,i believe Merlins head tube is about one inch taller on the intergrated model,The intergrated head tube looks great,might be more aero but have problems like bike shops being able to true up any missalignment from the frame maker,also no standards,The parts makers(Shimano//others) keep changing things(bottom brackets) (ahead sets)look at the stems to choose from now,sure you can flip some but in the long run you have a smaller chose now/fewer rises,sure you can use spacers,but still you have a smaller chose,Bottom brackets,remember the days when almost every crank would work on any BBspindle,now you have splined ones but Shimano has a different spline then the other crank makers.This slight rant comes from a former frame and custom stem maker who works in the machining field.Randall

From my observations working at a shop, "roached headset cups" are extremely uncommon if not a mythological beast perceived only to those that have critical opinions against them. I would be interested to hear from people that have actually had their frames ruined because of an integrated headset problem. I'll bet it's less than 1/1000. I think your sentiment that bike companies are just trying to make a buck by getting you to replace your frame every couple of years doesn't really correlate with the reality of the situation. And it makes no sense that a reputable bike company would deliberately introduce a chronic design flaw that would eventually reflect poorly on their quality and reputation. Usually, people end up wanting to replace their frame or bike every 4 or 5 years anyway because they can afford something better/newer or just want a change.

Integrated headsets may not be the most feature-rich design, but they offer some practical advantages that make them appealing to manufacturers:

1) significantly easier installation (no special tools needed) and lower maintenance cost (no special tools needed!)

2) lower cost

3) improved appearance/aerodynamics/lighter weight

I think the worst aspects of the integrated headset are the lack of choice and the lack of a standard design, but so far, it doesn't appear that the integrated headset will go the way of the multi-material bicycle frame, etc. (which has come and gone before and will probably do so again in the near future but that's a whole other thread (I'm betting this year will be the peak)).

The stack height argument is really applicable only for a small portion of the population so it really isn't that strong. Until frames start failing in the apocalyptic manner that you suggest I won't worry too much about an integrated headset on a well-designed frameset. I've seen worse design/manufacturing/quality problems that shorten the potential life of a frame than integrated headsets.

And let's not overhype Colnago. You know what I'm talking about. : )

Kelvin

You can list a lot of things about IHS, but I notice that there is a lot of non-information:

1) Lack of standards. There are standards, there are two basic ones. For example, the standard we use has more than ten companies which make headsets for them

2) Cost. IHS are not cheaper than non-IHS, that is, the headset is a bit cheaper (fewer parts) but the machining of the tube is more expensive. With the same quality bearings, IHS is a bit more expensive overall, but it's not a big difference.

3) Stack height: there are definitely plenty companies with some warped ideas on this, but if used properly the IHS can pose an advantage here. Of course this only applies to the smaller sizes, on the bigger sizes one will compensate for the lower stack height with a longer headtube (as well one should).

4) Increase stiffness: with the advent of lighter frames, it becomes harder and harder to engineer enough stiffness into the frame. But there is a trick, the further the toptube and downtube are apart, the stiffer the frame is in torsion. So if the IHS is used to lengthen the headtube AND this extra length is used to spread out the toptube and downtube further, the frame will become stiffer. That's what we do on the Cervelos, and it improves it a couple percent (without any drawback). If you keep the tubes in the same spot and use the longer headtube for headtube extensions on top and bottom, then this advantage does not occur.

5) The risk of improperly made headtube reams which would render the frame useless is possible, but if the frame is that poorly made, the welds are likely poor as well and will probably give in before the headtube ream does. And if not, the botched headtube may save you from cracking the frame. What I'm trying to say is, people put their life in the hands of manufacturers by trusting their welds without giving it a second thought, and all of a sudden they get really scared over a headset ream? I would be a lot more worried about the welds.

6) "roached headset cups": I haven't seen a single one, or to be more exact, I have seen two in all theseyears at Cervelo, and both were NON-integrated headtubes. Not a single problem with the IHS yet. I am sure that will happen once or twice too eventually, but it really doesn't seem to be an issue if the headtube is made properly.

Bottomline, in some cases IHS have advantages, in others they don't. The key in a lot of cases is in the execution (see points 3, 4 and 5), but that applies to every detail on a frame. BTW, I currently ride a Renaissance with Chris King headset (but I am going to transfer the parts to a Soloist with IHS next week, just a coincidence).

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

That's all i'm after....some feedback.

In Australia, C/K headsets sell at $280aud (half in the States) and an integrated for less than $50aud. Although the C/K comes with the warranty.....it's a lot harder to sell, no matter how much we tell the masses.

I'm nowhere near as experienced as Tom, he's a very smart man. I can't explain why i like integrated so much, i just do. Nearly every bike that comes into Australia at the moment have integrated, so we can't get away from them.

LONG LIVE THE CHRIS KING.

I believe they use different specs (sizes) and can not be interchanged,so if one company stops making one brand then when it comes time to replacement there will not be parts to buy,and your stuck with a frame you cant get a headset for.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

Hi Gerard,

I meant lower overall cost. It seems like it would save you some time and effort in assembly with the simpler design of an IHS. I assumed manufacturing an IHS frame costs a little more initially but becomes trivial with economies of scale. I'll admit I know very little about IHS manufacturing costs.

Phil has mentioned the increased stiffness argument before and like you said, it's maybe a couple of percent. so that's not the best reason to switch to IHS if it's also offset by increased cost, right? I mean, how much of a performance advantage is 2% more stiffness? I think that only means something if you're an engineer. : )

And I guess there are the 2 standards you mention, but consumers don't get enough info on those standards and the companies that manufacture according to them, to make an informed decision. When was the last time you saw an IHS performance review/test? A Chris King HS can get all the praise in the world, but when are you going to see a comparison or test of a Record versus a Cane Creek versus an FSA IHS in a popular mag or site? If there's no consumer awareness, there's no consumer market. Also, how many brands of integrated headsets do you find stocked at your local shop or Nashbar/Performance/Supergo? I don't see choice there. I've never heard of a shop that stocks a selection of integrated headsets for building up their bikes because the choice is made by the manufacturer not the consumer so you can't say that just because there are ten brands to choose from there's consumer choice. There's a manufacturer's market, but no real consumer market.

BTW, where are the new Soloist/Super Prodigy frames being manufactured?

The Dual looks to be a killer bike.

Regards,

Kelvin

Another thing about cost that I thought of was this:

Consider this scenario:

Litespeed switches to integrated headsets. Every bike they spec uses the same headset regardless of the group level on the bike.

So for 3 levels of bikes (A-C, less to more), the headset costs the same with IHS, let's say X.

Previously, with 3 levels of bikes, the headset would get more expensive with the better group, so you had .5X, 1.2X, and 2X+

So if I were to guess the percentage of sales for each group level, I'd say 25% A, 50% B, 25% C.

So you have an average cost (if I did the math right and my assumptions aren't terribly skewed or wrong) of 1.225X for non-integrated and X for integrated.

I can see a clear cost savings associated with going to IHS for certain manufacturers with a certain market. In addition, the manufacturer can potentially make a little more by including the headset as part of the frame cost. Also, the manufacturer doesn't have to worry about the bike looking cheaper with a generic IHS on its high-end stuff because it won't be noticeable. On the other hand, it doesn't look good (although who really looks?) to see a company cutting cost/price by down-specing their headset...

any thoughts?

Kelvin

"On the other hand, it doesn't look good (although who really looks?) to see a company cutting cost/price by down-specing their headset... "



I can't remember ever.....EVER..... someone comming in to buy a bike and ask about the headset quality. They want to know the specs/fit and price ( and by specs i mean the running gear). I f a company can bring a bike into the country and sell it slightly cheaper, <although you wouldn't be able to tell and they'd probably pocket the profit anyhow>, than their competition because they have saved bucks on a IHS, then thats a good thing. But here in Australia, nearly all road bikes have now got IHS.

I still think they're a good thing.

The most frustrating thing about headsets is that they have become increasingly lesser in quality over the years. I remember when (the few times) I would buy a complete bike, I would tear it down, replace the headset, and rebuild it in a very deliberate manner. That would include things like making sure the rudimentary things (threads cleaned, bearing surfaces faced, etc.) were done.

If the bikes were similar in price and I liked both, I would eliminate by the quality of certain non-gruppo things like stems, handlebars and headsets. If there were better parts like good headsets, that bike would get the nod.

One of the things often missed by the product manager is the headset. I know it sounds like something silly, but it is an important part. I think that there is a cop-out on the part of manufacturers, as they can put the cheapest bearings into the integrated headset "cups".

Case in point: a friend of mine got a new custom Javelin last year. He had to have that internal headset. He's a mechanic, and he had trouble getting the stupid thing adjusted. And the bearings are CRAP. This is a travesty, especially paying over $100 extra for the non-feature. He has since sworn off of the integrated headsets, and now will only buy bikes with a real head tube.

I will still hang onto my battle cry against the Integrated Headset until:

a) the cups are replaceable in every single one

b) the internals can be replaced with better ones

c) destruction of the cups does not necessitate the chucking of the frame into the bin

d) every head tube that is integrated is a standard system (i.e. non-proprietary parts)

Otherwise, I will always stay with my battle cry againt them. And I will not give up until these conditions I have stated are met.