Why Are Modern Stems So Short?
Dave Ings
I'm returning to cycling after a 15+ year absence. I bought a mountain bike
last year, and I'm shopping around for a new road bike. I used to own two
70s/80s era road bikes with custom frames and full Campy/DuraAce etc.
The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by and
large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This
results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer
useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I remember.
When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was that the stem height should be at
or slightly below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6 inches lower than
that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall (over 6') riders like
me.
Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest sources of traditional
stems?
I read an article in Bicycling Magazine a few issues ago that hinted that
(fashion) trends were reverting back to taller stems and a more comfortable
riding position (hey, you can always ride on the drops of a traditional bar
if you prefer the hunched over position).
Looking forward to being brought up to date!
--
Regards,
Dave Ings,
Toronto, Canada
David L. Johnson
> The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by and
> large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This
> results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer
> useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I remember.
It ain't the bars. it's the forks. "Modern" threadless forks offer very
little adjustment vertically, unless the dealer/builder plans ahead and
puts spacers in (either above or below the stem). These stems cannot just
be loosened and raised like the old quill ones.
4-6 inches is way beyond reason, even for a big guy. I would get a bike
fitting if I were you, and see what height you really want. Then, you can
get a "riser stem" that will deal with the problem.
> When I left cycling,
the rule of thumb was that the stem height should
> be at or slightly below the seat height.
I donno. I was first involved in 1970, and saw no one with the stem that
high. However, an inch or 2 below the seat is more reasonable, as it was
then.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you
_`\(,_ | killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds,
(_)/ (_) | thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't
kill that fast. -- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).
Dave Ings
Why did the industry by and large switch from threaded to threadless forks,
with the attendant loss of the bicyclist's ability to easily adjust the stem
height ... I mean seat height is still adjustable, why not stem height too?
Given the wide variation in body dimensions it's hard to see why one is
important and the other isn't!
I've already found the "Delta Threadless Stem Riser" due to your pointer -
thanks.
BTW whatever happned to Cinelli? Their bars were very nicely finished.
--
Regards,
Dave Ings,
Toronto, Canada
"David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.29...@lehigh-nospam.edu...
StaceyJ
from the front of the drops to the tops (see any recent picture of
Lance to see what I mean). This upward migration of brifters/levers
allows the bars to be dropped for increased aerodynamics while
retaining the relative comfort of riding on the hoods. A further
advantage for the go-fast crowd is an extremely aero position while in
the drops, and a somewhat lower Petacchi-esque position while sprinting
on the hooks. All in all, it comes down to racer-chaser fashion
statements.
There are a few things you can do to counter this trend...Longer
steerer tube on your (threadles) fork with a bunch of spacers, a
hi-rise adapter (bolts onto the steerer like a stem, then narrows to
allow the stem to bolt onto it), a stem with positive rise (greater
than -17 or so degrees...I prefer a flip-floppable -6 so I can set it
for high rise during the winter), or one of the new "comfort road"
bikes, like the Giant OCR's, the Specialized Roubaix, or the Trek
Pilots (just to name a few). Most of these will use a
sloping/semi-sloping geometry, which is designed primarily to get the
stem up while preserving some semblance of doable standover height.
Dave Ings
available in North American as they once were? The mainstream mail order
places don't seem to stock Cinelli, except for tape.
http://www.cinelli.it/eng/bici/curve/index.html
--
Regards,
Dave Ings,
Toronto, Canada
"Dave Ings" <in...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:...
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> It ain't the bars. it's the forks. "Modern" threadless forks
>> offer very little adjustment vertically, unless the dealer/builder
>> plans ahead and puts spacers in (either above or below the stem).
>> These stems cannot just be loosened and raised like the old quill
>> ones.
> Why did the industry by and large switch from threaded to threadless
> forks, with the attendant loss of the bicyclist's ability to easily
> adjust the stem height... I mean seat height is still adjustable,
> why not stem height too? Given the wide variation in body
> dimensions it's hard to see why one is important and the other
> isn't!
I believe the threadless steertube is a major advance, considering the
many aluminum stems that have failed for me and the many I watched
being machined out of the steel steer tube. Bar height is still
adjustable for a new rider by shifting spacers while head bearing
adjustment has become easy and precise, no longer requiring special
tools as in the past. For air shipping, I can turn my bars backward
easily and above all, bar rigidity to the frame is shockingly better.
> I've already found the "Delta Threadless Stem Riser" due to your
> pointer - thanks.
Once you have a bar height, it is not something you change often. I
certainly haven't changed mine in decades.
> BTW whatever happened to Cinelli? Their bars were very nicely
> finished.
Like Schwinn, the name outlived the man and has little to do with Cino
Cinelli, Sig. Sacchini, and Sig. Valsassina who built the frames.
I never liked the quill stem for its major functional failings and its
corrosion permanence in the steertube that it expanded with corrosive
action. Interview some frame builders who had to remove stems.
David L. Johnson
> Interesting.
>
> Why did the industry by and large switch from threaded to threadless forks,
> with the attendant loss of the bicyclist's ability to easily adjust the stem
> height ... I mean seat height is still adjustable, why not stem height too?
> Given the wide variation in body dimensions it's hard to see why one is
> important and the other isn't!
It's cheaper to make only one size fork, rather than have to fit the fork
(in particular, the steerer length and threading) to the bike. This is
particularly true with aftermarket forks, but also true for original
equipment forks.
Others will talk about the superiority of this or that difference between
the designs, but for me that has to be stacked against the lack of
adjustability of bar height. On the other hand, with the weak quill stem,
the wedge bolt pressing against the steerer tube (hopefully not in a
threaded place), and the inherent weakness of cutting threads into a
thin-walled tube (not to mention the groove cut into the threads for the
keyed lockwasher), a threaded fork is not without design compromises as
well. Personally, I still prefer a quill stem.
> BTW whatever happned to Cinelli? Their bars were very nicely finished.
Mostly, Cinelli is not what it was. There are still frames with that
label, but they bear no resemblance to the Cinelli's of old. They still
have a good reputation for bars and stems, but there are a lot of options
there, now, as well.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can
_`\(,_ | assure you that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein
(_)/ (_) |
Andrew Lee
"StaceyJ" wrote:
> Part of the trend can be traced to the migration of the brifters/levers
> from the front of the drops to the tops (see any recent picture of
> Lance to see what I mean). This upward migration of brifters/levers
> allows the bars to be dropped for increased aerodynamics while
> retaining the relative comfort of riding on the hoods. A further
> advantage for the go-fast crowd is an extremely aero position while in
> the drops, and a somewhat lower Petacchi-esque position while sprinting
> on the hooks. All in all, it comes down to racer-chaser fashion
> statements.
I checked out the Lance Armstrong/Graham Watson photo book "Images of a
Champion" from the library a few weeks ago. It chronicles his career from
the early 90's to 2004. Armstrong's brake levers moved into the higher
position with his first threadless steer tube bike. Coincidence? Anyway,
it works well enough that he hasn't gone back to the old setup.
Konstantin Shemyak
> Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest sources of traditional
> stems?
I was looking for a high enough threadless stem and finally ordered
from St. Jone's Street Cycles (UK) their custom 40 degree 175mm (!) stem:
http://www.sjscycles.com/store/item4494.htm
Made it possible to ride more or less comfortably a frame which was
otherwise way too small for me.
They have high quill stems too.
Konstantin Shemyak
Art Harris
> The only road bike technology/design
> change I'm perplexed by is that by and
> large, modern stems are really short (in the
> vertical direction). This results in a riding
> position that's incredibly hunched over, with
> fewer useful riding positions than the old
> Cinelli bars and stems that I remember.
> When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was
> that the stem height should be at or slightly
> below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-
> 6 inches lower than that. This seems like a
> particularly bad idea for tall (over 6') riders like me.
The traditional Cinelli stems (which I still use - e.g., Cinelli Model
1A and XA) only allowed a height adjustment of about an inch, and
weren't very tall.
Part of the problem is that people are buying smaller frames which
makes it hard to get the bars up high. I have minimal standover
clearance on my 63cm c-c frame, and even with the Cinelli stem at the
max height line, the bars are about 2-1/2" below the saddle. Luckily,
that's where I like them.
Your other options are to get a tall stem like the Nitto Technomic.
http://harriscyclery.net/site/itemdetails.cfm?ID=418
or get a stem that rises upward.
See:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/handsup.html
Art Harris
Peter Cole
> The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by and
> large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This
> results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer
> useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I remember.
> When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was that the stem height should be at
> or slightly below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6 inches lower than
> that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall (over 6') riders like
> me.
Actually, the taller you are, all other things being equal, the more
drop from saddle to bars is reasonable.
> Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest sources of traditional
> stems?
>
> I read an article in Bicycling Magazine a few issues ago that hinted that
> (fashion) trends were reverting back to taller stems and a more comfortable
> riding position (hey, you can always ride on the drops of a traditional bar
> if you prefer the hunched over position).
The style pendulum swung to very small frames. This is really mountain
bike styling. If you look at racers today you see extremely long
seatposts. This is what generates the long drop to the bars. You can
change this by going back to old-style larger frames, or raising the bars.
Old-style quill stems have a number of shortcomings, but, if you want
to, you can use a quill stem with a threadless fork. Sheldon Brown has
done this with a 1 1/8 fork:
<http://sheldonbrown.org/thorn/images/thorn.jpg>
I've done it with a 1" fork. He omits the star fangled nut and sets the
headset preload with body weight, I drove my nut down a bit and use a
longer bolt (with spacers).
jeremy_m...@hotmail.com
Greg Berchin
<peter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Actually, the taller you are, all other things being equal, the more
>>drop from saddle to bars is reasonable.
That's assuming that any drop was appropriate to start with. I am
6'4" tall with long legs and a short torso. I find it most
effective to have the bars at about the same height as the seat,
with my primary hand position on the brake hoods. Anything lower
than that, or with my hands in the drops, and I get better
aerodynamics but poorer breathing ability. For me, breathing is
more important than aerodynamics. I can always use the drops for
the occasional sprint.
Your mileage may vary. So may everyone else's. That's why they
make things adjustable.
Greg
Peter Cole
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:47:15 -0400, Peter Cole
> <peter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, the taller you are, all other things being equal, the more
>>>drop from saddle to bars is reasonable.
>
>
> That's assuming that any drop was appropriate to start with. I am
> 6'4" tall with long legs and a short torso. I find it most
> effective to have the bars at about the same height as the seat,
> with my primary hand position on the brake hoods. Anything lower
> than that, or with my hands in the drops, and I get better
> aerodynamics but poorer breathing ability. For me, breathing is
> more important than aerodynamics. I can always use the drops for
> the occasional sprint.
That sounds a bit unusual. My breathing isn't affected by back angle, my
limiting factor is my thighs hitting my ribs at top of stroke.
Conventional wisdom says that cycling isn't breathing limited. I tend to
believe that as I don't see that even having been a smoker for many
years. Nearly all of the arguments I've seen made for high bars are for
back or neck pain relief.
Mike Owens
> Hi all,
>
> I'm returning to cycling after a 15+ year absence. I bought a mountain
> bike last year, and I'm shopping around for a new road bike. I used to own
> two 70s/80s era road bikes with custom frames and full Campy/DuraAce etc.
>
> The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by
> and large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This
> results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer
> useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I
> remember. When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was that the stem height
> should be at or slightly below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6
> inches lower than that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall
> (over 6') riders like me.
>
> Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest sources of traditional
> stems?
>
>
will get you 2-3 shops that still stock them. Buy several.
-Mike
Mike DeMicco
> Others will talk about the superiority of this or that difference
> between the designs, but for me that has to be stacked against the
> lack of adjustability of bar height.
Again, it is adjustable. You just have to swap the spacers around, provided
you have enough steerer tube showing. Stems are also available in different
rises. Stems can also be flipped over to raise or lower the stem. I've had
more trouble getting the bars up high enough with a threaded stem (because
the quills are so short) than with a threadless stem (I made sure the LBS
didn't cut the steerer tube before I bought the bike).
--
Mike DeMicco <blast...@comcast.net>
russell...@yahoo.com
> Others will talk about the superiority of this or that difference
between
> the designs, but for me that has to be stacked against the lack of
> adjustability of bar height.
I've never understood this lack of adjustability argument against
threadless forks/stems and adjustability for threaded forks and quill
stems. I wonder if the people making these claims have ever ridden a
bike. I have two bikes with quill stems. TTT Synthesis. This has a
slightly longer quill than the modern welded things so you can adjust
it higher. I have my TTT Synthesis at the Max line. This puts the
bars about 2 inches below the saddle. Perfect for me and exactly what
Mr. Johnson quoted in his first post about this being the drop from the
early 1970s. I never adjust the quill stem lower. And I cannot adjust
the quill stem higher since its already at the Max line. So how does a
quill stem provide more adjustability than a threadless fork/stem? It
does not.
Although maybe for racers the quill stem does provide more adjustment.
They set the quill at the Max line at the beginning of the year. With
the bars 3 inches below the saddle. And then during the spring they
lower the quill so the bars end up 5 inches below the saddle. I guess
technically that makes a quill stem very adjustable. Maybe this is the
adjustability Mr. Johnson was raving about for quill stems.
The threadless fork/stem provides more height adjustability on most
occassions. If you setup your bike with a few spacers below and above
the stem and the stem in the horizontal position (-6 degrees) then you
have quite a bit of adjustment. Move the spacers above or below the
stem, and flip the stem over for even a bigger adjustment. A lot more
adjustment than a quill stem. And of course threadless stems are
plentiful in different lengths and angles for $10 or less. Nashbar and
Supergo always have cheap threadless stems. And the open face plate
allows switching threadless stems quick and easy.
Greg Berchin
<peter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Greg Berchin wrote:
>>
>>That sounds a bit unusual. My breathing isn't affected by back angle, my
>>limiting factor is my thighs hitting my ribs at top of stroke.
I can only speak for myself. That's the way it is for me. That's
the way it's always been for me. I've been riding seriously for
about thirty years.
>>Conventional wisdom says that cycling isn't breathing limited.
I don't understand your reasoning. If you can't fill your lungs,
then you can't provide oxygen to your muscles, and they can't do
their job.
>>Nearly all of the arguments I've seen made for high bars are for
>>back or neck pain relief.
Neither has ever been a problem for me.
Greg
Steven M. Scharf
<snip>
> Can someone explain why this is / and or suggest sources of traditional
> stems?
The use of threadless headsets saves the bicycle manufacturer money, as they
do not have to manufacture a variety of lengths of threaded forks/steer
tubes for their different size models. They try to portray this as an
improvement, with the false rationalizations that the threaded headsets
"always got loose," and that threadless headsets are lighter, stiffer,
stronger, and more durable. The facts are that properly tightened threaded
headsets didn't get loose, and that the differences in weight, stiffness,
strength, and durability are inconsequential.
Manufacturer's like threadless headsets, not only for the lower materials
cost, but because they have to manufacturer only one fork, with a long
steerer tube, which can
I've recently noticed that some manufacturers are leaving a lot more length
on the steer tube to raise the bars, and using a big stack of spacers. It's
a simple matter for a bike shop to cut the steer tube shorter, for those
that want the lower position.
At to correcting the problem on an existing bicycle, see
http://bicycleshortlist.com and go to the section "Why Threaded Headsets,
with Quill Stems, are preferable to Threadless Headsets." Whenever a product
is worsened, someone comes up with a clever way to correct the newly
introduced problems. There have been products developed to correct the
problems created by threadless headsets.
> I rea an article in Bicycling Magazine a few issues ago that hinted that
> (fashion) trends were reverting back to taller stems and a more
comfortable
> riding position (hey, you can always ride on the drops of a traditional
bar
> if you prefer the hunched over position).
There have recently been a slew of models that have done just this.
I recently adjusted the headset height on of my kid's bicycle; thank g-d the
threadless headset revolution hasn't reached down to kid's bikes yet.
Steven M. Scharf
> Interesting.
>
> Why did the industry by and large switch from threaded to threadless
forks,
> with the attendant loss of the bicyclist's ability to easily adjust the
stem
> height ... I mean seat height is still adjustable, why not stem height
too?
> Given the wide variation in body dimensions it's hard to see why one is
> important and the other isn't!
>
> I've already found the "Delta Threadless Stem Riser" due to your pointer -
> thanks.
The SpeedLifter is an even better solution, but apparently not sold in the
U.S. yet.
http://speedlifter.com/de/testen/index.html
Qui si parla Campagnolo
jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> I believe the threadless steertube is a major advance, considering
the
> many aluminum stems that have failed for me and the many I watched
> being machined out of the steel steer tube.
Gee Jobst, I guess you choose to ignore the threadless aluminum stems
that have failed. Google "Syncros". As for machining out a stem,
another 'standard' to fix lousy wrenching. A little grease goes a long
way.
Threadless was created for one BIG reason, to save fork makers MONEY.
It did that in spades w/o sending any of that savings onto the cycling
public. It was and is painted as some sort of revolutionary design,
that even has you enamoured with it's 'shocking' increase in rigidity.
How did those guys ever sprint on these heavy, soft, flexy, prone to
breakage stems??
As for ease of adjustment w/o special tools. For most you had better
have a 3/4/5/6 and sometimes other allen wrenches around. PLUS we
ungoon HS all day by those same cycists that gooned up their HS after
they bought that really 'specialized' tool, a 32mm headset wrench.
Bar height is still
> adjustable for a new rider by shifting spacers while head bearing
> adjustment has become easy and precise, no longer requiring special
> tools as in the past. For air shipping, I can turn my bars backward
> easily and above all, bar rigidity to the frame is shockingly better.
A 6mm allen and you can't turn your handlbars wround backwards? Same
for 'faceplate' stems, just so I can swap hbarts...what? How often do
ya need to do that?
Steven M. Scharf
> Again, it is adjustable. You just have to swap the spacers around,
provided
> you have enough steerer tube showing.
Well that's the big problem. Too many manufacturers are cutting the steerer
tubes very short, rather than leaving them longer and letting the shop cut
them, if necessary.
Jay Beattie
The deal with the Cinelli 1R stem is that it had, IIRC, a -17
degree rise and a fairly short quill, so even if you jacked it up
all the way, you did not get much above the headset. With modern
threadless stems, you can get lots of rise. I put a threadless
fork on an old custom steel frame that previously had a 1R stem,
swapped in a - 6 degree stem, flipped that over and have lots of
rise. I can flip it the other way, add some spacers and get
something a little racier -- and still more rise than the 1R.
Quills can get stuck; it is a PITA to have to untape your bars to
swap stems (if you are experimenting with reach), and all in all,
the threadless stem with the two or four bolt face-plate is far
more convenient, IMO. There are lots more options for rise than
30 years ago, and if you are dumping a bunch of money on a new
bike, the shop should get you fitted just right. The big
difference in my opinion is that bars are no longer lifetime
items and have expiration dates, if you believe the product
warnings. -- Jay Beattie.
Peter Cole
>>>Conventional wisdom says that cycling isn't breathing limited.
>
>
> I don't understand your reasoning. If you can't fill your lungs,
> then you can't provide oxygen to your muscles, and they can't do
> their job.
It's not my reasoning. Developed cyclists normally max out continuous
power through cardio-vascular limits. Ususally there is still
significant extra lung capacity at this point.
The other thing is that I don't understand how back angle affects the
ability to fill the lungs.
Peter Cole
> As for machining out a stem,
> another 'standard' to fix lousy wrenching. A little grease goes a long
> way.
I had to remove a frozen quill stem (after it failed). It had been
greased, to the best of my recollection, some number of months previously.
> Threadless was created for one BIG reason, to save fork makers MONEY.
> It did that in spades w/o sending any of that savings onto the cycling
> public.
I don't know how they could withold just that money (sounds a little
tinfoil hat to me). It certainly has saved me money since I can buy
forks separate from bikes, swap forks, etc. This makes the whole
after-market fork thing accessible to a DIY'er and the same for road &
off-road bikes.
> As for ease of adjustment w/o special tools. For most you had better
> have a 3/4/5/6 and sometimes other allen wrenches around. PLUS we
> ungoon HS all day by those same cycists that gooned up their HS after
> they bought that really 'specialized' tool, a 32mm headset wrench.
I think it's one Allen to install stem, handlebars and set preload, at
least on all the components I've used. Hard to screw up.
> A 6mm allen and you can't turn your handlbars wround backwards? Same
> for 'faceplate' stems, just so I can swap hbarts...what? How often do
> ya need to do that?
Pulling up one of those long quills when you don't have enough cable?
Greg Berchin
Like I said, I can only speak for myself. I guess I'm the
exception, instead of the rule.
Bill Sornson
>
>>
>> I believe the threadless steertube is a major advance, considering
>> the many aluminum stems that have failed for me and the many I
>> watched being machined out of the steel steer tube.
>
>
> Gee Jobst, I guess you choose to ignore the threadless aluminum stems
> that have failed. Google "Syncros". As for machining out a stem,
> another 'standard' to fix lousy wrenching. A little grease goes a long
> way.
Forget all that -- NICE POSTING FORMAT! Figure something out?
Appreciatively, BS (no, really)
Dave Ings
--
Regards,
Dave Ings,
Toronto, Canada
"Greg Berchin" <76145...@compuswerve.com> wrote in message
news:ukg471p20jndbs8bo...@4ax.com...
Dave Ings
to the length. Since I tended to buy long stems, I actually ended up with a
fair bit of vertical play - I wasn't at the max instertion line most of the
time.
Now I've learned here that I can achieve the same effect with threadless if
I purchase a custom frame and ensure the steering tube is not prematurely
cut to size. But that isn't go to work for stock frames, and it seems like
an awfully fussy way to achieve the proper bar height.
--
Regards,
Dave Ings,
Toronto, Canada
<russell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114788258.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Steven M. Scharf
news:1114789368....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Threadless was created for one BIG reason, to save fork makers MONEY.
> It did that in spades w/o sending any of that savings onto the cycling
> public.
Prices are not based on how much something costs to produce, so never expect
any cost reductions in the factory to be passed on to the consumer.
> It was and is painted as some sort of revolutionary design,
> that even has you enamoured with it's 'shocking' increase in rigidity.
> How did those guys ever sprint on these heavy, soft, flexy, prone to
> breakage stems??
Every time a product is decontented, the manufacturer comes up with
rationalization to try and explain why the change was actually an
improvement. For bicycles we've seen this with the transition from quill
headsets to threadless headsets, "normal" geometry frames to compact
geometry frames, and from chro-moloy frames to aluminum frames. It
apparently isn't too hard to get some consumers to actually believe that
this decontenting was an improvement, because in each case you can come up
with some tiny side benefit, and ignore all the drawbacks. Suddenly
threadless headsets are an improvement because quill headsets were "always
getting loose," or "always breaking." They've extrapolated a tiny, tiny
problem into a much larger issue than it ever really was.
There are some real improvements that have been made, though some
retro-grouches may not agree. I really like the brifter concept, despite the
additional complexity, and it's especially good for less experienced, less
confident riders, who shouldn't be moving their hands off the bars to shift.
Indexed shifting was another great improvement. But these improvements were
not done primarily to cut costs, and in some cases add a little cost.
> As for ease of adjustment w/o special tools. For most you had better
> have a 3/4/5/6 and sometimes other allen wrenches around. PLUS we
> ungoon HS all day by those same cycists that gooned up their HS after
> they bought that really 'specialized' tool, a 32mm headset wrench.
I loved those little headset wrenches that you used with a Cool Tool.
David L. Johnson
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>> Others will talk about the superiority of this or that difference
> between
>> the designs, but for me that has to be stacked against the lack of
>> adjustability of bar height.
>
> I've never understood this lack of adjustability argument against
> threadless forks/stems and adjustability for threaded forks and quill
> stems. I wonder if the people making these claims have ever ridden a
> bike.
I have.
> I have two bikes with quill stems. TTT Synthesis. This has a
> slightly longer quill than the modern welded things so you can adjust
> it higher. I have my TTT Synthesis at the Max line. This puts the
> bars about 2 inches below the saddle. Perfect for me and exactly what
> Mr. Johnson quoted in his first post about this being the drop from the
> early 1970s. I never adjust the quill stem lower. And I cannot adjust
> the quill stem higher since its already at the Max line. So how does a
> quill stem provide more adjustability than a threadless fork/stem? It
> does not.
My two bikes with quill stems have the stems inserted, at the moment, near
the lowest point, and this puts them at about 2 inches below the saddle.
I have moved them up and down from time to time, but am comfortable with
where they are now. However, to move the stem on my other two bikes
(mountain and tandem), since the steerers were cut before I got them and
are only just long enough for the stem without spacers, I would have to
go out and buy another stem, unless I happen to want to adjust the height
to exactly what happens when I flip the stem over.
I don't see what is so surprising about this. Reality is that most new
bikes come with 0 spacers and 0 room for spacers, as with the OP. So the
only "adjustment" possible is to go out and buy a new stem. If you get it
right when you start, great, but if you have to fiddle with your position,
as people do with a new bike, you have to get more than one stem.
>
> Although maybe for racers the quill stem does provide more adjustment.
> They set the quill at the Max line at the beginning of the year. With
> the bars 3 inches below the saddle. And then during the spring they
> lower the quill so the bars end up 5 inches below the saddle. I guess
> technically that makes a quill stem very adjustable. Maybe this is the
> adjustability Mr. Johnson was raving about for quill stems.
I don't really call this raving, and I am not talking about 5 inches of
drop. I'm looking at my old track bike now. I can lower the stem about
1cm, and raise it maybe up to 3-4cm before I get to the max height. This
would give a range of about 2.5 inches below the seat height to maybe 1/2"
below. All with a simple release and tightening of the binder bolt.
>
> The threadless fork/stem provides more height adjustability on most
> occassions. If you setup your bike with a few spacers below and above
> the stem
I have two counter-examples of this, bikes that came with the steerer cut
so that was not possible. This is SOP for many shops. Go into one and
take a look at the bikes on display. Count the spacers.
> And of course threadless stems are
> plentiful in different lengths and angles for $10 or less. Nashbar and
> Supergo always have cheap threadless stems.
Let's see. Nashbar has one for $0.99, if you want 130mm extension. Next
cheapest is their house brand, which is available in a number of lengths,
90-130, 7 degree, $14.95. Any color you want, as long as you want black.
Next cheapest is $48.97. All the ones they have have the same angle, to
+/- 1 degree. How is it that you can get all this height adjustment?
Ah, no, there is one that is +/- 10 degrees. Costs $79.95, 90 or 100mm.
Another! 17-degrees, three lengths, $59.95.
Unless you have room for spacers, there really is not an easy way to
change the height, unless flipping it over works for you. All this talk
about easy adjustability is not really true for most people who buy a
pre-built bike in a non-custom size, since they do not get any spacers to
mess with.
> And the open face plate
> allows switching threadless stems quick and easy.
although you do have to re-set the headset preload.
I don't see this as a real improvement.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you
_`\(,_ | killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds,
(_)/ (_) | thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't
kill that fast. -- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).
David L. Johnson
> "David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in
> news:pan.2005.04.29....@lehigh-nospam.edu:
>
>> Others will talk about the superiority of this or that difference
>> between the designs, but for me that has to be stacked against the
>> lack of adjustability of bar height.
>
> Again, it is adjustable. You just have to swap the spacers around, provided
> you have enough steerer tube showing.
Go to your local shop. Look at the bikes on display. Most have no
spacers and no room for spacers.
> Stems are also available in different
> rises.
Cheap ones are all 6 degrees or so. You either have to pay $50 or find
someone with a riser stem. Not an immediate or cheap solution.
Stems can also be flipped over to raise or lower the stem.
So, 2 height options are better than being able to set it where you want
it?
> I've
> had more trouble getting the bars up high enough with a threaded stem
> (because the quills are so short) than with a threadless stem (I made
> sure the LBS didn't cut the steerer tube before I bought the bike).
Most people don't get a chance to have the shop not cut the fork too
short. Quill stems are as easily available with very long quills as riser
threadless stems are. Sheldon Brown has them in every extension, from 50mm
to 120mm, $39.95. I got one for my wife's bike some time back, with an
even longer quill (steel, which makes sense) for like $10.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. --
_`\(,_ | Michael Crichton
(_)/ (_) |
David L. Johnson
> I believe the threadless steertube is a major advance, considering the
> many aluminum stems that have failed for me and the many I watched
> being machined out of the steel steer tube.
I wonder about failure rates of threadless stems. Yes, quill stems are a
weak design, but so many things are in the stupid-light range now that I
wonder if there really is an improvement in safety for most riders.
> Bar height is still
> adjustable for a new rider by shifting spacers
As long as there is room for spacers. If manufacturers and shops would
leave the steerer tube long and only cut it during fitting (and even then
leave some extra room for spacers), that would greatly increase the
adjustability of threadless systems. It's a shame that many tubes are cut
too soon.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you
Art Harris
> My two bikes with quill stems have the stems inserted, at the moment,
near
> the lowest point...
What kind of stems are these? Cinellis?
> Reality is that most new bikes come with 0 spacers and 0 room for
spacers, as with the OP.
I'd never buy a new bike with the steer tube cut that short. Most
everyone I know with threadless forks have a number of spacers.
Art Harris
Steven M. Scharf
news:pan.2005.04.29...@lehigh-nospam.edu...
> Go to your local shop. Look at the bikes on display. Most have no
> spacers and no room for spacers.
Usually this is true, but not always. I saw some Jamis models at
Performance, and they had a very long steering tube and a LOT of spacers.
From what I understand, some shops complained to the manufacturers about
this issue, because they were having to eat the cost of an extender in order
to make a sale. While the cost to a shop of the extender is only around
$6-7, they also have to install it, raising their burdened cost to $15-20.
They eat the cost to save a sale, but they don't like it. There is also the
issue of the extender option looking like crap!
> Cheap ones are all 6 degrees or so. You either have to pay $50 or find
> someone with a riser stem. Not an immediate or cheap solution.
This is the crux of the issue. The consumer is expected to pay for the
workaround to the problem introduced by the manufacturer to save the
manufacturer money. We all understand that there are workarounds, but unless
the shop wants to include the workaround at no increase in price, then there
is still a problem.
> Most people don't get a chance to have the shop not cut the fork too
> short.
In many cases it is cut too short straight from the factory, so it really
isn't the shops fault.
gev...@mindspring.com
varying angles. solving the problem :>
Mike DeMicco
> Go to your local shop. Look at the bikes on display. Most have no
> spacers and no room for spacers.
So? Don't buy a bike like that. Threaded stems also come with very short
quills. This whole argument is getting silly. It all depends. Both designs
are adjustable within limits. Buy what you want, but the reality is that
threaded stems and threaded forks and bikes with threaded forks are getting
hard to find.
--
Mike DeMicco <blast...@comcast.net>
Mike DeMicco
> Threadless was created for one BIG reason, to save fork makers MONEY.
> It did that in spades w/o sending any of that savings onto the cycling
> public.
I hate to disagree with such an esteemed individual, but why is it that
just because something is cheaper, people automatically believe it is
inferior? In this case, threadless is cheaper AND better. How much cheaper
can it be anyway? $5, $10? If you've ever had to deal with a frozen stem
(and I'm sure you've had to), how can you still believe that the threaded
system is better?
--
Mike DeMicco <blast...@comcast.net>
Gooserider
"David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.29...@lehigh-nospam.edu...
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:27:13 -0400, Dave Ings wrote:
>
> > The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by
and
> > large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This
> > results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer
> > useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I
remember.
>
> little adjustment vertically, unless the dealer/builder plans ahead and
> puts spacers in (either above or below the stem). These stems cannot just
> be loosened and raised like the old quill ones.
>
But that's easily addressed. A reputable dealer will happily cut the fork to
fit the rider, place spacers, or swap the stem as needed. I think the
threadless headsets are a godsend---they're easy to swap, and you can remove
the bar without removing levers and tape.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I believe the threadless steertube is a major advance, considering
>> the many aluminum stems that have failed for me and the many I
>> watched being machined out of the steel steer tube.
> Gee Jobst, I guess you choose to ignore the threadless aluminum
> stems that have failed. Google "Syncros". As for machining out a
> stem, another 'standard' to fix lousy wrenching. A little grease
> goes a long way.
Grease will not prevent an aluminum quill stem from "freezing" solid
in a steel steertube. All the ones I witnessed were installed with
plenty of grease that emulsified as the stem yoyoed back an forth at
its upper end pumping sweat and rain water into the grease that was
kneaded into a corrosive glop. Failure in these stems was not
breakage but terminal expansion into the steer tube to prevent
removal.
> Threadless was created for one BIG reason, to save fork makers MONEY.
They have been around for a long time. I've seen bicycles from the
1940's that had these stems for exactly the reasons I mention but they
didn't have the head set to go with them. As I mentioned in the piece
I cited at:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html
There are mechanical reasons for this design.
> It did that in spades w/o sending any of that savings onto the
> cycling public. It was and is painted as some sort of revolutionary
> design, that even has you enamoured with it's 'shocking' increase in
> rigidity. How did those guys ever sprint on these heavy, soft,
> flexy, prone to breakage stems??
Who said they broke?
> As for ease of adjustment w/o special tools. For most you had
> better have a 3/4/5/6 and sometimes other allen wrenches around.
> PLUS we ungoon HS all day by those same cycists that gooned up their
> HS after they bought that really 'specialized' tool, a 32mm headset
> wrench.
You don't have to buy a stupid stem. You can get one that has only
one size of socket head screw and adjust bar height, angle and bearing
clearance with the same little allen wrench and let that pair of
clumsy octagonal foot long wrenches remain on the shelf. Besides,
those wrenches did not easily arrive on a proper bearing adjustment.
>> Bar height is still adjustable for a new rider by shifting spacers
>> while head bearing adjustment has become easy and precise, no
>> longer requiring special tools as in the past. For air shipping, I
>> can turn my bars backward easily and above all, bar rigidity to the
>> frame is shockingly better.
> A 6mm allen and you can't turn your handlbars wround backwards?
> Same for 'faceplate' stems, just so I can swap hbarts... what? How
> often do ya need to do that?
Every time I take my bicycle on an airline. That is at least twice a
year. That's how I used to discover that the stem could not be
removed or turned.
Steven M. Scharf
"Gooserider" <no...@mousepotato.com> wrote in message
news:i2Ace.18153$716....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> But that's easily addressed. A reputable dealer will happily cut the fork
to
> fit the rider, place spacers, or swap the stem as needed.
The problem occurs when the manufacturer supplies the bicycle with a fork
that is already cut too short. Stem swaps are sometimes able to correct the
issue. But not everyone wants to be stuck with a single possible height and
distance, withou having to spend money to make changes. It's like a car
maker that would make you change your seats in order to change the seat
position. I sometimes lend out my bicycles to visitors, and it would be a
real pain if I could not make adjustments for them.
The SpeedLifter looks like an ideal solution to threadless headsets, but
it's expensive, and not readily available.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Peter Cole wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > As for machining out a stem,
> > another 'standard' to fix lousy wrenching. A little grease goes a
long
> > way.
>
> I had to remove a frozen quill stem (after it failed). It had been
> greased, to the best of my recollection, some number of months
previously.
>
> > Threadless was created for one BIG reason, to save fork makers
MONEY.
> > It did that in spades w/o sending any of that savings onto the
cycling
> > public.
>
> I don't know how they could withold just that money (sounds a little
> tinfoil hat to me). It certainly has saved me money since I can buy
> forks separate from bikes, swap forks, etc. This makes the whole
> after-market fork thing accessible to a DIY'er and the same for road
&
> off-road bikes.
I guess you needed to be around in the 90s when threadless was first
introduced. The fork makers, like Rockshox, went from making about a
dozen different fork steerers to one. 1 1/8inch and threadless. Same
for other carbon fork makers, Kestrel went from many to one, 1 inch and
threadless. If ya can't imagine a cost savings there, welll....
BUT all tyhe hoopla was about how much better threadless
performed...when in the trewnches, of course it actually didn't.
Reality in the bike shop once more.
>
> > As for ease of adjustment w/o special tools. For most you had
better
> > have a 3/4/5/6 and sometimes other allen wrenches around. PLUS we
> > ungoon HS all day by those same cycists that gooned up their HS
after
> > they bought that really 'specialized' tool, a 32mm headset wrench.
>
> I think it's one Allen to install stem, handlebars and set preload,
at
> least on all the components I've used. Hard to screw up.
Once again, I think a little reality is in order from somebody that
deals with many manufacturers of forks and stems. Many stems and fork
plugs use a variety of tools. Some Colnago caps use a pin spanner to
adjust. And don't forget the 'tool' to properly install the SFN on
steel and aluminum steerers. Also I must mention how often we see star
fangles nuts pounded into carbon steerers, a BAD idea.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Yessir, even a blind pig will find acorns......
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Threadless, like so much else in bicycles, was introduced and pushed by
some front suspension makers, to save money. My gripe is that was
painted as some sort of revelation to cycling.
It is here and we must live with it. BUT it answered no question,
solved no problem with rrgards to quill stems and forks.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> You don't have to buy a stupid stem. You can get one that has only
> one size of socket head screw and adjust bar height, angle and
bearing
> clearance with the same little allen wrench and let that pair of
> clumsy octagonal foot long wrenches remain on the shelf. Besides,
> those wrenches did not easily arrive on a proper bearing adjustment.
>
>
I don't. I have quill stems on all 4 of my bicycles(Grammo, Moots,
Cinelli(2)), along with Deltas on my main Merckx. I have never had a
stem freeze into the fork, have never felt they were soft of flexy or
overly under rigid(two are titanium).
Like so much else, threadless is an answer to a not asked
question....and the cycling public bought it, once again. Like 1
1/8inch, disc brakes, carbon butt ends, tubeless road tires, oversized
handlebars and stems, compact frames, wheesl outta boxes...the list
goes on..It is TIRESOME to try to refute the BS that comes from mags,
web sites, bike shops.
Michael Warner
> The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is that by and
> large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical direction). This
> results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over, with fewer
> useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems that I remember.
> When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was that the stem height should be at
> or slightly below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6 inches lower than
> that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall (over 6') riders like
> me.
I would suggest that if you can't get the bars any higher than that
relative to the saddle, with the factory stem flipped over to
give a bit of rise, then you're looking at frames that are too small
for you.
You may need a more angled stem to get the bars as high as the saddle,
but you probably wouldn't want them any higher than that anyway.
--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo
RonSonic
wrote:
I've dealt with a frozen stem.
Pieceafreeking cake compared to a loose star nut.
So what do I do with this headset screw that won't really loosen or tighten just
turns making a grindy noise inside the head tube and is too secure to just pull
out?
Every technology has its downside. Not all have a sufficient up side. We know by
the longevity of the quill that it wasn't all that bad.
I wouldn't be surprised if the present threadless system were gone in another
ten years.
Ron
Steven M. Scharf
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
> Like so much else, threadless is an answer to a not asked
> question....and the cycling public bought it, once again.
Actually it was an answer to a question. The question was: "How do we get
rid of the expense of having to have a different fork for every different
size frame?" Once they found that answer, then they had to rationalize it,
and they came up with fantastic stories about how horrible the quill stem
was, and yes, many people have fell for the lies.
Compact frames were also an answer to a question: "How can we have fewer
size frames?"
Aluminum tubing was also an answer to a question: "How can we make lighter
bicycles without the expense of chro-moly steel tubing?"
In each case, the way the change is sold to the public is completely
divorced from the actual reason for the change. Reality has no meaning.
Something like 40% of the U.S. public still believes that Iraq was behind
9/11.
> Like 1
> 1/8inch, disc brakes, carbon butt ends, tubeless road tires, oversized
> handlebars and stems, compact frames, wheesl outta boxes...the list
> goes on..It is TIRESOME to try to refute the BS that comes from mags,
> web sites, bike shops.
The magazines and the bike shops are forced to buy into it. The magazines,
because they make their money from advertising, and the bicycle shops
because they have to sell what the manufacturers decide to make.
Steven M. Scharf
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
> Threadless, like so much else in bicycles, was introduced and pushed by
> some front suspension makers, to save money. My gripe is that was
> painted as some sort of revelation to cycling.
As are many changes that are made to save money.
> It is here and we must live with it. BUT it answered no question,
> solved no problem with rrgards to quill stems and forks.
I think the main objection to "living with it" is that it's pushed the cost
of correcting the widespread issue of too-low height, onto the consumer. You
can buy new stems, extenders, or even a new fork to solve the problem, but
these are changes that were not often as necessary in the past.
Steven M. Scharf
> I guess you needed to be around in the 90s when threadless was first
> introduced. The fork makers, like Rockshox, went from making about a
> dozen different fork steerers to one. 1 1/8inch and threadless. Same
> for other carbon fork makers, Kestrel went from many to one, 1 inch and
> threadless. If ya can't imagine a cost savings there, welll....
It was a great idea, just poorly executed, both due to the lack of
adjustability, and the tendency for the bicycle manufacturers to cut the
steer tubes too short.
I just experienced another "product improvement." Remodeling the bathrooms
in my house, I found that almost no shower/bath controls can control
pressure anymore, it's either on or off. The rationale is that with
flow-control shower heads, the pressure is already so low that there is no
need for pressure control, and when filling a bathtub you don't ever want
anything but full-on. Of course the real reason for the change is that it's
too expensive to implement anti-scald with variable pressure. I finally
found one control system that was still okay, but it was about $400 (which
is cheap compared to the high end separate components from Hansgrohe).
David L. Johnson
> I've dealt with a frozen stem.
>
> Pieceafreeking cake compared to a loose star nut.
>
> So what do I do with this headset screw that won't really loosen or tighten just
> turns making a grindy noise inside the head tube and is too secure to just pull
> out?
>
> Every technology has its downside. Not all have a sufficient up side. We know by
> the longevity of the quill that it wasn't all that bad.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if the present threadless system were gone in another
> ten years.
If manufacturers and dealers would set bikes up with adequate spacers,
solving the adjustment problem for threadless headsets, then the kludge
that is the star nut would be the worst part of the threadless design.
Since it really doesn't do all that much, it would be easy to replace with
a better system. Now, if they could only do something about the fact that
threadless headsets/stems look so clunky, we might be getting somewhere.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can
_`\(,_ | only be cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and
(_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris. --
Glenn Davies
Peter Cole
> I just experienced another "product improvement." Remodeling the bathrooms
> in my house, I found that almost no shower/bath controls can control
> pressure anymore, it's either on or off. The rationale is that with
> flow-control shower heads, the pressure is already so low that there is no
> need for pressure control, and when filling a bathtub you don't ever want
> anything but full-on.
Works for me.
> Of course the real reason for the change is that it's
> too expensive to implement anti-scald with variable pressure.
I wouldn't say I know a large number of people, and of the people I do,
I have not seen most of them in shorts. That said, I know 3 adults with
very bad scalding scars, received in childhood. A common and very
serious problem that deserves a good (idiot-proof) solution.
Peter Cole
>
> I think the main objection to "living with it" is that it's pushed the cost
> of correcting the widespread issue of too-low height, onto the consumer. You
> can buy new stems, extenders, or even a new fork to solve the problem, but
> these are changes that were not often as necessary in the past.
Why isn't it "pushed" to the retailer?
Dave Ings
However nearly everywhere I look, I see road bikes outfitted (displayed)
like this
http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/html/2005/05_en_leggero.asp
in which it seems the bike designer is determined to have the bars *well*
below seat level. This bike has a head tube about 1/2 the length my 70s
bikes used to have, so it's no surprise the bars are low.
--
Regards,
Dave Ings,
Toronto, Canada
"Michael Warner" <s...@homepage.com> wrote in message
news:1rsm2sckkel4v$.d6k5ni4vu3g.dlg@40tude.net...
Peter Cole
> and they came up with fantastic stories about how horrible the quill stem
> was, and yes, many people have fell for the lies.
Who were "they", and what were these "fantastic stories" and "lies". The
only negative I've heard about quill stems is the corrosion problem,
which I've experienced first-hand. I thought it was a pretty negative
experience.
Threadless stems are stiffer (which I like), I haven't had one fail yet,
although I have had a quill stem fail. (pretty negative, too)
> Compact frames were also an answer to a question: "How can we have fewer
> size frames?"
Both compact frames and threadless stems came out of the mountain biking
market. A lot of fashion involved. Every year I'm struck by how long
the seatposts are getting in the pro pelotons. I don't think frames
really have to be sized to the nearest inch, anyway.
> Aluminum tubing was also an answer to a question: "How can we make lighter
> bicycles without the expense of chro-moly steel tubing?"
Also (originally), how can we make really stiff frames without being too
heavy? Both valid questions, now answered. What questions were carbon
fiber and titanium the answer to? (hey, this is like playing Jeopardy)
Anyway, what makes you think chromoly is so expensive? I just bought a
new True Temper frame & fork for $70. There are tons of inexpensive
steel bikes. Chro-moly is a widely used alloy in all kinds of
applications. It's really cheap.
> In each case, the way the change is sold to the public is completely
> divorced from the actual reason for the change. Reality has no meaning.
It's all about style, welcome to America, it's been like this for a very
long time. People need rationalizations to justify disk brakes, exotic
frames, low count/funky pattern wheel spoking, colored tires,
crazy-expensive components, but they really want the stuff because it
looks cool. The industry supplies the shiny baubles and the story to go
with them. Give me an example of an expensive consumer product (never
mind hobby product) that isn't sold with fantasy over reality, or style
over substance.
The sad thing is that when real innovations come along, the
retro-grouches start getting all conspiracy-theory. It's sad too when
LBS guys start carrying on, like what did you think the business was
about? Didn't you ever watch "Breaking Away"?
Why do fat, middle-aged, occasional riders drop $5,000+ on bikes? Why do
dogs lick their... because they can, that's all </rant>.
Sorry, just got back from a club ride, it's like what the LBS salesguy
(bauble gofer) I overheard muttered under his breath: "People just have
way too much money".
Phil, Squid-in-Training
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:rWNce.1552$V01....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
>
>> Like so much else, threadless is an answer to a not asked
>> question....and the cycling public bought it, once again.
>
> Actually it was an answer to a question. The question was: "How do we get
> rid of the expense of having to have a different fork for every different
> size frame?" Once they found that answer, then they had to rationalize it,
> and they came up with fantastic stories about how horrible the quill stem
> was, and yes, many people have fell for the lies.
Lies??? How can you say that when threadless actually makes it easier to
swap forks out between bikes? It is a FACT, not a lie.
I switched out a fork with one of my MTB friends who wanted to try out my
rigid fork. How long was the actual fork swap? Well, since Giant puts
split-ring crown races on their headsets, about 45 seconds. How long would
it take if it were threaded? Much longer. After she tried out my rigid
fork, she wanted to switch back. How long would it take if it were
threaded? None at all, because we wouldn't be able to switch back because
the steerer would have been too short!
Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face it... 1
1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was using differing
thread pitches and diameters ever productive? Remember, we lost the Mars
Polar Explorer due to differing standards.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> bikes come with 0 spacers and 0 room for spacers, as with the OP. So the
> only "adjustment" possible is to go out and buy a new stem. If you get it
> right when you start, great, but if you have to fiddle with your position,
> as people do with a new bike, you have to get more than one stem.
We deal Giant and Specialized bikes. None of them, even the top-of-the-line
road bikes, have 0 spacers and 0 room for spacers. They all come with 15mm
(three 5mm spacers) under the stem. What brands are you talking about?
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> they
> do not have to manufacture a variety of lengths of threaded forks/steer
> tubes for their different size models. They try to portray this as an
> improvement, with the false rationalizations that the threaded headsets
> "always got loose," and that threadless headsets are lighter, stiffer,
> stronger, and more durable. The facts are that properly tightened threaded
> headsets didn't get loose, and that the differences in weight, stiffness,
> strength, and durability are inconsequential.
Because I *like* to bring a 32/36mm headset wrench with me on a ride???
> Manufacturer's like threadless headsets, not only for the lower materials
> cost, but because they have to manufacturer only one fork, with a long
> steerer tube, which can
You forgot to finish the sentence with "make it so much easier to swap out
forks and ensure compatability."
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Phil, Squid-in-Training
"Jay Beattie" <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:1174lkn...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Dave Ings" <in...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ubfce.13616$gA5.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm returning to cycling after a 15+ year absence. I bought a
> mountain bike
>> last year, and I'm shopping around for a new road bike. I used
> to own two
>> 70s/80s era road bikes with custom frames and full
> Campy/DuraAce etc.
>>
>> The only road bike technology/design change I'm perplexed by is
> that by and
>> large, modern stems are really short (in the vertical
> direction). This
>> results in a riding position that's incredibly hunched over,
> with fewer
>> useful riding positions than the old Cinelli bars and stems
> that I remember.
>> When I left cycling, the rule of thumb was that the stem height
> should be at
>> or slightly below the seat height. Now it seems to be 4-6
> inches lower than
>> that. This seems like a particularly bad idea for tall (over
> 6') riders like
>> me.
>>
> traditional
>> stems?
>>
>> I read an article in Bicycling Magazine a few issues ago that
> hinted that
>> (fashion) trends were reverting back to taller stems and a more
> comfortable
>> riding position (hey, you can always ride on the drops of a
> traditional bar
>> if you prefer the hunched over position).
>>
>> Looking forward to being brought up to date!
>
> The deal with the Cinelli 1R stem is that it had, IIRC, a -17
> degree rise and a fairly short quill, so even if you jacked it up
> all the way, you did not get much above the headset. With modern
> threadless stems, you can get lots of rise. I put a threadless
> fork on an old custom steel frame that previously had a 1R stem,
> swapped in a - 6 degree stem, flipped that over and have lots of
> rise. I can flip it the other way, add some spacers and get
> something a little racier -- and still more rise than the 1R.
> Quills can get stuck; it is a PITA to have to untape your bars to
> swap stems (if you are experimenting with reach), and all in all,
> the threadless stem with the two or four bolt face-plate is far
> more convenient, IMO.
Keep in mind, however, that there are a few quill stems with removable
faceplates, namely the ones by Dimension and Profile Design, both of which
are basically the same thing.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Steven M. Scharf
> Now, if they could only do something about the fact that
> threadless headsets/stems look so clunky, we might be getting somewhere.
Even uglier once you add an extender.
Phil, Squid-in-Training
>
> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>>
>> You don't have to buy a stupid stem. You can get one that has only
>> one size of socket head screw and adjust bar height, angle and
> bearing
>> clearance with the same little allen wrench and let that pair of
>> clumsy octagonal foot long wrenches remain on the shelf. Besides,
>> those wrenches did not easily arrive on a proper bearing adjustment.
>>
>>
>
> I don't. I have quill stems on all 4 of my bicycles(Grammo, Moots,
> Cinelli(2)), along with Deltas on my main Merckx. I have never had a
> stem freeze into the fork, have never felt they were soft of flexy or
> overly under rigid(two are titanium).
You work in a bike shop and maintain your equipment better than most people.
Most people shouldn't have to maintain their bikes at bike-shop level.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Dave Ings
the point with moutain bikes, due to their different suspension options.
--
Regards,
Dave Ings,
Toronto, Canada
"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <ph...@phil.phil> wrote in message news:fSPce.19229
Dave Ings
small amount, hard to see that being useful in practise. Any quill stem I
owned way back when had much more vertical play than this.
--
Regards,
Dave Ings,
Toronto, Canada
"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <ph...@phil.phil> wrote in message news:yXPce.41259
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> Why would I ever want to do this with a road bike (just asking)? I can see
> the point with moutain bikes, due to their different suspension options.
A road rider in a race here in downtown Gainesville absolutely splintered
his carbon fork in half in the morning. He came down to the bike shop, and
within 8 minutes he was back out to downtown for his next race at noon.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> Does that imply a total vertical adjustment play of 15 mm? That's a very
> small amount, hard to see that being useful in practise. Any quill stem I
> owned way back when had much more vertical play than this.
For most riders, that's all you need. With the older folk, or the ones with
fused neck vertebrae (lots of these actually), the riser stem pops in.
In any case, I was commenting on the 0-spacer comment mentioned by the
previous poster, but yes, quill stems usually have more adjustment than
this, but can't be flipped.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> Like so much else, threadless is an answer to a not asked
>>> question... and the cycling public bought it, once again.
>> Actually it was an answer to a question. The question was: "How do
>> we get rid of the expense of having to have a different fork for
>> every different size frame?" Once they found that answer, then they
>> had to rationalize it, and they came up with fantastic stories
>> about how horrible the quill stem was, and yes, many people have
>> fell for the lies.
> Lies??? How can you say that when threadless actually makes it
> easier to swap forks out between bikes? It is a FACT, not a lie.
> I switched out a fork with one of my MTB friends who wanted to try
> out my rigid fork. How long was the actual fork swap? Well, since
> Giant puts split-ring crown races on their headsets, about 45
> seconds. How long would it take if it were threaded? Much longer.
> After she tried out my rigid fork, she wanted to switch back. How
> long would it take if it were threaded? None at all, because we
> wouldn't be able to switch back because the steerer would have been
> too short!
> Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face
> it... 1 1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was
> using differing thread pitches and diameters ever productive?
> Remember, we lost the Mars Polar Explorer due to differing
> standards.
Quite my thinking...
I don't understand these folks who cannot see the gained improvements
that offer solutions to the flexible stem, the corroded stem, ease of
bearing adjustment, changing handlebars without removing bar tape and
brake lever, switching forks and mechanical robustness.
The lame excuses that it requires a raft of different Allen keys, that
these stems break, that they are not adjustable in height and all the
other indirect criticisms that should go to compact frames, shoddy
stem brands, and misunderstanding of the use of these stems.
Finally aesthetics raises its head and I think that is where the
problem lies. Many people have become accustomed to the appearance of
the Cinelli handlebar stem and believe that is the way a stem should
look. I find the threadless steertube and stem equally elegant but
prefer them because they are more functionally useful.
Dave Ings
helped me catch up! I have one technical question left:
Do road and mountain bikes both use a (threadless) 1 1/8 inch stem or
instead do road bikes use a (threadless) 1 inch stem (I think I might have
read that somewhere). I guess I'm really asking whether steams and extenders
are interchangable between road and mountain bikes.
--
Regards,
Dave Ings,
Toronto, Canada
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:_cRce.86$W3....@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face
> it... 1 1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was
> I don't understand these folks who cannot see the gained improvements
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Peter,
Typically, the customer pays the retailer. In fact, the
customer often pays for everything. There's no other place
for the manufacturer or retailer to obtain money.
Thomas Sowell
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face
>> it... 1-1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was
>> I don't understand these folks who cannot see the gained
>> improvements that offer solutions to the flexible stem, the
>> corroded stem, ease of bearing adjustment, changing handlebars
>> without removing bar tape and brake lever, switching forks and
>> mechanical robustness.
> I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion.
> It's helped me catch up! I have one technical question left:
> Do road and mountain bikes both use a (threadless) 1 1/8 inch stem
> or instead do road bikes use a (threadless) 1 inch stem (I think I
> might have read that somewhere). I guess I'm really asking whether
> steams and extenders are interchangeable between road and mountain
> bikes.
Better quality stems offer a 1/16" inch wall collared sleeve to fit
both 1-1/8" and 1" steertubes.
When choosing a stem I believe one should select one with clamp
redundancy, two steertube clamp screws and four handlebar retainer
screws so that if any single screw strips or fails for whatever
reason, the handlebar will remain securely attached to the bicycle.
Robert
> I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discusion. It's
> helped me catch up! I have one technical question left:
>
> Do road and mountain bikes both use a (threadless) 1 1/8 inch stem or
> instead do road bikes use a (threadless) 1 inch stem (I think I might have
> read that somewhere). I guess I'm really asking whether steams and extenders
> are interchangable between road and mountain bikes.
Many stems have an aluminium sleeve that allows it to work with both 1
in and 1 1/8 in steerer tubes.
Most road bikes nowadays come with 1 1/8 in threadless. The extra 1/8 in
makes a lot a difference as concerns strength. The older 1 in steerer
tubes are generally CrMo steel.
Sorry I know nothing about MTB steerer tube sizes ...
/Robert (still riding with steel fork, steel steerer)
Peter Cole
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:50:52 -0400, Peter Cole
> <peter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>
>>>I think the main objection to "living with it" is that it's pushed the cost
>>>of correcting the widespread issue of too-low height, onto the consumer. You
>>>can buy new stems, extenders, or even a new fork to solve the problem, but
>>>these are changes that were not often as necessary in the past.
>>
>>Why isn't it "pushed" to the retailer?
> Typically, the customer pays the retailer. In fact, the
> customer often pays for everything. There's no other place
> for the manufacturer or retailer to obtain money.
Thanks for the economics primer, but I don't think it's quite that simple.
Although I'm more than a little skeptical of the claimed unilateralism
(savings are retained, costs are passed through), putting that aside,
the point I wanted to make was that the retailer is in a better position
to both push back (short cut steerers, etc.) and offer more economical
resolution (swap parts). In cases where unusual amounts of stem height
are needed (of which I'm a bit more than passingly familiar), steerer
extenders and hi-rise stems seem to be in the same cost ballpark for
either technology, and costs could be reasonably expected to be footed
by the statistical outliers.
Adjustment is not a hidden cost in the sense than a reputable LBS should
fit the customer as part of the sale. If there are costs to that, the
sharp consumer factors them in. Seems odd that a shop would push a $100
"fit kit" then get awkward about a $20 extender.
The OP makes assumption that poor fitting bikes are being foisted on the
gullible public, who then have to live with them or fix them at
significant expense. If the retailer has to fix them, and the costs are
significant, there would be a noticeable price difference for that
specific bike, all the more noticeable if it consisted of add-ons.
The familiar shape of quill stems is an anachronism, now that virtually
all bikes want the bars above the HS. The modern threadless stems are
made in a wide variety of lengths and angles, allowing greater
flexibility in locating the bars relative to the steerer axis, plus,
with pop-off faceplate, it's practical to consider actually doing stem
swaps as part of the fitting. I could be wrong, but I don't think most
LBS's charge for a stem swap on a new bike sale, if they do, they shouldn't.
I'm a bike consumer, I have over a dozen in the garage, I think
threadless stems are great news, I don't plan to buy another threaded
steerer bike.
carl...@comcast.net
<peter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:50:52 -0400, Peter Cole
>> <peter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think the main objection to "living with it" is that it's pushed the cost
>>>>of correcting the widespread issue of too-low height, onto the consumer. You
>>>>can buy new stems, extenders, or even a new fork to solve the problem, but
>>>>these are changes that were not often as necessary in the past.
>>>
>>>Why isn't it "pushed" to the retailer?
>
>> Typically, the customer pays the retailer. In fact, the
>> customer often pays for everything. There's no other place
>> for the manufacturer or retailer to obtain money.
>
>Thanks for the economics primer, but I don't think it's quite that simple.
[snip]
Dear Peter,
Nobody ever does until they run a business.
Adam Smith
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>>Thanks for the economics primer, but I don't think it's quite that simple.
> Nobody ever does until they run a business.
Thanks for the insight.
What makes you assume I don't now, or never have, run a business?
Never mind, I think the central issue is the difficulty/cost of fitting
bikes with either technology. I'll claim a bit of expertise there.
Patrick Lamb
wrote:
>"David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in message
>news:pan.2005.04.29...@lehigh-nospam.edu...
>>
>> It ain't the bars. it's the forks. "Modern" threadless forks offer very
>> little adjustment vertically, unless the dealer/builder plans ahead and
>> puts spacers in (either above or below the stem). These stems cannot just
>> be loosened and raised like the old quill ones.
>>
>But that's easily addressed. A reputable dealer will happily cut the fork to
>fit the rider, place spacers, or swap the stem as needed. I think the
>threadless headsets are a godsend---they're easy to swap, and you can remove
>the bar without removing levers and tape.
I think this is largely a factor of where you live and the fashion
around the LBS(s). I've seen far too many bikes without spacers on
the LBS floors; as a matter of fact, last fall was the first time I
can remember seeing spacers on a threadless fork, and it was at an REI
600 miles from home.
If every LBS (not just the better ones near where you live) swapped
the stems, added spacers, and only then cut the fork to fit the buyer,
these discussions would shrink drastically. Since many LBSs don't do
any of the above, those of us for whom they are the _local_ bike shops
think threadless stems are the work of Stan.
And BTW, the savings to the fork (and bicycle) manufuacturers end up
pushing the inventory management problems to the LBS, who have to (or
at least should) stock the array of stems you envision as being
typical, at least for "reputable dealers."
Pat
Email address works as is.
John Dacey
<david....@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote:
>Mostly, Cinelli is not what it was. There are still frames with that
>label, but they bear no resemblance to the Cinelli's of old.
Not the same company it was when Jobst apparently knew kindly old
Geppetto and the other frame fabricators there personally? Really, how
many bicycles from companies with meaningful product output (boutique
operations are in a different class) are still constructed by the same
person whose name appears on the frame tubes?
Cinelli is the bicycle division of "Gruppo Spa", the other members of
which are Techno Tubo Torino (manufacturers of handlebars, stems,
seatposts and other bicycle components and accessories), and Columbus
(steel, aluminum and carbon fiber tubing). Of course Columbus sell
them as "tube sets", I think just to vex you.
Retrophiliacs may rejoice in knowing that the fully-lugged Supercorsa
steel frame is still a current model:
http://www.cinelli.it/eng/bici/telai/Corsa/2004_SUPERCORSA.html
A track frame with lugged construction is also offered:
http://www.businesscycles.com/pistaframe_cinelli.htm
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
http://www.businesscycles.com
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
-------------------------------
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Peter,
Er, your econmic insights?
Carl Fogel
Mike Latondresse
And heavier.
Dave Ings
several cm too small for me.
In this respect, nothing seems to have changed since the 70s :-) since was
my experience way back then that European frame builders seemed to deny the
existence of cyclists over 6 feet tall. :-)
--
Regards,
Dave Ings,
Toronto, Canada
"John Dacey" <jda...@businesscycles.com> wrote in message
Mike Latondresse
news:_cRce.86$W3....@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
> snip....changing handlebars
> without removing bar tape and brake lever.....
Check out the 3T Motus
Gooserider
"Patrick Lamb" <pdl678...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:opv771dms90c1vit0...@4ax.com...
I think this depends on just how one buys the bicycle. If you're
lucky enough to find a bike on a LBS's floor that fits, then I guess it's
likely the steerer tube has already been cut. But does this apply to
framesets? I'm not familiar how framesets and forks are shipped to LBS. I'm
assuming they're shipped fully uncut, but I don't know. It would be logical
to assume they're shipped uncut, leaving it up to the LBS to cut the steerer
to fit the rider.
Matt O'Toole
> Dave Ings writes:
>
>>> Sure you can use spacers and all that, but what's the point? Face
>>> it... 1-1/8" is a standard. 31.8mm is a standard. Since when was
>
>>> I don't understand these folks who cannot see the gained
>>> improvements that offer solutions to the flexible stem, the
>>> corroded stem, ease of bearing adjustment, changing handlebars
>>> without removing bar tape and brake lever, switching forks and
>>> mechanical robustness.
>
>> I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion.
>> It's helped me catch up! I have one technical question left:
>
>> Do road and mountain bikes both use a (threadless) 1 1/8 inch stem
>> or instead do road bikes use a (threadless) 1 inch stem (I think I
>> might have read that somewhere). I guess I'm really asking whether
>> steams and extenders are interchangeable between road and mountain
>> bikes.
>
> Better quality stems offer a 1/16" inch wall collared sleeve to fit
> both 1-1/8" and 1" steertubes.
Well, "road" stems do, but "mountain" stems generally do not. This is because
the 1 1/8" threaded steerers were established before threadless came along. So
there are few, if any, 1" threadless steerers on mountain bikes.
Otherwise, "road" and "mountain" stems are interchangeable.
Now if I could only find a sleeve to fit my weird 1 1/16" Klein steerer. (Don't
worry, AFAIK it's the only one this size.)
> When choosing a stem I believe one should select one with clamp
> redundancy, two steertube clamp screws and four handlebar retainer
> screws so that if any single screw strips or fails for whatever
> reason, the handlebar will remain securely attached to the bicycle.
It's a good idea. Both my bikes' stems are a hinged design, one with an actual
hinge on top of the handlebar clamp and two bolts below, the other with
interlocking edges on top and a single bolt below. They both work well, don't
creak, and are easier to adjust. As you say two bolts on the bottom are better,
but the hinge on top seems fine to me.
Matt O.
S R Sharp
>
> Well, "road" stems do, but "mountain" stems generally do not. This is because
> the 1 1/8" threaded steerers were established before threadless came along. So
> there are few, if any, 1" threadless steerers on mountain bikes.
Just so you can sleep at night, I did have a 1" threadless suspension
fork at one time, around 1993. Amp Research F2, Syncros stem- still
have the stem.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
David L. Johnson
> Not the same company it was when Jobst apparently knew kindly old
> Geppetto and the other frame fabricators there personally? Really, how
> many bicycles from companies with meaningful product output (boutique
> operations are in a different class) are still constructed by the same
> person whose name appears on the frame tubes?
Alex Singer? Harry Havnoonian? Gary Klein? All right, maybe Gary
doesn't still weld the frames himeself.
The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in terms of
craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid for in order to stick
on a frame that had nothing to do with that tradition. Most of the old
Italian marks have gone through that transformation, and none have been
the better for it.
>
> Retrophiliacs may rejoice in knowing that the fully-lugged Supercorsa
> steel frame is still a current model:
> http://www.cinelli.it/eng/bici/telai/Corsa/2004_SUPERCORSA.html
>
> A track frame with lugged construction is also offered:
> http://www.businesscycles.com/pistaframe_cinelli.htm
Those at least look like the traditional models. Most of their line,
though, with names like "Dark Star" and "Starship" have nothing to do with
the Cinelli tradition. They even have one named "What you see is what you
get" -- gee, a bike named after a "feature" of word processors.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |
Steven M. Scharf
"Patrick Lamb" <pdl678...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> And BTW, the savings to the fork (and bicycle) manufuacturers end up
> pushing the inventory management problems to the LBS, who have to (or
> at least should) stock the array of stems you envision as being
> typical, at least for "reputable dealers."
Where customers expect, somewhat legitimately, that the LBS should not be
charging anything extra for the bits and pieces necessary to fit the bicycle
to them.
Steven M. Scharf
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vnr7719m3tc2sp3pf...@4ax.com...
In this case, often the retailer has to absorb the cost of the bits and
pieces for modifications to the stem and height. If a customer says, "the
bars are too low, I'm not buying this bike," the retailer will explain how
thet can change the height with a different stem and/or an extender, and/or
a different fork. If the customer agrees to these changes, often the store
cannot get the customer to pay for them, since it's not like they're buying
accessories.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Steven,
In which case, the shop either learns to charge more for the
bicycle to cover the cost of the changes, finds a wholesaler
who charges less for the same bike (or charges the same for
a bike that needs less adjustment), or else finds itself
reporting less income to the government.
The first two choices tend to be more popular. Local bike
shops that choose the third approach rarely last long.
The law of supply and demand is not nearly as flexible as
many of us would like to believe, which is one reason why
95% of new businesses fail in their first two years.
A local bike shop that throws in lots of "free" services
either charges more overall, applies money-saving secrets
unknown to other shops, or else accepts smaller profits.
TANSTAAFL.
Carl Fogel
Mike Jacoubowsky
> It did that in spades w/o sending any of that savings onto the cycling
> public. It was and is painted as some sort of revolutionary design,
> that even has you enamoured with it's 'shocking' increase in rigidity.
> How did those guys ever sprint on these heavy, soft, flexy, prone to
> breakage stems??
Peter: I admire someone even more cynical than myself. However, threadless
forks have saved people money. There's no conspiracy among manufacturers to
keep prices up; companies like Specialized, Trek, Giant, Bianchi etc. will
look for any opportunity possible to get an edge, and if they can save money
through improved manufacturing methods, it will be passed on to the
consumer... because somebody will seize the opportunity to get the edge, and
add value elsewhere or lower the cost. And then the others have no choice
but to follow.
There's also something to be said for any reduction in SKUs at the dealer
level. It allows us to stock a greater variety of product, since we don't
have to deal with all manner of column lengths.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in message
news:1114789368....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>>
>> I believe the threadless steertube is a major advance, considering
> the
>> many aluminum stems that have failed for me and the many I watched
>> being machined out of the steel steer tube.
>
>
> Gee Jobst, I guess you choose to ignore the threadless aluminum stems
> that have failed. Google "Syncros". As for machining out a stem,
> another 'standard' to fix lousy wrenching. A little grease goes a long
> way.
>
> Threadless was created for one BIG reason, to save fork makers MONEY.
> It did that in spades w/o sending any of that savings onto the cycling
> public. It was and is painted as some sort of revolutionary design,
> that even has you enamoured with it's 'shocking' increase in rigidity.
> How did those guys ever sprint on these heavy, soft, flexy, prone to
> breakage stems??
>
> As for ease of adjustment w/o special tools. For most you had better
> have a 3/4/5/6 and sometimes other allen wrenches around. PLUS we
> ungoon HS all day by those same cycists that gooned up their HS after
> they bought that really 'specialized' tool, a 32mm headset wrench.
>
> Bar height is still
>> adjustable for a new rider by shifting spacers while head bearing
>> adjustment has become easy and precise, no longer requiring special
>> tools as in the past. For air shipping, I can turn my bars backward
>> easily and above all, bar rigidity to the frame is shockingly better.
>
> A 6mm allen and you can't turn your handlbars wround backwards? Same
> for 'faceplate' stems, just so I can swap hbarts...what? How often do
> ya need to do that?
>
>>
>> > I've already found the "Delta Threadless Stem Riser" due to your
>> > pointer - thanks.
>>
>> Once you have a bar height, it is not something you change often. I
>> certainly haven't changed mine in decades.
>>
>> > BTW whatever happened to Cinelli? Their bars were very nicely
>> > finished.
>>
>> Like Schwinn, the name outlived the man and has little to do with
> Cino
>> Cinelli, Sig. Sacchini, and Sig. Valsassina who built the frames.
>>
>> I never liked the quill stem for its major functional failings and
> its
>> corrosion permanence in the steertube that it expanded with corrosive
>> action. Interview some frame builders who had to remove stems.
>>
>> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html
>>
>> Jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> small amount, hard to see that being useful in practise. Any quill stem I
>> owned way back when had much more vertical play than this.
>
> For most riders, that's all you need. With the older folk, or the ones
> with fused neck vertebrae (lots of these actually), the riser stem pops
> in.
>
> In any case, I was commenting on the 0-spacer comment mentioned by the
> previous poster, but yes, quill stems usually have more adjustment than
> this, but can't be flipped.
The Trek spec is for 4 *centimeters* of spacers under the stem, which allows
us to accomplish a wider range of adjustment than the majority of quill
stems. I'm really surprised that both Giant and Specialized allow for ony
1.5cm. Sure, many will get by with that, but many will not. Why drop those
people who need more height out of the sales equation?
Peter Cole
>
> In this case, often the retailer has to absorb the cost of the bits and
> pieces for modifications to the stem and height. If a customer says, "the
> bars are too low, I'm not buying this bike," the retailer will explain how
> thet can change the height with a different stem and/or an extender, and/or
> a different fork. If the customer agrees to these changes, often the store
> cannot get the customer to pay for them, since it's not like they're buying
> accessories.
In my case, I've had to modify stock bicycles to suit my height. I've
paid for extenders and hi-rise quill stems, even on new bikes. It's not
reasonable to expect dealers to swap forks (except perhaps on very
expensive bikes) since they would have little use for the short ones.
Swapping stems is another matter. That doesn't seem like a huge burden
for the LBS.
Peter Cole
> Er, your econmic insights?
I think I already gave them. In an unrestricted market, cost savings
will get passed on. In the context of delivering the same end product,
different approaches can have different intrinsic costs. To deliver a
properly fitted bike, in simple terms, you have 3 options: Fit at the
factory, fit at the retailer, or fit at home. I think that threadless
stems facilitate the second option, and this is the cheapest approach.
It also gives a greater role for the LBS in the value chain, which is
why I can't understand complaints from that quarter. Swapping stems and
moving spacers around is just not that big a deal cost-wise for the LBS.
Getting perfect fit from the factory, or having an average cyclist tweak
fit at home is just not practical -- nor economical.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Peter Cole wrote:
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> >
> > I think the main objection to "living with it" is that it's pushed
the cost
> > of correcting the widespread issue of too-low height, onto the
consumer. You
> > can buy new stems, extenders, or even a new fork to solve the
problem, but
> > these are changes that were not often as necessary in the past.
>
> Why isn't it "pushed" to the retailer?
Sometimes it is to some retailers, sometimes, on some things, the
retailer refuses to 'play'. You will see no package wheels, aluminum
frames, anything with carbon but ends, in my shop.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
> > question....and the cycling public bought it, once again.
>
> Actually it was an answer to a question. The question was: "How do we
get
> rid of the expense of having to have a different fork for every
different
> size frame?" Once they found that answer, then they had to
rationalize it,
> and they came up with fantastic stories about how horrible the quill
stem
> was, and yes, many people have fell for the lies.
>
> Compact frames were also an answer to a question: "How can we have
fewer
> size frames?"
>
> Aluminum tubing was also an answer to a question: "How can we make
lighter
> bicycles without the expense of chro-moly steel tubing?"
>
> In each case, the way the change is sold to the public is completely
> divorced from the actual reason for the change. Reality has no
meaning.
> Something like 40% of the U.S. public still believes that Iraq was
behind
> 9/11.
>
> > Like 1
> > 1/8inch, disc brakes, carbon butt ends, tubeless road tires,
oversized
> > handlebars and stems, compact frames, wheesl outta boxes...the list
> > goes on..It is TIRESOME to try to refute the BS that comes from
mags,
> > web sites, bike shops.
>
> The magazines and the bike shops are forced to buy into it. The
magazines,
> because they make their money from advertising, and the bicycle shops
> because they have to sell what the manufacturers decide to make.
Well said, I agree completely....
Qui si parla Campagnolo
jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
I find the threadless steertube and stem equally elegant but
> prefer them because they are more functionally useful.
>
> Jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
I guess I have to wonder what else you think looks 'elegant', if you
like the looks of a clunky, bolts out of the back, threadless stem.
If ya like threadless looks, you must LOVE the way a delta brake looks.
Robin Hubert
> This is a good comment, and I will keep it in mind when I'm shopping.
> However nearly everywhere I look, I see road bikes outfitted (displayed)
> like this
>
> http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/html/2005/05_en_leggero.asp
>
> in which it seems the bike designer is determined to have the bars *well*
> below seat level. This bike has a head tube about 1/2 the length my 70s
> bikes used to have, so it's no surprise the bars are low.
Think that's bad? Look here:
http://www.cervelo.com/bikes/2005%20images/2005-R25Bayonne-full.jpg
The bad news is that, yes, they're foisting this crap on consumers.
the good news is that you don't have to buy into it and there are plenty
alternatives. Lastly, despite all the moaning and groaning I hear on
this thread, no one is forced to buy into any of this silly setups.
BTW, did anyone read the Grant Peterson article in Bicycle Retailer?
Robin Hubert
Peter Cole
I think the most important thing is that these are specifically racing
bikes. If you race, you may need the position. If you don't race, it's
probably a bad idea to buy a racing bike. Why so many non-racers buy
racing bikes is the real question.
RonSonic
Very true.
The bike shops around me that serve the enthusiast market seem to exercise a
money making secret more than a money saver, and it seems to be known to all the
shops and that's the presumptive upsell. Ask for a chain, you get the premium
chain. Need a crank bolt, you get a pair with gaskets and chrome. Bearings, a
prepack of 20, which will not quite do a bottom bracket. These shops all have
the low cost versions of everything, but usually in the back of the service
department and you have to ask more than once. Oh, and know to ask.
Ron
RonSonic
Hah, I'm lucky. I've got the Klien MTB that was designed to be compatible with
other company's forks and fit into the marketplace effortlessly. That's why my
Rascal has a 1" steerer!!!!
It's the irony that keeps me going in this world.
Ron
RonSonic
<david....@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:27:01 -0400, John Dacey wrote:
>
>> Not the same company it was when Jobst apparently knew kindly old
>> Geppetto and the other frame fabricators there personally? Really, how
>> many bicycles from companies with meaningful product output (boutique
>> operations are in a different class) are still constructed by the same
>> person whose name appears on the frame tubes?
>
>Alex Singer? Harry Havnoonian? Gary Klein? All right, maybe Gary
>doesn't still weld the frames himeself.
>
>The point was that names like Cinelli used to mean something in terms of
>craftsmanship, but the name has been bought and paid for in order to stick
>on a frame that had nothing to do with that tradition. Most of the old
>Italian marks have gone through that transformation, and none have been
>the better for it.
I'll argue this. The old Cinelli bikes may have been well conceived and fine
machines, but the workmanship was never anything special. They truly did not
suck, but they were never particularly well crafted either.
>>
>> Retrophiliacs may rejoice in knowing that the fully-lugged Supercorsa
>> steel frame is still a current model:
>> http://www.cinelli.it/eng/bici/telai/Corsa/2004_SUPERCORSA.html
>>
>> A track frame with lugged construction is also offered:
>> http://www.businesscycles.com/pistaframe_cinelli.htm
>
>Those at least look like the traditional models. Most of their line,
>though, with names like "Dark Star" and "Starship" have nothing to do with
>the Cinelli tradition. They even have one named "What you see is what you
>get" -- gee, a bike named after a "feature" of word processors.
Where's the "Buy Me?"
Ron
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/html/2005/05_en_leggero.asp
They way you say that, I get the impression this group is full of old
farts that can't sit on a bicycle for any length of time. Racing
bicycles are the shape they are because that is the best position for
long distance active riding. I've been touring on one for many years
and find no fault with the positions it offers. Maybe the bicycles in
question are not the right size.
Steven M. Scharf
news:ook871hou11t67796...@4ax.com...
> Dear Steven,
>
> In which case, the shop either learns to charge more for the
> bicycle to cover the cost of the changes, finds a wholesaler
> who charges less for the same bike (or charges the same for
> a bike that needs less adjustment), or else finds itself
> reporting less income to the government.
Unfortunately, the latter is probably more common. Charging more for the
bicycle is difficult due to competitive pressures.