Does a crappy head set jeopardize your ovalizing chances?
- Thread starter mack
- Start date
yes
a lot
a lot
yes, i think it would
Two things can happen: The leverage of the dual crown can bend the cups. Not to mention that you are not riding on bike paths. Also, you can crush bearings. The you fork essentially acts like a hammer, bashing away at the headset effing everything up. Save you $, buy a King, and it will outlast every one of you bikes. Yes, it is worth it.
a kings definatly woth it. but get the pig. i have one on the bb7 and it rocks. i got a king on my ht, i think im gonna switch those up
hey i got a fsa pig dh or whatever...and i got a monster t on my bb7...well it comes loose all the time, so i just got a stem lock by answer and it still comes loose..should i get the chrisking deep cup headset?
Regarding cheap headsets.....ask Sanjay 
or should i just put some of that locktight tape on the bolts in the stem loc?
You probably aren't setting it properly. I run a FSA Pig DH Pro on my Kona and have yet to have a problem.krazydher1 said:
how am i setting it wrong?
if my headtube was ovalized wouldn't my cups be loose?Tashi said:
Well possibly not loose but it'd have some slop/play in it.
Aheadset adjustments start with the starnut/headlock deal. You basicly set the headlock/star nut to get the right preload on the bearings (or tighter if you want) and once you have the correct tightness you tighten your top crown or stem down. I run mine tight because I like it that way. BTW I have a 02 M1 with a Pig DH pro headset.
On a good quality DH frame I'd run nothing lower than that. I think I paid $40 for it which was well worth it. King's are nice too if you have the $$$. The deep insertation headsets that go further would help if your headtube is ovalized. Then again the King steelset isn't cheap.
When everything is tight nothing should come loose. When I was using starnuts they'd come loose so I switched to a headlock system and not one problem since. I highly suggest them to anyone. Good stuff, plus they are cheap ($14-20) at the most. Just a little bit more confidence that the headset will stay tight.
Aheadset adjustments start with the starnut/headlock deal. You basicly set the headlock/star nut to get the right preload on the bearings (or tighter if you want) and once you have the correct tightness you tighten your top crown or stem down. I run mine tight because I like it that way. BTW I have a 02 M1 with a Pig DH pro headset.
On a good quality DH frame I'd run nothing lower than that. I think I paid $40 for it which was well worth it. King's are nice too if you have the $$$. The deep insertation headsets that go further would help if your headtube is ovalized. Then again the King steelset isn't cheap.
When everything is tight nothing should come loose. When I was using starnuts they'd come loose so I switched to a headlock system and not one problem since. I highly suggest them to anyone. Good stuff, plus they are cheap ($14-20) at the most. Just a little bit more confidence that the headset will stay tight.
I have a Pig DH pro as well and I love it, best bang for the buck if you're anti-CK like me.
Only you can know that my friend.krazydher1 said:
(I'd suggest getting a shop to press it in using a headset press if you're at all unsure about it. Costs less than a facing or new frame.)And yes, if your HT is ovalized than your cups will be loose. Isn't that the problem you described?
Then last (only) time I ovalized a HT i couldn't get the cups to move but there was no way the headset would stay adjusted. I got the HT faced a bunch and had no problems after that.
Yup, I sport nothing but the cheap $5 headsets that my LBS sells me. I have never had a problem with one of these and I do ride hard. Kings are just way too bling for me. I can get 24 of the cheapies for the price of one King (wait didn't they just raise their prices). **** that.MtnbikeMike said:Regarding cheap headsets.....ask Sanjay
Two things come to mind...Tashi said:
One. How do you ovalise a BB7 headtube??
It's the meatiest one I've come across. I'm at work now but I'd swear that the head tube is at least 12mm thick from memory.Two. Is the BB7 reamed down far enough to put in a CK Steelset?
Although there no being enought metal to machine into is a redundant issue.As an aside, plain old king headset on my BB7. Can't see it ever changing.
ok...when i go to work wednesday i'll take it apart an repress the cupsTashi said:Only you can know that my friend.
And yes, if your HT is ovalized than your cups will be loose. Isn't that the problem you described?
Then last (only) time I ovalized a HT i couldn't get the cups to move but there was no way the headset would stay adjusted. I got the HT faced a bunch and had no problems after that.
I have to ask, mack... "Jepoardize your ovalizing chances"?
Will you please read that again?
Seriously, though, isn't the key here the cup depth of the headset rather than whether or not it's great quality? Does anyone know something I don't? As long as it presses into your headtube (and doesn't drop in or anything), the main concern will be how deep the cups go. The deeper the insertion depth, the... uhh ... greater chance you're ... uhh ... "jeopardizing your ovalizing chances", whatever that means
The main thing you get with higher quality headsets is good bearings that last longer than a couple rides in the mud.
Will you please read that again?
Seriously, though, isn't the key here the cup depth of the headset rather than whether or not it's great quality? Does anyone know something I don't? As long as it presses into your headtube (and doesn't drop in or anything), the main concern will be how deep the cups go. The deeper the insertion depth, the... uhh ... greater chance you're ... uhh ... "jeopardizing your ovalizing chances", whatever that means
The main thing you get with higher quality headsets is good bearings that last longer than a couple rides in the mud.
Buy a Chris King and be done with it.......your bike will never steer better.....and the CK headset will last a decade or more.....
JoeRay said:Two things come to mind...
One. How do you ovalise a BB7 headtube??
Well, that's why they came out with 1.5" headtubes. Even a "super thick" 1.125 headtube is nowhere near as strong. It can be 12mm thick, and still ovalize. If not, they wouldn't have come out with 1.5.
so i figured out what was wrong...
there is a little lip on the top cap of the stem loc thing...and the lip was touching the steerer tube and wasn't compressing the headset...instead all the force was on the steerer tube. so i added a spacer in between the top crown and stem and now it perfect.
btw this was after i overhauled the headset.
there is a little lip on the top cap of the stem loc thing...and the lip was touching the steerer tube and wasn't compressing the headset...instead all the force was on the steerer tube. so i added a spacer in between the top crown and stem and now it perfect.
btw this was after i overhauled the headset.
Mack is silly.
beat me to it, thats usually the issue 95% of the time (well, from mtbr standards anywaykrazydher1 said:
).as for cheapo sets ovalising, its more about how beefy the cups are. Pigs are pretty, uh, stout, where those generic headsets look pretty soft (my poor ovalized Zaskar's crappy headset was so distorted i had to cut it out
)really?Jm_ said:
i always thought the 1.5 thing started as an effort to make strong, long travel singlr crown forks. bigger crown, bigger headtube, and lots of travel without the use of a second crown was the driving force behind 1.5. not becasue 1.125 was weak and ovalizing. with onlt a few exceptions most dh bikes still only have 1.125 headubes, four years after 1.5 started.
just get good headsets fellas. you spent all the coin on a nice frame and fork right? why attatch them together with something cheap? it's like putting hub caps on a porche.
i think the idea started there, but the design benefits in general for frame design went beyond that and the steerer issue ironically became much less important it seemsdavetrump said:
zedro said:
honestly i wish all DH frame manufactirers went the 1.5 route, not so much for strength, but for the ability to run the bearings inside the frame with a system such as e13's reducer cups.
the current trend of 8" forks raises the front end up enough that this would be a nice way to lower everything back down a bit.
i think its gonna go that way, the laggers will probably be the Taiwan breeds who resist tooling changes, notice the ones that have 1.5 are mostly small buildersdavetrump said:
Maybe.Jm_ said:
I thought the real driving force (ha pun) behind 1.5 was the long travel single crown brigade who realised (rightly) that by having that much leverage at the bottom cup/race only was bad.Whichever way really. But I think a 1.125 double crown fork in a BB7 should be pretty nuke proof; its a lot of metal to be moved to deform or ovalise.
I'd be interested in seeing some proper figures on the strength increase between headtubes of the same wall thickness on 1.125 and 1.5. Not just the manufacturer claiming its 23.5% stronger.
Just cause I like to quantify; give me some science behind this. I want to see some engineering, with graphs and tables and clearly define parameters.
people pay good money to learn these things.JoeRay said:
I cracked my cheapo $16 lower cup so I just replaced that. Top cup is fine. This is with a shiver on a Stinky Nine. I haven't nboticed any excessive loosening or signs of ovalization.
Thats like saying "The bomb must be dead b/c it hasn't gone off yet." All it takes is one impact. You are asking for trouble.ioscope said:
I also see 1.5 being on all DH bikes for the purposes of internal bearings. It also keeps the HT shorter/stronger.
JoeRay said:I'd be interested in seeing some proper figures on the strength increase between headtubes of the same wall thickness on 1.125 and 1.5. Not just the manufacturer claiming its 23.5% stronger.
If you were really interested you'd figure it out yourself. I could make a chart that is completely arbitrary showing how 1.5 is stronger than 1.125 and it would mean just as much to someone without a strong engineering background as a chart with actual calculated values. Add to that the complexity of the analysis, even determining the amount of applied force of a 5" fork compared to a 7" fork on the lower cup is pretty time consuming. There are a lot of variables that make any calculations pretty arbitrary: rider weight, riding conditions, tire choice... I spent a couple of hours running numbers once and came to the conclusion that the manufacturers claims are about as accurate as I could calculate based on a vast number of assumptions.