Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    28

    integrated headset?!?!?

    Hello, and good day!

    My first post!!!

    I would like some advise on an integrated headset.
    I have a Jamis Dakar Comp. 2006. that I will be riding soon, I hope.

    But first I need a headset for this thing.
    I have read Chris Kings dislike for this system, and can agree. The standard cup design sounds better to me,..... but.... This is my second dakar, and the first one lasted 8 years, countless miles, and lots of good memories.

    Which of the few choices have the best bearings, hold up to abuse best,
    Which ones do you guys see as problems? etc.
    I have found Cane Creek, FSA, and Race Face.

    thanks for having me!

    Adam

  2. #2
    Master of None
    Reputation: presslab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,462
    Well hello and welcome to MTBR!

    I don't know a lot about integrated headsets, sorry I can't help you there. However I've been running regular Cane Creek S3 headsets on two of my bikes for a while now and they work great. Their tapered bearing design is pretty cool: maintenance free and really easy to replace worn bearings although I have never needed to.

  3. #3
    Former Bike Wrench
    Reputation: mtnbiker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,985
    Its actually a Zero Stack headset on the Jamis Dakar...which means it has cups that press into the headtube like a standard headset...they just go into the headtube itself making it look like an integrated system (which uses the headtube itself as the cups). I've had two frames (Iron Horse Hollowpoint and my current Jamis XLT) with this system and both Zero Stack headsets have worked great. On my Iron Horse, it was a FSA Orbit Z and on my Jamis its a WTB Race. Both are sealed cartridge bearings...as would be the Cane Creek ZS-2 and ZS-6.

    Its a bummer that Chris King won't make a Zero Stack, I can understand why they won't make a integrated headset (which is mostly just bearings) but they could make a Zero Stack to the same tolerances as a standard headset. I love my King on my cyclocross bike...but they need to get over themselves on the Zero Stack...its common enough these days for them to start producing one.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wormvine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,163
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker72
    Its actually a Zero Stack headset on the Jamis Dakar...which means it has cups that press into the headtube like a standard headset...they just go into the headtube itself making it look like an integrated system (which uses the headtube itself as the cups). I've had two frames (Iron Horse Hollowpoint and my current Jamis XLT) with this system and both Zero Stack headsets have worked great. On my Iron Horse, it was a FSA Orbit Z and on my Jamis its a WTB Race. Both are sealed cartridge bearings...as would be the Cane Creek ZS-2 and ZS-6.

    Its a bummer that Chris King won't make a Zero Stack, I can understand why they won't make a integrated headset (which is mostly just bearings) but they could make a Zero Stack to the same tolerances as a standard headset. I love my King on my cyclocross bike...but they need to get over themselves on the Zero Stack...its common enough these days for them to start producing one.
    I say exactly what he said!

  5. #5
    I already rode that
    Reputation: SuperNewb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,634
    Kings overrated unless you are lazy at showing your headset a lil love from time to time. The integrated headset that came on my Reign was sealed and it hasnt given me any problems so far.
    Riding F/S since oct 94'

  6. #6
    On MTBR hiatus :(
    Reputation: Speedub.Nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    9,144
    Quote Originally Posted by adrock
    I have read Chris Kings dislike for this system, and can agree. The standard cup design sounds better to me,..... but....
    adrock, read the Chris King rant again. They clearly differentiate between Integrated and Internal (aka Zero Stack) headsets.

    "The "Internal" Headset, yet another twist:

    An "Internal" headset (also known as "semi-integrated", for maximum confusion) is yet another headset type that places the bearings within the head tube (rather than outside the head tube, like a conventional headset does). The key difference between an integrated and internal is THE BEARINGS DO NOT TOUCH THE FRAME with an internal headset. They are contained either by a cup or an aluminum or plastic shim assembly which is pressed into the headtube.

    One example is the Zero-Stack™ headset. It is an "internal" headset that uses the exact same bearings as an integrated headset. The important difference is that in a Zero-Stack™ headset, a cup is first pressed into the frame, then the bearing is placed in the cup. The bearing still floats around in the cup, and it will eventually trash the cup. This is absolutely superior to an integrated headset because you can replace the cup. The frame will never be damaged by the bearing. Another example is the Columbus-type internal headset. It actually presses a bearing directly into the bike frame.
    "

    I suggest FSA over Cane Creek Zero Stack headsets, simply because of the deeper cup insertion depth.

    speedub.nate
    MTBR Hiatus UFN

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    28
    YOU GUYS ROCK!

    Thanks for the Knowledge. I love it when I'm wrong and its a good thing.

    Internal seems ok to me. A zero stack FSA looks like a winner!
    Thanks for the pic.
    I'm a machinist, and without looking at my new frame, was thinking of a re-engineer.

    But I now understand (without ever seeing my frame) what this system entails!

    Thank you very much!

    Ride fast, Take chances!
    Adam

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •