Other than a few years where ovalizing 1-1/8” headtubes with long travel single crowns was an issue (evolution baby) pressfit headsets haven’t ever been an issue. Why add the cost and tolerancing if it isn’t necessary? The counter argument is usually related to removal and install of cups (hammer out / expensive tool for instal) but really how often do headsets come in/out, and every headset manufacturer would have their own install tool (see BB) so the tooling costs would be up there anyways. Poor tolerancing in a high-load area most exposed to the elements earned pressfit its bad rep. Not helped by 30mm axles and the tiny bearings necessitated. Shitty factory builds and custom builds by shitty mechanics also didn’t help. There needs to be a product (retainer, grease, anti-seize, etc) between the BB cups and frame. I’ve installed (and removed) plenty of PF92 BBs and ridden lots of quality bikes with properly installed BBs and I simply don’t see them as an issue. The counter point is that PF92 gives designers a lot more room to work without increasing the Q-Factor. Look at Rocky Mountain’s SuziQ as an excellent of example of a fat bike that isn’t obscenely wide to ride. There are lots of examples of suspension frames where designers have done a great job taking advantage of the extra realestate. Finally - for headsets and BBs, combing threadfit with carbon fibre requires an aluminum tube to be bonded in place for the cups to thread into. I’ve come across plenty of examples where the bonded in BB shells are as much a PIA as any pressfit situation I’ve come across. Anyways, I run 30mm axle cranks so I’ll keep my BSA BB, but I don’t think there’s any reason to add the expense of threaded headset cups and headtubes for not return in the days of the tapered steerer fork.
Please log in to leave a comment.