Fogey doesn't get threadless headsets

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

With a threadless steerer, I find the handlebars are way too low for my comfort. But obviously
millions of people like it. What am I missing? Why is threadless dominant?

I think the main advantages of threadless come from lower manufacturing costs, not more features.
However, one advantage to users is that switching out stems is very easy. Try looking for a stem
with an upward rise angle.

Ken

Quoted message said:

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

With a threadless steerer, I find the handlebars are way too low for my comfort. But obviously
millions of people like it. What am I missing? Why is threadless dominant?

I think the main advantages of threadless come from lower manufacturing costs, not more features.
However, one advantage to users is that switching out stems is very easy. Try looking for a stem
with an upward rise angle.

I imagine they're also less likely to creak, since the stem attaches to the top rather than the
middle of the steerer. Anyway, I get creaking sounds when I stand and apply lots of force to the
handlebars, and I have a threaded headset. Maybe I just need to take things apart and grease them.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

With a threadless steerer, I find the handlebars are way too low for my comfort. But obviously
millions of people like it. What am I missing? Why

is

Quoted message said:

threadless dominant?

With a threaded headset, I can set the stem way low. Or way high. And everywhere between.

To my eyes, threadless = limited adjustability.

Open to enlightenment, Jeff

It's a curse us mountain bikers put on you roadies. ;^)

Mike

Jeff said:

With a threadless steerer, I find the handlebars are way too low for my comfort. But obviously
millions of people like it. What am I missing? Why is threadless dominant?

The question has been fully discussed before. See Google Groups.

Quoted message said:

With a threaded headset, I can set the stem way low. Or way high. And everywhere between.

To my eyes, threadless = limited adjustability.

Threaded is limited as well. Most quill stems aren't very tall, so can't be set all that high.
Threadless stem height can be alterered, too (lowered or raised, depending on steerer length and
spacer positioning). It's just more hassle to do (and I agree that this is a major disadvantage),
and you're limited to steps of 2mm (unless 1mm spacers exist?) - but 2mm usually does the job ok.

One bit of stupidness that doesn't help, I think, is that many new bikes are supplied with steerers
cut too short, so the stem can indeed not be raised.

But stems with threadless forks can be set high if long fork steerers, steerer extensions or riser
stems are used.

Personally, I find it easier to adjust threadless headsets (and it's handy that only allen keys are
required), like the simplicity, stiffness, lower weight of ahead stems, but have reservations
because of the height adjustabilty complications.

~PB

Thank, Pete. Great resource! I use Google daily, but never noticed the Groups tab.
groups.google.comgroups.google.comOpen ↗

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff said:

With a threadless steerer, I find the handlebars are way too low for my comfort. But obviously
millions of people like it. What am I missing? Why is threadless dominant?

The question has been fully discussed before. See Google Groups.

jeff-<< With a threadless steerer, I find the handlebars are way too low for my comfort. But
obviously millions of people like it. What am I missing? Why is threadless dominant?

Like threadless on MTB bikes, a way for the bike industry to save money(make only one steerer
length), while painting this 'innovation' as a performance advantage.

\Most carbon steerers have a max number of spacers that you can put under the stem, Aluminum and
steel generally do not. When we build a bike we either put the max in or at least lots until the fit
is done and always keep some on top of the stem, just in case.

If your hbars are too low, look into a stem with ride, to help your position.

Unfortunately, lots of bikes outta boxes have the steerer cut so changing the fit is diffucult w/o
changing the stem. Some bike shops will do this, some will not.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Quoted message said:

Personally, I find it easier to adjust threadless headsets (and it's handy that only allen keys are
required)

Quoted message said:

like the simplicity, stiffness, lower weight of ahead stems, but have reservations because of the
height adjustabilty complications.

I dislike the fact that to adjust the handle bar height you have to adjust the headset. Sure they
are easier to adjust but with a quill stem you don't need to adjust it. Out on a ride, want to raise
the handle bars a bit to experiment, with a quill stem it is a 30 second deal.

I have also seen much longer quill stems available than threadless. I bought a quill stem with
about 10 inches of rise, stainless steel shaft with an aluminum clamp etc. Not too heavy and
amazingly stiff.

I think the fellow was correct who said threadless stems were a curse put on roadies by the MTBers.

jon isaacs

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

With a threadless steerer, I find the handlebars are way too low for my comfort. But obviously
millions of people like it. What am I missing? Why is threadless dominant?

With a threaded headset, I can set the stem way low. Or way high. And everywhere between.

To my eyes, threadless = limited adjustability.

Open to enlightenment, Jeff

FWIW - I love threadless because of the ability to tinker constantly with them. It is so easy to
change the extension, angle, height (within reason), etc without have to retape the bars every time
you want to change something. Always looking for the position that is that much better is easier
when swapping the stem is simplified.

Quoted message said:

FWIW - I love threadless because of the ability to tinker constantly with them. It is so easy to
change the extension, angle, height (within reason), etc without have to retape the bars every
time you want to change something. Always looking for the position that is that much better is
easier when swapping the stem is simplified.

Some quill stems have removable face plates now.

~PB

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

FWIW - I love threadless because of the ability to tinker constantly with them. It is so easy to
change the extension, angle, height (within reason), etc without have to retape the bars every
time you want to change something. Always looking for the position that is that much better is
easier when swapping the stem is simplified.

Some quill stems have removable face plates now.

I have several quill stems that have the removable faceplates, but still like the threadless
setup better.

Sealed bearing threaded headsets (Shimano, American Classic, et al) make the choice harder, but you
still have a greater variety of threadless stems to choose from to perfect your position. Course
this comes about from having reduced adjustablity, so it is a double-edged sword.

Mike

Quoted message said:

~PB

[email hidden] (Corey Green) wrote

Quoted message said:

FWIW - I love threadless because of the ability to tinker constantly with them. It is so easy to
change the extension, angle, height (within reason), etc without have to retape the bars every
time you want to change something. Always looking for the position that is that much better is
easier when swapping the stem is simplified.

When it comes to _really_ tinkering, I find that threadless headsets are just the ticket when
you're making your own fork, or mounting something besides a fork in a headset. You are not
constrained to a specific wall thickness, and you don't have to cut threads on the steerer to get
the thing put together.

You can even mount multiple head tubes on the same steerer-- one of the proven ways to build a
tallbike. (What's a tallbike? One of these:
angelfire.comTallbike.htmlOpen ↗ )

Threadless stems themselves are amazingly versatile tinkering supplies, as exemplified by the Culty
trike: culty.deCULTY 1.JPGOpen ↗

Chalo Colina

(Jon Isaacs) said:

I dislike the fact that to adjust the handle bar height you have to adjust the headset. Sure they
are easier to adjust but with a quill stem you don't need to adjust it. Out on a ride, want to
raise the handle bars a bit to experiment, with a quill stem it is a 30 second deal.

If you just can't decide what height you want your bars, or you know you want to move them mid-ride,
you can still avail yourself of the superior strength and stiffness of a threadless headset.

You'll need the appropriate size clamp collar, since you won't be using a threadless stem:
ruland.comcl.htmlOpen ↗

And you'll need a long bolt with a couple of washers and a nut, or else a purpose-made device like
this: jrbicycles.comanswer%20stem%20lockbolt.htmOpen ↗

Use the bolt to pretension the headset, then lock down the adjustment with the clamp collar (in
place of the threadless stem). Remove the bolt. Then you can use any goofy old quill stem you like!
Plus, no more busting the steerer in half by expanding the quill wedge in the threaded portion of
the steer tube-- because there isn't one!

You'll still want to observe the "max height" limit on your quill stem, since it's by nature much
weaker than a threadless stem. And you'll have to use a fork with a steel steer tube, because
materials like carbon fiber or aluminum are too thick-walled when made strong enough for this
application. But who likes fancy materials like that, anyway?

By using this retrofit method, you can observe the time-honored (and to hear quill stem advocates
tell it, important) practice of changing your handlebar height 3 or 4 times per ride or even more,
even while using a threadless headset.

Chalo Colina

Corey Green said:

FWIW - I love threadless because of the ability to tinker constantly with them. It is so easy to
change the extension, angle, height (within reason), etc without have to retape the bars every
time you want to change something. Always looking for the position that is that much better is
easier when swapping the stem is simplified.

What? Every time you change anything you have to buy another part. You can change the height with
threaded in just a few seconds.

Also, lots of quill stems these days have 2-bolt attachments, so you don't have to re-tape to
replace the stem. But this is not a common thing. Raising/lowering the height is.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how. _`\(,_ | (_)/ (_) |

In article said:

Threadless stems themselves are amazingly versatile tinkering supplies, as exemplified by the
Culty trike: culty.deCULTY 1.JPGOpen ↗

Although it takes nothing away from Bluto's point about threadless stems being a tinkerer's delight,
that contraption should not be mistaken as a trike that would satisfy anyone interested in high
performance and safety. Rear steer and a high centroid combined with anything more spirited than
walking speed will crack those kids' heads like coconuts.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

"David L. Johnson" <David L. Johnson <[email hidden]>> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Corey Green said:

FWIW - I love threadless because of the ability to tinker constantly with them. It is so easy to
change the extension, angle, height (within reason), etc without have to retape the bars every
time you want to change something. Always looking for the position that is that much better is
easier when swapping the stem is simplified.

What? Every time you change anything you have to buy another part. You can change the height with
threaded in just a few seconds.

Also, lots of quill stems these days have 2-bolt attachments, so you don't have to re-tape to
replace the stem. But this is not a common thing. Raising/lowering the height is.

Maybe changing extension isn't common for you, but common for many others in the world. I purposely
keep two different lengths to use throughout the year for different purposes.

What do you need to buy to change a threadless? Maybe a spacer of a different width, but what else?

"Bluto" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Corey Green) wrote

Quoted message said:

You can even mount multiple head tubes on the same steerer-- one of the proven ways to build a
tallbike. (What's a tallbike? One of these:
angelfire.comTallbike.htmlOpen ↗ )

C'mon Chalo, aren't we tall enough?

Quoted message said:

Threadless stems themselves are amazingly versatile tinkering supplies, as exemplified by the
Culty trike: culty.deCULTY 1.JPGOpen ↗

Poor man's lugs!

Chalo Colina wrote in message

Quoted message said:

If you just can't decide what height you want your bars, or you know you want to move them
mid-ride, you can still avail yourself of the superior strength and stiffness of a threadless
headset.

You'll need the appropriate size clamp collar, since you won't be using a threadless stem:
ruland.comcl.htmlOpen ↗

And you'll need a long bolt with a couple of washers and a nut, or else a purpose-made device like
this: jrbicycles.comanswer%20stem%20lockbolt.htmOpen ↗

Use the bolt to pretension the headset, then lock down the adjustment with the clamp collar (in
place of the threadless stem). Remove the bolt. Then you can use any goofy old quill stem you
like! Plus, no more busting the steerer in half by expanding the quill wedge in the threaded
portion of the steer tube-- because there isn't one!

You'll still want to observe the "max height" limit on your quill stem, since it's by nature much
weaker than a threadless stem. And you'll have to use a fork with a steel steer tube, because
materials like carbon fiber or aluminum are too thick-walled when made strong enough for this
application. But who likes fancy materials like that, anyway?

By using this retrofit method, you can observe the time-honored (and to hear quill stem advocates
tell it, important) practice of changing your handlebar height 3 or 4 times per ride or even more,
even while using a threadless headset.

Do you need to use a quill stem? Couldn't you get adjustibility just by using the clamp collar to
hold the headset adjustment and then slide a threadless stem up and down the steerer tube? This
wouldn't work if it were necessary for some reason to have spacers underneath the stem. Is it?

Jon Isaacs said:

It is only the fact that the handlebar height is less critical than the seat height that lets this
compromise exit.

How much fine tuning do people tend to do with handlebar height? I haven't fiddled with the height
at all since I bought my road bike, since I find it comfortable as is with the bar top about level
with the saddle, but I'm curious how much you think I'd have to move it to notice a big difference

(yeah, I know I should probably just try this myself to see, but so far I've been to lazy even with
my threaded headset, and as I said I find it comfortable how it is).

--
Benjamin Lewis

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
- Mark Twain

Jon Isaacs said:

Quoted message said:

1. Make something easy to adjust and it will be adjusted properly, make it diffcult to adjust and
it will only be crudely adjusted.

True, but you can't really call threadless "difficult to adjust."

Quoted message said:

2. Each adjustment should be independent of other adjustments.

Yes, nice.

Quoted message said:

In my view the fact that the headset needs to be adjusted each time the handlebar height is
changed makes about as much sense and requiring the BB to be adjusted each time the seat height is
adjusted.

I does seem conceptually unfavorable. Practically speaking, it isn't too big of a deal.

Quoted message said:

It is only the fact that the handlebar height is less critical than the seat height that lets this
compromise exit.

True, it isn't very critical, which is right next to saying it isn't really a compromise.

Quoted message said:

I dislike the fact that to adjust the handle bar height you have to adjust the headset. Sure they
are easier to adjust but with a quill stem you don't need to adjust it.

Conceptually, yes. Practically, not too big of a deal.

Quoted message said:

Out on a ride, want to raise the handle bars a bit to experiment, with a quill stem it is a 30
second deal.

Sure, but I never seem to need to adjust height while on a ride. I test my setups on the trainer.
If out-on-a-ride adjustment is really important to you, then the marginal edge would go to
threaded. It is not important to me. I would think that someone with your experience would know how
high you want the bars.

This is kind of like the "friction option" of bar-end shifters in case one falls down and the crash
impact bends the r-der and/or hanger, and the result is bolloxed indexing. I've always had the
friction option. In tens of thousands of miles, I've never needed this option. It is a good idea
that I suspect isn't at all important in practice. Most crashes that mess the r-der or hanger will
probably result in bike ride termination, and not because of the hanger or r-der damage.

Quoted message said:

I have also seen much longer quill stems available than threadless. I bought a quill stem with
about 10 inches of rise, stainless steel shaft with an aluminum clamp etc. Not too heavy and
amazingly stiff.

This sounds like a need created by a bigger problem of improperly sized frames. "Availability" is
perhaps important, but it alone doesn't separate the two systems (technically) for the purposes of
most riders. I wouldn't buy a frame that required odd-ball stems in the first place. "Odd-ball" has
its own availability problems when simply standing alone. With regard to "availability," removable
clamps seem to be more ubiquitous on threadless stems than threaded. This is for no apparent
technical reason, anymore than a threadless couldn't be built with a lot of rise. Personally, I
really like the idea of removable clamps because I feel reach is about as important as height.

I have a threadless bike and some threaded bikes. The threadless bike works just fine. If someone
thinks they need a lot of flexibility and adjustability, then perhaps threaded has the edge. I
haven't needed that level of adjustment. I think threaded is aesthetically more pleasing.