Sam Hillborne geometry is up at RBW site!
Bill M.
Is it just me thinking so, or do those look like some pretty long top
tubes? I guess with a 71.5 ST angle, I might be able to scoot the
saddle forward a bit instead of having it all the way back and wishing
for more SP offset.
Bill
Mike
long. Even with the bars level with the saddle I'd have use a 9cm
stem. But then again, maybe not. I could be missing something here. I
wouldn't push the saddle forward to "shorten" the TT.
--mike
George Schick
size smaller than one would normally select, therefore getting the
shorter TT in the process. I tried to make sense of both the geometry
charts plus Grant's narrative on the frame and it almost looks like
that's what he's suggesting. Man, this sure looks like it would make
a nice all around frame. I wish they would've had this one when I
bought the Rambouillet. Now I'll have to face the desire to get
another.
Gino Zahnd
"48cm (for 650B wheels). For PBH of about 77 to 83cm; Saddle height 67 to 73.
52cm (for 650B wheels) For PBH of about 81 to 87cm; Saddle height 71 to 77.
56cm (for 650B wheels) For PBH of about 84 to 91cm; Saddle height 74 to 81.
60cm (for 700c wheels) For PBH of about 87 to 95cm; Saddle height 77 to 86..
64cm (for 700c wheels) For PBH of about 93 to 102cm; Saddle height 85 to 92.
I/Grant have a PBH of 85 and ride a 58 Saluki, a 59 A. Homer Hilsen, a 56 Atlantis with Albatross bars, and I'm getting a 52 Bombadil."
Cheers,
Gino
Mike
#product=50-700
On Dec 21, 8:05 pm, "Gino Zahnd" <ginoza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Grant and I both ride 58/9's, and on these slopers, like the Bombadil, we
> both ride a 52. Here's what he wrote on the Bomba page:
>
> "48cm (for 650B wheels). For PBH of about 77 to 83cm; Saddle height 67 to
> 73.
>
> 52cm (for 650B wheels) For PBH of about 81 to 87cm; Saddle height 71 to 77.
>
> 56cm (for 650B wheels) For PBH of about 84 to 91cm; Saddle height 74 to 81.
>
> 60cm (for 700c wheels) For PBH of about 87 to 95cm; Saddle height 77 to 86..
>
> 64cm (for 700c wheels) For PBH of about 93 to 102cm; Saddle height 85 to 92.
>
> I/Grant have a PBH of 85 and ride a 58 Saluki, a 59 A. Homer Hilsen, a 56
> Atlantis with Albatross bars, and I'm getting a 52 Bombadil."
>
> Cheers,
> Gino
>
Bill M.
Grant is fitting a wider range of riders to each size. Most of us
riding Brooks saddles wind up with them all the way back. On the Sam
Hillborne that might no longer be true. On a given size, the shorter
riders in the range would scoot forward a bit, giving an effectively
shorter tt while still having a decently slack effective seat angle.
Moving the saddle forward 1 cm is about like steepening the seat angle
1 degree, so the 52 Sam would fit like a bike with a 72.5 degree seat
angle and a 1 cm shorter top tube - a reasonable fit for many
riders.
I'm OK with that approach, but... I use an 8 cm stem on my 56 cm Riv
Road that has a 57 tt, and it can still feel long to me (Grant would
put me on a 58 or 59 SAluki/AHH - tt more like 58). My nominally 56
cm Kogswell has about the same 54.5 cm 'theoretical' tt length as the
48 Sam, and I have an 8 cm stem on that as well (6 degree threadless
stem, it's probably equal to the extension of a 9 cm Nitto). I tried
to make the Kog too short to see how it felt, and I only marginally
succeded. I wouldn't race on it, but it's comfortable at my normal
pace. Short top tubes seem to work for me!
Gino, note that the size ranges have shifted on the Sam geometry
page. A 52 would be recommended tor 70 - 75 cm saddle heights instead
of 71 to 77. That puts me (74 - 74.5 cm saddle height) at the top end
of the scale for a 52, flirting with the bottom of the range for a 56
with an even longer tt!
Bill
Grantm...@gmail.com
tube angles and high bars. In fact, they "ride" normal, maybe even on
the short side of normal.
Some things to think about:
• MOST riders shove the saddle all the way back on the rails. Half of
those wish they could shove it back more. The limiters are the seat
tube angle, the seat post's setback, and the saddle rails. It is rare
to see a saddle shoved all the way forward; common for the rider to
want it back more. Half a degree--seems like a good way to go. On my
own custom, it's 71-degrees. I'd do that for our non-customs if it
wouldn't raise eyebrows, but...well, here we are!
• One degree over 55cm equals one centimeter. So, for a 56cm frame, it
just gives you the possibility (doesn't force it) of an ant's whisker
more than 1cm rearward. The "cost" of this is that you can't move the
saddle as far forward, but as long you're not poking the saddle toward
the bars and wishing it would go more, the added cm in back is only a
benefit. Does that make sense? It doesn't force you back; it allows it
if you want it, with no drawback UNLESS you're a triathlete.
• I have some suspicions as to why shallower STAs are not more common.
One is that riders are accustomed to 72s, 73s, and 74s. Long live
diversity of opinion and all that, but I have to do my best on the
bikes I design for our customers, and I think it's great idea.
Minority opinion, whatever--I'm not saying I'm smarter or others are
dumber, just that it makes sense to me.
• Bikes with supershort chainstays won't go shallow, cause the wheel
will hit the seat tube. That's an argument against short chainstays,
not shallow seat tubes.
• Most commercially available bottom bracket shells won't easily
accommodate both a big drop and a shallow seat tube angle. The "rear
angle of the chainstay and seat tube sockets is too steep for it. Our
shells are our design, and although they aren't freaky, they are
designed with shallowish seat tube angles in mind. (This may 'splain
why other lugged builders stick with steep, although it may be a
preference, too. They may believe the myth that short femurs should go
with steep seat tube angles. That is "flat-earth", but it is still the
common belief, simply because it's been repeated and printed so
often. In any case, tiggers can do anything they want, easily, and
they don't seem to take advantage...)
I am pretty sure RR41 will make things clear. Think of the Da Vinci
drawing of the naked guy with long curly hair extending his arms.
Think of how that applies to arm reach and bar height. It's key, key,
key...
Anyway, it's only half a degree--and probably should be a whole one.
All it does is expand your rearward options by removing a centimeter
of your forward options (less on a 48 or 52; a bit more on a 60). It's
not a bad deal.
Bill M. is entirely correct----the halfa degree just gives you that
much more real estate in the area you want it.
We have the 56 in now. By Jan 2 - 4 we'll have another 56, plus two
each of the 48s, 52s, and 60's. They're coming in painted colors that
won't be final, so we'll repaint some of them, and that'll take a
week--but by Jan 12 we should have all sizes available for testing--
and if any of you are local, I sure hope you come by and try them.
We'll set them up with average stems, normal bars, and you're free to
take them for an hour, and...it'll be fun!
Grant
Big Paulie
Mike
So a "shallow" seat tube angle is one that's less straight up and
down? 71.5 is more relaxed and laid back? And so you might actually
scoot your saddle forward on this bike to get the same fit as on
another bike?
--mike
Invisible
frame is wonderful, but I'm leery of threaded headsets and would want
to go threadless if I owned one.
Follow-ups: are frames even available with uncut forks? What about the
Atlantis and AHH?
-Wesley
Steve Palincsar
> What's the uncut steer-tube length on the Sam Hillborne fork? The
> frame is wonderful, but I'm leery of threaded headsets and would want
> to go threadless if I owned one.
Leery? What's there to be leery about? They're as reliable and
dependable as bricks or cement blocks or two by fours. I mean, I can
understand if you happen to really like threadless, think it looks good,
etc., and would prefer it -- but both work fine and if taken care of
both will last a long time.
> Follow-ups: are frames even available with uncut forks? What about the
> Atlantis and AHH?
"Uncut forks" is a threadless thing. You typically don't cut threaded
forks.
David Estes
The nicer ones use cement blocks, too.
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA
Invisible
use bearings and as such will occasionally require service. I'd prefer
to have a part that I can disassemble (if necessary) on tour with just
a 5mm Allen wrench, instead of a couple of tools (32/35mm cone
wrenches) that have no other use on a bicycle. If nothing else, I can
save $30 by not having to buy the wrenches.
A lesser quibble is that a clamping stem (as in threadless-type stems)
seems like a better design than the expanding wedge bolt on a threaded-
type stem. And finally, I like stems where a cap pops off to release
the handlebars over Nitto's design that requires sliding half the
handlebar through the stem clamp. Changing handlebars is a lot faster/
easier without unwinding all that bar tape and taking off a brake
lever. But I don't want to start an argument over this, I just want to
know whether I can get an Rivendell sells uncut forks for use with a
1" threadless headset - and if so, how long is the steerer.
And I'd always thought that threaded steer tubes have to be cut to
length just like threadless ones do - in fact, I thought it was more
important to cut a threaded steerer to length. Otherwise how can a
fork fit different-sized bikes with different-sized headtubes?
-Wesley
Steve Palincsar
> I know that threaded headsets are reliable, of course. But headsets
> use bearings and as such will occasionally require service. I'd prefer
> to have a part that I can disassemble (if necessary) on tour with just
> a 5mm Allen wrench, instead of a couple of tools (32/35mm cone
> wrenches) that have no other use on a bicycle. If nothing else, I can
> save $30 by not having to buy the wrenches.
>
> A lesser quibble is that a clamping stem (as in threadless-type stems)
> seems like a better design than the expanding wedge bolt on a threaded-
> type stem. And finally, I like stems where a cap pops off to release
> the handlebars over Nitto's design that requires sliding half the
> handlebar through the stem clamp. Changing handlebars is a lot faster/
> easier without unwinding all that bar tape and taking off a brake
> lever. But I don't want to start an argument over this, I just want to
> know whether I can get an Rivendell sells uncut forks for use with a
> 1" threadless headset - and if so, how long is the steerer.
>
For that, I think you'd best call them.
As for the other, those may well be perfectly valid reasons to prefer a
threadless setup, if that's the way your taste runs. It's certainly a
royal pain to have a threaded headset loosen on tour with no hope of
finding a proper tool to tighten it, as happened to a guy I was riding
with on tour in the Black Hills of SD this summer. Of course, he
brought it on himself: loosened the headset at home, forgot to tighten
it, brought the tools with him to SD, fixing to do it before we set out,
and he didn't remember it until we were 30 miles down the road.
> And I'd always thought that threaded steer tubes have to be cut to
> length just like threadless ones do - in fact, I thought it was more
> important to cut a threaded steerer to length. Otherwise how can a
> fork fit different-sized bikes with different-sized headtubes?
I suppose somewhere in the manufacturing process steerer tubes have to
be cut to length, but I've never seen a new bike with a threaded headset
where it was an owner's responsibility to do that -- bikes come with
forks installed, and part of that is to see to it that the steerer is
the right length. Of course, when you can adjust handlebar height by
simply moving the stem, the whole process becomes far less critical.
JoelMatthews
> seems like a better design than the expanding wedge bolt on a threaded-
> type stem.
convincing arguments against this. In any event, threaded is plenty
strong for road bikes and mountain bikes your are not taking air
borne.
> And finally, I like stems where a cap pops off to release
> the handlebars over Nitto's design that requires sliding half the
> handlebar through the stem clamp.
easier to adjust threaded stems up and down.
> lBut I don't want to start an argument over this, I just want to
> 1" threadless headset - and if so, how long is the steerer.
custom. It would cost you no doubt - kind of defeating the purpose of
getting a Hillborne. You would probably be better off asking if there
is a Hillborne frame without a fork (I suppose one might break during
the voyage from Taiwan) and just buy a steel threadless fork from
Ben's Cycles or such outlet.
On Dec 22, 6:06 pm, Invisible <brooks.wes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know that threaded headsets are reliable, of course. But headsets
> use bearings and as such will occasionally require service. I'd prefer
> to have a part that I can disassemble (if necessary) on tour with just
> a 5mm Allen wrench, instead of a couple of tools (32/35mm cone
> wrenches) that have no other use on a bicycle. If nothing else, I can
> save $30 by not having to buy the wrenches
>
CycloFiend
>> lBut I don't want to start an argument over this, I just want to
>> know whether I can get an Rivendell sells uncut forks for use with a
>> 1" threadless headset - and if so, how long is the steerer.
with:
> Grant could probably have Noblilette make you a threadless fork
> custom. It would cost you no doubt - kind of defeating the purpose of
> getting a Hillborne. You would probably be better off asking if there
> is a Hillborne frame without a fork (I suppose one might break during
> the voyage from Taiwan) and just buy a steel threadless fork from
> Ben's Cycles or such outlet.
Actually, it may be simpler to order an appropriate threadless fork at the
same time. The steerer tube is just set into the fork crown, and it could be
just a matter of getting an unthreaded tube put in. That way, you have the
dimension of fork blades that the bicycle was designed for.
...and lemme tell you, I think GP is onto something here. Had a quick ride
on Sam and Betty today and was pretty impressed. I'll start a separate
thread later this pm.
I think it's unlikely to find an aftermarket steel fork that will have the
appropriate dimensions _and_ be 1" threadless. And it would be missing the
braze-ons.
- Jim
--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes
The Gallery needs your photos! Send 'em in - Here's how:
http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines
"She edged in to get a better look at the bike, how it was made, the
intricacy of its brakes and shifters pulling her straight in. Beauty."
-- William Gibson, "Virtual Light"
CycloFiend
>
> on 12/22/08 6:49 PM, JoelMatthews at joelma...@mac.com replied to:
>
>>> lBut I don't want to start an argument over this, I just want to
>>> know whether I can get an Rivendell sells uncut forks for use with a
>>> 1" threadless headset - and if so, how long is the steerer.
>
> with:
>> Grant could probably have Noblilette make you a threadless fork
>> custom. It would cost you no doubt - kind of defeating the purpose of
>> getting a Hillborne. You would probably be better off asking if there
>> is a Hillborne frame without a fork (I suppose one might break during
>> the voyage from Taiwan) and just buy a steel threadless fork from
>> Ben's Cycles or such outlet.
>
> Actually, it may be simpler to order an appropriate threadless fork at the
> same time. The steerer tube is just set into the fork crown, and it could be
> just a matter of getting an unthreaded tube put in. That way, you have the
> dimension of fork blades that the bicycle was designed for.
sorry - wasn't quite clear in this post.
I meant that if you knew that's what you wanted, it would make sense to try
to see if you could order it now, while the frames are being built.
If there's a possibility, it's best pursued now while orders are being put
together and finalized. I'd give 'em a call over at RBWHQ&L.
- J
--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes
Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines
"'You both ride your bike?' He held his hands out and grabbed imaginary
handlebars, grinning indulgently, eyeing Tom's helmet. Double disbeleif:
not one, but two grown Americans riding bicycles."
-- Neal Stephenson, "Zodiac"
Atlantean
are pretty scarce. I have one bike in particular that I'd like to
switch to threadless, but I haven't run across anything suitable. New
uncut one inch threadless steel forks tend to be generic and the
tubing is usually not specified. I looked into having the steer tube
replaced, and like a lot of things it is fairly easy to have done but
not cheap. It's not that big a deal on this particular bike, a Merckx
I've converted to fixed, but I would like a stiffer front end. Out of
the saddle mashing up a hill makes the M bar pretty floppy, even on an
80mm Dirt Drop all the way down in the fork. The Dirt Drops are great
stems; the stiffest aluminum quill stems I've found.
I think it would be cool to have the option of threadless on a new
Riv, kind of like the custom color option. Nickel plated fillet brazed
or lugged stems would look really good on a Riv with a threadless
setup. But then lots of things would be cool.
On Dec 22, 9:39 pm, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> on 12/22/08 7:19 PM, CycloFiend at cyclofi...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > on 12/22/08 6:49 PM, JoelMatthews at joelmatth...@mac.com replied to:
> >>> lBut I don't want to start an argument over this, I just want to
> >>> know whether I can get an Rivendell sells uncut forks for use with a
> >>> 1" threadless headset - and if so, how long is the steerer.
>
> > with:
> >> Grant could probably have Noblilette make you a threadless fork
> >> custom. It would cost you no doubt - kind of defeating the purpose of
> >> getting a Hillborne. You would probably be better off asking if there
> >> is a Hillborne frame without a fork (I suppose one might break during
> >> the voyage from Taiwan) and just buy a steel threadless fork from
> >> Ben's Cycles or such outlet.
>
> > Actually, it may be simpler to order an appropriate threadless fork at the
> > same time. The steerer tube is just set into the fork crown, and it could be
> > just a matter of getting an unthreaded tube put in. That way, you have the
> > dimension of fork blades that the bicycle was designed for.
>
> sorry - wasn't quite clear in this post.
>
> I meant that if you knew that's what you wanted, it would make sense to try
> to see if you could order it now, while the frames are being built.
>
> If there's a possibility, it's best pursued now while orders are being put
> together and finalized. I'd give 'em a call over at RBWHQ&L.
>
> - J
>
> --
> Jim Edgar
>
> Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries -http://www.cyclofiend.com
> Singlespeed - Working Bikes
>
> Send In Your Photos! - Here's how:http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines
>
> "'You both ride your bike?' He held his hands out and grabbed imaginary
> handlebars, grinning indulgently, eyeing Tom's helmet. Double disbeleif:
> not one, but two grown Americans riding bicycles."
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Estes
JoelMatthews
> same time. The steerer tube is just set into the fork crown, and it could be
> just a matter of getting an unthreaded tube put in. That way, you have the
> dimension of fork blades that the bicycle was designed for.
looked around on line and could not stir up a 1" threadless. Riv
could definitely accommodate if the timing of the request is right. I
am sure it will cost more money though.
> ...and lemme tell you, I think GP is onto something here. Had a quick ride
> on Sam and Betty today and was pretty impressed. I'll start a separate
> thread later this pm.
On Dec 22, 9:19 pm, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> on 12/22/08 6:49 PM, JoelMatthews at joelmatth...@mac.com replied to:
> >> lBut I don't want to start an argument over this, I just want to
> >> know whether I can get an Rivendell sells uncut forks for use with a
> >> 1" threadless headset - and if so, how long is the steerer.
>
> with:
>
> > Grant could probably have Noblilette make you a threadless fork
> > custom. It would cost you no doubt - kind of defeating the purpose of
> > getting a Hillborne. You would probably be better off asking if there
> > is a Hillborne frame without a fork (I suppose one might break during
> > the voyage from Taiwan) and just buy a steel threadless fork from
> > Ben's Cycles or such outlet.
>
> Actually, it may be simpler to order an appropriate threadless fork at the
> same time. The steerer tube is just set into the fork crown, and it could be
> just a matter of getting an unthreaded tube put in. That way, you have the
> dimension of fork blades that the bicycle was designed for.
>
> ...and lemme tell you, I think GP is onto something here. Had a quick ride
> on Sam and Betty today and was pretty impressed. I'll start a separate
> thread later this pm.
>
> I think it's unlikely to find an aftermarket steel fork that will have the
> appropriate dimensions _and_ be 1" threadless. And it would be missing the
> braze-ons.
>
> - Jim
>
> --
> Jim Edgar
>
> Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries -http://www.cyclofiend.com
Frederick, Steve
pali...@his.com
>
>> Actually, it may be simpler to order an appropriate threadless fork at the
>> same time. The steerer tube is just set into the fork crown, and it could be
>> just a matter of getting an unthreaded tube put in. That way, you have the
>> dimension of fork blades that the bicycle was designed for.
>
> Emminently more sensible than my advice.
Even more sensible, IMO, would be to decide to get along with the fork
that came with the bike, or if a threaded fork is a show-stopper, to
get a different frame, one with a threadless fork. There are plenty
enough of them.
Atlantean
enough. In the case of my fixie, I did find a few threadless forks on
eBay and such some time back, but I was having trouble even finding a
new threadless steerer that's long enough for a 25" frame. Typical
9/8" threadless mountain bike forks come with 265mm steer tubes, but
275 would work a lot better for me. Maybe when the hipsters all move
on to unicycles, I'll ride my fixie more, and it will seem worthwhile
to pay for the modification. The fork on the Merckx is a wild looking
thing with "aero" styled blades brazed into a custom crown, so I'd
like to keep it. Maybe I'll just get a chomoly stem that's the right
size and angle and clamp diameter. That's probably harder to find than
a threadless steel road fork.
Hmmm. I wonder if Grant would sell a Legolas fork separately? Or are
they "oversized" as well as threadless?
Is this question any less sensible than the whole 650b industry? Or
anything else we obsess about around here? I don't think so. Surely
it's more productive than yet another discussion of trail.
On Dec 23, 7:39 am, "Frederick, Steve" <frede...@mail.lib.msu.edu>
wrote:
JoelMatthews
> that came with the bike, or if a threaded fork is a show-stopper, to
> get a different frame, one with a threadless fork. There are plenty
> enough of them.
stems (and heck, the new Rene Herse folks make a real beaut of a
threaded stem if you want to pay out the big bucks) I see no reason
not to go threaded.
But if this is the only way to get this guy on a Riv ...
On Dec 23, 9:11 am, palin...@his.com wrote:
JoelMatthews
> they "oversized" as well as threadless?
On Dec 23, 9:30 am, Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Atlantean
stems for aesthetic reasons. But like lugs, pneumatic tires,
cotterless cranks, aluminum rims and dozens of other things, they were
introduced as a technical improvement. Forged aluminum stems are much
lighter than forged steel stems, and they don't rust. We like forged
aluminum stems for the same reason we like lugs. They look great.
Like cassette hubs, index shifting, dual pivot brakes, single rail
saddles, and on and on, threadless forks have a certain inevitability
about them because they are technical improvements. Yes, it's easier
to raise and lower your bars within a narrow range with a quill stem,
but that's the only advantage I can see other than the aesthetic one.
For someone like me, the higher I go with a quill stem, the floppier
it gets, so raising the bar by exposing more quill is not exactly an
advantage to me. Having the option of a threadless fork on a Riv is
not a crazy idea. It's even a reality, in said Legolas. I would bet
there's more than one Legolas out there all tricked out for touring,
like all those Cross Checks.
I doubt the geometry of a Legolas fork is much different than other
Riv forks meant for the same wheel size. Maybe they are, but it's
probably moot anyway since I don't think Grant has any desire to be in
the business of selling forks without frames. I respect his reasoning
there, too.
JoelMatthews
> saddles, and on and on, threadless forks have a certain inevitability
> about them because they are technical improvements. Yes, it's easier
> to raise and lower your bars within a narrow range with a quill stem,
> but that's the only advantage I can see other than the aesthetic one.
changes than improvements. I have bikes with both and do not really
see how the new technology is better than the old.
I would not understate the aesthetic advantages. The stem is the part
of the bike the rider sees the most while riding. Commercially, even
the sculptural Thomson stems are not as pleasing (to me anyway) as the
Nitto. I have a nice Jonnycycle custom threadless that is very
attractive. Pricey little bugger.
On Dec 23, 10:20 am, Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
CycloFiend
>
> I understand why a lot of cyclists want to hang on to forged aluminum
> stems for aesthetic reasons. But like lugs, pneumatic tires,
> cotterless cranks, aluminum rims and dozens of other things, they were
> introduced as a technical improvement. Forged aluminum stems are much
> lighter than forged steel stems, and they don't rust. We like forged
> aluminum stems for the same reason we like lugs. They look great.
>
> Like cassette hubs, index shifting, dual pivot brakes, single rail
> saddles, and on and on, threadless forks have a certain inevitability
> about them because they are technical improvements. Yes, it's easier
> to raise and lower your bars within a narrow range with a quill stem,
> but that's the only advantage I can see other than the aesthetic one.
> For someone like me, the higher I go with a quill stem, the floppier
> it gets, so raising the bar by exposing more quill is not exactly an
> advantage to me. Having the option of a threadless fork on a Riv is
> not a crazy idea. It's even a reality, in said Legolas. I would bet
> there's more than one Legolas out there all tricked out for touring,
> like all those Cross Checks.
I'd probably take that bet... ;^)
I don't think there are a lot of Legolases (Legolai?) out there to begin
with, but the Warning has always been that these are racing-type bikes, with
lighter than Riv-normal frame tubing thicknesses. Specifically,
"Please don¹t get one with the intention of using it as a lightweight
version of an Atlantis it¹s not designed for loaded touring."
I've seen one set up as a long distancey brevet type rig: Veronica's over at
TandemHearts -
http://tinyurl.com/89ar82
But, never one with bags lashed to racks...
- Jim
--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
George Schick
with threadless as well as threaded steering tubes/stems. But one
thing found out the hard way about threadless that has made me a wee
bit leery - if you buy a cheapo threadless stem, and the bottom edge
of it (the part where it sits on top of the top-most spacer of the
headset) is not perfectly made, it'll throw your headset bearings and
steering out of kilter as badly as if the fork crown race is unevenly
installed. I had one like that and it took me a while to figure out
what was wrong. I finally dialed in on the error and was fortunate
enough to have a machinist friend with a lathe who made a piece of 1
1/8" stock and took several 100th's of material off the bottom edge of
the stem to correct it. Since then it's been OK.
Now, this is not to imply that a similar thing couldn't happen to a
threaded set up, but they're usually things you have to look for ahead
of time anyway - are the top and bottom edges of head tube straight
and parallel, is the crown race evenly seated, is the crown surface
onto which it gets seated even and perpendicular to the steering tube,
etc. But beyond that, I would agree that the threadless set up is
more convenient from a tourist's stand point inasmuch as the only tool
really needed to remove the stem (or the bars from the stem, for that
matter) is a hex key wrench.
Gino Zahnd
lookout for Legolas in the wild, and to date have only seen them as CX
race bikes or road-ish/brevet bikes.
So how much were you considering waging? Perhaps a slice of pumpkin
pie, washed down with a pint?
Gino
pali...@his.com
>
> Now, this is not to imply that a similar thing couldn't happen to a
> threaded set up, but they're usually things you have to look for ahead
> of time anyway - are the top and bottom edges of head tube straight
> and parallel, is the crown race evenly seated, is the crown surface
> onto which it gets seated even and perpendicular to the steering tube,
> etc. But beyond that, I would agree that the threadless set up is
> more convenient from a tourist's stand point inasmuch as the only tool
> really needed to remove the stem (or the bars from the stem, for that
> matter) is a hex key wrench.
>
The only tool you need to remove a threaded stem is a hex wrench. Not
true, of course for removing the bars from the stem. But, unless
you're packing the bike for air travel, how often do you do that? And
that advantage is primarily for the open faceplate design, which only
coincidentally is a threadless advantage. You could just as easily
make an open faceplate threaded stem as a threadless. (Not that it
matters that much to me: between punitive surcharges for transporting
bicycles and the ever-increasing hassles associated with air travel
imposed in the name of "security", I highly doubt I'll ever want to
fly again.)
And, for that matter, unless (like my companion on the Black Hills
trip) you insist on screwing around with the headset adjustment and
forget to get it taken care of before you set out on your trip, just
how often does any road rider need to adjust headsets on the road?
Maybe mountain bikers are more likely to need to do headset
adjustments in the field. They do a lot of things while riding that a
road rider would never do, and experience impacts and shocks you'd
never get on the road.
PATRICK MOORE
As for aesthetics, I've seen a few nice looking threadless stems, and the ugly problem is less the kind than the current fashion, but one huge deal breaker for me would be to have a noticeable amount of steerer poking up above the top of the stem. Uglier than a Technomic at full height, IMO.
If I were to have a new custom, I'd probably get threadless, but only after first finding and purchasing an acceptable-looking clamp on stem; and only because, after all these years, I know how high I like my bars; AND while accepting the fact that, should I ever want to raise the bars significantly, this would mean either a new fork with longer steerer, or possibly a custom upjutter stem. No pokey steerer in *my*face!
jim g
> I've used, and adjusted, exactly one threadless stem in all my years of
> riding, and (1) I was hugely impressed with how easy it is to adjust; not
> only easy, but simple! But (2) I was also very disconcerted (and I realize
> that this is a purely personal reaction) when I couldn't easily fine tune
> the bar height.
all the way, leaving a little space both above and below the stem for
spacers. Or, if you're really picky, use an NVO stem system:
http://www.nvocomponents.com/
-Jim G
JoelMatthews
> all the way, leaving a little space both above and below the stem for
> spacers. Or, if you're really picky, use an NVO stem system:http://www.nvocomponents.com/
are stuck with a fairly ugly, (IMO), product from one manufacturer.
For what, exactly? I mentioned above the argument threadless is
stronger. A plus perhaps for MTB riders. A properly installed and
maintained quill lasts is plenty strong for road riding and will last
as long threadless.
From my perspective, threaded to threadless is one of those things
where technology has quite obviously changed but with no real gain for
the use.
Mike
you might want to go with something other than a Rivendell. Unless you
get a Legolas. There are tons of custom frame builders willing to make
lugged frames with threadless headsets. And these with custom stems
look really nice. But Rivendell, thankfully, seems to remain committed
to 1 inch threaded forks which is fine by me. I'm looking forward to
seeing the 60cm SH.
--mike
Chris Halasz
sized, and I could *not* find a production stem that brought the bars
within a cm of saddle height (cm to zero difference) that wasn't
stretched too far, or just incredibly ugly. Even then, I couldn't get
it to work. Maybe if the steerer hadn't been pre-cut.
I am so much happier back with a Riv and Nitto stem.
From Dave Moulton's Blog:
"Richard Sachs said it best when he stated, “The threadless steerer
was an answer to a problem that didn’t exist.”
The old style quill stem (Left.) worked fine, it was elegant and easy
to adjust up and down. Now it is obsolete, not because it didn’t work,
but because forks with threadless steering columns are easier to mass
produce."
Chris
Tucson, AZ
Invisible
portion off. One possible hiccup would be if the uppermost race
couldn't be slid into place over the threads, but I think that's
unlikely. The stem will then clamp quite happily over the threads.
In order to keep the geometry as designed, I think it would be best to
use the frame's original fork - but to get one that was not yet cut to
length for a threaded setup. Do they arrive at RBW HQ already cut?
-Wesley
On Dec 23, 6:30 am, Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
cyclofiend
> It seems to me that if you want a bike with a threadless headset that
> you might want to go with something other than a Rivendell. Unless you
> get a Legolas. There are tons of custom frame builders willing to make
> lugged frames with threadless headsets. And these with custom stems
> look really nice.
cropped up on iBob), the frame (assuming it's not an
inbred..er.."integral" hs design type) can use either threaded or
threadless (sizing determined by the frame headtube), and it's the
fork which really determines the type of headset. And, on the fork,
it's really just the steerer tube. Depending upon the fork design, it
may be possible to install an unthreaded steerer tube.
...and some unrelated blather while I'm on hold at work...
Most of the flex I've encountered has seemed to come from the bars,
though I'm not walking around with the largest set of biceps in the
county. But, I've grunkled pretty hard on the QB setup while climbing,
and run out of oomph long before I felt like flex was my issue. That
has the Nitto stem with a Noodle bar.
One of the reasons I'm hoping to eventually end up with a Legolas is
that I'll get to once again look down in a suffering, anaerobic haze
and see a stem that looks this gorgeous -
http://www.cyclofiend.com/cx/images/cx001r2-5.jpg
There are some gorgeous threadless stems out there.
- Jim
David Faller
----- Original Message -----From: Chris HalaszTo: RBW Owners BunchSent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:03 PMSubject: [RBW] Re: Sam Hillborne geometry is up at RBW site!
Frederick, Steve
Really, the 1" threaded setup is nearly as ubiquitous to Rivendell as lugs--there are plenty plenty of bikes out there to choose from if the quill stem's a deal breaker for you.
jim g
> Exactly! Talk about drinking the Kool Aid; the consumers all bought into the "differences as improvements", when, in fact, the differences are only differences. Most threadless stems are just ugly. I suppose some are a tad lighter, but this was never the reason for the new design. And what's all this about threadless being somehow stronger? Any of you snapped off a steerer at the stem lately?
>
http://flickr.com/photos/t2architect/3128394163/in/set-72157610331529941/
And, FWIW, threadless stems (read: non-quill stems that clamp onto the
fork steerer) go back to the classic French constructeur bikes of the
40s/50s -- it's not a new concept. E.G. this 1947 Alex Singer:
http://reneherse.com/images/DSC_00463.JPG
http://reneherse.com/images/DSC_00166.JPG
-Jim G
Atlantean
abandon threaded forks; only that for those of us who could derive a
benefit from it (real or imagined), it would be great to have the
option of a threadless setup. Either as an option on a new Riv, or
from some aftermarket manufacturer somewhere. Such an option does not
seem to exist anywhere this side of a custom fork.
I can't see any advantage for me in going to a 650b wheel bike, for
any reason, but you know what? I think 650b is great and I'm glad
Grant pushed for it. If someone else finds something magical in that
size that I can't see, I am happy for them. Even better if it actually
does work better for normal size people. I don't know and don't really
care because it is irrelevant to me. If I go to a bigger wheeled
mountain bike, it will likely be a 29er dually, which work just fine,
at least in my size.
Of course there are as many opinions here as there are contributors as
to what is an improvement and what is simply something different. If
you like things just like they were in '81 or so, I am delighted that
you can find all the stuff to keep your bikes the way you want them. I
have a couple dozen good freewheels and I sell one or two on eBay from
time to time, so it works for me, too. :)
On Dec 23, 1:21 pm, "Frederick, Steve" <frede...@mail.lib.msu.edu>
wrote:
pali...@his.com
> This one's certainly not ugly...
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/t2architect/3128394163/in/set-72157610331529941/
No, not hardly! What is that luscious thing, anyway?
Frederick, Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of pali...@his.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 3:49 PM
To: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [RBW] Re: Sam Hillborne geometry is up at RBW site!
John McMurry
> Exactly! Talk about drinking the Kool Aid; the consumers all bought into the "differences as improvements", when, in fact, the differences are only differences. > Most threadless stems are just ugly. I suppose some are a tad lighter, but this was never the reason for the new design.
>
I prefer the look and easy height adjustments of quill stems, but they
do have their drawbacks.
How's your quill stem look when you pull it out every year for
greasing?
Mine's always had scratches around the perimeter from it's rotation in
the headset. The steer tube has always been a tad rusty colored
too. That ain't so good.
And if you don't pull it out every year? Good luck getting it out (if
you rode it at all that year).
> And what's all this about threadless being somehow stronger? Any of you snapped off a steerer at the stem lately?
aluminum rod with a hole drilled through it.
Quill stems aren't a perfect solution, but they're good enough for me.
John McMurry
Burlington, VT
JoelMatthews
maybe it knocked down a power line) but it looks like something from
Jonnycycles.
I have a custom Jonnycycle threadless stem on my threadless fork bike.
(I went with brushed nickel rather than the bright chrome). It is
beautiful. It also cost more than a lot of people are willing to pay
for bikes.
On the other hand, you can a beautiful, durable and very functional
Nitto for under 100 bucks. If you want to be fancy, the NOS Bike Shop
on eBay has hundreds of lovely Italian and Japanese threaded stems
most well under 100 bucks.
Thomson an earlier noted exception, most off the shelf threadless
stems in the Nitto price range are not particularly attractive.
On Dec 23, 2:49 pm, palin...@his.com wrote:
> Quoting jim g <yoj...@gmail.com>:
>
> > This one's certainly not ugly...
>
JoelMatthews
> to what is an improvement and what is simply something different. If
> you like things just like they were in '81 or so, I am delighted that
> you can find all the stuff to keep your bikes the way you want them.
certain the modern Nitto stems are made to higher tolerances, lighter,
and more durable than anything made in '81.
Cassettes are easier to install, maintain, adjust cogs and more
durable than freewheels. It would be very hard to say the same with
threadless versus threaded stems.
Cutting a steerer tube is a more work than installing a threaded head
set. Maintenance on both is about the same. Adjustments are a tie.
Even if you leave some extra room on the the steerer tube, playing
puzzle maker with the spacers is a royal pain in the neck. The open
face plate on threadless is nice if you switch bars a lot. I do not
think threadless are more durable than threaded.
If a tie is the best 27 going on 28 years of technical improvement can
do, heaven help us.
On Dec 23, 2:48 pm, Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Atlantean
Threadless stems came about for several good reasons, and that should
not be a threat to anyone. Both systems have their advantages. Not
being able to find a steel road fork with a 1" threadless steer tube
is a bit like not being able to find a cassette hub to fit a road
bike. Makes no sense to me. Your mileage may vary. That's great. What
a boring planet it would be and all that.
Seth Vidal
And doesn't velo-orange offer something to go in between these:
http://www.velo-orange.com/vothstad.html
and then combine that with either the nitto or the VO silver/lugged
threadless stem?
-sv
PATRICK MOORE
PATRICK MOORE
Gawd, that's even *pretty"!
IIRC, my brother had an old tandem frameset from the 1930s with a clamp on stem rather like the pinch bolt system used on tricycles when I was a child. Not elegant, but obviously not new, either.
PATRICK MOORE
How's your quill stem look when you pull it out every year for
greasing?
[snippo]
And if you don't pull it out every year? Good luck getting it out (if
you rode it at all that year).
Huh? ***HUH????* I've pulled quills out of steerers where they had slumbered for, LO!, these many, many years, and never, **EVER**, had a stuck one.
Pull it out *every year for greasing*?
Bzzzzlpfpht .... pphhhhffft .... pop! crackle! Fwooom! That doesn't compute.
Patrick "don't regrease hubs, bb, headsets yearly either" Moore, who has had no problems with his lack of care, and yes, he does ride his bikes.
Bruce
>>>Pull it out *every year for greasing*?
Bzzzzlpfpht .... pphhhhffft .... pop! crackle! Fwooom! That doesn't compute.<<
I have to agree though, service bike parts as needed. Like most things, YMMV. Regarding the now furious debate about stem styles, I have to come down on the quill (Gryffindor) side of the debate. The chapter of GP's cycling saga which first and most captured me was the idea that my handlebars should be as high or slightly higher than my saddle. Quills seem a better and more available M.O. to get this to happen. And prettier too. I'm especially fond of how a Nitto Dynamic looks. Sure you can Slitherin with a threadless, and yes they are easier to R & R the handlebars. Even Snape had his good days....
Off to chase that Golden Snitch..
jim g
On Dec 23, 12:49 pm, palin...@his.com wrote:
> Quoting jim g <yoj...@gmail.com>:
>
> > This one's certainly not ugly...
>
> No, not hardly! What is that luscious thing, anyway?
-Jim G
Atlantean
kind of steer tube is right and proper for all, which then becomes the
law of the land? Have I missed something? I thought I was joining a
discussion of possible ways to get a threadless fork on a Rivendell or
similar bike. Is there really only one right answer?
One thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that the typical Riv
has a tall head tube, which lends itself well to a threadless fork.
Check out the new 64cm Kogswell, for example:
http://www.kogswell.com/siteBLOGGER.php
I removed an Albatross bar from my Atlantis even though I liked it a
lot, simply because I could not get it low enough! Imagine that! It
would have been easy with a threadless fork. Actually, I have
considered getting a custom fork for that bike, and painting it to
match the head tube.
Lisa -S.H.
>
> All you need do to remedy (2) above is to not chop the steerer down
> all the way, leaving a little space both above and below the stem for
> spacers. Or, if you're really picky, use an NVO stem system:
> http://www.nvocomponents.com/
>
> -Jim G
>
Their motion graphic gives a whole new slant on 'bike porn'. =8-o
Lisa
John McMurry
If you ride in the rain, in the snow, in the mud, or dirt around here
for several thousand a year, annual maintenance is necessary; unless
you're willing to dispose of these parts a couple years later.
John McMurry
Burlington, VT
Phil Bickford
mind about bar setups the removable faceplate does offer a lot. But I
agree the selection of good looking threadless stems is fairly poor.
I've got a half tig, half lugged one from RBW like the one Jim linked
to. It gets a lot of woos and ahs but mostly from non-Bobs.
Aesthetically I agree you can't hardly beat a Nitto.
It seems to me the head tube size really did in the threaded stem
scene. They might exist, but I've not seen many threaded 1.125" stems.
They've got to be a bunch heavier.
One advantage to production of bikes with threadless headset/stems
I've not seen pointed out here is the lack of steerer threading - some
thing I would consider a machine shop procedure that can't be easily
accomplished by semi-skilled bike assemblers. Then there's the issue
of length of the threads on a steerer of given length. How many
spacers will be used? It just becomes all to comlicated for the mass
marketed, mass produced segment of the bike industry. Something most
of us don't come in contact with.
On Dec 23, 3:42 pm, "PATRICK MOORE" <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No!!! I don't want steerer sticking up above my stem!!! Abominable! Won't do
> it!!!
>
Phil B
CycloFiend
> So is this some kind of legislative process whereby we determine what
> kind of steer tube is right and proper for all, which then becomes the
> law of the land? Have I missed something? I thought I was joining a
> discussion of possible ways to get a threadless fork on a Rivendell or
> similar bike. Is there really only one right answer?
Nope.
Don't think so.
In retrospect, that probably would have benefited from a separate thread.
Of course not.
Folks are bound to disagree on this list, but it's important that we all do
so in a way which shows respect to one another.
I think with the pressures of this season in general, this year in
particular and the fact that many of us aren't getting out and riding, it
might not be a bad thing for us all to remember to ease up a bit.
Remember that written comments often come across a bit more bruskly than
intended, so let's continue to give each other enough elbow room in this
happy little pack we've formed for this part of the journey.
- Jim
--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes
Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines
"That which is overdesigned, too highly specific, anticipates outcome; the
anticipation of outcome guarantees, if not failure, the absence of grace."
William Gibson - "All Tomorrow's Parties"
John McMurry
wrote:
> lot, simply because I could not get it low enough!
http://www.businesscycles.com/tstem-nitto.htm
> Imagine that! It
> would have been easy with a threadless fork.
> Actually, I have
> considered getting a custom fork for that bike, and painting it to
> match the head tube.
custom fork, if the purpose is to get the bars low.
Though, if that's the purpose, I bet there's a better bar for your
ride.
John McMurry
Burlington, VT
David Estes
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA
Bill M.
On Dec 23, 9:07 pm, John McMurry <johnmcmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 8:18 pm, Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I removed an Albatross bar from my Atlantis even though I liked it a
> > lot, simply because I could not get it low enough!
>
> A stem like this stem ought to help that situation:
>
> http://www.businesscycles.com/tstem-nitto.htm
>
> > Imagine that! It
> > would have been easy with a threadless fork.
>
> How would've it been easier to lower the bars with a threadless fork?
threadless would give a lot of drop.
> John McMurry
> Burlington, VT
I've now got both threaded and threadless bikes. The threadless on
the Kogswell gives me more range of adjustability - I have left the
steerer *very* long for now, so I can move the stem over a 110 mm
range, and flip it over for another 10 mm. Depending on how much of a
change I'm making, I can change the height in 3 to 10 minutes, in
increments as small as 3 mm. Clearly not as fast as with a quill
stem, but with threadless swapping the stem extension would be as fast
as a height adjustment. Swapping a 10 cm Nitto for an 8 on the Riv
Road took quite a bit longer, and required unwrapping the shellaced
cloth tape. Headset maintenance would be easier with threadless, but
sealed cartridge headsets would make either system pretty low
maintenance.
Quill stems can be made front loading, but most often are not.
Another point for threadless.
My main beef with threadless is that I regard a 1-1/8" steel steerer
as overbuilt. 1" threadless with a long head tube (so fewer spacers
show) would seem to me to be a fine and light way to go for a road
bike. Too bad it's pretty much unavailable. Quill stems are fine,
too. The headset style won't be the determining factor in choosing my
next bike.
Bill
Atlantean
looks of track stems. A track stem and an Albatross bar? I don't think
so.
The Atlantis comes with 15mm of spacers (I think) under the top nut. I
couild have shortened the steer tube up by that much and that might
have lowered the Albatross bar enough, but since the stem I was using
(an old Cinelli 13cm with a home brewed shim) was far from ideal, I
was not willing to make such a committment for an experiment. Bike
shop mechanics cut steer tubes of all description routinely, by the
way. Anyway, if that same frame had come with a threadless fork, it
would have been very easy to try the lowest postion available before
cutting the fork. People do this all the time with mountain bike
builds. Yes, it looks pretty funny with spacers on top of the stem,
but once the position is sorted out after a few rides, it's easy to
cut the steer tube to the proper length. There is nothing difficult
about shuffling spacers around, either. You can't get them backwards
or upside down. They come in many different lengths, too, so once the
proper dimension is determined, it is possible to use one spacer of
the proper length in most cases. That looks pretty tidy.
That whole process can get pretty fiddly, but then so can unwrapping
bars and removing levers in order to try a different stem. With modern
mountain bike stems, and increasingly common road setups, it's easy to
swap between stems. Takes a couple of minutes. We have a guest bike,
an old GT dually, that several people ride over the course of a
season. It's a very simple matter to swap stems on that bike, and it
gets done often. It has air springs on each end, so at the most we
swap out saddles, stems, pedals and adjust the air pressure and it's
good to go. This is a very common practice.
pali...@his.com
> http://flickr.com/photos/t2architect/3128394163/in/set-72157610331529941/
>
> Gawd, that's even *pretty"!
It certainly is. And, like every other attractive threadless stem
I've ever seen, it lacks the one major advantage commonly associated
with threadless stems, the open front faceplate. I wonder if that's
not an accident.
pali...@his.com
> One thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that the typical Riv
> has a tall head tube, which lends itself well to a threadless fork.
> Check out the new 64cm Kogswell, for example:
>
> http://www.kogswell.com/siteBLOGGER.php
>
> I removed an Albatross bar from my Atlantis even though I liked it a
> lot, simply because I could not get it low enough! Imagine that! It
> would have been easy with a threadless fork.
Sorry, I don't understand this. Why would it be easier to get a lower
bar? You can get a quill stem down as low as you can get a -17
threadless stem with next to nothing in the way of spacers, can't you?
pali...@his.com
>
> I'm not a fan of the 7 shaped stem,
But it lets you get the bars down every bit as low as you can get them
with a threadless stem of any persuasion, doesn't it?
> and I really really don't like the
> looks of track stems. A track stem and an Albatross bar? I don't think
> so.
Did you try it with the bar flipped over? A friend of mine has hers
set up that way. It looks very much like setups that were common in
1900.
JoelMatthews
> bars and removing levers in order to try a different stem. With modern
> mountain bike stems, and increasingly common road setups, it's easy to
> swap between stems.
makers do not make stems and vice versa. My custom Oswald with
threadless fork has a Ti King headset. Before I had a custom stem
made, it had a silver Thomson stem. King does not make Ti spacers.
So I wound up using the Thomson spacers which did not match the
headset. Not a complete aesthetic nightmare, but not optimal. It
gets even worse if you use stems and headsets by other manufacturers
who do not make spacers. You wind up with three different colors in
one of the more prominent parts of the bike.
Not a problem if the bike is a ratty old GT. Looks are certainly an
issue when you fork out the big bucks for a Rivendell, Velo-Orange or
custom steel bike. As a result, most people who buy these bikes are
very grateful Nitto continues to make threaded stems with modern
alloys and to high tolerances possible with the new forging machinery.
> It's a very simple matter to swap stems on that bike, and it
> gets done often. It has air springs on each end, so at the most we
> swap out saddles, stems, pedals and adjust the air pressure and it's
> good to go. This is a very common practice.
threaded stem up or down and simply rotating the angle of the bars to
meet the riders' preferences.
If you are changing the bars as well as the stem, the open face of
most threadless stems speeds the task somewhat. Unless the bike is
fixed gear, however, it really is not so easy to swap bars. Brake
levers are going to be in different positions on the bars, meaning at
best you are going to have extra brake cable to deal with. If you are
switching from Albatross to drops, you most likely will have to
replace the brake cable as the existing cable will not be long enough,
and, depending on the levers, may not use the same cable end. And
that is assuming you are using non-aero levers that do not route the
cable under the tape.
So again, it seems to me we are back to a tie in usefullness between
the two. I concur that there are many beautiful custom threadless
stems. As I have said multiple times here, the custom threadless
Jonnycycles made for my Oswald is very lovely. When it comes to off
the shelf, however, Nitto is a very special product at a price that is
hard to beat. GP has had a tight relationship with Nitto since the
Bridgestone era. Under the circumstances, I think his decision to
stay with threadless makes a lot of sense.
On Dec 24, 12:06 am, Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Tim McNamara
On Dec 23, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Bill M. wrote:
> On Dec 23, 9:07 pm, John McMurry <johnmcmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 8:18 pm, Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I removed an Albatross bar from my Atlantis even though I liked it a
>>> lot, simply because I could not get it low enough!
>>
>> A stem like this stem ought to help that situation:
>>
>> http://www.businesscycles.com/tstem-nitto.htm
>>
>>> Imagine that! It
>>> would have been easy with a threadless fork.
>>
>> How would've it been easier to lower the bars with a threadless fork?
>
> Threadless stems can be flipped for rise or drop. A 17 degree
> threadless would give a lot of drop.
Ummm, that would be the same as a standard quill stem. ;-)
John McMurry
wrote:
> looks of track stems. A track stem and an Albatross bar? I don't think
> so.
stems and you don't like stems with even less rise (track stems), you
must be using a riser stem...right?
And so, if you have a problem with getting the bars down low enough,
the problem isn't with the type of steertube you have: I think it's
your aesthetic choices determining how high your bars are.
That said, I find conveniences to both setups.
John McMurry
Burlington, VT
Atlantean
you use a threadless fork, after all. Lots of people have managed to
work out the aesthetics somehow. For me the most important issue is
flex, and it will not go away no matter how lovely Nitto quill stems
may be. Also, there is nothing "ratty" about my guest bike. It's
actually a pretty nice ride, even if the frame is 12 years old.
Steve, I explained the limitations in my previous post. Possibly not
very clearly. The Atlantis has an extra tall steer tube, accommodated
by some spacers. I am glad I did not cut the fork, because I found
handlebar bliss on my Atlantis with an old Bridgestone Moustache bar
that takes V brake levers (rare item that should not be), and a
Periscopa stem. That extra tall steer tube helps keep the flex to a
tolerable level, at least on my "comfort bike." My point was that it
would have been very easy to try the lowest position afforded by a 17
degree stem without cutting anything. This is very common. To say
threadless stems are a solution in search of a problem is nonsense. I
don't care who said it. Whoever it was probably hates mountain bikes,
a common affliction among roadies.
Atlantean
stem, down as low as it would go. It actually looked pretty good, but
I could not get the grips level with the saddle without removing the
stock spacers and cutting the fork. Even then it might not have gotten
the job done. The combination of old Bridgestone M bar and Periscopa
stem puts the grip area at the same level as the saddle. I did try the
steel Albatross upside down, but it looked goofy and still required a
very long extension. 160mm would not have been too long. The old M bar
solved all those problems and actually works best with the Periscopa.
If a Nitto "7" type stem had been called for, then that's what would
be on there.
7 stems look fine in their natural element, but I would need them to
be raised up high with anything but an Albatross on an Atlantis, and
that looks silly to me and also just makes the whole system more
flexible. Lots of people think that setup looks great; more power to
'em! It's their bike!
pali...@his.com
> Steve, I explained the limitations in my previous post. Possibly not
> very clearly. The Atlantis has an extra tall steer tube, accommodated
> by some spacers. I am glad I did not cut the fork, because I found
> handlebar bliss on my Atlantis with an old Bridgestone Moustache bar
> that takes V brake levers (rare item that should not be), and a
> Periscopa stem. That extra tall steer tube helps keep the flex to a
> tolerable level, at least on my "comfort bike."
So the solution to you can't get the handlebars low enough is to use
an upwards sloping stem with an extra long quill?
> My point was that it
> would have been very easy to try the lowest position afforded by a 17
> degree stem without cutting anything.
Almost as easy as pushing a quill stem down all the way. That takes
two turns of a 5mm allen key.
I'm so confused my head hurts.
Atlantean
Albatross was still too high. Cutting the fork *might* have gotten the
bar low enough, but there were other issues and if it did not work,
then I would still have a shortened steer tube. They are quite
difficult to lengthen. :)
In the end, I used a different bar, a rare old Bridgestone bar that
has about 2" of drop (I just measured). This is the opposite of the
Albatross, which has rise unless you turn it over. The Bridgestone bar
also requires far less stem extension, so a Periscopa stem worked
great, especially as the Bridgestone bar has a 1" clamp area. It's a
happy ending. The only reason I brought up the Albatross experiment is
that it's a good example of a situation where a threadless fork would
have allowed experimentation without getting out the hacksaw.
On Dec 24, 8:12 am, palin...@his.com wrote:
pali...@his.com
>
> As stated, I *did* push the Cinelli stem all the way down, but the
> Albatross was still too high. Cutting the fork *might* have gotten the
> bar low enough, but there were other issues and if it did not work,
> then I would still have a shortened steer tube. They are quite
> difficult to lengthen. :)
No kidding. That's one of the big issues many of us have with
threadless. I didn't see that msg until after I'd replied.
>
> In the end, I used a different bar, a rare old Bridgestone bar that
> has about 2" of drop (I just measured). This is the opposite of the
> Albatross, which has rise unless you turn it over. The Bridgestone bar
> also requires far less stem extension
Yes, different handlebars require different stem extensions. It's a
challenge figuring out what you need ahead of time. That's one reason
there's so much stem exchanging going on on the lists. It's a good
thing you can use an albatross bar - it's one of the most
controversial designs ever.
I've seen the Albatross mounted upside-down. I think it looks great,
very much like the sporting bikes pre-WWI.
JoelMatthews
> you use a threadless fork, after all.
debate here is whether Riv should start offering a threadless option.
In my opinion, it would be more a change for change sake and not
necessarily enhance what Rivendell is doing at present.
>Lots of people have managed to work out the aesthetics somehow.
point of view is to get a custom threadless stem made up that does not
need spacers. Of course the lack of adjustability means you need to
know what height you want in advance, which sort of takes out the
threadless flexibility argument.
> Also, there is nothing "ratty" about my guest bike. It's
> actually a pretty nice ride, even if the frame is 12 years old.
But I am sure you will agree your Atlantis is the more attractive
bike.
> To say threadless stems are a solution in search of a problem is nonsense. I
> don't care who said it. Whoever it was probably hates mountain bikes,
> a common affliction among roadies.
feelings are about mountain bikes. He makes cross bikes and sponsors
a cross team, so he cannot be considered a pure roadie.
More to the point, mountain bikes pre-date the shift to threadless
stems. The move to threadless came when most bike manufacturing moved
to the large Taiwan (couple in China now) factories. As the move
coincided with the rise in mountain bike popularity, threadless became
associated with mountain bikes. With a few exceptions - Riv notable
amoung them - most road bikes today are threadless as well.
Somewhat off topic, but when bike production moved to the big overseas
factories you also saw the rise in the flat bar. Just as the
threadless stems require you to buy top caps and spacers, to get the
flat bars to work, most riders wind up buying extensions or other add
ons to make the bars comfortable to use. Bullhorn and H-Bars are more
elegant products for the mtb, but also more expensive to make.
On Dec 24, 8:58 am, Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Atlantean
a tandem, and I love it. That bike has a 1-1/4" threaded fork, so the
quill stem is very beefy. 150mm of extension and 90 degrees worked out
very well and is quite stiff. The Albatross is the extra wide chromoly
version, and the whole setup makes it easy to herd that beast around
corners. I'd try one on a mountain bike, but they don't work well in
rock gardens. I have enough trouble staying upright without the
handlebar whacking my legs.
On Dec 24, 8:51 am, palin...@his.com wrote:
> Quoting Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
tarik saleh
>
>> To say threadless stems are a solution in search of a problem is nonsense. I
>> don't care who said it. Whoever it was probably hates mountain bikes,
>> a common affliction among roadies.
>
> The quote is attributed to Richard Sachs. I do not know what his
> feelings are about mountain bikes. He makes cross bikes and sponsors
> a cross team, so he cannot be considered a pure roadie.
Yet Richard Sachs uses threadless on most of his new bikes:
http://www.richardsachs.com/signaturered.html
http://www.richardsachs.com/signatureblue.html
http://www.richardsachs.com/cxred.html
as does JP weigle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49353569@N00/2811014159/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49353569@N00/2617014370/
Personally I will never buy a new bike that specs threaded it is a
dealbreaker for me on a new bike. If clinging to obsolete standards I
would much rather cling to 1" threadless for road use than quill
stems.
Tarik
--
Tarik Saleh
tas at tariksaleh dot com
in los alamos, po box 208, 87544
http://tariksaleh.com
all sorts of bikes blog: http://tsaleh.blogspot.com
PATRICK MOORE
Gawd, that's **ugly**!!
Atlantean
part there!
Jeremy Till
arguments on both sides. I always thought that 1" threaded headsets
and quill stems were a Rivendell "thing," as integral to the identity
of the bikes as steel and lugs (excepting the Legolas, of course). I
wouldn't ask GP to change that. I'm cool with that and appreciate the
bikes for other reasons, and I know that if i ever own one it'll
probably have a threaded headset.
I'm firmly in the threadless camp (3 bikes, all threadless, 2 even
with the "illusive" 1" threadless! no, headsets are not impossible to
find, and most stems come with a shim to make it work), but i'll
readily admit that my preference is mostly psychosomatic*. I'm a big
guy, mostly ride fixed gear, and i like the idea of wrenching on a bar/
stem that's firmly clamped to the outside of a circular steel steerer
tube more than one that is literally wedged into place.
I do think the "threadless stems make it harder to fine-tune the
height adjustment" thing isn't as true as many make it out to be.
Yes, you'll probably want to cut the steerer tube if there's excessive
length above the stem and yes, you have to take the headset out of
adjustment to adjust the height of the stem, but they make headset
spacers down to 1mm and I doubt that any of you really adjust your
stem in increments of less than a millimeter. An advantage of
threadless is that you always know by how much you're raising or
lowering your bars- no measuring required!
*It does help to have Jobst reinforcing my preference:
http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html
PATRICK MOORE
Well, here in the Northeast, that doesn't fly.
If you ride in the rain, in the snow, in the mud, or dirt around here
for several thousand a year, annual maintenance is necessary; unless
you're willing to dispose of these parts a couple years later.
I rode in plenty of rain with cheap steel components (Kenya, early '70s, Delhi, late '60s) and never had a stem jam.
Oh well, perhaps your riding is different from mine.
Back to quill versus Aheadset: I think I'd choose an Aheadset for a new custom, with a custom stem so that I would not have to use spacers. Or perhaps custom made spacer to avoid the "rings on the neck" look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kayan_woman_with_neck_rings.jpg
Now here is a useful question: let's say you absolutely refused to have steerer sticking up above your stem, as any good Christian and gentleman would. So you leave, let's say, 2" of steerer poking up above the upper bearing race. Fine. Now could one not make a stem with a collar that clamped on this 2" portion but rose higher, being in effect a quill that clamped on the outside of the steerer?
Better yet, why not a system whereby you have such an external, clamping quill with a separate stem that clamps to said quill, so that you can replace said quills to raise and lower without the humiliation of having spacers on top of your stem? You'd lose much of the simplicity of the threadless system, yet it still would be simpler than the old quill system.
I think I personally would have a new custom threadless stem made.
Patrick "despite my loquacity on the subject, have no dog fighting in it" Moore
PATRICK MOORE
*It does help to have Jobst reinforcing my preference:
http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html
Huh. So The Great Jobst *does* think that the better connection between stem and steerer is practically beneficial both for maintenance and for feel.
Atlantean
for that matter) will not soon forget the ordeal. The ones that, as
Jobst would say "require machining" are particularly memorable. It
will make one very generous with the grease!
One advantage of threadless forks, from a manufacturing and commercial
point of view, is the fact that you only need to make one fork to fit
a whole size run of frames. This makes things much easier and
significantly less expensive. It would be pretty easy for Grant to
order some threadless forks for, say, AHH owners who might want to buy
one. I am not saying I think he should, and I do understand why he
does not, but it's not like it would be a big deal to do it. It is
also not likely to be a big money maker for someone like Rivendell. I
do not expect it to happen, and it makes no difference in my opinion
of Riv.
The way these things go, I expect that at some point there will be
some decent chromoly forks with 1" threadless steer tubes readily
available for a good price. There are millions of frames out there
that they could be used on. At some point the 9/8" threadless fork
will become the ubiquitous standard, and people will think they are
normal on road bikes. At that point, a 7/8" diameter quill on a bike
stem will look delicate and quaint to most cyclists. Not exactly
apocalyptic. Again, for me, it's more about stiffness than anything
else, and there is no rational denying that the threadless design is
stiffer.
On Dec 24, 9:59 am, "PATRICK MOORE" <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
pali...@his.com
> One advantage of threadless forks, from a manufacturing and commercial
> point of view, is the fact that you only need to make one fork to fit
> a whole size run of frames. This makes things much easier and
> significantly less expensive. It would be pretty easy for Grant to
> order some threadless forks for, say, AHH owners who might want to buy
> one. I am not saying I think he should, and I do understand why he
> does not, but it's not like it would be a big deal to do it. It is
> also not likely to be a big money maker for someone like Rivendell. I
> do not expect it to happen, and it makes no difference in my opinion
> of Riv.
The only manufacturer I can think of off the top of my head who
actually has done something like this is Kogswell, with its
"Konversion Forks".
>
> The way these things go, I expect that at some point there will be
> some decent chromoly forks with 1" threadless steer tubes readily
> available for a good price. There are millions of frames out there
> that they could be used on.
Kogswell.
JoelMatthews
> custom, with a custom stem so that I would not have to use spacers. Or
> perhaps custom made spacer to avoid the "rings on the neck" look.
My first custom is threadless. I ultimately had a custom stem made
for it that does not require spacers. Its beautiful, but came at an
additional $450.00.
My second custom I specified threadless. The builder double checked
as most of his customers ask for threadless. For the record, builder
and I are both very happy with how it turned out.
On Dec 24, 10:55 am, "PATRICK MOORE" <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
JoelMatthews
> stem that's firmly clamped to the outside of a circular steel steerer
> tube more than one that is literally wedged into place.
bolts holding the threadless stem as opposed to the big honking bolt
in the middle of the quill.
> I do think the "threadless stems make it harder to fine-tune the
> height adjustment" thing isn't as true as many make it out to be.
> Yes, you'll probably want to cut the steerer tube if there's excessive
> length above the stem and yes, you have to take the headset out of
> adjustment to adjust the height of the stem, but they make headset
> spacers down to 1mm and I doubt that any of you really adjust your
> stem in increments of less than a millimeter. An advantage of
> threadless is that you always know by how much you're raising or
> lowering your bars- no measuring required!
somewhere, take the ahead cap then stem off, fool with the spacers and
put it all back together. On the other hand, I can stop in the middle
of a ride, pull out my trusty Park Y allen wrench and move the quill
up and down in a matter of seconds.
Tim McNamara
On Dec 24, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Jeremy Till wrote:
> Frankly, i'm a surprised that this topic has brought up so many
> arguments on both sides. I always thought that 1" threaded headsets
> and quill stems were a Rivendell "thing," as integral to the identity
> of the bikes as steel and lugs (excepting the Legolas, of course). I
> wouldn't ask GP to change that. I'm cool with that and appreciate the
> bikes for other reasons, and I know that if i ever own one it'll
> probably have a threaded headset.
>
> I'm firmly in the threadless camp (3 bikes, all threadless, 2 even
> with the "illusive" 1" threadless! no, headsets are not impossible to
> find, and most stems come with a shim to make it work), but i'll
> readily admit that my preference is mostly psychosomatic*. I'm a big
> guy, mostly ride fixed gear, and i like the idea of wrenching on a
> bar/
> stem that's firmly clamped to the outside of a circular steel steerer
> tube more than one that is literally wedged into place.
From a mechanical perspective, clamping the stem around the steerer
tube is a better design than a quill stem. The quill rocks inside
the steerer, the wedge may bulge or weaken the steerer causing it to
crack, stems with conical expanders tend to break at the slot in the
quill, etc. And of course there is the infamous stem frozen into the
steerer by corrosion (I've fortunately never had that happen to one
of my bikes, but saw it many times at bike shops where I worked).
I have two problems with threadless stems. First, most of them are
butt-ugly. Fugly even. Big, fat, anodized or painted tubes sticking
up at ungainly angles. I really hate the looks of the ones with
removable face plates (BTW the two-bolts face plates are dangerous;
use the 4 bolt ones to provide redundancy in case a bolt breaks).
But that's a subjective opinion based on taste.
The second is mechanical. The stem clamp is used to maintain the
bearing preload of the headset. This is initially set with the 5 mm
Allen bolt in the stem cap, but the preload is held by the stem's
pinch bolts. In a crash or even just from the bike getting knocked
over, if the bars get knocked askew you can't just twist them back
into alignment without gumming up the bearing preload. Out with the
Allen wrenches and ten minutes of fiddling with it instead of
riding. Is this actually a big issue? Probably not, I've never
heard people who use threadless stems moaning about it.
I think the best solution is the one used by the old French
constructeurs, who were making "threadless" stems 50 years before
MTBs discovered them. The headset was threaded as per usual, but the
stem was clamped onto a tube brazed into the steerer. If I went
"threadless," this is the system I'd use. Interestingly, the
constructeurs went back to the standard quill design after a decade
or two because of the adjustability issue.
Also Tom Ritchey made bikes with clamped-on stems in the 70s- at
which time Jobst criticized the design because it was non-standard
and could be hard to fix in the boonies; Jobst has since come around
to seeing threadless stems as the superior design; you can get
replacement parts almost anywhere in the world now.
Atlantean
of info I was hoping to find when I dove into this discussion. I just
went to the Kogswell site, and could not find any forks for sale, so I
guess the telephone is their preferred marketing tool. I like Kogswell
and check their site from time to time. Their prices seem very
reasonable, but they do seem to have an unusual approach to marketing.
On Dec 24, 10:54 am, palin...@his.com wrote:
> Quoting Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>:
>
Atlantean
top cap, loosen the stem and pull it off. You can hold the hadlebar in
one hand while moving spacers around with the other, and then put it
all back together. I usually use a similar procedure when swapping
stems, but you need to have the new stem in easy reach if you don't
have anyone around to assist.
erik jensen
JoelMatthews
> even was. Ride your bike, and by all means if you need that extra .3 mph in
> a sprint convert to threadless--just don't overlook my concise introduction
> to the oft-overlooked reality of stem planing, ok?
fear your planing theory does not advance the debate, at least as I
understand it.
The question at hand - or I thought at hand - was whether the benefits
of threadless warrant Rivendell offering a threadless option on all
Rivs not just the Legolas. As best I understand the planing theory,
with the exception of the Legolas, most Rivs will not plane. Bikes
planing proponents say plane are usually thin tube, randoneur type
bikes. Rivendells are made with fine sturdy tubing. The Hilsen comes
close to rando angles but gets no cigar. More impotantly perhaps, I
do not recall ever seeing anything to suggest GP buys into the whole
planing theory. So this probably will not factor into his decision
making process one way or the other.
On Dec 24, 12:22 pm, "erik jensen" <radiophonicworks...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Clearly none have considered the benefits of planing as regards the
> problematic of threaded stem flex. This slight, often imperceptible,
> distortion under duress netted by a quill pays off greatly in the
> subharmonic release of said stored energy and propells the rider through the
> dead zone of her pedal stroke resulting in a smoother ride and gentler
> disposition.
> I do have a threadless surly, and I do note it is significantly slower. I
> attribute this to stem planing, which is the only clear scientifically
> rigorous explanation I care for.
>
> I like quills for a plethora of reasons, philosophic and aesthetic--none of
> them performance aside from the quick change of height during a long ride or
> tour. If they're good enough for thousands of miles by others in
> multivariate conditions, that's good enough for me. I even like greasing my
> stem, so...
>
> On a serious note, all this talk about "so and so prefers x over y for
> reasons {a1, a2, a3}" really misses the point in my opinion.
>
> They both work fine, and I still have no idea what the original 'problem'
> even was. Ride your bike, and by all means if you need that extra .3 mph in
> a sprint convert to threadless--just don't overlook my concise introduction
> to the oft-overlooked reality of stem planing, ok?
>
> Have a great thursday eve and a fine holiday,
>
> erik
>
>
>
>
> > Quoting Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>:
>
> > > point of view, is the fact that you only need to make one fork to fit
> > > a whole size run of frames. This makes things much easier and
> > > significantly less expensive. It would be pretty easy for Grant to
> > > order some threadless forks for, say, AHH owners who might want to buy
> > > one. I am not saying I think he should, and I do understand why he
> > > does not, but it's not like it would be a big deal to do it. It is
> > > also not likely to be a big money maker for someone like Rivendell. I
> > > do not expect it to happen, and it makes no difference in my opinion
> > > of Riv.
>
> > The only manufacturer I can think of off the top of my head who
> > actually has done something like this is Kogswell, with its
> > "Konversion Forks".
>
> > > The way these things go, I expect that at some point there will be
> > > some decent chromoly forks with 1" threadless steer tubes readily
> > > available for a good price. There are millions of frames out there
> > > that they could be used on.
>
JoelMatthews
> top cap, loosen the stem and pull it off.
managed to drop bikes doing less. I have a lovely folding Park stand
and prefer using it whenever I am taking things off the bike.
On Dec 24, 12:18 pm, Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PATRICK MOORE
JoelMatthews
rather poor.
Steve Palincsar
> Kogswell! Who knew? Thanks for the tip, Steve. That's exactly the sort
> of info I was hoping to find when I dove into this discussion. I just
> went to the Kogswell site, and could not find any forks for sale, so I
> guess the telephone is their preferred marketing tool. I like Kogswell
> and check their site from time to time. Their prices seem very
> reasonable, but they do seem to have an unusual approach to marketing.
Call Matthew or email him at kogswel...@gmail.com
That's always the best bet.
Steve Palincsar
> Tried a bike this past year with a threadless stem; it was the largest
> sized, and I could *not* find a production stem that brought the bars
> within a cm of saddle height (cm to zero difference) that wasn't
> stretched too far, or just incredibly ugly. Even then, I couldn't get
> it to work. Maybe if the steerer hadn't been pre-cut.
That's definitely an issue - most threadless stems are butt ugly. The
Nitto TFL was not, but that was an accident, and we won't see them
again. The Nitto lugged threadless stem is nice, but definitely not
inexpensive. Same is true for the fillet brazed Nitto track threadless
stem - and they're not only expensive, they're only in 25.4 and long
sizes. And what's more, none of these have removable faceplates.
There are some gorgeous custom threadless stems out there. They're
expensive, and again as a rule they don't have removable faceplates.
Chris Halasz
The appearance wasn't limited to the intrinsic appearance of the stem,
but also to its dimension and angle! I was limited to 135mm, forty
degree stems - uck! BTW, I like the bars level with the saddle.
I appreciated Patrick's call for a long collared stem (a la Bruce
Gordon?); but these would add weight, and so may not find the
economies of scale if eschewed by those lured by minimal weight ...
Likewise, I don't have the dollars to pay someone for a custom stem
like that -- Nittos max my wallet!
It seems the sloping top tube 'compact' geometry has worked getting
the bars into a better position with production threadless frames, but
I personally don't appreciate more than a two degree top tube slope.
Hoping my earlier reference to notable frame builders' opinions on
threadless did not offend, I simply do not want my preference to
disappear with another questionable superiority of design. I recall
Ross Shafer bemoaning the influence of a certain magazine editor that
motivated MTB cable routings to the top tube. Knowing it didn't help
anything, but Ross went along, or sold far fewer bikes. The inside of
my knee is still scarred from flesh being removed by top tube
routings; the old Ritchey Timbercomp with its oh so clean top tube
never had a problem with cables getting cluttered with branches ... or
otherwise! (please, no tangent thread on this topic!!!)
I am, for the record, full in favor of Rivendell selling a bunch of
threadless forks (a bunch!), AND in creating a threadless stem as
Patrick described (who else but Riv?)!
Cheers to all,
Chris
Tucson, AZ
Mike
is needed is a separate Google Groups forum 100% dedicated to the
threaded vs threadless debate.
I wonder what color the SH will be?
Invisible
are ugly. I also don't think it's relevant.
I prefer threadless stems for the reasons I listed in my first post to
this thread: they make it easier to change stems and handlebars, and
they can be serviced or adjusted with just a 5mm Allen wrench, while
threaded headsets require large wrenches that have no other purpose on
a bike (or anywhere in my life).
Others here clearly prefer threaded stems. That's fine, too.
It looks like I'd need to ask Rivendell if they have uncut stems
available for use with a threadless headset. I still believe that
using a threadless headset on a threaded steer tube is no problem.
-Wesley
Angus
"Stem Planing" You might be on the something...I wonder, with
insufficient fastener torque, if one could induce brake lever planing
or handlebar planing.
I have an old Guerciotti Aluminum (I belive it was made by Alan) that
has a 1" threaded, all aluminum fork...think about this...the steerer
tube had the same outside diameter as a steel fork AND the same inside
diameter as a steel fork but made with a material that is 1/3rd as
stiff. Fork planing! No wonder I used to be so much faster....
Angus
>
> Clearly none have considered the benefits of planing as regards the
> problematic of threaded stem flex. This slight, often imperceptible,
> distortion under duress netted by a quill pays off greatly in the
> subharmonic release of said stored energy and propells the rider through the
> dead zone of her pedal stroke resulting in a smoother ride and gentler
> disposition.
> I do have a threadless surly, and I do note it is significantly slower. I
> attribute this to stem planing, which is the only clear scientifically
> rigorous explanation I care for.
>
> I like quills for a plethora of reasons, philosophic and aesthetic--none of
> them performance aside from the quick change of height during a long ride or
> tour. If they're good enough for thousands of miles by others in
> multivariate conditions, that's good enough for me. I even like greasing my
> stem, so...
>
> On a serious note, all this talk about "so and so prefers x over y for
> reasons {a1, a2, a3}" really misses the point in my opinion.
>
> They both work fine, and I still have no idea what the original 'problem'
> even was. Ride your bike, and by all means if you need that extra .3 mph in
> a sprint convert to threadless--just don't overlook my concise introduction
> to the oft-overlooked reality of stem planing, ok?
>
> Have a great thursday eve and a fine holiday,
>
> erik
>
>
>
>
> > Quoting Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>:
>
> > > point of view, is the fact that you only need to make one fork to fit
> > > a whole size run of frames. This makes things much easier and
> > > significantly less expensive. It would be pretty easy for Grant to
> > > order some threadless forks for, say, AHH owners who might want to buy
> > > one. I am not saying I think he should, and I do understand why he
> > > does not, but it's not like it would be a big deal to do it. It is
> > > also not likely to be a big money maker for someone like Rivendell. I
> > > do not expect it to happen, and it makes no difference in my opinion
> > > of Riv.
>
> > The only manufacturer I can think of off the top of my head who
> > actually has done something like this is Kogswell, with its
> > "Konversion Forks".
>
> > > The way these things go, I expect that at some point there will be
> > > some decent chromoly forks with 1" threadless steer tubes readily
> > > available for a good price. There are millions of frames out there
> > > that they could be used on.
>