92se-r
New Member
Additionally, some members have mentioned the cup is plastic which i have to admit i did not notice. I would say flex in that cup is probably most to blame.
ICR Headsets for the SZZS-specific CEF50 build
- Thread starter TCFlowClyde
- Start date
TCFlowClyde
Active member
- Thread starter
- #122
Or the bearing is just out of spec. Going from memory here. But when I put the SZZS bearing cup in on my painted frame a little while back, I greased it then press fit by hand fairly easily (easier than the first stock ICR cup). Plus, it popped out very easily when I did the ICR frame conversion last week.The cup should not need to be glued in. The ZS zero stack cup presses in like any other pressed in cup. Then the bearing just drops in. The only reason that the cup might be glued in is that the headtube is not properly round etc.
I would inquire to szzs as to why it was glued in and what kind of glue was used rather than ripping up the headtube trying to get it out
I had to tap in the Hope upper headset bearing cup with a piece of 2x4 wood laid flat and tapped it in with light to medium effort. To me that was good sign of precision fitment.
But yeah, I'd be hesitant to tap out the glued headset too. The good news is voigtkampff said he had success with fairly minimal effort removing his.
Unfortunately, there might be a tipping point where one might have to risk it
TCFlowClyde
Active member
- Thread starter
- #123
Mine was definitely aluminum. I got one of the first upgraded ICR headsets in October...so maybe they changed it up when they decided to glue the cups in. Very strange overall.
Last edited:
Smitty
New Member
Mine is aluminum as well. I received I believe the second integration of the headset. Not the most recent one with 4 individual holes. My bearing measures just under 52mm all around then the cup is all out of whack. I messaged the seller to see what they say but with shipping times I would prefer to knock it out and replace it with a nukeproof.Mine was definitely aluminum. I got one the first upgraded ICR headsets in October...so maybe they changed it up when they decided to glue the cups in. Very strange overall.
TCFlowClyde
Active member
- Thread starter
- #125
Yeah, Mike Kelly and a few others are successfully using the entire NP upper headset assembly...so far no complaints have been voiced
voigtkampff
Active member
mine was aluminum one. I'm very doubtful about plastic cup, this would probably bend flex and break when tightening the preload screw. Maybe you've mistaken it with the info about the cone, which is plastic (PTFE)?
Smitty
New Member
Just a small update if anyone is interested. I purchased a headset cup removal tool and it knocked out very easily. There was a little adhesive on the cup but nothing too excessive. I'm just waiting on the new headset. I'll let everyone know how the nukeproof install goes when I have it!
TCFlowClyde
Active member
- Thread starter
- #128
All right. Bravely done!
Smitty
New Member
The snow is melting here in Alaska, I need to make some moves to be ready for some riding!All right. Bravely done!
Yes
92se-r
New Member
You might be right. Many members here do not speak english as native language so they might have meant the split ring.
Good news on the cup coming out. I might just suck it up and try tonight. I have a new cane creek waiting. I still have suspicion these are cheap crap bearings. The new bearing i got also seems to have play.
Hey guys.
Looking to get a new headset for my lec930 as the stock one is chewing through the cables. Just wondering how do you fit the display/controller cable with the large connector through the rubber grommets on the headset? Most I have seen particularly the Acros ICR and Nukeproof does not have a slit but rather holes for the cables which I assume cannot fit the large connector through. Thanks
Looking to get a new headset for my lec930 as the stock one is chewing through the cables. Just wondering how do you fit the display/controller cable with the large connector through the rubber grommets on the headset? Most I have seen particularly the Acros ICR and Nukeproof does not have a slit but rather holes for the cables which I assume cannot fit the large connector through. Thanks
Last edited:
You are correct and you have to cut the opening bigger for the larger cable. Remember the CEF headset is not the same as the LEC930, they are not compatible.
That's good to hear. Have you opened the headset and inspected for any cable gauging/ pinching due to the bearing and spacer? Also, how did you route the display cable through the grommets? Did you cut a slit from the cable entry to the outside of the grommet? Pictures would be much appreciated. Thanks.
PaulH
New Member
My bad, I forgot there are two different forums for the routing of the cables. I used Acros NON-INTEGRATED. I have no experience with integrated cables. Sorry again but wish you best of luck.
davegonz2000
New Member
The stupid headset routing is another reason why I'm looking to move from an LCE930 over to a CEF50 with frame side cable ports.
TCFlowClyde
Active member
- Thread starter
- #140
Well there's definitely a few more options with traditional.
It's why I converted my CEF50 back to frame routing (was a pain for sure) and was able to get the high-end headset that I wanted (Hope top/Acros bottom). I'm not sure the big makers Chris King, Cane Creek, Hope, Acros, even smaller Wolf tooth, are yet convinced that the mtb or emtb head tubes really benefit from ICR.
All my cable and display wires really got scuffed up. This was especially true for my display wire that I sheathed using heat shrinkwrap to protect and save for future use.
Maybe, if you're running a wireless e-drivetrain/dropper or now even wireless remote and display, the headset routing makes more sense due to greater space for cable access. But still the big headset manufacturers are not making for dirt riders apparently...Cane Creek just responded "Why bother?"
But aesthetically, ICR is hard to beat...very clean and stealthy indeed!
Ciao fratello
Mentre aspetto che arrivi questo telaio benedetto, ho provato a riparare la cuffia ICR, apportando queste modifiche in modo che non entri acqua. Ho allegato alcune foto. Spero di provarci il prima possibile. View attachment 150977 View attachment 150978
Mentre aspetto che arrivi questo telaio benedetto, ho provato a riparare la cuffia ICR, apportando queste modifiche in modo che non entri acqua. Ho allegato alcune foto. Spero di provarci il prima possibile. View attachment 150977 View attachment 150978
BenCatalan
New Member
Well, here is the trick not too cut housings when removing the compression nut: squeeze the olive with a plier several times turning the housing every time 1/4 of a turn, so that you end up braking it. If you can set some kind of locking mechanism to avoid flattening the inner pin, you can even save this one if you’re gentle. Worst case, you split the olive and squeeze the inner pin, you just have to remove this one with pliers and good you go!
BenCatalan
New Member
I’m a bit confused about factory data’s and your experience: they do specify numbers from 52 to 62 or 52 to 66. Since I will defo upgrade this critical component, I wanna make sure with you guys what do I need to order prior to receiving the frame!
The confusion comes from measuring the bearing size or the inside diameter of the headtubes.
The correct size is ZS56/ZS66 using the standard industry nomenclature.
The correct information is in the specifications thread.
www.emtbforums.com
The correct size is ZS56/ZS66 using the standard industry nomenclature.
The correct information is in the specifications thread.
SZZS CEF50 lightweight using Bafang M820 motor (Specifications Thread)
sub-threads Main conversation - https://www.emtbforums.com/threads/m820-bafang-cef50-frame-lightweight.32042/ External Batteries Range extenders -...
www.emtbforums.com
Last edited:
PaulH
New Member
These (both top and bottom) are exactly what I ordered last summer for my CEF50 and they work perfectly though I did gently tap out the stock bottom bearing cup to use the one that came from Acros. The nomenclature is confusing.
BenCatalan
New Member
Finally went for the 1* option to slacken things a bit with WorksComponent, I’ve used them on all my previous projects and they are great.
Similar threads
