Boulder All Road 650B and Light Touring

[John Hawrylak]

Is the Boulder All Road 650B (either the OS light or the Skinny Extralight tubing) suitable for occasional 'credit card' type touring, e.g.

• Low rider rack with panniers, 10 to 13 lb per pannier
• Front Handlebar bag supported by rack and decailluer
• Rear saddle bag (hanging off saddle) with 7 to10 lbs.

Assuming the front eyelets accept a low rider rack.  Would use clamps on the fork.

 

A Boulder TIG size C or D frame would fit, or a TIG Custom is OK also (TT slope and length?)

Saddle Height = 71 cm on a 74° seat tube angle

Saddle to Bar = 64 to 65.5 cm, saddle level with bars

Standover Height < 79.5 cm

Trying to see if it is possible to combine light touring with a frame that "planes" when only carrying the front bag and rear saddlebag with minimum weight, and 650B for wider tires with lower pressure.   Or perhaps the extra weight even for light touring requires a thicker wall tube for increased rigidity to manage the extra weight

What has been tried with the Boulder All Road 650B and Light Touring in either the OS or STD sized tubes.

 

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

 

 

 

 

 

[Benz Ouyang]

I have a stock All Road 650b (size "D") with the skinny tube option. While that bike is usually outfitted with a Nitto M12 rack for brevets and other long sporty rides, it has occasionally seen commuter service with a VO Campeur front rack with two panniers stuffed with my laptop, its accessories, a complete change of clothes (including shoes!), and toiletries. This commute is about 40 miles with almost 1700ft of elevation change each way, so I don't do it regularly. Nevertheless, I've done it enough times to say that the skinny tube option is fine for about the 20 lb I carry (I don't pack light). Yes, steering will slow with the load, but it handles and climbs fine, with no surprises. 

BTW, you'll need to more-or-less balance the load left-to-right (unlike a rear pannier), or you'll end up with a knot in your shoulders from trying to compensate for the steering pull. Don't ask how I know.

Anyway, you should call Boulder. Mike was very helpful in answering my questions and his answers were spot on.

[WMdeR]

Dear John,

Executive summary: go for it. You won't regret it.

I drive an E-size equivalent standard-tube ("skinny") Allroad, and have since 2007/8. It is very well suited to light front-biased camping loads. 

I have ridden fairly extensively with a handlebar bag and front panniers with my Allroads, mostly on pavement and well-groomed unpaved roads. It retains its fundamental character--the bike stays lively, it doesn't misbehave or shimmy, and it still climbs well. The steering is obviously slowed, though I can still ride no-hands without issue and sweeping descents are a true delight.

As long as the load stays front-biased, and you're not just hanging a big full saddlebag or loaded panniers to the rear of the bike, even the light-tube "skinny" option works nicely for light touring and commuting. And it is still a ball without the panniers and load. I find "loaded touring" bikes pretty jarring until they're loaded to the gills.

In terms of Boulder Bicycle construction, the front eyelets are cast into the dropout and are fine with a low-rider load. I'd not order mid-fork eyelets unless Mike can spec them with his standard (lightweight) fork blades--or get a one-off René Herse fork done by Mark Nobilette.

Earlier this fall, I took a thee-day trip with a few friends from Fort Collins to Steamboat Springs on fire roads, forest-service roads, and occasionally-maintained dirt county roads. I rode my "new" Allroad, and carried about twenty-five pounds. It handled fine and the load made for a very smooth ride, even on Bruce Gordon's RnR knobbies. The ride organizer, Colin Pinney, rode his own interpretation of a front-loading rough-ride bike, the design for which had been inspired in part by an extended loan of my prototype Allroad. It was a lovely experience, and was a great test-bed for evaluating the performance and durability of my Allroad for light camping loads. I certainly found the limits of the engine pretty quickly, and I almost wish I'd used Switchback Hill tires instead of the RnRs, but I was not willing to be without fenders for three days.

Once on doubletrack and fire-roads, I found I preferred to have enough of the weight distributed over the bike that I could hop out of ruts, hip-check the bike around with body english, etc. I would have preferred to move a bit of the load to a frame bag or to the rear to ease shoving the bike around. I ended up strapping my tent and sleeping pad onto the saddle, which helped with lateral agility, and it didn't destabilize the load or anything. Next time I'll bring a bikepacking seatpack. You can see many pictures of others on that ride if you hunt around for #steamboatralleye, as the ride ended up being logistically supported by Niner bikes. They assigned two (hard-riding) photogs, a videographer, and flew a semi-professional blogger to Colorado to promote one of their bike models and a pile of co-branded stuff. At least no petroleums were harmed to make the event promotion go--their team rode the ride with the rest of us, and they carried an ungodly pile of photo equipment. Marc P., a member of this group, also rode an Enduro Allroad of his own manufacture on the route, and chose a similar front-biased load strategy. I bet he'd be able to comment on its performance as well. 

When I ordered my Allroad last winter(I'd ridden the hell out of a superlight-tube prototype, and it was time to get one of my own), Waterford wasn't willing to add lowrider bosses to the fork unless they used heavy blades, and the convenience of the eyelet isn't worth the change in ride quality. Actually, only half of Waterford's senior design team objected, but the answer was still "No."

Mike is willing to spec bikes that way, as my Longmont-built Herse 700C randonneur has light fork blades and mid-fork eyelets. It is, in my opinion, a great spec for a sporting bike, and that surprising versatility is made possible by front-biasing the load and wide-ish tires. 

My René Herse is actually (finally!) getting its lowriders this month, only seven years after the bike was built. 

Best Regards,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[WMdeR]

Dear John,

One final thing to add:

Disclosure: I know Mike Kone (Boulder Bicycle and the Constructeur for René Herse) pretty well. He's a friend of mine, as is Colin Pinney of Kelpie Cycles. I tested the prototype Boulder 650B Allroads back in 2008 and bought one of the leftover prototypes at a discount once the testing was done. I have no financial interest in either of their respective ventures, though I wish them well and support their endeavors.

With respect to the design under discussion here (integrated light-tube front-loading sporting machine with camping capacity), I also should point to Jan Heine, who convinced me to add low-rider legs to my Alex Singer order back in 2001. That bike altered my cycling consciousness, and Jan became a friend as well.

Best Regards,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[Jan Heine]

The randonneur bike with a front low-rider really is an awesome machine for touring. I've used my "Mule" for multi-day camping trips - get large front panniers, pack a little lightly, and you can carry a full load without altering the feel of your performance bike. It still "planes" and when you rise out of the saddle for a short climb, you can rock the bike from side to side like a racing bike. It's so much more fun than a full "touring" bike with rear racks...

A photo of the Mule with its low-rider racks is here

https://www.instagram.com/p/92IC4syTIS/?taken-by=compasscycle

The bike and its racks is featured in the Winter 2015 Bicycle Quarterly. If I could have only one bike, this would be it.

Jan Heine

Editor

Bicycle Quarterly

www.bikequarterly.com

[Ray Varella]

Jan,

      How does the mule differ from your primary randonneur bike.

I had actually been wondering the same thing, could a lightweight bike with thin fork blades support a set of panniers.

Ray

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Ray Varella

IAABC Parrot Division

Supporting Member

[Jan Heine]

Ray,

The biggest difference are the low-riders. Yes, lightweight fork blades can support them without problems. After all, the weight of a well-designed randonneur rack is carried by the front dropouts, not the fork blades. If you were concerned about drilling holes, you could just braze a screw onto the fork blade, Herse-style, rather than drill a hole and insert a bottle braze-on.

The Herse has just "rack flanges", but carrying panniers always is a compromise with those. Plus, the headlight gets in the way of the panniers... The things you learn when you build the first of a type (aka "prototype").

The second difference is the oversized down tube on the Mule. It was an experiment, and not entirely successful: It makes the bike plane a little less, but perhaps it helps carrying a full camping load on the front. For somebody wanting a little "stouter" feel than a "superlight" frame, the OS down tube with standard-diameter top tube provides a very enticing option. I am surprised that it hasn't been used much (apart from R. Herse in the 1950s and modern Japanese Keirin framebuilders).

Both bikes are awesome performers, but I don't think I'll get another randonneur bike without front low-riders.

Jan Heine

Editor

Bicycle Quarterly

www.bikequarterly.com

[Ray Varella]

Thank you Jan,

 I personally ride a smaller frame so stoutness is a bit less of an issue than it might be on a larger frame.

My concern was with the safety in drilling a lightweight fork blade.

I appreciate your time.

Ray

[Mike Schiller]

IMO I think rider weight  needs to get factored in.   Some of us are built like linebackers and need a slightly stiffer frame.  At 200lbs I would opt for 8-5-8 OS tubing if I was planning  on 30-35lbs of gear.   

~mike

Carlsbad Ca

[Marc Pfister]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 9:12:32 PM UTC-7, WMdeR wrote:

 

Marc P., a member of this group, also rode an Enduro Allroad of his own manufacture on the route, and chose a similar front-biased load strategy. I bet he'd be able to comment on its performance as well. 

My frame has a 8/5/8 top tube and 7/4/7 top tube in standard sizing. On the first day of the Steamboat Ralleye I had all my stuff in my front panniers and I had a funky shimmy-like resonance when pedaling around 15 mph. Like Will, on the second day I moved some gear (~3lbs) to under my saddle and that changed the resonant frequency to outside of my usual cadence range. I'm 160 pounds and I had about 20 pounds total of camping gear.

The front load does make an already flexible frame seem even more dramatically so, but with the load on the steering the bike still behaves well, and you can climb out of the saddle without having rear panniers waggling behind you. 

If the bike was to get a lot of use loaded like this I would build it with slightly heavier tubing, either standard size 9/6/9 down tube and 8/5/8 top tube, or I would go single oversize on the down tube like Jan's mule. I also have a frame built with single oversized 7/4/7 tubing and I don't think I would need the extra rigidity at my weight. 

It is worth considering that most of my riding is on dirt roads, so I have more lateral inputs into the frame and probably notice the flexibility more.

- Marc

[Nick Favicchio]

Along the same lines, +1 for putting a bit of weight behind you. As little as possible and preferably under the saddle as opposed to rear rack and pannier but splitting the weight a bit has done me well thus far.

It does change the bike's feel out of the saddle but just a bit and I find it easy to adjust to quickly. Also makes the bike easier to manage when walking it or carrying it.

This experience doesn't come from a Boulder but a skinny tubed 531 French bike, so perhaps not applicable.

[Brad]

How long the chainstays are has a subtle effect on handling.   Pre 1980 bikes generally had slightly longer wheelbases, even in the racier models.  They had lower bottom brackets.  The two kind of go together if the bottom bracket lug doesn't get modified. 
When I used to camp (bivouac) on trips, I would put the light stuff, the sleeping bag, behind the seat.  3 lbs of squished down and a wrapper- no big deal. 

[Jan Heine]

The idea that longer wheelbases change a bike's handling has been around for a long time, and at first sight, it makes sense. However, as always, we need to ask how much of a difference it really does make.

How long do the chainstays need to be to get a difference in handling? Most bikes have a wheelbase of about 1000 - 1050 mm. To get a noticeable effect, you usually need to make a change of at least 5%. So that would mean 50 mm (5 cm) longer wheelbase. Yet the chainstay differences between similar bikes are usually in the range of 15-25 mm.

From my own experience: Peter Weigle and I once rode one of his bikes and and an Alex Singer, back to back. Both had identical geometries, tires, loads, etc., except the Weigle had 20 mm longer chainstays (450 mm instead of 430 mm). Peter and I rode the bikes before talking about it to avoid influencing each other, and we each decided independently that they handled identical, much to our surprise. (We also "knew" that longer stays make a bike more stable.)

These were front-loading randonneur bikes, it is perhaps possible that a heavy rear load is affected by chainstay length, because the distance between load center and rear axle changes by more than 5%.

Until I experience that, I must conclude that chainstay length has no noticeable effect on a bike's handling (at least within the range of values that usually are found on performance bikes).

I agree with Brad and others that a light load, firmly attached to the saddle, doesn't have a huge effect on a bike's handling.

Jan Heine

Editor

Bicycle Quarterly

www.bikequarterly.com

--

[Nick Favicchio]

To piggyback on Jan's comment - I just put Cazaderos on my Motobecane. They don't fit, the clearances are silly, but in order to make them fit at all, I've gotta slam the rear wheel all the way to the rear of the drops. The wheel had been solidly 2mm further forward in the drops. In other words, going from 41.5cm to 43.5cm. No difference. Except the shifting isn't as good as it was. And I miss the lighter tires :).

Maybe suspiciously - when I have my custom built, I want 44cm or so worth of chainstays. If for no other reason then pump-behind-seat tube radness. Even tho putting the pump that close to the rear wheel worries me for some reason.

[ejg]

The bike on the left is my Rawland Stag with a lightweight, thin bladed Jeff Lyon fork. The one on the right is my friend Kris' Boulder All Road.  Both handle camping loads very well, while still being fun to ride. 

While I don't own a Boulder I trust my friend Kris. He loves his, and does a good bit of camping on it. 

EJG

[Mark Guglielmana]

The question not asked, is why you need so much gear for credit card touring? Adding it up, you're at a minimum of 27 lbs of load. At a maximum you're at 36 lbs. 36 lbs is "expedition" touring, tent, bag, cooking gear. Two months ago I incorporated Jan's "un-meeting" into a 500 mile, 8 day tour. I only had a handlebar bag and an 11 liter seat bag. I'd prefer to have low riders with panniers and a handlebar bag, but my Peter Weigle'ized Raleigh Competition doesn't have low rider mounts-it was "re-designed" as a randonneur bike. But the bags were adequate for credit card touring. The seat bag only bothered me on a long stretch without water - I filled two 1 liter collapsable bottles and clipped them "water grenade" style onto the seat bag D-rings. They swayed back and forth up a long climb. 

Jan has written about the optimal loading of a touring bike. Put as much weight as you can on the front, you've got it right in your original post. 

Look for opportunities for double usage of clothing.For example, rather than tights, I brought a pair of nylon pants that can be converted into shorts by unzipping the lower leg. A light or medium weight wool sweater gives great double duty. One pair of shoes is all you need - choose a pair that are easy to walk in. 

A friend of mine I've toured with is very minimalist-two sets of cycling clothes, a pair of underweat to sleep in-that's it for clothes. He puts all of this into a bag cantilevered off the back of his saddle. 

When credit card touring, less is more.

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 5:35:39 PM UTC-8, John Hawrylak wrote:

[Mark Guglielmana]

Jan,

Here's something yhou could provide for the full "Rinko" experience: a headset lockring that can use an allen wrench to tighten! 

[Mark Guglielmana]

Drilling lightweight tubing is fine as long as you replace it with something to reinforce the hole. Even a simple M5 bottle boss accomplishes this-you're brazing in a much more massive (relatively speaking) part where there was some very thin tubing. The reinforcing "stars" that you see integrated with bottle bosses gives even more reinforcement-for the paranoid, or the stylist, IMO. I'm too lazy to do the FEA on this, but have done so on similar projects in the past, enough to state what I've stated.

[Andrew Fatseas]

I've got a rinko headset on my bike and I just tighten it by hand. It doesn't seem to come loose and the toothed bottom nut is held in place by the toothed lockring. 

--

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/01/2015 12:33 AM, Mark Guglielmana wrote:

The question not asked, is why you need so much gear for credit card touring? Adding it up, you're at a minimum of 27 lbs of load. At a maximum you're at 36 lbs. 36 lbs is "expedition" touring, tent, bag, cooking gear. Two months ago I incorporated Jan's "un-meeting" into a 500 mile, 8 day tour. I only had a handlebar bag and an 11 liter seat bag. I'd prefer to have low riders with panniers and a handlebar bag, but my Peter Weigle'ized Raleigh Competition doesn't have low rider mounts-it was "re-designed" as a randonneur bike. But the bags were adequate for credit card touring. The seat bag only bothered me on a long stretch without water - I filled two 1 liter collapsable bottles and clipped them "water grenade" style onto the seat bag D-rings. They swayed back and forth up a long climb. 

Jan has written about the optimal loading of a touring bike. Put as much weight as you can on the front, you've got it right in your original post. 

Look for opportunities for double usage of clothing.For example, rather than tights, I brought a pair of nylon pants that can be converted into shorts by unzipping the lower leg. A light or medium weight wool sweater gives great double duty. One pair of shoes is all you need - choose a pair that are easy to walk in. 

A friend of mine I've toured with is very minimalist-two sets of cycling clothes, a pair of underweat to sleep in-that's it for clothes. He puts all of this into a bag cantilevered off the back of his saddle. 

When credit card touring, less is more.

More when you're riding, perhaps, but less can sure be less once you've arrived at your destination.   It's all a matter of compromise, and people will come down in different places regarding what they're willing to compromise, and how much.  

For example, I appreciate being able to walk around with Sidi Dominators -- infinitely better than Look style cycling shoes -- but I really don't want to wear them for any distance off the bike, and there are many places that wouldn't appreciate steel cleats on their fancy floors, so on tour I carry a pair of Keen sandals for off-bike wear.  Previously, I tried a pair of very flimsy, very light slip-on sneakers (the kind my daughter calls "Commie Janes") and they were fine right up to when my touring companions decided we'd go for a hike on a hillside trail, and I felt in serious danger of falling off the hill.

[Mark Guglielmana]

Mark:

When credit card touring, less is more.

Steve

More when you're riding, perhaps, but less can sure be less once you've arrived at your destination.   It's all a matter of compromise, and people will come down in different places regarding what they're willing to compromise, and how much.  

True, compromises need to be made.

To the OP's question, if a Boulder All Road 650B suitable for occassional Light Touring (credit card style), just about any bike is suitable for light touring, depends on how much you want to bring along. This was John's thought of baggage:

• Low rider rack with panniers, 10 to 13 lb per pannier
• Front Handlebar bag supported by rack and decailluer
• Rear saddle bag (hanging off saddle) with 7 to10 lbs.

That's a whole lot of bags just for credit card touring. Probably the best site to see what people really bring on bike tours is the CGOAB site. Read a bunch of the journals, the theme is heavily tilted towards "wish I would have brought less" than "wish I woulda brought more". 

Here's my loaded bike for a credit card tour 2 years ago. I do have an extra pair of light shoes, and a lot more in those two bags. Even then, on the second day I stopped at a post office and mailed back some gear. 

I know that my low trail bike would handle better without the saddle bag-I'm building up another bike with low rider mounts for front bags. I'm worried that this will just enable me to carry "too much" - an old adage of the touring cyclist is you will fill up whatever bags you have. Ortlieb front roller panniers, for example, have a total capacity of 25 liters-more than twice what my saddle bag carries. 

[Matthew J]

> More when you're riding, perhaps, but less can sure be less once you've arrived at your destination.   It's all a matter of compromise, and people will come down in different places regarding what 

> they're willing to compromise, and how much.

Several times on tour - for instance a couple summers Chicago to Nantucket - I will ride light and mail stuff I want at the destination but do not need for the ride.  If you do not have a home or someone at the end of the ride waiting for you check whether the local post office accepts general delivery.  Some Kinkos FedEx and UPS Stores will hold deliveries for a charge as well.

[Steve Palincsar]

Brilliant! That's a plan I can really get enthused about.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/01/2015 01:02 PM, Mark Guglielmana wrote:

Mark:

When credit card touring, less is more.

Steve
More when you're riding, perhaps, but less can sure be less once you've arrived at your destination.   It's all a matter of compromise, and people will come down in different places regarding what they're willing to compromise, and how much.  

True, compromises need to be made.

To the OP's question, if a Boulder All Road 650B suitable for occassional Light Touring (credit card style), just about any bike is suitable for light touring, depends on how much you want to bring along. This was John's thought of baggage:

• Low rider rack with panniers, 10 to 13 lb per pannier
• Front Handlebar bag supported by rack and decailluer
• Rear saddle bag (hanging off saddle) with 7 to10 lbs.

That's a whole lot of bags just for credit card touring. Probably the best site to see what people really bring on bike tours is the CGOAB site. Read a bunch of the journals, the theme is heavily tilted towards "wish I would have brought less" than "wish I woulda brought more".

20 lb all together is about my credit card touring load, counting two small front panniers, a small Carradice and a front handlebar bag.  With that setup I have never wished I brought less, and have been happy to have what I had with me.  YMMV - everyone's does.

Here's my loaded bike for a credit card tour 2 years ago. I do have an extra pair of light shoes, and a lot more in those two bags. Even then, on the second day I stopped at a post office and mailed back some gear. 

I know that my low trail bike would handle better without the saddle bag-I'm building up another bike with low rider mounts for front bags. I'm worried that this will just enable me to carry "too much" - an old adage of the touring cyclist is you will fill up whatever bags you have. Ortlieb front roller panniers, for example, have a total capacity of 25 liters-more than twice what my saddle bag carries. 

I use the Lone Peak Sundance panniers I used to use commuting.  Lone Peak calls them "medium", 24.5 L for the pair



(stock image, not my bike)

[WMdeR]

When credit card touring, less is more.

Dear Mark,

I'll quote my photography teacher. He said, "Less is more? No. Less is less. Enough is enough."

I do know, in other contexts, that nobody getting out for their big tour underpacks significantly without long and fairly recent experience. We (I, anyway) tend to mis-pack (too much stuff, not the right things). Thankfully on a bike tour, we're not ordinarily too terribly far from resupply, unlike my first Appalachian Trail section hike.....

After many long years of rarely getting out for more than an overnight, I carried about 25lb for a 3-day bicycle camping trip (including a day and a half of food--it was pretty remote), which turned out to include about a pound and a half of extra gear--a spare wool jersey, a spare set of cycling shorts, a set of legwarmers/armwarmers (vs using my overshirt and regular pants), an LED lantern, and a cell phone. I also ended up with about a pound of GORP and an un-needed chain tool. However, that's about the price I'm willing to pay as insurance--I carry an extra layer and some food beyond expected needs into any remote area. I could probably cut the warmers (or the civilian clothes--pick one depending on context). It is also rather a lot more than I pack for a 3-day backpacking trip, as the racks and bags add up. In my case, three pounds of low-rider rack +Ortlieb panniers, 380g handlebar bag+décaleur, 200g front rack. I also wanted a Campagnolo lockring tool, but I just lived with the creaking until I got into a town with a bike shop, and I could have hand-tightened it if it got critically loose.

I think I could have cut the sunk weight by a pound with a different lowrider/pannier setup, but I'll have to experiment a bit with design and do some sewing to establish the most efficient setup.

Best Regards,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[WMdeR]

Dear Mark,

Having trotted out one of my favorite bromides, I do agree that straight CC touring is an excuse to travel really light. I carry enough stuff to really fill my handlebar bag (a GB-25alike--about 11 liters) if I'm staying in a rented bed each night and with regular food supply). It is just a 1200K load plus a civilian outer layer (overshirt, underwear, and pants). It all weighs less than ten pounds including baggage and front rack/décaleur. 

Best,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[Jan Heine]

Even if you carry a tent, you don't need a huge amount of stuff. I loaded up my Mule for a camping trip for 2 people, with me carrying most of the gear: tent, 2 sleeping bags, stove, pot, food for 3 days, camera... All fit into an extra-large handlebar bag and two large Berthoud panniers. Front load only... Here's a photo:

https://www.instagram.com/p/5XkUFFyTGw/?taken-by=compasscycle

Jan Heine

Bicycle Quarterly

www.bikequarterly.com

Check out the BQ flip book of sample articles.

-----Original Message-----
From: WMdeR
Sent: Dec 1, 2015 2:04 PM
To: 650b <65...@googlegroups.com>

--

[Chris L]

Whenever I see someone with front and rear panniers a large handlebar bag and a bunch of stuff strapped on top of their rack I always want to ask them what in the heck they're carrying. A tent, sleeping bag, sleeping pad, stove, pot and food can all pretty easily fit into a single set of panniers these days. So much of this stuff has gotten so light and compact in recent years and not just at the high end. 

Chris Lowe

[Andrew Fatseas]

I spent weeks wild camping and riding in France with front panniers, handlebar and saddlebags.  Plenty of room for stove and food and clothes.  It helps that the latest thermarest mats are the size of a beer can now.

[Harold Bielstein]

Too bad these are out of production:

you could hand-tighten these

[Alex Wetmore]

We have a better option today with threadless headsets.  They are stronger, allow for lighter steerers, and with cartridge bearings they are trivial to disassemble with a 5mm allen key.  I'm not sure why anyone builds new frames with threaded headsets anymore.

I use one on my S&S coupled travel bike and pull the fork for packing.  It only adds a minute or two to the process.  Threadless stems (being linear instead of L shaped) are also easier to pack than quill stems.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Harold Bielstein <hkbie...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 3:16 PM
To: Andrew Fatseas
Cc: Mark Guglielmana; 650b; wmder...@gmail.com; Jan Heine
Subject: Re: [650B] Boulder All Road 650B and Light Touring

 

Too bad these are out of production:

you could hand-tighten these

[Harold Bielstein]

Isn’t Jan’s Mule built with a threaded head set and a quill stem?

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Alex Wetmore <al...@phred.org> wrote:
>
> We have a better option today with threadless headsets. They are stronger, allow for lighter steerers, and with cartridge bearings they are trivial to disassemble with a 5mm allen key. I'm not sure why anyone builds new frames with threaded headsets anymore.
>
> I use one on my S&S coupled travel bike and pull the fork for packing. It only adds a minute or two to the process. Threadless stems (being linear instead of L shaped) are also easier to pack than quill stems.
>
> alex
>
>

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to650b+un...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/650b.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

> <PastedGraphic-2.tiff>

[Alex Wetmore]

From: Harold Bielstein <hkbie...@gmail.com>

> Isn’t Jan’s Mule built with a threaded head set and a quill stem?

Yes. But it is a Mule and that would be easy to change.

For anyone else building a similar bike I'm not sure why one would use a threaded headset. This is just an area where Jan and I disagree (Hahn also builds most or all of his bikes with threadless steerers).

alex

[Mark Guglielmana]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:22:50 PM UTC-8, Alex Wetmore wrote:

We have a better option today with threadless headsets.  They are stronger, allow for lighter steerers, and with cartridge bearings they are trivial to disassemble with a 5mm allen key.  I'm not sure why anyone builds new frames with threaded headsets anymore.

I use one on my S&S coupled travel bike and pull the fork for packing.  It only adds a minute or two to the process.  Threadless stems (being linear instead of L shaped) are also easier to pack than quill stems.

My "problem" is that right now all of my bikes are vintage steel and used threaded steerers. At some point I'll get a "modern" frame and will definitely consider a threadless headset - your point is well taken.  

[Steve Palincsar]

Maybe they like being able to adjust the handlebar height without
messing with a spacer stack, or perhaps they like the look of the quill
stem better than the threadless, or perhaps they prefer using Berthoud
decaleurs to Velo Orange. It's not like there are no advantages to
quill stems. If you aren't into Rinko and don't like removable front
faceplate stems, I'm really not sure what there is to like about
threadless at all.

[Mark Guglielmana]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 1:46:51 PM UTC-8, WMdeR wrote:

When credit card touring, less is more.

Dear Mark,

I'll quote my photography teacher. He said, "Less is more? No. Less is less. Enough is enough."

 

Will, does your photography teacher do credit card touring? Every long hill I keep mumbling "less is more, less is more..." If I were to lose about 20 lbs of useless body fat, I'd say enough is enough!

:-) 

[Alex Wetmore]

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com>

> quill stems. If you aren't into Rinko and don't like removable front
> faceplate stems, I'm really not sure what there is to like about
> threadless at all.

I already mentioned some huge advantages. The biggest is having either stronger or considerably lighter steerers. Threading the steerer weakens for no really good reason. The threadless system also generally results in lighter and stronger stems.

I didn't mean to turn this into a general purpose threaded vs thraedless steerer debate, you can find those on any internet bike forum going back two decades. I wanted to state that a very good alternative exists that doesn't require unusual wrenches or custom modifications to headsets.

alex

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/01/2015 07:03 PM, Alex Wetmore wrote:
> From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com>
>> quill stems. If you aren't into Rinko and don't like removable front
>> faceplate stems, I'm really not sure what there is to like about
>> threadless at all.
> I already mentioned some huge advantages. The biggest is having either stronger or considerably lighter steerers. Threading the steerer weakens for no really good reason. The threadless system also generally results in lighter and stronger stems.

And you end up having to choose either the 1 1/8" steerer, which causes
the head tube to look grotesquely bloated next to narrow diameter steel
frame tubes, or you go with 1" steerers and have virtually no headsets
made for that size and have to use 1 1/8" stems with shims because there
simply aren't any 1" threadless stems. And you have a fork that, once
cut to fit you, can never be made to fit anyone who wants a higher
handlebar. It's not like those aren't some serious to fatal disadvantages.

>
> I didn't mean to turn this into a general purpose threaded vs thraedless steerer debate, you can find those on any internet bike forum going back two decades. I wanted to state that a very good alternative exists that doesn't require unusual wrenches or custom modifications to headsets.
>
>

I'm happy for those who can use Rinko concepts. They're cool and
elegant. However, they also require trains that will take them. Maybe
you all out there on the left coast have that, but here on the east
coast, not so much. It's either the one or two trains with ro-ro
service (and no disassembly required at all) or take off the pedals and
turn the bars and put it in a box and good luck finding a station that
has baggage service (e.g., there's no way at all to go by train with a
bike between DC and Philly). You want to bring in a bag the size of a
cello and hope to find somewhere to stash it on one of our trains? No
way. There's no place to put it at all.

So take away Rinko, and what's left? You can adjust a headset with an
allen key -- fine, except nobody (i.e., nobody you meet on rides with
the bike club, except possibly one guy who might work part time at the
LBS) knows how to adjust them anyway, so if you're going to bring it to
the LBS to have the headset adjusted anyway you might just as well have
a threaded: at least there you can adjust the handlebar height without
having to have the LBS readjust your headset for you!

As you might have gathered, the train situation bothers me a lot more
than simply choosing threaded vs threadless. I have two bikes with
threadless. Yawn. If there are advantages, I do not see them, but
otherwise the bikes are fine (my VO decaleur doesn't rotate). All the
rest are threaded, and any I might get in future will be as well.

[Steve Palincsar]

His photography teacher probably appreciates the benefits of full frame...

[Chris L]

>
> And you end up having to choose either the 1 1/8" steerer, which causes the head tube to look grotesquely bloated next to narrow diameter steel frame tubes, or you go with 1" steerers and have virtually no headsets made for that size and have to use 1 1/8" stems with shims because there simply aren't any 1" threadless stems. And you have a fork that, once cut to fit you, can never be made to fit anyone who wants a higher handlebar. It's not like those aren't some serious to fatal disadvantages.

The whole fit argument is rubbish, IMO. Stems now come in a wide variety of angles and reaches. If the height difference is so great that it can't be overcome by a change in stem then chances are the frame isn't the right size! Also when I buy a frame I buy it for my needs, not the potential needs of some future owner.

Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. I find a tall quill stem sticking up out of a head tube to be ungainly and hideous looking. Far uglier looking than a 1 1/8" steer tube on a non-OS frame, IMO.

Chris Lowe

[Nick Payne]

I still have one of those unused sitting in one of my spares boxes...

[Matthew J]

>Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. I find a tall quill stem sticking up out of a head tube to be ungainly and hideous looking. Far uglier looking than a 1 1/8" > steer tube on a non-OS frame, IMO. 

Sure, but there is no good reason to have a real tall quill stem.  Normal height quill stems look great.  On the other hand, 1 1/8" treadless on non-OS frame is always ugly - objectively so.

[Steve Chan]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Matthew J <matth...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sure, but there is no good reason to have a real tall quill stem.  Normal height quill stems look great.  On the other hand, 1 1/8" treadless on non-OS frame is always ugly - objectively so.

   And so it boils down to appearance over function.

   Most people who are concerned with function seem to rate threadless well above quill stems:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html

   Not to belittle looks (its certainly important for many of us), but most of the functional complaints about threadless seem to be based on edge cases ("What if I want to make capricious changes to handlebar height?") or fake problems ("Nobody knows how to adjust threadless stem preload when I remove the stem due to an unwillingness to use open faceplate stems.").

   1" Threadless is still quite viable (IMO), especially for the iBob crowd which seems to either get custom stuff, or scrape EBay for old stuff.

   Steve

--

"Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." - Samuel Smiles

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/01/2015 07:53 PM, Chris L wrote:

And you end up having to choose either the 1 1/8" steerer, which causes the head tube to look grotesquely bloated next to narrow diameter steel frame tubes, or you go with 1" steerers and have virtually no headsets made for that size and have to use 1 1/8" stems with shims because there simply aren't any 1" threadless stems.  And you have a fork that, once cut to fit you, can never be made to fit anyone who wants a higher handlebar.  It's not like those aren't some serious to fatal disadvantages.

The whole fit argument is rubbish, IMO. Stems now come in a wide variety of angles and reaches. If the height difference is so great that it can't be overcome by a change in stem then chances are the frame isn't the right size! Also when I buy a frame I buy it for my needs, not the potential needs of some future owner.

No, actually it is not.  Often a bike shop will cut a stem based on the use of an up-angled stem.  If they do it for someone who likes a low bar, that's it: no room for upward expansion.  Typically, stock frames -- Rivendell being a fine example -- come in 2 cm increments.  The difference in bar height for someone at the low end of the size range for that frame and likes the bar low and someone at the high end who likes the bar higher is substantially more than can be met with stem angle alone, especially not if an up-angled stem was employed when the fork was originally cut down.

This has a lot of resonance for me because one of my favorite bikes is a 1991 George Longstaff, 23" in size, purchased from a member of the iBOB list in 2002.  Call it a 58.5 vs my "ideal" 59 cm (in a 700C); in inch sizing, definitely "my size".  Here's the bike as the original owner had it.  Note the bar drop.  Had this been threadless, I'm confident it would have been set up with a slammed up-angled stem.



Now here it is as I ride it, with a Technomic Deluxe:



Impossible to achieve, had this been threadless.   And this is a marvelous bike, one of only a very few ever brought into the United States, built by one of England's top builders, a guy who died the year after I bought this frame. 

And it's not just "worrying about the second owner" -- when I bought a Tom Kellogg custom in 1991, I had the bars set up just like the original owner of the Longstaff.  By the time I bought this frame 11 years later, that bar position didn't work for me at all.  Fortunately, the Kellogg has a quill stem, and it was possible for me to get a stem that raised the bars up level with the saddle; I still ride that bike in 2015.

Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. I find a tall quill stem sticking up out of a head tube to be ungainly and hideous looking. Far uglier looking than a 1 1/8" steer tube on a non-OS frame, IMO.

I don't know about you, but I don't find the stem on my Longstaff to be "hideous" at all, and that's only a fist-full of seat post showing.  Yeah, it's not as aero a riding position as it could be, but my 73 year old cervical vertebrae don't care much about that.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/01/2015 10:24 PM, Steve Chan wrote:
>
> Not to belittle looks (its certainly important for many of us), but
> most of the functional complaints about threadless seem to be based on
> edge cases ("What if I want to make capricious changes to handlebar
> height?") or fake problems ("Nobody knows how to adjust threadless
> stem preload when I remove the stem due to an unwillingness to use
> open faceplate stems.").
>

More than once I've been on a ride with a dozen people and someone had a
loose threadless headset, everyone there but me with threadless, and not
one person on the ride knew how to tighten the headset. That is not an
edge case, and in my book it cancels out one of the supposed major
advantages of threadless: no special tools needed, but the owner still
had to go to a bike shop to get a mechanic to adjust it.

And raising the bars because you got old and started getting a bit of
osteoarthritis in the cervical spine is no edge case either. If you
think it is, just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait; You'll be
sorry but your tears will be too late...

:-)

[Murray Love]

I hesitate to step into these turbulent waters, but while I completely understand (and agree with) the technical arguments in favor of threadless headsets, I'm still left wondering how much it matters for most people. Headsets are the bicycle component I deal with least of all: I adjust them when they're new, maybe once again a few weeks after that, and then I forget about them entirely for years at a time. I can't remember the last time I even looked at the headset on either of my bikes (both threaded, one ancient), so the technical arguments ultimately leave me cold. Perhaps it would matter more if I was carrying porteur loads or downhill racing or rinkoing, but for my purposes, they just disappear.

That leaves aesthetics, and while de gustibus etc., I vastly prefer the looks of quill stems, as long as they don't have ridiculous height extension. To bring the topic back to Boulder, I did a Google image search earlier today for people's Allroad builds, and yeesh... Big stacks of chunky spacers, two inches of steerer protruding above the stem, warty, oversized stems... I'm not usually a princess about these things, but the clashing aesthetics between the elegant, understated frames and the steroidally overblown steering systems are just glaring. I had to go look at some Box Dog Pelicans to restore my faith in humanity. (Kidding, but still.)

Murray
Victoria, BC

[Harold Bielstein]

I hear ya Steve. For me its lumbar vertebra. Some of the bikes I’ve had for many years have require me to raise the stem over time. Glad they were quils. BTW, I’ve always considered the 28.6 steerer to have been a solution in search of a problem.

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 8:38 PM, Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/01/2015 07:53 PM, Chris L wrote:
>>> And you end up having to choose either the 1 1/8" steerer, which causes the head tube to look grotesquely bloated next to narrow diameter steel frame tubes, or you go with 1" steerers and have virtually no headsets made for that size and have to use 1 1/8" stems with shims because there simply aren't any 1" threadless stems. And you have a fork that, once cut to fit you, can never be made to fit anyone who wants a higher handlebar. It's not like those aren't some serious to fatal disadvantages.
>>>
>> The whole fit argument is rubbish, IMO. Stems now come in a wide variety of angles and reaches. If the height difference is so great that it can't be overcome by a change in stem then chances are the frame isn't the right size! Also when I buy a frame I buy it for my needs, not the potential needs of some future owner.
>
>
> No, actually it is not. Often a bike shop will cut a stem based on the use of an up-angled stem. If they do it for someone who likes a low bar, that's it: no room for upward expansion. Typically, stock frames -- Rivendell being a fine example -- come in 2 cm increments. The difference in bar height for someone at the low end of the size range for that frame and likes the bar low and someone at the high end who likes the bar higher is substantially more than can be met with stem angle alone, especially not if an up-angled stem was employed when the fork was originally cut down.
>
> This has a lot of resonance for me because one of my favorite bikes is a 1991 George Longstaff, 23" in size, purchased from a member of the iBOB list in 2002. Call it a 58.5 vs my "ideal" 59 cm (in a 700C); in inch sizing, definitely "my size". Here's the bike as the original owner had it. Note the bar drop. Had this been threadless, I'm confident it would have been set up with a slammed up-angled stem.
>

> <01.jpg>

>
> Now here it is as I ride it, with a Technomic Deluxe:
>

> <14847282180_2d611bc1dd_b.jpg>

>
> Impossible to achieve, had this been threadless. And this is a marvelous bike, one of only a very few ever brought into the United States, built by one of England's top builders, a guy who died the year after I bought this frame.
>
> And it's not just "worrying about the second owner" -- when I bought a Tom Kellogg custom in 1991, I had the bars set up just like the original owner of the Longstaff. By the time I bought this frame 11 years later, that bar position didn't work for me at all. Fortunately, the Kellogg has a quill stem, and it was possible for me to get a stem that raised the bars up level with the saddle; I still ride that bike in 2015.
>
>>
>> Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. I find a tall quill stem sticking up out of a head tube to be ungainly and hideous looking. Far uglier looking than a 1 1/8" steer tube on a non-OS frame, IMO.
>>
>
> I don't know about you, but I don't find the stem on my Longstaff to be "hideous" at all, and that's only a fist-full of seat post showing. Yeah, it's not as aero a riding position as it could be, but my 73 year old cervical vertebrae don't care much about that.
>

[WMdeR]

Hi, All,

This thread squirms all over!

Re: headsets. I do know I personally prefer threadless. I'm not a fan of the shim necessary with commercially-available threadless stems, but I've never found that I couldn't get the position I needed, and they are noticeably lighter and easier to manage. The particular benefit of threadless steerers and stems for me is lighter weight, more-common 4-bolt faceplates, easier integration for lighting systems, simpler adjustment and more-portable tools (a 4mm and 5mm Allen key vs a pair of 32mm wrenches is a win on tour), and (engaging the FUD filter), I've never seen a threadless stem get stuck or damage the steerer. The Miche is a good 1" threadless headset option, and I've used their (not very expensive) headset (in both threaded and threadless) on a few machines over the years with complete satisfaction. I also like the (blatantly cheap but still pleasing) polished aluminum Origin-8 stems....

Best Regards,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[WMdeR]

Dear Murray,

If threaded headsets and quill stems turn your crank, I believe you can get a Boulder Bicycle Allroad, set up for spirited riding and occasional touring, that will accommodate your particular atavism at minimal charge. I agree that quill stems can be prettier, but the additional 1/4 lb, additional difficulties in preload adjustment, weirder/bulkier tools, and rare-but-unpleasant-to-catastrophic failure mode all militate against the technology in favor of threadless.

Now, I do wonder about 1" threadless vs 1 1/8" (I personally prefer 1 1/8" headsets/steerers even though I only have one bike that uses that standard out of the four I ride regularly), but even 1 1/8" is getting left behind in the search for more marketshare and the 44mm/tapered headset craze..... 

Best,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[Mark Guglielmana]

+1 for us old farts.

[Steve Chan]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com> wrote:

More than once I've been on a ride with a dozen people and someone had a loose threadless headset, everyone there but me with threadless, and not one person on the ride knew how to tighten the headset.  That is not an edge case, and in my book it cancels out one of the supposed major advantages of threadless: no special tools needed, but the owner still had to go to a bike shop to get a mechanic to adjust it.

   Not having the appropriate skills cancels all kinds of legitimate advantages. Lots of riders/drivers don't even know how to change a flat tire, but that isn't a compelling argument in favor of abandoning pneumatic tires and converting everyone to these things: http://www.airlesstiresnow.com/Bicycle-Tires_c_172.html

 

   I know a bunch of people who wrench on their bikes, but the vast majority of people I ride with really have no idea how to adjust a headset, threadless or threaded. I personally find adjusting threadless headsets a good bit less fiddly than counter torquing the locknut and crown race _just_so_.

   I just use a clamping cable hanger to lock in the preload once it has been adjusted - it shouldn't be the only thing holding the steerer in place, but it seems to do a good job when I need to adjust/change the stem.

And raising the bars because you got old and started getting a bit of osteoarthritis in the cervical spine is no edge case either.  If you think it is, just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait; You'll be sorry but your tears will be too late...

   My cervical vertebrae are already getting a little wonky - if they south faster than expected, a riser stem, while ugly, is quite functional and relatively inexpensive (I have a few in the parts box from bikes that had shorter steerers). One person I know insists that they are actually more rigid than a longer steerer + horizonal stem, and probably everyone would likely agree that they are more rigid than a quill stem.

:-)

:-D   <---- this is my smiley emoticon once I'm so old all my teeth have fallen out :-P

[Harold Bielstein]

"I personally find adjusting threadless headsets a good bit less fiddly than counter torquing the locknut and crown race _just_so_.”

I suppose cup-and-cone bottom brackets fall in the same category then

[Olle]

Hi 

I have two 650B bikes, one is Swedish built by Tegner and have OS Spirit tubing 0.75-0.45-0.75 in both down and top tube, kasei fork blades and GB forkcrown. With lowrider brazeons. It works very good with light touring. Have ride with some small tent, camping gear in my Ortlieb Panniers, it is nice to ride without lowriders also. Compere to the Tegner, I like the Map more, I cant exactly put the finger why I prefer MAP. 

But I am a heavy guy, short and fat, not so strong, ;-)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/34740437@N08/21111775866/in/album-72157656505024786/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/34740437@N08/20127351636/in/album-72157656505024786/

My second 650B is MAP RP with standard size tubing 0.7-0.4-0.7 TT, 0.8-0.5-0.8 DT, same fork, without lowrider. But with overload big H'bar bag, I receive some shimmy, as on my PBP.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/34740437@N08/20130191014/in/album-72157656505352116/

My conclusion it is not easy choose, I can't compere this two bikes properly because only one of them have braze on for  lowriders, maybe I test with my old Bruce Gordon front rack in the future.

But if your are light guy, and smooth peddler, and only packing gears for light touring, I should go for std tubing.Only thing for sure is when the bike is built it is difficult change things. 

Olle

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/01/2015 11:24 PM, Mark Guglielmana wrote:

+1 for us old farts.

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 7:53:48 PM UTC-8, Harold Bielstein wrote:

I hear ya Steve. For me its lumbar vertebra. Some of the bikes I’ve had for many years have require me to raise the stem over time. Glad they were quils. BTW, I’ve always considered the 28.6 steerer to have been a solution in search of a problem.

Amen.  Consider the alternative.

As for 28.6 steerers: consider where all this came from.  In the MTB world, larger diameter steerer tubes and threadless headsets have a distinct advantage: I understand in that kind of usage, headsets loosen all the time from all the heavy impacts.  It's got to be much more convenient to readjust out in the field with a small allen wrench than the sort of wrenches needed to adjust threaded headsets.  In road use, however, at least in my experience (mirrored by others here) headsets are adjusted only when they are cleaned, which can be very infrequently indeed. 

[Matthew J]

> Most people who are concerned with function seem to rate threadless well above quill stems

As it happens, I own custom bikes with custom made quill and threadless stems (the threadless with a proper OS headtube, natch).  .  

While I've read many a comment about the enhanced functionality of threadless over quill, it's been my experience that both hold the bars in place equally well.  Alex comments about steer tube strength notwithstanding, the Winter so far has proven itself to handle heavy front loads on rough trails with aplomb.  Of course as we know, Eric makes the well reviewed Box Dog Pelican Rando bikes.  I believe he would not have made my Caprinae with a quill if he thought it would not function well.

Setting up both bikes took and equal amount of effort.  Maintenance for both takes about the same amount of time.  Although actually it takes a bit more time to remove the threadless in order to clean and replace the Lanolube as there are three bolts to loosen on the Retrotec (two on the stem, one on the cap) as opposed to one on the Winter.

The most frequent argument in favor of threadless - that you can change the stem without taking the brake levers and tape or grips off the handle bars - at once ignores the fact quills can come with open face plates, and, curiously, stresses changing the stem which would not seem to be necessary if it is functioning at a high level.  Because if you are changing the bars you need to remove the brake levers, tape or grips no matter which type of stem.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/02/2015 09:10 AM, Matthew J wrote:

The most frequent argument in favor of threadless - that you can change the stem without taking the brake levers and tape or grips off the handle bars - at once ignores the fact quills can come with open face plates, and, curiously, stresses changing the stem which would not seem to be necessary if it is functioning at a high level.  Because if you are changing the bars you need to remove the brake levers, tape or grips no matter which type of stem.

Perhaps it's because raising the bar height with threadless must typically be done by replacing the stem with one with more up-angle?  

The open face plate is useful for removing the handlebar when packing the bike for shipment.  If you do that a lot, it's an advantage.

[Matthew J]

> The open face plate is useful for removing the handlebar when packing the bike for shipment.  If you do that a lot, it's an advantage.

Good point.  Not something I do but makes sense. 

[Alex Wetmore]

From: Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com>

> And you end up having to choose either the 1 1/8" steerer, which causes
> the head tube to look grotesquely bloated next to narrow diameter steel
> frame tubes, or you go with 1" steerers and have virtually no headsets
> made for that size

There are tons of great 1" threadless headsets, you just haven't even bothered to look.

Cane Creek, Shimano Pro, Chris King, and Miche all make them and are trivial to order. With a little looking around you can find many other options. QBP lists about an equal number of 1" threaded and 1" threadless headsets for 26.4mm crown races.

I brought this up in the context of a made to order custom Rinko bike (specifically Jan's Mule). There is no reason to worry about a previous owner having cut the steerer in that case. Quill stems don't really help that much anyway, a quill stem with a really long quill looks just as stupid as a threadless bike with a steerer extender.

Threadless to me doesn't have anything to do with steerer diameter or open face stems. Those are both variables that are available with threadless or threaded headsets. You may prefer the aesthetics of a quill stem, but it is very difficult to impossible to argue that a threaded headset is technically superior. It puts stress risers into what is probably the most loaded tube on the whole frame!

alex

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/02/2015 10:46 AM, Alex Wetmore wrote:
> From: Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com>
>> And you end up having to choose either the 1 1/8" steerer, which causes
>> the head tube to look grotesquely bloated next to narrow diameter steel
>> frame tubes, or you go with 1" steerers and have virtually no headsets
>> made for that size
> There are tons of great 1" threadless headsets, you just haven't even bothered to look.

I haven't because I don't own such a bike. This is, however, a common
theme in discussions on the bike forums.

[Greg Achtem]

Re rinko and equipment choices. Threaded steerers make for a shorter fork and possibly easier packing and a smaller package when done. I'm sure something could be figured out with the longer threadless steerer.

Alex, I don't think the problem is finding a one inch threadless headset. The problem is finding a new (not NOS) svelte production stem that looks better on a one inch steerer than a shimmed down inch and an eighth. If anybody knows of such a stem, let me know.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/02/2015 11:13 AM, Greg Achtem wrote:
>
> Alex, I don't think the problem is finding a one inch threadless
> headset. The problem is finding a new (not NOS) svelte production stem
> that looks better on a one inch steerer than a shimmed down inch and
> an eighth. If anybody knows of such a stem, let me know.

$300 will get you one of these:
http://www.winterbicycles.com/gallery/stems/ and being custom, could
probably be made in 1" size. Some even have removable face plates.
Beyond that, ?

[Robert Cauthorn]

I'm a fan of the ultralight running shoes for just this reason. They don't weight but a few ounces, pack nearly flat, but are robust enough to run and hike in.

New Balance makes a good one, but there are plenty of others.

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 6:03:33 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:

For example, I appreciate being able to walk around with Sidi Dominators -- infinitely better than Look style cycling shoes -- but I really don't want to wear them for any distance off the bike, and there are many places that wouldn't appreciate steel cleats on their fancy floors, so on tour I carry a pair of Keen sandals for off-bike wear.  Previously, I tried a pair of very flimsy, very light slip-on sneakers (the kind my daughter calls "Commie Janes") and they were fine right up to when my touring companions decided we'd go for a hike on a hillside trail, and I felt in serious danger of falling off the hill.

[Ryan Golbeck]

I think that bike would have worked fine if it were threadless with a stem extender: http://www.wiggle.com/bbb-bhp-2021-stem-extender/.

--

[Alex Wetmore]

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Greg Achtem <greg....@gmail.com>

> Alex, I don't think the problem is finding a one inch threadless headset. The problem is finding a new (not NOS) 

> svelte production stem that looks better on a one inch steerer than a shimmed down inch and an eighth. 

> If anybody knows of such a stem, let me know.

It's true that those are not common.  I personally don't mind the look of a shimmed stem, and used a custom stem on one bike where I did want things to be as svelte looking as possible.

I do think that oversized 1-3/8" headtubes with 1" top tubes don't look that great, and don't like the unnecessary extra weight of a 1.125" steerer on a steel bike.  Both of the bikes in these photos (one of which is S&S coupled, and thus packs smaller than a Rinko bike) use 1" steerers and shimmed stems:

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2015/06/09/compass-tire-prototypes-really-big-tires/

This is another photo of the S&S bike (I don't have many photos of it).  The steerer was left long because I often loan this bike out to people.  The sloping top tube allows it to work well for most of my friends who normally ride 57-62cm frames.  If I were keeping the bike only for myself the steerer would be cut 2cm shorter:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tehschkott/6958644376/in/photostream/

This is a 1" custom stem that I made:

http://photos.alexwetmore.org/Bicycles/Projects/Ivy-T-Stem/i-6zJ8bG3

The forward extension on the custom stem is 1", the forward extension on the production Nitto stem looks like it is about 28mm.  It's not enough for me to get upset about.

alex

[Greg Achtem]

That's why I said production. Ouch!

[Steven Frederick]

I don't mind the looks of the threadless stem from VeloOrange. Even
on a 1" steerer with a shim, it looks not to badly out of place. I've
come to appreciate the removeable faceplate for stem swappin' too,
which I seem to do more of than I used to.

Steve

[Harald Kliems]

It seems like Origin8 offers a few options in 1": http://www.origin8.bike/product-description/?prod_model_uid=2727 

Does anyone on the list have one of those?

 Harald in Madison (Wisc.)

[Alex Wetmore]

The Origin-8 stems are for 1.125" steerers, but some include shims to allow them to work with 1" steerers.

They are very nice stems for the price.  Velo-Orange appears to get theirs from the same source (the old VO stems looked identical, then they changed to more of a square pattern on the forward extension).  I think the Nitto stems are a little nicer, but these are very close.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Harald Kliems <kli...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 9:02 AM
To: 650b
Cc: pali...@his.com
Subject: Re: [650B] Boulder All Road 650B and Light Touring

 

[Ryan Watson]

I've used the origin 8 stems in 1-1/8. They're actually my first choice!
I've only used the 1-1/8 versions but they're quite nice, light and shiny :-)
I used one on my Boulder with a shim and thought it looked fine.

Ryan

[Murray Love]

Yes, I'm actually using a VO threadless stem with a VO quill adapter on my Sequoia. It's both the best and worst of both worlds: removable faceplate, one of the most attractive threadless stems out there, easy height adjustment, but probably much heavier than a normal quill stem.

Murray

Victoria, BC

[Greg Achtem]

For what it's worth I'm also using a VO stem and it looks fine especially since that area is already visually cluttered with a decalleur and steerer mounted bell. Having gone through many bar and stem experiments over last riding season I was happy for the removable face plates and the cable hanger keeping the pre-load adjustment.

[Murray Love]

Hello Will.

"Your particular atavism" made me chuckle. Very good!

I realize I'm being a bit of a prima donna over it, but since I've never had any problems with threaded headsets in over 25 years of serious on-road riding (including some major loaded touring early on), the aesthetic considerations easily predominate over the technical ones--though I do acknowledge the strict technical superiority of the threadless system.

But if I'm going to drop over $2,000 CDN on a nice classic-style rando frame--a fairly large chunk of change for a middle-class dad--I'm not going to be in much of a mood to compromise over aesthetics, and I really, really don't like the majority of the threadless setups I see on such bikes. (Modern bikes are a different matter.) So it's good to hear that Boulder could probably accommodate my idiosyncrasies.

Murray

Victoria, BC

--

[Harald Kliems]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-6, Alex Wetmore wrote:

The Origin-8 stems are for 1.125" steerers, but some include shims to allow them to work with 1" steerers.

Ah, too bad. I was ready to get my hopes up. Oh well, I have my Chris Kelly 1" stem I found a couple years ago on ebay...

 Harald.

[Harold Bielstein]

If you’re into making your own stems, both Nova and Lewellyn have stem kits that require a shim for 1” steerers. An example:

[Alex Wetmore]

Yes, but you don't need a kit to make stems.  The fillet brazed one that I showed earlier in this thread was just made with scrap tubing from frame projects.  The vertical tube at the back of the stem is 1.125" x 0.058" tubing, which provides a slip fit over 1" tubing.  I don't have measurements handy, but my custom 4130 stem with integrated spacer was lighter than the aluminum Nitto threadless stem plus aluminum spacer stack that was originally on the bike.

If you wanted a half-lugged stem you could make it with the lug at the front (for the handlebar clamp) and fillet or TIG welded at the rear.  Rivendell used to sell a Nitto-made stem like that.

Lugs always limit your options, unless you start making custom lugs (which is possible, Drew at Engin has done a great job with custom lugs on stainless mountain bikes).

alex

---

From: Harold Bielstein <hkbie...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 10:23 AM
To: Alex Wetmore
Cc: Greg Achtem; 650b

Subject: Re: [650B] Boulder All Road 650B and Light Touring

[Steve Chan]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Murray Love <murra...@gmail.com> wrote:

But if I'm going to drop over $2,000 CDN on a nice classic-style rando frame--a fairly large chunk of change for a middle-class dad--I'm not going to be in much of a mood to compromise over aesthetics, and I really, really don't like the majority of the threadless setups I see on such bikes.

   But all concerns about stem aesthetics get thrown out the window when you go full custom. Here's a stem that Anton had made for his L'Avecaise:

   Can you really tell me that you think that looks *bad*?

   And here's a particularly clean 'Prêt-à-Porter' threadless setup on a Bridgestone RB-T:

[Matthew J]

Anton's stem builder did a great job with the fillets and matching the paint for the  L'Avecaise stem.  At least from the angle of the picture it does look a little oversize above the head tube.  Not an issue with the OS head tubing Curtis used for my Retrotec.

The stem on the Bridgestone really overpowers the bike, IMO.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/02/2015 02:18 PM, Steve Chan wrote:

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Murray Love <murra...@gmail.com> wrote:

But if I'm going to drop over $2,000 CDN on a nice classic-style rando frame--a fairly large chunk of change for a middle-class dad--I'm not going to be in much of a mood to compromise over aesthetics, and I really, really don't like the majority of the threadless setups I see on such bikes.

   But all concerns about stem aesthetics get thrown out the window when you go full custom. Here's a stem that Anton had made for his L'Avecaise:

   Can you really tell me that you think that looks *bad*?

No, it's very pretty, just as are the Winter stems, and looks just like a quill stem with a couple of little nubs on.  Unless I'm mistaken, also doesn't have a removable face plate.

[Murray Love]

Those are nice examples of good threadless setups, and I wouldn't turn my nose up at either of them, especially the L'Avecaise version, but I agree with Matthew that they're still a little lacking in elegance compared to a nice quill stem. Mind you, as I said in another post, I'm currently running a VO stem with quill adapter on my Sequoia, so I can't be that much of a purist.

A couple of photos I just took. First, my Sequoia's setup:

I think that looks pretty nice, all up.

And my colleague's Long Haul Trucker:

My eyes! But he's ridden this thing across Canada in three installments, so props to him.

Murray

Victoria, BC

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/02/2015 03:19 PM, Murray Love wrote:

Those are nice examples of good threadless setups, and I wouldn't turn my nose up at either of them, especially the L'Avecaise version, but I agree with Matthew that they're still a little lacking in elegance compared to a nice quill stem. Mind you, as I said in another post, I'm currently running a VO stem with quill adapter on my Sequoia, so I can't be that much of a purist.

A couple of photos I just took. First, my Sequoia's setup:

I think that looks pretty nice, all up.

And my colleague's Long Haul Trucker:

My eyes! But he's ridden this thing across Canada in three installments, so props to him.

Indeed, many would cite this as a prime example of a frame that is far too small for the owner.   You might think it hard to say which would be worse looking, this or a maxed out Technomic, but comparing it to my AM Moulton it's clear (to me, anyway) that the LHT's alternating black & silver spacers definitely look worse.

[Murray Love]

Yeah, I just had a look. His saddle's waaayyy up in the air. The poor guy's taller than me (and I'm 6'1"), but his bike is noticeably smaller: it looks like he's on a 60cm when he should probably be on a 64. So it's probably not the best example of a threadless setup.

But I agree that the Moulton pulls off the high-stem look with far more class.

Murray

Victoria, BC

--

[Bill M.]

I ran a VO stem on a Zoom quill adapter on my Rivendell Road, and it was actually lighter than a Nitto Technomic Deluxe.  

Bill

Stockton, CA

[Bill M.]

Steve,

Your statement below is not entirely true.  Threadless steerer tube extenders are readily available.  You may not care for the aesthetics, but it certainly is possible to provide "room for upward expansion".  

Me, I would just as soon never have to set up a threaded HS again.  Threadless is easy, light, strong and reliable, and threadless stems are cheap enough that I don't mind having a small collection of them to play with as I swap different bars on and off of bikes.  

BTW, two threadless stems with 6 degree and 13 degree angles and 20 mm of spacers can, with flipping stems and moving spacers, cover 6 cm of vertical movement.  On my old Rivendell, I could not set the bars to the height I wanted with a quill stem.  A long quill Nitto Technomic Deluxe would bottom out against the butt in the steerer tube and go down no further, but a shorter Nitto Pearl could not get up high enough to hit my sweet spot.  I switched to a quill-to-threadless adapter and VO stem and to get the bars where I wanted them, and gained the advantage of a removeable faceplate with a lighter total weight.  That trumped aesthetics for me.  

Bill

Stockton, CA

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 7:39:08 PM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote:

     ...Often a bike shop will cut a stem based on the use of an up-angled stem.  If they do it for someone who likes a low bar, that's it: no room for upward expansion.  

[Mark Bulgier]

Alex Wetmore wrote:

You may prefer the aesthetics of a quill stem, but it is very difficult to impossible to argue that a threaded headset is technically superior.  It puts stress risers into what is probably the most loaded tube on the whole frame!

Erm, I think that last sentence might be overstating the case a bit.  Maybe if you rephrased it as "stress risers into the relatively unstressed end of the most loaded tube on the whole frame, at its other end".  In other words the stress-risers are relatively innocuous, at the upper end, if not overdone (not threaded down too far, too near the expander cone/wedge). 

For perspective, think about all the threaded headset bikes that lasted for a quarter-million miles or 70 years (numbers pulled from thin air, but probable).  My 1933 Excelsior doesn't get ridden much anymore, but I could tell by the wear on it, that it had mega-miles when I bought it.  I rode it up Seattle hills with a too-high single-speed.  Long cranks, wide bars... I was a road, track and MTB racer at the time, big and kind of a sprinter.  I pulled so hard that I bent the pedal spindles and twisted the stem by pedaling (not crashing).  I also converted it to an MTB or what was commonly called a Klunker back then (late 70s), with derailleurs and low gears, and rode all sorts of killer trails around here, such as the Pacific Crest (which was legal back then).  I even competed in Observed Trials on it, quite violent for short periods.  I used to ride it up staircases in city parks and the University campus by hitting the stairs at 20 mph or more so my momentum would carry me to the top.  No suspension other than balloon tires. No wonder my knees are shot today, but the steerer is fine.  Probably not even Cr-Mo, I bet it's carbon steel.

So that proven reliability, combined with ease of adjusting the stem height, makes a decent claim for "technically comparable" if not superior, if you value adjustability over light weight.  Lighter is the only real advantage I see of threadless.  They're can be made stiffer too and probably usually are, but I consider that a downside.

Hey here's another option I've been thinking of trying: Steerer not threadless but "thread-less", where just the top centimeter or so is threaded.  I'd use most of a threadless headset, with a threaded top nut, and a quill stem.  The locknut would need a setscrew to keep its adjustment (Mavic made nuts like that, seemed to work as I recall)  Or it could be done with two thin top nuts tightened against each other.  Anyone tried this?

I see it as a good option for someone whose fork doesn't have enough threads.  Adding threads with a steerer die is dangerous, sometimes it ruins the steerer.  But a custom fork could also be designed this way on purpose, if you're worried about stress-risers in the steerer.  The threads would all be above the bearing, and even if the steerer cracked there, the bike would hold together and it would not cause a crash.

Mark Bulgier
Seattle

[Steven Frederick]

I dunno, I think the long quill just gets lost in the overall freakiness of the Moulton.  B-)

[Alex Wetmore]

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mark Bulgier <bulg...@gmail.com>

> Erm, I think that last sentence might be overstating the case a bit.  Maybe if you rephrased it as "stress risers 

> into the relatively unstressed end of the most loaded tube on the whole frame, at its other end".  In other 

> words the stress-risers are relatively innocuous, at the upper end, if not overdone (not threaded down 

> too far, too near the expander cone/wedge).  

I didn't mean my statement in a "all threaded steerers are doomed to fail".  I meant it as a "all threaded steerers are overbuilt to handle these stress risers".  I can see how it was interpreted in the first way.  I do supposed that double butted threaded steerers could be made that would be almost as light as the light threadless steerers, but I've never seen one.

I just see threaded steerers as bad engineering.  On a Rinko bike where the fork needs to easily be removed (or any newly built bike) I don't see any reason to use them.  I wouldn't stop riding a bike or replace the fork just because it has a threaded steerer.

For the record I just built a threaded fork because it's going on a bike that already has a custom quill stem.  It's a rare beast: threaded 1" steerer, curved fork blades (65mm rake), with a disk mount.  It is also quite heavy (100 grams heavier than the bike's original fork), but it is for a commuter e-bike and that weight is okay.  I wouldn't want this same fork on a relatively sporty bike.

alex

[Steve Chan]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Mark Bulgier <bulg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey here's another option I've been thinking of trying: Steerer not threadless but "thread-less", where just the top centimeter or so is threaded.  I'd use most of a threadless headset, with a threaded top nut, and a quill stem.  The locknut would need a setscrew to keep its adjustment (Mavic made nuts like that, seemed to work as I recall)  Or it could be done with two thin top nuts tightened against each other.  Anyone tried this?

I see it as a good option for someone whose fork doesn't have enough threads.

   I've actually thought about this while pondering a fork I have in the garage that has a long, threaded steerer. The unthreaded section of the steerer is not quite long enough for a horizontal or near horizontal stem at my preferred height, but the threaded section is way, way above where the upper race needs to be. I could finally put that lovely Dura Ace quill stem with the hidden binder bolt on a bike and also have the handlebar at a height that feels good for my neck - but yikes, what a monstrousity that would be coming up from the headtube...

 

   Steve

[Mark Bulgier]

Alex Wetmore wrote:

> I didn't mean my statement in a "all threaded steerers are doomed to fail".  

> I meant it as a "all threaded steerers are overbuilt to handle these stress risers". 

Ah, gotcha.  Yeah threadless steerers can be made thinner (lighter) above the butt.  (They still need the same butt at the bottom, that's independent of the headset/stem type.)  Not only at the threads, but also for the expander at the bottom of the stem, which has been known to bulge the steerer if overtightened.   Not all threadless steerers are made thinner than their threaded counterpart, but they can be, and should be if optimized to the same load and safety factor.

I accept that most of my reasons for liking quills and threads are irrational or at least trivial, like being able to use my box of old quill stems, and my distaste for steerer spacers above the stem, a requirement if you ever want to be able to raise it.  But for me alone (not trying to convince anyone), my idiosyncratic reasons outweigh the small weight gain, which other than a possible Rinko speed difference, are the only disadvantages, right?

Don't forget, Rinko speed cuts both ways – I know at least a few expensive forks have been stolen because they are so easy to remove with a threadless headset.  Usually just a 5 mm allen, and "Gone in [under] 60 seconds".  Not that we design our bikes around the threat of theft, but it's worth keeping that in mind, if you leave the bike unattended at all.

Mark Bulgier
Seattle

[Joe Broach]

​

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Mark Bulgier <bulg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

I accept that most of my reasons for liking quills and threads are irrational or at least trivial, like being able to use my box of old quill stems, and my distaste for steerer spacers above the stem, a requirement if you ever want to be able to raise it.  But for me alone (not trying to convince anyone), my idiosyncratic reasons outweigh the small weight gain, which other than a possible Rinko speed difference, are the only disadvantages, right?

I'd add easier on-road adjustment, since the vast majority of threaded headsets require two oddball wrenches to adjust. In my small sample, though, threadless headsets have been more likely to need an adjustment on the road. I attribute it to spacer stack settling, or maybe lower quality headsets. Also maybe the Jobstian argument for the wicking/corrosion/seizing cycle of quill stem setups. That last one hasn't happened on any of my own bikes, but it was a pretty common headache on bikes that came through the community shop. I totally agree on spacers above the stem--something just looks off about them, and that makes the steerer cut decision more than trivial.

I'd also add that for me, separating headset and stem adjustment is an advantage of threaded setups, but I'm one of those oddballs that actually adjusts my stem based on the season and the ride (up early, down late, up tour, down local). There are workarounds, like adding a clamp to the bottom of a threadless stack, but they make headset adjustment harder, in my experience.

Best,

joe in pdx or

[Mark Guglielmana]

So, in answer to John's question, can we definitely agree that, unquestionably, if the Boulder All Road 650b has a headset, there is a very good chance that it will work for credit card touring?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/iSzYH7j2Njs/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Mark Guglielmana

[Steve Palincsar]

On 12/03/2015 04:57 PM, Mark Bulgier wrote:

Alex Wetmore wrote:

> I didn't mean my statement in a "all threaded steerers are doomed to fail".  

> I meant it as a "all threaded steerers are overbuilt to handle these stress risers". 

Ah, gotcha.  Yeah threadless steerers can be made thinner (lighter) above the butt.  (They still need the same butt at the bottom, that's independent of the headset/stem type.)  Not only at the threads, but also for the expander at the bottom of the stem, which has been known to bulge the steerer if overtightened.   Not all threadless steerers are made thinner than their threaded counterpart, but they can be, and should be if optimized to the same load and safety factor.

The other day someone posted about a threadless headtube extender, a fix for cut-off-too-short threadless steerers that to me looks a lot like a quill stem with the extension cut off.   I'm guessing from what you say above that such extenders present the same, perhaps even greater, risk (since the steerer might be thinner than a corresponding threaded steerer) of bulging the steerer if overtightened.  True, or foundless concern?

Don't forget, Rinko speed cuts both ways – I know at least a few expensive forks have been stolen because they are so easy to remove with a threadless headset.  Usually just a 5 mm allen, and "Gone in [under] 60 seconds".  Not that we design our bikes around the threat of theft, but it's worth keeping that in mind, if you leave the bike unattended at all.

Good heavens.  I never thought about that. 

[Steve Chan]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Joe Broach <joeb...@gmail.com> wrote:

​

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Mark Bulgier <bulg...@gmail.com> wrote:

 and my distaste for steerer spacers above the stem, a requirement if you ever want to be able to raise it.  But for me alone (not trying to convince anyone), my idiosyncratic reasons outweigh the small weight gain, which other than a possible Rinko speed difference, are the only disadvantages, right?

[...snip...] I totally agree on spacers above the stem--something just looks off about them, and that makes the steerer cut decision more than trivial.

   I'm actually surprised that nobody has made a more robust clamp for the bottom of the steerer (make it out of steel as a bell mount), and then just polished and plated the steerer, so that you can leave it exposed. A steel threadless stem bolted to that would be a very svelte and clean looking stem setup.

   As far as keeping spacers, I have a pretty ugly stack of spacers on my bike right now. But I also have a somewhat thin walled section of tubing with 1" ID that I will cut to length and use as a single, seamless spacer. I haven't decided whether to leave it as a polished metal surface or to try and get it color matched to the frame. Its a pretty easy solution for a bulgy stack of spacers, I just haven't gotten around to it yet (I don't need my spacers to look good just this minute).

   Steve

[Alex Wetmore]

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Steve Chan <sych...@gmail.com>

>    I'm actually surprised that nobody has made a more robust clamp for the bottom of the steerer 

They already exist, just get a stainless steel shaft collar from McMaster Carr or another industrial hardware store.  Some of the original DiaTech/DiaCompe Aheadsets used a conical shaft collar to lock the headset and set bearing preload (there was no starnut in the steerer).  They work pretty well, but loosen up a bit more easily since there is less clamping force than what is offered by a 40mm tall stem clamp. 

 > But I also have a somewhat thin walled section of tubing with 1" ID that I will cut to length and use as a single, seamless spacer. I haven't decided whether to leave it as a polished metal surface or to try and get it color matched to the frame. Its a pretty easy solution for a bulgy stack of spacers, I just haven't gotten around to it yet (I don't need my spacers to look good just this minute).

I make my own spacers that way.  You need a way to keep them very square to put even preload on the bearings.  I do it with a lathe and can't think of a precise enough solution that doesn't involve a lathe or milling machine.

I just leave them as raw but polished aluminum.

I mostly do this because I'm cheap and aluminum headset spacers are silly expensive for what they are.

alex

[Alex Wetmore]

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com>

> The other day someone posted about a threadless headtube extender, a fix for cut-off-too-short threadless 

> steerers that to me looks a lot like a quill stem with the extension cut off.   I'm guessing from what you 

> say above that such extenders present the same, perhaps even greater, risk (since the steerer might 

> be thinner than a corresponding threaded steerer) of bulging the steerer if overtightened.  True, or 

> foundless concern?

The threadless steerer extenders that I've used (made by Zoom and others in the late 90s) clamped the outside of the steerer, just like a threadless stem does.  The inside diameter of the steerer is an unknown variable, so expansion plugs don't work reliably.  This is not the same for a threaded steerer, where the inside and outside diameters of the steerer are known.

The only expansion plug extenders that I've seen are built as a threaded steerer to threadless stem converter first.

The weight savings for a lightweight threadless steerer is about 90 grams.  This is a significant savings in my view, and pretty similar to the 110 gram weight savings of building a bike with 7/4/7 oversized main triangle tubes vs 9/6/9 standard diameter tubing.  Both of these numbers are for frames in my size range. It's a nice upgrade for almost no money at bicycle building time, where going from 9/6/9 standard to 7/4/7 usually triples the cost of the tubeset being used ($100 in raw materials to $300 in raw materials) and those thinner tubes are harder to work with and wear out tooling faster.

alex

[Greg Achtem]

Not necessarily just for Alex, but is there really an issue with the clamp on aluminium (curse you auto correct) cable hanger to keep everything in adjustment? Someone up thread said it wasn't a great idea. Ever since I got my first cross bike with a threadless headset ca. 2000 or so I have never had to readjust after fiddling with stems/spacers and leaving the hanger clamped down. 

On my last headset purchase, a Miche 1 inch I had to readjust once after the first couple of rides then nothing. I have the clamped hanger on this bike as and was thinking of ditching the spacers altogether. 

Hmmm, now that I think of it I would have to change out the VO decalleur if I wanted to do that. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Harold Bielstein]

I don’t know whether these weights are accurate but they’re from Henry James catalog. A 1” threaded steerer weighs 328 grams

while a light weight 1.125 non threaded steerer weighs 314 grams

The lengths may make a slight difference in weight but I don’t see a 90 gram difference.

[pop's]

Harold -

1" steerer 400 mm long std. weight (2.3 x 1.6mm) = 400 grammes on my digital scale.

9/8" Reynolds 400mm lightweight steerer (1.6 x1.1mm  wall) = 315 grammes.

85 grammes = Nearly 3 ounces. This confirms Alex's figures.

Regards,
Michael Fabian

[Harold Bielstein]

Ok got it. Thanks

> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:58 PM, pop's <eme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Harold -
>
> 1" steerer 400 mm long std. weight (2.3 x 1.6mm) = 400 grammes on my digital scale.
>
> 9/8" Reynolds 400mm lightweight steerer (1.6 x1.1mm wall) = 315 grammes.
>
> 85 grammes = Nearly 3 ounces. This confirms Alex's figures.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Fabian
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 7:28:08 PM UTC-8, Harold Bielstein wrote:
> I don’t know whether these weights are accurate but they’re from Henry James catalog. A 1” threaded steerer weighs 328 grams
>

> while a light weight 1.125 non threaded steerer weighs 314 grams
>

[Harold Bielstein]

Ok got it. Thanks
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:58 PM, pop's <eme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> Harold -
>
> 1" steerer 400 mm long std. weight (2.3 x 1.6mm) = 400 grammes on my digital scale.
>
> 9/8" Reynolds 400mm lightweight steerer (1.6 x1.1mm wall) = 315 grammes.
>
> 85 grammes = Nearly 3 ounces. This confirms Alex's figures.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Fabian
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 7:28:08 PM UTC-8, Harold Bielstein wrote:
> I don’t know whether these weights are accurate but they’re from Henry James catalog. A 1” threaded steerer weighs 328 grams
>

> while a light weight 1.125 non threaded steerer weighs 314 grams
>