Leery? What's there to be leery about? They're as reliable and
dependable as bricks or cement blocks or two by fours. I mean, I can
understand if you happen to really like threadless, think it looks good,
etc., and would prefer it -- but both work fine and if taken care of
both will last a long time.
> Follow-ups: are frames even available with uncut forks? What about the
> Atlantis and AHH?
"Uncut forks" is a threadless thing. You typically don't cut threaded
forks.
For that, I think you'd best call them.
As for the other, those may well be perfectly valid reasons to prefer a
threadless setup, if that's the way your taste runs. It's certainly a
royal pain to have a threaded headset loosen on tour with no hope of
finding a proper tool to tighten it, as happened to a guy I was riding
with on tour in the Black Hills of SD this summer. Of course, he
brought it on himself: loosened the headset at home, forgot to tighten
it, brought the tools with him to SD, fixing to do it before we set out,
and he didn't remember it until we were 30 miles down the road.
> And I'd always thought that threaded steer tubes have to be cut to
> length just like threadless ones do - in fact, I thought it was more
> important to cut a threaded steerer to length. Otherwise how can a
> fork fit different-sized bikes with different-sized headtubes?
I suppose somewhere in the manufacturing process steerer tubes have to
be cut to length, but I've never seen a new bike with a threaded headset
where it was an owner's responsibility to do that -- bikes come with
forks installed, and part of that is to see to it that the steerer is
the right length. Of course, when you can adjust handlebar height by
simply moving the stem, the whole process becomes far less critical.
>> lBut I don't want to start an argument over this, I just want to
>> know whether I can get an Rivendell sells uncut forks for use with a
>> 1" threadless headset - and if so, how long is the steerer.
with:
> Grant could probably have Noblilette make you a threadless fork
> custom. It would cost you no doubt - kind of defeating the purpose of
> getting a Hillborne. You would probably be better off asking if there
> is a Hillborne frame without a fork (I suppose one might break during
> the voyage from Taiwan) and just buy a steel threadless fork from
> Ben's Cycles or such outlet.
Actually, it may be simpler to order an appropriate threadless fork at the
same time. The steerer tube is just set into the fork crown, and it could be
just a matter of getting an unthreaded tube put in. That way, you have the
dimension of fork blades that the bicycle was designed for.
...and lemme tell you, I think GP is onto something here. Had a quick ride
on Sam and Betty today and was pretty impressed. I'll start a separate
thread later this pm.
I think it's unlikely to find an aftermarket steel fork that will have the
appropriate dimensions _and_ be 1" threadless. And it would be missing the
braze-ons.
- Jim
--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes
The Gallery needs your photos! Send 'em in - Here's how:
http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines
"She edged in to get a better look at the bike, how it was made, the
intricacy of its brakes and shifters pulling her straight in. Beauty."
-- William Gibson, "Virtual Light"
>
> on 12/22/08 6:49 PM, JoelMatthews at joelma...@mac.com replied to:
>
>>> lBut I don't want to start an argument over this, I just want to
>>> know whether I can get an Rivendell sells uncut forks for use with a
>>> 1" threadless headset - and if so, how long is the steerer.
>
> with:
>> Grant could probably have Noblilette make you a threadless fork
>> custom. It would cost you no doubt - kind of defeating the purpose of
>> getting a Hillborne. You would probably be better off asking if there
>> is a Hillborne frame without a fork (I suppose one might break during
>> the voyage from Taiwan) and just buy a steel threadless fork from
>> Ben's Cycles or such outlet.
>
> Actually, it may be simpler to order an appropriate threadless fork at the
> same time. The steerer tube is just set into the fork crown, and it could be
> just a matter of getting an unthreaded tube put in. That way, you have the
> dimension of fork blades that the bicycle was designed for.
sorry - wasn't quite clear in this post.
I meant that if you knew that's what you wanted, it would make sense to try
to see if you could order it now, while the frames are being built.
If there's a possibility, it's best pursued now while orders are being put
together and finalized. I'd give 'em a call over at RBWHQ&L.
- J
--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes
Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines
"'You both ride your bike?' He held his hands out and grabbed imaginary
handlebars, grinning indulgently, eyeing Tom's helmet. Double disbeleif:
not one, but two grown Americans riding bicycles."
-- Neal Stephenson, "Zodiac"
>
>> Actually, it may be simpler to order an appropriate threadless fork at the
>> same time. The steerer tube is just set into the fork crown, and it could be
>> just a matter of getting an unthreaded tube put in. That way, you have the
>> dimension of fork blades that the bicycle was designed for.
>
> Emminently more sensible than my advice.
Even more sensible, IMO, would be to decide to get along with the fork
that came with the bike, or if a threaded fork is a show-stopper, to
get a different frame, one with a threadless fork. There are plenty
enough of them.
>
> I understand why a lot of cyclists want to hang on to forged aluminum
> stems for aesthetic reasons. But like lugs, pneumatic tires,
> cotterless cranks, aluminum rims and dozens of other things, they were
> introduced as a technical improvement. Forged aluminum stems are much
> lighter than forged steel stems, and they don't rust. We like forged
> aluminum stems for the same reason we like lugs. They look great.
>
> Like cassette hubs, index shifting, dual pivot brakes, single rail
> saddles, and on and on, threadless forks have a certain inevitability
> about them because they are technical improvements. Yes, it's easier
> to raise and lower your bars within a narrow range with a quill stem,
> but that's the only advantage I can see other than the aesthetic one.
> For someone like me, the higher I go with a quill stem, the floppier
> it gets, so raising the bar by exposing more quill is not exactly an
> advantage to me. Having the option of a threadless fork on a Riv is
> not a crazy idea. It's even a reality, in said Legolas. I would bet
> there's more than one Legolas out there all tricked out for touring,
> like all those Cross Checks.
I'd probably take that bet... ;^)
I don't think there are a lot of Legolases (Legolai?) out there to begin
with, but the Warning has always been that these are racing-type bikes, with
lighter than Riv-normal frame tubing thicknesses. Specifically,
"Please don¹t get one with the intention of using it as a lightweight
version of an Atlantis it¹s not designed for loaded touring."
I've seen one set up as a long distancey brevet type rig: Veronica's over at
TandemHearts -
http://tinyurl.com/89ar82
But, never one with bags lashed to racks...
- Jim
--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
So how much were you considering waging? Perhaps a slice of pumpkin
pie, washed down with a pint?
Gino
>
> Now, this is not to imply that a similar thing couldn't happen to a
> threaded set up, but they're usually things you have to look for ahead
> of time anyway - are the top and bottom edges of head tube straight
> and parallel, is the crown race evenly seated, is the crown surface
> onto which it gets seated even and perpendicular to the steering tube,
> etc. But beyond that, I would agree that the threadless set up is
> more convenient from a tourist's stand point inasmuch as the only tool
> really needed to remove the stem (or the bars from the stem, for that
> matter) is a hex key wrench.
>
The only tool you need to remove a threaded stem is a hex wrench. Not
true, of course for removing the bars from the stem. But, unless
you're packing the bike for air travel, how often do you do that? And
that advantage is primarily for the open faceplate design, which only
coincidentally is a threadless advantage. You could just as easily
make an open faceplate threaded stem as a threadless. (Not that it
matters that much to me: between punitive surcharges for transporting
bicycles and the ever-increasing hassles associated with air travel
imposed in the name of "security", I highly doubt I'll ever want to
fly again.)
And, for that matter, unless (like my companion on the Black Hills
trip) you insist on screwing around with the headset adjustment and
forget to get it taken care of before you set out on your trip, just
how often does any road rider need to adjust headsets on the road?
Maybe mountain bikers are more likely to need to do headset
adjustments in the field. They do a lot of things while riding that a
road rider would never do, and experience impacts and shocks you'd
never get on the road.
----- Original Message -----From: Chris HalaszTo: RBW Owners BunchSent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:03 PMSubject: [RBW] Re: Sam Hillborne geometry is up at RBW site!
> This one's certainly not ugly...
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/t2architect/3128394163/in/set-72157610331529941/
No, not hardly! What is that luscious thing, anyway?
And doesn't velo-orange offer something to go in between these:
http://www.velo-orange.com/vothstad.html
and then combine that with either the nitto or the VO silver/lugged
threadless stem?
-sv
How's your quill stem look when you pull it out every year for
greasing?
[snippo]
And if you don't pull it out every year? Good luck getting it out (if
you rode it at all that year).
>
> All you need do to remedy (2) above is to not chop the steerer down
> all the way, leaving a little space both above and below the stem for
> spacers. Or, if you're really picky, use an NVO stem system:
> http://www.nvocomponents.com/
>
> -Jim G
>
Their motion graphic gives a whole new slant on 'bike porn'. =8-o
Lisa
> So is this some kind of legislative process whereby we determine what
> kind of steer tube is right and proper for all, which then becomes the
> law of the land? Have I missed something? I thought I was joining a
> discussion of possible ways to get a threadless fork on a Rivendell or
> similar bike. Is there really only one right answer?
Nope.
Don't think so.
In retrospect, that probably would have benefited from a separate thread.
Of course not.
Folks are bound to disagree on this list, but it's important that we all do
so in a way which shows respect to one another.
I think with the pressures of this season in general, this year in
particular and the fact that many of us aren't getting out and riding, it
might not be a bad thing for us all to remember to ease up a bit.
Remember that written comments often come across a bit more bruskly than
intended, so let's continue to give each other enough elbow room in this
happy little pack we've formed for this part of the journey.
- Jim
--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes
Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines
"That which is overdesigned, too highly specific, anticipates outcome; the
anticipation of outcome guarantees, if not failure, the absence of grace."
William Gibson - "All Tomorrow's Parties"
> http://flickr.com/photos/t2architect/3128394163/in/set-72157610331529941/
>
> Gawd, that's even *pretty"!
It certainly is. And, like every other attractive threadless stem
I've ever seen, it lacks the one major advantage commonly associated
with threadless stems, the open front faceplate. I wonder if that's
not an accident.
> One thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that the typical Riv
> has a tall head tube, which lends itself well to a threadless fork.
> Check out the new 64cm Kogswell, for example:
>
> http://www.kogswell.com/siteBLOGGER.php
>
> I removed an Albatross bar from my Atlantis even though I liked it a
> lot, simply because I could not get it low enough! Imagine that! It
> would have been easy with a threadless fork.
Sorry, I don't understand this. Why would it be easier to get a lower
bar? You can get a quill stem down as low as you can get a -17
threadless stem with next to nothing in the way of spacers, can't you?
>
> I'm not a fan of the 7 shaped stem,
But it lets you get the bars down every bit as low as you can get them
with a threadless stem of any persuasion, doesn't it?
> and I really really don't like the
> looks of track stems. A track stem and an Albatross bar? I don't think
> so.
Did you try it with the bar flipped over? A friend of mine has hers
set up that way. It looks very much like setups that were common in
1900.
> On Dec 23, 9:07 pm, John McMurry <johnmcmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 8:18 pm, Atlantean <softlysoftlycatcheemon...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I removed an Albatross bar from my Atlantis even though I liked it a
>>> lot, simply because I could not get it low enough!
>>
>> A stem like this stem ought to help that situation:
>>
>> http://www.businesscycles.com/tstem-nitto.htm
>>
>>> Imagine that! It
>>> would have been easy with a threadless fork.
>>
>> How would've it been easier to lower the bars with a threadless fork?
>
> Threadless stems can be flipped for rise or drop. A 17 degree
> threadless would give a lot of drop.
Ummm, that would be the same as a standard quill stem. ;-)
> Steve, I explained the limitations in my previous post. Possibly not
> very clearly. The Atlantis has an extra tall steer tube, accommodated
> by some spacers. I am glad I did not cut the fork, because I found
> handlebar bliss on my Atlantis with an old Bridgestone Moustache bar
> that takes V brake levers (rare item that should not be), and a
> Periscopa stem. That extra tall steer tube helps keep the flex to a
> tolerable level, at least on my "comfort bike."
So the solution to you can't get the handlebars low enough is to use
an upwards sloping stem with an extra long quill?
> My point was that it
> would have been very easy to try the lowest position afforded by a 17
> degree stem without cutting anything.
Almost as easy as pushing a quill stem down all the way. That takes
two turns of a 5mm allen key.
I'm so confused my head hurts.
>
> As stated, I *did* push the Cinelli stem all the way down, but the
> Albatross was still too high. Cutting the fork *might* have gotten the
> bar low enough, but there were other issues and if it did not work,
> then I would still have a shortened steer tube. They are quite
> difficult to lengthen. :)
No kidding. That's one of the big issues many of us have with
threadless. I didn't see that msg until after I'd replied.
>
> In the end, I used a different bar, a rare old Bridgestone bar that
> has about 2" of drop (I just measured). This is the opposite of the
> Albatross, which has rise unless you turn it over. The Bridgestone bar
> also requires far less stem extension
Yes, different handlebars require different stem extensions. It's a
challenge figuring out what you need ahead of time. That's one reason
there's so much stem exchanging going on on the lists. It's a good
thing you can use an albatross bar - it's one of the most
controversial designs ever.
I've seen the Albatross mounted upside-down. I think it looks great,
very much like the sporting bikes pre-WWI.
>
>> To say threadless stems are a solution in search of a problem is nonsense. I
>> don't care who said it. Whoever it was probably hates mountain bikes,
>> a common affliction among roadies.
>
> The quote is attributed to Richard Sachs. I do not know what his
> feelings are about mountain bikes. He makes cross bikes and sponsors
> a cross team, so he cannot be considered a pure roadie.
Yet Richard Sachs uses threadless on most of his new bikes:
http://www.richardsachs.com/signaturered.html
http://www.richardsachs.com/signatureblue.html
http://www.richardsachs.com/cxred.html
as does JP weigle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49353569@N00/2811014159/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49353569@N00/2617014370/
Personally I will never buy a new bike that specs threaded it is a
dealbreaker for me on a new bike. If clinging to obsolete standards I
would much rather cling to 1" threadless for road use than quill
stems.
Tarik
--
Tarik Saleh
tas at tariksaleh dot com
in los alamos, po box 208, 87544
http://tariksaleh.com
all sorts of bikes blog: http://tsaleh.blogspot.com
Well, here in the Northeast, that doesn't fly.
If you ride in the rain, in the snow, in the mud, or dirt around here
for several thousand a year, annual maintenance is necessary; unless
you're willing to dispose of these parts a couple years later.
*It does help to have Jobst reinforcing my preference:
http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html
> One advantage of threadless forks, from a manufacturing and commercial
> point of view, is the fact that you only need to make one fork to fit
> a whole size run of frames. This makes things much easier and
> significantly less expensive. It would be pretty easy for Grant to
> order some threadless forks for, say, AHH owners who might want to buy
> one. I am not saying I think he should, and I do understand why he
> does not, but it's not like it would be a big deal to do it. It is
> also not likely to be a big money maker for someone like Rivendell. I
> do not expect it to happen, and it makes no difference in my opinion
> of Riv.
The only manufacturer I can think of off the top of my head who
actually has done something like this is Kogswell, with its
"Konversion Forks".
>
> The way these things go, I expect that at some point there will be
> some decent chromoly forks with 1" threadless steer tubes readily
> available for a good price. There are millions of frames out there
> that they could be used on.
Kogswell.
> Frankly, i'm a surprised that this topic has brought up so many
> arguments on both sides. I always thought that 1" threaded headsets
> and quill stems were a Rivendell "thing," as integral to the identity
> of the bikes as steel and lugs (excepting the Legolas, of course). I
> wouldn't ask GP to change that. I'm cool with that and appreciate the
> bikes for other reasons, and I know that if i ever own one it'll
> probably have a threaded headset.
>
> I'm firmly in the threadless camp (3 bikes, all threadless, 2 even
> with the "illusive" 1" threadless! no, headsets are not impossible to
> find, and most stems come with a shim to make it work), but i'll
> readily admit that my preference is mostly psychosomatic*. I'm a big
> guy, mostly ride fixed gear, and i like the idea of wrenching on a
> bar/
> stem that's firmly clamped to the outside of a circular steel steerer
> tube more than one that is literally wedged into place.
From a mechanical perspective, clamping the stem around the steerer
tube is a better design than a quill stem. The quill rocks inside
the steerer, the wedge may bulge or weaken the steerer causing it to
crack, stems with conical expanders tend to break at the slot in the
quill, etc. And of course there is the infamous stem frozen into the
steerer by corrosion (I've fortunately never had that happen to one
of my bikes, but saw it many times at bike shops where I worked).
I have two problems with threadless stems. First, most of them are
butt-ugly. Fugly even. Big, fat, anodized or painted tubes sticking
up at ungainly angles. I really hate the looks of the ones with
removable face plates (BTW the two-bolts face plates are dangerous;
use the 4 bolt ones to provide redundancy in case a bolt breaks).
But that's a subjective opinion based on taste.
The second is mechanical. The stem clamp is used to maintain the
bearing preload of the headset. This is initially set with the 5 mm
Allen bolt in the stem cap, but the preload is held by the stem's
pinch bolts. In a crash or even just from the bike getting knocked
over, if the bars get knocked askew you can't just twist them back
into alignment without gumming up the bearing preload. Out with the
Allen wrenches and ten minutes of fiddling with it instead of
riding. Is this actually a big issue? Probably not, I've never
heard people who use threadless stems moaning about it.
I think the best solution is the one used by the old French
constructeurs, who were making "threadless" stems 50 years before
MTBs discovered them. The headset was threaded as per usual, but the
stem was clamped onto a tube brazed into the steerer. If I went
"threadless," this is the system I'd use. Interestingly, the
constructeurs went back to the standard quill design after a decade
or two because of the adjustability issue.
Also Tom Ritchey made bikes with clamped-on stems in the 70s- at
which time Jobst criticized the design because it was non-standard
and could be hard to fix in the boonies; Jobst has since come around
to seeing threadless stems as the superior design; you can get
replacement parts almost anywhere in the world now.
Call Matthew or email him at kogswel...@gmail.com
That's always the best bet.
That's definitely an issue - most threadless stems are butt ugly. The
Nitto TFL was not, but that was an accident, and we won't see them
again. The Nitto lugged threadless stem is nice, but definitely not
inexpensive. Same is true for the fillet brazed Nitto track threadless
stem - and they're not only expensive, they're only in 25.4 and long
sizes. And what's more, none of these have removable faceplates.
There are some gorgeous custom threadless stems out there. They're
expensive, and again as a rule they don't have removable faceplates.