Quill stem with expander wedge rocking side-to-side; how to solve?
William
Even with the expander bolt tight (hand tight with a y-wrench), the
stem rocks side-to-side when I push up/down on the ends of the
handlebars. I can see the stem moving side-to-side where it passes
into the headset locknut, which makes it look to me like the stem is
rocking inside the steerer tube, rather than the headset itself being
loose.
I've tried adjusting the headset to no avail. I also tried cleaning
and re-greasing the stem and steerer tube. There still looks to be
some slight corrosion inside the steerer tube, but I *think* I got all
the old grease out. I suppose I could break out the steel wool to be
sure.
The stem is tight enough that it won't twist (about the z-axis) unless
I hold the front wheel between my legs and twist hard. There is no
fore/aft play. The side-to-side play is small, but it is enough to
annoy and make me afraid that the stem will come loose while riding.
Searching the list archive and the wider Web turned up no solutions.
Can anyone please offer a suggestion?
William
raamman
It has probally been torqued so much that the streering column has
been deformed- try rotating the stem 90 degrees tightening the quill
and testing the play- if you are or know a machinist you might be able
to measure the diameter of the stem and the steerer to verify how much
of a gap you might have. You can try using grease to fill the gap and
reduce the play. Your final alternative fix is a new aheadset fork,
headset and stem (expensive for a beater).
thirty-six
If you grease the stem/steerer interface and have difficulty in making
them slip despite thumping the handlebar with some additional constant
torque, then the bars are secure. You might want to check that the
steerer is not split (with the expander cone tight) so that you know
it is going to stay that way. If it is a laterally displaced wedge
rather than an expander cone system, you may want to change just to
overcome any deformity in the steerer to settle your mind.
A Y-spanner may not be providing enough torrque, with the expanding
cone stems I'd use an allen key with a 5" arm..
AMuzi
The headset is not relevant to this. Remove stem and ensure
the fork column is not bulged or cracked. Inspect in a good
light and use your finger to feel inside.
Among your lubrication points, did you lube the expander
bolt thread, wedge faces and under the bolt head?
If so, why anguish? Get a stem, they are cheap; under $20
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
dusto...@mac.com
Mr. Muzi repeats his excellent advice IRT lubrication. If I may:
"every place that rubs". It's easy to forget the bolt heads, IME <g>.
FWIW, I bought an inexpensive quill-to-threadless adapter at my FLBS
that seems to be happier in my old SLX Tommasini's steer tube than the
Cinelli or 3ttt stems I used previously were. The adapter, of course
is just a quill with no extension on it, but it doesn't seem to rock
in use. The stem is "bottomed out" (pushed all the way into the steer
tube) on a upwardly tapered "land", a machined part of the stem
between the "quill part" and the "handlebar part", that sits directly
on top of the headset locknut. Sorry, the packaging is long gone and I
don't remember the brand, but there is a stylized "PZ" (as far as I
can tell) marking along with the limit line marks, and it is a wedge-
style expander.
Again FWIW, the stem is fretted (marked from rocking) by the headset
locknut mostly in a short arc (3/4", max) slightly off-center at the
forward side of the stem, and there are roughly corresponding, much
shorter, marks at roughly 10 and 2:00, with noon being "front".
IOW: no, this stem isn't rocking much and especially isn't rocking
much at all from side to side. It's a 145mm extension, too, with 46 cm
(to outsides) width handlebars-- lots of leverage present.
Thank you for the welcome, if inadvertent (<g>) reminder to pull this
stem and apply fresh grease. Long overdue but all is well.
I understand Nitto makes an expensive-by-comparison item that is a
fine piece of work.
The adapter also allowed me to use a 3ttt Mutant "threadless" stem,
which doesn't seem to flex even in a very long length, and also has a
secure (and non-creaky) hold on the Deda 215 Deep (non-anatomical)
bars that are my favorites. The two-bolt, removable faceplate of the
Mutant seems to be a giant step forward from the old way, in all
respects.
--D-y
jbr...@sonic.net
> I have an old mountain bike (Trek 800) with a wedge-style quill
> stem. Even with the expander bolt tight (hand tight with a
> y-wrench), the stem rocks side-to-side when I push up/down on the
> ends of the handlebars. I can see the stem moving side-to-side
> where it passes into the headset locknut, which makes it look to me
> like the stem is rocking inside the steerer tube, rather than the
> headset itself being loose.
This is the failing of all quill stems. That is how they ingest salty
sweat and rain water at the top of the steertube and corrode solidly
to it, while tightening the expander bolt only served to but a bulge
in the steertube but not to prevent radial motion at the top.
Later versions has a slant wedge that did not damage the steertube,
but also did not arrest stem rotary motion which served to unscrew the
"expander" bolt.
> I've tried adjusting the headset to no avail. I also tried cleaning
> and re-greasing the stem and steerer tube. There still looks to be
> some slight corrosion inside the steerer tube, but I *think* I got
> all the old grease out. I suppose I could break out the steel wool
> to be sure.
Give it up! Convert to a threadless steertube fork and appropriate
Shimano head bearings. The quill stem cannot be saved.
> The stem is tight enough that it won't twist (about the z-axis)
> unless I hold the front wheel between my legs and twist hard. There
> is no fore/aft play. The side-to-side play is small, but it is
> enough to annoy and make me afraid that the stem will come loose
> while riding.
It swivels fore and aft as well as side-to-side, but probably not
equally, depending on the orientation of the expander slot in the
stem.
> Searching the list archive and the wider Web turned up no solutions.
> Can anyone please offer a suggestion?
The threadless steertube came along for several reasons, and the
largest were related to your problem. The others were head bearing
related. Both problems being well served by external clam bar stems
and head bearings on swivel bases so that steertube flex does not
cause indexed steering. Head bearing dimples were caused by cross
swivel fretting of head bearings resulting from steertube flex with
road vibrations.
--
Jobst Brandt
kolldata
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
kolldata
cut out a piece of Foster's, wrap into pipe, insert antique gizmo.
always use aluminum anti seize-liberally on everthing in or going into
the pipe. esp threads.
donah cut yourself on the AL shim.
Sir Ridesalot
Geeze Jobst.
It seems to me that every time there is a problem with an older
bicycle your solution is to chuck, it and buy a new one or do an
expensive upgrade to it.
There are millions of quill stems in use all over the world. Why in
blazes should people go to the expense and convert to threadless when
most quill stems perform quite satisfactorily? I have a 30 years old
Cinelli Columbus SLX Steel frame and I have never had any of the
problems you state such as loosen cups, stem wobbling, dimpling of
headset bearings etcetera. If the quill stem was such a bad design it
would have been done away with many, many years ago.
To the Original Poster. Perchance, is your stem raised higher than the
minimum insertion mark?
Is the stem the right diameter for your fork?
Cheers from Peter
thirty-six
> William Cline wrote:
> > I have an old mountain bike (Trek 800) with a wedge-style quill
> > stem. Even with the expander bolt tight (hand tight with a
> > y-wrench), the stem rocks side-to-side when I push up/down on the
> > ends of the handlebars. I can see the stem moving side-to-side
> > where it passes into the headset locknut, which makes it look to me
> > like the stem is rocking inside the steerer tube, rather than the
> > headset itself being loose.
>
> This is the failing of all quill stems.
You'tre doi ng it again. This is not an experience I have
encountered. The steerer tubes here obviously being correctly
specified with adequate hardness.
> That is how they ingest salty
> sweat and rain water at the top of the steertube and corrode solidly
PERHAPS IF YOU STOP FEEDING YOUR BIKE IT MIGHT HELP.
> to it, while tightening the expander bolt only served to but a bulge
> in the steertube but not to prevent radial motion at the top.
That would require infinitely stiff stem and steerer which is totally
undesitrable. There is always some relative movement, IT IS NOT A
PROBLEM.
>
> Later versions has a slant wedge that did not damage the steertube,
> but also did not arrest stem rotary motion which served to unscrew the
> "expander" bolt.
No there's a riddle, care to expand?
>
> > I've tried adjusting the headset to no avail. I also tried cleaning
> > and re-greasing the stem and steerer tube. There still looks to be
> > some slight corrosion inside the steerer tube, but I *think* I got
> > all the old grease out. I suppose I could break out the steel wool
> > to be sure.
>
> Give it up! Convert to a threadless steertube fork and appropriate
> Shimano head bearings. The quill stem cannot be saved.
It doesn't need saving either. I did ride a stem with gouges in it,
the bars snapped. As I said, relative movement at the top of the
steerer between it and the stem is not a problem.
>
> > The stem is tight enough that it won't twist (about the z-axis)
> > unless I hold the front wheel between my legs and twist hard. There
> > is no fore/aft play. The side-to-side play is small, but it is
> > enough to annoy and make me afraid that the stem will come loose
> > while riding.
>
> It swivels fore and aft as well as side-to-side, but probably not
> equally, depending on the orientation of the expander slot in the
> stem.
In which case the bar/stem position would go out of adjustment, it
very frequently DOES NOT.
>
> > Searching the list archive and the wider Web turned up no solutions.
> > Can anyone please offer a suggestion?
>
> The threadless steertube came along for several reasons, and the
> largest were related to your problem. The others were head bearing
Bullshit, it was for manufacturer convenience.
> related. Both problems being well served by external clam bar stems
> and head bearings on swivel bases so that steertube flex does not
> cause indexed steering. Head bearing dimples were caused by cross
> swivel fretting of head bearings resulting from steertube flex with
> road vibrations.
So why didn't you use a thicker steerer, mr magnificent?
>
> --
> Jobst Brandt
thirty-six
None of my frames would have accepted any shim, not even turkey foil.
there is certainly something dimensionally wrong if you can get the
side of a beer can in there.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Not if you use this tool to aid insertion:
<http://www.northerntool.com/images/product/images/119906_lg.jpg>.
landotter
I'm always flattered when people quote my tramp stamp.
kolldata
jbr...@sonic.net
> It seems to me that every time there is a problem with an older
> bicycle your solution is to chuck, it and buy a new one or do an
> expensive upgrade to it.
As has been demonstrated often, many features of the bicycle, that have
been around for more than 100 years with the likes of you cheering,
have been found to be poorly designed. Take pedal attachment with
left hand threads as an example.
> There are millions of quill stems in use all over the world. Why in
> blazes should people go to the expense and convert to threadless
> when most quill stems perform quite satisfactorily? I have a 30
> years old Cinelli Columbus SLX Steel frame and I have never had any
> of the problems you state such as loosen cups, stem wobbling,
> dimpling of headset bearings etcetera. If the quill stem was such a
> bad design it would have been done away with many, many years ago.
And millions of quill stems have kept mechanics busy trying to make
them work. The threadless steertube did not arise from nothing.
There was a significant problem.
> To the Original Poster. Perchance, is your stem raised higher than
> the minimum insertion mark? Is the stem the right diameter for your
> fork? Cheers from Peter
The right diameter must have clearance (slop) that doesn't go away,
and that is its downfall.
Humans are surrounded by machines that have flaws that often take a
long time in discovery and understanding before a useful design change
takes over.
--
Jobst Brandt
Sir Ridesalot
> > To the Original Poster. Perchance, is your stem raised higher than
> > the minimum insertion mark? Is the stem the right diameter for your
> > fork? Cheers from Peter
>
> The right diameter must have clearance (slop) that doesn't go away,
> and that is its downfall.
>
> --
> Jobst Brandt
Jobst.
I have seen many bicycles that had a smaller diameter stem (old school
MTB in a more modern fork) than what they should have. Sometimes
people get parts to replace something and they don't realize that
there were/are different sizes of some common parts. The OP stated
that he could *SEE* the stem *MOVING* and he asked if there was a way
he could fix his *CURRENT* setup. I suggested that he check the
diameters of the stem and the interior of the fork just in case
someone at some point in time put in the wrong diameter stem. It is
quite possible that the OP does *NOT* have the funds to do the major
conversion you suggested.
Cheers from Peter
thirty-six
Never had a problem with a pedal except cosmetically when a pedal boss
gouged a crank, it had the dreaded right hand pedal thread.
>
> > There are millions of quill stems in use all over the world. Why in
> > blazes should people go to the expense and convert to threadless
> > when most quill stems perform quite satisfactorily? I have a 30
> > years old Cinelli Columbus SLX Steel frame and I have never had any
> > of the problems you state such as loosen cups, stem wobbling,
> > dimpling of headset bearings etcetera. If the quill stem was such a
> > bad design it would have been done away with many, many years ago.
>
> And millions of quill stems have kept mechanics busy trying to make
> them work.
Wierd, they've always worked for me.
> The threadless steertube did not arise from nothing.
> There was a significant problem.
The dies kept getting stolen from the workshop. The company gave up
and shipped the forks unfinished, the bike manufacturer received
worthless stock of 10,000 forksets, and Christmas was approaching
fast, unless it could come up with an answer.
>
> > To the Original Poster. Perchance, is your stem raised higher than
> > the minimum insertion mark? Is the stem the right diameter for your
> > fork? Cheers from Peter
>
> The right diameter must have clearance (slop) that doesn't go away,
> and that is its downfall.
There is no downfall, the clearance permits adjustment during a ride
or tour.
>
> Humans are surrounded by machines that have flaws that often take a
> long time in discovery
In other words, an insignificant detail.
> and understanding before a useful design change
> takes over.
I still don't see a useful design change other than in production on
the part of a mass producer, specifically one whose forksets are built
in a different facility.
> --
> Jobst Brandt
Peter Cole
Or, as Al and others have mentioned, maybe the steer tube is deformed or
even cracked. I've ridden many quill stem bikes, had some break, had
some corrode solid, but I've never seen one with bad wobble that the OP
described. I'd be very cautious about it.
jbr...@sonic.net
Threadless steertubes are not the same diameter as threaded ones and
have a different wall thickness. Stop making this up. It isn't
credible although original prototype designs may have been developed
in a transition using prior material.
>>> To the Original Poster. Perchance, is your stem raised higher
>>> than the minimum insertion mark? Is the stem the right diameter
>>> for your fork? Cheers from Peter
>> The right diameter must have clearance (slop) that doesn't go away,
>> and that is its downfall.
> There is no downfall, the clearance permits adjustment during a ride
> or tour.
It allows the un-clamped part of the quill stem to wobble and that is
only one of its failings that have been described in this thread.
>> Humans are surrounded by machines that have flaws that often take a
>> long time in discovery
> In other words, an insignificant detail.
>> and understanding before a useful design change takes over.
> I still don't see a useful design change other than in production on
> the part of a mass producer, specifically one whose forksets are
> built in a different facility.
Then you'll need to take it on faith that the frame manufacturers who
use threadless stems are doing so for valid functional reasons that
include safety and durability.
--
Jobst Brandt
dusto...@mac.com
> I still don't see a useful design change other than in production on
> the part of a mass producer, specifically one whose forksets are built
> in a different facility.
Threadless headsets are a lot easier to adjust, and require much
cheaper tools to make the adjustments.
(Just to possibly head you off at the pass, so to speak): I have field
experience turning wrenches for a living; I'm not incompetent.
Additionally, threadless stems have two- or four-bolt attachments for
removable handlebar clamp faceplates. Meaning, no creaking-- or at
least, I haven't had a threadless setup creak yet. Very unlike some
old bar-stem combinations that creaked and let the handlebars slip no
matter how tight you tightened the pinch bolt. I've used several
Cinelli and a few 3ttt quill-style stem/bar combinations over the
years; they didn't all creak or slip, but some sure did and they
tended to be persistent in their bad habits.
You've noted the forks are cheaper to make. So we have cheaper parts,
easier to work on, cheaper tools, better function.
I think they call that "progress".
I still have a quill stem on one bike, a Cinelli Grammo I happen to
like the looks of, even with a handlebar plug jammed into access hole.
Those plugs never did like to stay in <g>, and there's another problem
the threadless setup cures, too, come to think of it!
That's the one Grammo I've had out of three that securely holds the
one handlebar out of three or so tried in various combinations, and I
did turn to professional consultation. The three 3ttt Mutant stems
(two-bolt faceplate design) in the fleet have yet to creak even once,
in years of usage.
Oh yeah, the threadless steerer tube is stronger, too, since it isn't
threaded. If the threading is run too far down the tube, and the
handlebars are set up high, the expander can make the weakened tube
fail. And even when the expander is in a solid part of the steer tube,
it's all-too-easy to bulge the steerer tube while trying to get the
stem tight enough that it doesn't move sideways easily. No such
problems with threadless.
So, what's not to like?
--D-y
thirty-six
> someone in the UK wrote:
>
> >> The threadless steertube did not arise from nothing. There was a
> >> significant problem.
> > The dies kept getting stolen from the workshop. The company gave up
> > and shipped the forks unfinished, the bike manufacturer received
> > worthless stock of 10,000 forksets, and Christmas was approaching
> > fast, unless it could come up with an answer.
>
> Threadless steertubes are not the same diameter as threaded ones and
> have a different wall thickness. Stop making this up. It isn't
> credible although original prototype designs may have been developed
> in a transition using prior material.
Ha, you telling me, you've had a long history of making things up to
suit your amazing technical knowledge that no one else had ever
thought of. I am 100% certain the threadless headset was developed to
improve throughput of mass-produced framesets and bicycles and has
nothing to do with satisfying the needs of the cyclist.
>
> >>> To the Original Poster. Perchance, is your stem raised higher
> >>> than the minimum insertion mark? Is the stem the right diameter
> >>> for your fork? Cheers from Peter
> >> The right diameter must have clearance (slop) that doesn't go away,
> >> and that is its downfall.
> > There is no downfall, the clearance permits adjustment during a ride
> > or tour.
>
> It allows the un-clamped part of the quill stem to wobble and that is
> only one of its failings that have been described in this thread.
There is relative movement due to the forces placed upon the handlebar
by the rider. It does not wobble. Wobbling infers there is a
vibratory effect going beyond the period of the causatitive loading.
If it existed, you could show it. You cant.
>
> >> Humans are surrounded by machines that have flaws that often take a
> >> long time in discovery
> > In other words, an insignificant detail.
> >> and understanding before a useful design change takes over.
> > I still don't see a useful design change other than in production on
> > the part of a mass producer, specifically one whose forksets are
> > built in a different facility.
>
> Then you'll need to take it on faith that the frame manufacturers who
> use threadless stems are doing so for valid functional reasons that
> include safety and durability.
No, I do not take it on faith, I do not see any useful change and you
have failed to explain or show it. There is no benefit to the
rider.
> --
> Jobst Brandt
thirty-six
Adjusting headsets. Two bolt or four bolt clamping, requiring a
torque wrench. The single bolt fixing works well. I've used Cinelli
1A's with Cinelli bars and had next to no trouble with them. What
little noise I did have (I got worried mine didn't creak for almost a
year) disappeared after a few really steep climbs and a drop of oil.
I know others who had continual problems. I never overtightened the
bolts, just enough to prevent easy movement, but would give in the
event of a crash. Standard 6mm hex key fitted saddle clamp and all
handlebar fitting meaning a complete positional adjustment could be
made during the ride. Up down and roation for the stem. left right
and rotation for the bars. This is highly desirable for someone out
doing some heavy training and needs to ease his position slightly (due
to over-enthusiasm casing strain). You cant do that with your ugly
'threadless' system, which has more screw threads than the simple
threaded steerer and quill stem.
It is not a rider's system, it is a manufacturers system. I don't
fiddle with my bikes, they work and I try to keep my fingers out as
much as possible. This is quite easy to satisfy because they work and
I keep my fingers out as much as possible. I 9don't feel the need to
adjust my headsets. The Stronglight A9 is nicely binding and the
other, cheapo chrome job continues smoothly with a drop of oil now and
again. Ablsolutely no adjustment required since they were installed
about 12 years ago.
What makes a 'threadless' headset require frequent adjustment? There
sounds something up with the design if you think it requires in-
service adjustment.
thirty-six
> Oh yeah, the threadless steerer tube is stronger, too, since it isn't
> threaded. If the threading is run too far down the tube, and the
> handlebars are set up high, the expander can make the weakened tube
> fail. And even when the expander is in a solid part of the steer tube,
This is not a fault of the design, but manufacturers using common fork
assemblies with long threads for different size frames. Avoid such
manufacturers. Get a new steerer fitted with appropriate threading,
in Reynolds tubing.
> it's all-too-easy to bulge the steerer tube while trying to get the
> stem tight enough that it doesn't move sideways easily. No such
> problems with threadless.
If the expander is tight , the stem and steerer are united, the stem
cannot move sideways.
>
> So, what's not to like?
Still ugly
> --D-y
dusto...@mac.com
> Adjusting headsets. Two bolt or four bolt clamping, requiring a
> torque wrench.
Not with aluminum bars and aluminum stem. Carbon? It would be a good
idea to use a torque wrench, but then, that's the price for using the
ultra-light stuff. I don't think either one of us uses carbon bars.
> The single bolt fixing works well. I've used Cinelli
> 1A's with Cinelli bars and had next to no trouble with them. What
> little noise I did have (I got worried mine didn't creak for almost a
> year) disappeared after a few really steep climbs and a drop of oil.
The single bolt works fine with some bars/stem combinations, not so
well with others. And I'm talking new parts, used parts, combinations
of new/used.
My threadless stem/bars haven't creaked yet and I like not ever even
thinking about that problem any more.
> I know others who had continual problems. I never overtightened the
> bolts, just enough to prevent easy movement, but would give in the
> event of a crash. Standard 6mm hex key fitted saddle clamp and all
> handlebar fitting meaning a complete positional adjustment could be
> made during the ride. Up down and roation for the stem. left right
> and rotation for the bars. This is highly desirable for someone out
> doing some heavy training and needs to ease his position slightly (due
> to over-enthusiasm casing strain). You cant do that with your ugly
> 'threadless' system, which has more screw threads than the simple
> threaded steerer and quill stem.
Raising/lowering is the only place where threadless loses out to quill
(IMHO). I've never felt the need to adjust my stem height, but I have
moved the saddle. Too much Merckx watching.
My stems are 6mm for the cap on the adapter quill, and 5mm for the
stem-steerer clamp and handlebar clamp. So, for my one totally
threadless bike, I only need to carry a 5mm which is smaller and
lighter than a 6mm wrench (<g>).
There are more threads on the threadless setup but the threads are in
places where they work better than the threaded threads do.
"Ugly" is in the eye of the beholder. I see function, but if you think
threadless is ugly, no one is making you use it, after all.
> It is not a rider's system, it is a manufacturers system. I don't
> fiddle with my bikes, they work and I try to keep my fingers out as
> much as possible. This is quite easy to satisfy because they work and
> I keep my fingers out as much as possible.
Well, above, you just got through talking about raising and lowering
your handlebars during rides.
I 9don't feel the need to
> adjust my headsets. The Stronglight A9 is nicely binding and the
> other, cheapo chrome job continues smoothly with a drop of oil now and
> again. Ablsolutely no adjustment required since they were installed
> about 12 years ago.
I had a Campy steel headset in an old race bike that lasted for-ever.
Others that were used similarly didn't, including a Stronglight
tapered bearing, although the Stronglight gave years of service before
the end.
Some of those bikes were ridden hard, put away wet, and cold.
> What makes a 'threadless' headset require frequent adjustment? There
> sounds something up with the design if you think it requires in-
> service adjustment.
I should have said something like "adjustment at setup (installation)"
and for service. I have a Chris King headset on my all-threadless bike
(3ttt Mutant stem) that has needed a touch of adjustment, once, during
its four years with me. The other bikes are 1" threaded steerer tubes:
one with Grammo/Cinelli bar, which as I said is an apparently happy
union; one bike with a threadless quill adapter and 3ttt Mutant stem;
and one more with a Mutant quill stem in it (a rare bird from my
observations). The Mutants all have the 2-bolt handlebar clamp, and
the Mutant quill stem has a rubber plug that actually has stayed in
place for years. Amazing!
The threadless bike has a CF fork with a steel steerer tube. It's a
solid unit. Comparing to the "feel" of the bikes that have quills
(same stem, except for lengths, same exact handlebars), I might
testify that the threadless feels more solid but I don't think any
slight difference, if there is anything actually measurable, is a
liability. They all go around corners just fine.
I did some handlebar experiments over the last few years before
settling on a favorite, and that detachable faceplate handlebar clamp
is a big plus IMHO. Easy to get the bars in and out, with no
scratching and no creaking afterwards, either.
--D-y
dusto...@mac.com
> On Jan 7, 8:52 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh yeah, the threadless steerer tube is stronger, too, since it isn't
> > threaded. If the threading is run too far down the tube, and the
> > handlebars are set up high, the expander can make the weakened tube
> > fail. And even when the expander is in a solid part of the steer tube,
>
> This is not a fault of the design, but manufacturers using common fork
> assemblies with long threads for different size frames. Avoid such
> manufacturers. Get a new steerer fitted with appropriate threading,
> in Reynolds tubing.
The design allows potentially catastrophic failure "in the field", not
to mention bulging the steerer even when the expander is not in the
threads.
>
> > it's all-too-easy to bulge the steerer tube while trying to get the
> > stem tight enough that it doesn't move sideways easily. No such
> > problems with threadless.
>
> If the expander is tight , the stem and steerer are united, the stem
> cannot move sideways.
You talked about the expander being tightened enough to hold in normal
use but then give in crashes.
I've bulged at least one steerer tube in my time with a Cinelli cone
expander, and I wasn't looking for anything more than "just tight
enough".
> > So, what's not to like?
>
> Still ugly
I'm not immune to aesthetics but OTOH, the pinch bolts on a threadless
stem just don't seem to bother me.
Well, there we are! Ride what you like, you've testified your way
works for you, and I'm not finding fault with that, at all.
--D-y
thirty-six
> On Jan 7, 4:04 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 8:52 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > Oh yeah, the threadless steerer tube is stronger, too, since it isn't
> > > threaded. If the threading is run too far down the tube, and the
> > > handlebars are set up high, the expander can make the weakened tube
> > > fail. And even when the expander is in a solid part of the steer tube,
>
> > This is not a fault of the design, but manufacturers using common fork
> > assemblies with long threads for different size frames. Avoid such
> > manufacturers. Get a new steerer fitted with appropriate threading,
> > in Reynolds tubing.
>
> The design allows potentially catastrophic failure "in the field", not
> to mention bulging the steerer even when the expander is not in the
> threads.
>
>
>
> > > it's all-too-easy to bulge the steerer tube while trying to get the
> > > stem tight enough that it doesn't move sideways easily. No such
> > > problems with threadless.
>
> > If the expander is tight , the stem and steerer are united, the stem
> > cannot move sideways.
>
> You talked about the expander being tightened enough to hold in normal
> use but then give in crashes.
> I've bulged at least one steerer tube in my time with a Cinelli cone
> expander, and I wasn't looking for anything more than "just tight
> enough".
THis is what I don't understand. Cinelli are (were?) nowhere near the
cheapest end of the quill market. So this makes me assume it is
fitted into a well-engineered steerer of alloy steel tube suitable for
the job, preferably butted (except in the smallest sizes).
My framesets made of Reynolds tubing did not suffer from this
problem. The genuine article did not fail in the manner described
here. On the three bikes of mine (Reynolds tubes) I have examined,
all of them had received impacts to the handlebars upon crashing, yet
none exhibited a bulging stem.
The most obvious cause of a bulging steerer is a sub-standard tube.
So who has been supplying bicycles with sub-standard steerers?
thirty-six
> On Jan 7, 3:57 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Adjusting headsets. Two bolt or four bolt clamping, requiring a
> > torque wrench.
>
> Not with aluminum bars and aluminum stem. Carbon? It would be a good
> idea to use a torque wrench, but then, that's the price for using the
> ultra-light stuff. I don't think either one of us uses carbon bars.
>
> > The single bolt fixing works well. I've used Cinelli
> > 1A's with Cinelli bars and had next to no trouble with them. What
> > little noise I did have (I got worried mine didn't creak for almost a
> > year) disappeared after a few really steep climbs and a drop of oil.
>
> The single bolt works fine with some bars/stem combinations, not so
> well with others. And I'm talking new parts, used parts, combinations
> of new/used.
In my circle, the CInelli 1a and alloy bars were the combination to
have and were renowned for creaking at that time. It was accepted
that if you had them, they WOULD creak. On 11cm stem they seemed fine
(two months), on the 13cm stem they were fine for at least 6 months.
When the creak made itself known I oiled the bar and the creak
disappeared. Others who had overtorqued the clamp bolt generally
could not stop the ctreak. Once the bars had been deformed, the creak
was stuck. Bars and stems were generally only obtained from other club
members when a new purchase was not required, so their history was
known.
>
> My threadless stem/bars haven't creaked yet and I like not ever even
> thinking about that problem any more.
I never saw it as a problem. It's like rain on the saddle, wipe it
off. Creaky handlebar, oil it.
>
> > I know others who had continual problems. I never overtightened the
> > bolts, just enough to prevent easy movement, but would give in the
> > event of a crash. Standard 6mm hex key fitted saddle clamp and all
> > handlebar fitting meaning a complete positional adjustment could be
> > made during the ride. Up down and roation for the stem. left right
> > and rotation for the bars. This is highly desirable for someone out
> > doing some heavy training and needs to ease his position slightly (due
> > to over-enthusiasm casing strain). You cant do that with your ugly
> > 'threadless' system, which has more screw threads than the simple
> > threaded steerer and quill stem.
>
> Raising/lowering is the only place where threadless loses out to quill
> (IMHO). I've never felt the need to adjust my stem height, but I have
> moved the saddle. Too much Merckx watching.
Moving the saddle is only desirous when there is sufficient saddle
rail. Lifting a stem incurs no raising of stress, unlike ramming
forward a saddle which could incur a snapped bolt or rail.
> My stems are 6mm for the cap on the adapter quill, and 5mm for the
> stem-steerer clamp and handlebar clamp. So, for my one totally
> threadless bike, I only need to carry a 5mm which is smaller and
> lighter than a 6mm wrench (<g>).
So how about the saddle angle and fore/aft position, I don't think
you'll mange that with a 5mm key.
>
> There are more threads on the threadless setup but the threads are in
> places where they work better than the threaded threads do.
ROTFL
>
> "Ugly" is in the eye of the beholder. I see function, but if you think
> threadless is ugly, no one is making you use it, after all.
It does not offer the same facility and gains nothing.
>
> > It is not a rider's system, it is a manufacturers system. I don't
> > fiddle with my bikes, they work and I try to keep my fingers out as
> > much as possible. This is quite easy to satisfy because they work and
> > I keep my fingers out as much as possible.
>
> Well, above, you just got through talking about raising and lowering
> your handlebars during rides.
As it is sometimes warranted. I'll not adjust a headset during a
ride, nor many other manufacturer specific jobs.
>
> I 9don't feel the need to
>
> > adjust my headsets. The Stronglight A9 is nicely binding and the
> > other, cheapo chrome job continues smoothly with a drop of oil now and
> > again. Ablsolutely no adjustment required since they were installed
> > about 12 years ago.
>
> I had a Campy steel headset in an old race bike that lasted for-ever.
> Others that were used similarly didn't, including a Stronglight
> tapered bearing, although the Stronglight gave years of service before
> the end.
The Stronlight is barely acceptable, yet I CBA to change it to
something 'better' because it will make little difference in
practice. If it had cost me three times the price, no doubt I'd have
taken better care, but they are so easy to fit and so cheap.
>
> Some of those bikes were ridden hard, put away wet, and cold.
>
> > What makes a 'threadless' headset require frequent adjustment? There
> > sounds something up with the design if you think it requires in-
> > service adjustment.
>
> I should have said something like "adjustment at setup (installation)"
> and for service.
Isn't the lube supposed to last forever?
> I have a Chris King headset on my all-threadless bike
> (3ttt Mutant stem) that has needed a touch of adjustment, once, during
> its four years with me. The other bikes are 1" threaded steerer tubes:
> one with Grammo/Cinelli bar, which as I said is an apparently happy
> union; one bike with a threadless quill adapter and 3ttt Mutant stem;
> and one more with a Mutant quill stem in it (a rare bird from my
> observations). The Mutants all have the 2-bolt handlebar clamp, and
> the Mutant quill stem has a rubber plug that actually has stayed in
> place for years. Amazing!
>
> The threadless bike has a CF fork with a steel steerer tube. It's a
> solid unit. Comparing to the "feel" of the bikes that have quills
> (same stem, except for lengths, same exact handlebars), I might
> testify that the threadless feels more solid but I don't think any
> slight difference, if there is anything actually measurable, is a
> liability. They all go around corners just fine.
>
> I did some handlebar experiments over the last few years before
> settling on a favorite, and that detachable faceplate handlebar clamp
> is a big plus IMHO. Easy to get the bars in and out, with no
> scratching and no creaking afterwards, either.
> --D-y
What do you want the bars in and out for, is this a new verse for the
hokey cokey?
jbr...@sonic.net
climbs, I was glad to get rid of all that mess with a threadless steer
tube on my old forks. The arrangement produced such a rigid bar
position that it took me nearly a year to not be amazed each time
climbed a grade how rigid my bars were.
Here was a typical ride:
http://tinyurl.com/2w3plgn
--
Jobst Brandt
thirty-six
> Having broken a few quill stems and had flexible bar holding on
> climbs, I was glad to get rid of all that mess with a threadless steer
> tube on my old forks. The arrangement produced such a rigid bar
> position that it took me nearly a year to not be amazed each time
> climbed a grade how rigid my bars were.
Ah, you talkin' bout Viagra?
>
> Here was a typical ride:
>
I'll not look!
dusto...@mac.com
> In my circle, the CInelli 1a and alloy bars were the combination to
> have and were renowned for creaking at that time. It was accepted
> that if you had them, they WOULD creak. On 11cm stem they seemed fine
> (two months), on the 13cm stem they were fine for at least 6 months.
> When the creak made itself known I oiled the bar and the creak
> disappeared. Others who had overtorqued the clamp bolt generally
> could not stop the ctreak. Once the bars had been deformed, the creak
> was stuck. Bars and stems were generally only obtained from other club
> members when a new purchase was not required, so their history was
> known.
Well, there's "overtightening" but then, even with lubrication on
clamp bolt threads and clean clamping surfaces, I had a couple of
those 1A's that would not hold handlebars securely. So yeah, I torqued
them down some more <g>. This before Cinelli changed sizes, so
everything was supposed to work together. Some did, some didn't.
> > My threadless stem/bars haven't creaked yet and I like not ever even
> > thinking about that problem any more.
>
> I never saw it as a problem. It's like rain on the saddle, wipe it
> off. Creaky handlebar, oil it.
Creaky handlebar? Get rid of that sucker and put something on there
that holds and doesn't creak. That's two, two problems fixed at the
same time.
> > Raising/lowering is the only place where threadless loses out to quill
> > (IMHO). I've never felt the need to adjust my stem height, but I have
> > moved the saddle. Too much Merckx watching.
>
> Moving the saddle is only desirous when there is sufficient saddle
> rail. Lifting a stem incurs no raising of stress, unlike ramming
> forward a saddle which could incur a snapped bolt or rail.
???? "If it don't fit, don't force it".
> So how about the saddle angle and fore/aft position, I don't think
> you'll mange that with a 5mm key.
I carry a multi-tool, in fact. And I did go through a sit-down problem
where I tried adjusting the saddle tilt to be able to sit on an area
that didn't hurt.
> > There are more threads on the threadless setup but the threads are in
> > places where they work better than the threaded threads do.
>
> ROTFL
Make sure you clear the area.
> > "Ugly" is in the eye of the beholder. I see function, but if you think
> > threadless is ugly, no one is making you use it, after all.
>
> It does not offer the same facility and gains nothing.
I don't move my stem up and down. I've already gone through the gains.
> As it is sometimes warranted. I'll not adjust a headset during a
> ride, nor many other manufacturer specific jobs.
If I had a headset that needed adjustment during a ride-- and any
looseness is probably another, serious problem, such as a broken fork
blade or steerer tube breaking/pulling out of the fork crown-- I could
adjust it quickly and easily on the road.
> The Stronlight is barely acceptable, yet I CBA to change it to
> something 'better' because it will make little difference in
> practice. If it had cost me three times the price, no doubt I'd have
> taken better care, but they are so easy to fit and so cheap.
How do you "take care"? Cleaning and lubricating?
> > > What makes a 'threadless' headset require frequent adjustment? There
> > > sounds something up with the design if you think it requires in-
> > > service adjustment.
>
> > I should have said something like "adjustment at setup (installation)"
> > and for service.
>
> Isn't the lube supposed to last forever?
No. Nothing lasts "forever".
> What do you want the bars in and out for, is this a new verse for the
> hokey cokey?
Over here it's the hokey pokey. Interesting! Is "cokey" something, or
just a nonsense word?
Trying out different handlebars to find one I liked best. Total of
about 6 different bars, anatomic and non-anatomic varieties.
Deda Deep 215's have a nice "flat" top leading out to the brifter
hoods, with the tails angled down slightly. A little lighter than I'd
like but I did bounce one set off the pavement pretty hard with no
damage.
--D-y
Dan O
> I have an old mountain bike (Trek 800) with a wedge-style quill stem.
> Even with the expander bolt tight (hand tight with a y-wrench), the
> stem rocks side-to-side when I push up/down on the ends of the
> handlebars. I can see the stem moving side-to-side where it passes
> into the headset locknut, which makes it look to me like the stem is
> rocking inside the steerer tube, rather than the headset itself being
> loose.
>
> and re-greasing the stem and steerer tube. There still looks to be
> some slight corrosion inside the steerer tube, but I *think* I got all
> the old grease out. I suppose I could break out the steel wool to be
> sure.
>
> I hold the front wheel between my legs and twist hard. There is no
> fore/aft play. The side-to-side play is small, but it is enough to
> annoy and make me afraid that the stem will come loose while riding.
>
> Can anyone please offer a suggestion?
>
As stated already, make sure the steerer part of the fork isn't
damaged, clean and grease the stem, make sure it's far enough down,
tighten it so it doesn't slip, and if it still rocks then cut a beer
can and try shimming it.
I've felt this stem rocking, too, and it is freaky annoying.
kolldata
Ah Farrow, what genius...but why did you not invent the threadless
steer tube in 1921 ?
metalurgy ? magic. the conotortions one goes thru with four arms and
three legs with laboriously srfated sized wrenchs, visegrips...to get
thoise god dammed 10 speed forks and frames to mate.....
*&&HH^^%$
thirty-six
> On Jan 7, 7:13 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In my circle, the CInelli 1a and alloy bars were the combination to
> > have and were renowned for creaking at that time. It was accepted
> > that if you had them, they WOULD creak. On 11cm stem they seemed fine
> > (two months), on the 13cm stem they were fine for at least 6 months.
> > When the creak made itself known I oiled the bar and the creak
> > disappeared. Others who had overtorqued the clamp bolt generally
> > could not stop the ctreak. Once the bars had been deformed, the creak
> > was stuck. Bars and stems were generally only obtained from other club
> > members when a new purchase was not required, so their history was
> > known.
>
> Well, there's "overtightening" but then, even with lubrication on
> clamp bolt threads and clean clamping surfaces, I had a couple of
> those 1A's that would not hold handlebars securely. So yeah, I torqued
> them down some more <g>. This before Cinelli changed sizes, so
> everything was supposed to work together. Some did, some didn't.
tHE CREAK WASN'T A SIGN OF IMPROPER FASTENING, it was proof it was a
genuine Cinelli. It was because of the gap between sleeve and bar.
That same gap which minimised the stresses.
>
> > > My threadless stem/bars haven't creaked yet and I like not ever even
> > > thinking about that problem any more.
>
> > I never saw it as a problem. It's like rain on the saddle, wipe it
> > off. Creaky handlebar, oil it.
>
> Creaky handlebar? Get rid of that sucker and put something on there
> that holds and doesn't creak. That's two, two problems fixed at the
> same time.
They held securely, whether or not there was a creak. What do you
think suddenly happened after 6 months of use of my second Cinelli
stem, other than it exhibiting the recognisable creak?
>
> > > Raising/lowering is the only place where threadless loses out to quill
> > > (IMHO). I've never felt the need to adjust my stem height, but I have
> > > moved the saddle. Too much Merckx watching.
>
> > Moving the saddle is only desirous when there is sufficient saddle
> > rail. Lifting a stem incurs no raising of stress, unlike ramming
> > forward a saddle which could incur a snapped bolt or rail.
>
> ???? "If it don't fit, don't force it".
Well if you can't lift the bars and you need to relax your position,
you can lower the saddle and move it forward.
>
> > So how about the saddle angle and fore/aft position, I don't think
> > you'll mange that with a 5mm key.
>
> I carry a multi-tool, in fact. And I did go through a sit-down problem
> where I tried adjusting the saddle tilt to be able to sit on an area
> that didn't hurt.
But with a new bike I went out with a puncture repair kit and a 6mm
hex key. I learnt later that a 5mm was also useful (chainring bolts
and saddle height), but a 6mm key was all that was necessary, to
extend the reach.
>
> > > There are more threads on the threadless setup but the threads are in
> > > places where they work better than the threaded threads do.
>
> > ROTFL
>
> Make sure you clear the area.
>
> > > "Ugly" is in the eye of the beholder. I see function, but if you think
> > > threadless is ugly, no one is making you use it, after all.
>
> > It does not offer the same facility and gains nothing.
>
> I don't move my stem up and down. I've already gone through the gains.
Improper handlebar height (o r reach generaslly)is frequently
reflected in a sore backside.
>
> > As it is sometimes warranted. I'll not adjust a headset during a
> > ride, nor many other manufacturer specific jobs.
>
> If I had a headset that needed adjustment during a ride-- and any
If the headset is loose it's already f87ked.
> looseness is probably another, serious problem, such as a broken fork
> blade or steerer tube breaking/pulling out of the fork crown-- I could
> adjust it quickly and easily on the road.
If there is a frame problem, it's probably been there a while and any
damage has already been done to the bearings. Prime concern is
getting home safely which may be to continue to enjoy the ride,
adjusting a headset will not help you.
>
> > The Stronlight is barely acceptable, yet I CBA to change it to
> > something 'better' because it will make little difference in
> > practice. If it had cost me three times the price, no doubt I'd have
> > taken better care, but they are so easy to fit and so cheap.
>
> How do you "take care"? Cleaning and lubricating?
Not so much in that case, did it once, didn't like it. I just never
got round to it again, takes too much time. I prefer to oil feed the
bearings, much simpler.
>
> > > > What makes a 'threadless' headset require frequent adjustment? There
> > > > sounds something up with the design if you think it requires in-
> > > > service adjustment.
>
> > > I should have said something like "adjustment at setup (installation)"
> > > and for service.
>
> > Isn't the lube supposed to last forever?
>
> No. Nothing lasts "forever".
So how often is a service and how long does it take to strip down etc?
>
> > What do you want the bars in and out for, is this a new verse for the
> > hokey cokey?
>
> Over here it's the hokey pokey. Interesting! Is "cokey" something, or
> just a nonsense word?
"hokey cokey" has its meaning but I guess it only came into use after
the song.
>
> Trying out different handlebars to find one I liked best. Total of
> about 6 different bars, anatomic and non-anatomic varieties.
> Deda Deep 215's have a nice "flat" top leading out to the brifter
> hoods, with the tails angled down slightly. A little lighter than I'd
> like but I did bounce one set off the pavement pretty hard with no
> damage.
A multiplicity of screws just seems like more to go wrong. A serious
case for loctite, whatever the bar material.
> --D-y
dusto...@mac.com
> tHE CREAK WASN'T A SIGN OF IMPROPER FASTENING, it was proof it was a
> genuine Cinelli. It was because of the gap between sleeve and bar.
> That same gap which minimised the stresses.
I forgot about the sleeve. Another thing best left in the past IMHO.
Partly because I broke a Cinelli bar right at the end of the sleeve
once. Yes, my pre-flight was absent but OTOH, the sleeve makes it hard
to see a crack. History.
> They held securely, whether or not there was a creak.
A couple of mine didn't hold, and would rotate on impact.
> Improper handlebar height (o r reach generaslly)is frequently
> reflected in a sore backside.
Or it could be a memento of a cyst. Not a boil, a cyst. Scar tissue.
>
> Not so much in that case, did it once, didn't like it. I just never
> got round to it again, takes too much time. I prefer to oil feed the
> bearings, much simpler.
When my Stronglight finally gave up the ghost, it came out with dirt
in it.
> So how often is a service and how long does it take to strip down etc?
Couldn't say I have a schedule. I wait until "my" mechanic has one of
his headset specials. Drop it off, pick it up later. He has a real
parts washer and I don't.
> A multiplicity of screws just seems like more to go wrong. A serious
> case for loctite, whatever the bar material.
Greased threads, no sign of loosening at all, with three bikes over a
period of at least a few years.
The clamp screws on faceplate and steerer tube clamp are doubled.
That's a good safety factor IMHO.
--D-y
jbr...@sonic.net
>> Having broken a few quill stems and had flexible bar holding on
>> climbs, I was glad to get rid of all that mess with a threadless
>> steer tube on my old forks. The arrangement produced such a rigid
>> bar position that it took me nearly a year to not be amazed each
>> time climbed a grade how rigid my bars were.
>> Here was a typical ride:
> Ah Farrow, what genius...but why did you not invent the threadless
> steer tube in 1921 ?
It took years of rides, resulting failures and seeing what other's had
found to decide that the quill stem was a dud in many ways.
> metalurgy? magic. the conotortions one goes thru with four arms and
> three legs with laboriously srfated sized wrenchs, visegrips...to
> get thoise god dammed 10 speed forks and frames to mate...
What's the question? Get to your point. The last sentence is so full
of unknown spelling I can't understand what you want.
--
Jobst Brandt
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Rule of thumb: Whatever Trevor claims, believe the opposite, unless you
also live in his Universe.
Lou Holtman
> On Jan 7, 3:57 pm, thirty-six<thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Adjusting headsets. Two bolt or four bolt clamping, requiring a
>> torque wrench.
>
> Not with aluminum bars and aluminum stem. Carbon? It would be a good
> idea to use a torque wrench, but then, that's the price for using the
> ultra-light stuff. I don't think either one of us uses carbon bars.
What is the big deal using a torque wrench once you own one? Really this
is a non issue. Instead of a normal allen key just use you torque
wrench. A torque wrench is a good idea also with light aluminum stuff.
Lou
dusto...@mac.com
> Op 8-1-2011 1:01, dustoyev...@mac.com schreef:
Specifically, this Mutant stem is a chunk. Large bosses surround
female threads, the bolts are stout, and I use short Allen keys and
not even the entire length of the extension with those.
But true, that's just a guess; although I think a good one and
reasonable in this specific use.
Otherwise, yes, use the torque wrench especially if you don't have
educated fingers from constant practice with the parts in question.
I've only dealt with Campy parts but the torque specs are there for
them.
I just went on a quick search for a more "bike-specific" torque wrench
than my old Craftsman beam 3/8" drive. Whew, expensive, but then, a
(one) stripped part could make $100 for a tool seem entirely
reasonable. I bet there are cheaper, acceptable alternatives out
there.
--D-y
kolldata
O.K., wer erfand das threadless steerer und als?
kolldata
Duh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headset_(bicycle_part)
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ha-i.html#headset
the Brown Pages !
Nate Nagel
I found an old Snap-On in-lb. torque wrench on eBay for dirt cheap. I
haven't bothered to calibrate it yet though because the part that I
really wanted (the "torque multiplier") turned out to be not what I was
looking for (it was actually a ratchet attachment, which is still
useful, and for the price I paid, wasn't worth yelling at the seller.)
Of course, if I had a CF bike, I'd definitely check the cal and use it
religiously.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
kolldata
SMS
> On Jan 6, 11:31 pm, jbra...@sonic.net wrote:
>> William Cline wrote:
>>> I have an old mountain bike (Trek 800) with a wedge-style quill
>>> stem. Even with the expander bolt tight (hand tight with a
>>> y-wrench), the stem rocks side-to-side when I push up/down on the
>>> ends of the handlebars. I can see the stem moving side-to-side
>>> where it passes into the headset locknut, which makes it look to me
>>> like the stem is rocking inside the steerer tube, rather than the
>>> headset itself being loose.
>>
>
> encountered. The steerer tubes here obviously being correctly
> specified with adequate hardness.
>
>> That is how they ingest salty
>> sweat and rain water at the top of the steertube and corrode solidly
>
>
>> to it, while tightening the expander bolt only served to but a bulge
>> in the steertube but not to prevent radial motion at the top.
>
> undesitrable. There is always some relative movement, IT IS NOT A
> PROBLEM.
>
>>
>> Later versions has a slant wedge that did not damage the steertube,
>> but also did not arrest stem rotary motion which served to unscrew the
>> "expander" bolt.
>
>>
>>> I've tried adjusting the headset to no avail. I also tried cleaning
>>> and re-greasing the stem and steerer tube. There still looks to be
>>> some slight corrosion inside the steerer tube, but I *think* I got
>>> all the old grease out. I suppose I could break out the steel wool
>>> to be sure.
>>
>> Shimano head bearings. The quill stem cannot be saved.
>
> the bars snapped. As I said, relative movement at the top of the
> steerer between it and the stem is not a problem.
>
>>
>>> The stem is tight enough that it won't twist (about the z-axis)
>>> unless I hold the front wheel between my legs and twist hard. There
>>> is no fore/aft play. The side-to-side play is small, but it is
>>> enough to annoy and make me afraid that the stem will come loose
>>> while riding.
>>
>> equally, depending on the orientation of the expander slot in the
>> stem.
>
> very frequently DOES NOT.
>>
>>> Searching the list archive and the wider Web turned up no solutions.
>>> Can anyone please offer a suggestion?
>>
>> largest were related to your problem. The others were head bearing
>
He said _several_ reasons.
The rationalizations for threadless headsets are often that the threaded
headsets "always got loose," and that threadless headsets are lighter,
stiffer, stronger, and more durable.
The facts are that _properly_ tightened threaded headsets _didn't_ get
loose, and that the differences in weight, stiffness, strength, and
durability were inconsequential. Meanwhile with threadless headsets you
lose the adjustability you had with threaded stems, and have to use
funky extenders to raise the bars and unfortunately too many
manufacturers cut the steer tube way too short so you can't just use
spacers.
Lately there are a lot more models that have gone back to threaded
headsets, so there's been some backlash from someone, probably bike shops.
kolldata
>
> - Show quoted text -
the patent ran out September 29. but there are several acres of
threaded parts on Guam.
the threaded is very difficult to adjust BECAUSE
with a threaded unmaintained-a big &^^YYH% there alsoalsoalso - wear
comes on with ellipticallity on all parts
bringing on the problem-which is chance, mostly-of getting it back
together the same way it was before you took it apart or in that
general ball-park ( hypenape) so the parts move toward that 'original'
assembly in operation.
but the 'kicker' is the assembly in reverse order in a PITA
so doing it 3 times to get everything functioning again, with liberal
doses of red locktite against time spent wrenching
is just unacceptgable.
divinity deleted.
Tom Ace
> What is the big deal using a torque wrench once you own one?
It's an admission of defeat. It's like how
engineers think they've failed if they have to
read the instructions when setting up a new
piece of equipment.
That attitude is partly just stubbornness but it can
also come from experience with instructions that
aren't worth much. To follow a manufacturer's
torque spec, you have to believe that they know
what they're talking about.
My favorite torque instructions (from Shimano)--
http://minortriad.com/twrench.png
Tom Ace
Helmut Springer
> It's like how engineers think they've failed if they have to read
> the instructions when setting up a new piece of equipment.
An engineer that feels he fails when excercising professional
diligence is probably not a good engineer.
Read the instructions even if you don't follow them.
> That attitude is partly just stubbornness but it can also come
> from experience with instructions that aren't worth much. To
> follow a manufacturer's torque spec, you have to believe that they
> know what they're talking about.
>
> My favorite torque instructions (from Shimano)--
> http://minortriad.com/twrench.png
That actually is a valid instruction: "We engineered this in a
robust way so any torque in the range of 30-45Nm will do. If you
can hit that without special equipment: fine."
Do you think 30-45Nm won't do?
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei
Tom Ace
> Tom Ace <tom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's like how engineers think they've failed if they have to read
> > the instructions when setting up a new piece of equipment.
>
> An engineer that feels he fails when excercising professional
> diligence is probably not a good engineer.
I was just describing the mentality; I didn't
say it was good practice.
And I was thinking more of simple pieces of
equipment, consumer-level stuff. People who
work in engineering will often prefer the challenge
of figuring it out than reading a manual.
> > My favorite torque instructions (from Shimano)--
> >http://minortriad.com/twrench.png
>
> That actually is a valid instruction: "We engineered this in a
> robust way so any torque in the range of 30-45Nm will do. If you
> can hit that without special equipment: fine."
>
> Do you think 30-45Nm won't do?
I don't have a problem with giving a range of values.
I'm just entertained by the choice of wrench in the drawing.
Tom Ace
William
> bolt thread, wedge faces and under the bolt head?
Yes, I lubricated all these.
> It has probally been torqued so much that the steering column has been deformed
I agree, it is likely that I did this at some point. :)
> try rotating the stem 90 degrees tightening the quill
> and testing the play
Rotating the stem reduced the play, supporting the notion that my
steerer tube is deformed. Using my eyes and a straight edge, I cannot
*see* a deformity. However, measuring the fore-aft vs. side-to-side
diameter of the steerer with calipers indicates a slight "ovaling" of
the tube. That is, the tube seems to be slightly thicker fore-aft than
side-to-side.
> Remove stem and ensure
> the fork column is not bulged or cracked. Inspect in a good
> light and use your finger to feel inside.
Even with the stem installed, I cannot see or feel any cracks or
bulges on the outside of the steerer. Same goes for the inside of the
tube.
> Perchance, is your stem raised higher than the
> minimum insertion mark?
> Is the stem the right diameter for your fork?
Good questions. I am honoring the minimum insertion mark. I do have
the bars near their upper limit, but lowering them does not improve
things. The stem is original, so I know it is the correct size.
> A Y-spanner may not be providing enough torrque. with the expanding
> cone stems I'd use an allen key with a 5" arm...
Tightening with a hex key instead of the Y-wrench eliminated some of
the side-to-side play. Not all of it—I can still see very small side-
to-side movement of the stem within the headset locknut—but enough
that the play is no longer accompanied by a tactile clunk. That is, if
I were not looking at the locknut I would no longer notice any play at
all.
If the small remaining non-clunky play is simply a common occurrence
with quill stems, as Mr. Brandt says, and not a safety issue, then I
can live with it.
Given that I do not see or feel cracks or bulges in the stem or
steerer, does the apparent slight ovaling of the steerer threaten my
safety? With regard to the expander bolt and the stem's resistance to
being twisted, how tight is tight enough?
Again, the stem is tight enough that it won't twist (about the z-axis)
unless I hold the front wheel between my legs and apply a moderately
strong twist. At the risk of launching another controversy, is that
tight enough?
On Jan 6, 3:18 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> If you grease the stem/steerer interface and have difficulty in making
> them slip despite thumping the handlebar with some addition constant
> torque, then the bars are secure.
I don't follow, sorry. Do you mean apply a small-to-medium constant
torque to the bars, and then add a sudden, higher, torque with, say, a
rubber mallet?
Thank you for reading, and thank you especially to those who offered
the above questions and suggestions.
William
Lou Holtman
> On Jan 8, 1:20 am, Lou Holtman<lhollaatditmaar...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>> What is the big deal using a torque wrench once you own one?
>
> It's an admission of defeat. It's like how
> engineers think they've failed if they have to
> read the instructions when setting up a new
> piece of equipment.
>
So you think every fastener should be tightened by a ignorant gorilla
without damage?
> That attitude is partly just stubbornness but it can
> also come from experience with instructions that
> aren't worth much. To follow a manufacturer's
> torque spec, you have to believe that they know
> what they're talking about.
>
> My favorite torque instructions (from Shimano)--
> http://minortriad.com/twrench.png
I see no problem. 30 Nm and it is too loose, 45 Nm something could get
damaged.
Lou
Helmut Springer
> I'm just entertained by the choice of wrench in the drawing.
Yes 8)
Dan O
Peter Cole
> Again, the stem is tight enough that it won't twist (about the z-axis)
> unless I hold the front wheel between my legs and apply a moderately
> strong twist. At the risk of launching another controversy, is that
> tight enough?
>
Yes. That sounds about right.
Lou Holtman
> "dusto...@mac.com"<dusto...@mac.com> considered Fri, 7 Jan 2011
> 12:52:39 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Jan 7, 2:04 pm, thirty-six<thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I still don't see a useful design change other than in production on
>>> the part of a mass producer, specifically one whose forksets are built
>>> in a different facility.
>>
>> cheaper tools to make the adjustments.
>> (Just to possibly head you off at the pass, so to speak): I have field
>> experience turning wrenches for a living; I'm not incompetent.
>>
>> Additionally, threadless stems have two- or four-bolt attachments for
>> removable handlebar clamp faceplates. Meaning, no creaking-- or at
>> least, I haven't had a threadless setup creak yet. Very unlike some
>> old bar-stem combinations that creaked and let the handlebars slip no
>> matter how tight you tightened the pinch bolt. I've used several
>> Cinelli and a few 3ttt quill-style stem/bar combinations over the
>> years; they didn't all creak or slip, but some sure did and they
>> tended to be persistent in their bad habits.
>>
>> You've noted the forks are cheaper to make. So we have cheaper parts,
>> easier to work on, cheaper tools, better function.
>>
>> I think they call that "progress".
>>
>> I still have a quill stem on one bike, a Cinelli Grammo I happen to
>> like the looks of, even with a handlebar plug jammed into access hole.
>> Those plugs never did like to stay in<g>, and there's another problem
>> the threadless setup cures, too, come to think of it!
>>
>> That's the one Grammo I've had out of three that securely holds the
>> one handlebar out of three or so tried in various combinations, and I
>> did turn to professional consultation. The three 3ttt Mutant stems
>> (two-bolt faceplate design) in the fleet have yet to creak even once,
>> in years of usage.
>>
>> Oh yeah, the threadless steerer tube is stronger, too, since it isn't
>> threaded. If the threading is run too far down the tube, and the
>> handlebars are set up high, the expander can make the weakened tube
>> fail. And even when the expander is in a solid part of the steer tube,
>> it's all-too-easy to bulge the steerer tube while trying to get the
>> stem tight enough that it doesn't move sideways easily. No such
>> problems with threadless.
>>
>> So, what's not to like?
>> --D-y
> The need to reset the head bearings whenever you need to adjust the
> height of the bars, or turn the bars sideways for storage or transport
> (5 second job with a quill).
>
> And the 2 or 4 bolt faceplate (front loader) handlebar clamp is not
> incompatible with a threaded steerer.
>
> I reckon a threaded steerer with front-loader handlebar clamp on a
> quill stem is the best of all worlds, but sadly they seem to be a bit
> of a rarity.
>
> The much vaunted ease of adjustment of the threadless design is only
> required because the darned thing needs to be adjusted every time you
> disturb the handlebar position.
> This in turn means that the headset adjustment is too easily messed up
> by people who probably shouldn't have tried (and wouldn't have, with a
> threaded headset, because they neither had the tools to do it nor the
> need to disturb it). I've seen far more maladjusted headsets from
> utter neglect and from people setting them wrong to start with than
> from people just not having the right tools to readjust them.
>
> I've never had to adjust a threaded headset anywhere other than in a
> workshop, and I don't care if the tools in the workshop are bigger (it
> just makes them easier to locate, and harder to loose).
> You still only need an allen key to adjust the handlebars or rotate
> them sideways, so that's all you need to carry with you - even if
> someone else will be riding the bike, and needing it adjusted to suit,
> or you need to rotate the bars to fit it into tight storage space.
>
> Threadless ONLY makes more sense for the enthusiast rider, who either
> knows how to do all their own maintenance or is prepared to pay
> someone else to (including the most minor of adjustments).
> For the other 99% of cyclists, the quill is superior.
>
> Would you expect a driver to need to either be or hire a mechanic to
> set the seat angle in their car?
Yes for people who change the handelbar position every other ride a
quill stem is preferable, for the other 99% a threadless is better.
Stop whining you can choose whatever you want.
Lou
Lou
robin2660
> "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> considered Fri, 7 Jan 2011
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are a couple manufacturers that make a clamp that fits in the
place of a threadless hs spacer that answers this problem:
http://store.interlocracing.com/opslohesp.html is one.
jbr...@sonic.net
>>> I still don't see a useful design change other than in production
>>> on the part of a mass producer, specifically one whose forksets
>>> are built in a different facility.
>> Threadless headsets are a lot easier to adjust, and require much
>> cheaper tools to make the adjustments. (Just to possibly head you
>> off at the pass, so to speak): I have field experience turning
>> wrenches for a living; I'm not incompetent.
>> Additionally, threadless stems have two- or four-bolt attachments
>> for removable handlebar clamp faceplates. Meaning, no creaking--
>> or at least, I haven't had a threadless setup creak yet. Very
>> unlike some old bar-stem combinations that creaked and let the
>> handlebars slip no matter how tight you tightened the pinch bolt.
>> I've used several Cinelli and a few TTT quill-style stem/bar
>> combinations over the years; they didn't all creak or slip, but
>> some sure did and they tended to be persistent in their bad habits.
>> You've noted the forks are cheaper to make. So we have cheaper
>> parts, easier to work on, cheaper tools, better function.
>> I think they call that "progress".
>> I still have a quill stem on one bike, a Cinelli Grammo I happen to
>> like the looks of, even with a handlebar plug jammed into access
>> hole. Those plugs never did like to stay in <g>, and there's
>> another problem the threadless setup cures, too, come to think of
>> it!
>> That's the one Grammo I've had out of three that securely holds the
>> one handlebar out of three or so tried in various combinations, and
>> I did turn to professional consultation. The three TTT Mutant
>> stems (two-bolt faceplate design) in the fleet have yet to creak
>> even once, in years of usage.
>> Oh yeah, the threadless steerer tube is stronger, too, since it
>> isn't threaded. If the threading is run too far down the tube, and
>> the handlebars are set up high, the expander can make the weakened
>> tube fail. And even when the expander is in a solid part of the
>> steer tube, it's all-too-easy to bulge the steerer tube while
>> trying to get the stem tight enough that it doesn't move sideways
>> easily. No such problems with threadless.
>> So, what's not to like?
> The need to reset the head bearings whenever you need to adjust the
> height of the bars, or turn the bars sideways for storage or
> transport (5 second job with a quill).
I guess for a growing child, bar height is a variable, unlike for most
over 18 year old riders. I don't recall when I last raised the saddle
and adjusted bar height, but it wasn't after grade school.
What means this:
> And the 2 or 4 bolt faceplate (front loader) handlebar clamp is not
> incompatible with a threaded steerer.
> I reckon a threaded steerer with front-loader handlebar clamp on a
> quill stem is the best of all worlds, but sadly they seem to be a
> bit of a rarity.
> The much vaunted ease of adjustment of the threadless design is only
> required because the darned thing needs to be adjusted every time
> you disturb the handlebar position.
> This in turn means that the headset adjustment is too easily messed
> up by people who probably shouldn't have tried (and wouldn't have,
> with a threaded headset, because they neither had the tools to do it
> nor the need to disturb it). I've seen far more maladjusted
> headsets from utter neglect and from people setting them wrong to
> start with than from people just not having the right tools to
> readjust them.
> I've never had to adjust a threaded headset anywhere other than in a
> workshop, and I don't care if the tools in the workshop are bigger
> (it just makes them easier to locate, and harder to loose).
> You still only need an Allen key to adjust the handlebars or rotate
> them sideways, so that's all you need to carry with you - even if
> someone else will be riding the bike, and needing it adjusted to
> suit, or you need to rotate the bars to fit it into tight storage
> space.
> Threadless ONLY makes more sense for the enthusiast rider, who
> either knows how to do all their own maintenance or is prepared to
> pay someone else to (including the most minor of adjustments). For
> the other 99% of cyclists, the quill is superior.
I guess your argument goes that the threadless steertube only has
advantages for riders who make adjustment for and during every ride.
I think you are trying hard to justify your old style equipment so you
won't need to buy something that works better and more reliably.
> Would you expect a driver to need to either be or hire a mechanic to
> set the seat angle in their car?
--
Jobst Brandt
dusto...@mac.com
> > And the 2 or 4 bolt faceplate (front loader) handlebar clamp is not
> > incompatible with a threaded steerer.
Not at all.
>
> > I reckon a threaded steerer with front-loader handlebar clamp on a
> > quill stem is the best of all worlds, but sadly they seem to be a bit
> > of a rarity.
As I said, I have a 3ttt Mutant quill stem. Found by accident on ebay;
I didn't even know they made one.
Sounds like a similar thing to Campy's brifter "cam" that converted
9sp back to 8sp. <g>
> > The much vaunted ease of adjustment of the threadless design is only
> > required because the darned thing needs to be adjusted every time you
> > disturb the handlebar position.
Frankly, because I had Cinelli stems that were a problem to get tight
enough to stay pointed straight, I never much wanted to move my stem
back in the day. New stems, used stems, steerer tubes of Reynolds and
Columbus and Ishiwata tubes from various quality mfg's.
> > This in turn means that the headset adjustment is too easily messed up
> > by people who probably shouldn't have tried (and wouldn't have, with a
> > threaded headset, because they neither had the tools to do it nor the
> > need to disturb it). I've seen far more maladjusted headsets from
> > utter neglect and from people setting them wrong to start with than
> > from people just not having the right tools to readjust them.
Excuse me, you're reaching a couple of times in that paragraph.
IME and opinion, threadless is much easier to adjust, with tools that
are much, much easier to use, than threaded-- to the point where I
would expect the "non-mechanic" could much more readily adjust (or
install, set up) a threadless setup than a threaded. Which to me would
seem to strike a blow against "utter neglect" ("you don't need any
special tools and much less fudging") and incorrect setup.
I once saw a pro mechanic set up a threaded headset. Big "brag factor"
in getting it right on the first swing. I probably managed that a time
or two but I didn't work on those every day and I usually had to
putter. Much less putter with threadless.
>
> > I've never had to adjust a threaded headset anywhere other than in a
> > workshop, and I don't care if the tools in the workshop are bigger (it
> > just makes them easier to locate, and harder to loose).
> > You still only need an allen key to adjust the handlebars or rotate
> > them sideways, so that's all you need to carry with you - even if
> > someone else will be riding the bike, and needing it adjusted to suit,
> > or you need to rotate the bars to fit it into tight storage space.
Points taken on the usual with good adjustment ("stays that way") and
shop tools.
I've never felt the need to alter handlebar height during a ride, or
needed to "store" with handlebars moved except one trip with a bike
trunk, done back BT (Before Threadless). I don't know how folks do it
now, many years later, after threadless has been the norm for many
years. Again, the adjustment is so much easier, I wouldn't think it's
much of a problem for anyone who can perform simple mechanical tasks,
and again again, I don't put threaded headset adjustment and quill
stem in the realm of "simple", or at least, not "dirt simple".
> > Threadless ONLY makes more sense for the enthusiast rider, who either
> > knows how to do all their own maintenance or is prepared to pay
> > someone else to (including the most minor of adjustments).
> > For the other 99% of cyclists, the quill is superior.
Oh, I think for some high percentage of riders who don't move their
bars/stem, threadless keeps all its advantages and loses nothing to
quill.
> > Would you expect a driver to need to either be or hire a mechanic to
> > set the seat angle in their car?
As the late Dandy Don Meredith would say, "Come on!".
> Yes for people who change the handelbar position every other ride a
> quill stem is preferable, for the other 99% a threadless is better.
> Stop whining you can choose whatever you want.
I think you're undershooting with that 99 thing <g>.
But yeah, for those who want quill, quill is out there and you can
still scrounge NOS Cinelli 1A's in different lengths if that's what
you want. Again3, I use quill, threadless, and quill adapter and they
all work. I prefer threadless except I do have a soft spot for that
Grammo, Cino help me...
--D-y
Dan O
> Op 8-1-2011 20:11, Phil W Lee schreef:
>
>
>
I like the threadless headset that came with my new bike. I like the
good quality threaded headsets that came with my old bikes, too. I
don't like any of the crappy components on BSO's. Trek 800 is
marginal, but you still want to make the best of what you can afford.
Safety first.
thirty-six
> Op 8-1-2011 1:01, dustoyev...@mac.com schreef:
>
> > On Jan 7, 3:57 pm, thirty-six<thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Adjusting headsets. Two bolt or four bolt clamping, requiring a
> >> torque wrench.
>
> > Not with aluminum bars and aluminum stem. Carbon? It would be a good
> > idea to use a torque wrench, but then, that's the price for using the
> > ultra-light stuff. I don't think either one of us uses carbon bars.
>
> What is the big deal using a torque wrench once you own one? Really this
Won't fit in my handlebar bag. On ride repairs and adjustments should
not require the use of a torque wrench, other methods of determining
correct torque are needed. Being just unable to twist a handlebar or
saddle is the usual way of determining correct fasdtening torque. If
you are riding in tram lines and cannot steer the front out and the
bars twist, you'd better jump the bike out quick, having the steering
locked solid does not help.
thirty-six
Use a fishermans scale (low poundage) with your 1/4" or 3/8" socket
wrench.
thirty-six
> Even with the stem installed, I cannot see or feel any cracks or
> bulges on the outside of the steerer. Same goes for the inside of the
> tube.
>
> > Perchance, is your stem raised higher than the
> > minimum insertion mark?
> > Is the stem the right diameter for your fork?
>
> Good questions. I am honoring the minimum insertion mark. I do have
> the bars near their upper limit, but lowering them does not improve
> things. The stem is original, so I know it is the correct size.
>
> > A Y-spanner may not be providing enough torrque. with the expanding
> > cone stems I'd use an allen key with a 5" arm...
>
> Tightening with a hex key instead of the Y-wrench eliminated some of
> the side-to-side play. Not all of it—I can still see very small side-
> to-side movement of the stem within the headset locknut—but enough
> that the play is no longer accompanied by a tactile clunk. That is, if
> I were not looking at the locknut I would no longer notice any play at
> all.
>
> If the small remaining non-clunky play is simply a common occurrence
> with quill stems, as Mr. Brandt says, and not a safety issue, then I
> can live with it.
Exactly.
>
> Given that I do not see or feel cracks or bulges in the stem or
> steerer, does the apparent slight ovaling of the steerer threaten my
> safety?
No.
> With regard to the expander bolt and the stem's resistance to
> being twisted, how tight is tight enough?
>
> Again, the stem is tight enough that it won't twist (about the z-axis)
> unless I hold the front wheel between my legs and apply a moderately
> strong twist. At the risk of launching another controversy, is that
> tight enough?
With a lightweight front end you should be able to see a definite
angular displacement between the handlebar and the hub before the stem
slips. Usually it takes quie a bit of force. To check you're getting
it about right, drop the wheel in a drain cover slot and see if you
can displace the bars using a normal riding position. You should not
be able to, just. With an additional thump on the end of the bar,
they should give.
>
> On Jan 6, 3:18 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If you grease the stem/steerer interface and have difficulty in making
> > them slip despite thumping the handlebar with some addition constant
> > torque, then the bars are secure.
>
> I don't follow, sorry. Do you mean apply a small-to-medium constant
> torque to the bars, and then add a sudden, higher, torque with, say, a
> rubber mallet?
I've explained above.
Michael Press
<21f374fa-acf6-4adf...@o9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
You soak it up, as a sponge will soak up polluted water,
and spare the rest of us. Be sure to wring yourself out
well and bathe in a mild bleach solution.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<169e235e-6e88-4a9e...@l8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
"dusto...@mac.com" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
> But yeah, for those who want quill, quill is out there and you can
> still scrounge NOS Cinelli 1A's in different lengths if that's what
> you want. Again3, I use quill, threadless, and quill adapter and they
> all work. I prefer threadless except I do have a soft spot for that
> Grammo, Cino help me...
There is a reason all those NOS Cinelli 1A stems
are out there. Contrast NOS Mavic MA 2 rims.
I have a Cinelli 1A stem and Campione del Mondo bars
on one bike---Mutant stem and TTT Merckx bend bars on
another. The latter is easier to service and better to ride.
--
Michael Press
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Why so rude to our visitor from a different planet?
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.